OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[tempesta29]

You have got to be kidding me, I've rarely seen anybody engage in this kind of wordplay. It's absolutely ridiculous tempesta; ridiculous.

No one here has poor reading comprehension skills. You just keep playing with words to save face, it's a ridiculous game you play and it's really getting annoying.

Well quite simply: you're wrong. I've discussed this very topic over at politicalforum.com. You're welcome to search their database and in doing so you'll find that I've been over this very same game of semantics and made clear what my position was. When I say "level by level" I mean all charges on a given floor are detonated simultaneously, then that is repeated some number of floors below that. I've never once claimed that there were charges on every floor, nor will I allow you to draw me into a childish back-and-forth on the subject.

 

[tempesta29]

evasion noted. You cannot support your claim.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression

You don't even specify whether your stumps/stubs are on the upper section or lower. It's really just funny.

 

[tempesta29]

If they had simply initiated the collapse and allowed it to propagate, it would have looked like a collapse that was initiated at a specific level then propagated naturally. You're suggesting that they went out of their way to design a system that didn't look like a naturally propagating collapse, for no reason at all.

Dave

There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground. I don't think this would have occurred at all. After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall. These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground. These aren't hot knives through butter. The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

 

[A W Smith]

You don't even specify whether your stumps/stubs are on the upper section or lower. It's really just funny.

you didn't specify whether your "levels" were every forth floor, third floor, second floor, upper section or lower, Your evasion is really quite amusing as you appear to have backed yourself into a corner. Are you ready to define your arbitrary "level" yet? or will you continue to dance?

I didn't say floors. I said level, an arbitrary value. I didn't say every level either. You're insulting, and you have poor reading comprehension skills. I did not say there were charges on every single floor of the Twin Towers, just as I never said that thermite was an explosive. Try to learn to be more polite, and if you're confused about one of my posts, just ask me to clarify rather than going on an offensive rant.

Thanks.

When I say "level by level" I mean all charges on a given floor are detonated simultaneously, then that is repeated some number of floors below that.

Come on sport, what happens to the floors in between your "arbitrary levels"

 

[tempesta29]

you didn't specify whether your "levels" were every forth floor, third floor, second floor, upper section or lower, Your evasion is really quite amusing as you appear to have backed yourself into a corner. Are you ready to define your arbitrary "level" yet? or will you continue to dance

Is a precise definition of "level" required? If so, demonstrate why it's requisite. You're asking me about stubs and stumps. I don't even know what you're talking about, really.

Come on sport, what happens to the floors in between your "arbitrary levels"

Define "floor". For the most part a floor is space. Are you asking what is happening to space? What happens to the mass in between the severed points of these columns is the same thing that happens in any such controlled demolition. Seriously, what are you asking?

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground. I don't think this would have occurred at all. After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall. These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground. These aren't hot knives through butter. The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

You know where you said you didn't have any physics or engineering background? Well, I believe you. You've demonstrated a total ignorance of physics or structural engineering. Now, that wouldn't normally be something to worry about; the vast majority of people know very little about these subjects. However, assuming, from a basis of ignorance, that you know better than physicists and engineers, is your whole problem. Everything that's known about the design and construction of the Twin Towers makes it perfectly clear that, once the collapses got going, the structure would be unable to prevent them, because the energy lost at every floor was less than the energy gained from the release of gravitational potential energy. Even the more intelligent truthers realise this, which is why they're retreating to ever more subtle arguments, not realising that this invalidates their starting position and making it perfectly clear that their position is faith based and that their conclusions precede their reasoning.

And even the more foolish are rarely foolish enough to proselytise their religion based on the claim that they should be able to see a 1% decrease in acceleration from a dataset with ±100% error bars. I'm still waiting to see you address that one.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

Is a precise definition of "level" required? If so, demonstrate why it's requisite. You're asking me about stubs and stumps. I don't even know what you're talking about, really.

oh you know what I am talking about. You are just avoiding an answer, You sound just like Clinton during the lewinski hearings. Its really looking bad for you. If you have a length of intact column covering the span of several storys, What happens to that length when the ends collide where you took out a section during your cd?

Define "floor". For the most part a floor is space. Are you asking what is happening to space? What happens to the mass in between the severed points of these columns is the same thing that happens in any such controlled demolition. Seriously, what are you asking?

bingo! so why should we see a difference in gravitational acceleration? What would arrest a collapse given no CD?

 

[tempesta29]

Everything that's known about the design and construction of the Twin Towers makes it perfectly clear that, once the collapses got going, the structure would be unable to prevent them, because the energy lost at every floor was less than the energy gained from the release of gravitational potential energy. Even the more intelligent truthers realise this, which is why they're retreating to ever more subtle arguments, not realising that this invalidates their starting position and making it perfectly clear that their position is faith based and that their conclusions precede their reasoning.

The core of the Twin Towers was a continuos structure, so what is happening "at every floor" is irrelevant. The upper section isn't just impacting the lower on a floor by floor basis. I hope you're not insinuating that the upper section just falls through air after it 'clears a floor'. It is encountering continuous resistance both from the core and the perimeter all throughout its descent. Once the collapses "got going" the structure would just allow the collapsing section to completely plow through it all the way to the ground? Got going for what distance? Surely you realize that's a significant measurement. If the upper sections were dropped from a 1000 feet in the sky they would apply significantly more force than that applied in the 9/11 scenarios. "Got going" is about as vague and nebulous as you can get.

And no, I've never encountered a truther that just wholly accepts that the upper sections were unstoppable masses. Regardless, there is no energy lost as the upper sections destroy the lower because that didn't happen. I know this because the upper sections do not decelerate when they hit undamaged structure.

And even the more foolish are rarely foolish enough to proselytise their religion based on the claim that they should be able to see a 1% decrease in acceleration from a dataset with ±100% error bars. I'm still waiting to see you address that one.

1% decrease? Where did you get that figure?

 

[GlennB]

These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor ....

There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground.

Yes there is. Engineering studies, for example.

I don't think this would have occurred at all.

Who cares? Show your figures, not your unsupported beliefs.

After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall.

And a car can plough a hole through a brick wall, depending on its mass and speed. So what's your point?

These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor ....

You're neglecting the mass of debris that accumulates with each successive floor that's impacted

.... and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground.

That's just laughable
.

The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

The average acceleration is 'constantly' < g because the impacts are sufficiently off-square for any theoretical 'jolts' to be spread out and unmeasurable, that's all. With a perfect implementation of your 'plan' the acceleration would have been much closer to g

Your entire position is one great long unsubstantiated assertion, but amusing in parts.

 

[tempesta29]

oh you know what I am talking about. You are just avoiding an answer, You sound just like Clinton during the lewinski hearings. Its really looking bad for you. If you have a length of intact column covering the span of several storys, What happens to that length when the ends collide where you took out a section during your cd?

They can be cut at an angle and the force will shift those sections out of the way. Are you suggesting that despite their being cut they just stack up like Legos?

bingo! so why should we see a difference in gravitational acceleration? What would arrest a collapse given no CD?

The core and perimeter are continuous. Both the perimeter and core were damaged by the plane crashes at those respective zones. Allegedly, fire also weakened this steel significantly. This damage didn't occur further down. Where this damage wasn't present, there should have been measurable deceleration of the upper mass at this stage.

 

[tempesta29]

And a car can plough a hole through a brick wall, depending on its mass and speed. So what's your point?

How many brick walls will this car plow through before it stops?

You're neglecting the mass of debris that accumulates with each successive floor that's impacted

So you're suggesting that the force created by the gravity of this accumulating mass is greater than the resistance this mass provided against the falling mass? What if just the top 3 floors of each tower had collapsed? Would this mass just get more powerful at every floor as it gained mass? Would these 3 floors just crash through the 100+ below them all the way to the ground? Hell, maybe you just need 1 floor's worth of mass. Cause once it "gets going" as someone said, that's all it takes!

That's just laughable

Sounds like an unsupported belief.

The average acceleration is 'constantly' < g because the impacts are sufficiently off-square for any theoretical 'jolts' to be spread out and unmeasurable, that's all. With a perfect implementation of your 'plan' the acceleration would have been much closer to g

Spread out? What the hell are you talking about? We have an allegedly heavily-damaged crash zone which initiates collapse and a huge undamaged section waiting to offer far greater resistance. This resistance would have absolutely decelerated the upper mass had the upper mass been responsible for the destruction of the lower.

 

[A W Smith]

They can be cut at an angle and the force will shift those sections out of the way. Are you suggesting that despite their being cut they just stack up like Legos?

they are held at their locations by the concrete slabs on the storys between your alleged angle cuts. What will shift those floor braced columns?

The core and perimeter are continuous. Both the perimeter and core were damaged by the plane crashes at those respective zones. Allegedly, fire also weakened this steel significantly. This damage didn't occur further down. Where this damage wasn't present, there should have been measurable deceleration of the upper mass at this stage.

Why? Show your math. Your intuition (incredulity) won't cut it here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The core of the Twin Towers was a continuos structure, so what is happening "at every floor" is irrelevant.

So why did you say "These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor" when it's irrelevant?

The upper section isn't just impacting the lower on a floor by floor basis. I hope you're not insinuating that the upper section just falls through air after it 'clears a floor'. It is encountering continuous resistance both from the core and the perimeter all throughout its descent.

Yep. Care to try working out how much resistance? Because, until you start working out some numbers, you're just basing your conclusions on uninformed guesses.

Once the collapses "got going" the structure would just allow the collapsing section to completely plow through it all the way to the ground? Got going for what distance? Surely you realize that's a significant measurement.

Once the upper block has descended about four metres, it's unstoppable by the lower structure. This is well established by calculation.

If the upper sections were dropped from a 1000 feet in the sky they would apply significantly more force than that applied in the 9/11 scenarios.

Congratulations. You're not as stupid as Anders Bjorkman.

"Got going" is about as vague and nebulous as you can get.

See above. For more detail, read Bazant and Zhou.

And no, I've never encountered a truther that just wholly accepts that the upper sections were unstoppable masses.

Your lack of familiarity with the leading members of the movement is hardly support for your beliefs.

Regardless, there is no energy lost as the upper sections destroy the lower because that didn't happen. I know this because the upper sections do not decelerate when they hit undamaged structure.

Discussed to death. No deceleration would be expected. Small changes in acceleration, which would be expected, are observed.

1% decrease? Where did you get that figure?

Scroll up. Now, let's see your figure for the espected reduction in acceleration. Please show your working in as much detail as I've shown mine.

Dave

 

[tempesta29]

they are held at their locations by the concrete slabs on the storys between your alleged angle cuts. What will shift those floor braced columns?

The force of the upper sections, perhaps?

Why? Show your math. Your intuition (incredulity) won't cut it here.

What a non-sequitur. Rdf < Ruf where Rdf = resistance offered by damaged floors in the crash zones and Ruf = resistance offered by undamaged floors in the crash zones.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What a non-sequitur. Rdf < Ruf where Rdf = resistance offered by damaged floors in the crash zones and Ruf = resistance offered by undamaged floors in the crash zones.

Yes, but 0.662 < 0.667, and if the error bars of your data are ± 0.667 you won't see the difference. If you don't know that, you're shouting in a language you don't understand.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

your rufs produce lulz

The force of the upper sections, perhaps?



What a non-sequitur. Rdf < Ruf where Rdf = resistance offered by damaged floors in the crash zones and Ruf = resistance offered by undamaged floors in the crash zones.

LOL ruf! ruf!, bring in the laughing dogs.

You really don't understand? do you?

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

 

[GlennB]

How many brick walls will this car plow through before it stops?

It depends. But if the series of walls were horizontal and the car was dropped on the first one then gravity is constantly acting on the car, and the bricks from the first wall are also impacting the second wall, no?

So you're suggesting that the force created by the gravity of this accumulating mass is greater than the resistance this mass provided against the falling mass?

??? That makes no sense. "this mass" of which you speak is also falling, and "this accumulating mass" doesn't have much of a gravitational field in itself.
Perhaps you meant momentum or kinetic energy or something else?

What if just the top 3 floors of each tower had collapsed?

I recall that Bazant suggested that collapse might have arrested.

Would this mass just get more powerful at every floor as it gained mass? Would these 3 floors just crash through the 100+ below them all the way to the ground? Hell, maybe you just need 1 floor's worth of mass. Cause once it "gets going" as someone said, that's all it takes!

It depends.

Spread out? What the hell are you talking about?

Both upper sections tilted at the beginning of their collapse. Impact with the first floor below (itself a notional concept) was not axial.

We have an allegedly heavily-damaged crash zone which initiates collapse and a huge undamaged section waiting to offer far greater resistance. This resistance would have absolutely decelerated the upper mass had the upper mass been responsible for the destruction of the lower.

The upper blocks fell at < g overall. There was resistance, so I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you a WTC "free-fall" devotee?

 

[tempesta29]

It depends. But if the series of walls were horizontal and the car was dropped on the first one then gravity is constantly acting on the car, and the bricks from the first wall are also impacting the second wall, no?

Yes. I've heard this argument before. Really though, in this case, we have vertical columns, in a way two large, continuous steel tubes. We don't have bricks being thrown downward into another wall of bricks by a descending mass through a space. This doesn't even take into account the fact that so much mass was ejected horizontally and not necessarily downward.

??? That makes no sense. "this mass" of which you speak is also falling, and "this accumulating mass" doesn't have much of a gravitational field in itself.
Perhaps you meant momentum or kinetic energy or something else?

Well, both really. The mass is falling and as such is generating kinetic energy the longer it falls. It is also being propelled downward by the mass that collided with it.

I recall that Bazant suggested that collapse might have arrested.

It depends.

Let's say some plane had crashed just three levels below the roof of a tower and the damage initiated collapse. What is your opinion of how far this 3 floor mass would travel? Should it not simply gain energy as it travels downward? Do you agree with the "once it gets going" hypothesis?

Both upper sections tilted at the beginning of their collapse. Impact with the first floor below (itself a notional concept) was not axial.

I don't see the relevance. You still have an overall increase in resistive force.

The upper blocks fell at < g overall. There was resistance, so I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you a WTC "free-fall" devotee?

No, I'm not. When I refer to deceleration I mean a decrease in the rate of acceleration, not merely a decrease in velocity.

 

[tempesta29]

Yes, but 0.662 < 0.667, and if the error bars of your data are ± 0.667 you won't see the difference. If you don't know that, you're shouting in a language you don't understand.

Dave

Why wouldn't you see a difference in this instance? This reduction in resistance was responsible for the biggest structural failures in history. Surely this discrepancy was measurable within the margin for error, or are you insinuating that the Twin Towers were on the verge of failure since their completion?

 

[tsig]

The force of the upper sections, perhaps?



What a non-sequitur. Rdf < Ruf where Rdf = resistance offered by damaged floors in the crash zones and Ruf = resistance offered by undamaged floors in the crash zones.

Look you said you didn't understand engineering and we accept that. You don't have to prove it every post.