Talking Turkey

[Q24]

Actually it's a simile. Similes usually have 'like' or 'as' and say something is like something else. Metaphors make the comparison by saying something is something else: 'he's a diamond in the rough', 'all the world's a stage', and are usually making a stronger comparison than similes.

Hmmm yeeeah ok.

I’ve just been refreshing my memory on figures of speech and you are correct. The two are so closely related there’s barely anything in it. A metaphor is slightly more forceful than a simile though the meaning taken from it is the same in the end and both are a form of analogy.

Simile: “the upper block was like a knife slicing through warm butter”

Metaphor: “the upper block was a knife slicing through warm butter”

Either way, it’s a terribly misleading comparison and certainly not an idiom.

That made me simile.

Keep smiling booNy

Edited September 28, 2012 by Q24

[flyingswan]

Where did you get those pictures...?

Can you link to the source, please..

.

I googled images of WTC1 debris

[flyingswan]

Even bee has addressed this – a solid and rigid mass is very different to a dispersed and flexible mass. Even Bazant, whose paper is the ‘official theory’ on this, acknowledges his equations apply only to the former, which is detrimental to collapse, and not the case in reality.

Once again you're quibbling about the difference between the conservative case and reality. No-one, including Bazant, says his case is exactly what happened, but any other option makes halting the upper block less likely. If the columns are not crushed, then the energy goes into breaking either the beams or the connections, which requires less energy, and the columns then fail because they lose their horizontal stabilising support. Breaking the beams doesn't need a concentrated impact, that's only to break the columns. The beams can be loaded up through the sheer mass of material falling on to the floor.

Ah this is essentially a ‘floors only’ model supported by a single determinate corner column. We have previously spoken on the thread about how this type of model may cause a progressive pancaking. It is quite disgraceful how an engineer would pass this off as being reflective of the continuous core structure of the towers. What are you playing at? You aren’t fooling anyone but yourself and those of a predisposed bias.

What continuous structure? Only the columns are continuous, the structure consists of both the columns and the beams, essentially a vertical series of cells. Remember that thin columns fail in buckling, and the longer the column, the less the buckling load. Without the beams, the columns would fail under their own weight.

NIST did not determine conclusively that the column suffered impact damage: -

“However, the damage to the north flange may have been a result of impact damage... ”

Note the words “However” and “may” which indicate uncertainty and that the damage could have been as a result of the collapse, rather than impact. I'm afraid that your statement implying certain impact damage to the column is but another example of your failed reading comprehension skills.

...another example of your unmatched quibbling skills. I note you omit the rest of the sentence where NIST gave their reasons for thinking it was impact damage.

How many times? NIST state the most important observable in validating their models is the facade impact damage. The facade impact damage is clearly a better overall match to the base (non-collapse) case. It is impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who does not accept such realities. It’s like talking to someone aghast at implication of the facts and who chooses rather to be in denial.

The facade damage is important to the comparison with observables, because it is the best documented, but what is really important to the fate of the building is the core damage. Although there isn't much documentation on that, I do note that what little there is favours the more severe case.

Edited September 28, 2012 by flyingswan

[Q24]

Once again you're quibbling about the difference between the conservative case and reality. No-one, including Bazant, says his case is exactly what happened, but any other option makes halting the upper block less likely. If the columns are not crushed, then the energy goes into breaking either the beams or the connections, which requires less energy, and the columns then fail because they lose their horizontal stabilising support. Breaking the beams doesn't need a concentrated impact, that's only to break the columns. The beams can be loaded up through the sheer mass of material falling on to the floor.

No, the beams need the columns far more than the columns need the beams; if the columns come down, it takes everything with it, not so vice versa. It is the same difference between hitting a tree trunk with an unstoppable force, compared to hitting the branches, the first brings everything down, the second does not as breakages may occur. Re-directing energy away from the columns to the beams results in greater deterioration, deflection and loss of momentum compared to Bazant’s theory where every single bit of energy in one instant goes directly into the most vital columns. It is conservative only to halting the upper block in its tracks, not eventual survival of the lower structure. I know that you don’t understand this. Nevermind.

What continuous structure? Only the columns are continuous

Ok, answered your own question.

...another example of your unmatched quibbling skills. I note you omit the rest of the sentence where NIST gave their reasons for thinking it was impact damage.

The rest of the sentence where NIST speculate why the damage may have been caused by the impact is not relevant. I don’t think it quibbling to correct when in your bias you try to turn evidence into an absolute that it is not.

The facade damage is important to the comparison with observables, because it is the best documented, but what is really important to the fate of the building is the core damage. Although there isn't much documentation on that, I do note that what little there is favours the more severe case.

The best way available to determine the core damage (since 98% of the physical crime scene evidence was quickly scrapped) is to validate the simulated model through comparison with the most significant observable factor which NIST state is the facade impact damage. The facade impact damage of the best estimate (non-collapse) model is best match to the observable damage. Until you stop hiding and accept that very basic fact your opinion is worthless and there is little point in further response.

[skyeagle409]

Look at it this way.

Collapse initiated at the damaged level. Even if this was only one storey tall (it was in fact taller), the gravitational energy released by the upper block moving down that one story is some eight times more than the energy required to buckle all the columns in a storey. Even on Q24's incorrect picture of equal damage to upper and lower blocks, that's four times more than required to crush both sides of the impact. This leaves you with 17% of the building falling on 83%, still with plenty of energy left over from the first impact and gaining energy with every storey it falls. Next one down is 18% on 82% and so it goes.

You are correct. WTC2 was struck after WTC1, but was the first building to collapse. The damaged area of WTC2 is supporting more overhead weight than the damaged area of WTC1.

Edited September 28, 2012 by skyeagle409

[+Liquid Gardens]

No, the beams need the columns far more than the columns need the beams; if the columns come down, it takes everything with it, not so vice versa. It is the same difference between hitting a tree trunk with an unstoppable force, compared to hitting the branches, the first brings everything down, the second does not as breakages may occur.

Quick question, would the full core of the tower stand stable on its own without the rest of the building structure?

[Q24]

Quick question, would the full core of the tower stand stable on its own without the rest of the building structure?

That’s difficult to say – I’m not aware the question has been conclusively answered. If you ask a stark-raving official theorist they would jump to the answer “no”. If you ask an equivalent alternative theorist I’m sure they would quickly conclude “yes”. There are numerous examples of this on various websites. I’m going to be realistic and say “highly likely, and certainly to a significant extent” for the following reasons: -

Do you see any floors or perimeter columns holding up the exposed core here?

Or over the space of 3-4 storeys here?

Or reference the WTC1 core column spire that I await your response on. There we have a few isolated columns some 60 storeys tall that stood momentarily after surviving the full upper block collapse. If in fact that were the whole core, rather than a few damaged columns, do you think it would have all fallen down?

I’d say the full core could probably stand on its own without the rest of the structure. Certainly a lesser number storeys of the core could survive on its own allowing penetration and deterioration of the upper block.

[skyeagle409]

Do you see any floors or perimeter columns holding up the exposed core here?

The photos above reminded me of the Windsor building fire in Spain. Note in the following photo where the steel structure collapsed, whereas only the concrete core remained standing. Had the core been constructed of steel, it would have collapsed as well.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Thanks for the response Q. I think 'to some extent' overall is fair. I have my doubts about the stability of a 110 story core structures alone, it seems like it would be very vulnerable to lateral forces but i guess I can envision it.

I do owe you responses but I'm taking the day off from work and likewise heavy thinking today. I am continually composing them in my head though, should have something for you soon. A couple quick points. Yes, duh, I obviously had a brain fart, I do understand your position on the instigation of the collapse from our discussion of the NIST study; I had my head so wrapped up in trying to explain my understanding of your model with the impalement, and the collapse instigation wasn't really relevant to that. Also, as far as the Lemmings, all my calculations there were predicated on what I thought was your agreement with the NIST FAQ concerning how the tower stories could only withstand 6 stories applied dynamically or 11 stories static. That does not seem to be correct since you are now discussing a 2:1 'safety factor', I am a little unclear on what you actually do agree with the NIST FAQ on concerning their gravitational energy position.

[W Tell]

What does that have to do with anything at all W Tell? Please explain what you perceive to be the relevance of this.

It's basicly a reminder of what's being discussed. Everyone get's wrapped up into how "it" happened that they often forget the enormity of what happened.

Everyone understands 2+2= 4. Strait forward..easy. People understand it. 3+1=4 and they pause for a second, but they'll agree. But start talking about -18 + 22 = 4, it gets into the realm of "not so strait forward" . The conversation becomes conveluted and the path to 4 becomes unlimited. (If there's a paycheck involved, so much the better)

Once again... if 4 is the answer, and all you have to do is get there, the one that will be understood the most is the most strait forward equation.

By the way, in the case of the North Tower it was more like 'about 10.9% took down the other 89.1%.'

The impacted floors are part of the building that didn't fall when the airplaines hit them. They should be included in the collapse. I might of missed your point on this though.

[W Tell]

Look at it this way.

Collapse initiated at the damaged level. Even if this was only one storey tall (it was in fact taller), the gravitational energy released by the upper block moving down that one story is some eight times more than the energy required to buckle all the columns in a storey. Even on Q24's incorrect picture of equal damage to upper and lower blocks, that's four times more than required to crush both sides of the impact. This leaves you with 17% of the building falling on 83%, still with plenty of energy left over from the first impact and gaining energy with every storey it falls. Next one down is 18% on 82% and so it goes.

You've lost me. It's obviouse from watching the collapse that material is being shed to the sides. It sounds like you're making the claim that the further it collapses the more mass it has? Is that correct?

I've read the discussion on static vs solid material and Q24 nails it. We also have massive damage to the upper block as it tries to pile drive through the point of most resistance.

Edited September 28, 2012 by W Tell

[booNyzarC]

In the spirit of clarification, I'd like to state that this post is about the actual collapse and not about Bazant's limiting case or a model of my own creation intended to illustrate a key principle.

It’s up to you what phrases you use. I just think that such terms paint a false picture and highlight the bias in your position – you want the upper block to be ‘like a hot knife’ and the lower block to be ‘like butter’, even when basic understanding of the NIST study and physical steel analysis shows they are equivalent structure each with significant strength.

I don't want anything in this discussion except for you to understand and recognize my point of view. You don't even have to agree with it necessarily, but the fact that you keep on characterizing it in derogatory ways and even misrepresenting important aspects of it is somewhat exasperating. There was a time when I thought we could have a direct and mutually respectful discussion. Somewhere along the way that has gone by the wayside in favor of condescending digs. I don't fault you fully for that though Q24, and take on equal responsibility for the general tone. I'd like to drop that tone if possible. Are you willing to drop the condescending attitude with me Q24?

You seem to be implying with this that I am somehow trying to skew the evidence. I'm not doing that at all. If you can provide me with evidence which is compelling I'm more than happy to accept it. I'm offering my honest interpretation of the evidence with full knowledge that I may not have everything completely right. If you can legitimately show the flaws in my interpretations, I'm willing to consider your reasoning. Likewise, I'd appreciate your honest acknowledgement of things that I have right.

We have been over this already. You are only picking that corner as a reference point because you want the upper block to be smaller. You have already noted an alternative, lower reference point in the north facade that shows the upper block actually extended down to the impact zone. In my view it is obvious that the internal leading edge of the upper block must be within, not a number of floors above, the impact zone – that is the official theory after all, that the collapse initiated due to the impact damage and worst fire affected storeys.

First of all, I didn't pick that corner with any ulterior motives. I want to be clear on that and I'd appreciate it if you could at least give me enough credit to not accuse me of being nefarious. Can you do that for me?

The fact is, I didn't pick that corner at all. I didn't create that GIF, I pulled it from another site because to me it clearly showed the collapse initiation story. Here is another animated GIF which I actually did create. Please forgive the large size of it and it would probably be best to not quote this post with the image included more than once on a single page. It is just under 5 MB, but that's about as small as I could go while still (hopefully) achieving adequate clarity. (Though the new Photobucket seems to have possibly shrunk it? hrmm...)

edit to add this pic concentrated on the left section... damn Photobucket...

I've attempted to roughly outline the section of the building which did not enter into downward motion at collapse initiation with an extremely faint reddish outline. Hopefully you can see it. By my estimation, the stationary portion at collapse initiation is essentially what we see hi-lighted below.

If you disagree with any of this, please let me know, and please let me know why.

While creating this GIF I noticed a few other details which I found interesting so I'll mention them. Directly to the left of the facade section which moved down, we can see another section deforming as if pushed by the collapsing mass. On the right hand side I noticed significant inward bowing of the columns immediately prior to collapse initiation, but the smoke and debris ejecting from the windows in that region quickly obscure the view. Above and slightly to the left of the area experiencing bowing I notice deflected deformation of a section of the facade as if the descending upper block encountered resistance of the stationary lower block at about the 98th story.

The lowest edge of the upper block may be the 95^th floor within the impact zone, which according to the floors you have noted above means three storeys of each block, upper and lower, were weakened and the opposing structure is still approximately equal.

Given the above two images, I think that the lowest edge of the upper block is the section between the 98th and 99th stories. It seems that the jagged chunk of facade that joins the upper block in initial downward motion only does so because of the significant gap below it created by the plane impact. On either side of that gap we see the overall structure remain completely stationary as the collapse is initiated. There is no disputing this as the visual record is clear on this point.

There is room for interpretation of why that section moved downward while on each side of the gap the building was stationary. Was the lower edge of the upper block jagged? Perhaps it was, and I don't disagree that the impact damage to the core could support this idea. For all I know, it was. I make no claim either way. The only problem I have with it is that the external visual record clearly indicates that if it were not jagged, the upper block could not begin any lower than the 98th floor. Any potentially jagged section in the middle isn't something we can make solid determinations of from the external visualization of collapse within the footage.

Supposing that it was jagged, how would that impact interpretation of the collapse itself anyway? If the core were to collapse lower than we can see on the exterior, we don't see it.

Edit to add: Anyone with web hosting willing to host a 5MB GIF to illustrate this as intended would be appreciated...

Edited September 29, 2012 by booNyzarC

[+Liquid Gardens]

No difference, there is no freefall of the debris, it’s sitting on top of the intact lower storey.

The gravity acting on the middle layer which is in contact with the lower intact structure is the same force that’s been there for the past three decades. I don’t believe the middle layer is still in motion once the driving force of the upper block is removed, i.e. there is no space for the middle layer to freefall/accelerate under its own gravity; it is crushed only due to momentum of the upper block. I’m running out of ways to say this.

As am I. Let's see what of the following you don't agree with:

1. The compressed mass of stories is not hovering at the same altitude they were originally located. At incremental periods in time, the compressed mass of any story is in a position closer to the ground than when it was originally located during the collapse. The only way this could happen is if these compressed stories have motion.
   
2. The stories obviously have mass.
   
3. The compressed mass thus has momentum. It does not have momentum when it is actually just 'sitting' motionless on the lower story.
   

This momentum is the additional force that is greater than the force of the same mass sitting motionless with only gravity acting on it. Newton's first law says that objects in motion stay in motion unless acted on by another force; it has no exceptions that I'm aware of concerning the exact mechanics of why the mass is in motion. The lower block has to support the weight of the compressed stories whether they are motionless or not, but when it is collapsing, it has to stop this mass's motion, where else can this additional force come from if not the lower block? What is applying the necessary force to decelerate the middle compressed mass? The instant before the upper block is vaporized, the middle mass is moving downward; the instant after it's vaporized, the mass is still in motion downward. The vaporization itself of the upper mass did not exert an upward force on this middle block.

I can address your whole paragraph with one statement: the mass of the broken columns is always in contact with the lower structure, it had been ever since the building was erected.

So what? As it's collapsing, the whole thing is in contact with one another; it's not about what's in contact, it's about the forces being applied and where. The upper block is in contact with the middle layer, but it's exerting a lot more force than since the building was erected on it because of it's motion and gravity. Same with the middle layer.

Penetration, impalement or displacement of the opposing blocks is a large part enabling the equal and opposite damage. The continuous nature of the core structure and the horizontal spaces between columns are what allows this. I don’t envision the collapse front was so neat, progressing simply with floor on floor impacts as some seem to believe, rather with a large area of core structure within the upper and lower blocks overlapping and becoming horribly enmeshed, each of which is breaking.

I don't think the collapse front is neat, it's just easier to talk about floor on floor. Let's see if we can take this baby step. If the core structure of the lower section was not built to be stronger than the upper, it was all of consistent strength, and that's the only change we make to our 'floors-only' collapse scenario that we agree on, do you think this collapse scenario will result in the upper block experiencing less forces than the lower?

I think I’m regretting going with the Lemmings

Ha, well it was a fun example, despite your original inaccurate depiction of gravity. As I mentioned, my calculations were all based on the NIST FAQ gravitational energy statements that I incorrectly thought you agreed with.

Essentially the Lemming at any particular level is designed specifically to negate the force of the given number of Lemmings and Supermen ‘above’. That is why, in moving our example to the vertical plain, and accounting that the Lemmings are in contact with one another (i.e. no freefall to generate momentum) I think we can forget about the Supermen at each level and increasing size/strength of the Lemmings. The only Superman necessary is the one that represents momentum of the upper block, the true driving force of the collapse, after the initial fall through the damaged structure.

Unless you specifically mean, 'the acceleration of an object caused by gravity with the only other force acting on it being air resistance", I recommend we stop using the word 'freefall'; that is the definition re: WTC that people use when talking about the collapse being at near 'freefall' speeds. You don't need literal freefall to generate momentum, you just need increasing velocity (or mass); if the mass is accelerating at 10% freefall, you have increasing velocity. I don't know of anyone who disagrees that the lower block provides resistance.

No, you can't just forget about the Supermen, they are very strong. "True" driving force is a little vague, but whatever you mean, the upper block is not the only driving force of the collapse, Supermen/gravity are also. You've mentioned things 'breaking' during the collapse, what does that mean to you? What it means to me is that the broken mass/structure no longer has it's original strength to resist the force of the upper block and has likewise has also lost some of its ability to resist Superman. So no, you can't just sprinkle your "they're in contact" kryptonite on him and be done with him.

Because in the floors only model there is a freefall drop. In the tower construction the core was a continuous structure.

Can you envision the collapse of any possible 'continuous structure' that will behave like the floors only model as far as there being more damage to the lower than the upper?

I’m not sure there is any evidence for the “paranoid, self-aggrandizing, and attention-mongering” tags you attach to qualified architects, engineers and the attorney I quoted.

I don't think you have any more evidence, you have exactly what I have, opinion. I'm trying to demonstrate that your attachment of labels to things does exactly what mine do for you, which is about nothing.

Have you reviewed the complaints that James Gourley raised?

Yes, I just wasted my time doing that, and the rebuttal to it.

I’d charge Bazant with treason and sedition against citizens of the United States. The court case would require a full computer physics model of the towers, proving his collapse theory impossible and further evidence that due to his qualifications this could not be an accidental error.

Ha, hoookay then. Let's just say that you have some very non-mainstream definitions of treason and sedition.

The actual observations demonstrate which of our models is applicable to 9/11. I don’t know why you would postpone (temporarily avoid?) this test. The result is that we can waste a lot of time discussing irrelevant models, such as those that suppose the upper block did not deteriorate through the collapse. Ok, when you are ready, do you see that the WTC1 core column spire means the upper block was penetrated from bottom to top by that point in the collapse?

Okay, I'll try, but I'm concerned that there isn't agreement on what is happening with gravity and the middle debris layer and how that disagreement will just carry over into this, but let's go with it. Yes, by the time it reached the ground the upper block appears to have been penetrated. Let me ask you, what happened to the rest of the core column? It broke. What happened when that breakage happened, where'd that core column mass go during the collapse?

So far as Bazant’s theory goes, the how rigid/intact question is irrelevant – the equations in his papers do not cover anything but a rigid and intact block (which of course is most detrimental to the lower block survival). If any degree of the block is not rigid and intact and/or deterioration of the block continues throughout the collapse (which observable evidence indicates it does) then Bazant’s theory as it stands is insufficient explanation of the complete collapse – at a minimum, further calculations are required. Of course, all of the initial assumptions would need adapting also to include the deterioration of the upper block. In all, any continued deterioration of the upper block leaves even possibility of the official theory unproven. After that realisation, you are out on a limb giving nought but opinion.

Ha ha ha, yes yes, unlike all that sound science you're providing for your theory. So it's your position that if one brick-sized concrete chunk is dislodged from the upper block than Bazant's theory is entirely inapplicable, if how intact or rigid is truly irrelevant? Would you really like me to apply that level of scrutiny/absurdity to your 'case' and watch all of your 'evidence' crumble? All explanations of the collapse will be insufficient, we are greatly limited in the amount of data there is to evaluate.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Liquid Gardens

[+Liquid Gardens]

I believe the lower edge of the upper block is located within the impact and worst fire region, so itself composes of some limited damaged/weakened stories (I say ‘limited’ because I don’t believe the impacts nor fires were actually threatening to the structures).

Of course it was 'threatening', your interpretation of the NIST report has the analysis of the actual damage overlapping part of the range where the collapse may occur, I'd call that threatening.

You don’t have to ignore the compressed debris – it is located in the area where the blocks are enmeshed, the debris resting on/in contact with the highest point of the surviving lower structure, until the point the structure of the upper block reasserts its force. Yes it is correct that columns within the upper and lower blocks continue to penetrate one other causing deterioration of the core structure which held the full mass together. This area is no longer rigid or solid, but flexible and broken.

Unless you are talking about the lower block then the word 'resting' should never be used, as long as you are going to admonish others for using misleading wording. As soon as anything in the lower block collapses, compresses, or is crushed, the middle layer above it is no longer resting but moving, the fact that it has physical contact with it isn't relevant all on its own.

I agree that some mass is shed to the sides of the towers in ever greater amount. Some of the deteriorated mass is also pushed within the open elevator shafts and stairwells and now in independent pieces may break through non-essential secondary structure such as areas of cross-bracing and the floors. This all results in loss of momentum as ever less force is applied in any one instant to the most vital part of the lower structure; the core columns.

And the crushed stories are essentially adding to the mass of the upper story and being accelerated downward by gravity as, once they've begun crushing, they lose their strength to prevent the upper block and already crushed stories from accelerating downward due to gravity, they no longer have the strength they've had since they were first built, which all results in the momentum not being lost. But I know you don't get how that could happen.

I don’t think the upper block is pulverized but that it is broken roughly into its component pieces, or even groups of component pieces – it is certainly nothing like the rigid/solid block it began as, imparting all of its force in one instant to the most vital area of the lower block.

How 'certainly nothing like' do you exactly mean? What is the measurement metric you are using for 'damage'? You act like if you can prove any damage occurred in the upper block then your job is done, far from it. If the mass of the upper story was sand that fell one story, I would still expect possibly the first couple lower story floors to be crushed but then it would quickly lose momentum. How do you know how 'unsolid' the block must be in order for it to behave how you want it to?

The previously mentioned situation – deterioration of the upper block and loss of momentum – should have continued until the collapse failed to progress. But it did not. The momentum resumed and the seismic activity increased again! This should not occur in a natural progressive (snowball?) collapse. It is certainly not accounted for in Bazant’s theory of ever greater mass and momentum. It’s all rather unnatural. So what is going on? The answer is demolition charges, around every 12 floors, simultaneous with the collapse, visible through the focussed ejections (‘squibs’) far below the collapse front, generally at the centre facing of the towers where the large core box columns were located, weakening the lower structure, allowing the upper block to give false appearance of on its own ‘crushing’ the lower.

God I was hoping that you were above the 'squibs' nonsense, but alas.... Let's use your standards, prove to me how it is impossible that these squibs are not the result of millions of square feet of air being compressed downward. Where are the audible explosions coinciding with these demolition charges that you can hear on every other demolition?

With this acceptance every question is answered and all falls into place.

Ha, no, every question is not answered, just the ones you choose to ask; your demolition theory, which is largely derived from your imagination, raises many more questions. All official collapse theories better have every i dotted or any argument you could derive from it is garbage; alternatively (some may say 'hypocritically') if you can find some way that something 'could be' for your theory, well then that's all we need, our 'every question is answered'.

I've been trying to come up with a statement that sums up your collapse theory as far as the physics, just to try to put another stake in the ground of agreement. In my model, it would be something like, 'you believe that the breaking up of the falling mass is reducing the momentum at a greater rate than the mass of collapsing stories being added to the falling mass and the continual accelerative force of gravity can counteract it; I'm not sure how you can know that, it seems like a far more complicated question to answer than you have so far'. I think you would remove what I said about the mass of the collapsing stories and just don't like gravity at all so I don't think I'm to that point yet of being able to sum it up.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Hmm... do you remember the discussion we had concerning NIST’s ‘best estimate’ which best matched the observable impact damage and did not produce a collapse initiation, and the ‘severe case with additional manual inputs’ which did not best match the observable impact damage and did produce a collapse initiation? We have spoken about it alright – the study not only failed to prove collapse initiation possible (within extent of the observable reality), but in fact demonstrated it unlikely, given only an impact and fire scenario.

It demonstrated it was unlikely that fire and impact initiated the collapse? Was that their conclusion, or is that another non-scientific-but-in-your-opinion-'founded' conclusion of yours? The 'observable reality' only gives us what percentage of the actual reality that we would need to have data on to really analyze the issue? Likelihood implies probability, how much more unlikely then? Did NIST apply probability distribution to their ranges of measurements, or did you?

it's necessary to retain all of the unlikelihoods of the official theory along the way; it's not until you clearly see the big picture at the end that everything really sinks in.

This really shouldn't be necessary, especially for the very strong statements you make. This ties in with one of the statements from you weeks ago that definitely concerns me: 'there is no best evidence'. I believe this was in the discussion of the Israeli 'agents' and how that evidence tries to address the question, "If we assume it was demolished, who was involved?" as opposed to the "Were the buildings demolished?". If you don't really have evidence for the demolition that stands on its own and doesn't rely on all the other suggestive evidence, then I don't think your position is consistent with your evidentiary foundation, its (metaphor alert) mighty thin gruel.

Seriously, what do you think of Sasquatch, would you say its existence is blatant? If it's not, how would you sum up why it isn't? It sure does not suffer from sheer lack of evidence, there's loads of it, once you retain all the unlikelihoods of all of that being fake or wrong, the big picture also sinks in. My answers to why I don't think Sasquatch's existence is blatant is two-fold. One, all of the individual pieces of evidence have alternative explanations and no great evidence or reason to privilege one explanation over the other. Second, it fails because there is evidence that I reasonably expect to be there to address the question of his existence that is not. I think a lot of what's been argued here for a 9/11 demolition also suffers from one of those two issues also.

[booNyzarC]

Holy Smackdown Batman!

And the gloves come off...

[DONTEATUS]

Holy Smackdown Batman!

And the gloves come off...

You said it booNy ! ITs just goes to show you that Gravity really sucks ! enoght to help all that mass come tumbling down after the two Airliners crashed into the two towers,and then melted the iron structures !

The Horror ! THe Horror of it All !

[Babe Ruth]

Why are squibs nonsense LG?

[skyeagle409]

Why are squibs nonsense LG?

You must remember that 9/11 conspiracist created the 'squibs' argument nonsense.

Edited September 29, 2012 by skyeagle409

[+Liquid Gardens]

Why are squibs nonsense LG?

Because there is no good reason to think these are not the effects of massive amounts of air being pushed through the building, which fits very well with 'common sense' by the way, a standard you are well familiar with. The towers may have actually been demolished and these squibs could still be just air. Tell me how one is to differentiate between these alternatives, especially if all evidence has this same level of 'could be demolition'/'could be not' value. Explain why this cannot be air being plunged out of the building without first making the assumption that the tower was demolished.

That may the only point Q was making with this, that if you assume a demolition then maybe these squibs are evidence of it, then fine for what it's worth, I guess it's not entirely nonsense. In the context of this discussion however where we are hearing out the arguments for demolition, despite all the time we spend talking about the perceived problems with the official story, it says nothing.

[booNyzarC]

...which fits very well with 'common sense' by the way, a standard you are well familiar with.

Regarding the portion in bold... Not so much methinks...

[Babe Ruth]

Certainly IT IS air being ejected.

The point is that at least visually, it is identical to the phenomenon seen in controlled demolition. Enter, Common Sense.

Of course that does not NECESSARILY mean that what we saw WAS CD, but it certainly appears to be. Enter, walks like a Duck, etc.

And given all the rest of the circumstantial evidence suggesting CD, the squibs are consistent.

Yes LG, Common Sense and The Big Picture. The forest, by looking at ALL the trees. Same impression Peter Jennings received.

[flyingswan]

No, the beams need the columns far more than the columns need the beams; if the columns come down, it takes everything with it, not so vice versa. It is the same difference between hitting a tree trunk with an unstoppable force, compared to hitting the branches, the first brings everything down, the second does not as breakages may occur. Re-directing energy away from the columns to the beams results in greater deterioration, deflection and loss of momentum compared to Bazant’s theory where every single bit of energy in one instant goes directly into the most vital columns. It is conservative only to halting the upper block in its tracks, not eventual survival of the lower structure. I know that you don’t understand this. Nevermind.

God preserve us from amateur engineers. It isn't a tree, there is no single trunk.

The columns couldn't stand without the beams any more than the beams without the columns. A thin column fails in buckling, and the maximum load to cause buckling is inversely proportional to the square of the column length. That means that a column designed to support 100 stories when stabilised with beams at each floor level will only have 1/10,000th the strength if you take all the beams away. It wouldn't support it's own weight.

Breaking the beams or their connections to the columns will bring the building down just the same as breaking the columns, and will require a lot less energy. That's why breaking the columns is the conservative case.

[flyingswan]

You've lost me. It's obviouse from watching the collapse that material is being shed to the sides. It sounds like you're making the claim that the further it collapses the more mass it has? Is that correct?

Most of the mass stays within the building footprint. Walls may fall outwards, but the floors and core structure mostly go straight down. The upper block gains mass because all the debris from the crushing of the impact region has mass, and that mass falls on the lower block.

I've read the discussion on static vs solid material and Q24 nails it. We also have massive damage to the upper block as it tries to pile drive through the point of most resistance.

I'm afraid Q24 is making a colossal idiot of himself here. He appears completely incapable of understanding what happens. Read Boony's posts and my own, and note how Q24 cannot convince LG.

[flyingswan]

Quick question, would the full core of the tower stand stable on its own without the rest of the building structure?

The core with its cross-beams would be stable, an individual unsupported column would not.