Yes, I do. The earlier reference to a building that just sat there after the ground floor was CD'd was of course irrelevant as the remaining structure was perched on solid ground, not the upper 90 storeys of a skyscraper.
I'd also say your earlier reference to a building standing on the ground after CD initiation is also a highly unlikely event. I'll bet a paycheck that the engineers and demolition experts present were suprised as he|| at that result
.
I presume the 90% you quote is a typo and should read 10%.
Yes, 10 floors is roughly 10%.
But assuming that then, yes, once the collapse was initiated the building would collapse to the ground. I'm not disputing that. The rate of fall, though, would depend on the rate of loss of material at each floor impact.
Can you elaborate?
(The acceleration observed in the collapse has been explained by an accumulating mass of material that impacts each successive floor, causing that to collapse quicker than the previous floor. If I'm misunderstanding that principle then I'm very happy to be put straight)
Um...if you think having more mass means it accelerates more quickly then yes, you are massively misunderstanding not only their statement, but basic physics.
Gravity accelerates equally regardless of mass. The only thing that needs to be considered is how quickly the amount of mass falling causes a single floor to fail. IF a single floor does not offer significant resistence to ten floor impacting it, then it doesn't make a difference even assuming 90% of the material was ejected. The initial chunk of floors falls from rest, a distance of about one floor, into the floor below (simplifying slightly). Unless this floor can bring that upper portion to a dead stop, then assuming any ejection rate less than 90% of material means that the mass impacting each floor will grow. The distance fallen is equivalent. Each floor hit will make less of a difference to the falling mass than the floor before it did, because the amount of mass falling has increased.
I believe that by looking at the photos of the aftermath, and considering the statements of witnesses and clean-up crews, we can say that far less than 90% of the material was ejected. One point that has often been made by those positing explosives or CD is how the building "fell within it's own footprint". This means most of the material stayed inside the perimeters of the building and fell down through it. This also means a less than 90% ejection rate.
This is what einsteen is trying to establish, and coming in for unwarranted slagging off (as we say in the UK) while he's attempting reasonable debate.
While some may have been rude, to call it unwarranted simply underlines the hostility I presented to you in my first post. We have a person who takes a highly sensitive event, and immediately begins to posit ridiculous theories about it, without doing research into the matter. Watching loose change and reading a few debunking guides is a start, but it isn't research. We have untrained, inexperienced people who think they know demolition techniques and effects, structural engineering, physics, jet aircraft capabilities, passenger aircraft capabilities, material strengths, etc better than the vast majority of recognized experts in the field, based on misinterpretatitons and ignorance (used in the actual meaning of the word-lack of knowledge). We have people who latch onto one or two unclear staements from a several-hundred page report, or a single still photo from a poor angle of one of the buildings, and wave it around as if it were "proof" of anything beyond their inability to interpret photos and videos and their ability to ignore the totality of evidence. We get people who come on here and make the
exact same arguments that have been debunked several times already, but the truth apparantly doesn't mean enough to them to read a few pages where these issues have already been discussed.
So yes, many of us get frustrated. We get frustrated at the arrogance, at the ignorance, at the willful blindness, and at the desperate desire to believe despite evidence.
But you know what? The truth doesn't stop being the truth if I call you an jacka*s, or a saint. The evidence is no less valid if presented in a cow pie than if presented on a chocolate-raspberry layer cake. The facts don't change whether they are screamed or discussed.
And so far, the
only evidence that's been put forth to support any theory of CD or government involvement is "I think" and "I don't think"...logical fallacies known as arguments from ignorance. Either that or we get either/or fallacies (it wasn't exactly like they said, so it's CD!), or an unreasonable and inconsistent standard of evidence (someone making a typo in an official document is reason to throw out the entire thing, yet the mere hint of something that might, possibly, if you stretch it and put it together with these twenty other pieces of unproven speculation, be evidence that someone other than 19 fundamentalist highjackers was involved is regarded as a 'smoking gun'). You can complain about how rude we all are, but it doesn't support your argument even if we all said f*ck every other word and called everyone intellectually-stunted smurf-molesters. The evidence, the facts, are what matter.
