Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[leftysergeant]

I don't need to do either, because I know a structural steel building can't descend through itself naturally (while pulverizing itself) in under 15 seconds, no matter what mode of collapse.

Nobdy said it would. They do fall apart if you drop breakable parts onto breakable parts that hold everything else together. The towers peeled open as the floors were crushed. Nothing odd about that.

 

[uke2se]

Please provide evidence of your claim. To anyone else, this is a dust plume.

Please provide evidence that it's a dust plume.

 

[ergo]

Nobdy said it would. They do fall apart if you drop breakable parts onto breakable parts that hold everything else together. The towers peeled open as the floors were crushed. Nothing odd about that.

Really? In what other buildings has this happened?

 

[ergo]

Please provide evidence that it's a dust plume.

Its shape and direction suggest propulsion. Please provide evidence that it's not.

 

[uke2se]

There's nothing in the picture that suggests this is a pancake collapse, and yet uke2se says that this "looks like" a pancake collapse. He says it "looks like" a pancake collapse, because he knows it is a pancake collapse. How he *knows* this, we're not yet sure, since neither NIST nor Bazant suggest it was a pancake collapse. In fact, NIST expressly rejected the notion that it was a pancake collapse.

You asked me if it looked like a pancake collapse. Since I know from other physical evidence as well as the scientific reports written on this subject that the picture shows a building undergoing floor-by-floor pancaking, that's what the picture looks like to me.

If you want to make this completely retarded argument, does this look like a fire started by a cigarette butt to you?

http://www.russiablog.org/cathedral-fire.jpg

Bear in mind that there's no cigarette butt in the picture.

 

[ozeco41]

Except that this isn't in fact what happens.

Denial of evidence supported fact by one uncommented video.

Ergo I posted a complete overview of what happened in the global collapse. That overview contains a number of individual claims each of which I can back by reasoned explanations plus evidence.

You need to get clear what your objective is. If it is "Understand why the 'top block' for each of the Twin Towers was able to fall through and demolish the lower tower" I can and will try to help you.

If however your objective is some or all of these:

• Disagree with any posted explanation simply because you don't "see it" first up;
• Disagree for the sake of disagreeing;
• Prove NIST wrong;
• Prove Bazant or any other "authority" wrong;
• ..(any other truther nonsense)....

...the I will bow out and leave you with your confusion.

Your "response by one video" is an irrelevant deflection of several key points. Here is one of them:
"During the global collapse of each of the "Twin Towers" the top block and accumulating debris of disconnected floors fell inside the outer tube of columns. The outer tube columns were disconnected at the floor joist to column connection AND those columns fell without contributing significant resistance to the falling mass of top block components plus accumulating debris."

That is one of the three key points of my explanation. It is also the central point of the ROOSD model which femr2 has referred you to several times. AND it is central to your question as to how the smaller top block could demolish the lower tower.

Do you understand that "key point"? Note that I do not ask "do you agree?" the question is "Do you understand?"

If you understand then the next question is "Do you agree?"

Depending on the answers to those two questions we can then see if there is a way forward.

 

[uke2se]

Its shape and direction suggest propulsion. Please provide evidence that it's not.

How does it's shape suggest propulsion? How do you measure a direction in a still photo? Please provide evidence.

 

[femr2]

So, we are looking at the north side of the building.

ANOTHER reason you are having problems. You should know such things at a glance if you have bothered to spend any time at all looking at details.

Well, already we can see you've drawn line B, the North side crush front, far below where the crush front is seen in the actual picture.

Nope. That's *overspill* up-top, from trailing perimeter peel and core destruction.

I guess you are suggesting that the crush front is internal.

Yep.

That's fine.

Good.

And you are somehow able to intuit where the crush front is, internally, on the south side.

Intuit, no, show you, yes...

It's find to guess at all this, but I don't find this analysis believable or useful, for the reasons I state above.

You simply choose to remain ignorant.

 

[ergo]

Nope. That's *overspill* up-top, from triling perimeter peel and core destruction.

This makes no sense.

Intuit, no, show you, yes...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/625661731.gif[/qimg]

And you are suggesting that the dark debris we are seeing ejecting out of the sides is from some kind of rapid-fire pancaking of floors inside? How does this kind of collapse happen in such a rapid-fire fashion? And how is the core collapsing in this same rapid-fire fashion?

 

[ozeco41]

There's nothing in the picture that suggests this is a pancake collapse, and yet uke2se says that this "looks like" a pancake collapse. He says it "looks like" a pancake collapse, because he knows it is a pancake collapse. How he *knows* this, we're not yet sure, since neither NIST nor Bazant suggest it was a pancake collapse. In fact, NIST expressly rejected the notion that it was a pancake collapse.

ergo you keep confusing different stages of the collapse.

NIST rejected the notion that the collapse initiation was a "pancake collapse"

NIST did not analyse the "global collapse" which is what we are discussing here. NIST said "global collapse was inevitable" (or words to that effect) once the initial collapse occurred.

The mechanism of global collapse which actually happened was that a falling mass of material - top block and disconnected floors - fell inside the OOS ["Open Office Space"] and sheared off the floors in sequence. It is legitimate to describe that process as a "pancake collapse". If you disagree with the label we can avoid using it. There is no point arguing about terminology. The reality is that a falling mass sequentially disconnected floors in the OOS and accumulated debris so that each successive floor was hit by a larger mass.

By the way - what I have just posted happens to also be mainstream to one of the truther claims - i.e. that there was demolition during the global collapse. So my explanation is in fact common ground between mainstream debunker explanations and one of the "mainstream" truther positions.

 

[uke2se]

This makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense if you understand physics. You don't, hence it doesn't make sense to you.

 

[beachnut]

... bedunkers ...

Summarizes your knowledge of physics; your post is off topic and failed.

Bazant's model is well past 911 truth's capability to understand. Are you in 911 truth?

 

[femr2]

This makes no sense.

It takes watching every video available many times to work your way through the dust to see what is actually happening.

And you are suggesting that the dark debris we are seeing ejecting out of the sides is from some kind of rapid-fire pancaking of floors inside?

Yes !

How does this kind of collapse happen in such a rapid-fire fashion?

Because once it gets going, the forces being applied to the intact structure below the descending mass is so large that the connections keeping the OOS floor assembly attached to the perimeter and core are easily overcome and very rapidly destroyed. Take some time and look at how each floor truss was actually connected to the core and perimeter before responding to this point.

And how is the core collapsing in this same rapid-fire fashion?

It's not. Details there are more sketchy, so I won't state I know for sure. More of a mangled mess, and quite a bit slower than the OOS region destruction. As you are no doubt aware, core destruction arrested, leaving significant portions of each core standing for a bit after both OOS region destruction hit ground level, and the perimeter peeling had completed.

 

[leftysergeant]

And how is the core collapsing in this same rapid-fire fashion?

It isn't. It is being torn apart more slowly by collisions and mechanical resonnance.

 

[ozeco41]

T...And you are suggesting that the dark debris we are seeing ejecting out of the sides is from some kind of rapid-fire pancaking of floors inside? How does this kind of collapse happen in such a rapid-fire fashion? And how is the core collapsing in this same rapid-fire fashion?

Yes - partially; Yes and Yes - sort of - it trails.

Those three questions are spot on. I will leave detailed answers to femr2* since your post is directed at him. All three have been addressed by my claims and partial explanations in my previous posts.


* oops - femr2 beat me to it.

 

[ozeco41]

...Because once it gets going, the forces being applied to the intact structure below the descending mass is so large that the connections keeping the OOS floor assembly attached to the perimeter and core are easily overcome and very rapidly destroyed. Take some time and look at how each floor truss was actually connected to the core and perimeter before responding to this point....

This may help:

 

[beachnut]

... What is obvious to eight-year-olds and other people who understand everyday physics is that a small something cannot descend through a larger something of the same material composition via gravity alone. ...

Complete nonsense. This is why you have nothing to offer in this thread, you don't have a rational grasp of physics, and you don't have a clue what a model is.

It takes watching every video available many times to work your way through the dust to see what is actually happening.
...

A gravity collapse.

 

[femr2]

These should help visualise...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VctVphMnsN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpbTmcSwro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEGrt_MkpTg

ETA: Note the top floor is set to carry *significant* mass in each FEA.

 

[ozeco41]

These should help visualise...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VctVphMnsN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpbTmcSwro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEGrt_MkpTg

ETA: Note the top floor is set to carry *significant* mass in each FEA.

Are those clips backed by FEA? In the first clip the contact of the first falling floor with the one below seems counter intuitive. The part which puzzles me is where the falling top floor tilts downwards in the outer bay elements.

Not a big issue - the three are excellent illustrations for the issue currently before us in this thread.

 

[femr2]

Are those clips backed by FEA? In the first clip the contact of the first falling floor with the one below seems counter intuitive. The part which puzzles me is where the falling top floor tilts downwards in the outer bay elements.

Not a big issue - the three are excellent illustrations for the issue currently before us in this thread.

They are not full scale (and simplified in structure), but are performed from an FEA system...

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/progression-attributes-of-enik-s-core-simulation-t406-45.html#p12213