If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

Mark F said:
But it doesn't. That you don't get that is, while not the best one ever, certainly humorous.
Click to expand...

OK, so NIST does not investigate the collapse (after initiation) of WTC1 and WTC2. Instead they refer to the Bazant paper to explain what happens. Now, skeptics claim the paper doesn't necessarily apply to the collapses. If you take away the Bazant paper, then there is NOTHING that explains the collapse, other than skeptics on forums like this.

And skeptics have no problem with this?

Wow.
 
Bump for FalseFlag.
pgimeno said:
Thanks.

FalseFlag, time for you to do the work that you keep demanding others to do when they ask about a post of yours. You don't want to appear like having double standards, do you?
Click to expand...
 
waypastvne said:
No. If you can't explain to us how explosives work, then stop telling us it had to be explosives.
Click to expand...

Where have I said the collapse had to be due to explosives?

I have said no such thing. I have asked questions to get you skeptics to come to that conclusion, but I have made no claim that the collapse had to be due to explosives. If anything, I would have said explosives are the most likely explanation of the observed motions. I never said they had to be the reason. There is a big difference.

The fact that I posted Cole's video and am explaining what he did does not make his assertions my assertions. I just agree with him. If you want an explanation, ask him.
 
FalseFlag said:
OK, so NIST does not investigate the collapse (after initiation) of WTC1 and WTC2. Instead they refer to the Bazant paper to explain what happens. Now, skeptics claim the paper doesn't necessarily apply to the collapses. If you take away the Bazant paper, then there is NOTHING that explains the collapse, other than skeptics on forums like this.

And skeptics have no problem with this?

Wow.
Click to expand...

A more colossal lack of understanding could probably not be expressed.

I suspect it isn't that you can't get it but rather than you really don't want to. You certainly seem to go out of your way to avoid getting it.
 
Mark F said:
A more colossal lack of understanding could probably not be expressed.

I suspect it isn't that you can't get it but rather than you really don't want to. You certainly seem to go out of your way to avoid getting it.
Click to expand...
If NIST didn't investigate the actual collapse after initiation and you are discrediting the Bazant paper, what other document describes the entire collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?
 
FalseFlag said:
OK, so NIST does not investigate the collapse (after initiation) of WTC1 and WTC2. Instead they refer to the Bazant paper to explain what happens. Now, skeptics claim the paper doesn't necessarily apply to the collapses. If you take away the Bazant paper, then there is NOTHING that explains the collapse, other than skeptics on forums like this.

And skeptics have no problem with this?

Wow.
Click to expand...
You ignore lots of things, and here are a number of them.

Bazant wrote a series of papers. We have discussed four of them at length in this forum. Of these four, the first one was the one that NIST used as reference, and the second one is the one that talks about crush directions.

The first paper doesn't directly apply to the real collapse either. Bazant's strategy was: if it fails under the most favourable condition for it not to fail, it fails under any conditions.

Then he proves that it would fail even under the most favourable condition, and rests his case. He doesn't need to contemplate the real collapse case, because it's included under the any.

That's what NIST agreed with. NIST wasn't concerned with crush direction.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
OK, so NIST does not investigate the collapse (after initiation) of WTC1 and WTC2. Instead they refer to the Bazant paper to explain what happens. Now, skeptics claim the paper doesn't necessarily apply to the collapses. If you take away the Bazant paper, then there is NOTHING that explains the collapse, other than skeptics on forums like this.

And skeptics have no problem with this?

Wow.
Click to expand...

Nist does explain collapse, it's right here:

Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was re- leased, developing substantial kinetic en- ergy. The impact of this rapidly accelerating mass on the floors directly below led to overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subsequent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mechanism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the collapsing towers.

As the composite floor decking was most likely quite rigid due to the continuous concrete floor, the transverse bridging trusses, and the intermediate deck support angles, failure of the floor as a whole would be expected at the connections attaching the floor to the exterior wall and core. This paper characterizes the floor truss connections on recovered structural elements of the exterior wall. Damage is reported on only the exterior wall connections as the location of the exterior panels to which they were attached was known. The failure mode survey was supported with metallographic analyses of undamaged and failed welded joints to determine the location of metallurgical failure of the main loadbearing seats. The connections used in the core area are not discussed in this paper, as few were recovered and the as-built location of those that were could not be ascertained; information on these seats can be found in Ref. 4.
Click to expand...

https://app.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_2007_09_s263.pdf
 
FalseFlag said:
I agree.
Click to expand...

FalseFlag said:
I spent the last hour researching this, and exploring what would happen instant by instant. I already know that no one will give me credit for this, but I did.

Forces causes acceleration. Acceleration causes changes in velocity. The impact will make a less than g for just an instant. Acceleration will still be positive, which means v will also be positive. The issue is that the instant of impact, v will increase, but not quite as much as it would have if a were still g.
Click to expand...


Congratulations. You finally get it right.

Impacts, depending on their severity, can cause either reduced acceleration to a falling object, or deceleration.

Tony Szamboti published a paper on A&E for 9/11 twoof's web site, something about a missing jolt, (Google it) and he says as you were - that the impacts MUST result in a deceleration. He's even argued it here in a thread about missing jolt.

You now know that the impact severity - or force - determines whether or not there's a reduced acceleration or deceleration. His paper was published on that website.

What does that say about twoofers and their "peer review" process?

Does it shake your faith in them?

Does it raise any red flags?

Does it sound like you're being duped?
 
waypastvne said:
Nist does explain collapse, it's right here:



https://app.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_2007_09_s263.pdf
Click to expand...

I need more time to prove this is nonsense, but here is a very interesting quote from the abstract.

Failure in both cases was
the result of a shear mechanism due to an
overload condition. Exposure to fires prior to the collapse was not found to have an effect on the failure mode of the floor truss connections
Click to expand...

I guess you want to ignore that.

I also see the report is from 2007 and it discusses what appears to be the pancake theory. That theory has already been abandoned.
 
FalseFlag said:
If NIST didn't investigate the actual collapse after initiation and you are discrediting the Bazant paper, what other document describes the entire collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?
Click to expand...

Go back to the box of matches.

NIST studied why the box of matches fell off the table.

Bazant confirmed through maths that once it fell the box of matches would hit the ground - that it was inevitable.

Your still endlessly circling around why each match ended up where it did.

As Fisher Price as that is I eagerly await how you will deliberately screw it up in your next post.
 
FalseFlag said:
I guess you want to ignore that.
Click to expand...


Why should I. It's true.

The cause of the truss seat failures was over loading, not fire.

And just as you asked for: It describes the cascade failure that occurred after collapse initiation.


You ask we deliver.

Are you going to explain to us how explosives work ?
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Was the 9/11 CR a detailed study? How could it be detailed if it ignored massive amounts of evidence?

Was the NIST WTC7 report a detailed study? Are you sure that a report that contains a super secret computer model is detailed? Are you sure that a report that claims freefall but fails to explain it is detailed? Are you sure that a report that ignores massive amounts of evidence is detailed?

If you "know" the cause of the collapse, do you stop there, or do you investigate the entire collapse? Are there written procedures that describe the best practices for people who investigate collapses? If those written procedures exist, were they followed?

How can you have a detailed investigation into the collapse of three massive steel-frame buildings if you don't preserve all of the steel?

Hmmmm?
Click to expand...

Just ranting, eh?

We know enough. Engineers have designed buildings the world over using the findings from NIST.

The 9/11 CR wasn't tasked with technical stuff.

Your rantings don't change anything. The truth is what it is.
 
Seymour Butz said:
Congratulations. You finally get it right.
Click to expand...

Thanks

Tony Szamboti published a paper on A&E for 9/11 twoof's web site, something about a missing jolt, (Google it) and he says as you were - that the impacts MUST result in a deceleration. He's even argued it here in a thread about missing jolt.
Click to expand...

Where does Szamboti make the same mistake I did? Where are this statements that are incorrect?
 
FalseFlag said:
What else explains the motions observed?

Once again, ask all you want. I am not an expert on explosives; therefore, I will not discuss the subject of explosives.
Click to expand...

No evidence for explosives. They didn't check for well done pop tarts either, which were just as plausibly responsible as explosives.

Which is to say IMPOSSIBLE
 
FalseFlag said:
I also see the report is from 2007 and it discusses what appears to be the pancake theory. That theory has already been abandoned.
Click to expand...
No it hasn't. FEMA presented a pancake theory of collapse initiation. NIST dismissed that theory. FEMA also presented a pancake theory of collapse progression. That one is still in vigour.

ETA: NIST even makes a quick mention to floors pancaking in NCSTAR1, when they analyse the failure modes in the recovered steel.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
When I saw the diagrams again my first thought was, oh, no, not this again. Then I read why you posted it. *Whew*
Click to expand...

Proposal for an experiment to prove Cole wrong, Tomorrow when I have time, I will drop my 4 pound shop hammer, on a Mountain Due can.

Then I will Drop My 8 pound short handle sledge hammer on an identical can.

According to Cole and FF the motion and damage to the can should be exactly the same, since energy values and Scale do not matter.

What do you think the results will be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom