I'm not your personal librarian. Read chapter 9. Do you think that NIST is wrong in this chapter? Are they wrong were they discuss how the downward movement of the top block was far too much for the structure below to handle? Where is your mathematical proof?
I'm not claiming they're wrong necessarily. I'm claiming you're wrong and that you haven't supported with facts your bizarre notions of the effect of gravity on a collection of particles.
I'm not your personal librarian. Read chapter 9. Do you think that NIST is wrong in this chapter? Are they wrong were they discuss how the downward movement of the top block was far too much for the structure below to handle? Where is your mathematical proof?
Once again, is NIST wrong when they discuss how the downward movement of the top part of the building was far too much for the bottom part to handle, causing global collapse? Where is your mathematical proof? That they do not discuss the rubble should tell you something.
Once NIST showed that the energy budget of the falling mass (be it rubbleized or a solid block) exceeded the capabilities of the lower floors connections to carry it NIST didn't have to go any farther in their calculations. It's a pointless exercise and a waste of time and money to bother explaining that once you have enough static mass to break a connection that all lower connections (that were all the same on the office floors no matter if it was the 90th floor or the 16th floor) would also fail in the same manner. Add in the fact that the mass was dynamic and all but either absolute idiots or internet trolls will profess to not understand that. Neither one is worth the effort beyond a certain point. That point was reached about 150 comments ago (if not before then) in this thread.
I am extremely flattered to have my argument compared with that of Tony Szamboti's, and very pleased with myself that I could come to the same (albeit stupidly obvious) conclusions as he, considering his knowledge of physics is vastly superior to mine. Thank you. I know I'm on the right track.
Aah, so that was the trick, that there's less mass than there would be if no rubble exited the perimeter.
And that prevents the collapse how, exactly? Remember that rubble accumulates as collapse progresses; even if there's some ejection of mass there's always an increasing remnant which can't escape (don't forget the French demolitions).
Yes, there will surely be some conversion of potential energy into heat within the rubble due to the friction between particles, but we're not talking of any significant heating here, thus no significant reduction in the amount of PE available for crushing.
Once again, is NIST wrong when they discuss how the downward movement of the top part of the building was far too much for the bottom part to handle, causing global collapse? Where is your mathematical proof?
Once NIST showed that the energy budget of the falling mass (be it rubbleized or a solid block) exceeded the capabilities of the lower floors connections to carry it NIST didn't have to go any farther in their calculations. It's a pointless exercise and a waste of time and money to bother explaining that once you have enough static mass to break a connection that all lower connections (that were all the same on the office floors no matter if it was the 90th floor or the 16th floor) would also fail in the same manner. Add in the fact that the mass was dynamic and all but either absolute idiots or internet trolls will profess to not understand that.
Dropping a bag of sand onto a structure has the potential to focus more destructive force
than dumping the contents of the same bag onto the structure.
You have to talk to OCTers at a kindergarten level ergo or theydon't get it.
Is that why earth slides and avalanches don't come in bags? Are you supporting debris has no mass? Should I pack my buckshot in a bag? Where is the math?
Does this mean I will die slower if the dirt falls into a trench, cause the dirt is loose instead of in bags? What was your point? Loose dirt kills 70 people a year; would it be more hazardous in bags?
911 truth can't do the math and has the CD delusion. When will 911 truth be at a kindergarten level? My kindergarten kids do math, why can't 911 truth?
Because the rubble is a loose and randomized collection of building fragments and tends to spill over the sides. Individual rubble pieces do not have sufficient mass to crush through intact building components.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
