Talking Turkey

[skyeagle409]

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.

Common sense says that since no evidence of controlled demolitions is evident in videos or photos, and that demolition experts and investigators found no evidence of explosives, simply means that no explosives were used.

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

False!! The squibs had nothing to do with explosives. Study your physics book to understand why those squibs had nothing to do with explosives.

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

Peter Jennings never claimed that the collapse of the WTC buildings were the result of controlled demolitions. Once again, you just got caught pushing disinformation again!

[RaptorBites]

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

What circumstantial evidence suggesting a CD?

The Ross and Furlong paper that I analyzed, which now you are avoiding to address?

Edited September 30, 2012 by RaptorBites

[Babe Ruth]

Ross & Furlong is but one piece Raptor.

Fires not hot enough or of insufficient duration to weaken steel.

The presence of molten steel FOR DAYS. Blistered paint and melted tires on vehicles. Mysterious times of collapse. Pyroclastic flow. Presence of chemical byproducts of thermite reaction.

Conveniently placed identification papers in impossible places. More than year-long refusal to conduct an investigation. Suspicious and somewhat irrational reports generated by companies and men with history of feeding at government trough.

Numerous court decisions terminating civilian whistle-blowing efforts. And on, and on, and on.

Though you might deny its existence Raptor, the circumstantial case AGAINST the official story is huge. That's why so many people know the government is hiding something.

[skyeagle409]

Fires not hot enough or of insufficient duration to weaken steel.

Of course the fires were hot enough to weaken steel just like the fire of the Windsor Building in Spain caused the collapse of its steel struture.

The presence of molten steel FOR DAYS.

How amusing when it was determined that 9/11 conspiracist were duped by a hoaxed photo of a flashlight reflection they claimed was molten steel.

Blistered paint and melted tires on vehicles

Vandalism by 9/11 conspiracist.

Mysterious times of collapse.

Blame gravity for the collapse. It's a 24/7 kind of thing with gravity, you understand.

Pyroclastic flow.

A volcano in New York City?!

Presence of chemical byproducts of thermite reaction.

The thermite reaction occurred after I lit a sparkler left over from the 'Fourth of July' celebration.

Edited October 1, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Thank you, it appears the lower edge of the upper block core is as I said, within the impact zone.

[Q24]

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.

The debris, at the collapse front, within the building footprint, is not generating its own momentum; it is always moving down as a result of the upper block – there is nowhere for it to fall; it is supported by the structure below – any additional force comes from the upper block that it is being crushed by. How can I describe this? Stamp on a drinks can fast as you like, but only to halfway – the upper portion of the can doesn’t continue damaging the lower portion after you remove the driving force of the crush down.

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?

This is a surreal question. If we make the lower columns the same strength as the upper columns, then you are effectively asking: if the building was not designed to hold itself up, then would it crush itself? Err... yes (you’d actually never get the thing built). Or, if we make the upper columns the same strength as the lower columns, so the building had an insanely high safety factor the higher up we go, then would it crush itself? Well... no. I don’t understand the point in your question. High-rise structures are built with the strength and safety factor to support the above mass including the force of gravity at any given elevation.

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.

Of course – that is why the collapse progresses downward. But we still cannot avoid approximately equal and opposite damage to the upper block.

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?

Yes, where the upper and lower structures are not of equal construction or materials. Or a structure that is so weak it falls apart rather than needing to be broken apart. Or a structure where there is no opportunity for penetration, as discussed. Or, here’s a good one... a structure where demolition charges weaken the lower portion.

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.

No, if I label someone I can provide evidence that the tag is deserved. On the other hand, it comes across like you just labelled a group of professionals with derogatory terms apparently only because you don’t like what they are saying.

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

You do know that I’m not talking about technical detail of the papers but specifically in regard to the publishing rules? There is no defence to this complaint from Gourley: -

“JEM knew full well I was required to comply with the 2000 word limit, while Dr. Bazant was not.”

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

Yes, by the time it reached the ground the upper block appears to have been penetrated.

The spire was some 60 storeys tall. The upper block must have been penetrated bottom to top when the roofline was still at the 60 storey mark. And that’s just one group of columns we have evidence of which survived right to the end – how many other spires were present during the collapse? Anyhow, concerning the spire we know, the mass of the upper block then fell for a further 60 storeys without taking down the group of columns. This indicates that the upper block had broken apart to such extent way up at the 60 storey mark as to pass around the columns.

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?

The rest of the column must have moved out of alignment with the column below and descended with the crush down.

Ha ha ha, yes yes, unlike all that sound science you're providing for your theory.

Whilst the official collapse theory has not been proven possible, it obvious that a demolition could bring the structures down.

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.

No, I think you’re going to extremes in characterising “the block” in my description as “one brick [of the block]”. Ok, let’s see if we can define where Bazant’s theory stops working completely. Let’s ask him: -

"But if the upper part had the height of only 3 stories, then this ratio would be about 5. In that case, the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times. Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal.

"

So if the initial upper block were 14 stories, and it crushes through 11 stories below, sustaining approximately equal damage and leaving 3 stories intact, at this point, rather than “one powerful jolt”, that whole upper mass is going to provide, “a series of many small vertical impacts”, none of which are necessarily fatal.

[Q24]

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.

The actual damage was closer to the non-collapse simulated case. There is no evidence that the actual level of impact and fire damage could initiate collapse. Did we ever get round to discussing the further manual inputs NIST had to add, even to the severe case, to induce collapse in the model? Because here’s something... none of NIST’s simulated cases initiated collapse without additional human assistance (tweaking), which the computer model did not predict. No, the impacts and fires were not threatening to the structure according to physics of the models alone.

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.

Lacking the upper block driving force, the crushed layers would be resting on the lower intact block. The crushed layers only move down due to momentum of the upper block

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?

Millions of square feet of air being compressed downward through the building would produce numerous ejections around the facade at many floors, not focussed bursts at intervals. Neither would focussed air compression (‘squibs’) occur through your method prior to the collapse initiation. Why should the explosions be heard above the din of hundreds of breaking connections during the collapses? The explosions were certainly heard prior to the collapses.

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?

You’re really worrying me LG. I don’t mean to be rude but it’s never going to click if you don’t retain past discussion; you’re never building the full corroborating case; the evidence is forgotten and wasted.

Yes the NIST study proved that even one tower collapse initiation was unlikely due to the impacts and fires, nevermind two. It is inherent in the results. Had NIST been privy to the impacts and fires on 9/11 but not witnessed the collapses, and performed the study and simulated cases exactly as they did, their conclusion would be that the towers were not likely to collapse. Now I know you don’t want to listen to me because what I say doesn’t gel with your worldview, so listen to my helpful assistant: -

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse"

~flyingswan

Taken from the last response of post #120 here.

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?

As for percentages to place against the above conclusion, this is not possible except to say the results indicate a 51%+ probability for the tower survival. That’s why I do not attempt to be more precise, only say it how it is: 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.

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.

What you are referring to is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. There has been many a crime solved without the former. Evidence of the 9/11 false flag is always categorised under the latter. If you review the link you will see why this makes it terribly difficult to prove the overall case to anyone who wants to take up an opposing position.

http://en.wikipedia....antial_evidence

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.

I don’t believe there are enough areas of corroborating evidence to make Bigfoot blatant, or even likely. This example is not a patch on evidence of the 9/11 false flag, but nice try.

If I were to make a better comparison, it would be a murder trial. We have a suspect with a known grudge against the victim, his fingerprints and a witness place him at the scene, the murder weapon is found in his possession, there are blood splatters on his shirt. That is all circumstantial evidence by the way, and there’s no CCTV footage of the murder itself. Now I’d say our suspect is guilty, given the corroborating evidence. Though perhaps you would say he happened to be passing at the time, popped into the victim’s house for a cuppa to resolve their differences, the knife was later planted and the shirt was cross-contaminated... so the suspect must be innocent? That’s what I see official story adherents do with 9/11.

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.

It’s certainly true that everything which should be expected of such a covert demolition is present. I should just say that I’ve barely got into any of the evidence more directly related to the demolition. The last time I tried to head that direction (with evidence of explosives) you didn’t respond to the post. What I’ve been mainly focussed on is opening the door for a demolition indirectly through disputing the official theory.

[booNyzarC]

Thank you, it appears the lower edge of the upper block core is as I said, within the impact zone.

That's it? That's all you've got to say in response?

Because a relatively small portion of the facade is moving down, that makes it the lower edge of the block? Never mind that sections of the facade on either side are not moving? Never mind the details that there had already been partial floor failure right there in the impact zone which is probably why the downward moving facade was essentially just hanging from the intact floors above?

[flyingswan]

Yes the NIST study proved that even one tower collapse initiation was unlikely due to the impacts and fires, nevermind two. It is inherent in the results. Had NIST been privy to the impacts and fires on 9/11 but not witnessed the collapses, and performed the study and simulated cases exactly as they did, their conclusion would be that the towers were not likely to collapse. Now I know you don’t want to listen to me because what I say doesn’t gel with your worldview, so listen to my helpful assistant: -

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse"

~flyingswan

...and you carefully omit the rest of my quote: "Engineers don't put safety factors into their calculations for fun, they do it because no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error. You don't design a building to stand up, just. You design it to stand up under the worst conditions you can think of, and then make it stronger again by a substantial factor. That means that a prediction of a collapse within the margins of error of the input parameters would be enough to declare the building unsafe."

"Not likely to collapse" is thus your interpretation, not mine.

To put it another way, that quote of mine means that both standing and collapse have sizeable probabilities. The probability of standing is the larger, but that doesn't mean the probability of collapse is small. I wouldn't enter a building with a 40% probability of collapse, even if you claim that you would.

Edited October 1, 2012 by flyingswan

[Q24]

...and you carefully omit the rest of my quote: "Engineers don't put safety factors into their calculations for fun, they do it because no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error. You don't design a building to stand up, just. You design it to stand up under the worst conditions you can think of, and then make it stronger again by a substantial factor. That means that a prediction of a collapse within the margins of error of the input parameters would be enough to declare the building unsafe."

"Not likely to collapse" is thus your interpretation, not mine.

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse”.

~flyingswan

Oh shock, horror, flyingswan trapped in a moment of honesty, now here comes the last desperate, though typical, line of defence; silly accusations and word games to create a visage of disagreement. Ok, let’s just say NIST’s results proved that the towers were “more likely to stand up than collapse”. You can stop reading now Swanny...

For everyone else, of course if the building is likely to stand up, then it is unlikely to collapse.

An unlikely event would have a probability between 0 and ½.

A likely event would have a probability between ½ and 1.

http://www.cimt.plym...21/bk7_21i1.htm

Flyingswan is trying to say that the two can exist simultaneously. I’m not sure whether the mutually exclusive beliefs are deliberate or due to the conflict of wanting to uphold a belief in the official theory (not the first ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ styled quirk to be seen in official adherent arguments) . Neither is good for impartial discussion.

To put it another way, that quote of mine means that both standing and collapse have sizeable probabilities. The probability of standing is the larger, but that doesn't mean the probability of collapse is small. I wouldn't enter a building with a 40% probability of collapse, even if you claim that you would.

By definition a 40% probability is unlikely, a 60% probability is likely.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Q24

[flyingswan]

By definition a 40% probability is unlikely, a 60% probability is likely.

If that's your understanding of probability, you should avoid gambling.

[booNyzarC]

If that's your understanding of probability, you should avoid gambling.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[booNyzarC]

The debris, at the collapse front, within the building footprint, is not generating its own momentum; it is always moving down as a result of the upper block – there is nowhere for it to fall; it is supported by the structure below – any additional force comes from the upper block that it is being crushed by. How can I describe this? Stamp on a drinks can fast as you like, but only to halfway – the upper portion of the can doesn’t continue damaging the lower portion after you remove the driving force of the crush down.

The problem with your analogy here is that the upper block is never removed. Drop a large brick on the can and you'd have a closer representation.

Tell me something Q24, speaking in terms of Bazant's model only, do you think that the core columns continue to provide full (or nearly full) resistance to the upper block until they are completely deformed to the point of full compression?

No, I think you’re going to extremes in characterising “the block” in my description as “one brick [of the block]”. Ok, let’s see if we can define where Bazant’s theory stops working completely. Let’s ask him: -

"But if the upper part had the height of only 3 stories, then this ratio would be about 5. In that case, the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times. Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal.

"

So if the initial upper block were 14 stories, and it crushes through 11 stories below, sustaining approximately equal damage and leaving 3 stories intact, at this point, rather than “one powerful jolt”, that whole upper mass is going to provide, “a series of many small vertical impacts”, none of which are necessarily fatal.

What a fascinating representation of your expectations here. A full and proper response to this will have to wait, but at the outset I'm quite surprised that anyone could possibly think this is what would happen.

[RaptorBites]

Ross & Furlong is but one piece Raptor.

Fires not hot enough or of insufficient duration to weaken steel.

The presence of molten steel FOR DAYS. Blistered paint and melted tires on vehicles. Mysterious times of collapse. Pyroclastic flow. Presence of chemical byproducts of thermite reaction.

Conveniently placed identification papers in impossible places. More than year-long refusal to conduct an investigation. Suspicious and somewhat irrational reports generated by companies and men with history of feeding at government trough.

Numerous court decisions terminating civilian whistle-blowing efforts. And on, and on, and on.

Though you might deny its existence Raptor, the circumstantial case AGAINST the official story is huge. That's why so many people know the government is hiding something.

The Ross and Furlong paper only talks about the seismic activity before the reported crash times of the flights. Which is Ross and Furlongs contention along with Willie Rodriguez's testimony that is YOUR submitted proof of controlled demolitions.

At what point of the paper did they talk about blisted paint and melted tires?

This is the reason why it is not even possible to have any form of rational conversation with you BR.

[booNyzarC]

The debris, at the collapse front, within the building footprint, is not generating its own momentum; it is always moving down as a result of the upper block – there is nowhere for it to fall; it is supported by the structure below – any additional force comes from the upper block that it is being crushed by. How can I describe this? Stamp on a drinks can fast as you like, but only to halfway – the upper portion of the can doesn’t continue damaging the lower portion after you remove the driving force of the crush down.

The problem with your analogy here is that the upper block is never removed. Drop a large brick on the can and you'd have a closer representation.

Tell me something Q24, speaking in terms of Bazant's model only, do you think that the core columns continue to provide full (or nearly full) resistance to the upper block until they are completely deformed to the point of full compression?

An even better analogy would be to take a multi-tiered structure that is holding up a weight successfully and then slowly start removing or weakening its structural elements part way through its height until it collapses. Say it is 100 tiers and there are 50 structural elements between each tier. Let's say that if you hypothetically remove 10 of those structural elements and weaken another 10, the remaining 30 elements can no longer hold the weight and they fail in relatively quick succession.

In this scenario we have an upper block which starts with an initial velocity (and therefore initial momentum) of zero. Once sufficient structural elements fail, it accelerates due to the force of gravity, regardless of the fact that there are still structural elements between it and the next tier. Notice here that the key point is that those 30 intact elements are still there, they are just buckling under the load and then failing/deforming - but the mass of the structure above it is still accelerating downward because of gravity, not because of any momentum.

When it strikes the next tier, let's say for the sake of the model that the structural elements are insufficient to arrest the momentum which the upper block gathered during its initial descent. What do you predict would happen if those structural elements buckled, failed, and deformed because of the energy imparted by the impact? Would it not continue to accelerate due to the force of gravity just as the original upper block accelerated through the first failed tier?

[Q24]

If that's your understanding of probability, you should avoid gambling.

No, that is strict definition of the mathematical terms “likely” and “unlikely”. Gambling is somewhat different, where the bookies’ odds are not necessarily reflective of true probability. I’d say that everyone should avoid gambling as odds are fixed in the bookies’ favour. Unless of course it’s just a bit of fun and you’re feeling lucky.

The problem with your analogy here is that the upper block is never removed. Drop a large brick on the can and you'd have a closer representation.

The upper block in the analogy, relevant to what LG and I were discussing, is the foot stamping on the can.

Tell me something Q24, speaking in terms of Bazant's model only, do you think that the core columns continue to provide full (or nearly full) resistance to the upper block until they are completely deformed to the point of full compression?

No, of course those columns that are deformed do not continue to provide full resistance. Fortunately the upper and lower blocks consist of the same columns and so approximately equal and opposite damage still occurs between them at the crush front.

What a fascinating representation of your expectations here. A full and proper response to this will have to wait, but at the outset I'm quite surprised that anyone could possibly think this is what would happen.

Oh god... a full and proper response... but we’ve been over it before booNy.

[Q runs away, arms in air, screaming maniacally]

When it strikes the next tier, let's say for the sake of the model that the structural elements are insufficient to arrest the momentum which the upper block gathered during its initial descent. What do you predict would happen if those structural elements buckled, failed, and deformed because of the energy imparted by the impact? Would it not continue to accelerate due to the force of gravity just as the original upper block accelerated through the first failed tier?

It was better than a knife and butter, but you are still applying all the energy to the lower structural elements only

[booNyzarC]

The upper block in the analogy, relevant to what LG and I were discussing, is the foot stamping on the can.

I understand that, but you suggest that the foot be stopped moving down halfway through the can, which is essentially removing the upper block. This doesn't happen in the collapse. The actual upper block is never removed.

No, of course those columns that are deformed do not continue to provide full resistance. Fortunately the upper and lower blocks consist of the same columns and so approximately equal and opposite damage still occurs between them at the crush front.

The equal and opposite damage is irrelevant to the point. The point is that the mass of the upper block continues to accelerate due to gravity once those failures occur.

Oh god... a full and proper response... but we’ve been over it before booNy.

[Q runs away, arms in air, screaming maniacally]

Sorry Q, but I'm only attempting to explain things because we have lack of agreement. There is only one right answer to the question of whether or not a gravity driven global collapse is possible. The fact that we disagree on this point means that one of us is right and the other one is wrong. The only way to reach agreement is to get to the heart of the matter and understand the principles involved. I, for one, would like to reach agreement with you at some point which is why I continue to engage you in the discussion.

It was better than a knife and butter, but you are still applying all the energy to the lower structural elements only

I'm not applying energy to the lower structure only. I was asking specifically about the lower structure because of the above mentioned point. Once failure occurs, does gravity continue to accelerate the mass above or not? This is a key question and one which you seem to keep avoiding for some reason.

You keep claiming that the downward velocity is supplied solely by the momentum of the upper block. This is a flawed way to look at the problem. Read my collapse initiation scenario again, where we start with zero velocity and zero momentum. At the end of descent through the first tier, we have both velocity and momentum but it wasn't imparted by anything other than gravity and it was imparted despite there being 30 structural elements in the way. This is the most important thing to take on board for understanding the physics involved.

Once you've understood the principle of this, then move on.

After the initial impact the momentum of the upper block contributes to a new downward velocity, but once the structural elements fail both below and above the impact point, the whole portion in motion now continues to accelerate through the failed section due to gravity.

[Babe Ruth]

The Ross and Furlong paper only talks about the seismic activity before the reported crash times of the flights. Which is Ross and Furlongs contention along with Willie Rodriguez's testimony that is YOUR submitted proof of controlled demolitions.

At what point of the paper did they talk about blisted paint and melted tires?

This is the reason why it is not even possible to have any form of rational conversation with you BR.

They DID NOT talk about blistered paint and melted tires Swan, and I never said they did.

Tires and paint are but tiny parts of what happened that day that cannot be supported by gravity and jetfuel. They are tiny parts of a very large pile of circumstantial evidence that you and your mates cannot explain in any sort of persuasive manner. They are but a few pieces of the evidence that LAYMEN use to describe all the weird events that day that cannot have taken place in a gravity & jetfuel event.

[skyeagle409]

They DID NOT talk about blistered paint and melted tires Swan, and I never said they did.Tires and paint are but tiny parts of what happened that day that cannot be supported by gravity and jetfuel.

The jet fuel got things started.

I guess you forgot that you were the person who claimed that molten steel was seen flowing from the WTC building and now, you are claiming the fires were not sufficient enough to weaken steel. If you are going to continue with your deception routine, at least make up your mind.

Edited October 1, 2012 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

They DID NOT talk about blistered paint and melted tires Swan, and I never said they did.

So why when discussion the Ross and Furlong paper, do you detach yourself and bring up another completely different point?

Tires and paint are but tiny parts of what happened that day that cannot be supported by gravity and jetfuel.

Here's a simple visual image how gravity and jetfuel can melt and blister paint. (mind you I am not saying this happened, but actually shows you how funny this argument is to me.)

1. jetfuel leaks out of broken plane

2. jetful leaks out of the building

3. gravity pulls the jetfuel towards the street onto cars

4. buring falling debris falls on car and ignites jetfuel

5. blistered paint and melted tires

So tell me again how gravity and jetfuel can never do that?

They are tiny parts of a very large pile of circumstantial evidence that you and your mates cannot explain in any sort of persuasive manner.

For the most part, we have been doing well so far. Every bit of evidence you have presented so far (regardless of how silly or little it is) has not been held up to scruitny.

Have anything else for us to consider?

They are but a few pieces of the evidence that LAYMEN use to describe all the weird events that day that cannot have taken place in a gravity & jetfuel event.

And yet,

Laymen believed a C-130 could fire a cruise missle at the Pentagon <---*snicker*

Laymen believed the passengers of flight 93 were unloaded onto a bus and carted off to a secret location

Laymen believed nukes were used to demolish the twin towers

Laymen believed this was plotted by the NWO

Laymen believed that a cruise missle fired from under the helipad at the Pentagon caused the damage

Laymen believed that pods were attached to the airplanes

Laymen believed that the planes were military planes just repainted to UA and AAL colors

I can go on and on here how the layman got it wrong, multiple times.

[+Liquid Gardens]

The upper block in the analogy, relevant to what LG and I were discussing, is the foot stamping on the can.

Quick point while I have a second, and yes, anyone please feel free to correct me on this. Q's analogy, which of course as with too many of his analogies does not factor in a gravity component but that isn't relevant for what I'm trying to point out, is somewhat representative of what I was referring to with what happens to the middle layer if we immediately vaporize the upper block. Q, you asked if I thought if you were crushing a can with your foot and took away would there be more 'damage'; I hate that word, it's not scientific nor does it have a standard scientific measurement that corresponds to it that I'm aware of. Let's single out the lid of this can and it's mass. When the foot is moved away, I believe that the lid for an instant is exerting more force on the lower part of the can after the foot is removed than it does when it's whole; the can has to decelerate the motion of the lid, which it does almost instantaneously. It's not a good analogy because everyone knows how cans behave and that, in human terms, the can will not continue to crumple once the foot is removed; that doesn't mean that it doesn't have to decelerate the lid even if it's undetectable to the eye. If you don't believe me, change the bottom of the can to a loose spring; I think in that case it's easier to envision that the motion of the lid does continue even if it's just for an instant before the can stops its momentum. The point being, the mass of the lid (middle section of the tower) does exert more force simply because it has momentum where when the can was whole it does not. I understand Q's point I think (although I don't agree with how he's treating gravity), you are talking about the net forces; with no other forces acting on it, any momentum the middle layer gains comes from a corresponding loss in the upper block, but just talking about the middle layer, its mass alone is exerting a stronger force on the lower block than before the collapse occurred. Corrections as always welcomed.

Just wanted to provide some clarification, although again I may be wrong, but this is what Newton's first law means to me. I think the key question is what boony said, "After the initial impact the momentum of the upper block contributes to a new downward velocity, but once the structural elements fail both below and above the impact point, the whole portion in motion now continues to accelerate through the failed section due to gravity." I think you would say 'no', Q, although I still don't understand why; I believe you were just referring not too long ago to the fact that the lower block temporarily has even less stress on it for a certain time period after the stories lose their strength and the upper block is falling until it reaches the point of more lower block structure to resist it.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Liquid Gardens

[booNyzarC]

Quick point while I have a second, and yes, anyone please feel free to correct me on this. Q's analogy, which of course as with too many of his analogies does not factor in a gravity component but that isn't relevant for what I'm trying to point out, is somewhat representative of what I was referring to with what happens to the middle layer if we immediately vaporize the upper block. Q, you asked if I thought if you were crushing a can with your foot and took away would there be more 'damage'; I hate that word, it's not scientific nor does it have a standard scientific measurement that corresponds to it that I'm aware of. Let's single out the lid of this can and it's mass. When the foot is moved away, I believe that the lid for an instant is exerting more force on the lower part of the can after the foot is removed than it does when it's whole; the can has to decelerate the motion of the lid, which it does almost instantaneously. It's not a good analogy because everyone knows how cans behave and that, in human terms, the can will not continue to crumple once the foot is removed; that doesn't mean that it doesn't have to decelerate the lid even if it's undetectable to the eye. If you don't believe me, change the bottom of the can to a loose spring; I think in that case it's easier to envision that the motion of the lid does continue even if it's just for an instant before the can stops its momentum. The point being, the mass of the lid (middle section of the tower) does exert more force simply because it has momentum where when the can was whole it does not. I understand Q's point I think (although I don't agree with how he's treating gravity), you are talking about the net forces; with no other forces acting on it, any momentum the middle layer gains comes from a corresponding loss in the upper block, but just talking about the middle layer, its mass alone is exerting a stronger force on the lower block than before the collapse occurred. Corrections as always welcomed.

Just wanted to provide some clarification, although again I may be wrong, but this is what Newton's first law means to me. I think the key question is what boony said, "After the initial impact the momentum of the upper block contributes to a new downward velocity, but once the structural elements fail both below and above the impact point, the whole portion in motion now continues to accelerate through the failed section due to gravity." I think you would say 'no', Q, although I still don't understand why; I believe you were just referring not too long ago to the fact that the lower block temporarily has even less stress on it for a certain time period after the stories lose their strength and the upper block is falling until it reaches the point of more lower block structure to resist it.

Ah, I see the reasoning for the analogy now. In that sense I think I'd have to say it probably doesn't have momentum because the object (in this case a single can braced against the ground) isn't fully in motion, it is merely deforming from the compressive pressure applied by the foot. If the can cracked and literally fractured, the portion above the point of fractured would then be it's own isolated object and would attain momentum.

Likewise, if you take two cans, one stacked on the other and compressed fully through the first can without any fracture and partially into the second can before removing the pressure, the first crushed can would have momentum because it is fully in motion.

Perhaps another illustration which might help is a squat rack with safety bars, and the person doing the squats is 'sitting' on a spring which is strong enough to support the lifter's weight but not the weight stacked on the bar.

If the lifter fails under the load, he'll be pushed downward by the weighted bar until the weighted bar is caught by the safety bars. At that point he will still have momentum moving downward and further compress the spring for a time after the downward motion of the weighted bar is halted, but the spring should quickly catch him and even push him back up into the weighted bar.

Is that kind of what you are describing?

Of course, Q may try to contend that this is precisely what happens with a continuous core and whatnot, but it isn't. Once one story is fully compressed and the next story is buckling, the initially failed and fully compressed story is fully in motion with the original upper block and lending it's mass (and therefore momentum) to that of the original block.

This is strictly regarding my understanding of Bazant's limiting case by the way. In reality the collapses were far more violent and chaotic, with the majority of failures being at the weakest points; the joints and other connections, which literally created huge volumes of individually falling chunks all at the same time and striking the structure below in quick succession.

Hope that clarifies, and if I've made any errors in the description hopefully Swanny or someone else will point them out and bring them to light.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Ah, I see the reasoning for the analogy now. In that sense I think I'd have to say it probably doesn't have momentum because the object (in this case a single can braced against the ground) isn't fully in motion, it is merely deforming from the compressive pressure applied by the foot. If the can cracked and literally fractured, the portion above the point of fractured would then be it's own isolated object and would attain momentum.

Likewise, if you take two cans, one stacked on the other and compressed fully through the first can without any fracture and partially into the second can before removing the pressure, the first crushed can would have momentum because it is fully in motion.

Perhaps another illustration which might help is a squat rack with safety bars, and the person doing the squats is 'sitting' on a spring which is strong enough to support the lifter's weight but not the weight stacked on the bar.

If the lifter fails under the load, he'll be pushed downward by the weighted bar until the weighted bar is caught by the safety bars. At that point he will still have momentum moving downward and further compress the spring for a time after the downward motion of the weighted bar is halted, but the spring should quickly catch him and even push him back up into the weighted bar.

Is that kind of what you are describing?

Yes, that's exactly it; for some amount of time, the squatter was still in motion even though the upper weighted bar's weight was removed, something must decelerate him to stop that motion, otherwise he would stay in motion; maybe a spring isn't the best example, maybe a hydraulic support that just resists. I guess at this point, purely from an intuition standpoint and from way out of my depth here, I'm not understanding why the lid would not have momentum just because it's crumpling or deforming; I don't know why 'deforming' should be separated from 'falling' as far as momentum is concerned. It seems a little odd to me to say that since the can is an 'object' it behaves differently; we should be able to break up this can into millimeter square pieces of mass and see what each is doing and if it's in motion, I don't know why the same physics wouldn't apply at that level. These blocks of can are yes feeling a lot of force from being attached to the can but 'objects' moving experience air resistance, it's all just forces isn't it? The lid has mass, and it's moving, doesn't that necessarily mean momentum period?

I think I may be wrong with my ultimate point though that I'm trying to get to, I'm realizing that I'm not clear on momentum at this point. I'm having trouble understanding where Q is coming from with the 'holding up the same weight they always have' when things are moving downward, when it seems there must be an 'additional force' from the momentum that is above just the standard gravitational force at rest (?) but I don't think that's the correct way to put it and may not be correct at all even if I could explain it. More study is needed on my part.

Of course, Q may try to contend that this is precisely what happens with a continuous core and whatnot, but it isn't. Once one story is fully compressed and the next story is buckling, the initially failed and fully compressed story is fully in motion with the original upper block and lending it's mass (and therefore momentum) to that of the original block.

I agree, I don't understand how a fully compressed story can behave any other way and can't see how Q can treat a fully compressed story, once subsequent stories beneath it have also compressed, as if it doesn't behave like an extension of the upper block. I have to think more about his impalement scenario to see if it makes any difference though.

This is strictly regarding my understanding of Bazant's limiting case by the way. In reality the collapses were far more violent and chaotic, with the majority of failures being at the weakest points; the joints and other connections, which literally created huge volumes of individually falling chunks all at the same time and striking the structure below in quick succession.

Hope that clarifies, and if I've made any errors in the description hopefully Swanny or someone else will point them out and bring them to light.

It does, I think your squat rack example is an excellent one and a better way of explaining what I'm talking about and comparing to a crumpling can.

[booNyzarC]

Yes, that's exactly it; for some amount of time, the squatter was still in motion even though the upper weighted bar's weight was removed, something must decelerate him to stop that motion, otherwise he would stay in motion; maybe a spring isn't the best example, maybe a hydraulic support that just resists. I guess at this point, purely from an intuition standpoint and from way out of my depth here, I'm not understanding why the lid would not have momentum just because it's crumpling or deforming; I don't know why 'deforming' should be separated from 'falling' as far as momentum is concerned. It seems a little odd to me to say that since the can is an 'object' it behaves differently; we should be able to break up this can into millimeter square pieces of mass and see what each is doing and if it's in motion, I don't know why the same physics wouldn't apply at that level. These blocks of can are yes feeling a lot of force from being attached to the can but 'objects' moving experience air resistance, it's all just forces isn't it? The lid has mass, and it's moving, doesn't that necessarily mean momentum period?

I think I may be wrong with my ultimate point though that I'm trying to get to, I'm realizing that I'm not clear on momentum at this point. I'm having trouble understanding where Q is coming from with the 'holding up the same weight they always have' when things are moving downward, when it seems there must be an 'additional force' from the momentum that is above just the standard gravitational force at rest (?) but I don't think that's the correct way to put it and may not be correct at all even if I could explain it. More study is needed on my part.

This part isn't easy to wrap your head around, I know. One thing that might help is to consider the properties of the materials in question. Metals are classified by many different properties; brittleness, malleability, hardness, ductility, elasticity, density, toughness, fusibility, conductivity, etc... If we just look at a couple of these properties in comparison with other materials it might help to make sense of the concepts. Consider brittleness and plasticity for a moment when applied to a section of very dry straw as opposed to a length of copper wire.

In both examples imagine that you are holding a 20 inch section of the material with your left hand in a perfectly vertical direction. Then apply downward pressure with your right hand from the top.

When you exert enough vertical compression on the straw, it fractures quite easily and if you stop exerting pressure after this occurs, the portion above the point of fracture falls. When you exert pressure on the copper wire, it simply deforms (or bends) and if you stop exerting pressure it doesn't fall because there has been no fracture. This is a measurement of the material's brittleness.

Now take two more samples from our hypothetical workshop and push down on the straw but not enough to cause it to fracture. Raise your hand and notice that it returns to its original shape. Do the same with the piece of copper wire and notice that it retains its deformed shape. This is a measurement of the material's plasticity.

These different materials have different properties because of their chemical composition and the bonds which hold them together are inherently different as a result. The same is true of different metals. So in the case of our aluminum can(s), it (or they) will respond differently from the length of straw, the copper wire, and structural steel alloys. It is a lot to take in, I agree.

With the case of steel, it is actually a fairly brittle material as far as metals go, especially at lower temperatures. But it is also very strong and capable of supporting significant static loads as we find in building construction. This is one of the reasons that blacksmiths use forges to heat steel, not only to soften it but also to prevent fracture while it is being deformed into the desired shape of a blade or whatever else. This strength is also one of the reasons that it is such a popular material for tall structures like the Twin Towers.

Edit to add:

I didn't really address momentum with the above descriptions, which appears to be one of the key questions needing clarification. Momentum is a measurement of an object of defined mass in motion. In our examples above, the objects aren't in motion until fracture occurs. Instead they are deforming. Once fracture occurs, the portion above the point of fracture is in motion and it is only when an object has motion that it can have momentum.

Consider a blob of clay. If you squish it in your palm, it doesn't have motion, it is merely deforming. If you form into the shape of a ball, set it on the ground, and then strike it with a golf club, it almost simultaneously deforms from the impact of the club and then enters into motion due to the club's momentum. At that point the deformed mass of clay has momentum of its own.

There are other ways to describe this, but that was the first thought that came to mind. Does that help make the distinction between deformation and momentum?

I agree, I don't understand how a fully compressed story can behave any other way and can't see how Q can treat a fully compressed story, once subsequent stories beneath it have also compressed, as if it doesn't behave like an extension of the upper block. I have to think more about his impalement scenario to see if it makes any difference though.

It is hard to say, though through the discussions on this thread his actual reasoning is starting to come more into focus for me. Thank you for contributing to that by the way because until you started asking the questions that you've been asking and forcing key clarifications, I've been struggling to fully envision how exactly Q24 reconciles his position. It's starting to be more clear to me now, though admittedly it's a bit fuzzy yet. So long as the dialogue continues and more information comes out, I think we can reach a point of understanding on all sides. Or at least I hope so.

It does, I think your squat rack example is an excellent one and a better way of explaining what I'm talking about and comparing to a crumpling can.

That's good to hear, sometimes I wonder if I'm too brief in my descriptions to fully convey my intended point.

Edited October 2, 2012 by booNyzarC

[flyingswan]

No, that is strict definition of the mathematical terms “likely” and “unlikely”.

But it isn't the meaning of "unlikely" that anyone would normally use.

I'm interested in what you think would be unlikely. Which if any of these, for example?

Cutting a pack of cards and getting an ace?

Rolling 6 on a dice?

Tossing three coins and getting two heads and a tail?

Red coming up on a roulette wheel?