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

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.

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.

Fidel wrote:

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.

If you had actually read post #40, you would not have asked this.

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Fidel wrote:

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.

If you had actually read post #40, you would not have asked this.

If you are human and can read English, then have a gander at [url=http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html]Gordon Ross' site[/url]:

Gordon Ross wrote:

[u]Angle cut columns[/u] "

It was the reaction created by a, say, 45 degree cut through the core columns which began, both the [color=red][u]tilting action[/u][/color] of the upper sections, and the bowing of one perimeter wall in each Tower."

I even underlined it in red so your bot algorithm might better interpret the consonants, syllables and stuff.

Fidel wrote:

I think it's possible that Pants might actually be one of the NSA's experimental bots put out to spam social forums around the internet. There are several obvious clues. As in, the lights are on but no one's home.

Clearly that's the only answer for someone noticing you make repeated claims to having 'proven' something, when in fact, you have never actually done so.

Experimental NSG spambots.  The only answer.

Fidel wrote:

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.

Quoted for intense irony.

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

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.

Yes, they do. Your distinction here is irrelevant. You still don't seem to understand the concept. Both objects have to be able to absorb the impact in order to then transfer any of it.

Your text does not indicate that. This is unimportant anyways, as it is not the evidence I am asking for.

Please provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts any law of physics. Thank you.