I'm not fogetting that theory, but rather am aware of the fact that such an accumulation of mass would have progressiivly broken though each floor quicker than the other, resulting in an incressing acceleration over the progression of the destruction rather than the the constant acceleration observable in the video evidence.
This is a good example of the unevaluated inequality fallacy. You're drawing conclusions without data. Ask yourself these questions:
How much should the acceleration have varied in the course of the collapse?
What is the accuracy of the observed acceleration data?
What is, therefore, the minimum increase in acceleration that could have been detected?
Is the first of these numbers bigger or smaller than the last?
When you have answers to all of those questions, then you have the beginnings of an argument. At the moment, you're simply speculating.
Except I never claimed there should have been any jolt that is missing, which is why I ingored that part of his reply, and will do the same with yours.
If you would actually present your arguments, rather than vaguely hinting at them with a series of deliberately loaded questions, it would make it a little easier to provide the right answers. At the moment you're asking us to guess, then complaining when we guess wrong. Grow up.
Can you demonstrate any such tilt in the path of destruction as it progresses down the tower? I started this thread on the fact that the top was titled and hence if it crushed the rest down that path would reflect that tilt, and everyone denied anything of the sort. Now you are claiming tit, but can you provide evidence to support this claim?
The above reasoning doesn't make sense. You're asking me to provide evidence of something that's obvious in the videos of the collapse, that is quantified in the NIST report, and that you yourself have pointed out. Both top blocks tilted as they fell, and only bill smith denies it.
Now, to the path of collapse. We know that the top blocks rotated, and it appears that the centres of mass moved sideways to some extent. We also know that the debris fields from the two collapses had different distributions from the damage done to surrounding buildings. Again, you need to ask some questions:
How much should the collapse path have deviated from vertical?
What would have been the effect of this on the final state of the collapse?
How well does the final state of the collapse match this prediction?
Again, until you have some answers to these questions, you have no argument, only uninformed speculation.
Again, I'd like to see the data you are referencing here. Can you present it?
It was posted on The 9/11 Forum. I can't be bothered to go there any more. Since you've already said you'll ignore anything relating to Szamboti's missing jolt, I can't be bothered to look it up so you can ignore it.
I've snipped some bits about arguning semantics, which is rather a waste of time.
Can you explain how such a chaotic process would produce such linear results in the orientation and rate at which the path of destruction traveled down the building?
The driving force is gravity, so there is a tendency for objects to travel linearly downwards. Again, unevaluated inequality fallacy: how linear should it have been, how linear was it, and was there a difference?
Do you know if anyone has managed to produce a reasonable model to provide a general depiction of the rate and scale of the collapse?
The rate of collapse has been worked out many times. When the physical assumptions are reasonable, the collapse time comes out within the limits of measurement of the actual collapse times - Frank Greening's calculations at
http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html are the original work on this, but many others have repeated them. When the starting assumptions violate the laws of physics, it's possible to make the collapse time come out longer, as one or two truthers have shown.
That is a gross understatement, as demonstrated in
this video comparing NIST's model to video of the actual collapse and note that NIST didn't even have enough faith in their model to release it, only videos of it.
Which proves my point; modelling such a chaotic process in detail is a waste of time. NIST should never have bothered.
I do mean the velocity of the brick must decrease when acted upon by the outside force which is the egg. Can you provide a mathematical example to demonstrate your claim to the contary?
Then you're wrong, and for the same reason as Heiwa; you're confusing your second and third differentials.
Let's define downwards as positive. Suppose the brick has a mass of 1kg, and a force of 5N is needed to break the egg. There will be some elastic deformation of the eggshell on impact, so the force produced on the egg by the brick (and, by Newton's Third Law, by the egg on the brick) will increase linearly (according to Hooke's Law) from zero to 5N, and will then fall to a very low value. The force due to gravity on the brick is 9.8N. Since the force of the egg on the brick is directed upwards, we may assign a negative sign to it. Adding the forces, we find that the minimum force on the brick is +4.8N, immediately before the point of fracture of the eggshell. Therefore, the minimum acceleration of the brick is +4.8ms-2.
At all times, the brick experiences a positive acceleration. At no time does its velocity decrease. This is such basic physics that anyone to whom it isn't obvious has no place even
trying to discuss the physics of the WTC collapses. As I said before, you need to go back to school and do some very basic learning.
Dave
