Yes, NIST and their lunatics for hire have posed a number of whacky theories that require leaps of faith to be believed. Here is a more likely explanation:
[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html]A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario[/url] A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means Jim Hoffman
I'm not that much interested in what might be mathematically calculable, especially if you're just going to cut and paste from someone else's calculations, and pick figures out of the air for what the mass might be of the supposed falling block...
Don't worry. Mathematical calculations will only be one part of my argument. This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o) from youtube concerning the verinage demolition technique shows that upper floors can crush lower blocks at speeds only slightly slower than free fall. No math required. Simply press play.
There. Now you have non-mathematical evidence that the buildings collapsed at speeds slower than free fall, and non-mathematical evidence that the upper block of storeys can crush the lower storeys at speeds only slightly slower than free fall.
Feel free to admit that I have disproved your premise.
I will also show the mathematics, mind you. But that is so that I can disprove any claims that the NIST or others haven't already shown this.
...and then make some statement about how the falling block will gain rather than lose mass etc...and other statements that require a suspension of known physical principles.
The amount of mass falling on any particular floor will be more than the mass falling onto the floor above. This is due to the fact that any particluar floor will have all the floors above it falling on it. In a 100 storey building, the fiftieth floor will have fifty floors land on top of it, the forty-ninth will have 51 floors fall on it, the 48th will have 52 floors fall on it, etc.
That is consistent with the principle of physics called the conservation of mass.
I also wouldn't go so far as to say that free fall did not occur. How do we know? For portions of the descent, matter may have indeed been in free fall. Can you show that it didn't occur for any portion of th descent? But I also don't care that much. None of this is as important as acknowledging that, in this case, free fall and virtual or essentially free fall are, for our purposes, the same impossible thing.
Some pieces of the building fell the whole way in free fall. You can look again at the photo I posted to see portions of debris that have been ejected away from the main mass. It is by comparing the upper block of storeys to these very portions of the building that we were able to determine that the upper stories did not collapse at free fall speeds.
As well, the initial collpase of the upper block of storeys (right before they hit the lower blocks) was probably at speeds so close to free fall that any difference would be negligible.
However, the overall collapse of the entire towers occurred at a rate slower than free fall speeds.
Yes, NIST and their lunatics for hire have posed a number of whacky theories that require leaps of faith to be believed. Here is a more likely explanation:
[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html]A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario[/url] A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means Jim Hoffman
This has nothing to do with collapse times. Please start another thread with this as the discussion topic if you feel like pursuing this avenue of inquiry.
This has nothing to do with collapse times. Please start another thread with this as the discussion topic if you feel like pursuing this avenue of inquiry.
Where is the physical proof for your wild conspiracy theory? You have none. That means your wild speculation, and NIST's wild speculation on collapse theory, is totally worthless. Hoffman provides a plausible explanation that would make William of Ockham proud.
Where is the physical proof for your wild conspiracy theory? You have none. That means your wild speculation, and NIST's wild speculation on collapse theory, is totally worthless. Hoffman provides a plausible explanation that would make William of Ockham proud.
If you look at the photo I already posted, you would see my evidence for my claim that the upper blocks of storeys fell at slower than free fall velocities.
If you look at the youtube videos to which I have already linked, you would see my evidence for my claim that the the upper block of storeys can collapse the lower block at velocites only slightly slower than free fall velocities.
There is my evidence. Feel free to look at it again.
So, when you claim that I have no evidence, you are wrong.
When you go on to claim my speculations are wrong because of this lack of evidence, you are wrong again.
Yes, I'm late with this one. The FAQ says that the failure happened when the outer vertical columns were pulled inwards. That would imply that the vertical collision was inside the outer columns, ie the floor.
NIST's report stops short of a detailed and scientific description of collapse initiation. By avoiding collapse initiation, they've conveniently avoided the need to discuss evidence supporting demolition.
This is more than likely thermate, which gives off a bright orange light when burning, and was likely pushed from the centre of the building to the periphery by the crashed plane. It burned for several minutes and poured out the side of the South Tower.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/wtc2_orangespout1.pn...
The thermal/corrosive attack on these two portions of the structure leaves the entire block of the core structure above the upper mechanical equipment floor "floating", with no major steel members to transfer its gravity loads to the lower portion of the core or to the perimeter walls: it is now supported by the web-trussed floor diaphragms. The upper core block now exerts massive inward forces on the perimeter walls due to the high degree of leverage involved in the translation of the core block's gravity loads into pulling on the perimeter walls. It is these forces that produce the inward bowing of portions of perimeter walls that NIST claims are due merely to the sagging of floor diaphragms still supported by the core.
The amount of mass falling on any particular floor will be more than the mass falling onto the floor above. This is due to the fact that any particluar floor will have all the floors above it falling on it. In a 100 storey building, the fiftieth floor will have fifty floors land on top of it, the forty-ninth will have 51 floors fall on it, the 48th will have 52 floors fall on it, etc.
That is consistent with the principle of physics called the conservation of mass.
Conservation of mass, if I understand it, occurs in a closed system. What we are describing was not a closed system. What you are also describing is pancaking, which clearly did not occur, by both the visual evidence and what NIST confirms, but mostly by what was left, or not left, at the bottom. But I understand you no longer completely agree with what NIST is saying, anyway, which is at least some progress.
Conservation of mass, if I understand it, occurs in a closed system. What we are describing was not a closed system. What you are also describing is pancaking, which clearly did not occur, by both the visual evidence and what NIST confirms, but mostly by what was left, or not left, at the bottom. But I understand you no longer completely agree with what NIST is saying, anyway, which is at least some progress.
Are you claiming that parts of the building simply disappeared from existence after the structure fell apart?
How is a collpasing building not a closed system in terms of conservation of mass?
What, exactly, do you mean by pancaking?
What visual evidence do you have that disproves that pancaking occurred?
What other evidence do you have that disproves pancaking occurred?
If you only answer one of these questions, please answer the one about what pancaking means.
OK, I watched the videos. In this one resistance was removed by cables halfway down the building, I'm assuming, for safety, on both sides. Of course the top is going to come down. The building comes down in chunks, as would be expected. It doesn't pulverize itself. You don't see massive pyroclastic clouds that linger in the sky for hours afterwards. It looks like a regular demolition. This one again, you can see that resistance has been removed around the middle of the building.
In all your examples, the top portion is equal to the bottom portion and resistance has been removed equally around the building. Collapse of each floor is visible and consistent with controlled demolition. We do not get the benefit of seeing the end result, either. I would guess that we would see large chunks of the top portion on the ground, unlike what was witnessed at Ground Zero.
And did the buildings collapse into their basements?
But it does help to provide clues as to what controlled demolition techniques may have been used in the WTC.
Are you claiming that parts of the building simply disappeared from existence after the structure fell apart?
How is a collpasing building not a closed system in terms of conservation of mass?
What, exactly, do you mean by pancaking?
What visual evidence do you have that disproves that pancaking occurred?
What other evidence do you have that disproves pancaking occurred?
If you only answer one of these questions, please answer the one about what pancaking means.
Answers:
Yes.
Much matter, and therefore mass, exits the system laterally and in massive dust clouds during collapse.
I'll let you figure that one out for yourself.
NIST says pancaking did not occur. No pictures exist, that I know of, that show significant pancaking - otherwise we would have seen 90 and 78 pancaked floors at Ground Zero instead of a rubble pile that only measure nine stories high. And obviously you cannot have pancaking with the core structure that existed.
See above.
See above.
Gotta go.
OK, I watched the videos. In this one resistance was removed by cables halfway down the building, I'm assuming, for safety, on both sides. Of course the top is going to come down. The building comes down in chunks, as would be expected. It doesn't pulverize itself. You don't see massive pyroclastic clouds that linger in the sky for hours afterwards. It looks like a regular demolition. This one again, you can see that resistance has been removed around the middle of the building.
In all your examples, the top portion is equal to the bottom portion and resistance has been removed equally around the building. Collapse of each floor is visible and consistent with controlled demolition. We do not get the benefit of seeing the end result, either. I would guess that we would see large chunks of the top portion on the ground, unlike what was witnessed at Ground Zero.
And did the buildings collapse into their basements?
But it does help to provide clues as to what controlled demolition techniques may have been used in the WTC.
Yes, resistance was removed from the middle portion by cables. Much the same way the resistance was removed from several storeys in each WTC building by the impact of a large plane and the subsequent fire.
At which point we can clearly see the upper block of storeys collapse onto the lower block of storeys, exactly like in the WTC collapse.
There was no pyroclastic flow at the WTC collapse. [url=http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story11_16_01.html]Here[/url] is a seismological report of the WTC collapse.They mention that certain aspects resembled pyroclastic flows, but there is no mention of a real pyroclastic flow.
However, you completely missed the point. These videos provide evidence that such a collapse can occur at rates approaching free fall velocities.
Let me repeat that so there is no confusion:
These videos provide evidence that such a collapse can occur at rates approaching free fall velocities.
Answers:
Yes.
Much matter, and therefore mass, exits the system laterally and in massive dust clouds during collapse.
I'll let you figure that one out for yourself.
NIST says pancaking did not occur. No pictures exist, that I know of, that show significant pancaking - otherwise we would have seen 90 and 78 pancaked floors at Ground Zero instead of a rubble pile that only measure nine stories high. And obviously you cannot have pancaking with the core structure that existed.
See above.
See above.
It will be very difficult to have a discussion about 'pancaking' when you won't even explain what you mean by it. To me, it is an activity for those sunday mornings when you realise you have no toast for the children.
Now, the only way that the mass hitting each floor during collapse could not increase is if 100% of the mass of each floor was laterally ejected. Now, this obviously did not occur. Therefore, some (I would even say most) of the mass of each floor was added to the descending mass on each floor impact during collapse.
pyroclastic cloud
pyroclastic flow
pyroclastic cloud
pyroclastic flow
Spot the difference.
As for the crush down theory, common sense tells you that the accreted matter would accumulate between the falling mass and the upright mass, which has to slow the falling mass down. Pulverized material does not accumulate onto the upper block. It's pulverized. It doesn't add to the "crushing power" of the falling block. If anything, it creates an obstruction to its momentum.
Furthermore, there's no logic or any precedent that says that the alleged falling block would have the power to crush down before being crushed itself. The falling block actually suffered the fire damage, so it's a weaker structure than the standing block. In real life, all other things being equal, floors would be destroyed on both sides of the interface of the falling mass and the upright mass--as may have been demonstrated in your controlled demolition videos--but in the case of the WTC, with the falling block losing mass before the upright block.
Finally, simple physics tells you that when something has to crush through something else, energy is lost at each step - much more energy than gravity can make up for.
Closing for length
