The Line

[Q24]

*shakes head in bewilderment and goes to bed*

Oh... killer response there... damn.

Perhaps you will come up with something better thought-out when you wake up (ha, there's a pun there).

Here is where things get a little tricky. We have figured out how much mass and velocity we have for each of our collisions, and now need to combine them together again to form that crazy, mixed-up, jumbly mass of positive, negative, elastic, inelastic, avalanche of forces that is our final mass. The thing about it is that, in the above, we can get p easily enough, however, we cannot determine what our v₂' will be without a v₁' to calculate it with (or vice-versa, I suppose, but I was always taught with that format). Fortunately, we do have a hint on our side: Being that we are calculating for an avalanche (or a combination of equal mass elastic and inelastic collisions, if one prefers), we know that since our remaining masses are to be combined, the velocity for both v1' and v2', will have to be equal or close to it. In other words, the individual components of the avalanche are moving faster or slower, but the mass as a whole will have an average velocity.

Fantastic, now he’s combining the broken structure back into a single combined mass, which I’m sure in his example will all come down uniformly and instantaneously, effectively as a rigid block, onto the next floor. Hint: this does not occur anymore than a falling mass of sand will impart all energy uniformly and instantaneously onto an irregular structure below. To theorise that we should reconstruct a combined rigid block at each level vastly favours collapse continuation and is a violation of observable reality in video footage. Waste of time. Anyone who wants to follow such fantasy is welcome, but then I'm afraid that is not living in the real world. I’m out of here for now. I’ll just re-endorse LF’s sentiments: -

http://www.unexplain...05#entry4797211

[+Liquid Gardens]

There are so many (too many) reality defying problems to list with the whole setup aquatus has created

aquatus's pre-rebuttal from this morning:

This is not an engineering diagram. This is not even implied to be the only way in which collapses occur. This does not reflect the real world in any way other than as an abstract representation of numbers derived in a manner that cannot exist in the real world. This is nothing more than a mathematical construct reflecting a real world phenomena, but not defining it.

The sole purpose of this example is to give people an idea of the massively unbalanced net forces that are generated in a progressive, linear, collision under the influence of gravity. Nothing more, nothing less.

Keep up the good work aquatus, interesting analysis.

[Q24]

aquatus's pre-rebuttal from this morning:

Keep up the good work aquatus, interesting analysis.

Fantastic. Thank you.

This “pre-rebuttal” is gibberish, contradicting itself from one sentence to the next. It’s difficult to believe that any rational person would think it worth repeating.

Third sentence: “does not reflect the real world in any way”

Fourth sentence: “reflecting a real world phenomena”

Which is it?

Never mind, the first statement is true, at which realisation please refer back to my previous post. The second statement is classic ‘doublethink’ designed to temporarily suspend the first statement in the contemplator's mind and maintain a fantasy worldview: -

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Doublethink

Yes, aquatus really does hold and accept the above mutually exclusive beliefs - he knows his example is not a reflection of reality, and that is undeniable, but he also knows he wants it to be a reflection of reality.

Most interesting indeed.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Q24

[+Liquid Gardens]

Third sentence: “does not reflect the real world in any way”

Fourth sentence: “reflecting a real world phenomena”

If I set up an example where a Klingon battlecruiser with a certain mass collides with a Romulan Bird of Prey with a certain mass as my model, then even though the use of these alien spaceships "does not reflect the real world in any way" since they do not exist except in Star Trek, the analysis of the way the collision plays out 'reflects a real world phenomenon'; that was easy, and should have been for you also. Try reading for comprehension instead of narrow literalness and stop being so defensive, he hasn't even fully laid out his model and you're whipping out the insults and demanding he show how your linked 'simulations', et al, are inapplicable already. He might even respond to your points and objections if you would just relax, I would actually be interested in seeing his responses to those too, but you aren't exactly encouraging him to give you the time of day with your ignorant psychological analysis of what he 'knows' and your idiotic diagnosis of doublethink.

aquatus, buried in Q's rhetoric is a question I had also: why in the model you laid out does Floor 2 have m=51,200 when the floors are 200 each?

[Little Fish]

If I set up an example where a Klingon battlecruiser with a certain mass collides with a Romulan Bird of Prey with a certain mass as my model,

that's easy, there will not be a collision - the romulan ship will fly right through the klingon ship and come out the other side, and both ships will sail away without a scratch, because aquatus will set the mass of the klingon ship to zero in his model.

"aquatus, buried in Q's rhetoric is a question I had also: why..."

while you're at it, ask him about the mass-less support columns while you wait for the nurse.

any assumptions in a model need to disfavour any conclusion you draw from it, or at the least be negligible, which is not true in aquatus' model. having zero mass support columns makes all the difference. any model with zero mass support columns is modelling a controlled demolition.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Little Fish

[Yamato]

The 9/11 collapses are already analyzed in the NIST report with independent collaboration and consultation. Please study those instead of barely-relevant error-riddled hobbyist analyses or politically-charged backyard experiments with a political agenda.

[Little Fish]

The 9/11 collapses are already analyzed in the NIST report

not true.

"The agency in prime position to most accurately simulate the WTC collapse events were NIST, indeed who had the expertise and manpower to do so and were provided with some $20 million of taxpayers money to answer the question of, “why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed”. Though NIST declined to do so; their own computer simulations only progressing to the point of “collapse initiation” and no further to explain the complete collapses."

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=248571&st=120#entry4799654

Edited June 4, 2013 by Little Fish

[Yamato]

not true.

"The agency in prime position to most accurately simulate the WTC collapse events were NIST, indeed who had the expertise and manpower to do so and were provided with some $20 million of taxpayers money to answer the question of, “why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed”. Though NIST declined to do so; their own computer simulations only progressing to the point of “collapse initiation” and no further to explain the complete collapses."

http://www.unexplain...20#entry4799654

Don't tell me it's not true. The NIST study included in-house technical expertise from the agency, the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

[W Tell]

The example isn't about any towers holding anything. The example uses single-point masses. The purpose is to demonstrate how rapidly the forces multiply together.

Consider me thick on this topic. The math is beyond me and I should probably shut up...... but are the core columns considered in the single-point mass argument?

[aquatus1]

The 9/11 collapses are already analyzed in the NIST report with independent collaboration and consultation. Please study those instead of barely-relevant error-riddled hobbyist analyses or politically-charged backyard experiments with a political agenda.

not true.

"The agency in prime position to most accurately simulate the WTC collapse events were NIST, indeed who had the expertise and manpower to do so and were provided with some $20 million of taxpayers money to answer the question of, “why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed”. Though NIST declined to do so; their own computer simulations only progressing to the point of “collapse initiation” and no further to explain the complete collapses."

http://www.unexplain...20#entry4799654

Don't tell me it's not true. The NIST study included in-house technical expertise from the agency, the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

Guys, c'mon, back on topic. This isn't a thread about who is in the pocket of whomever the current nebulous meanie controlling the world is. If you can't pin down the science to be discussed, then you aren't discussing a science.

[Yamato]

Guys, c'mon, back on topic. This isn't a thread about who is in the pocket of whomever the current nebulous meanie controlling the world is. If you can't pin down the science to be discussed, then you aren't discussing a science.

That is the most relevant science to this topic there is. Not picking barely-relevant physics problems out of a textbook about avalanches trying to impress people or posting Youtubes of nameless laymen conducting experiments in their backyard.

"Attempts to address things such as actual physics, chemistry, biology, or various other objective forces tend to be either ignored, dismissed, or most often, shouted down, rather than addressed."

Which is exactly what you just did.

[aquatus1]

aquatus, buried in Q's rhetoric is a question I had also: why in the model you laid out does Floor 2 have m=51,200 when the floors are 200 each?

Ah, excellent, thank you for asking; I see that I should have been much clearer about this.

In the first example that I posted on the first page, the sole purpose was to explain the "Kinetic Energy!" rebuttal that is often used to counter the progressive collapse argument. Because all I was doing was showing the exponential increase in KE, it didn't really matter what the actual mass of the object was, as long as it was consistently applied. Hence I picked something easy to calculate, 200 kg, and applied it to all the slabs.

In this example, however, we are taking a step up in complexity. In this example, we aren't going to focus on the KE (we will calculate it as part of our equations, of course, but it is simply a part of the process, rather than the end result we are looking for). Instead, we are going to look at how the energy in the collapse changes behaviour depending on the the type and level of impact.

Because of this, one of the assumptions we will make is that: "each floor will be assigned an amount of force equal to the force pushing down on it, with the corresponding increase in mass." In other words, floor 11 is 200 kg, and is therefore pushing downwards with a force of 1960 N. In order to be at equilibrium, in order to "remain at rest", floor 10 must push up with the exact same amount of force, as per Newtons 1st law. Floor 10, therefore, is also pushing upwards with a force of 1960 N.

So, floors 11/10 are in equilibrium, but what about floor 9? Floor 9 has a combine weight of floor 11's 1960 N and floor 10's 1960 N pushing down on it. Floor 9 must therefore push back up with 3920 N, which corresponds to 400 kg of mass, in order to remain motionless, to remain "at rest".

This follows through down each floor. Mathematically, doubling the mass of each floor allows it to push upwards against the force created by all the levels above it.

Now, of course, as I've stated on five seperate occasions, two of which were directly prior to beginning this example (and which resulted in yet another case of predicting behaviour, actively making a pre-emptive attempt to address, it, and yet again having someone carry out that specific behaviour anyways), this is not a real-life situation. For those who are willing to read an entire sentence (as opposed to cutting it in half and pretending the sentence still carries the same meaning):

This does not reflect the real world in any way other than as an abstract representation of numbers derived in a manner that cannot exist in the real world.

Some would call the above tactic intellectually dishonest. I am one of those people.

[aquatus1]

Consider me thick on this topic. The math is beyond me and I should probably shut up...... but are the core columns considered in the single-point mass argument?

Dude, no, you are not being thick at all. It isn't that these subjects are intellectually difficult; it's that they are conceptually difficult because we are so accustomed to thinking that Newton's Laws are directly applicable to the real world.

You have proven that you are not thick by employing the technique of the intelligent: You asked a sincere question. An intelligent person, on encountering something they don't agree with or they don't understand, will sincerely try to get more information about. Other people, well...if they see something they don't agree with, they decide that it is wrong, and the only type of question they are familiar with are rhetorical ones. Actually attempting to learn something new doesn't even enter into their minds.

So, with that skillfully hidden innuendo out of the way, let's address the actual question: What the heck is a single-point mass?

Earlier, I posted a little thing explaining that Newton's laws don't actually apply to "real" things, like ducks, donkeys, and carts (the derivatives of Newton's laws do, the ones created by all the mathematicians who used Newton's discovery to base their calculations on, but not Newton's Laws themselves). Rather, Newton's laws apply only to single-point masses, meaning that they only apply to masses existing in the 1st dimension. In other words, they are not 3D, 3 dimensional, 3rd dimensions objects, like we are. The aren't 2-dimensional objects, like a movie projection, or a shadow. They are 1st dimension, single points in existence, no up, no down, no side-to-side, no back and forth.

The duck isn't actually a duck. It's just a mental picture we are using to represent a given amount of mass in a given direction. Same for the donkey and the cart; they simply represent individual masses either at rest or acting and reacting. Our concrete slab, therefore, isn't an actual slab. It is simply an avatar, a mental representation identifying the object, much like the picture next to your user name on a discussion board.

Because of this, Newton's Laws make absolutely no provision for the shape or consistency of an object. All they care about is how much mass it represents and how that mass is behaving. If you want it to be a slab floating in the air with 200 kg of mass, no problem. If you want it to be a slab with 180 kg of mass, and two columns projecting underneath it with 10 kg of mass each, no problem. If you want it to be a duck holding up a donkey cart + donkey, and all three combined are a mass of 200 kg, no problem. All Newton's laws care about is the mass and its behaviour.

The difficulty many encounter is that because they see a duck in the example, they assume the duck represents a duck, and not an abstract quantity of energy producing a force of a given magnitude in a given direction. This leads people to intuitively apply behaviours, not of force, but rather of...ducks.

Or in the case of your question, of floors. We intuitively know that floors don't just magically float above each other without some sort of connection, and so assume that there has to be something between the two keeping them apart. In the real world, this is true. When calculating forces, however, we don't need columns. The two forces keep themselves apart by pushing against each other with equal and opposite magnitude.

It is a bit difficult to wrap one's mind around, so as one last explanation, think about the one world where Newton's laws do directly apply: The one-dimensional world known as the Quantum world.

Atoms interact with each other, but they do not actually "touch", in the way we macro worlders use the word. Indeed, atoms are not even "things" as we are used to the terms; while many of us think of them as tiny little balls orbiting around each other, the fact of the matter is that they are actually more like states of probability, forces pushing and pulling on each other in ways both random and predictable at the same time. We are, after all, dealing with a world so different from our own as to be an entirely different reality. That is the nature of "forces".

So, despite the picture some people are trying to paint in your head, our "avalanche" isn't either a solid block, nor a rigid pile, nor a bag of sand. Our avalanche is an abstract representation of an amount of force heading in a specific direction, with a given momentum. Some of that energy in that mass is moving upwards, some is moving downwards, some has merged and combined, and some has been lost; Sort of, but not actually like, an avalanche in real life.

[aquatus1]

That is the most relevant science to this topic there is. Not picking barely-relevant physics problems out of a textbook about avalanches trying to impress people or posting Youtubes of nameless laymen conducting experiments in their backyard.

"Attempts to address things such as actual physics, chemistry, biology, or various other objective forces tend to be either ignored, dismissed, or most often, shouted down, rather than addressed."

Which is exactly what you just did.

No, Yamato, you aren't talking about science. You are talking about which agency or report has the most credibility. That is not the purpose of this thread.

[Yamato]

No, Yamato, you aren't talking about science. You are talking about which agency or report has the most credibility. That is not the purpose of this thread.

I'm talking about the preeminent scientific analysis of the 9/11 collapses. That qualifies as science, excuse me. No, I'm not comparing agencies. They all have credibility and they all contributed to the same report, therefore by extension, the report has credibility. I'm not comparing reports either. Tell me, what is the purpose of this thread?

[aquatus1]

Now, when we last left our hero, it had just finished colliding with Floor 9. Let's continue the story:

Floors 10 and 9 are now a combined mass of 560 kg, having lost some mass in the collapse, and are moving downwards with a velocity of 3.14 m/s. They fall 3 m and impact on floor 8, which has a mass of 800 kg (enough to push upwards equally but opposite to the combined weight f₁₁(200 kg), f₁₀(200), and f₉ (400 kg) above it).

• Solving for velocity(v):
  
• v₁ = 3.14 m/s, d = 3 m, a = 9.82 m/s²
  

Unlike floor 10, f

_10/9

do not begin to fall from an "at rest" position. They have an initial velocity(v

₁

) of 3.14 m/s. This means we have to use the

equations of motions

, three equations which show us the relationships between distance, initial velocity, final velocity, average velocity, acceleration(a), and time. I am feeling too lazy to transcribe them, and calculating them is kind of laborious too, so here is a link to a really good

motion calculator

that also has the equations themselves for you to look at. Plug in the data we have and we get:

• v' = 8.3 m/s, t = .52 s
  

• Solving for Impact Force(F_avg): distance(d) = 1/2mv²; F_avg = 77,156 N vs f₈ = 7840 N
  

• Solving for Elastic: final velocity(v'₁) = (^{(m₁ - m₂)}/_{(m1 + m2)})v₁; v'₂ = (^2m₁/_{(m1 + m2)})v₁
  
• m₁ = 280 kg, v₁ = 8.3 m/s
  
• m₂ = 400 kg, v₂ = 0 m/s
  
• v₁' = -1.46 m/s, v₂' = 6.83 m/s
  

As before, we simulate the ricocheting debris by calculating half the mass with the elastic collision formula.

• Calculating loss of mass: 2 blocks(b') = 20% of original mass of slab = per impact
  
• loss = 2 b₁₀ + 2 b₉; 2(20 kg) + 2(40 kg) = 120 kg
  
• m' = m₁ + m₂ - loss
  
• m' = 560 kg, v₂' = 6.83 m/s
  

As before, we simulate the debris being lost out the side of the building by assuming that the upwards force (the negative force of v

₁

) jettisons two blocks from each slab out the side. Earlier I said that this would be 20% of the mass, but in actuality, as each block is 1/10th of the

original

sla

b, the percentage being ejected from each slab is going to

increase

dramatically,

despite

the upwards force (v

₁

)

decreasing

over time of the collapse. In other words, more and more mass is going to be ejected away by less and less force, which is the polar opposite of how it works in the real world.

We will do it like this anyways, for two reasons: 1.) The energy increase in a linear collapse under acceleration is so dramatic it won't matter anyway, and 2.) This skews these equations so far

against

the expected conclusion, there can be no accusation of biasing the calculation.

• Solving for Inelastic: v' = (^m₁/_{(m1 + m2)})v₁
  
• m₁ = 280kg, v₁ = 8.3 m/s
  
• m₂ = 400 kg
  
• m'= 680 kg, v' = 3.41 m/s
  

As before, we simulate the debris def

orming, crunching, breaking, or loosing energy in any other way, by using our inelastic collision equation.

• Conservation of Momentum:
  
• initial momentum(p): m₁v₁ + m₂v₂ = (m₁ + m₂)v'; final momentum(p') = m₁v₁' + m₂v₂'
  
• m₁ = 560 kg, v₁ = 6.83 m/s
  
• m₂ = 680 kg, v₂ = 3.41 m/s
  
• p = 6144 kg m/s
  
• v₁' = ? m/s, v₂' = ? m/s
  

As before, we take our abstract mass of elastic collisions and combine it with our abstract mass of inelastic collisions, and determine the final velocity of our avalanche as a whole. Remember, the

individual

components of the avalanche are moving faster or slower than each other, but the

mass as a whole

will have an average velocity. Using our

conservation calculator

:

• v₁' = 5.14 m/s, v₂' = 5.14 m/s
  
• m'= 1240 kg, v' = 5.14 m/s
  

Allrighty then, another floor down (literally)!

What's our take-away?

• Floors 10, 9, and 8, now have a combined mass of 1240 kg,
  
• Floors 10/9/8 a downward velocity of 5.14 m/s,
  
• Current time elapsed: 1.30 seconds,
  
• Floors 10/9/8 lost a total of 120 kg of mass,
  
• At rest, Floor 8 had 7840 N of force pushing upwards to match the combined 800 kg of Floors 11/10/9, at rest, pushing downwards. Post-impact, the 800 kg mass of Floors 10/9 exerted a force of 77,156 N on Floor 9. In other words, a floor that only had the force to hold up 3 floors, now has to hold up a force equivalent to 9 sets of the original 3 floors (77,156 N = 7873 kg).
  

As we can see by comparing this example to the first example, even when we are not calculating solely for Kinetic Energy and simulating real life counter-forces greater than would be expected in real-world scenarios, we are still seeing a fairly dramatic gap forming between the energy at rest and the energy of the collapsing mass.

Hey, what happened to floor 11?

Edited June 5, 2013 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

I'm talking about the preeminent scientific analysis of the 9/11 collapses. That qualifies as science, excuse me. No, I'm not comparing agencies. They all have credibility and they all contributed to the same report, therefore by extension, the report has credibility. I'm not comparing reports either. Tell me, what is the purpose of this thread?

To discuss and clarify the actual science presented in those analysis in simpler, more common language, for people who wish to understand how these numbers came about and what they signify. If you want to pick out one of the specific problems within one of the reports and show how the calculations were arrived at and what they mean, then you will be discussing science. If you haven't mentioned a single number or phenomena, but have talked about who wrote what and who is more credible than whom, you are not discussing science, you are arguing over who to believe.

This thread is about the explanations, not about the politics or preferences surrounding them.

[Yamato]

To discuss and clarify the actual science presented in those analysis in simpler, more common language, for people who wish to understand how these numbers came about and what they signify. If you want to pick out one of the specific problems within one of the reports and show how the calculations were arrived at and what they mean, then you will be discussing science. If you haven't mentioned a single number or phenomena, but have talked about who wrote what and who is more credible than whom, you are not discussing science, you are arguing over who to believe.

This thread is about the explanations, not about the politics or preferences surrounding them.

If that's what your thread is about, then please discuss and clarify the actual science presented in those analyses. You haven't even begun to do that yet. You haven't cited or listed the slightest piece of "science" from the report yet. If that's what you're claiming you're trying to do then the onus is on you to show us what parts of those analyses you're talking about by citing those parts in the report, and only then present your simplified analysis to show that there's an actual relationship between what you're posting here to what's in the report. Good luck.

[aquatus1]

If that's what your thread is about, then please discuss and clarify the actual science presented in those analyses. You haven't even begun to do that yet.

I'm sorry, perhaps you missed it--I'm kind of in the middle of my own discussion right now.

Feel free to discuss the science behind the analysis yourself; that is precisely the purpose of this thread. I sincerely believe there are many people interested in learning how these simulations came about and what they actually represent.

You haven't cited or listed the slightest piece of "science" from the report yet. If that's what you're claiming you're trying to do then the onus is on you to show us what parts of those analyses you're talking about by citing those parts in the report, and only then present your simplified analysis to show that there's an actual relationship between what you're posting here to what's in the report. Good luck.

I haven't claimed anything about the report.

Edited June 5, 2013 by aquatus1

[Yamato]

I'm sorry, perhaps you missed it--I'm kind of in the middle of my own discussion right now.

Feel free to discuss the science behind the analysis yourself; that is precisely the purpose of this thread. I sincerely believe there are many people interested in learning how these simulations came about and what they actually represent.

I haven't claimed anything about the report.

In order to have credibility on making the statement that you're simplifying the "science" in the report, you have to establish that by citing those pieces of the report. If you don't or can't do this, then your own purpose will not be met. Stop asking me to do your work for you. That's your purpose, and so it's your job. Yet I don't see anything relevant to the NIST report in this thread yet.

[aquatus1]

Yamato, that's enough.

You have been told of the purpose of this thread, you have had it defined to the point of specifically referencing your subject, and you have the choice to either discuss it or not. It is neither your job, nor mine; if you wish to discuss it, it will only be because you wish to discuss it. Similarly, I am in the middle of my own subject and I have no intention of dropping everything and catering to you.

If you wish to discuss the credibility of the videos, feel free to begin a thread and discuss to your hearts content, or post in any of the dozen threads already engaged in doing precisely that. If you wish to discuss the nuts and bolts of any particular study, you can either do it here or in your own thread, or anywhere else you wish. If you are a good enough teacher, you may even attract people to discuss the subject with you. Your choice.

Either way, this argument is over.

[Yamato]

Yamato, that's enough.

You have been told of the purpose of this thread, you have had it defined to the point of specifically referencing your subject, and you have the choice to either discuss it or not. It is neither your job, nor mine; if you wish to discuss it, it will only be because you wish to discuss it. Similarly, I am in the middle of my own subject and I have no intention of dropping everything and catering to you.

If you wish to discuss the credibility of the videos, feel free to begin a thread and discuss to your hearts content, or post in any of the dozen threads already engaged in doing precisely that. If you wish to discuss the nuts and bolts of any particular study, you can either do it here or in your own thread, or anywhere else you wish. If you are a good enough teacher, you may even attract people to discuss the subject with you. Your choice.

Either way, this argument is over.

I'm simply asking you to fulfill your own purpose. Scientists already fulfilled it but if you can re-fulfill it with simpler language, that's great. You said yourself "if you can't pin down the science to be discussed, then you're not discussing a science." The NIST pins down the science of the 9/11 collapses precisely. You also said your purpose is "to discuss and clarify the actual science presented in those analysis in simpler, more common language, for people who wish to understand how these numbers came about and what they signify." That sounds wonderful, but simpler than what? More common than what? I see a dog and pony show here riddled with errors and unnecessary complexity despite simplification (of what?) being the goal.

[Lilly]

Yamato, while the NIST report obviously is a scientifically supported report what aquatus is trying to do here is to focus on one aspect of the collapse and zero in on the scientific explanation therein. While I agree that the NIST report has bearing and value it's not really what aquatus is discussing here.

[Yamato]

Yamato, while the NIST report obviously is a scientifically supported report what aquatus is trying to do here is to focus on one aspect of the collapse and zero in on the scientific explanation therein. While I agree that the NIST report has bearing and value it's not really what aquatus is discussing here.

To figure out what he's really discussing I return again to the OP. He said in the OP: "I am proposing that, in this thread, we keep things to the pure science of a given situation."

The given situation is the 9/11 collapse, is it not? How is the NIST report not exactly that?

[Lilly]

The given situation is the 9/11 collapse, is it not? How is the NIST report not exactly that?

Because he (aquatus) is trying to focus in on specific physics involved the dynamics of collapse.

There's nothing wrong with discussing the science behind the NIST report, it's just a different angle of discussion. That's why aquatus suggested another thread for that discussion.