Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Talking Turkey


  • Please log in to reply
900 replies to this topic

#316    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 September 2012 - 06:56 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:


I think any conversation of a “sequential” failure of “floors” is utterly pointless.  We could apply Newton’s third law to such a scenario, but it would be irrelevant as the application is changed in a way not reflective of what occurred on 9/11.

How does the application of Newton's third law change exactly?


View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Whichever model we use, a natural progressive collapse certainly should be stuttered as energy is expended through the impacts.  Though the degree is impreceptible to the naked eye, it should be detected by closer analysis.  There is a very good and simple to understand paper, “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis”.  Co-written by an American professor and mechanical engineer, the paper discusses the missing jolt at the initial impact and also ties in with some of the areas we have discussed including Newton’s third law.  Definitely worth a read: -

http://www.journalof...issingJolt7.pdf


As interesting as this paper may be, it still does nothing to refute Bazant's limiting case.  It is a comparison of apples and oranges.


#317    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:53 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 17 September 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

How does the application of Newton's third law change exactly?

Ohhh you make me despair sometimes – you know how because we have been over it.  The vastly different models alter location of the force application: -


Posted Image

I’m hopeful, rather than confident, that you see difference between the first and second images...

If we talk about “floors” with little to no intermediary structure (because each lower story in particular is assumed completely and immediately destroyed upon contact with the upper mass), then the sequence of freefall drops is going to create forces applied from the lowermost impacted story.  This is what you propose.

If we accept the core structure (which consisted of continuous columns and open elevator shafts and stairwells, i.e. limited “floors”) then the opportunity for freefall, where the upper block in isolation builds a ‘debris shield’ and suffers reduced force at subsequent impacts, is removed – the intermediary structure throughout collapse providing as much of a ‘shield’ to the lower block as the upper block and resulting in overall equal and opposite damage to the blocks.  This is what I propose.

In reality the structures and collapses were more like the second description above – this supported by the known construction, computer physics models of continuous structures and evidence of the collapses, for instance, the 60 story lower core column ‘spire’ which penetrated right through the upper block, the loss of momentum witnessed in video footage and the seismic record, the continued rotation/displacement of the WTC1 antenna.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 17 September 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

As interesting as this paper may be, it still does nothing to refute Bazant's limiting case.  It is a comparison of apples and oranges.

So you somehow think that Bazant can put out apples and prove oranges.  Actually, Bazant isn’t even that close – his theory is more like bananas.  And with his false assumption of repeated freefall drops, column to column impacts, ever increasing momentum and an indestructible piledriver, etc, it is certainly not the conservative case to the lower block survival that you want to believe.  It is only conservative to halting the upper block in its tracks – an impossible task; a strawman setup to fail.

What we need to accept, as LG does, and you once did before recoiling in terror at the implication of your own statements, is that the upper block must, and did, deteriorate throughout the collapse.  This is in accordance with Newton to a level I’m quite content with.  That itself removes Bazant’s theory as a viable solution – leaving no official explanation at all.  Then you are on your own and we can discuss what happens next...

Since you have been shown to backtrack from those previous acceptances which are found to put your position in severe peril, and also don’t understand how a broken upper block refutes Bazant’s theory, I don’t think the discussion of what happens next is for you.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#318    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:19 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Bazant’s theory, I don’t think the discussion of what happens next is for you.

Where's the evidence that explosives were used?



Edited by skyeagle409, 17 September 2012 - 11:22 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#319    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:43 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 17 September 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Where's the evidence that explosives were used?

Clearly far outside of your comprehension is where.  If anyone is genuinely interested, the evidence for explosives here is in the argument over the last few pages that the WTC1 upper block alone could not complete the collapse.  Just a suggestion, but it’s sometimes better not to interrupt discussions that you don’t understand (especially with random and distracting videos that are nothing to do with the current discussion).  Or if you really feel the need, at least do it with a question that shows you have read and tried to grasp the previous discussion (basics such as how the argument is intended to demonstrate the use of explosives are a good starting point).  Otherwise you just look like a troll or simpleton.

I'm going to put you back on ignore skyeagle.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#320    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:56 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Clearly far outside of your comprehension is where.

No evidence, no case. :no:

Quote

If anyone is genuinely interested, the evidence for explosives here is in the argument over the last few pages that the WTC1 upper block alone could not complete the collapse.

That doesn't work because there is no evidence of bomb explosions seen on video, nor heard on audio and in fact, no explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the area. Add to the fact that demolition experts roaming around in the WTC rubble did not find evidence of explosives.

In addition, notice this building collapsed without the use of explosives. What is the upper portion of that building during in relation to the collapse?



I will pose this question for you once again;

Where is your evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings?

No evidence of explosives, no case. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 September 2012 - 12:05 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#321    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,620 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 18 September 2012 - 12:19 AM

View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

I think any conversation of a “sequential” failure of “floors” is utterly pointless.  We could apply Newton’s third law to such a scenario, but it would be irrelevant as the application is changed in a way not reflective of what occurred on 9/11.

That is correct - I do not think the forces are equal if, unlike on 9/11, you want to talk about a “sequential” failure of “floors” falling on one another.  You know the problem I have with those words.  When are we going to discuss a realistic model?


We can go to a realistic model once we resolve this equal damage/Newton issue; unlike us arguing over our differences in epistemological standards and what specific words mean, this topic has a correct and an incorrect answer.  I'm trying to use the word 'story' instead of 'floor' but I'm going to slip, it is the more common word.  Unless I say 'true floor' meaning the mass that building occupants walk on, assume I mean the whole story.

Quote

That would be to imply that all structure across the 79th story failed and began downward movement at the initial impact, rather than to accept failures in the 81st story and separate compression of that story.  Why, “focus purely on the activity of the 79th floor”?  I think that line very telling.  Why not also accept that alternatively structure initially failed in the 81st story, draw a line to bisect that story, the lower portion of which did not fail until encountered by the 82nd story, or even the 83rd, or 84th?  All the while, the upper block sustaining damage.


I'm focusing on the 79th story because I'm trying to step through this; for the moment I don't care what you want to happen with the upper block, it doesn't matter. When the mass of the story compresses, it necessarily moves, that is what compression is.  No part of the mass of the 79th story, in general, will be at a higher altitude post-compression than it was pre-compression, it has been crushed down.  Thus the net motion and force of the mass of the compressed 79th story was downward.  Thus this has a force on the lower block it is exerting which is not being exerted on the upper block.  You know why the motion is down, because of gravity and the motion of the upper block.  Go ahead, add in however you want the 81st to compress, you're not going to get that mass moving upward either, only downward.

Rereading your exchange with boony where he gave the horse and rider example, you argued kinda that the difference is we must think of this as one continuous structure if we have any hope of understanding your way of thinking on this.  That the collapsing stories are 'joined' to the lower, which I think is of course reasonable.  The obvious next question is, what is this 'joining' doing for your theory?  Is it joined with most the strength and support of the original noncompressed steel or does it have the strength of aluminum foil, probably somewhere inbetween.  I don't see what difference this makes.  The middle mass is being pushed down by the upper block and gravity, it provides an additional downward force, it is what is in contact with the lower block, and it is thus a force absorber for forces travelling upward, so that the upper block is not sustaining damage at the rate the lower one is, in general of course.  


Quote

And of course whilst compressing there are forces vectored upwards.  The initial direction of forces is not a factor to the equal and opposite distribution of forces at impact.  Of course velocity of one object means the mass may continue to move in the same direction, and I don’t have a problem with the continued downward movement in the tower collapses (I’m not expecting the collapses to stop in their tracks upon impact of any story – at least not until that upper block is broken - more on that later), but throughout the collapses, right from the initiation, there should be generally equal and opposite forces applied to the upper block and lower block.


You don't have a problem with the continued downward motion but you want to say that the forces/damage would be the same to the upper and lower block.  We are to think of this as a continuous mass, that is changing shape as parts of its mass move in relation to one another.  The upper block and the middle layer are both moving downward, the lower block is not moving.  Thus the middle layer serves as a shield to the upper block, that's what shields do, they absorb forces.  Yes, it absorbs forces for the lower block too, but the lower part of the shield, and lower block, must also absorb the force of the shield's mass itself moving downward, unlike the top part of this middle layer/shield.  

Quote

I dispute that the debris within the building footprint enters immediate downward motion or falls on the lower block; it is always driven by the upper block, which itself must sustain continued damage in doing so.


That's not really what I asked, I said, "The most relevant question there is what are you doing with the force generated by the downward movement of the debris layer. Do you dispute that it is in motion downwards? Doesn't it then have a momentum/force downward that must be accounted for?".  I don't know what 'immediate' has to do with anything right now.  I'm trying to see at what specific point I disagree with you.  "Yes, but..." is entirely valid answer to this question.  I'd like to add to the model we agree on, so let me ask a couple things.  Does the upper block and lower block experience the same damage and forces if the upper block were to be undamaged?  I'm assuming not based on your responses.  Let me add to my initial, 'pancake-like model', that you agreed with.  Let's strengthen the attachments of the floors to the outside perimeter, but no core yet, and strengthen the outside perimeter itself.  Vaporize the 80th story and the collapse commences.  Now, in this scenario, this is all one 'joined' structure; no 'true floors' are actually breaking entirely free of the outer walls.  Our 79th and 81st stories compress equally as agreed and the collapse continues, now, does this collapse behave any differently as far as the distribution of forces in your view?  I believe it's the same as our initial scenario.  Assuming that we agree on that, add your core and let me know just at that point if this changes the distribution to be equal.  In other words, I'm trying to determine which point is the most critical difference between what your equal forces theory is that I can't currently envision, and the simple model we agree on.  Again, is it all in how much damage the upper floor is taking?  If I add the core and collapse but the upper block stays largely intact, does the collapse progress as in our original agreed-on scenario?

Quote

The continuous nature of the structures in the simulations is infinitely more accurate than any “floors-only case”.  Find any continuous structure where the weaker and lesser upper mass suffers negligible damage whilst continuing to crush to pieces the stronger and greater lower mass.  It’s a nonesense which no computer based physics program could replicate.  Tell me, why do you think only those accused of Lysenko-like tendencies and political favortism by their peers, producing back of an envelope, pre-conceived hypothesis can achieve this miracle?


Geez, still with the absurd Lysenko references; again, I'll just proceed with 'precedent is now optional' for all further points.  And ha, accused by whom, you?  The 1700+ paranoid, self-aggrandizing, and attention-mongering architects and engineers who, in full congruence with the foundational tenet of science that it's conclusions are always tentative (/sarcasm), modestly proclaim they know 'the Truth'.  I mean, if you find affixing labels based on 'could be' so compelling .

Quote

I don’t think we need pause any longer since you accepted these two vital points in your previous post:

This is agreement enough in regard to Newton’s third law, even without resolving our other differences above, to put a final nail in the coffin of the official collapse theory.  With our acceptance of the above, there is no official collapse theory.  You only need understand that the official collapse theory relies on the upper blocks remaining intact/rigid throughout the collapses, and itself argues that otherwise the collapses would not progress.


Sorry Q, I do not actually trust your interpretation of much right now, especially scientific studies where your statements derived from such studies need not be scientific themselves, merely 'founded' (see, "I think the study ruled out all possible fire and damage collapse scenarios", for reference).

Quote

This is the point where official story adherents usually take a step back from their previous statements and/or deny they ever meant what they said... so I await your response with interest...


Thank god I'm not one of those then.  And I don't know why anyone needs to deny what they said, they can deny what you think they mean but that's different.  It's not like there's some penalty for admitting being wrong, I'm all for someone convincing me that I'm wrong, I think I may have said plenty of incorrect things, even if it's just sloppiness of the words I've used, concerning physics already.  But I am trying to understand what you are talking about on this point, and since we have a starting point, it seems like we should be able to single out the factor that is equalling out the forces on the upper and lower blocks.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#322    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:04 AM

View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Ohhh you make me despair sometimes – you know how because we have been over it.  The vastly different models alter location of the force application: -

I’m hopeful, rather than confident, that you see difference between the first and second images...

Is this the kind of non-rudeness that you suggest we use for our interactions?



View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

If we talk about “floors” with little to no intermediary structure (because each lower story in particular is assumed completely and immediately destroyed upon contact with the upper mass), then the sequence of freefall drops is going to create forces applied from the lowermost impacted story.  This is what you propose.

If we accept the core structure (which consisted of continuous columns and open elevator shafts and stairwells, i.e. limited “floors”) then the opportunity for freefall, where the upper block in isolation builds a ‘debris shield’ and suffers reduced force at subsequent impacts, is removed – the intermediary structure throughout collapse providing as much of a ‘shield’ to the lower block as the upper block and resulting in overall equal and opposite damage to the blocks.  This is what I propose.

Why are you dictating what I supposedly propose?  I guess that perhaps this is just your misunderstanding of what I've conveyed, and perhaps that is because I may not have been adequately clear.  Likewise, I asked you for clarification because I didn't fully understand what you meant, and perhaps that is because you may not have been adequately clear.

Now that you've produced an image and have these descriptions of what you appear to envision, I'll take another look at your meaning and respond with more depth later.

For now though, please understand that I have been primarily discussing three distinct things.
  • The actual collapses.
  • Bazant's limiting case.
  • Basic conceptual models intended to illustrate key principles involved.
I try not to intertwine these, but it probably happens at times inadvertently, and perhaps that is the source of your misconceptions regarding my position.  As mentioned I'll respond with more depth later, but I do want to clarify that you appear to have a misconception about how I envision a great deal of this.  I don't recall ever claiming, for example, that there was 'little to no intermediary structure.'  I am honestly at a loss for how you could reach that conclusion.

In the future it might be helpful if you don't assume that you know what I intended to convey, and instead ask.



View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

In reality the structures and collapses were more like the second description above – this supported by the known construction, computer physics models of continuous structures and evidence of the collapses, for instance, the 60 story lower core column ‘spire’ which penetrated right through the upper block, the loss of momentum witnessed in video footage and the seismic record, the continued rotation/displacement of the WTC1 antenna.

I will ask you again to substantiate this claimed 'loss of momentum witnessed in video footage and the seismic record.'  As for the rotation/displacement of the WTC1 antenna, I've already proven that the chunk of antenna that you once believed was still attached to the supposedly fully rotated roof was in fact not attached to anything at all when it emerged from the debris cloud.  Why you persist with this claim is truly baffling to me.



View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

So you somehow think that Bazant can put out apples and prove oranges.  Actually, Bazant isn’t even that close – his theory is more like bananas.  And with his false assumption of repeated freefall drops, column to column impacts, ever increasing momentum and an indestructible piledriver, etc, it is certainly not the conservative case to the lower block survival that you want to believe.  It is only conservative to halting the upper block in its tracks – an impossible task; a strawman setup to fail.

You readily admit that halting the upper block in its tracks is an impossible task.  This is exactly what would have to happen for a gravity driven collapse to be stopped.  How can you possibly not realize this?



View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

What we need to accept, as LG does, and you once did before recoiling in terror at the implication of your own statements, is that the upper block must, and did, deteriorate throughout the collapse.  This is in accordance with Newton to a level I’m quite content with.  That itself removes Bazant’s theory as a viable solution – leaving no official explanation at all.  Then you are on your own and we can discuss what happens next...

I have never said that the upper block didn't deteriorate throughout collapse.  I've always maintained that the upper block sustained significant damage throughout collapse and I've never recoiled in terror from that position.  Are you joking?  I think this may fall back to your confusion between the actual collapses, Bazant's limiting case, and my efforts at simplified models to illustrate key concepts.

Bazant's limiting case is not an effort to mimic the actual collapses.  Bazant's limiting case is an effort to provide a best case scenario for halting the upper block.  He states quite clearly that his case is not realistic and that the actual collapses did not follow the assumptions he intentionally placed in the paper.  Those assumptions he placed were for the benefit of building survival, despite what you may misunderstand about them.



View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Since you have been shown to backtrack from those previous acceptances which are found to put your position in severe peril, and also don’t understand how a broken upper block refutes Bazant’s theory, I don’t think the discussion of what happens next is for you.

Backtrack?  What are you on about Q24?  I haven't backtracked from anything, and you certainly haven't put my position in any kind of peril, severe or otherwise.  It is this kind of dishonest accusation that makes me question your integrity.  I will avoid that though, and I will assume that the accusation is simply a misunderstanding of my position and I will take partial responsibility if I haven't been clear enough in previous discussions.  I have tried to explain my position in multiple ways, but you seem to not understand (hence why I've tried explaining it differently multiple times).

Also, you complain to me about rudeness, and after I suggest we try to interact in a respectful way you continue with this extremely disrespectful and condescending tone.

Why is that Q24?

Would you rather not have a civil discussion about these topics?


#323    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:58 AM

View PostQ24, on 17 September 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Just a suggestion, but it’s sometimes better not to interrupt discussions that you don’t understand (especially with random and distracting videos that are nothing to do with the current discussion).

Apparently, I have better knowledge of steel structures than you. In fact, I've worked with 4130 steel, among other metals, for use in jet engines for years and have been involved in annealing and heat-treating processes involving steel, which was part of my job as an aircraft structural technician. I had no doubt that the steel structure of the WTC buildings, in combination with impact damage, were unable to withstand the relentless fires raging within.

You might want to read what the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. had to say about the collapse of the WTC buildings because the report says that no building was designed to withstand the combination of extreme events suffered by the WTC buildings.

http://www.arquitect...ISC - Fuego.pdf

In this video, you can see the buckling of WTC2 just as it begins to collapse and not one shred of evidence of a bomb explosion seen, nor heard. The buckling occurs at time line 0:16.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#324    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 19 September 2012 - 05:31 PM

No need to despair Q.

Remember the old adage is quite true: one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.  One can lay it all out for a man, but one cannot make him think.

Cognitive dissonance and denial are powerful forces in the human psyche.


#325    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 19 September 2012 - 05:41 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 September 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

No need to despair Q.

Remember the old adage is quite true: one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.  One can lay it all out for a man, but one cannot make him think.

One cannot change realilty from the comfort of his keyboard.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#326    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 19 September 2012 - 05:50 PM

Well you certainly TRY awfully hard to do just that Sky. :yes:


#327    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:00 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 September 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

No need to despair Q.

I don't think Q is in despair.  At least he is making an effort to present his position.


View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 September 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Remember the old adage is quite true: one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.  One can lay it all out for a man, but one cannot make him think.

Please let us know when you 'lay it all out' for us.  So far you haven't even started down that road.


View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 September 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Cognitive dissonance and denial are powerful forces in the human psyche.

Indeed they are, and they don't serve you well BR.  I suggest doing whatever you can to break free of these things which have clouded your ability to reasonably assess the evidence on the table.


#328    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:08 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 September 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Well you certainly TRY awfully hard to do just that Sky. :yes:

Unfortunately for you, I have facts and evidence to back me up, and what have you offered as evidence to support your claims?



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#329    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:51 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

We can go to a realistic model once we resolve this equal damage/Newton issue; unlike us arguing over our differences in epistemological standards and what specific words mean, this topic has a correct and an incorrect answer.

I think simple viewing of the tower collapse footage, where Gage commentates on destruction of the upper block, tells us the correct answer far more effectively than any of our arguing over it – there’s no disputing reality.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

I'm focusing on the 79th story because I'm trying to step through this; for the moment I don't care what you want to happen with the upper block, it doesn't matter. When the mass of the story compresses, it necessarily moves, that is what compression is.  No part of the mass of the 79th story, in general, will be at a higher altitude post-compression than it was pre-compression, it has been crushed down.  Thus the net motion and force of the mass of the compressed 79th story was downward.  Thus this has a force on the lower block it is exerting which is not being exerted on the upper block.  You know why the motion is down, because of gravity and the motion of the upper block.  Go ahead, add in however you want the 81st to compress, you're not going to get that mass moving upward either, only downward.

Rereading your exchange with boony where he gave the horse and rider example, you argued kinda that the difference is we must think of this as one continuous structure if we have any hope of understanding your way of thinking on this.  That the collapsing stories are 'joined' to the lower, which I think is of course reasonable.  The obvious next question is, what is this 'joining' doing for your theory?  Is it joined with most the strength and support of the original noncompressed steel or does it have the strength of aluminum foil, probably somewhere inbetween.  I don't see what difference this makes.  The middle mass is being pushed down by the upper block and gravity, it provides an additional downward force, it is what is in contact with the lower block, and it is thus a force absorber for forces travelling upward, so that the upper block is not sustaining damage at the rate the lower one is, in general of course.  

I’m not sure where you get the idea that structure needs to move higher to cause damage to the upper block.  Whether the upper block moves downward or the lower block moves upward (which it is obviously the former) to cause the impact makes no difference to the equal and opposite force involved.

The motion of the lowest affected story is not downward due to gravity but always due to the ‘greater than gravity’ momentum of the upper block.  This means that the upper block is always acting on the lower stories.  If the columns immediately below any area of the upper block break (now having the strength of aluminium foil as per your analogy), thus relieving force on the upper block, then force is likewise reduced on the lower block which is now only in contact with/supporting the same mass it’s held up for three decades (in fact a lot less, because in that moment is is actually no longer supporting the load of the upper block), until the upper block closes the gap and once again exerts pressure, in doing so itself suffering damage.

I also don’t see why the entire mass of the lowest affected story should begin downward movement – as we have been over previously, if the upper block connection breaks in any impact, rather than the lower block connection, then the lower steelwork remaining (retaining its original connection/strength) will provide a ‘shield’ to the lower block which the upper block must be impaled upon to reach the next story.  You only need view the WTC1 core spire for evidence this occurred.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

You don't have a problem with the continued downward motion but you want to say that the forces/damage would be the same to the upper and lower block.  We are to think of this as a continuous mass, that is changing shape as parts of its mass move in relation to one another.  The upper block and the middle layer are both moving downward, the lower block is not moving.  Thus the middle layer serves as a shield to the upper block, that's what shields do, they absorb forces.  Yes, it absorbs forces for the lower block too, but the lower part of the shield, and lower block, must also absorb the force of the shield's mass itself moving downward, unlike the top part of this middle layer/shield.  

No because I don’t believe the entire lowest story should enter immediate downward movement upon contact with the upper block – sometimes the more severe damage/breaking connections/buckling will occur in the upper block – please see above.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

That's not really what I asked, I said, "The most relevant question there is what are you doing with the force generated by the downward movement of the debris layer. Do you dispute that it is in motion downwards? Doesn't it then have a momentum/force downward that must be accounted for?".  I don't know what 'immediate' has to do with anything right now.  I'm trying to see at what specific point I disagree with you.  "Yes, but..." is entirely valid answer to this question.

Yes I dispute that the entire mass of the lowest affected story is necessarily in downward motion – at least until the upper block arrives at the location and, in instances, even beyond that – please see the WTC1 core spire for evidence this occurred.

Of any structure in the lowest affected story that is moving downward, it is only doing so, not under its own mass or gravity (it is sitting on the intact structure immediately below which has supported it for three decades) but through force applied by the upper block, which therefore itself must be suffering an equal force due to it’s own momentum.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

I'd like to add to the model we agree on, so let me ask a couple things.  Does the upper block and lower block experience the same damage and forces if the upper block were to be undamaged?  I'm assuming not based on your responses.

If the upper block remains undamaged whilst the lower block is crushed then clearly there are not equal forces and damage.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Let me add to my initial, 'pancake-like model', that you agreed with.  Let's strengthen the attachments of the floors to the outside perimeter, but no core yet, and strengthen the outside perimeter itself.  Vaporize the 80th story and the collapse commences.  Now, in this scenario, this is all one 'joined' structure; no 'true floors' are actually breaking entirely free of the outer walls.  Our 79th and 81st stories compress equally as agreed and the collapse continues, now, does this collapse behave any differently as far as the distribution of forces in your view?  I believe it's the same as our initial scenario.  Assuming that we agree on that, add your core and let me know just at that point if this changes the distribution to be equal.  In other words, I'm trying to determine which point is the most critical difference between what your equal forces theory is that I can't currently envision, and the simple model we agree on.  Again, is it all in how much damage the upper floor is taking?  If I add the core and collapse but the upper block stays largely intact, does the collapse progress as in our original agreed-on scenario?

In this example, if we assume floors span the entire area of the building and connections with the perimeter columns cannot be broken, there’s nowhere for the collapsed stories (which are really just “floors”) to go or opportunity for penetration of the deteriorated structure in either upper or lower blocks.  This would produce the “sequential” collapse of “floors” you have mentioned previously.

The above changes once we add a large core structure composed primarily of continuous columns and open spaces on the horizontal plain where connections can be broken.  This introduces a vital area of penetration of both upper and lower blocks.

In all, the critical difference you are looking for is simply that between ‘floors and horizontal spaces’ and ‘continuous columns and vertical spaces’ – the first can ‘pancake’ whilst the second cannot.  In addition the first cannot survive indedendently whilst the second can.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Geez, still with the absurd Lysenko references; again, I'll just proceed with 'precedent is now optional' for all further points.  And ha, accused by whom, you?  The 1700+ paranoid, self-aggrandizing, and attention-mongering architects and engineers who, in full congruence with the foundational tenet of science that it's conclusions are always tentative (/sarcasm), modestly proclaim they know 'the Truth'.  I mean, if you find affixing labels based on 'could be' so compelling .

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed with this: -

“I think he [Bazant] is a criminal. You can quote me because I’ve already said that on my web site.  This guy is a Lysenko-type scientist.  He’s presenting a false theory for whatever purpose.  I don’t know why he does it.”

~Anders Björkman, European structural engineer

http://norcaltruth.o...-zdenek-bazant/


"As will become apparent below, the rules at JEM that govern other authors do not apply to Dr. Bazant."

~James Gourley, U.S. attorney

http://911blogger.com/node/18196



I would still like an answer to the question: how is it that Bazant can achieve what no computer based physics simulation can?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Sorry Q, I do not actually trust your interpretation of much right now, especially scientific studies where your statements derived from such studies need not be scientific themselves, merely 'founded' (see, "I think the study ruled out all possible fire and damage collapse scenarios", for reference).

I’m not asking you to trust an interpretation, simply to read the excerpts of Bazant’s paper provided in my post #310 and realise that as soon as you admit the upper block deteriorates throughout the collapse that the official theory goes in the bin.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#330    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:01 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 September 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Well you certainly TRY awfully hard to do just that Sky. :yes:

Since it has been proven beyond any doubt that no explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings, what more can be said?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users