WTC collapses discussion thread IV

153 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2010-07-29 11:43

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

siamdave wrote:

- one of the obvious questions people seem to be missing is - if you want the upper block to fall onto 'one floor' of the lower block - how is that it's not only one floor of the upper block impacting one floor of the lower block, and thus one floor of the lower disentigrates, and one floor of the upper?? Exactly the same 'physics' would apply, wouldn't they? (I'll understand if you avoid this, as there's no actual 'physics' readily discernible anywhere in this whole redqueen "I make whatever rules I want!!!' discussion ... )

There are two reasons.

One is that the rubble between th eupper block and lower block would have cushioned the impact between the upper block and lower block.

The second is more complicated, and deals with the velocity of the crushing fronts going up and going down. Bazant shows how the velocity of the wave going up into the upper block decelerated very swiftly.

The mathematical evidence for an essentially rigid upper block of storeys begins at the bottom of page 15/29, and ends on the subsequent page. The figure 9 that Bazant mentions during the mathematical discussion is on page 29/29.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf

What is also missing, besides the fact that the fictional upper block did not "fall" through the 85% remaining structural steel core adn perimeter columns which can support load increases of up to 2000% before failing, is that in order for the fictional upper block to have any crushing or hammering effect on the lower storeys, it must absorb some of this energy itself. According to Ross, Bazant does not account for this energy loss, in addition to not accounting for the load absorption that the lower storeys would obviously be providing.

I'm not sure how or why Bazant is able to remain employed at Northwestern University. This subject alone deserves a thread of its own.

Pants, that link seems to be referring to WTC7.

Thu, 2010-07-29 11:47

#53

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
I already did. Look at the picture.

I don't see an upper block in the picture, so the upper block doesn't exist.

There are no dogs in the picture. Therefore dogs don't exist.

Quote:
This is not evidence. Common sense physics tells us that the upper block would have been partly turned to rubble and arrested in its descent. This is what Ross and Chandler and Bjorkman and Jones and Griffin and Ryan and hundreds of other people in the scientific and engineering communities have stated, and what we've been arguing for weeks and months now.

Listing the names of people who agree with you is not an argument. When the Church was arguing with Galileo about a heliocentric solar system, most of the "experts" at the time agreed with the Church. The "experts" were wrong. Ross and the rest of them have been shown to be incorrect.

jas wrote:
Since the upper blocks are clearly not visible in the above photos, the visual evidence supports the physical principle. Newtonian physics has once again been proven correct.

What physical principle are you talking about here?

Quote:
As for your statement that I've bolded, rubble would not be able to piledrive 80 and 90 floors of intact concrete and structural steel. If you want to now shift the argument this way, i.e., that it's rubble that crushes the 80 and 90 intact floors, then you'll need to acknowledge that you are now no longer supporting the Bazant/NIST hypothesis, not to mention that your argument won't hold up for even the length of time it will take you to argue it.

Fast moving rubble would still cause damage. Blunderbusses were weapons like shotguns that could be loaded with anything. Put some rubble in a blunderbuss. Would you shoot yourself? No.

But I am not changing my argument. What I am doing is showing you that the rigidity of the upper block is not as important as you think it is.

jas wrote:
I don't recall using the term "universally pulverized". Those goalposts really are portable, aren't they?

I'm sorry, but that is how I thought you were defining "crushed". Since you seem to be defining "crushed" in different ways at different times, please provide a definition of what you mean by "crushed".

jas wrote:
Thank you for confirming the definition we have been using for about a dozen threads now.

My original question was: does the Bazant/NIST hypothesis work without an upper block? It's obvious that it does not.

Well, you didn't even need me to answer the question, did you?

Now, please provide evidence that the Bazant model, or any other GC model, violates a law of physics.

Thu, 2010-07-29 11:48

#54

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Bjorkman's axiom, that you paraphrased, is that a small portion of a structure cannot cause a global collapse by falling onto a larger structure made the same way.

This is not universally true. Exceptions to Bjorkman's axiom are a house of cards, a structure of wineglasses stacked a hundred million miles high, an exact replica of the WTC made of chocolate, etc.

No. These would not allow a top-driven gravitational collapse that pulverizes the lower portion.

The house of cards is not an example. If you want to use cards, use the analogy of a tall stack of playing cards, comprising several decks. Theoretically destroy a few cards in the upper portion of the stack. The upper stack does not crush through the remaining stack.

Quote:
You have exluded some of these examples and others because they do not "crush" through the lower structure, but destroy the lower structure in oher ways. This contradicts the first post you made on this page where you claim that "crush-down" includes many events including toppling, and does not mean solely crushing.

It does not mean solely toppling, either, which your house of cards example is.

Thu, 2010-07-29 11:51

#55

integrity

So sad that so many have no life. Looking through this thread some of us laugh. Naturally, who has time to read the nitty gritty? Not those of us who have a life. Looking in from my perspective, well....sad that so much time is spent on nothing!

Thu, 2010-07-29 11:52

#56

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

What is also missing, besides the fact that the fictional upper block did not "fall" through the 85% remaining structural steel core adn perimeter columns which can support load increases of up to 2000% before failing, is that in order for the fictional upper block to have any crushing or hammering effect on the lower storeys, it must absorb some of this energy itself. According to Ross, Bazant does not account for this energy loss, in addition to not accounting for the load absorption that the lower storeys would obviously be providing.

I'm not sure how or why Bazant is able to remain employed at Northwestern University. This subject alone deserves a thread of its own.

Pants, that link seems to be referring to WTC7.

Ross is wrong. He makes the incorrect assumption that the upper block would have landed perfectly on top of the columns in the lower block. Since we know the upper blocks tilted, Ross is wrong.

If you had actually looked at the link, you would have seen the title of the work is:

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York.

Thu, 2010-07-29 11:55

#57

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Bjorkman's axiom, that you paraphrased, is that a small portion of a structure cannot cause a global collapse by falling onto a larger structure made the same way.

This is not universally true. Exceptions to Bjorkman's axiom are a house of cards, a structure of wineglasses stacked a hundred million miles high, an exact replica of the WTC made of chocolate, etc.

No. These would not allow a top-driven gravitational collapse that pulverizes the lower portion.

The house of cards is not an example. If you want to use cards, use the analogy of a tall stack of playing cards, comprising several decks. Theoretically destroy a few cards in the upper portion of the stack. The upper stack does not crush through the remaining stack.

Quote:
You have exluded some of these examples and others because they do not "crush" through the lower structure, but destroy the lower structure in oher ways. This contradicts the first post you made on this page where you claim that "crush-down" includes many events including toppling, and does not mean solely crushing.

It does not mean solely toppling, either, which your house of cards example is.

Please provide evidence that a structure made of wine-glasses stacked a hundred million miles high would not globally collpase if you removed a million miles worth of wine-glasses two thirds of the way up.

Thu, 2010-07-29 11:58

#58

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

jas wrote:
I already did. Look at the picture.

I don't see an upper block in the picture, so the upper block doesn't exist.

There are no dogs in the picture. Therefore dogs don't exist.

Yes, that's right. Dogs are not in the picture. Dogs were not reportedly a component of the collapse. Thank you for confiirming what evidence is.

Quote:
What physical principle are you talking about here?

The one that says that things cannot crush through or pulverize other, larger things of the same matter and density via gravity alone.

Quote:
Fast moving rubble would still cause damage. Blunderbusses were weapons like shotguns that could be loaded with anything. Put some rubble in a blunderbuss. Would you shoot yourself? No.

But I am not changing my argument. What I am doing is showing you that the rigidity of the upper block is not as important as you think it is.

Yes, rubble has the ability to cause damage. It does not crush through 80 and 90 intact storeys of a steel-framed highrise.

The upper block is integral to the NIST/Bazant hypothesis, so yes, it is very important.

Quote:
Well, you didn't even need me to answer the question, did you?

No, of course not. I was just hoping you would understand it for yourself.

Thu, 2010-07-29 11:59

#59

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please provide evidence that a structure made of wine-glasses stacked a hundred million miles high would not globally collpase if you removed a million miles worth of wine-glasses two thirds of the way up.

LOL. I think the onus of proof is on you in this case.

Thu, 2010-07-29 12:07

#60

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Please provide evidence for any of these claims.

If a government sponsored conspiracy theory authored by a couple of fall guys for NIST is not experimentally repeatable, then it's basically worthless as an explanation. Once again, it's not up to a&es for 9/11 truth to provide a better explanation for what happened, although they already have provided several more plausible theories as per William of Ockham's philosophy. The law says that NIST obligated to provide more information and detail concerning collapse initiation at the root cause of three building collapses on 9/11. Many of the 900 engineers for 9/11 truth don't necessarily care whether it was an inside job or not. They have certain professional obligations to understand exactly why three heaviliy insured white real estate elephants collapsed as they did on 9/11 so as to avoid any future flaws in buildings they might be contracted to design themselves. There is nothing out of the ordinary about the inquiries made by more than 1200 independent A&E's for truth. They are just doing their jobs. NIST and the feds continue to avoid their responsibilities for a transparent and accountable investigation into the truth about 9/11. Why? Why were investigations into the Lewinsky-Clinton affair or Whitewater or Columbia shuttle disaster each worth more time and money than the worst building collapses in history? What was crazy George Bush's government hiding from the public? What truths are this Liberal Democrat government under Obama continuing to hide from a world it continues to want to dominate militarily?

Thu, 2010-07-29 12:13

#61

jas

integrity wrote:

Naturally, who has time to read the nitty gritty? Not those of us who have a life.

Exactly, integrity. This is why the absurdity that is the official theory is able to pass with little notice in the mainstream. No one actually understands what is being proposed. Crticisms of it are socially and politically marginalized. No one is paying attention to it. You've hit the nail on the head.

Thu, 2010-07-29 12:14

#62

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Ross is wrong. He makes the incorrect assumption that the upper block would have landed perfectly on top of the columns in the lower block. Since we know the upper blocks tilted, Ross is wrong.

You don't seem to understand the principle. Tilting would not affect load absorption by either the upper or lower blocks. In order for your fictional upper block to crush anything, it has to absorb some of the energy of impact. Bazant does not account for the energy lost in this absorption.

Thu, 2010-07-29 12:26

#63

Fidel

That's right. Tilting would have changed force balance but not total energy released into what were a number of energy sinks. Bazant and Greening would have us believe that all of the energy was made available for overwhelming 250 steel columns at each floor level and for "crushing."

The guvmint guys have avoided a lot of scientific explanation by repeating the words, "collapse was inevitable." The truth of the matter is that they knew it was inevitable for a certain undiscerning percentage of the population to be satisfied with the word, "inevitable", over scientific empricism. Which leads us to believe that some of us are easily placated by government sponsored conspiracy theories. Auhoritarian fascist dictators used to say that it was easier to murder one-thousand people than one million. Today the reverse is true. A few thousand people murdered on 9/11 paved the way for the US Government and US-led NATO forces to murder more than one-million human beings since 2001. Millions of people have acquiesced to the double speak of a number of modern day megalomaniacal psychopaths running the world today.

Thu, 2010-07-29 15:19

#64

Fidel

integrity wrote:

So sad that so many have no life. Looking through this thread some of us laugh. Naturally, who has time to read the nitty gritty? Not those of us who have a life. Looking in from my perspective, well....sad that so much time is spent on nothing!

A lot of this stuff can be understood by anyone who has taken a physics course in high school, community college, or university. Canadians are among some of the most well educated people in the world, and so some significant percentage of Canadians would understand the fundamentals.

Most Canadians voted against FTA and against NAFTA. And in spite of us having one of the most well informed publics in the world, those trade deals were forced on us by paternalistic governments wielding phony majority dictatorial powers. It's been a pattern for some time and said to be why voter turnouts have declined in North America in general over the last 20 or 30 years. It's called the democratic deficit, and more and more Canadians and Americans want accountability and transparency in government. We don't have it. 9/11 Commission panelists have described their own report as a whitewash and justice denied by several government agencies. 9/11 is just the tip of a much larger iceberg and overall democratic deficit. Whether you have a life or not and regardless of whether you care about integrity in government, you're being lied to constantly.

Thu, 2010-07-29 15:55

#65

jas

Here is my goofy drawing of where I believe the upper block should be, according to the NIST/Bazant hypothesis. The yellow line outlines a block of less than 15 floors. The green line is my estimate of the collapse zone, i.e., the upper floor of the intact bulk of the building. The red dots measure a height of 15 floors, the number Pants used in his math. Which is why you can see the upper block I drew is shorter than that.

Edited: inserting a different pic here showing a more realistic size of the fictional upper block due to its having already supposedly crushed through the impact zone, as we see in the plaguepuppy video posted from a previous thread.

Thu, 2010-07-29 17:31

#66

PB66

jas wrote:

Quote:
What physical principle are you talking about here?

The one that says that things cannot crush through or pulverize other, larger things of the same matter and density via gravity alone.

There is no such physical principle, because what you claim is false.

In what way is the house of cards made of glass sheets not an example of a falling upper structure smashing a lower and larger structure?

Are you making some sort of distinction between smashing and crushing? If so, I'd be curious to know what it is.

Thu, 2010-07-29 17:54

#67

jas

Why does it have to be a "house of cards" for you guys? I know why. Because a house of cards is famously flimsy. You're picking an example of the flimsiest structure you can think of in an attempt to prove a point that you don't seem to understand.

If you want to use panes of glass, stack 110 of them one on top of the other. Let's say they're .5 cm thick -- or thicker, if you like; you can use 1,100 for a better effect, too -- and have little nubs on each corner so that a space is created between each one when stacked. Destroy 3 - 6 of them (30 - 60 if you're using 1,100 panes) in the upper 20% portion by whatever means you like, leaving a hinge of layers upon which the upper stack rests. The upper stack will not crush through the bottom stack. Why? Because the bottom stack provides resistance.

I'm not sure which Newtonian law describes this principle. It is either the one describing the inertia of an object (both at rest or in motion) until something acts upon it, or the Third Law which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so that when you throw a heavy book on your coffee table, the table doesn't collapse and the book doesn't fall through the table, because it is able to provide an upward force against the falling book. It's the law that describes what happens when you hit the cue ball against another billiard ball: the cue ball does not continue its same motion. If it's a straight-on hit, it bounces back a bit and stops. If it is an angled hit, it is deflected in a different direction, but has lost some of its momentum. The ball that it hit provided a force against its impact.

Thu, 2010-07-29 18:08

#68

PB66

jas wrote:

Why does it have to be a "house of cards" for you guys? I know why. Because a house of cards is famously flimsy. You're picking an example of the flimsiest structure you can think of in an attempt to prove a point that you don't seem to understand.

I'm picking the flimsiest structure I can think of because it most easily illustrates that what you describe as a universal law is not true in all cases.

jas wrote:

If you want to use panes of glass, stack 110 of them one on top of the other. Let's say they're .5 cm thick -- or thicker, if you like; you can use 1,100 for a better effect, too -- and have little nubs on each corner so that a space is created between each one when stacked. Destroy 3 - 6 of them (30 - 60 if you're using 1,100 panes) in the upper 20% portion by whatever means you like, leaving a hinge of layers upon which the upper stack rests. The upper stack will not crush through the bottom stack. Why? Because the bottom stack provides resistance.

If you are claiming a universal physical law, can I replace your "small nubs" by a gap of 20 metres?

(As an aside: I don't play pool, but if a moving ball hits one of equal mass, it will stop, but not bounce back. You can use conservation of energy in the centre of mass frame to see this.)

Thu, 2010-07-29 18:36

#69

Fidel

Glass, massive steel columns and reinforced concrete - it's the same thing really. I think I remember this truth from the documentary series, Sesame Street. I'm pretty sure it was Count von Count's axiom, or something. One of these things is not like the other... I love to COUNT! AH! AH! AH!

Thu, 2010-07-29 18:52

#70

PB66

Fidel wrote:

Glass, massive steel columns and reinforced concrete - it's the same thing really. I think I remember this truth from the documentary series, Sesame Street. I'm pretty sure it was Count von Count's axiom, or something. One of these things is not like the other... I love to COUNT! AH! AH! AH!

If you'd care to explain how Newton's laws apply to some of things but not the rest, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

Thu, 2010-07-29 18:58

#71

jas

PB66 wrote:

I'm picking the flimsiest structure I can think of because it most easily illustrates that what you describe as a universal law is not true in all cases.

It is true in all cases.

Quote:

If you are claiming a universal physical law, can I replace your "small nubs" by a gap of 20 metres?

Probably. Then we're getting back into your hundred million miles of wineglasses analogy. Remember we are talking about a top-driven collapse via gravity alone. I guess you're also aware that 20 metres is five times the height of one WTC floor.

Quote:
(As an aside: I don't play pool, but if a moving ball hits one of equal mass, it will stop, but not bounce back. You can use conservation of energy in the centre of mass frame to see this.)

I'm pretty sure I have seen the cue ball shudder backwards for a cm or two when I have played pool, if it's hitting the ball directly and with force. I could be wrong. I will take a look next time.

Thu, 2010-07-29 19:10

#72

mmphosis

I am glad to see this thread is still going. http://wtc.nist.gov/ was still updating their documents last year. Read The 9/11 Commission Report, it talks a lot of about "the new terrorism", and very little about what happened to the buildings.

Ask people basic questions like: How many buildings collapsed? Listen to the answers you get.

Is "collapse" even the word?

"It Fell in Silence: The Collapse of World Tade Center 7" by Nathan Janes of PUPAGANDA.com

Thu, 2010-07-29 19:16

#73

Fidel

PB66 wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Glass, massive steel columns and reinforced concrete - it's the same thing really. I think I remember this truth from the documentary series, Sesame Street. I'm pretty sure it was Count von Count's axiom, or something. One of these things is not like the other... I love to COUNT! AH! AH! AH!

If you'd care to explain how Newton's laws apply to some of things but not the rest, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

How many 110 story buildings do you know of are framed with glass columns and floor girders? Perhaps you can explain what glass has to do with what we've been discussing over several threads. I must admit that images of a sky scraper made of glass does help me to visualize the official government conspiracy theory a little more so than before. But not a lot.

Thu, 2010-07-29 19:19

#74

PB66

jas]</p> <p>[quote wrote:

If you are claiming a universal physical law, can I replace your "small nubs" by a gap of 20 metres?

Probably.

[\quote]

The answer better be "yes, definitely", if you are claiming that Newton's law is going to prevent this from crushing itself.

Let's say I take a stack of these thing as tall as we like (but not so tall that it crushes itself under its own weight, before we start, ha ha. That's the problem with the hundred million miles of wine glasses.). Then, let's drop another one from 20 metres up. The falling one hits the top one and shatters it. The original pieces and the new pieces start to fall. They fall 20 metres and land on the next one down, shattering it, and so on, all the way down. Newton's laws are satisfied; Bjorkman's axiom is violated.

Are we in a agreement that there is one conceivable situation in which Newton's laws are satisfied but Bjorkman's axiom fails?

(It's possible that the cue ball is slightly lighter than the others, in which case it might bounce back. If there's some spin on the balls, conceivably friction against the table might cause it to roll back, I guess.)

Thu, 2010-07-29 22:49

#75

Fidel

[url=http://911review.com/precedent/century/gladio.html]Sword Play: Attacking Civilians to Justify 'Greater Security'[/url]

[url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Parliament_resolution_on_Gladio]J... EU Parliamentary resolution replacing B3-2021, 2058, 2068, 2078 and 2087/90[/url]

It's time for glasnost North American style.

Fri, 2010-07-30 04:16

#76

siamdave

integrity wrote:

So sad that so many have no life. Looking through this thread some of us laugh. Naturally, who has time to read the nitty gritty? Not those of us who have a life. Looking in from my perspective, well....sad that so much time is spent on nothing!

- just curious, 'integrity', what would 'a life' be, according to your precepts? What is your time spent doing that is important and fulfilling? Admitting you know nothing of what is being discussed here, how is it you decide those who do find this of imortance are 'spending time on nothing'?

Fri, 2010-07-30 11:40

#77

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Please provide evidence that a structure made of wine-glasses stacked a hundred million miles high would not globally collpase if you removed a million miles worth of wine-glasses two thirds of the way up.

Mars? [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/marvin_martian.png[/...

Fri, 2010-07-30 13:13

#78

jas

PB66 wrote:

The answer better be "yes, definitely", if you are claiming that Newton's law is going to prevent this from crushing itself.

Let's say I take a stack of these thing as tall as we like (but not so tall that it crushes itself under its own weight, before we start, ha ha. That's the problem with the hundred million miles of wine glasses.). Then, let's drop another one from 20 metres up. The falling one hits the top one and shatters it. The original pieces and the new pieces start to fall. They fall 20 metres and land on the next one down, shattering it, and so on, all the way down. Newton's laws are satisfied; Bjorkman's axiom is violated.

Are we in a agreement that there is one conceivable situation in which Newton's laws are satisfied but Bjorkman's axiom fails?

No, your scenario wouldn't happen. Assuming these glass pillars now can stay stacked one on top of another, the falling segment would shatter against the standing stack. The broken pieces of glass would do absolutely nothing to the rest of the structure.

The principle applies universally.

Fri, 2010-07-30 13:59

#79

jas

Admiring my own artwork yesterday, I was studying this picture in greater depth. Others have pointed out in certain video footage that the antenna is seen dropping before the outer sides of the building. Other footage shows a thin, skeletal ghost of a few core columns, after the rest of the building has gone down, linger in the air for a few seconds before dropping itself. Except it doesn't drop. It seems to disintegrate right there in the air. Judy Wood humorously calls this "dustification". It's definitely not what a steel column should do, under the explanation given. These observations put together make me think that the sequence of collapse must have begun with the core. The main thing was to get the core to fall--the rest could be blown out through other mechanisms. This photo does seem to point to events occurring in the inner core of the building, with the powder and debris spewing up out of it, like a fountain. Dropping the core would also explain the pools of molten metal in the sub levels.

Just some personal conjecture here.

Fri, 2010-07-30 17:59

#80

PB66

jas wrote:

No, your scenario wouldn't happen. Assuming these glass pillars now can stay stacked one on top of another, the falling segment would shatter against the standing stack. The broken pieces of glass would do absolutely nothing to the rest of the structure.

The principle applies universally.

Wow. We just believe the laws of physics are completely different.

I'm having an "ant and the elephant" problem trying to think of a home demonstration that you can do, since it's very hard to find things around the house that will completely crush themselves after falling from their own height, whereas, a conventional 10-storey building would -I hope you agree- completely crush itself if it was dropped from a 10-storey height.

I agree that it is a somewhat delicate balancing act, getting the impact at the top do have enough force to destroy the structure at the top without having so much force that it simply causes the bottom of the tower to get crushed first. I think it's just a matter of adjusting the strength, density, size, and speed of the chain reaction, but it's a fun problem to hink about. If I find any youtube videos or think of any home demonstrations, I'll let you know.

Would you consider it not a valid demonstration if I stack an egg, then a bowl, then an egg, then a bowl, and so on upwards, and then drop a bowl to cause a chain reaction, from the top down, of eggs breaking, but not the bowls?

Fri, 2010-07-30 21:21

#81

Fidel

What if you could stack wine glasses one a top the other and so on from here to Pluto? I think we have to remember that in space, no one eats ice cream.

Fri, 2010-07-30 22:07

#82

jas

PB66 wrote:

Wow. We just believe the laws of physics are completely different.

Whatever you believe in is not possible on our planet, and does not follow any known laws of physics, so I'm not sure why you're finding this so hard to believe. Look at the quality of examples you've been giving. That should suggest to you that crush down of a large object by a smaller same object does not occur. The smaller object always either crushes up first or is simply arrested in its path by natural resistance.

Quote:
I'm having an "ant and the elephant" problem trying to think of a home demonstration that you can do, since it's very hard to find things around the house that will completely crush themselves after falling from their own height, whereas, a conventional 10-storey building would -I hope you agree- completely crush itself if it was dropped from a 10-storey height.

We're not talking about things being able to crush themselves. Yes, if you drop a 10-storey building its own height onto concrete it will probably crush up. If you drop it its own height onto another ten storey building, it will probably demolish both. If you drop it its own height onto a 50-storey building, it won't completely crush the 50-storey building, because the 50-storey building is taller and there is more matter intervening between the falling building and the ground.

Quote:
I agree that it is a somewhat delicate balancing act, getting the impact at the top do have enough force to destroy the structure at the top without having so much force that it simply causes the bottom of the tower to get crushed first.

There's no balancing act because you will never have a gravitational collapse that initiates at the top, unless a meteor or some other force strikes down from above. Nor did you have it in the WTC.

Quote:
Would you consider it not a valid demonstration if I stack an egg, then a bowl, then an egg, then a bowl, and so on upwards, and then drop a bowl to cause a chain reaction, from the top down, of eggs breaking, but not the bowls?

Yes, I would consider it not a valid demonstration :)

Fri, 2010-07-30 22:20

#83

jas

Fidel wrote:

What if you could stack wine glasses one a top the other and so on from here to Pluto? I think we have to remember that in space, no one eats ice cream.

You definitely wouldn't have gravitational collapse. You would have a bunch of wineglasses and balls of ice cream floating in space!

Ha! Ha!

Sat, 2010-07-31 00:05

#84

siamdave

jas wrote:

- there is not much point in talking to people who can look at that picture and try to say that those obvious exolosive ejections are simply the natural result of one block of steel and concrete falling on another.

Sat, 2010-07-31 01:19

#85

Fidel

Jas, that photo looks like it was a lot more than a gravity induced collapse for sure. We're not looking at the scene of a crime with that photo - it's a photo OF the crime as it happened. Eery. It's clearly a matter for the World Court now as the former Bill Christison said.

Sat, 2010-07-31 10:13

#86

jas

Sat, 2010-07-31 12:41

#87

jas

I was going to joke that the plumes remind me of Sideshow Bob's hair, but I guess it's not really something to joke about when we consider that there are thousands of tiny pieces of human bodies in those plumes. Indeed, Fidel. Scene of a crime.

So who will be tried and found guilty in this mass manslaughter? And when does the legal investigation begin?

I wonder when Silverstein's insurance company will wake up and sue him. Who will be found liable for the spewing of thousands of pounds of asbestos and other toxic building materials into the air that New Yorkers breathed for the next few weeks and months, many of them now suffering from cancers and other illnesses? I would think it would be Silverstein, if it can be shown that the buildings did not fall from the events proposed. That's a pretty big class action suit, not to mention whoever will be found responsible for the manslaughter of close to 3,000 people in less than two hours, and those who aided and abetted, including people in the science community offering up false science as part of the cover-up.

There are some very big stakes in keeping people uninterested and/or confused.

Sat, 2010-07-31 23:46

#88

al-Qa'bong

Manslaughter?

Sure, it's a cool word, but you don't seem to know what it means.

Sun, 2010-08-01 00:59

#89

Fidel

We know what Jas means, El Qabong. The thing of it is, we're not so naive as to believe two amateur Cessna pilots dominated NATO air space for nearly two hours of their own doing, and then proceeded to take out several buildings with just two planes in NYC. And let's not forget the Pentagon hit by another amateur turned ace combat pilot. A number of commercial airline pilots, military and intelligence officers for 9/11 truth find that whole phony narrative hard to believe as well. And we find it difficult to believe in the anti-Newtonian pseudo-science that NIST and their fall guy, Zedenek Bazant, have tried to sell to the public for nine years. It's obvious by now why the war crims and their successors have avoided a real investigation into 9/11. The diference between truthers and everyone else is that we don't believe that hawks have any reason whatsoever to be over there in a number of countries murdering anybody for the sake of pursuing an invisible enemy. 9/11 was just another Gulf of Tonkin big lie, and just another Gleiwitz false flag incident to justify bombing and invading oil-rich and "strategically" situated countries. Have people forgotten the cold war and which countries endowed with vast natural resource wealth NATO was interested in spying on and surrounding militarily since the [s]1950s[/s] since the Russian "civil war" era?

Sun, 2010-08-01 02:29

#90

jas

What term should I use, al Qa'bong? What term would describe responsibility for the deaths of 2,800 - 2,900 people in an event that was premeditated?

Sun, 2010-08-01 04:06

#91

siamdave

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Manslaughter?

Sure, it's a cool word, but you don't seem to know what it means.

hmmmm - let's see if we can't get this discussion off on another tangent, it's pretty obvious no sane person is going to say out loud that picture's obviously what it would look like if one cement-steel block fell on another, and we really don't want anyone even looking at that picture and thinking about 'plane crash, big fire, fall down go boom!! Yea!! or what happens when things explode - hmmmm - hey, bud, you don't even know what that word means, haha - come chase me now, anywhere away from that picture!!

Sun, 2010-08-01 11:46

#92

Fidel

Ya I don't get it either when someone mocks the invisible enemy with a somewhat humorous babble handle, and then they're upset when anyone else does it. al-CIA'duh anyone?

Sun, 2010-08-01 19:42

#93

jas

That's OK. I take al Q's conribution to mean that he, too, acknowledges that the falsity of the NIST theory has now been, without a doubt, confirmed. We can move on from there.

Quote:

Involuntary manslaughter is manslaughter resulting from a failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or from the commission of an act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner. Involuntary manslaughter is a relatively new legal concept. Its exact definition varies greatly by jurisdiction, and is sometimes known as second- or third-degree manslaughter.

This is why I thought manslaughter might apply more in this case than murder. The intent wasn't murder of innocent civilians, I don't think. The intent was simply to bring the buildings down in a way that would 1) demolish them without risk of liability, 2) actually produce a financial bonanza (rather than a net loss which would leave no rebuilding capital) for Silverstein, and 3) provide an excuse for military invasions which were planned anyway.

If the WTC was not brought down by outside terrorists, then it was not an act of war or international terrorism. Therefore those definitions would not apply to this mass killing of civilians. I'm not sure if there is some other term in U.S. or international law that would. Mass killing?

Mon, 2010-08-02 02:10

#94

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
Whatever you believe in is not possible on our planet, and does not follow any known laws of physics, so I'm not sure why you're finding this so hard to believe.....Yes, I would consider it not a valid demonstration :)

So, according to you, a gravitational collpase could have occurred if the planes had hit the buildings halfway up?

Mon, 2010-08-02 07:51

#95

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

So, according to you, a gravitational collpase could have occurred if the planes had hit the buildings halfway up?

I've never said that. Nor do I believe that would happen. Although I'm sure you'd see more of a "natural" collapse if that were the case, but with just a few floors disabled, the collapse wouldn't progress that far. Not with the kind of mesh framing the WTC had.

Natural building collapses in any case are always going to be partial, messy, asymmetrical, punctuated, and wouldn't produce powderized concrete.

Mon, 2010-08-02 07:52

#96

jas

Mon, 2010-08-02 16:59

#97

PB66

jas wrote:

Whatever you believe in is not possible on our planet, and does not follow any known laws of physics, so I'm not sure why you're finding this so hard to believe. Look at the quality of examples you've been giving. That should suggest to you that crush down of a large object by a smaller same object does not occur. The smaller object always either crushes up first or is simply arrested in its path by natural resistance.

The examples I'm giving are a little peculiar because I'm trying to find examples that do not require any numerical comparison of strengths, densities, and scales.

Let me try one more "intuitive" case, before trying to calculate things out, which I think Pants-of-dog and Garcia have already done.

Let's take a collection of somewhat thick glass rods. They can be stacked on top of each other. I arrange them in three vertical columns of many rods height. We might be concerned that the stacking of the rods is unstable. To counter this first, I can melt in a little drop of glass, much smaller than thickness of the rods between each one. Then, I can attach an outward directed "horn" on each rod, of strength roughly comparable to the vertical rods. This will put a significant outward torque on each rod. To counter this, and to finally address some of the stability problems, I attach, going inward from the top of each vertical rod, very fine, almost wire like, horizontal glass rods. The horizontal glass rods meet in the middle at a small ball of glass. Each vertical rod supports its own weight, the weight of the horn, and the structure above it. It experiences an outward torque from the horn and an equal inward torque from the tension on the horizontal wire. I can stack the vertical rods quite high, since the compression strength of glass is not too poor. The tower built this way will remain stading until disturbed.

I arrange this structure so that the height of each rod is such that if one quarter of the weight of one of the glass balls is dropped from the height of one of the rods, it has enough force to break the glass ball or the horizontal rods attached to the glass ball on which it lands. This is simply a matter of making the rods high enough.

You can probably see where this is going. I come along, and I cut the wires at the top level. Two things occur: i) the central ball starts to fall and ii) the top layer of rods pull apart and fall off the side. The falling ball hits the one beneath it, smashing it, and triggering the collapse of the next stage. The rods from the top level fall outward getting gored on the horns of the lower level, and shattering. Since the second ball has smashed, the pieces from it start to fall down and the rods from the second layer pull out and start to fall, getting gored on the horns of the level below. The pieces from each shattered ball fall and smash the one beneath them, while the vertical rods snap outward. Thus, the the structure collapses from the top down.

(Really picky details: I don't need each ball to fall directly down, merely for a quarter of its weight to land on the one beneath, which should be particularly easy with the accumulated weight of glass in the center. You might be woried that the horns won't be big enough to get a solid blow on the vertical rods as the tip outward, but this isn't a major problem. Since the central balls are falling straight down, while the outer rods are tipping to begin with, the lower ball will smash before the upper rod has fallon past the lower rod. Thus, the lower rod should already be starting to tip out as the upper rod, which started falling first and will therefore overtake the lower rod, reaches the position of the lower rod. This will lead to a side on collision. Since glass rods can't with stand much force from the side, when the upper rod reaches the lower rod, they will collide on the sides, instead of being balanced on top of each other, and will then shatter. Essentially there will then be a hail of glass pieces moving at different speeds along what used to be the side of the tower, the pieces will collide and bounce of each other, effectively smashing eachother to pieces.)

OK, we don't see this sort of thing very often, and for good reason. In the "natural" world, it would be very hard for something this unstable to form without the chain reaction being triggered. In the engineered world, few people would be inclined to build a system that they realised could reasonably be triggered to collapse like this.

To be clear, I'm not saying that this is what happened to the WTC. I'm just offering it as an example to refute the claim that there is a hither-to unknown physical principle that prevents the top-down crushing of a structure even after some suitable triggering event, such as a part of it being damaged or dropped on a lower part.

Mon, 2010-08-02 22:04

#98

jas

PB66 wrote:

To be clear, I'm not saying that this is what happened to the WTC. I'm just offering it as an example to refute the claim that there is a hither-to unknown physical principle that prevents the top-down crushing of a structure even after some suitable triggering event, such as a part of it being damaged or dropped on a lower part.

To be honest, I'm not interested in reading through a highly detailed, lengthy, highly conditional set of hypothetical circumstances so that you and Pants-of-dog can feel like you've proven Bjorkman wrong. The fact that you have to go to such lengths and your examples are still not from the real world should suffice to show you that the principle is universal.

The physical principles underlying this are not "hitherto unknown". I pointed out that they are based on Newton's First and Third Laws. Top-driven gravitational collapse, however, is not allied with any known physical principles. Gravitation cannot explain a smaller object passing through a larger object of equal or greater density, as both Newton's First and Third laws cancel that possibility out. Your idea is unsupported by science, and reality bears this out. Time to give it up.

Tue, 2010-08-03 01:26

#99

al-Qa'bong

jas wrote:

What term should I use, al Qa'bong? What term would describe responsibility for the deaths of 2,800 - 2,900 people in an event that was premeditated?

By definition, "manslaughter" means the deaths were not premeditated.

Carry on, Credibility-Boy.

Tue, 2010-08-03 10:01

#100

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

I've never said that. Nor do I believe that would happen. Although I'm sure you'd see more of a "natural" collapse if that were the case, but with just a few floors disabled, the collapse wouldn't progress that far. Not with the kind of mesh framing the WTC had.

Natural building collapses in any case are always going to be partial, messy, asymmetrical, punctuated, and wouldn't produce powderized concrete.

Do you have any evidence that the buildings would have only partially collapsed?

Tue, 2010-08-03 10:02

#101

Fidel

If there was a real investigation into 9/11 with actual warmongering plutocrats held accountable, might they they plead involuntary manslaughter? They might claim that they were overwhelmed with thoughts of grandeur, appalling greed, and warfiteering in randomly selected energy-rich and strategically situated countries. And all for the sake of the empire, of course.

Personally, I tend to see 9/11 as having been anywhere from LIHOP(let it happen on purpose) to MIHOP(made it happen). And the longer the bipartisan war criminals delay and therefore deny justice, the guiltier they appear to be in this thing.

Most of us realize that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag operation that led to war. There was the Gleiwitz incident that led to the invasion of Poland.

There were plans made to hijack planes and murder civilians and to blame it all on Cuba. And there actually was a Cuban passenger plane bombed and innocent Cubans murdered in the process.

And the international community was also skeptical of Hitler's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greif]operation Greif[/url] as well.

The imperialists have committed treachery and mass murder in their hearts before. It's an old strategy. Gladio was sometimes referred to as a strategy of tension. The mafia operated similarly when perpetrating violent acts against their own clients who they extorted money and other favours from.

Pages

Topic locked