What laws of physics support the official hypothesis of the WTC collapses?

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Gordon Ross wrote:

Thus we can see that, in reality, the energy of the falling upper section of the tower would not be utilised to crush only one storey of the tower, but would in fact be distributed throughout the upper section as well as storeys in the lower section. Energy would be absorbed over many more storeys than the first impacted storey of the lower section. This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction. To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down - crush up" theory.

from NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE

Jas, I've already pointed out that Ross is wrong, and how he is wrong.

Repeating yourself does not change that.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Jas, I've already pointed out that Ross is wrong, and how he is wrong.

You have not pointed out how he is wrong.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

They make no mention of absorption of impact occuring before energy transferral.

jas wrote:

Gordon Ross wrote:

Thus we can see that, in reality, the energy of the falling upper section of the tower would not be utilised to crush only one storey of the tower, but would in fact be distributed throughout the upper section as well as storeys in the lower section. Energy would be absorbed over many more storeys than the first impacted storey of the lower section. This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction. To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down - crush up" theory.

from NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Jas, I've already pointed out that Ross is wrong, and how he is wrong.

You have not pointed out how he is wrong.

He thinks the upper block didn't tilt.

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17961]A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers[/url] Courageous insiders, gagged, hounded and ignored

The evidence is everywhere, from 1200+ independent architects and engineers challenging the official conspiracy theory to eye witnesses to the event, and now the whistleblowers who refuse to be silenced.

When losing a discussion on the facts of 9/11, a so-called 9/11 "debunker" will often rely on an old canard to "prove" that 9/11 could not have been an inside job: "So many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn't squelch the squealers from spilling the beans," write self-satisfied defenders of the government story. According to the logic of this argument, if there are no 9/11 whistleblowers then 9/11 was not an inside job.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

They make no mention of absorption of impact occuring before energy transferral.

jas wrote:

Gordon Ross wrote:

Thus we can see that, in reality, the energy of the falling upper section of the tower would not be utilised to crush only one storey of the tower, but would in fact be distributed throughout the upper section as well as storeys in the lower section. Energy would be absorbed over many more storeys than the first impacted storey of the lower section. This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction. To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down - crush up" theory.

from NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE

Right, as we can plainly see, there is no mention of impact absorption occuring before energy transferral in that text.

Thank you for clarifying that this text does not support your claim.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

He thinks the upper block didn't tilt.

Tilting has nothing to do with it.

jas

Gordon Ross wrote:

Thus we can see that, in reality, the energy of the falling upper section of the tower would not be utilised to crush only one storey of the tower, but would in fact be distributed throughout the upper section as well as storeys in the lower section. Energy would be absorbed over many more storeys than the first impacted storey of the lower section. This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction.

To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down - crush up" theory.

from NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Right, as we can plainly see, there is no mention of impact absorption occuring before energy transferral in that text.

You have poor reading comprehension. I've noticed this before.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
He thinks the upper block didn't tilt.

Please provide evidence for this claim. It's not that we don't trust anything and everything you've ever said for whatever reason(s). It's just that we frown upon people who make wild claims without any supporting evidence and tend to mostly always neglect to source the material they borrow from nether regions of the internet. Thank you.

jas

I'm looking forward to the discussion of how conservation of mass is used in the NIST/Bazant crush-down, crush-up theory. I'm pretty sure not even Bazant makes this claim.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Gordon Ross wrote:

Thus we can see that, in reality, the energy of the falling upper section of the tower would not be utilised to crush only one storey of the tower, but would in fact be distributed throughout the upper section as well as storeys in the lower section. Energy would be absorbed over many more storeys than the first impacted storey of the lower section. This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction.

To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down - crush up" theory.

from NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Right, as we can plainly see, there is no mention of impact absorption occuring before energy transferral in that text.

You have poor reading comprehension. I've noticed this before.

The bolded text implies that both objects absorb and transmit energy at the exact same time. Please note that this directly contradicts your cliam that the impacting object has to absorb the impact before energy transferral.

Please note that you still have no evidence.