9/11 Collapse Theory Discussion III
Comments
The fireproofing being removed is something that NIST guessed at. The columns were designed to absorb 2000% of their live loads. NIST estimates a variance of between 20% and 35% of load bearing on the remaining columns, with some of the load lessening in some areas, some increasing. Pant's picture over-exaggerates in a gross fashion.
You should provide evidence for your claims. Here is mine:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact....
Please quote the relevant text.
I'm sorry, I must have missed your link to your evidence. Can you please post it again?
As for my evidence...
The discussion on damge from impact begins on page 15/34, with a nice summary on page 23.
The discussion on fire and stress begins on page 24.
Just to sum up this most recent flurry of posts. Pants has not provided an example of anything on the earth's surface that can crush through something the same as but larger than itself through gravity. He is now moving the goalposts, saying that Bazant "really doesn't mean" crushing, that that's just a convenient term he uses.
Yes. Everyone should ignore my claim that if you built a house of cards, but with ceramic tiles, you could easily collapse the larger porion with a smaller portion, and even get some crushing in the mix.
And jas, you would be gravely disappointed to actually read Maugham's "Of Human Bondage". You see a title is not always a perfect summary of the entire contents of the work.
Garcia uses delta-v in his equations.
I used the same instantaneous velocity Garcia used in his force balance equations. You're barking up the wrong tree, 'dog.
Garcia does not use an instantaneous velocity to calculate delta-t.
And do I? You are contradicting your own contradictory argument again. Your reasoning is circular and incoherent. Garcia does use instantaneous velocity in his equation for impulse momentum form of Newton's second law. You don't know what you're talking about.
You still haven't answered me as to what quantum physics has to do with Newton's third law and three WTC buildings collapsing. Zany.
Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist Kevin Ryan 2006
In his "Physics of 9/11", Garcia offered his new "twisted joints" theory, adding more conjecture to the miasma that NIST spent three years crafting. Garcia may have twisted a few joints himself before writing these articles, but it is clear that he did not put much time into reviewing NIST's WTC report before putting his reputation, and perhaps much more, on the line to defend it. NIST did not actually describe the all-important forces that supposedly pulled in the tower's external columns. In their computer model, these forces were phantom forces, applied to the external columns by sagging floors that had, paradoxically, been disconnected from those columns. Garcia's talk of twisting joints is, therefore, only imaginative conjecture at best.
Garcia seems to admit his own sloppy dishonesty by claiming that high temperatures in the impact zone were sufficient to soften the steel, and that floors in the impact zone sagged. One only has to read the summary of the NIST report to know that the impact zones were far from where NIST says the buildings failed. However, there could be another explanation for this "spooky action at a distance." Garcia may have stumbled upon a new demonstration of the principle of Physics known as non-locality, one in which steel heated in one place causes steel located in another, far away place to soften and fail. That would be amazing if true.
Bazant is not discussing actual crushing of the structure. Part of it is crushed, part of it is toppled, part of it is buckled, and a part of it is pulverised. The phrase "crush-up, crush-down" is simply a shorthand over-simplification.
1) Do you have a source that confirms your interpretation of Bazant?
2) Crushing and pulverizing, for our purposes, are the same thing. Pulverizing more accurately describes what was left at ground zero.
3) What toppled?
4) Where below the impact zone did the columns buckle?
And 5) whatever other forces were at play in the actual collapse (not the cause of) can be taken as a given by both sides of the argument. It doesn't matter. Bazant's theory both describes and uses the terms "crush down, crush up".
1) Yes, Bazant's work.
2) So, if a piece of concrete was crushed to the size of a watermelon, it would be accurately described as pulverised?
3) Exterior columns toppled.
4) I don't know if they did. They definitely did in the impact zone, though.
5) And you are incorrectly assuming that he means global pulverisation.
The stats I quote are from Kevin Ryan in his video presentation "A New Standard for Deception". Kevin Ryan was a manager and lab director for Underwriters Laboratories, who certified the WTC steel. You can find Jim Hoffman's summary of this presentation which has the figures I cite in text.
This thread is becoming impossible to open, so this is my last post.
Yesterday, I saw a real-time video of the lobby, with firefighters rushing in. I posted it in this thread. The videographer voice-over says something like, "Over to my right, there were two people on fire. I just ... didn't want to film that." While speaking, the viewer can hear blood-curdling screams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfce_C8GzdE
The jets came in, broke apart, slid through the building. The fuel, with forward momentum, also ran forward until it met the shafts, where gravity took over, and the liquid went down, perhaps while beginning to catch fire. Meantime, cables were sliced by the remnants of the plane still able to carry momentum. Elevators with cables remaining / and/or close to the ground could be caught by the fast-moving fuel.
And so the vivid scene, with firefighters rushing into the lobby and two people screaming, on fire.
Again, I'm no scientist. It just makes sense - as I'm sure other scenarios could.
Yes. Everyone should ignore my claim that if you built a house of cards, but with ceramic tiles, you could easily collapse the larger porion with a smaller portion, and even get some crushing in the mix.
Where would you get vertical crushing down through mass of equal density near the rate of free fall in this example? Your example provides a very unclear picture.
If you insist on using the house of cards analogy, you will have to tape the ceramic tiles together with duct tape, say, and then produce a vertical "crushing down" from upper floor failure, because this is what happened to both Twin Towers, so it's not a mere anomaly.
Watching the videos, I don't see all of the x# of floors above destrowing at the same instant exactly the same # of floors below. I see x# of floors above impact going through the collapsed space onto one floor, the next floor, the next floor, the next floor, each floor then adding to the mass coming down.
Really?? Writer sees things that others say, including Pants, are obscured by the dust clouds!
But maybe you should make sure. Does NIST confirm this somewhere else in their report?
More confirmation:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm
See page 21/40 of this pdf:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
And there is also this:
as each aircraft impacted the building, jet fuel on board ignited. Part of this fuel immediately burned off
in large fireballs that erupted at the impact floors. Remaining fuel flowed across the floors and down
elevator and utility shafts, igniting intense fires throughout upper portions of the buildings.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixn.pdf See page 5/42
Yesterday, I saw a real-time video of the lobby,
I'm sorry guys, but "fireballs" would not cause the marble to break and dislodge, or ceiling to come down. It wouldn't blow out the windows.
It's obvious that you read the testimony of building workers who saw, felt, and were thrown by explosions in the basements and you're trying to come up with some fake-ass explanations for this. NIST claims that the kerosene was consumed in the initial explosion in the impact zone.
Old info, pants. NIST has revised their report several times since then.
Perhaps writer could locate your missing-in-action piledrivers for you, Pants, since she seems to be able to see things that others don't.
jas, why do you keep claiming I say things I don't? It is so super annoying. And please stop with the mindreading and putdowns. Seriously. Gross.
Also how would these fireballs blow out the lobbies like a bomb while at the same time blowing out several sub-basement levels? I'm just humouring you now.
Show me where Garcia uses an instantaneous velocity to calculate the amount of time it takes for the velocity to change.
It doesn't have anything to do with quantum physics. I never said it did. I was discussing the difference between rigid and deforming bodies and why conservation of momentum equations made more sense to use than Newton's 3rd law.
In his "Physics of 9/11", Garcia offered his new "twisted joints" theory, adding more conjecture to the miasma that NIST spent three years crafting. Garcia may have twisted a few joints himself before writing these articles, but it is clear that he did not put much time into reviewing NIST's WTC report before putting his reputation, and perhaps much more, on the line to defend it. NIST did not actually describe the all-important forces that supposedly pulled in the tower's external columns. In their computer model, these forces were phantom forces, applied to the external columns by sagging floors that had, paradoxically, been disconnected from those columns. Garcia's talk of twisting joints is, therefore, only imaginative conjecture at best.
Garcia seems to admit his own sloppy dishonesty by claiming that high temperatures in the impact zone were sufficient to soften the steel, and that floors in the impact zone sagged. One only has to read the summary of the NIST report to know that the impact zones were far from where NIST says the buildings failed. However, there could be another explanation for this "spooky action at a distance." Garcia may have stumbled upon a new demonstration of the principle of Physics known as non-locality, one in which steel heated in one place causes steel located in another, far away place to soften and fail. That would be amazing if true.
What am I supposed to gather from that? That Kevin Ryan is adept at creating strawmen?
The stats I quote are from Kevin Ryan in his video presentation "A New Standard for Deception". Kevin Ryan was a manager and lab director for Underwriters Laboratories, who certified the WTC steel. You can find Jim Hoffman's summary of this presentation which has the figures I cite in text.
Please quote the relevant text.
I see x# of floors above impact going through the collapsed space onto one floor, the next floor, the next floor, the next floor, each floor then adding to the mass coming down.
People on both sides of the argument agree that not much can be seen of the intact buildings' collapse, as it is obscured by dust clouds. If you have a video that shows this crushing of floors by the upper block after it goes through the impact zone, please link to it. Thanks.
Where would you get vertical crushing down through mass of equal density near the rate of free fall in this example? Your example provides a very unclear picture.
If you insist on using the house of cards analogy, you will have to tape the ceramic tiles together with duct tape, say, and then produce a vertical "crushing down" from upper floor failure, because this is what happened to both Twin Towers, so it's not a mere anomaly.
I have no idea what you are asking in your first paragraph.
Duct tape would be the worst material to use because that would make the joints the strongest part of the structure. In steel hgh rises, the connections are often the weakest part of the structure. To be more representational of the WTC, you would need some sort of joint attachment that was made of the same material as the rest of the structure.
Old info, pants. NIST has revised their report several times since then.
Please provide the latest report then.
Please quote the relevant text.
Why should I? You didn't quote from your MIT pdf, which is probably something from Thomas Eagar anyway.
Also how would these fireballs blow out the lobbies like a bomb while at the same time blowing out several sub-basement levels? I'm just humouring you now.
The over-pressurisation of air that could be accomplished by a swiftly descending elevator (i.e. one which has had its cables cut by impact with a plane), as well as the introduction of a large superheated air mass into the elevator shaft (i.e. the fireball on impact).
Please provide the latest report then.
Burden of proof is on you, my friend. You're the one making the claim about great balls of fire.
Please quote the relevant text.
Why should I? You didn't quote from your MIT pdf, which is probably something from Thomas Eagar anyway.
Then you should minimally provide a link and a written summary of where I could find the information, if you wish to do this on a quid pro quo basis.
Please provide the latest report then.
Burden of proof is on you, my friend. You're the one making the claim about great balls of fire.
Did you ignore the other links I provided?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm
Where would you get vertical crushing down through mass of equal density near the rate of free fall in this example? Your example provides a very unclear picture.
If you insist on using the house of cards analogy, you will have to tape the ceramic tiles together with duct tape, say, and then produce a vertical "crushing down" from upper floor failure, because this is what happened to both Twin Towers, so it's not a mere anomaly.
I have no idea what you are asking in your first paragraph.
Which is why you don't understand why your analogy is incorrect.
Okay, rivet them together. They have to be fastened together somehow if you wish this to be even remotely analogous.
Just so you know, many of the steel columns found at ground zero had to be cut into transportable pieces. judy Wood's site has pictures of beams and columns which have been cut at the ends but in the middle is the intact rivet area. In most of these pieces shearing had taken place. The rivets were intact.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm
2002. They're assuming the FEMA hypothesis.
Which is why you don't understand why your analogy is incorrect.
Then explain how my "analogy" is incorrect.
Just so you know, many of the steel columns found at ground zero had to be cut into transportable pieces. judy Wood's site has pictures of beams and columns which have been cut at the ends but in the middle is the intact rivet area. In most of these pieces shearing had taken place. The rivets were intact.
Please provide a link.
2002. They're assuming the FEMA hypothesis.
Pleae provide evidence that this is the case.
Jas, if you go to the glazier and ask for 130 panes of glass (and a roll of sticky-tape to reinforce the joints), because you want to build a house of cards out of sheets of glass, they won't let you buy them, because they won't want to see you in hospital covered in broken glass.
There are lots of imaginable configurations of materials in the natural world that won't support their own weight, and which will collapse, smashing themselves to pieces.
Show me where Garcia uses an instantaneous velocity to calculate the amount of time it takes for the velocity to change.
Your questions reveal your general naivety of the subject at hand. Garcia does not use instantaneous velocity to calculate "amount of time it takes for velocity to change"
Garcia's instantaneous velocity calculation was explained to you several times, and you still don't understand. It would be nice if moderators here were following this thread better as they would understand you are simply spamming the board with nonsensical rhetoric over and over.
It doesn't have anything to do with quantum physics. I never said it did. I was discussing the difference between rigid and deforming bodies and why conservation of momentum equations made more sense to use than Newton's 3rd law.
You weren't discussing anything. You didn't appreciate us quoting Isaac Newton's laws of motion, and so here you quoted wikipedia and something about Noethem's theory, Galilean invariance, force fields and quantum mechanics. And then when asked what quantum mechanics has to do with the laws of motion effecting building collapse theory, you were completely silent until now. You don't know what youre talking about.
Jas I suggest we simply stop replying to this person as it's clear he is not actually debating anyone nor is he dealing with reality. The mods seem to endorse this character for some reason. And I have no idea why.
About dt:
Pants, I think your argument about a constant or varying v is beside the point. Garcia uses v(initial)=-7.7m/s and dv=.5m/s. He then says that for the floors to fail, they (or any portion of them) need to be deflected by only ~7cm=~.07m. The time for this to occur is not more than the distance divided by the slowest velocity, which is ~0.01s.
Fidel, the dt in Garcia is the time for the floor to break, not the time for the entire tilted floor to pass through the position held by the lower floor before the lower floor broke. Thus, the argument using trigonometry is completely irrelevant.
(I'm using ~ to mean approximately. In this case, not off by more than 10%. Since there can never be complete certainty in estimate, this is commonly used in this sort of discussion. I expect this will be familiar to most readers, but I've not seen it used on the boards before, so I thought I'd say it now to avoid confusion.)
Closing for length. FYI I haven't read all of this thread. Please don't make me.
Let us say that calculus is necessary to calculate delta-t.
It's not necessary in this case and with respect to Garcia's The Physics of 9/11 We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist. David Griscom, a retired research physcist for the US Navy, did not use calculus to calculate duration of impact based on Manuel Garcia's numbers. And there are at least two delta-t's in this particular physics problem of 3 metre fall and collapse initiation. There is an estimated time to impact as well the duration of impact.
The 'delta' simply means change or a difference of some measurable quantity and in this case, delta-t or a small difference of time in seconds. We were all introduced to the delta process in high school math when calculating slope of a line and graphing the result. m(slope)=(y-y2)/x-x2). y-y2 can also be written as delta-y. Similarly (x-x2) or simply delta-x . The slope of a line formula can be simplified to (delta) y / (delta) x.
Time to impact derives from s=Vot + gt^2/2 where s = the vertical height traversed = 300cm = 3m, Vo = the initial vertical speed = 0, t = the time to fall the 300cm distance and g = the acceleration due to gravity = 9.80m/sec^2 = 980cm/sec^2.
Therefore, 300cm = (0)t + 490t^2 from which t = sqrt(300/490) = 0. 0.782460 second(Garcia's time to impact)
0.782460 * 9.8m/s = 766.81cm/s = 7.7m/s(Garcia's instantaneous velocity of the upper block after a 3 metre fall)
And with respect to Griscom's example for one degree of tilt for the upper block, we used trig to find a new delta-s or delta-y, or the height which the high end of the bottom floor of part C(Bazant) still has to fall after the lowest point of the upper block(part C) makes contact with part A(the lower block).
If s=vertical distance, then delta-s or ds= 111cm. dt=ds/v. 111cm/770cm/s = 0.144s. dt=0.144s(Griscom's delta-t)
And there are a few calculations over here and showing how total static+dynamic force becomes 1.36 times that of the static force. David Griscom's Handwaving 9/11 Physics essay(Griscom's review of Garcia's essay supportive of Zdenek Bazant's pile driver theory) mentions a factor of 1.3, but Griscom admits to having made a rounding error, and it should actually be rounded up to 1.4.
And velocity can be plotted graphically, and a tangent line reveals instantaneous velocity at impact. The point is that most of us have been introduced to the delta concept in high school and is used extensively later on with upper level math. It's not a big a deal and most of us are probably familiar with it.
Do you see how you are contradicting yourself?
No I do not. Calculus can certainly be used, but plain old high school level math can suffice for the purpose of this discussion. Garcia's error is one of omission not a math error. Griscom and Garcia both generally agree that duration of initial impact was well below one second, and no amount of calculus is going to make up for the fact that Garcia failed to account for tilting of the upper block in his force balance equation. The photo at the bottom of this post shows how ridiculous it is to simply not mention it. Griscom's is actually a rough estimate for a new delta-t using basic trig and which is how I caculated dt for a one degree tilt as well. Griscom confirmed for me that this is how he arrives at dt=0.14s.
Duration of impact can be a very complicated matter, yes. Piezoelectric transducers, galvanometers etc can be used to measure duration of various kinds of impacts in determining standards for different kinds of materials in a more scientific laboratory setting. Photographs using high speed film taken at somewhere around 6000 frames/second are sometimes used to measure duration of impact as a direct observation. Plates and Shells theory is another area of impact study, and a lot of that is math studied at the graduate or advanced degree level. Very technical, but it doesn't matter to us here. We don't care about that for purposes of this discussion.
David Griscom is talking about a simple angular measurement effecting the duration of impact and changing the final value churned out of Garcia's force balance equation(time rate change of momentum). Slope of the 63.4m concrete slab is at one degree and producing an extra 1.11m of drop for the high end. This is very straight forward math. Failing to account for even one degree of tilt for the upper block is a significant error on Garcia's part when calculating total force. Using the calculus would not eliminate that kind of error of omission where, for example, a falling upper block is tilted by just one degree and leaving an extra 1.11 metres for the entire upper block to fall during impact. One degree was just an example. Video evidence shows the upper block tilting 23 degrees according to Griscom.
Photo showing obvious tilting of South Tower at or very near collapse initiation. Note deformation of lines at corners of the upper floors and undermining Bazant's theory for a "rigid upper block" even during start of collapse
Fidel, what is this discussion regarding? Are you talking about the impact time of the tilting block when it crunches onto the intact floors? Are you refuting Pants' argument that a tilting block can crunch through a building, totally pulverizing it in under 13 seconds? Or that minor, partial crunching of an upper portion can produce instantaneous and complete pulverization? Seems sad that this has to even be argued.
....
It's not necessary in this case and with respect to Garcia's The Physics of 9/11 We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist. David Griscom, a retired research physcist for the US Navy, did not use calculus to calculate duration of impact based on Manuel Garcia's numbers. And there are at least two delta-t's in this particular physics problem of 3 metre fall and collapse initiation. There is an estimated time to impact as well the duration of impact.
The 'delta' simply means change or a difference of some measurable quantity and in this case, delta-t or a small difference of time in seconds. We were all introduced to the delta process in high school math when calculating slope of a line and graphing the result. m(slope)=(y-y2)/x-x2). y-y2 can also be written as delta-y. Similarly (x-x2) or simply delta-x . The slope of a line formula can be simplified to (delta) y / (delta) x.
Time to impact derives from s=Vot + gt^2/2 where s = the vertical height traversed = 300cm = 3m, Vo = the initial vertical speed = 0, t = the time to fall the 300cm distance and g = the acceleration due to gravity = 9.80m/sec^2 = 980cm/sec^2.
Therefore, 300cm = (0)t + 490t^2 from which t = sqrt(300/490) = 0. 0.782460 second(Garcia's time to impact)
0.782460 * 9.8m/s = 766.81cm/s = 7.7m/s(Garcia's instantaneous velocity of the upper block after a 3 metre fall)
Thank you for repeating some of the math I have already done.
If s=vertical distance, then delta-s or ds= 111cm. dt=ds/v. 111cm/770cm/s = 0.144s. dt=0.144s(Griscom's delta-t)
This part is simply wrong. The math is correct, but is completely inapplicable to Garcia's criticisms. The duration of impact is, as you say, the amount of time it takes for the velocity to change.
You are assuming a constant velocity here. Garcia is assuming a changing velocity. Therefore your calculation for duration of impact is not the same as Garcia's.
No I do not. Calculus can certainly be used, but plain old high school level math can suffice for the purpose of this discussion. Garcia's error is one of omission not a math error. Griscom and Garcia both generally agree that duration of initial impact was well below one second, and no amount of calculus is going to make up for the fact that Garcia failed to account for tilting of the upper block in his force balance equation. The photo at the bottom of this post shows how ridiculous it is to simply not mention it. Griscom's is actually a rough estimate for a new delta-t using basic trig and which is how I caculated dt for a one degree tilt as well. Griscom confirmed for me that this is how he arrives at dt=0.14s.
If that is how Griscom also arrived at 0.14 seconds, he is also wrong for incorrectly assuming a constant velocity.
David Griscom is talking about a simple angular measurement effecting the duration of impact and changing the final value churned out of Garcia's force balance equation(time rate change of momentum). Slope of the 63.4m concrete slab is at one degree and producing an extra 1.11m of drop for the high end. This is very straight forward math. Failing to account for even one degree of tilt for the upper block is a significant error on Garcia's part when calculating total force. Using the calculus would not eliminate that kind of error of omission where, for example, a falling upper block is tilted by just one degree and leaving an extra 1.11 metres for the entire upper block to fall during impact. One degree was just an example. Video evidence shows the upper block tilting 23 degrees according to Griscom.
I will repeat this again: I never claimed that the upper blocks did not tilt. In fact, the tiliting disproves Ross's argument of stress transfer. The tilting may very well affect the duration of impact. I have yet to see any math that links the two.
It is shortly after collpase initiation. You can tell because the debris cloud has started to be pushed out of the builidng envelope, but has not progressed very far.
I do not see this deformation of lines at corners.
What kind of fuse do you use with spray on nano-thermite?
I don't read every single post in every single thread of these discussions. I have seen video that challenges the notion that the collapse only took 13 seconds. These videos include a seconds counter with footage of the collapse.
Has 13 seconds to complete collapse been firmly agreed to by all parties at this point?
I still maintain that nano-termites are 10^(-9) the size required to have done all this damage.
...
Has 13 seconds to complete collapse been firmly agreed to by all parties at this point?
After asking jas and Fidel several times each about that very question, jas eventually confirmed that (s)he agreed with the collpase times that Greening calculated in his report.
(see page 16/32)
Fidel never answered the question.
Do you have a link to this video?
I think I linked to it several threads ago, and it was acknowledged that "seconds to collapse" didn't mean much (and that was the phrase being used in the discussion lo those few months ago and many many threads past). I'll take a look around and see if I can dig it out again.
After asking jas and Fidel several times each about that very question, jas eventually confirmed that (s)he agreed with the collpase times that Greening calculated in his report.
Yes, writer. 10 - 13 seconds is generally agreed upon, with most people leaning towards 10 seconds. 10 - 13 seconds was the collapse time I quoted in the OP of the thread in which Pants first appeared. He questioned that time at first, but then found that Bazant's calculations confirmed this. I'm not sure why he's trying to present it as something that he introduced. He was merely confirming what I had already posted.
But, glad you're back, Pants. How about testing out this untested theory of yours now? Take us through it, step by step.
Haven't found it yet, but maybe this is of interest, Pants: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
jas, do you remember the video I linked to a while ago? I don't remember that longer time being disproved.
You should probably take it up with NIST and Bazant, writer. It's pretty easy to time it yourself by simply watching any of hundreds of the videos on the internet and counting the time with the seconds hand on your watch.
I'm sure the time your video suggests "hasn't been disproved". But it has been nine years. I would guess no one is giving your theory any serious consideration, for good reason.
But hey, I'm glad you're raising this question because it suggests that you too believe that a building crumbling in under 13 seconds from upper floor fires is questionable. As did Pants when he first joined our threads.
I think you'll find that indeed, the collapse time is correct, it's the theory explaining it that's wrong.
Not what I linked to, but has a counter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugypj1NsQ-A. I see that the NIST report does confirm the faster time period. So the doubters and NISTers agree on one thing, perhaps.
jas: It's not my theory. I don't have a dog in this one. Generally view it as a big distraction. But an interesting one.
I'm glad that people are doubting it.
No theory, just incredibly powerful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfce_C8GzdE
jas, this is what I had to say about September 11, 2001, one year later — before the truth movement had gained steam. Way back when I was still Judy. Can't think of anything I'd change now:
http://rabble.ca/news/what-happened-0
If s=vertical distance, then delta-s or ds= 111cm. dt=ds/v. 111cm/770cm/s = 0.144s. dt=0.144s(Griscom's delta-t)
This part is simply wrong. The math is correct, but is completely inapplicable to Garcia's criticisms. The duration of impact is, as you say, the amount of time it takes for the velocity to change.
You are assuming a constant velocity here. Garcia is assuming a changing velocity. Therefore your calculation for duration of impact is not the same as Garcia's.
7.7m/s is Garcia's instantaneous velocity at time of impact after a 3 metre fall. So, no, velocity is not constant. Acceleration is constant, the second derivative of distance with respect to time, but that is the nature of gravity as they say.
No I do not. Calculus can certainly be used, but plain old high school level math can suffice for the purpose of this discussion. Garcia's error is one of omission not a math error. Griscom and Garcia both generally agree that duration of initial impact was well below one second, and no amount of calculus is going to make up for the fact that Garcia failed to account for tilting of the upper block in his force balance equation. The photo at the bottom of this post shows how ridiculous it is to simply not mention it. Griscom's is actually a rough estimate for a new delta-t using basic trig and which is how I caculated dt for a one degree tilt as well. Griscom confirmed for me that this is how he arrives at dt=0.14s.
If that is how Griscom also arrived at 0.14 seconds, he is also wrong for incorrectly assuming a constant velocity.
Once again, -7.7m/s is Garcia's instantaneous velocity at time of impact. Acceleration due to gravity is always constant. Gravity implies constant accleration unless the falling object is otherwise impeded, and which Garcia says was not the case. 250 steel columns provided negligible resistance to the falling "rigid upper block" according to Garcia.
Well you've seen the math right here on babble. You just don't know how to react to it with none of Garcia or Bazant or NIST having commented for you to conjure up a coherent reply.
I do not see this deformation of lines at corners.
Here's a larger version:
Pants, the one video has been pulled from Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/v/omzWzMLOfUI: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." — from what I can figure out, it was based on this original: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2367902043037209880# — this video links to the following blog: http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2006/07/information-in-english.html)
Here's the second video I originally saw about time (when the talk was about a 9 second collapse): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
Still, all and all, I find myself far more drawn to — and compelled by — the moment, rather than all the theories that have spun out since. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1742836963699207403#docid=5474006...
....
Yes, writer. 10 - 13 seconds is generally agreed upon, with most people leaning towards 10 seconds. 10 - 13 seconds was the collapse time I quoted in the OP of the thread in which Pants first appeared. He questioned that time at first, but then found that Bazant's calculations confirmed this. I'm not sure why he's trying to present it as something that he introduced. He was merely confirming what I had already posted.
But, glad you're back, Pants. How about testing out this untested theory of yours now? Take us through it, step by step.
You seem to be confused about what I was posting in that first thread. No matter, as people can read it for themselves.
I will give you your long and detailed explanation as soon as you do one thing: you have to successfully show me that Bazant or Greening or the NIST have violated a law or principle of physic in their model of the collapse.
Haven't found it yet, but maybe this is of interest, Pants: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
jas, do you remember the video I linked to a while ago? I don't remember that longer time being disproved.
That was a good video. Fidel and jas would probably like to watch it as well.
- just came across this - puts Garcia et al in their places pretty good, in terms of talking about physics and other things related to reality, rather than the NIST et al fantasies applicable only somewhere down the rabbit hole where the red queen makes the rules - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist0.htm .
So, then why do you asume a constant velocity for your distance s?
This has nothing to do with Griscom's calculations. Rather than giving incorrect summaries of Garcia's position, can you please focus on the discussion of Griscom's numbers? Did Griscom also incorrectly assume a constant velocity?
No, I have seen your math, which does not show that tilting hasanything to do with momentum transfer. My coherent reply, which you have ignored several times, is that you are incorrectly assuming a constant velocity.
Jas posted a photo clearly showing corner lines of the upper block deforming to a large extent. I'll try to find it.
Please do and thank you.
I posted a larger version of the same picture that you posted here, if you wish to use it.
- just came across this - puts Garcia et al in their places pretty good, in terms of talking about physics and other things related to reality, rather than the NIST et al fantasies applicable only somewhere down the rabbit hole where the red queen makes the rules - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist0.htm .
Please quote the relevant text of Bjorkman.
- another guy who digs around a bit and boots poor ol NIST right in the privates - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18999.htm . The problem with arguing with the likes of Garcia is you're accepting fantasy as baseline, and cloud cuckoo land as your destination. Anything is possible when you can make stuff up like NIST et al do.
So, then why do you asume a constant velocity for your distance s?
Garcia's rate is not a constant velocity. Instantaneous velocity was explained to you above.
This has nothing to do with Griscom's calculations. Rather than giving incorrect summaries of Garcia's position, can you please focus on the discussion of Griscom's numbers? Did Griscom also incorrectly assume a constant velocity?
Yes, Griscom assumes Garcia's instantaneous velocity when calculating duration of collapse due to tilting. At this information can be gleaned by actually reading Griscom's Handwaving the Physics of 9/11 essay.
No, I have seen your math, which does not show that tilting hasanything to do with momentum transfer. My coherent reply, which you have ignored several times, is that you are incorrectly assuming a constant velocity.
And this was laboriously explained to you several times as well. Both Griscom and I are using Garcia's impulse momentum form of Newton's second law referred to in his Counterpunch essay. If you have issues with Garcia's equation for force balance, then perhaps you should either point out to us where he is wrong, or contact him yourself and point it out to him. Either way I am now convinced that you don't know what you're talking about.
- another guy who digs around a bit and boots poor ol NIST right in the privates - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18999.htm . The problem with arguing with the likes of Garcia is you're accepting fantasy as baseline, and cloud cuckoo land as your destination. Anything is possible when you can make stuff up like NIST et al do.
Please quote the relevant text.
I know that Garcia does not use a constant velocity. You did. In your calculation for delta-t, you assume a constant velocity. Since You asume a constant velocity while Garcia does not, you can't be talking about the same thing.
After reading that essay for the fourth time, I still see no math at all showing how Griscom came up with his numbers. If Griscom assumes a constant velocity, which is not apparent from the essay, he is wrong as well.
I have no trouble with Garcia's work. I think that is correct. I think that you are incorrect (and possibly Griscom) because you use a constant value for velocity to find delta-t.
I know that Garcia does not use a constant velocity. You did. In your calculation for delta-t, you assume a constant velocity. Since You asume a constant velocity while Garcia does not, you can't be talking about the same thing.
No one is saying velocity is constant except for you. This is absurd.
After reading that essay for the fourth time, I still see no math at all showing how Griscom came up with his numbers. If Griscom assumes a constant velocity, which is not apparent from the essay, he is wrong as well.
I gave you the details for (delta)t=0.14s as confirmed to me by Dr. Griscom. You've since insisted that only by the calculus can dt be calculated. That's just wrong.
Griscom assumes the exact same instantaneous velocity at time of impact that Garcia does, which is -7.7m/s. You are confused perhaps with constant acceleration due to gravity, which is always 9800cm/s^2 on this particular planet in general.
I have no trouble with Garcia's work. I think that is correct. I think that you are incorrect (and possibly Griscom) because you use a constant value for velocity to find delta-t.
But you are having trouble. I do not use "constant velocity" and neither do Griscom or Garcia. Do you understand what instantaneous velocity is? Here's a question for you: What does Garcia say that the instantaneous velocity of the descending upper block(South Tower) is after a 3 meter free-fall over 0.78 second?
.....
No one is saying velocity is constant except for you. This is absurd.
....
I gave you the details for (delta)t=0.14s as confirmed to me by Dr. Griscom. You've since insisted that only by the calculus can dt be calculated. That's just wrong.
Griscom assumes the exact same instantaneous velocity at time of impact that Garcia does, which is -7.7m/s. You are confused perhaps with constant acceleration due to gravity, which is always 9800cm/s^2 on this particular planet in general.
...But you are having trouble. Do you understand what instantaneous velocity is? Here's a question for you: What does Garcia say that the instantaneous velocity of the descending upper block(South Tower) is after a 3 meter free-fall over 0.78 second?
Instantaneous velocity at the exact instant before impact is 7.7m/s downward.
The instant after that, there is a time during impact in which the velocity of the upper block changes. Garcia says this time is 0.01 seconds. You say it is 0.14 seconds.
Except you use a constant velocity of 7.7m/s to calculate that time. You take a vertical distance, divide by this constant velocity, and get delta-t.
Please note that during the actual impact and in Garcia's model, velocity changes.
In your model, velocity stays the same.
You make the error of using an instantaneous velocity as a constant velocity during the time of impact.
Here is an explanation of the relationship between impulse and change of momentum. Please note the change in velocity (delta-v).
The instant after that, there is a time during impact in which the velocity of the upper block changes. Garcia says this time is 0.01 seconds. You say it is 0.14 seconds.
Garcia says that the instantaneous velocity at time of impact is -7.7m/s after 0.78s of free-fall from a height of 3 metres. 1/100th of a second is the duration of impact during which several things happen:
Please note that during the actual impact and in Garcia's model, velocity changes.
In your model, velocity stays the same.
Time to impact derives from s=Vot + gt^2/2
If we simply add Griscom's duration of impact time to Garcia's time to impact(0.78s + 0.14s), we get 0.92246 s and resulting in an increase in neg. velocity by 1.3m/s, which gives an instantaneous velocity of 9.04m/s. It still doesn't change the duration of impact enough(0.12 s instead of 0.14s) to matter to Garcia's force balance equation. The result will still be somewhere far below 6.1 times the static force. Plug dt=0.12 s into Garcia's force balance equation and note the result. I really do think you are hopelessly confused and should be confirming that fact with someone who knows something about math and physics.
The instant after that, there is a time during impact in which the velocity of the upper block changes. Garcia says this time is 0.01 seconds. You say it is 0.14 seconds.
Garcia says that the instantaneous velocity at time of impact is -7.7m/s after 0.78s of free-fall from a height of 3 metres. 1/100th of a second is the duration of impact during which several things happen:
Please note that during the actual impact and in Garcia's model, velocity changes.
In your model, velocity stays the same.
Time to impact derives from s=Vot + gt^2/2
If we simply add Griscom's duration of impact time to Garcia's time to impact(0.78s + 0.14s), we get 0.92246 s and resulting in an increase in neg. velocity by 1.3m/s, which givies an instantaneous velocity of 9.04m/s. It still doesn't change the duration of impact enough(0.12 s instead of 0.14s) to matter to Garcia's force balance equation. The result will still be somewhere far below 6.1 times the static force. Plug dt=0.12 s into Garcia's force balance equation and note the result. I really do think you are hopelessly confused and should be confirming that fact with someone who knows something about math and physics.
Fidel, what is the difference between v and delta-v?
You seem to be confused about what I was posting in that first thread. No matter, as people can read it for themselves.
Not at all. You were trying to assert that truthers were saying the buildings fell in absolute free fall, and you spent three threads "proving" that wrong and wasting everybody's time. Throughout that thread and all the others, I have always said "near" or "within seconds of". There is no possibility you could confuse what I was saying. You either weren't reading properly, weren't understanding what you read, or you were deliberately misrepresenting the truther argument for some rhetorical purpose which remains unclear. I suspect you realized halfway through your argument that no one was arguing with the collapse times that Bazant based his model on.
We have already shown how Bazant and Greening violate basic laws of physics in their silly model. It's time for you to show that it works. Tell us what is happening mechanically in the crunching down between C and A, B and A, then B and C, give us the timeline, and what the properties of C are before and during collapse. Thank you.
If people want to know what I meant, they can read my words themselves.
No. You have not.
You have repeated this claim many, many times in this thread. You have never successfullly argued it.
Bjorkman seems to have left out the impact zone entirely.
What kind of fuse do you use with spray on nano-thermite?
Apparently, the most common fuse is a magnesium strip. Here is a youtube video of some people playing wih thermite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaI8t1XDJHc&feature=related
They light a magnesium strip with a propane torch, which then goes out several times. They then light the thermite directly with the propane torch. Not very bright, but it gives you an idea of how difficult it would be to time the fuses properly for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
The impact zone is the line between C and A. He leaves C the same size, unlike what we see happening in the videos, but he doesn't need C to shrink in size in order to show how absurd this model is.
Bjorkman's illustration makes obvious what is wrong with the model, Pants. You can't have a smaller something crunch through a larger something of the same material--in the case of a building, for much more than a few floors. There is no precedent in nature or engineering that would support this model. Bazant's math is made up to legitimize what is illegitimate scientifically.
The impact zone is the line between C and A. He leaves C the same size, unlike what we see happening in the videos, but he doesn't need C to shrink in size in order to show how absurd this model is.
The impact zone is far larger than that in reality.
Bjorkman's axiom is as strong as a house of cards.
In fact, a house of cards is a good example of a structure that often has "a smaller something crunch through a larger something of the same material".
One could say that it was a "precedent in nature or engineering".
One that disproves Bjorkman's axiom.
A house of cards?
So, a few cards fall, pulverizing the rest? I haven't seen this.
Please try to get your analogies somewhat in the same universe. It was the same thing with you trying to compare a building with a tripod that loses one of its legs. There's simply no comparison.
Sure thing. If we use F=ma, the concrete slab of mass m falls at speed v when impacting the concrete slab below.. Calculating dynamic force of the impact, we use a=dv/dt, where dt is the time it takes for v to drop to zero: a=v/dt, and using dt=0.01 sec, dynamic force for a completely level impact becomes: mv/0.01
But if dt=0.14 sec for the tilted concrete floor, the dynamic force drops to mv/0.14.
The ratio of the dynamic force of tilted impact to one of completely level impact becomes 0.01/0.14=0.0714.
We take Garcia's total static plus dynamic forces in his calculation. He says it's 6.1 times the static force alone. We then normalize to static force=1.0 and making Garcia's dynamic force=5.1.
Dynamic force for the tilted block is then 0.0714 x 5.1=0.36. Total static plus dynamic force becomes 1+0.36=1.36 times the static force. Rounded up to the nearest gives 1.4.
- just came across this - puts Garcia et al in their places pretty good, in terms of talking about physics and other things related to reality, rather than the NIST et al fantasies applicable only somewhere down the rabbit hole where the red queen makes the rules - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist0.htm .
Please quote the relevant text of Bjorkman.
Big chuckle - that's amusing, Pants, the guy takes apart your entire "theory" from beginning to end, and you say 'please quote the relevant text... ' - you must be good with the kids at Xmas who are starting to wonder about Santa - "Well, the cookies were there when we went to bed? - yea..- and they were gone when we got up? - yea... - and can you prove Santa did NOT come? - noooo' - voila, case proved! - and now you must prove me wrong, or accept my 'facts'!!
Haven't found it yet, but maybe this is of interest, Pants: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
jas, do you remember the video I linked to a while ago? I don't remember that longer time being disproved.
That was a good video. Fidel and jas would probably like to watch it as well.
That video is in itself a straw man argument. Of course, the gubmint guys won't acknowledge what truthers are actually saying:
Though four official accounts blame fire for the destruction of all three World Trade Center towers, the fires do not appear to have been particularly severe.
NIST states that the jet fuel burned off in just ten minutes.7 "They also acknowledged that office furniture burns for only 15 to 20 minutes in any one
area" before it's consumed,8 Scott points out. "There's ample evidence that the steel temperatures got nowhere close to the "600+ degrees Centigrade [1,200 degrees Fahrenheit] required to cause failure." We saw no "raging infernos" on TV, David Huebner, P.E., points out. Sooty smoke and dull red flames, Scott says, indicate "cool fires ... fuel-starved fires." Firemen at the 78th-floor impact zone reported "only two small fires," Scott adds, "not the 1000 degree-Centigrade inferno" government officials claim. New York Fire Department (FDNY) personnel, trained to assess fires' structural hazards, had no reason to expect total collapse, Brookman writes. Scott notes that several steel-framed towers have burned longer, hotter - and much more intensely without collapse. "As engineers we know what fire can do to steel and what it can't." "Over 100 recorded witnesses reported hearing and seeing multiple explosions," Rice wrote.9 Brookman cites "numerous eyewitness accounts, including the FDNY oral histories, of secondary explosions ... well below the impact floors."
Firefighters and emergency workers heard "explosions" below the impacted floors. And there were many more first responder observations which must be ignored by the feds in order that their fairy tale surrounding 9/11 remains intact and unscathed by truth seekers skeptical of the official 9/11 narrative - that same fairy tale which the undiscerning accept without question.
Of course, the eye witnesses to these events were just people. And we know what rightwing hawks think of every day people in general - they wouldn't spit on us if we were on fire(or made homeless by a hurricane that devastated New Orleans).
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
{post 19} You seem to be confused about what I was posting in that first thread. No matter, as people can read it for themselves... I will give you your long and detailed explanation as soon as you do one thing: you have to successfully show me that Bazant or Greening or the NIST have violated a law or principle of physic in their model of the collapse.
- if I might - the anti-science nature of everything to do with the OCT prompts me to respond here - it's not a question of what laws of physics or science you have violated, it's getting an idea of what laws of science the official conspiracy theory actually follows. Allow me to demonstrate - it's not challenging:
1. They use the 'legal prosecutorial' method rather than anything that would be called 'scientific' laws or methods of (real) physics. When faced with a new or unusual phenomenon, the scientific method involves gathering **all relevant** factual data, formulating realistic hypotheses that explain the observed phenomenon, testing them, etc. The admitted method used by Bazant and all OCTers following was to postulate a model on very limited, preliminary data, again saying right up front they are NOT going to even consider the most likely hypothesis (based on Occam's razor etc principles - if it looks like X, behaves like X, probably it is X), then selectively gather and interpret 'facts' to fit that solution, very often in the process making wild exaggerations and completely unjustified assumptions to justify their theory, along with failing to consider (or simply lying about) basic facts concerning the WTC towers and highrise construction in general. That more Americans and other people do not understand this does not lend credence to the 'theories', any more than jungle savages thinking a modern firearm is 'magic!' proves magic exists. Major violation of the most basic scientific principles right from the getgo. Things founded on lies and misdirection and deception are highly questionable by definition, and surely have nothing to do with real science and physics.
2. For one quite brazen example, all of these "theories" point to, and heavily rely on, "evidence" indicating that at some times, some localized fires MAY have reached temperatures at which steel can become compromised if the steel itself reaches those temps - and then make the astounding assertion (assumption) and leap that therefore all of the steel in a certain very large area was thus compromised, leading to the instantaneous failure of all of the columns that were not directly breached or damaged by the initial impacts. A wild exaggeration, very blatantly so, something no impartial scientist honestly engaged in trying to figure out what happened that day would ever make, but necessary to justify their pre-conceived model. For example, there is no visual evidence at all that most of the outer columns, visible throughout the period between the plane crash and collapse, ever reached temperatures anywhere near hot enough to compromise them. None - indeed, all visual evidence, of which there is a lot, would indicate that most of these columns stood tall and strong until the collapse was initiated through some as yet undetermined means. To assert that all of these outer columns reached temperatures hot enough to compromise their strength, at the same point in time, and thus all collapsed together, is completely contradictory to both reason and actual observation.
**There is no mention of the inclination of steel to conduct heat away from the source of the heat which would make the attaining of such temperatures in any single spot, let alone in dozens of central and a couple of hundred outer, columns very, very, very difficult in that huge steel matrix,
** there is no mention that there were at least 30 central very large and solid steel columns remaining after the crashes that would have had to reach this high temperature,
** there is no attempt to explain how long steel has to be exposed to what temperatures to start to approach its weakening point,
** there is no attempt to explain how long a length of all of those columns would need to reach some failure point before it buckled or disintegrated,
** etc and etc and etc.
(I'm not even getting into the loss of fireproofing here, so down Rover - if the fires are not hot enough or sustained enough to affect bare steel, which is what the temps all refer to and is no more 'proven' by wild assumptions than Santa Claus, then whether or not the fireproofing was dislodged is just another meaningless red herring - the fireproofing only matters if the purveyors of the theory have demonstrated with some believability that the fires were hot enough for long enough to affect even bare steel in all of those columns, which they have not begun to do.)
The 'progressive collapse' theory completely fails on this point alone, as if the 'initiation' is proven to be impossible, there could hardly be 'progress'. In thinking about the scenario as I describe it above, I don't need to show you where 'the laws of physics' and/or science were not followed - you need to show us where, in any instance, they actually were followed ...
3. Again, all of these theories begin with some version of this (from Greening): "..We consider the initiating event of a WTC tower collapse to be the failure of crucial steel support structures at the appropriate upper floor level of the building, followed by the free fall of the entire upper block of n floors through a distance hf = one floor height = 3.7 meters..."
Really. Now that is one hell of a "consideration", and the two major things it states as necessary prerequisites for the entire following "theory" stand up to no scienctific reasoning at all. It's very telling that NONE of these people mention any actual numbers of columns, but use words designed to obfuscate - 'many columns' were damaged, 'the remaining' columns could not take the 'overstressing', and etc. The theory would sound a lot different if numbers were used - "The plane crashes breached some 30-60 (depending on building) of the ~250 outer columns, leaving most of them intact and undamaged; as for the inner columns, we can not be sure, but the best estimates indicate that 5-15 of the 47 inner core columns were breached or damaged, leaving a minimum of 30 of the 47 inner columns standing to bear the weight of the building, in a huge steel matrix along with the remaining outer columns and 110 floors of cross-bracing...' - wow, sure leaves a different impression than the one left by the OCT - but if your underlying purpose is to create and encourage belief in a sense of impending doom, quite obviously the use of real numbers would not further your cause, indeed would be quite inimical to it.
But that is just a preamble. Again, let's look at numbers a bit more precise than 'a few were left' - actually, let's say that 35/47 columns remained after the crash, all part of that 6x8 column, 1100-ft tall cross-braced matrix - that's a lot of strong steel - it is an apparently intentional misdirection of the OCT to attempt to give the impression these columns stood alone, rather than as part of a great matrix. Another extremely dishonest thing all of these theories do is attempt to pretend the fact of 'redundancy' does not exist, but of course every steel skyscraper is built with some amount of redundancy, so when one structural element fails, and the load is transferred elsewhere, there is not an automatic 'overload', as these theories attempt to give the impression. If a column is designed to bear 100 pounds, but it's actual load is 50 pounds, then adding 10-20 or even 30-40 more pounds is not 'overloading' it, just bringing it closer to its design load. Why would 'real' scientists, trying to explain the collapse of the twin towers, not talk about this *fact* openly? Obviously, the job of these OCT-selling apologists is not real science at all, but to justify the 'total collapse' rather than get involved with explaining why it should *not* have collapsed - and even acknowledging this redundancy would make their job very, very difficult, and probably, in consideration of everything else they obfuscate or lie about, well nigh impossible. Especially when you start adding in over 200 outer columns, all sharing the weight of the building after the crash damage with the 30+ inner columns, with no demonstrable fire exposure for certain on most of the outside - no reason at all for all of that steel to just 'collapse' en masse. No reason at all. Again - up to you to show me where the 'physics' or 'science' is here in all of this obfuscation to the point of lies - its absence is quite obvious.
Which leads to the 2rd 'consideration' of Greening et al which is completely unjustifiable - "...the free fall of the entire upper block of n floors through a distance hf = one floor height = 3.7 meters...." - I won't bother wasting much time on this - what I have explained before should make it completely obvious that there is simply no possible way, given the conditions and situation of that day, that all 30-40 of those undamaged inner columns, plus over 200 of the outer columns, none of them anywhere near the point of collapse or in any way 'overstressed' or heated to the point of collapse, are going to all just give way at once after small fires burning less than an hour, allowing this totally impossible 'free fall of 3.7M'. No way, and to try to postulate and defend this position is just to completely disengage with reality and science, and it's difficult to justify wasting much time talking with those who try to defend this fantasy, you're really the flat-earthers of the early 21st century, and your completely unscientific and dishonest approach to your arguments in your desperate attempt to defend an untenable position demonstrates that quite clearly (that you appear to be in the majority is not relevant - the original flat earthers were also a majority for quite a long while, and the powers-that-be of the time quite aggressive in defending their 'theory' of the celestial bodies and discouraging any challenges).
4. I shouldn't go around shooting dead horses, but let's try to finish this once and for all, as it gets tedious. Let us assume even for the sake of argument that by some magical intervention all of those ~250 columns just disintegrated all at once, and your upper block actually did fall through 3.7 meters in 'freefall' - is that going to cause the type of total collapse we saw on that day?
Not in a million years, at least outside of Hollywood FX.
**first, you do not have a stack of plates to 'pancake', as your theory tries to make a case for (I know you don't call it pancaking anymore, but that is quite clearly the scenario you try to establish) - you have an 1100-foot tall central core composed of a matrix of 47 cross-braced columns, surrounded by an 1100-foot tube of very strong steel, again cross-braced every few feet. The 110 floors are attached every 10 feet or so all the way up between the central core and outer tube, actually increasing the strength of the overall structure by acting as yet more cross-bracing. If you want to assume that some magical space ray instantly severed a section of this structure, leaving a 10-20 upper-floor section, and this upper section dropped en masse to the lower, this tube-within-a-tube is the basic structure you would be dealing with. So you would not have an upper section dropping onto one floor and overwhelming it, and again and again until it all hit the ground, you would have a 20-story steel tube-within-a-tube dropping onto an 80-story steel tube-within-a-tube, and any imaginings of what that would result in must be based on that reality, not the very misleading 'solid upper block dropping onto a poor old weak single floor' scenario of the OCT. And what is going to happen then? The tubes, the main structural framework, are going to meet - either the upper section drops straight down so the outer and inner columns meet directly, or they are going to be off-center, and some off-center meeting is going to occur, with some number of the upper columns meeting some number of the lower columns - it's going to be a train wreck, but it's not going to be 'global collapse'. (What happens to the cement floors stretching from core to outer columns is pretty irrelevant here, as they will be unable to support much weight and will tend to crumble if any great weight is placed on them. They will, of course, come into play as the two sections reach for their final equilibrium, as cement and steel is obviously not without some strength and resistance, but any individual floor is a small player when considered against those massive inner and outer tubes.)
Think as a scientist, or intelligent layman, rather than someone attempting to justify a collapse theory - if I have a stack of those grey egg trays, lift a few up and drop them - no big spectacular collapse. If I drop a big cement block on that stack, it would smash them up pretty good, of course. But if I dropped that cement block on some other cement blocks - it might chip a couple, but no big global cement block collapse. Likewise the WTC buildings - sure that upper 20 stories of steel and cement looks pretty impressive - but if you drop a 20-story steel and cement structure a few feet onto an 80-story structure of the same stuff, you are NOT going to cause that lower structure to instantly disintegrate - it is made of the same stuff you are dropping on to it, and it is a lot bigger, and it is by god very, very strongly built - it's not going to disintegrate! - it's hard to talk to people who do not understand this rather basic fact of the way the world works, and demand I go and dig up some mathematical equations to demonstrate the obvious because they by golly have constructed some 'equations' to prove the ridiculous, but there it is. We have modern people calling themselves 'economists' doing the same sort of thing, but morning eventually comes to everyone, and the daylight sends the dreams away. You can dick around with distractions all you want, but in the end, you cannot dick around with the way the world works. You can convince the unsophisticated natives that your modern rifle is a 'magic stick wah wah!!' - but that does not change the basic scientific facts of how it actually works, and if you come back to Canada and wave your arm around shouting booga booga and telling the natives you are a great god with Magic Progressive Collapses - well, at least some of us wonder what the hell you are actually trying to prove here. It sure as hell has nothing to do with real science and physics.
(for a very thorough and scientific 'debunking' of the 'math' and 'physics' of Bazant, Greening, Garcia, Pants et al - http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf .)
A house of cards?
So, a few cards fall, pulverizing the rest? I haven't seen this.
Please try to get your analogies somewhat in the same universe. It was the same thing with you trying to compare a building with a tripod that loses one of its legs. There's simply no comparison.
You never mentioned pulverisation before. And now you are.
Why do you shift the proverbial goalposts?
Sure thing. If we use F=ma, the concrete slab of mass m falls at speed v when impacting the concrete slab below.. ...
No. You are simply wrong here.
F=ma does not give us an object with mass m falling at velocity v.
It gives us an object with mass m falling at a constantly changing velocity delta-v.
All calculations of force begin with the motion equations. And apparently we have a new axiom: Anti-Newtonian non-truthers don't know what they are talking about in general.
You never mentioned pulverisation before. And now you are.
Why do you shift the proverbial goalposts?
I've never mentioned pulverization? LOL. I think even Yiwah can tell you you're wrong, But no matter. Does this ruin your house of cards analogy?
Firefighters and emergency workers heard "explosions" below the impacted floors. And there were many more first responder observations which must be ignored by the feds in order that their fairy tale surrounding 9/11 remains intact and unscathed by truth seekers skeptical of the official 9/11 narrative - that same fairy tale which the undiscerning accept without question.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
As well as in the basement levels, as is documented here by some of the survivors who were working at those levels:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
Testimony that NIST apparently completely ignored when they insisted that they "found no evidence" for explosions.
I've got to say, pulverization is and has been one of jas's main points.
Big chuckle - that's amusing, Pants, the guy takes apart your entire "theory" from beginning to end, and you say 'please quote the relevant text... ' - you must be good with the kids at Xmas who are starting to wonder about Santa - "Well, the cookies were there when we went to bed? - yea..- and they were gone when we got up? - yea... - and can you prove Santa did NOT come? - noooo' - voila, case proved! - and now you must prove me wrong, or accept my 'facts'!!
I can not help but notice that you have not quoted the relevant text.
I assume you would like me to read the entire work, summarise the points that apparently disprove Bazant, and post them here for people to read. This is actually your job in a debate. If you are unable to bring evidence into the discussion, I will not do it for you.
That video is in itself a straw man argument. Of course, the gubmint guys won't acknowledge what truthers are actually saying:
Though four official accounts blame fire for the destruction of all three World Trade Center towers, the fires do not appear to have been particularly severe.
NIST states that the jet fuel burned off in just ten minutes.7 "They also acknowledged that office furniture burns for only 15 to 20 minutes in any one
area" before it's consumed,8 Scott points out. "There's ample evidence that the steel temperatures got nowhere close to the "600+ degrees Centigrade [1,200 degrees Fahrenheit] required to cause failure." We saw no "raging infernos" on TV, David Huebner, P.E., points out. Sooty smoke and dull red flames, Scott says, indicate "cool fires ... fuel-starved fires." Firemen at the 78th-floor impact zone reported "only two small fires," Scott adds, "not the 1000 degree-Centigrade inferno" government officials claim. New York Fire Department (FDNY) personnel, trained to assess fires' structural hazards, had no reason to expect total collapse, Brookman writes. Scott notes that several steel-framed towers have burned longer, hotter - and much more intensely without collapse. "As engineers we know what fire can do to steel and what it can't." "Over 100 recorded witnesses reported hearing and seeing multiple explosions," Rice wrote.9 Brookman cites "numerous eyewitness accounts, including the FDNY oral histories, of secondary explosions ... well below the impact floors."
Firefighters and emergency workers heard "explosions" below the impacted floors. And there were many more first responder observations which must be ignored by the feds in order that their fairy tale surrounding 9/11 remains intact and unscathed by truth seekers skeptical of the official 9/11 narrative - that same fairy tale which the undiscerning accept without question.
Of course, the eye witnesses to these events were just people. And we know what rightwing hawks think of every day people in general - they wouldn't spit on us if we were on fire(or made homeless by a hurricane that devastated New Orleans).
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
Nice strawman argument. I especially liked the irony of you accusing the video of being a strawman.
Thank you, writer.
- if I might - the anti-science nature of everything to do with the OCT prompts me to respond here - it's not a question of what laws of physics or science you have violated, it's getting an idea of what laws of science the official conspiracy theory actually follows. Allow me to demonstrate - it's not challenging:
1. They use the 'legal prosecutorial' method rather than anything that would be called 'scientific' laws or methods of (real) physics. When faced with a new or unusual phenomenon, the scientific method involves gathering **all relevant** factual data, formulating realistic hypotheses that explain the observed phenomenon, testing them, etc. The admitted method used by Bazant and all OCTers following was to postulate a model on very limited, preliminary data, again saying right up front they are NOT going to even consider the most likely hypothesis (based on Occam's razor etc principles - if it looks like X, behaves like X, probably it is X), then selectively gather and interpret 'facts' to fit that solution, very often in the process making wild exaggerations and completely unjustified assumptions to justify their theory, along with failing to consider (or simply lying about) basic facts concerning the WTC towers and highrise construction in general. That more Americans and other people do not understand this does not lend credence to the 'theories', any more than jungle savages thinking a modern firearm is 'magic!' proves magic exists. Major violation of the most basic scientific principles right from the getgo. Things founded on lies and misdirection and deception are highly questionable by definition, and surely have nothing to do with real science and physics.
2. For one quite brazen example, all of these "theories" point to, and heavily rely on, "evidence" indicating that at some times, some localized fires MAY have reached temperatures at which steel can become compromised if the steel itself reaches those temps - and then make the astounding assertion (assumption) and leap that therefore all of the steel in a certain very large area was thus compromised, leading to the instantaneous failure of all of the columns that were not directly breached or damaged by the initial impacts. A wild exaggeration, very blatantly so, something no impartial scientist honestly engaged in trying to figure out what happened that day would ever make, but necessary to justify their pre-conceived model. For example, there is no visual evidence at all that most of the outer columns, visible throughout the period between the plane crash and collapse, ever reached temperatures anywhere near hot enough to compromise them. None - indeed, all visual evidence, of which there is a lot, would indicate that most of these columns stood tall and strong until the collapse was initiated through some as yet undetermined means. To assert that all of these outer columns reached temperatures hot enough to compromise their strength, at the same point in time, and thus all collapsed together, is completely contradictory to both reason and actual observation.
**There is no mention of the inclination of steel to conduct heat away from the source of the heat which would make the attaining of such temperatures in any single spot, let alone in dozens of central and a couple of hundred outer, columns very, very, very difficult in that huge steel matrix,
** there is no mention that there were at least 30 central very large and solid steel columns remaining after the crashes that would have had to reach this high temperature,
** there is no attempt to explain how long steel has to be exposed to what temperatures to start to approach its weakening point,
** there is no attempt to explain how long a length of all of those columns would need to reach some failure point before it buckled or disintegrated,
** etc and etc and etc.
(I'm not even getting into the loss of fireproofing here, so down Rover - if the fires are not hot enough or sustained enough to affect bare steel, which is what the temps all refer to and is no more 'proven' by wild assumptions than Santa Claus, then whether or not the fireproofing was dislodged is just another meaningless red herring - the fireproofing only matters if the purveyors of the theory have demonstrated with some believability that the fires were hot enough for long enough to affect even bare steel in all of those columns, which they have not begun to do.)
The 'progressive collapse' theory completely fails on this point alone, as if the 'initiation' is proven to be impossible, there could hardly be 'progress'. In thinking about the scenario as I describe it above, I don't need to show you where 'the laws of physics' and/or science were not followed - you need to show us where, in any instance, they actually were followed ...
You should provide evidence that Bazant, the NIST, andother studies actaully left out all these things. It would make your case stronger.
The truth is that different engineers have modelled these different things you claim they haven't.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact....
Really. Now that is one hell of a "consideration", and the two major things it states as necessary prerequisites for the entire following "theory" stand up to no scienctific reasoning at all. It's very telling that NONE of these people mention any actual numbers of columns, but use words designed to obfuscate - 'many columns' were damaged, 'the remaining' columns could not take the 'overstressing', and etc. The theory would sound a lot different if numbers were used - "The plane crashes breached some 30-60 (depending on building) of the ~250 outer columns, leaving most of them intact and undamaged; as for the inner columns, we can not be sure, but the best estimates indicate that 5-15 of the 47 inner core columns were breached or damaged, leaving a minimum of 30 of the 47 inner columns standing to bear the weight of the building, in a huge steel matrix along with the remaining outer columns and 110 floors of cross-bracing...' - wow, sure leaves a different impression than the one left by the OCT - but if your underlying purpose is to create and encourage belief in a sense of impending doom, quite obviously the use of real numbers would not further your cause, indeed would be quite inimical to it.
But that is just a preamble. Again, let's look at numbers a bit more precise than 'a few were left' - actually, let's say that 35/47 columns remained after the crash, all part of that 6x8 column, 1100-ft tall cross-braced matrix - that's a lot of strong steel - it is an apparently intentional misdirection of the OCT to attempt to give the impression these columns stood alone, rather than as part of a great matrix. Another extremely dishonest thing all of these theories do is attempt to pretend the fact of 'redundancy' does not exist, but of course every steel skyscraper is built with some amount of redundancy, so when one structural element fails, and the load is transferred elsewhere, there is not an automatic 'overload', as these theories attempt to give the impression. If a column is designed to bear 100 pounds, but it's actual load is 50 pounds, then adding 10-20 or even 30-40 more pounds is not 'overloading' it, just bringing it closer to its design load. Why would 'real' scientists, trying to explain the collapse of the twin towers, not talk about this *fact* openly? Obviously, the job of these OCT-selling apologists is not real science at all, but to justify the 'total collapse' rather than get involved with explaining why it should *not* have collapsed - and even acknowledging this redundancy would make their job very, very difficult, and probably, in consideration of everything else they obfuscate or lie about, well nigh impossible. Especially when you start adding in over 200 outer columns, all sharing the weight of the building after the crash damage with the 30+ inner columns, with no demonstrable fire exposure for certain on most of the outside - no reason at all for all of that steel to just 'collapse' en masse. No reason at all. Again - up to you to show me where the 'physics' or 'science' is here in all of this obfuscation to the point of lies - its absence is quite obvious.
Which leads to the 2rd 'consideration' of Greening et al which is completely unjustifiable - "...the free fall of the entire upper block of n floors through a distance hf = one floor height = 3.7 meters...." - I won't bother wasting much time on this - what I have explained before should make it completely obvious that there is simply no possible way, given the conditions and situation of that day, that all 30-40 of those undamaged inner columns, plus over 200 of the outer columns, none of them anywhere near the point of collapse or in any way 'overstressed' or heated to the point of collapse, are going to all just give way at once after small fires burning less than an hour, allowing this totally impossible 'free fall of 3.7M'. No way, and to try to postulate and defend this position is just to completely disengage with reality and science, and it's difficult to justify wasting much time talking with those who try to defend this fantasy, you're really the flat-earthers of the early 21st century, and your completely unscientific and dishonest approach to your arguments in your desperate attempt to defend an untenable position demonstrates that quite clearly (that you appear to be in the majority is not relevant - the original flat earthers were also a majority for quite a long while, and the powers-that-be of the time quite aggressive in defending their 'theory' of the celestial bodies and discouraging any challenges).
4. I shouldn't go around shooting dead horses, but let's try to finish this once and for all, as it gets tedious. Let us assume even for the sake of argument that by some magical intervention all of those ~250 columns just disintegrated all at once, and your upper block actually did fall through 3.7 meters in 'freefall' - is that going to cause the type of total collapse we saw on that day?
Not in a million years, at least outside of Hollywood FX.
**first, you do not have a stack of plates to 'pancake', as your theory tries to make a case for (I know you don't call it pancaking anymore, but that is quite clearly the scenario you try to establish) - you have an 1100-foot tall central core composed of a matrix of 47 cross-braced columns, surrounded by an 1100-foot tube of very strong steel, again cross-braced every few feet. The 110 floors are attached every 10 feet or so all the way up between the central core and outer tube, actually increasing the strength of the overall structure by acting as yet more cross-bracing. If you want to assume that some magical space ray instantly severed a section of this structure, leaving a 10-20 upper-floor section, and this upper section dropped en masse to the lower, this tube-within-a-tube is the basic structure you would be dealing with. So you would not have an upper section dropping onto one floor and overwhelming it, and again and again until it all hit the ground, you would have a 20-story steel tube-within-a-tube dropping onto an 80-story steel tube-within-a-tube, and any imaginings of what that would result in must be based on that reality, not the very misleading 'solid upper block dropping onto a poor old weak single floor' scenario of the OCT. And what is going to happen then? The tubes, the main structural framework, are going to meet - either the upper section drops straight down so the outer and inner columns meet directly, or they are going to be off-center, and some off-center meeting is going to occur, with some number of the upper columns meeting some number of the lower columns - it's going to be a train wreck, but it's not going to be 'global collapse'. (What happens to the cement floors stretching from core to outer columns is pretty irrelevant here, as they will be unable to support much weight and will tend to crumble if any great weight is placed on them. They will, of course, come into play as the two sections reach for their final equilibrium, as cement and steel is obviously not without some strength and resistance, but any individual floor is a small player when considered against those massive inner and outer tubes.)
Think as a scientist, or intelligent layman, rather than someone attempting to justify a collapse theory - if I have a stack of those grey egg trays, lift a few up and drop them - no big spectacular collapse. If I drop a big cement block on that stack, it would smash them up pretty good, of course. But if I dropped that cement block on some other cement blocks - it might chip a couple, but no big global cement block collapse. Likewise the WTC buildings - sure that upper 20 stories of steel and cement looks pretty impressive - but if you drop a 20-story steel and cement structure a few feet onto an 80-story structure of the same stuff, you are NOT going to cause that lower structure to instantly disintegrate - it is made of the same stuff you are dropping on to it, and it is a lot bigger, and it is by god very, very strongly built - it's not going to disintegrate! - it's hard to talk to people who do not understand this rather basic fact of the way the world works, and demand I go and dig up some mathematical equations to demonstrate the obvious because they by golly have constructed some 'equations' to prove the ridiculous, but there it is. We have modern people calling themselves 'economists' doing the same sort of thing, but morning eventually comes to everyone, and the daylight sends the dreams away. You can dick around with distractions all you want, but in the end, you cannot dick around with the way the world works. You can convince the unsophisticated natives that your modern rifle is a 'magic stick wah wah!!' - but that does not change the basic scientific facts of how it actually works, and if you come back to Canada and wave your arm around shouting booga booga and telling the natives you are a great god with Magic Progressive Collapses - well, at least some of us wonder what the hell you are actually trying to prove here. It sure as hell has nothing to do with real science and physics.
(for a very thorough and scientific 'debunking' of the 'math' and 'physics' of Bazant, Greening, Garcia, Pants et al - http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf .)
Nice wall of text. You make several incorrect assumptions. It would take too long to list them as you have made so many. Perhpas you could focus on a single issue and expand on that?
All calculations of force begin with the motion equations. And apparently we have a new axiom: Anti-Newtonian non-truthers don't know what they are talking about in general.
I will ask you again. What is the difference between v and delta-v?
Fidel, I also suggest that you refrain from making personal comments. That did not work out for you last time, did it?
Quotes for the truthers, quotes for the debunkers. Quotes, quotes, quotes. It's a mug's game.
firefigher quotes
civil engineer quotes
explosions (includes quotes from Rodrigues)
A discussion: The Ever Changing Story of William Rodriguez
Why do you shift the proverbial goalposts?
I've never mentioned pulverization? LOL. I think even Yiwah can tell you you're wrong, But no matter. Does this ruin your house of cards analogy?
Jas never mentions pulverisation in the post to which I was reponding.
This one:
Bjorkman's illustration makes obvious what is wrong with the model, Pants. You can't have a smaller something crunch through a larger something of the same material--in the case of a building, for much more than a few floors. There is no precedent in nature or engineering that would support this model. Bazant's math is made up to legitimize what is illegitimate scientifically.
Please note that there is no mention of pulverisation in your post describing Bjorkman's axiom.
So, when I was responding to this quote with the example of a house of cards as a structure that has a smaller something crunch through a larger something of the same material, I did not need to discuss pulverisation.
So, when jas brings up pulverisation as a reply to that specific post, he is shifting the goalposts. After all, Bjorkman does not discuss pulverisation in his axiom.
All I can say is that jas mentions pulverization often. I'm not keeping score post by post. Nor do I really follow all the names being thrown out. I'm not good with the names of the people I actually meet and know. My head might break if I take on a long list of last names, associated with mathy stuff.
But pulverization is the reality, pants. So maybe it's better for you to just deal with the reality rather than nitpick over semantics.
My question included the word "crunching". Can you demonstrate how the cards in your house of cards crunch through the rest? In fact, could you elaborate on your house of cards analogy. since I would guess that absolutely nobody finds it terribly convincing.
Quotes for the truthers, quotes for the debunkers. Quotes, quotes, quotes. It's a mug's game.
firefigher quotes
civil engineer quotes
explosions (includes quotes from Rodrigues)
Here's what passes for analysis on Debunking 911:
Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.
“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.
“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.
“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.”
We've talked about this site in much earlier threads. They actually don't do much "debunking" --mostly just offering alternative conjecture.
But pulverization is the reality, pants. So maybe it's better for you to just deal with the reality rather than nitpick over semantics.
My question included the word "crunching". Can you demonstrate how the cards in your house of cards crunch through the rest? In fact, could you elaborate on your house of cards analogy. since I would guess that absolutely nobody finds it terribly convincing.
It is not an analogy. It is an example of a structure that disproves Bjorkman's axiom.
Bjorkman claims, incorrectly, that it is impossible for a smaller structure to collapse a larger structure of the same composition. Anyone who has built a house of cards knows that a structure made of playing cards can be totally collpased by one playing card. Therefore, Bjorkman's axiom is not universal, and is therefore not really an axiom, and may not be applicable to the WTC collapses.
Wrong. I said there is no precedent in nature or engineering in which a small something can crunch through a larger something of the same material, and, in case the word "crunch" doesn't make it clear: through gravity alone. A house of cards is not an example that counters this fact.
Rhetoric alert! I find none of it terribly convincing. Be careful what you wish for.
Wrong. I said there is no precedent in nature or engineering in which a small something can crunch through a larger something of the same material, and, in case the word "crunch" doesn't make it clear: through gravity alone. A house of cards is not an example that counters this fact.
Sure it is. I can build a house of cards (or dominos) and then, through gravity alone knock it down with a smaller amount of cards. It's not that hard.
Yes, so can I. I can stack some wood blocks up, destabilize one, and then knock them down, too. What's not happening is the errant block is not crushing through the stack of blocks. Do you understand the difference?
Nor were all the papers in the towers pulverized.
I don't know much, but I do know paper rock scissors.
I can take any piece of heavy construction paper at any height and drop it. It will not crush the paper below it. I can take a rock and drop it. At a certain height, it will crush / damage the rock below it.
I can stack some coffee tables one on top of the other. 110 of them, reaching up to the ceiling of a warehouse. I can burn a hole through several legs of some tables near the top of the stack, disabling many of them. They will probably topple. What they won't do is crush through the stack below them, pulverising them.
I can take a rock and drop it. At a certain height, it will crush / damage the rock below it.
Will it?
Are they also attached together with a series of supports that span each level?
BTW, have you seen BP dealing with a coffee spill? Hilarious!
Yes, so can I. I can stack some wood blocks up, destabilize one, and then knock them down, too. What's not happening is the errant block is not crushing through the stack of blocks. Do you understand the difference?
Use dry bread or ceramic tiles if you want that crunchy, crushing effect.
Absolutely, Pants. I'm glad you find Bazant's "crush down" language funny, too.
But anyway back to the kindergarten physics, like I said, there is no precedent that supports this model.
Absolutely, Pants. I'm glad you find Bazant's "crush down" language funny, too.
But anyway back to the kindergarten physics, like I said, there is no precedent that supports this model.
Before matches were invented, there was no precedent for them. Does that mean the first matches ever invented were a hoax?
In other words, there is never a precedent for something that has not happened before. Nobody ever crashed planes into a building as a terrorist attack before.
... Or at least *these* buildings, or buildings like these. With *these* kinds of planes.
All calculations of force begin with the motion equations. And apparently we have a new axiom: Anti-Newtonian non-truthers don't know what they are talking about in general.
I will ask you again. What is the difference between v and delta-v?
Fidel, I also suggest that you refrain from making personal comments. That did not work out for you last time, did it?
I am convinced that you don't know what you are talking about and are simply wasting everyone's time here with your bad math and pseudo-physics, straw man arguments and egregious claims to fact. You can take the math I posted above and verify it with anyone who does understand math and high school physics. I personally guarantee they will validate it for you.
The question here is not whether I understand delta-t or not. It was apparent that you were clueless as to the meaning of delta-t several threads ago. The question of the matter is whether Manuel Garcia committed an error of omission in calculating force balance by neglecting to account for tilting of the upper block, which would effect total force at the instant of impact, which Garcia says happens within 1/100th of a second. Neither Garcia nor Bazant have accounted for tilting. That is an error of omission. It would not change things whether calculus or high school math is used to describe the 3-metre free fall and collapse initiation.
The question here is not whether I understand delta-t or not. It was apparent that you were clueless as to the meaning of delta-t several threads ago. The question of the matter is whether Manuel Garcia committed an error of omission in calculating force balance by neglecting to account for tilting of the upper block, which would effect total force at the instant of impact, which Garcia says happens within 1/100th of a second. Neither Garcia nor Bazant have accounted for tilting. That is an error of omission. It would not change things whether calculus or high school math is used to describe the 3-metre free fall and collapse initiation.
I will say this one final time:
Garcia uses delta-v in his equations.
You use a constant v in your equations.
Therefore your delta-t is not the same as Garcia's.
.
Simple rhetorical point: You don't have to argue your way out of a burning paper bag. It'll be gone soon enough.
Before matches were invented, there was no precedent for them. Does that mean the first matches ever invented were a hoax?
In other words, there is never a precedent for something that has not happened before. Nobody ever crashed planes into a building as a terrorist attack before.
It doesn't matter what caused the holes in the upper floors. Do you understand?
You asked for the objections to the NIST/Bazant model. This is the big one. This is based on known and accepted physical principles. If your model violates these, you have some 'splainin' to do. You asked how the NIST/Bazant theory violates laws of physics. This is how. If you can't deal with this in plain language terms, you are not able to defend your argument.
Garcia uses delta-v in his equations.
I used the same instantaneous velocity Garcia used in his force balance equations. You're barking up the wrong tree, 'dog.
Why not? If you have trouble understanding it again, I can clarify it one more time if you like.
I have shown how a house of cards (or dominoes or dry pieces of bread) is an example of a structure that will globally collapse if a small portion of the structure falls on a larger portion.
There. I dealt with it in plain language terms.
I have a question that will probably be ignored.
If thermite was used to destroy the structure, how did they keep the thermite from igniting when the planes hit?
Garcia uses delta-v in his equations.
I used the same instantaneous velocity Garcia used in his force balance equations. You're barking up the wrong tree, 'dog.
Garcia does not use an instantaneous velocity to calculate delta-t.
.... This is based on known and accepted physical principles. If your model violates these, you have some 'splainin' to do. You asked how the NIST/Bazant theory violates laws of physics. This is how. ....
Bjorkman's axiom is not a known and accepted physical principle.
Nice wall of text. You make several incorrect assumptions. It would take too long to list them as you have made so many. Perhpas you could focus on a single issue and expand on that?
- that's pretty much what I mean by ducking and dishonesty - people take your entire theory apart, with example after example, and you cleverly respond 'nice wall of text' and demand we get back on your endless merry-go-round. We might say the same in spades about NIST, FEMA, the 911 Commission, etc. except my purpose is searching for the truth, theirs is hiding it. I guess we know which side you're on. I hope my contributions have helped some see through your attempted deceptions.
Pants doesn't seem to recognize that the request for an example in which a smaller something can crush through a larger something through the force of gravity alone is a request to back up the NIST/Bazant hypothesis with physical principles that are demonstrated elsewhere in nature or engineering.
You can't simply say "this was a unique event, therefore the regular laws of physics don't apply." The request for an example is not a request to explain the "uniqueness" of the WTC collapses, it's a request to verify that the model being used to explain them is supported by laws of physics. All he has done is refer to Bazant's math, which we know already violates these principles. Pants has been unable to come up with his own examples of how "crush down" occurs elsewhere in nature or the manufactured world.
Bjorkman's axiom is not a known and accepted physical principle.
What is "Bjorkman's axiom"?
- that's pretty much what I mean by ducking and dishonesty - people take your entire theory apart, with example after example, and you cleverly respond 'nice wall of text' and demand we get back on your endless merry-go-round. We might say the same in spades about NIST, FEMA, the 911 Commission, etc. except my purpose is searching for the truth, theirs is hiding it. I guess we know which side you're on. I hope my contributions have helped some see through your attempted deceptions.
Now you are claiming that I am being dishonest?
What I asked you to do was to summarise Bjorkman's argument. How is that dishonest?
Jas was able to succintly paraphrase Bjorkman's axiom, and we have been discussing it for the last few posts. I find that such a technique is more conducive towards moving the discussion forwards than simply saying that your opponent is a liar.
Pants doesn't seem to recognize that the request for an example in which a smaller something can crush through a larger something through the force of gravity alone is a request to back up the NIST/Bazant hypothesis with physical principles that are demonstrated elsewhere in nature or engineering.
You can't simply say "this was a unique event, therefore the regular laws of physics don't apply." The request for an example is not a request to explain the "uniqueness" of the WTC collapses, it's a request to verify that the model being used to explain them is supported by laws of physics. All he has done is refer to Bazant's math, which we know already violates these principles. Pants has been unable to come up with his own examples of how "crush down" occurs elsewhere in nature or the manufactured world.
Please show how Bazant's math violates a law of physics.
I have shown how a house of cards (or dominoes or dry pieces of bread) is an example of a structure that will globally collapse if a small portion of the structure falls on a larger portion.
There. I dealt with it in plain language terms.
You haven't shown anything. You have used an incorrect non-analogous example. Cards don't crush through each other.
Find a better example.
For example, Writer suggests that you can drop a small rock on a bigger rock and the rock below will break. Do you think this is true?
What is "Bjorkman's axiom"?
A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity from above, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm
Please show how Bazant's math violates a law of physics.
Here is what Bazant's math argues:
Small upper block C crunches through intact building A in under 13 seconds. Small things don't crunch through larger same things. If you disagree with this, show us where in nature this happens.
You haven't shown anything. You have used an incorrect non-analogous example. Cards don't crush through each other.
Find a better example.
For example, Writer suggests that you can drop a small rock on a bigger rock and the rock below will break. Do you think this is true?
Not all the time, but deinitely some of the time. If I drop a small pebble of limestone onto a granite boulder from a height of 3 cm, it won't do anything. If I drop a coffee table made entirely of slate onto the table tops of a structure made of slate coffee tables, I think there will be significant breaking of the lower structure.
Quote: This is all in accordance with the Björkman Axiom regarding structures:
A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity from above, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.
Please show how this is not supported by physical laws.
Not all the time, but deinitely some of the time. If I drop a small pebble of limestone onto a granite boulder from a height of 3 cm, it won't do anything. If I drop a coffee table made entirely of slate onto the table tops of a structure made of slate coffee tables, I think there will be significant breaking of the lower structure.
You change the examples in mid argument. What happens when you drop a granite rock onto a larger granite rock? Or even onto a similar size rock?
Here is what Bazant's math argues:
<once again snipping Bjorkman's incorrect image>
Small upper block C crunches through intact building A in under 13 seconds. Small things don't crunch through larger same things. If you disagree with this, show us where in nature this happens.
I disagree. I already showed you an example disproving the bolded claim.
You change the examples in mid argument. What happens when you drop a granite rock onto a larger granite rock? Or even onto a similar size rock?
Depends on how the rocks are shaped.
What was your example?
Quote: This is all in accordance with the Björkman Axiom regarding structures:
A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity from above, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.
Please show how this is not supported by physical laws.
I did, with my house of cards example. Of course, the material is somewhat irrelevant. To get actual crushing, you would need something brittle like ceramic tile or dry bread.
Depends on how the rocks are shaped.
Let's say then, two concrete, rectangular blocks standing vertically on a concrete floor. You drop one on the other. What happens to the one dropped compared to the one on the warehouse floor? Now do the same experiment with the dropping block smaller than the one on the floor.
Just want to remind anyone who is still reading this that we use the experiment of a drop from a height to help out the supporters of this absurd theory, although this was not the case in the WTC where it is estimated by NIST that 85% of the structural columns remained in the floors where the jets impacted.
Let's say then, two concrete, rectangular blocks standing vertically on a concrete floor. You drop one on the other. What happens to the one dropped compared to the one on the warehouse floor? Now do the same experiment with the dropping block smaller than the one on the floor.
Okay, drop it from a height of 8 inches, which is the approximate height of a concrete masonry unit. Probably nothing will happen. Now drop it from two feet. The top block might get scratched up, but no serious damage. Now drop it from 100 feet. Chances are most of the bricks get broken. From this thought experiment we can see that the height of the fall is one factor.
Now, let us use glass blocks instead of concrete ones. I think we can say with some certainty that we won't have to drop the top block from quite as high to break all of the lower bricks. From this thought experiment, we can see that the material is another factor.
Now, let us go back to the concrete blocks. This time, stack 78 on top of each other. Drop 19 blocks onto them from a distance equal to 6 blocks. This will make more of a mess, so we can see that the number of blocks on top and on the bottom is yet another factor.
Now, let up make two piles of blocks, one in a large square and another in a smaller square completely contained by the larger square. Like the perimeter columns of the WTC and the core. Drop squares of blocks on top of the other squares. If you are increibly lucky and manage to land the upper two squares on the top of the lower squares, you can hope that the whole thing won't collapse too much, but if it tilts at all, the squares won't line up and the blocks will fall. From this we can tell that the relative geometry of the upper and lower blocks is a factor.
Now, take a pile of glass and metal coffee tables, 105 tables high, in a square completely enclosing another square. Put flammable contents between the separate tables, smash the 6 levels of tables above the 78th "storey" by driving a small vehicle in there with a full gas tank, light the flammable stuff in this area on fire, wait an hour or so, and see how many of the tables are still standing.
I did, with my house of cards example. Of course, the material is somewhat irrelevant. To get actual crushing, you would need something brittle like ceramic tile or dry bread.
Your house of cards, or house of concrete slabs (for all it matters) example is not an example of anything crushing through anything else. You are talking about things toppling. Please find a true example.
The other thing I would ask is, are you questioning the "crushing down" effect that is claimed by Bazant?
For example, Writer suggests that you can drop a small rock on a bigger rock and the rock below will break. Do you think this is true?
This isn't what I wrote. I said nothing of size. As far as I know, the towers were rectangular, with each floor matching the square foot of the one above. And a huge section of the top floors together pancaked down each single floor below the point of impact. I'm not a mathmetician or physicist, it's true. But that is what I see when I watch the collapse.
A tip: I am not swayed when you insult me or misrepresent what I write.
A small meteor can do very serious damage to things much bigger than itself, though I'm sure gravity isn't the only thing in play. Just as, in the towers, structural weakening below from jet fuel, glass blowing out, various fires and so on would have also had influence.
Just want to remind anyone who is still reading this that we use the experiment of a drop from a height to help out the supporters of this absurd theory, although this was not the case in the WTC where it is estimated by NIST that 85% of the structural columns remained in the floors where the jets impacted.
Please note that jas forgets to mention that many of the remaining columns were damaged by the impact, many others had their fireproofing removed and were severely weakened by fire, and many others were stressed beyond their limit because they were taking the load that had been carried by the damaged and severed columns.
Okay, drop it from a height of 8 inches, which is the approximate height of a concrete masonry unit. Probably nothing will happen. Now drop it from two feet. The top block might get scratched up, but no serious damage. Now drop it from 100 feet. Chances are most of the bricks get broken. From this thought experiment we can see that the height of the fall is one factor.
The ratios you use here are not analogous. And you don't seem to get back to a true analogy in the rest of this post.
How many blocks and from how high? You don't bother saying.
How much of a mess? The 78 blocks are not pulverized. This is the closest you come to a true analogy, and your theory is show to not work. What is the point of your example?
Your other examples make no sense.
Many of the elevators did speed down the shafts to basement levels, right? And at least some were on fire?
But the WTC towers were not a case of everything being crushed. Remember that there was mass being ejected laterally from the towers during collapse. A large part of this mass being ejected was the perimeter columns, and they were not crushed. They toppled out of the building, for the most part.
I think it would be more correct to say that I am questioning your incorrect interpretation of Bazant. I do not believe that Bazant claims that every part of the building was entirely "crushed".
Please note that jas forgets to mention that many of the remaining columns were damaged by the impact, many others had their fireproofing removed and were severely weakened by fire, and many others were stressed beyond their limit because they were taking the load that had been carried by the damaged and severed columns.
The fireproofing being removed is something that NIST guessed at. The columns were designed to absorb 2000% of their live loads. NIST estimates a variance of between 20% and 35% of load bearing on the remaining columns, with some of the load lessening in some areas, some increasing. Pant's picture over-exaggerates in a gross fashion.
...
The ratios you use here are not analogous. And you don't seem to get back to a true analogy in the rest of this post.
...
How many blocks and from how high? You don't bother saying.
...
How much of a mess? The 78 blocks are not pulverized. This is the closest you come to a true analogy, and your theory is show to not work. What is the point of your example?
Your other examples make no sense.
It is more of an illustration of the various factors that would affect whether or not there would be a global collapse occuring from gravity alone. The only example that even remotely resembles the WTC towers would be the final one.
Yesterday I watched a whole series of videos of the buildings collapsing. No question that whole sections of the concrete "face" can be seen coming off.
But the WTC towers were not a case of everything being crushed. Remember that there was mass being ejected laterally from the towers during collapse. A large part of this mass being ejected was the perimeter columns, and they were not crushed. They toppled out of the building, for the most part.
You yourself cited his discussion of the mass shedding factor. What does he say? And, if you don't agree with my interpretation, what then does he mean by "crush-down, crush-up"?
The fireproofing being removed is something that NIST guessed at. The columns were designed to absorb 2000% of their live loads. NIST estimates a variance of between 20% and 35% of load bearing on the remaining columns, with some of the load lessening in some areas, some increasing. Pant's picture over-exaggerates in a gross fashion.
You should provide evidence for your claims. Here is mine:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact....
You yourself cited his discussion of the mass shedding factor. What does he say? And, if you don't agree with my interpretation, what then does he mean by "crush-down, crush-up"?
Bazant calculates the probable amount of mass ejected by putting in different percentages of mass ejected and then solving the calculations to see the results. He then kept those percentages that agreed most with video and seismic evidence. This range was in between 10% and 30%.
Bazant is not discussing actual crushing of the structure. Part of it is crushed, part of it is toppled, part of it is buckled, and a part of it is pulverised. The phrase "crush-up, crush-down" is simply a shorthand over-simplification.
Many of the elevators did speed down the shafts to basement levels, right? And at least some were on fire?
From what I understand, fires did spread from floor to floor in at least one of the towers. I do not know if the actual elevators were on fire.
For example, Writer suggests that you can drop a small rock on a bigger rock and the rock below will break. Do you think this is true?
This isn't what I wrote. I said nothing of size. As far as I know, the towers were rectangular, with each floor matching the square foot of the one above. And a huge section of the top floors together pancaked down each single floor below the point of impact. I'm not a mathmetician or physicist, it's true. But that is what I see when I watch the collapse.
A tip: I am not swayed when you insult me or misrepresent what I write.
Writer, that's not really a fair things to say, is it? I asked for an example of a smaller something crushing through a larger something. That was the example you provided. If you weren't talking about a smaller rock hitting a larger rock, then your example isn't correct, is it? Is it my fault your example wasn't correct?
And the floors didn't pancake. NIST denies that pancaking occurred, and there is no visual evidence of pancaked floors at ground zero. They were pulverized. We have had to repeat this fact throughout these threads and its gets tiring arguing with people who don't take the time to understand what the official collapse theory is.
From what I understand, fires did spread from floor to floor in at least one of the towers. I do not know if the actual elevators were on fire.
Really, pants? In one of the threads you were insisting that no fires escaped the impact zone. Then I pointed out to you that the upper blocks did indeed experience fire on many different floors. Then you insisted that no fires occurred below the impact zone.
Are you changing your story again?
From what I understand, fires did spread from floor to floor in at least one of the towers. I do not know if the actual elevators were on fire.
Really, pants? In one of the threads you were insisting that no fires escaped the impact zone. Then I pointed out to you that the upper blocks did indeed experience fire on many different floors. Then you insisted that no fires occurred below the impact zone.
Are you changing your story again?
Yes. My beliefs about the collapse will change as I encounter new evidence.
That is how science works.
Are you saying that your story has never changed?
Yes. My beliefs about the collapse will change as I encounter new evidence.
So what evidence are you citing regarding fires below below the impact zone?
The fireproofing being removed is something that NIST guessed at. The columns were designed to absorb 2000% of their live loads. NIST estimates a variance of between 20% and 35% of load bearing on the remaining columns, with some of the load lessening in some areas, some increasing. Pant's picture over-exaggerates in a gross fashion.
You should provide evidence for your claims. Here is mine:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact....
Please quote the relevant text.
Bazant is not discussing actual crushing of the structure. Part of it is crushed, part of it is toppled, part of it is buckled, and a part of it is pulverised. The phrase "crush-up, crush-down" is simply a shorthand over-simplification.
1) Do you have a source that confirms your interpretation of Bazant?
2) Crushing and pulverizing, for our purposes, are the same thing. Pulverizing more accurately describes what was left at ground zero.
3) What toppled?
4) Where below the impact zone did the columns buckle?
And 5) whatever other forces were at play in the actual collapse (not the cause of) can be taken as a given by both sides of the argument. It doesn't matter. Bazant's theory both describes and uses the terms "crush down, crush up".
So what evidence are you citing regarding fires below below the impact zone?
http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts
Just to sum up this most recent flurry of posts. Pants has not provided an example of anything on the earth's surface that can crush through something the same as but larger than itself through gravity. He is now moving the goalposts, saying that Bazant "really doesn't mean" crushing, that that's just a convenient term he uses.
The technical terms are not my strength. So pancake is the wronge term, perhaps.
What I mean is I see several floors above the impact. I see many more below the impact. I see the area around the impact give way. I see all those floors above come down in the space that gives way, hitting the first whole floor below impact, and then the next and then the next and then the next.
When I look at the drawing you keep posting, I see something that seems to argue about the impossibility of the whole above the point of impact maintaining momentum through the lower parts of the buildings in equivalent segments. Watching the videos, I don't see all of the x# of floors above destrowing at the same instant exactly the same # of floors below. I see x# of floors above impact going through the collapsed space onto one floor, the next floor, the next floor, the next floor, each floor then adding to the mass coming down. Below the points of impact, I see windows being blown out and paper, lighter debris coming out as the air is pushed out from above.
That is what I see. I have not read the NIST report, nor would I be able to make any sense of it.
.
Several of the large express passenger elevators, which service the sky lobbies, plunged to the main lobby level. At least one of those falling elevators was accompanied by a huge fireball that burst into the lobby and concourse levels. Only four people are known to have survived in the south tower express elevators.
http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts
Fireballs don't shoot down elevator shafts through 90 storeys. NIST says the jet fuel was consumed in a large but brief kerosene fire upon impact. This looks like old previously debunked information, probably still hanging around the 'net from one of the defunct collapse theories.
But maybe you should make sure. Does NIST confirm this somewhere else in their report?