Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
W Tell

Talking Turkey

901 posts in this topic

Hmmm!! Still no evidence of controlled demolitions in regards to the 9/11 attacks. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation:

I have no rebuttal for what you've presented because it irrefutably shows that both Gage and myself are incorrect in our definition of the upper block.

Got it, thanks for confirming.

No it’s just your repetition of the same tired and easily refuted points that have been addressed numerous times previously. That reason for my lack of interest in responding I have explained to you how many times now? Yet you come up with the above mistranslation, even though my own reasons have been clearly stated, further proving my point that you don’t take anything onboard except what you prefer to believe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm!! Still no evidence of controlled demolitions in regards to the 9/11 attacks. :no:

Hmmm still no evidence of even attempting to understand the discussion.

Plenty evidence of your trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm still no evidence of even attempting to understand the discussion.

Apparently, you are ignoring the facts and evidence as they are presented to you and you must be made aware that the majority of architects, and civil engineers, along with their organizations, do not support 9/11 conspiracist.

To further add, professional demolition companies have distanced themselves from 9/11 conspiracist as well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it’s just your repetition of the same tired and easily refuted points that have been addressed numerous times previously. That reason for my lack of interest in responding I have explained to you how many times now? Yet you come up with the above mistranslation, even though my own reasons have been clearly stated, further proving my point that you don’t take anything onboard except what you prefer to believe.

No it isn't Q24. We haven't discussed that clip from Gage's presentation prior to this thread. This is new ground, and ground which you apparently refuse to discuss. Is that because the implications of this new ground run contrary to the way you've interpreted the collapse overall?

If the upper block is, as I contend, only the top 12 stories -- Gage's/your contention that the upper block destroys itself in the first 4 seconds is completely nullified.

This seems to be a critical point, and one we've never discussed previously. To be completely honest, I wasn't even aware that you fully supported this definition for the upper block until I pointed out the fact that it was in error right here in this thread.

Do you disagree with the definitions I provided for the upper and lower blocks in the portion of my post that you chose to ignore?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but you cannot make him think. :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but you cannot make him think. :no:

9/11 Truthers have proven themselves vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation spewed from 9/11 conspiracy websites. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't Q24. We haven't discussed that clip from Gage's presentation prior to this thread. This is new ground, and ground which you apparently refuse to discuss. Is that because the implications of this new ground run contrary to the way you've interpreted the collapse overall?

At best it is a slightly different angle to an argument that’s going to end in the exact same place with all your tired old errors that we’ve been over. I believe I have already addressed the main contention of your previous post in my post #373. Because I have nothing better to do at this moment, I’ll drag myself through an extended response...

Take another look at the picture you used in an effort to support your point of view. Do you notice the yellow section which is clearly described as "Lower Part A" and the green section which is clearly described as "Upper Part C?" Whoever created the image appears to be indicating the lower block and the upper block with these color coded designations. (edit) I haven't taken the time to compare your image with the actual collapse initiation by the way. After posting it almost looks like your image is depicting the upper and lower sections inaccurately to me, but I'd have to do more comparisons to be sure. It looks more accurate than Gage's image, but still has the upper block just a little bit too large. (/edit)

Maybe we need to define these terms.

Upper block - The part of the building which begins to move downward at collapse initiation.

Lower block - The part of the building which is impacted by the downward motion of the upper block after collapse initiation.

Do you disagree with these definitions?

We all know what the upper and lower blocks are – those definitions are fine.

You state that "the internal core failure must be within the impact and most severe fire region; the 94th-96th floors." How can we possibly know that? We can't see the inside. We can't know if this is true or false. Unless I'm mistaken, the initial failure was primarily in the South perimeter wall and Southeast corner; hence the direction of upper block tilting. Where exactly within the core there was failure is purely speculative. You may be correct in your assumption, but that doesn't mean that it must be where core failure initially occurred.

It is common sense that the internal collapse should initiate within the impact damage and worst fire region. It is the impact damage and fire that initiated the collapse according to the official theory. If you think the internal collapse initiated elsewhere then you invalidate the official theory.

Besides, if that was where core failure initiated, we should see dramatic inward bowing of the exterior wall in that same region because the walls were tied to the core by floor trusses and if the core were falling where you indicate it would pull the corresponding area of the perimeter tube in the first few seconds of collapse. This doesn't happen.

Ah a modicum of agreement... it’s great when you and Swanny contradict one another... Swanny has long claimed that failure of the core could not cause bowing in the perimeter columns (whereas I, like you, believe that it can). Even with the official theory as a guide you can’t keep your arguments straight.

And prior to collapse there was bowing observed on the 94th right up to the 101st storeys of the South face. The maximum visible deflection was on the 96th-97th storeys, though most of the South face remained obscured by smoke so we don’t know where the true maximum deflection occurred or its severity. I’m sure there was an enormous inward deflection in the first few seconds of collapse also, though likewise this was obscurred by smoke and debris.

To summarise your argument here: you falsely perceive a lack of inward bowing in the impact zone and conclude that the collapse may somehow have initiated somewhere other than the impact zone.

I mean, sorry but, what a nonsense.

I’m going to stick with what I said in the first place: “the internal core failure must be within the impact and most severe fire region”.

As such, we aren't seeing any telescoping or destruction of the upper block in those first moments of collapse. We are seeing the actual upper block crushing through the top several floors of the lower block like butter.

At the end of the clip Gage shows, the upper block and debris in the collapse zone end up in an area that is less than the height of the original upper block, before the lower block even begins moving. This is clear indication that the upper block is suffering damage and deteriorating, as would be expected applying Newton’s third law due to resistance of the far larger and stronger lower block.

Also, it is still very silly to compare the vastly intact core which suffered relatively low temperatures to “butter”. You are clearly unaware that NIST recovered and analysed a core column that spanned floors 92-95 in WTC1. Their conclusion is that the column did not exceed 250oC. It’s nothing. Though according to you, my oven is “like butter” every time I put it on maximum temperature... that’s a worrying thought... thank heavens your opinion is not reality.

In light of these observations I think it is highly unlikely that the columns between floors 99 and 100 would universally fail within the model. Some of them may, but the severely damaged columns below would fail earlier. Supposing that they did though, it still wouldn't change what happened afterwards.

The severely impacted and fire affected columns are the ones you removed from between the 98th-99th storeys (effectively the impact zone) in your animation to initiate the collapse. The columns above and below are no more damaged than one another at the point of impact and must suffer equal and opposite damage.

The more I look at your animation the more ridiculous it appears. Indestructible floor connections, pancaking, each storey isolated rather than a continuous structure, constant one-way damage, precise column to column impacts with no penetration of the blocks despite the reality showing this occurred. There’s no construction reality or scientific rationale to it at all... it’s simply an animated fantasy showing what official story adherents prefer to believe.

Though once again, it is a very pretty depiction of your belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be responding to this in depth after I get home from work. You may want to rethink some of what you've stated here Q24. It would be better for you to point out and correct the problems than for me to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be responding to this in depth after I get home from work. You may want to rethink some of what you've stated here Q24. It would be better for you to point out and correct the problems than for me to do it.

Great. I forewarn you now not to expect the same 'in depth' response in return. It gets boring repeating myself. And I've already pointed out all the problems of your argument.

PS glad to see you have plenty to keep you busy at work :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah a modicum of agreement... it’s great when you and Swanny contradict one another... Swanny has long claimed that failure of the core could not cause bowing in the perimeter columns (whereas I, like you, believe that it can). Even with the official theory as a guide you can’t keep your arguments straight.

I don't think that a core failure could cause the rather long-lived observed wall bowing that preceded the collapse. I don't recall ever giving an opinion about any other scenario such as the one you and Boony are now discussing, but I agree with Boony that such a core failure could cause wall bowing simultaneous with the collapse. The difference is in the magnitude and the timescale of the phenomenon.

Edited by flyingswan
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At best it is a slightly different angle to an argument that's going to end in the exact same place with all your tired old errors that we've been over. I believe I have already addressed the main contention of your previous post in my post #373. Because I have nothing better to do at this moment, I'll drag myself through an extended response...

We all know what the upper and lower blocks are - those definitions are fine.

Good of you to take the time to reply to at least some of what I've posted, and I'm glad that we can (in word at least) agree on the upper and lower block definitions. Given that you supposedly agree with these definitions, you must in turn discard Gage's incorrect representation of the upper block.

It is common sense that the internal collapse should initiate within the impact damage and worst fire region. It is the impact damage and fire that initiated the collapse according to the official theory. If you think the internal collapse initiated elsewhere then you invalidate the official theory.

I'm pretty sure that the best estimate by NIST for collapse initiation with WTC1 was at the 98th story along the South face due to buckling in the perimeter wall. Please tell me how anything I've stated disagrees with that?

Ah a modicum of agreement... it's great when you and Swanny contradict one another... Swanny has long claimed that failure of the core could not cause bowing in the perimeter columns (whereas I, like you, believe that it can). Even with the official theory as a guide you can't keep your arguments straight.

And prior to collapse there was bowing observed on the 94th right up to the 101st storeys of the South face. The maximum visible deflection was on the 96th-97th storeys, though most of the South face remained obscured by smoke so we don't know where the true maximum deflection occurred or its severity. I'm sure there was an enormous inward deflection in the first few seconds of collapse also, though likewise this was obscurred by smoke and debris.

To summarise your argument here: you falsely perceive a lack of inward bowing in the impact zone and conclude that the collapse may somehow have initiated somewhere other than the impact zone.

I mean, sorry but, what a nonsense.

I'm going to stick with what I said in the first place: "the internal core failure must be within the impact and most severe fire region".

I don't see a contradiction with Swanny in what I've stated. Swanny doesn't see a contradiction with what I've stated. Only you, in an effort to misapply what we've been saying, sees a contradiction in it because you are determined to deflect anything which shows your inaccurate understanding of what was involved.

At the end of the clip Gage shows, the upper block and debris in the collapse zone end up in an area that is less than the height of the original upper block, before the lower block even begins moving. This is clear indication that the upper block is suffering damage and deteriorating, as would be expected applying Newton's third law due to resistance of the far larger and stronger lower block.

Maybe you can reach this conclusion if you use Gage's incorrect initial size of the upper block as a guide, but not if you use the actual upper block as a guide. This, of course, is my entire point regarding Gage's deceptive and incorrect description of the upper block. Take a look at CBS-Net NIST Dub #7 to test the actual upper block. (Collapse at about 1:24)

ActualUpperBlockComparedToGage.jpg

Notice that Gage's proposed lower edge of the upper block is about where I've placed the red line, the actual lower edge of the upper block is about where I've placed the blue line, the corners of the building encircled in green do not move downward, though a section of the facade which I've encircled with orange does move down.

By the time the actual lower edge of the upper block reaches Gage's red line, that area is obscured by smoke, dust, and debris. Could part of the upper block have compacted behind that smoke and debris? Sure, it's possible. I would even venture to say that it is likely, but certainly not by a degree commensurate with the 5 to 6 stories that it just finished crushing.

Also, it is still very silly to compare the vastly intact core which suffered relatively low temperatures to "butter". You are clearly unaware that NIST recovered and analysed a core column that spanned floors 92-95 in WTC1. Their conclusion is that the column did not exceed 250oC. It's nothing. Though according to you, my oven is "like butter" every time I put it on maximum temperature... that's a worrying thought... thank heavens your opinion is not reality.

I didn't say that the columns were butter, I said they were damaged and then weakened by fires and in such a state the upper block would cut through them like a knife through butter. Honestly, your inability to understand this is what is actually worrying.

As for the one core column that hadn't exceeded 250oC, yes I was aware, but that is still only 1 out of 47 columns. Besides, as cited by Bazant:

The tests by NIST (2005), (part
, p. 135, Fig. 6-6) showed that, at temperatures of 150, 250, and 350
o
C, the yield strength of the steel used in the fire stories decreased by 12, 19, and 25%, respectively. (
)

If you couple that with the physical damage up to and including severance by the plane impact, of course that area is weaker than the intact structures above and below. You know, this area here with the big gaping hole in the side?

wtc1holenew.jpg

The comparison with your oven is laughable. Ovens are designed specifically for high temperatures and they aren't structural elements in a building. Seriously Q24? You're going to have to come up with something better than that if you want a leg in this debate.

The severely impacted and fire affected columns are the ones you removed from between the 98th-99th storeys (effectively the impact zone) in your animation to initiate the collapse. The columns above and below are no more damaged than one another at the point of impact and must suffer equal and opposite damage.

How can you say that by removing the columns between the 98th-99th stories I've removed the only severely impacted and fire effected columns? The impact cut a gash in the building from the 93rd to the 99th floor, with the majority of severe impact damage taking place between floors 94 and 98, the worst of which was in floors 95 and 96.

By removing the columns between 98 and 99, I've only removed 1/5th of the impact damaged area at best, and not even the most severe part of it.

The more I look at your animation the more ridiculous it appears. Indestructible floor connections, pancaking, each storey isolated rather than a continuous structure, constant one-way damage, precise column to column impacts with no penetration of the blocks despite the reality showing this occurred. There's no construction reality or scientific rationale to it at all... it's simply an animated fantasy showing what official story adherents prefer to believe.

Though once again, it is a very pretty depiction of your belief.

As stated when I initially shared that animation back in post 333, it isn't representative of reality, it is intended to provide a rudimentary visualization of Bazant's limiting case. I also dealt with all of your arguments against Bazant's limiting case in that post, and they remain unrebutted by you despite your claim that the points are easily refuted.

Oh I know, you're just tired of discussing the subject with me. I guess that can happen when you continuously attempt to represent an untenable position and the person you are discussing with demonstrates how and why it is untenable. I'd probably get tired of being repeatedly shown my errors too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The second sentence I don’t understand, unless you assume a freefall drop of the middle layer. Likewise the second question - I don’t see any increased force (over and above the loads which always existed since the towers were built) that should exert itself on the lower block only. The driving force is the upper block. The additional load must be created by the upper block. The upper block therefore must suffer damage. I’m repeating myself.

You keep bringing up several words with no modifiers or adjectives, such as 'freefall'. What if the middle layer moves at only 90% of freefall, what difference does it make?

You don't see an increased force because you don't seem to be accounting for gravity and it's effect on the compressed middle layer. We're in the middle of the collapse and we now have 7 stories worth of mass in the compressed layer. This mass is moving downward being driven by the upper block and gravity. Now, completely vaporize the upper block. That force of the compressed middle layer which is still in motion, re:Newton, is an increased force over and above the loads which always existed for that same amount of mass, correct?

The reason I invoke ‘same mass it’s held up for three decades’ is because you seem to believe that the mass of the broken columns immediately contacting the lower intact structure is somehow overwhelming. It’s not actually until the upper block exerts its momentum on the lower block that the next lower level is overwhelmed, at which point equal and opposite forces occur. I feel like a parrot.

As do I. What does 'immediately' have to do with it? What if it's one tenth of a second after the mass of the broken columns contacts the lower structure that the upper block exerts its momentum? Keep moving at a slow pace through time, the upper block exerts its pressure on the lower block, the mass of the broken columns/story is between them. The next story in the lower block breaks and the mass of the upper block and previously compressed story continue their motion downward. At this point, why do you think that the mass of the previously compressed story is still just as much a part of the lower block as the upper block, if I'm understanding what you are saying?

Because if columns break in the upper block and the entire lower mass does not immediately move then it will produce damage to the upper block, i.e. impalement occurs. We cannot “leave impalement out of it” – that’s the whole process whereby the upper block suffers damage! You might as well just ask me to leave my whole contention out of it.

I thought perhaps mistakenly that we are discussing multiple contentions. Is impalement necessary to your assertion that the upper block and lower block experience equal damage throughout the collapse, or just the existence of a core?

I agree with the results as you’ve laid them out but would not call it an analogy. Why do you constantly and unrealistically imbalance the scenario in your favour? Once again you have created the effect of a freefall drop and non-continuous structure whilst mounting the shield only on your side (creating an unequal strong vs. weak situation). Why can’t you just once bring some balance to the opposing sides?

You are obviously not clear then on how I view this discussion. You are presenting your theory, I am disputing the parts of it with which I disagree. I'm not trying to 'sell' you on anything, I'm trying to understand what you are talking about because it doesn't jibe with my basic understanding, I don't view this as 'opposing' sides. If I was trying to sell you, I wouldn't have interjected at all into your discussion with boony about Bazant and how a deteriorating upper block is something that would make his case more of a worst-case scenario; I brought it up because of how I understood it. How can I bring balance to squat if I don't get your arguments and if I don't realize that the way I'm thinking about it is unbalanced?

Let’s be err Lemmings... with shields... and we have Lemming friends... and there’s an unstoppable force and an immovable object... and the first, being Superman (representing unlimited momentum and gravity), is going to drive everything (Lemmings and shields) to the left... and he’s going to do it faster than you can run...

hrzlj.jpg

Ha, thanks for the diagram and choice of characters, should hopefully keep this discussion light. This diagram suffers from the same problem as your Bugatti car example, that I pointed out but you didn't really elaborate on at the time which is fine. Superman is not gravity in your picture. Here's Superman as gravity (if this works):

superlemmhomer.jpg

There are multiple Supermen flying and pushing on each shield that is welded to all of our Lemming buddies (assume there is no gap, it's just all continuous Lemmings). The Lemmings are stout enough to be able to withstand it, but the force that the Supermen are exerting is still strong in comparison to the the Lemmings. How strong? So strong that if you were to set another Lemming to the right and another Superman came up, grabbed it's shield and very gradually applied it's force to the left until it reached the equal strength of the others, the Lemmings would just barely be able to withstand it; if you added two more shields with their accompanying Supermen with that extra Lemming, the force would be too much and the Supermen would crush all the Lemmings to the left. If a skinny Lemming of 3/5 the mass of a regular Lemming (i.e, 6 stories per NIST, thanks for putting exactly 11 Lemmings in your diagram), with Superman pushing him, was placed to the right with a gap of just a shield or two separating it from the rest of them, when Superman shoved it to the left and it contacts the continuous Lemming structure, the whole thing is crushed also. If you just yank out two joined shields to the left of the right-most Lemming, the Supermen crush the whole thing again. Do you disagree that that model is more realistic? Do you think, reintroducing the gap in the structure between your Lemming and mine, that in this scenario that my Lemming experiences the same force as yours?

In all seriousness, there is a key word that rarely gets brought up in your explanations, and that is 'gravity'. I know you've said that the upper block is initially accelerating the compressed mass faster than gravity can, agreed, but gravity doesn't shut off after that happens. But in fairness we do agree on it's importance and it's effect in our floors only structure, I just don't know why you think something fundamentally changes when we move more towards the actual tower construction. I'm going to try and post another message after this one to attempt to outline in my own simplistic way what my understanding of your theory is to see if that helps anything.

You implied, I think disparagingly, that Bazant stood accused only by myself. I was just re-pointing out that professionals such as engineers and lawyers also hold Bazant in contempt. And no one said that Bazant is an idiot... he’s one clever criminal for sure.

I didn't imply that you alone 'stood accused', I said "And ha, accused by whom, you? The 1700+ paranoid, self-aggrandizing, and attention-mongering architects and engineers who, in full congruence with the foundational tenet of science that it's conclusions are always tentative (/sarcasm), modestly proclaim they know 'the Truth'. " Technically there should have been a question mark there but I thought it was clear. What are the criminal charges you believe should be levied against Bazant by the way?

You keep avoiding these observations based in reality that render theorising irrelevant. The upper block did not remain rigid or intact otherwise the WTC1 core column spire would not be there. And again, if the upper block did not remain rigid then Bazant’s theory does not apply. Perhaps the intact upper block phase-shifted through the lower columns??

I’m afraid we aren’t going to reach an agreement based on theorising alone. Even in this area of physics where as you have said there should be a definite right and wrong answer, it seems we are stuck in the never ending circle of repeating ourselves and getting nowhere. I really think such observable reality needs to be incorporated into our thinking; compared and contrasted to validate our theorising.

I am not 'avoiding' anything, I'm postponing it, as I explained, because I thought it pointless to talk about at the time considering the number of simultaneous models being discussed that I'm only so-so familiar with. There's another unmodified word, 'rigid'; isn't the question really how rigid, how intact, how much damage, where and how have you determined the threshold? The upper block can absorb some unknown amount of damage and still plow right through the lower structure; one crack or dislodged steel beam isn't significant. If it remains rigid enough, then yes Bazant's theory may still apply, Newton's theories didn't all of a sudden stop applying entirely when Einstein superceded them. But your statements betray no gray area, they all seem pretty binary; there's deterioration or there is not.

You may be right though that incorporating something closer to what actually happened may be the way to move forward, we are getting to the point of repetition. I do not understand what you are doing with gravity and the behavior of the middle compressed mass in our discussions, some of the things you have said I believe are wrong, that's just my honest evaluation and I may well be the one who is wrong. I'm going to try to quickly type out what I think your theory is in another post, at least how it makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q, here's what I think your collapse theory entails at a high level, it's not intended to be a strawman or putting words in your mouth, a lot of it is my assumption:

  1. The collapse begins. (I don't think we've talked about whether you do not think it possible that this happened as a result of damage and fire, or don't remember, so let's leave it just at this simple statement)
  2. Generally, the upper block is accelerated downward through the partially damaged stories, which don't offer as much resistance, and comes into contact with the still intact structure of the lower block.
  3. At this point, intuitive to everyone, the topmost story/mass of the lower block tries and fails to absorb the force of the upper block impacting it (I'm just ignoring those initially compressed damaged stories for ease of conversation) and it fails. The lowest story of the upper block also fails and experiences the same 'damage' which is essentially compression. During this compression, some(/most?) of the mass of the story is shoved downward, however, the core structure is stronger and instead of outright failing, begins to 'impale' itself into the mass of the upper block, and the upper block core does likewise to some extent.
  4. The collapse continues. The same thing essentially happens as in 3, but there has been more impalement and this is causing the upper block to become damaged and to become less rigid. The lower core is slightly stronger than the core it is in contact with so the net effect is gradual impalement of the upper block. This begins to introduce momentum loss to the upper block, because the loss of structural integrity results in mass being shed to the sides and the increased deflection of the chunks of mass laterally as a response to the force of the resistance of the lower block and this impalement.
  5. This impalement occurs to such an extent that the upper block is eventually essentially pulverized, it still has some mass that hasn't been shed to the sides but this mass is more fluid reducing the 'impact' forces that the lower block is experiencing.
  6. Given this, the collapse should not have been total and/or as rapid, ergo, demolitions.

I was going to add sub-bullets but don't think I can easily and I've written enough so let me leave it there. I obviously did not include the middle compressed layer, I don't believe in your theory it is relevant at all as I understand it, the force is balanced right in the middle of that mass in your model. I'm sure I got a lot of that wrong, but let me know if I'm in the ballpark. The above does make sense to me in principle as a possible explanation, depending on a whole bunch of stuff. Whether and to what extent the collapse actually behaved like the above is a different question of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with that statement from NIST. I don't have much problem with NIST's statements in general (well, except a couple of individual statements from Sunder and Gross that rile me). Most of the time it's more about understanding premises the NIST study is based upon, i.e. exactly what their simulated inputs prove, than needing to challenge the results.

Why do you ask?

I don’t think the lower story is going to “handle” or “arrest” the upper mass from the collapse initiation. It’s an impossible task once a fall initiates and so long as the upper block remains rigid/intact. It is another situation altogether once we accept that the upper block must deteriorate approximately equal and opposite to the lower block. Wtih deterioration of the upper block, Bazant's theory is rendered void and there is no official theory to explain the collapse progression.

This is from earlier Q, concerning how if 6 stories were added at once the collapse would commence, but I think it ties in. Part of that section in the FAQ (Question 12 concerning gravitational energy) states, "neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated.". Do you outright disagree with that if equal and opposite damage must occur? Or is this 'equal and opposite' discussion relevant only to specific aspects of the actual collapse? If I'm at all right about your impalement theory, it seems that should occur pretty much whatever the possible collapse scenario, there'd be damage to the upper block. If the 6 stories were applied dynamically as per that section of the FAQ and the tower began collapsing as you agree, would you disagree that it would be total? If it's not total, under your theory, how many stories being applied dynamically would be fatal to the tower? Your last paragraph is a little confusing; your third sentence counters the first two. Would your first sentence be more precisely phrased as "I don't think the lower story is going to handle or arrest the upper mass from the collapse initiation if we ignore the fact that equal and opposite deterioration must occur in both blocks"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from earlier Q, concerning how if 6 stories were added at once the collapse would commence, but I think it ties in. Part of that section in the FAQ (Question 12 concerning gravitational energy) states, "neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated.". Do you outright disagree with that if equal and opposite damage must occur? Or is this 'equal and opposite' discussion relevant only to specific aspects of the actual collapse? If I'm at all right about your impalement theory, it seems that should occur pretty much whatever the possible collapse scenario, there'd be damage to the upper block. If the 6 stories were applied dynamically as per that section of the FAQ and the tower began collapsing as you agree, would you disagree that it would be total? If it's not total, under your theory, how many stories being applied dynamically would be fatal to the tower? Your last paragraph is a little confusing; your third sentence counters the first two. Would your first sentence be more precisely phrased as "I don't think the lower story is going to handle or arrest the upper mass from the collapse initiation if we ignore the fact that equal and opposite deterioration must occur in both blocks"?

When talking about the collapse, all anyone is trying to prove or disprove is if it's possible for the top 15% of a building can demolish the lower 85% with little to no resistance.

Of course this is a simplified explenation, but it is what it all boils down to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put W Tell. It does seem absurd to suggest that the small part could utterly crush the larger part after the latter has been literally supporting the former for 40 years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you can reach this conclusion if you use Gage's incorrect initial size of the upper block as a guide, but not if you use the actual upper block as a guide. This, of course, is my entire point regarding Gage's deceptive and incorrect description of the upper block. Take a look at CBS-Net NIST Dub #7 to test the actual upper block. (Collapse at about 1:24)

ActualUpperBlockComparedToGage.jpg

Notice that Gage's proposed lower edge of the upper block is about where I've placed the red line, the actual lower edge of the upper block is about where I've placed the blue line, the corners of the building encircled in green do not move downward, though a section of the facade which I've encircled with orange does move down.

If the orange area moves down with the collapse initiation then the lowest edge of the upper block is obviously below your blue line. As I said, the lowest point of the upper block must be within the impact and worst fire zone according to the official theory, i.e. closer to the red line than the blue line.

The red line in the footage Gage commentates on represents the upper block and initial debris which are supposed to crush the lower block, but what we actually see is the upper block and initial debris being crushed themselves.

You are attempting to redefine the upper block to be smaller only because the observation suits my argument and opposes your own.

I didn't say that the columns were butter, I said they were damaged and then weakened by fires and in such a state the upper block would cut through them like a knife through butter. Honestly, your inability to understand this is what is actually worrying.

As for the one core column that hadn't exceeded 250oC, yes I was aware, but that is still only 1 out of 47 columns. Besides, as cited by Bazant:

The tests by NIST (2005), (part
, p. 135, Fig. 6-6) showed that, at temperatures of 150, 250, and 350
o
C, the yield strength of the steel used in the fire stories decreased by 12, 19, and 25%, respectively. (
)

So butter is 81% the strength of stainless steel?

Oh please stop with your misleading analogy, booNy, I can’t take your opinion seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep bringing up several words with no modifiers or adjectives, such as 'freefall'. What if the middle layer moves at only 90% of freefall, what difference does it make?

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

You don't see an increased force because you don't seem to be accounting for gravity and it's effect on the compressed middle layer. We're in the middle of the collapse and we now have 7 stories worth of mass in the compressed layer. This mass is moving downward being driven by the upper block and gravity. Now, completely vaporize the upper block. That force of the compressed middle layer which is still in motion, re:Newton, is an increased force over and above the loads which always existed for that same amount of mass, correct?

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 do I. What does 'immediately' have to do with it? What if it's one tenth of a second after the mass of the broken columns contacts the lower structure that the upper block exerts its momentum? Keep moving at a slow pace through time, the upper block exerts its pressure on the lower block, the mass of the broken columns/story is between them. The next story in the lower block breaks and the mass of the upper block and previously compressed story continue their motion downward. At this point, why do you think that the mass of the previously compressed story is still just as much a part of the lower block as the upper block, if I'm understanding what you are saying?

I was using “immediately” to refer to proximity of the middle mass and lower block in that instance, not a measure of time. 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.

I thought perhaps mistakenly that we are discussing multiple contentions. Is impalement necessary to your assertion that the upper block and lower block experience equal damage throughout the collapse, or just the existence of a core?

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.

Ha, thanks for the diagram and choice of characters, should hopefully keep this discussion light. This diagram suffers from the same problem as your Bugatti car example, that I pointed out but you didn't really elaborate on at the time which is fine. Superman is not gravity in your picture. Here's Superman as gravity (if this works):

superlemmhomer.jpg

There are multiple Supermen flying and pushing on each shield that is welded to all of our Lemming buddies (assume there is no gap, it's just all continuous Lemmings). The Lemmings are stout enough to be able to withstand it, but the force that the Supermen are exerting is still strong in comparison to the the Lemmings. How strong? So strong that if you were to set another Lemming to the right and another Superman came up, grabbed it's shield and very gradually applied it's force to the left until it reached the equal strength of the others, the Lemmings would just barely be able to withstand it; if you added two more shields with their accompanying Supermen with that extra Lemming, the force would be too much and the Supermen would crush all the Lemmings to the left. If a skinny Lemming of 3/5 the mass of a regular Lemming (i.e, 6 stories per NIST, thanks for putting exactly 11 Lemmings in your diagram), with Superman pushing him, was placed to the right with a gap of just a shield or two separating it from the rest of them, when Superman shoved it to the left and it contacts the continuous Lemming structure, the whole thing is crushed also. If you just yank out two joined shields to the left of the right-most Lemming, the Supermen crush the whole thing again. Do you disagree that that model is more realistic? Do you think, reintroducing the gap in the structure between your Lemming and mine, that in this scenario that my Lemming experiences the same force as yours?

I think I’m regretting going with the Lemmings :lol:

Ok I’ve read the above a dozen times...

Your adaption of the scenario has raised something that I should perhaps have addressed before now. There is no case where “the Lemmings” on the left can all at once be brought to their maximum capacity. The further left we go, the stronger the Lemmings get. In the towers the safety factor of the core columns at any given storey was a little over 2:1 on average. This means that the Lemming third from the ‘top’ would be able to resist only an additional two Lemmings, whilst the Lemming ninth from the ‘top’ would be able to resist an additional eight Lemmings. 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.

In all seriousness, there is a key word that rarely gets brought up in your explanations, and that is 'gravity'. I know you've said that the upper block is initially accelerating the compressed mass faster than gravity can, agreed, but gravity doesn't shut off after that happens. But in fairness we do agree on it's importance and it's effect in our floors only structure, I just don't know why you think something fundamentally changes when we move more towards the actual tower construction. I'm going to try and post another message after this one to attempt to outline in my own simplistic way what my understanding of your theory is to see if that helps anything.

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

I didn't imply that you alone 'stood accused', I said "And ha, accused by whom, you? The 1700+ paranoid, self-aggrandizing, and attention-mongering architects and engineers who, in full congruence with the foundational tenet of science that it's conclusions are always tentative (/sarcasm), modestly proclaim they know 'the Truth'. " Technically there should have been a question mark there but I thought it was clear. What are the criminal charges you believe should be levied against Bazant by the way?

I didn’t say you implied that I alone ‘stood accused’. I said you implied that Bazant ‘stood accused’ only by myself. 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. Have you reviewed the complaints that James Gourley raised?

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.

I am not 'avoiding' anything, I'm postponing it, as I explained, because I thought it pointless to talk about at the time considering the number of simultaneous models being discussed that I'm only so-so familiar with.

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?

There's another unmodified word, 'rigid'; isn't the question really how rigid, how intact, how much damage, where and how have you determined the threshold? The upper block can absorb some unknown amount of damage and still plow right through the lower structure; one crack or dislodged steel beam isn't significant. If it remains rigid enough, then yes Bazant's theory may still apply, Newton's theories didn't all of a sudden stop applying entirely when Einstein superceded them. But your statements betray no gray area, they all seem pretty binary; there's deterioration or there is not.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put W Tell. It does seem absurd to suggest that the small part could utterly crush the larger part after the latter has been literally supporting the former for 40 years.

Wrong again!! :yes: Figure out what is happening here.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=174779

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q, here's what I think your collapse theory entails at a high level, it's not intended to be a strawman or putting words in your mouth, a lot of it is my assumption:

Well, this is how I deem a natural collapse would progress.

1. The collapse begins. (I don't think we've talked about whether you do not think it possible that this happened as a result of damage and fire, or don't remember, so let's leave it just at this simple statement)

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. I'll admit I'm a little worried that you don't remember this - 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.

I digress... the collapse begins, through whatever method...

2. Generally, the upper block is accelerated downward through the partially damaged stories, which don't offer as much resistance, and comes into contact with the still intact structure of the lower block.

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). So right from the offset I believe a degree of two-way damage is occurring (sometimes more severe to the lower, sometimes more severe to the upper – it depends where the columns break) and structure of the blocks is penetrating/becoming enmeshed with one another.

3. At this point, intuitive to everyone, the topmost story/mass of the lower block tries and fails to absorb the force of the upper block impacting it (I'm just ignoring those initially compressed damaged stories for ease of conversation) and it fails. The lowest story of the upper block also fails and experiences the same 'damage' which is essentially compression. During this compression, some(/most?) of the mass of the story is shoved downward, however, the core structure is stronger and instead of outright failing, begins to 'impale' itself into the mass of the upper block, and the upper block core does likewise to some extent.

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.

4. The collapse continues. The same thing essentially happens as in 3, but there has been more impalement and this is causing the upper block to become damaged and to become less rigid. The lower core is slightly stronger than the core it is in contact with so the net effect is gradual impalement of the upper block. This begins to introduce momentum loss to the upper block, because the loss of structural integrity results in mass being shed to the sides and the increased deflection of the chunks of mass laterally as a response to the force of the resistance of the lower block and this impalement.

Yes, as the collapse continues downward both blocks suffer damage as the previous bullet point. I’ve been thinking... a ‘collapse’ isn’t the right word to describe the official theory at all... the upper block collapsed, though the lower block did not, the lower block could only be described as ‘crushed’. So yes, the crush continued with each block, in places now greatly overlapping, suffering approximately equal and opposite damage.

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.

5. This impalement occurs to such an extent that the upper block is eventually essentially pulverized, it still has some mass that hasn't been shed to the sides but this mass is more fluid reducing the 'impact' forces that the lower block is experiencing.

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.

This level of deterioration discussed comes about right after the upper block has fallen through its own height, i.e. suffering approximately equal damage to the height of the lower block that it has crushed through. This is the second 0:22 I have been referring to in the WTC1 Hoboken video where the collapse appears to momentarily slow and greater debris ejections are seen, and also coincides with the reduced seismic activity reading I mentioned. Such evidence certainly indicates the process described.

6. Given this, the collapse should not have been total and/or as rapid, ergo, demolitions.

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.

n1vzv.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from earlier Q, concerning how if 6 stories were added at once the collapse would commence, but I think it ties in. Part of that section in the FAQ (Question 12 concerning gravitational energy) states, "neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated.". Do you outright disagree with that if equal and opposite damage must occur? Or is this 'equal and opposite' discussion relevant only to specific aspects of the actual collapse? If I'm at all right about your impalement theory, it seems that should occur pretty much whatever the possible collapse scenario, there'd be damage to the upper block. If the 6 stories were applied dynamically as per that section of the FAQ and the tower began collapsing as you agree, would you disagree that it would be total?

Yes, I disagree on both counts. NIST are basing the statement on Bazant’s theory and inherent rigid/intact upper block.

If it's not total, under your theory, how many stories being applied dynamically would be fatal to the tower?

Approximately half – equal and opposite.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w8RCJs_nA4[/media]

Would your first sentence be more precisely phrased as "I don't think the lower story is going to handle or arrest the upper mass from the collapse initiation if we ignore the fact that equal and opposite deterioration must occur in both blocks"?

Yes, that would have been better, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

n1vzv.jpg

You will also notice in your photo that debris is preceding and falling at a faster rate than the collapse of the building itself, which does not translate into a collapse at "free fall' speed by any means.

The squibs are not the result of explosions. You will notice that as the upper level collapses air is being forced out the sides and you will notice that example in the following images, which depict the Verinage demolition process which doesn't require the use of explosives.

verinage2.jpg?t=1263186279

verinage3.jpg?t=1263186335

verinage4.jpg?t=1263186376

http://www.conspirac...t-and-be-amazed

Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

What is the upper level section of that building doing to the lower level? Remember, no explosive was used in the collapse of that building, but what do you see in the images?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the orange area moves down with the collapse initiation then the lowest edge of the upper block is obviously below your blue line. As I said, the lowest point of the upper block must be within the impact and worst fire zone according to the official theory, i.e. closer to the red line than the blue line.

You come to this conclusion because one small portion of the facade is moving downard? Interesting choice of interpretations I suppose, but I don't agree.

The red line in the footage Gage commentates on represents the upper block and initial debris which are supposed to crush the lower block, but what we actually see is the upper block and initial debris being crushed themselves.

No, what we see is the actual initial upper block, comprised of the top 12 stories, crush the damaged section below it before reaching the undamaged portion below that. As it is crushing, the mass of those damaged floors is compressing into a layer between the initial upper block and the undamaged portion. The upper block is, in essense, growing in size and mass as this is happening because it is all moving downward as each floor (or sections of floors) are compromised and crushed.

You are attempting to redefine the upper block to be smaller only because the observation suits my argument and opposes your own.

Ridiculous. I'm not redefining anything. The original portion in motion at collapse initiation is the initial upper block. From an external point of view (which is all we have), this consists of the top 12 stories and a small portion of the north face facade.

So butter is 81% the strength of stainless steel?

Oh please stop with your misleading analogy, booNy, I can’t take your opinion seriously.

It's an idiom. Do you know what an idiom is? Cut like butter.

Ignore the actual idiom if you want to, I don't really care. It's the point of the idiom that matters. Would you care to offer an opinion about the point which I'll describe below?

It is intended to convey that crushing the section which was damaged from the plane impact and weakened by the ensuing fires would be easier because of these facts than it would be if the region were not damaged.

Do you disagree with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will also notice in your photo that debris is preceding and falling at a faster rate than the collapse of the building itself, which does not translate into a collapse at "free fall' speed by any means.

The squibs are not the result of explosions. You will notice that as the upper level collapses air is being forced out the sides and you will notice that example in the following images, which depict the Verinage demolition process which doesn't require the use of explosives.

verinage2.jpg?t=1263186279

verinage3.jpg?t=1263186335

verinage4.jpg?t=1263186376

http://www.conspirac...t-and-be-amazed

Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

What is the upper level section of that building doing to the lower level? Remember, no explosive was used in the collapse of that building, but what do you see in the images?

What do I see? The top 50% of the building being used to crush the bottom 50%. Now, how much do you want to bet that that building was modified to take out as much resistance as possible so they could achieve that effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.