Please explain how top-driven gravitational collapse is not consistent with Newtonès first and third laws.
Please provide one example other than the 9/11 gladio op where a [u]steel framed building[/u] was totally annihilated by just one-fifth of itself and gravity alone.
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.
Please explain how top-driven gravitational collapse is not consistent with Newton's first and third laws.
Please explain how top-driven gravitational collapse is not consistent with Newtonès first and third laws.Please provide one example other than the 9/11 gladio op where a [u]steel framed building[/u] was totally annihilated by just one-fifth of itself and gravity alone.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1882549
The article mentions several examples of steel buildings collapsing from the top down due to gravity. There is even a picture of one at the top of the article.
Please explain how top-driven gravitational collapse is not consistent with Newtonès first and third laws.Please provide one example other than the 9/11 gladio op where a [u]steel framed building[/u] was totally annihilated by just one-fifth of itself and gravity alone.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1882549
The article mentions several examples of steel buildings collapsing from the top down due to gravity. There is even a picture of one at the top of the article.
"WASHINGTON - At least eight buildings have suffered roof collapses in the D.C. area because of the snow."
The roof collapsed. And the photo shows much of a collapsed building still standing. Roof collapses have nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 with 200 outer columns of WTCs overdesigned to withstand 2000% increases in live loads.
In more than one-hundred years of steel frame highrise buildings of 15 floors or more, not a single steel column within any of them has collapsed due to fire (or snow).
The roof collapsed. And the photo shows much of a collapsed building still standing. Roof collapses have nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 with 200 outer columns of WTCs overdesigned to withstand 2000% increases in live loads.
In more than one-hundred years of steel frame highrise buildings of 15 floors or more, not a single steel column within any of them has collapsed due to fire (or snow).
Roof collapses don't count as top-down collapses? By the way, the one wall still standing is a gable wall. This means that the wall is not structural (i.e. it bears no load other than its own weight). So, the entire structure was destroyed.
By the way, please provide evidence about the WTC columns having a 2000% safety margin.
And read this "Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire":
http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf
So, no evidence, Fidel?
And jas has yet to post since I asked him or her for evidence.
I can count five stories still standing of that six story textile building "collapse" in Alexandria, Egypt. I wonder what the building codes there are like. Surely they would pass inspection in downtown NYC?
Hey what about Haiti? I think there were some corrugated metal shacks in and around Port Au Prince that were blown to the ground there in recent times.
In fact there is no precedent for high rise building collapse due to fire.
In fact there is no precedent for global collapse of any high rise building due to fire.
I had asked you to provide evidence for the 2000% safety margin for the WTC columns. Can you please do so?
In fact there is no precedent for global collapse of any steel framed high rise building due to fire.
[url=http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html]"Global collapse"[/url] and other Orwellian double speak to arise out of the ashes of 9/11.
We already did several threads ago. Wake up and pay attention.
We already did several threads ago. Wake up and pay attention.
Being mildly rude to me is not evidence.
Please provide evidence for your claims.
Why should we provide you with anything? You've had babblers jumping through hoops providing you with all kinds of information and varied sources over several threads. You haven't provided us with a decent counter argument for any of it. Your lone source seems to be two fall guys for NIST and the warmongering plutocrats.
I think we should ask you the same question you asked jas several threads ago: Why do you persist in this charade? Why do you continue deflecting valid questions that none of NIST or Bazant or Greening are able to answer? Why are you such a loyal supporter of the official crazy George Dubya line on 9/11? Why not add an ounce of credibility to your weak argument and simply agree that more information is needed to explain collapse initiation? - because this is what more than 900 licensed engineers with tens of thousands of years worth of experience are saying.
Why should we provide you with anything? You've had babblers jumping through hoops providing you with all kinds of information and varied sources over several threads. You haven't provided us with a decent counter argument for any of it. Your lone source seems to be two fall guys for NIST and the warmongering plutocrats.
Accusing me of not providing evidence is also not evidence.
If you are going to repeat over and over again that there was a 2000% safety margin on the WTC design, then you should provide evidence for you claim.
I think we should ask you the same question you asked jas several threads ago: Why do you persist in this charade?
I continue this discussion because it is teaching me different things about the WTC collapses, engineering physics in general, the different people and dynamics on babble, how facts backfire, as well as manyother things. Very educational.
Why do you continue deflecting valid questions that none of NIST or Bazant or Greening are able to answer?
Please do not accuse me of deflecting questions, unless you have some sort of evidence that I have done so.
Why are you such a loyal supporter of the official crazy George Dubya line on 9/11?
I have no idea what GWB thinks of WTC, nor do I care. Please do not accuse me of being a Republican, unless you have some sort of evidence that I am.
Why not add an ounce of credibility to your weak arguments that more information is needed to explain collapse initiation?
If you have any evidence that shows that my argument is weak, please provide it.
Thank you, and I look forward to seeing your evidence.
If you are going to repeat over and over again that there was a 2000% safety margin on the WTC design, then you should provide evidence for you claim.
Google WTC "engineering report", "2000 percent", "live load" etc. You should find it. And perhaps you can explain to us why WTC blue prints were not made available to the 9/11 Commission while you're researching that for us.
Please do not accuse me of deflecting questions, unless you have some sort of evidence that I have done so.
Well it's just that every time we put you on the spot to answer a question which NIST or their fall guys, Bazant and Greening have so far failed to, you in turn ask us questions as if we are supposed to be more informed about this false flag gladio op than the government guys whose job it is to investigate the world's worst engineering-building failure on 9/11. Questions are not answers, and you never resort to a more credible alternative that a real investigation and more answers are needed. That weak line of debate makes you appear to be a slavish supporter of the crazy George Dubya narrative on 9/11 instead of the neutral observer seeking truth you claim to be. As we've said before, many of the 900 engineers for truth don't necessarily care whether 9/11 was in an inside job. But it is their professional responsibility to understand exactly what caused "global collapse" initiation of three buildings after two plane collisions on 9/11.
And remember, 9/11 truthers are the ones asking the hard questions. All you non-truthers are supposed to be the people with all the answers and not the ones doing the asking. For self-described knowitalls, you don't seem to know a heckuva lot.
Google WTC "engineering report", "2000 percent", "live load" etc. You should find it. And perhaps you can explain to us why WTC blue prints were not made available to the 9/11 Commission while you're researching that for us.
No, thank you. I would prefer it if you provided your own evidence for your own claims. I see you have not yet done so.
Well it's just that every time we put you on the spot to answer a question which NIST or their fall guys, Bazant and Greening have so far failed to, you in turn ask us questions as if we are supposed to be more informed about this false flag gladio op than the government guys whose job it is to investigate the world's worst engineering-building failure on 9/11. Questions are not answers, and you never resort to a more credible alternative that a real investigation and more answers are needed. That weak line of debate makes you appear to be a slavish supporter of the crazy George Dubya narrative on 9/11 instead of the neutral observer seeking truth you claim to be. As we've said before, many of the 900 engineers for truth don't necessarily care whether 9/11 was in an inside job. But it is their professional responsibility to understand exactly what caused "global collapse" initiation of three buildings after two plane collisions on 9/11.
This is a mischaracterisation of my behaviour. Please do not ascribe such behaviour to me without any evidence. Thank you.
And remember, 9/11 truthers are the ones asking the questions. You non-truthers are supposed to be the people with all the answers not the ones asking them.
Are you saying that no one should question the criticisms made of the official theory? That we should simply accept what we are told?
Roof collapses from snow are not top-down gravitational collapses. You have another force acting here, and the structure does not pulverize itself.
Are we going to be spending the next few threads arguing over this kind of silliness?
By definition, "manslaughter" means the deaths were not premeditated.
Yes, that's why I used that term. Is there a better term that you would suggest?
Why should we provide you with anything?
Indeed, we've proven our case several times over, whereas Pants has yet to provide
1) an explanation of events after the collapse initiation
2) evidence of the existence of the upper blocks through the collapse progression
3) an example of top-driven gravitational collapse, and/or the law of physics that would explain it, and
4) math that accounts for what actually occurred, rather than what is hypothesized, and that is supported by accepted physical principles.
Until he satisfies these requirements, he's the one who will be answering the questions. Unless, of course, we just want to have fun with him...
And remember, 9/11 truthers are the ones asking the questions. You non-truthers are supposed to be the people with all the answers not the ones asking them.Are you saying that no one should question the criticisms made of the official theory? That we should simply accept what we are told?
Well apparently you have accepted what you were told about 9/11 by crazy George II's regime and now the other wing of the exact same Wall Street pro war party.
Truthers are the ones asking all the questions since 2001 in case you haven't noticed.
The Gleiwitz false flag incidents probably would not have been revealed to world unless there were war crimes trials at Nuremberg.
9/11 is now a matter for the World Court, or as the former Bill Christison said about it, 9/11 should be investigated by an independent legal body outside the reach and influence of US Government. And you'll find that a number of babblers here are very pro democracy ourselves.
Roof collapses from snow are not top-down gravitational collapses.
Yes, they are.
Jas, do you have any evidence that the buildings would have only partially collapsed due to the plane's impact and gravity?
Please explain how top-driven gravitational collapse is not consistent with Newton's first and third laws.
And remember, 9/11 truthers are the ones asking the questions. You non-truthers are supposed to be the people with all the answers not the ones asking them.Are you saying that no one should question the criticisms made of the official theory? That we should simply accept what we are told?
Well apparently you have accepted what you were told about 9/11 by crazy George II's regime and now the other wing of the exact same Wall Street pro war party.
Truthers are the ones asking all the questions since 2001 in case you haven't noticed.
The Gleiwitz false flag incidents probably would not have been revealed to world unless there were war crimes trials at Nuremberg.
9/11 is now a matter for the World Court, or as the former Bill Christison said about it, 9/11 should be investigated by a legal body outside the reach and influence of US Government. And you'll find that a number of babblers here are very pro democracy ourselves.
Fidel, I notice that you have yet to provide the evidence I asked for.
Are you incapable of finding it, or are you unwilling?
Roof collapses from snow are not top-down gravitational collapses.
Yes, they are.
No, it's not. The snow is not part of the structure and was clearly the cause of collapse.
Jas, do you have any evidence that the buildings would have only partially collapsed due to the plane's impact and gravity?
Please explain how top-driven gravitational collapse is not consistent with Newton's first and third laws.
I already did, here.
No you're just lazy. Not only were you confounded by Pythagoras' theorum and simple physics, you claim you can't find out what truthers are talking about even with the power of the internet at your finger tips. Ignorance is bliss as they say. Some sleuth you are. Needless to say we're not very impressed by pro crazy Jorge de la yeyo knowitalls in general when it comes to 9/11.
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.
This is not evidence.
Please provide me with the math. Thank you.
No, it's not. The snow is not part of the structure and was clearly the cause of collapse.
The snow is on top of the building. The weight of the snow due to gravity causes the structure to collpase.
Ergo, top-down gravitational collapse.
Unless you want to shift the goalposts.
So how many steel support columns failed in those examples, Pants?
No you're just lazy. Not only were you confounded by Pythagoras' theorum and simple physics, you claim you can't find out what truthers are talking about even with the power of the internet at your finger tips. Ignorance is bliss as they say. Some sleuth you are. Needless to say we're not very impressed by pro crazy Jorge de la yeyo knowitalls in general when it comes to 9/11.
Fidel, please provide evidence for the 2000% safety margin. Thank you.
So how many steel support columns failed in those examples, Pants?
Fidel, please provide evidence for the 2000% safety margin. Thank you.
This is not evidence.
Please provide me with the math. Thank you.
Math is not evidence. Yours has been wrong all along, anyway. I would rather we start with you telling us what law of physics would explain top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself. Then we can go from there.
Math is not evidence. Yours has been wrong all along, anyway. I would rather we start with you telling us what law of physics would explain top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself. Then we can go from there.
Please provide evidence that my math is wrong.
Please provide evidence showing that Bazant's model contradicts the first and third laws of Newton's laws of motion.
Thank you.
Don't be lazy. Pretend I'm a troll and want you to dance and jump through hoops for the amusement of truthers everywhere. Try and get a feel for this web page, it's a good one:
Math is not evidence. Yours has been wrong all along, anyway. I would rather we start with you telling us what law of physics would explain top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself. Then we can go from there.
Please provide evidence that my math is wrong.
Please provide evidence showing that Bazant's model contradicts the first and third laws of Newton's laws of motion.
Are you just going to run in circles now? Having run out of anything else credible to argue?
We've already shown you that Bazant makes numerous erroneous assumptions (one involved the existence of a non-existent upper block) and ignores two important factors about load absorption by the small upper and large lower blocks.
Please answer my question above.
Don't be lazy. Pretend I'm a troll and want you to dance and jump through hoops for the amusement of truthers everywhere. Try and get a feel for this web page, it's a good one:
Fidel, please provide evidence for the 2000% safety margin. Thank you.
I provided a link here. Kevin Ryan also states this in his video presentation "A New Standard for Deception". He may be using this information, or he may have his own source, having been a manager and lab director for Underwriters Laboraties, which certified the WTC steel.
That link takes me to this website:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm
There is no mention of the 2000% safety margin.
Please provide evidence for the 2000% safety margin. Thank you.
Fidel, please provide evidence for the 2000% safety margin. Thank you.
I provided a link here. Kevin Ryan also states this in his video presentation "A New Standard for Deception". He may be using this information, or he may have his own source, having been a manager and lab director for Underwriters Laboratories, which certified the WTC steel.
Please provide evidence that my math is wrong.
You don't even understand Garcia's force balance equations in Garcia's feeble Counterpunch essay trying to prove Bazant's whacky theory by intimidation. So how can we take you seriously?
That link takes me to this website:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm
There is no mention of the 2000% safety margin.
Please provide evidence for the 2000% safety margin. Thank you.
I already quoted the relevant section in this post. Please find the paragraph yourself.
Please answer my question above.
Are you just going to run in circles now? Having run out of anything else credible to argue?
We've already shown you that Bazant makes numerous erroneous assumptions (one involved the existence of a non-existent upper block) and ignores two important factors about load absorption by the small upper and large lower blocks.
Please answer my question above.
You have yet to provide any evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a law of physics.
Bazant deals with the issue of load absorption, as you put it.
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
I already quoted the relevant section in this post. Please find the paragraph yourself.
Please answer my question above.
That took you folks forever.
Please provide evidence that my math is wrong.You don't even understand Garcia's force balance equations in Garcia's feeble Counterpunch essay trying to prove Bazant's whacky theory by intimidation. So how can we take you seriously?
So, Fidel, jas provided your evidence for you. You should thank him or her.
Bazant deals with the issue of load absorption, as you put it.
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
Please quote the relevant text.
According to Ross, Bazant does not account for load absorption in either the fictional upper block or the intact building.
Please answer my question from above. Please tell us what physical law explains top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself.
That took you folks forever.
No, I linked to it several days ago.
Twaddle. The guvmint guys rely heavily on use of the words, collapse "was inevitable." And they use them liberally to describe a series of events that occurred after collapse initiation, the absolute weakest part of their official explanation. And it's also the weakest part of your argument, Pants. It's more than just a coincidence imo. We've asked you plenty of questions about "CI" for which you have zero answers and lots of pseudo-scientific rhetoric. Please beg or borrow some credibility while introducing yourself to google.
Twaddle. The guvmint guys rely heavily one use of the words, collapse was inevitable. And they use them liberally to describe a series of events that occurred after collapse initiation, the absolute weakest part of their official explanation. And it's also the weakest part of your argument, Pants. It's more than just a coincidence imo. We've asked you plenty of questions about "CI" for which you have zero answers. Please beg or borrow some credibility while introducing yourself to google.
"CI"?
That took you folks forever.
No, I linked to it several days ago.
Please quote the relevant text.
According to Ross, Bazant does not account for load absorption in either the fictional upper block or the intact building.
Please answer my question from above. Please tell us what physical law explains top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself.
The text is too long to quote easily and has many equations in it, making the format very difficult to read.
You have yet to provide any evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a law of physics.
Please provide evidence that my math is wrong.
Just look back at every post where you claim that duration of collapse is only solvable by the calculus. At which point it should dawn on anyone with a highschool diploma that you don't know what you're talking about.
Charade you are.
The text is too long to quote easily and has many equations in it, making the format very difficult to read.
You have yet to provide any evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a law of physics.
Please quote the relevant text.
I have provided extensive evidence. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand it.
Please tell us what physical law explains top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself.
