- 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.pdf
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 .)
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?
