Acceleration of the falling top blocks.

[WTC Dust]

100% incorrect. The floors were no longer floors. The floors were what became foamy dust. You see the foamy metallic dust in the image. You claim that it is smoke, I understand, but obviously it is the material that used to be floors and other structural parts of the building.

How can I highlight something that hidden behind the perimeter columns?

As a scientist, I would "expect" that YOU would "expect" the floors to still be there inside the perimeter columns of that upper block until they were destroyed/ripped apart by colliding with other debris/structural components.

I mean there were solid floors attached inside previously correct?

 

[WTC Dust]

No, the top part starts falling, but after a very short time period, it disappears. And, once again, you are not properly characterizing the findings of Dr. Wood. One obvious thing is that she doesn't say it was a spaced-based weapon. Another is that she talks about the damage done to the bathtub as not having destroyed the bathtub, ie)not significant damage. The bathtub wasn't very damaged. It largely remained intact, and she talks about this.

<sigh>

That is a still picture. What you ask is not really possible. But many videos exist where you can see that top block falling and breaking apart the underlying structure. In the picture the area of that destruction is obscured by the resulting dust/debris from that process. For these reasons I believe your inquiry is less than honest.

Well Tracy, you seem to be parroting and even sometimes quoting chapter and verse from the Bible of Dr Wood. Let's recall briefly some of what she (Dr Wood) has previously espoused:-

The Twin Towers did not collapse they were "like two tall trees that turned to sawdust from the top down"
The WTC complex was destroyed by a space-based beam weapon.
The weapon was powered by a Hurricane.
There were no fires at the WTC on 9/11.
That the smoke we see in the pics above was generated by smoke machines.
That 99% of the steel at the WTC was vapourised/liquified/foamed/dustifiied.
Her book "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11" contains no such evidence.
The "protective bathtub" beneath/supporting the Towers remained undamaged after 9/11.
Actual reports of the bathtub being damaged were "part of the cover story"


And on and on. There's no end to the madness.

It's quite plain who you've hitched a ride with. Get off before you hit Cloud Cuckoo Land.


Compus

 

[WTC Dust]

The fruit story is logical and makes sense, but you're forgetting that the WTC structure was not made of cardboard. It was made of steel, which is extremely strong.

At the relatively low speeds that gravity alone would produce, a twelve foot fall (as the gravity collapse model says was the initiator), would not produce a force strong enough to collapse lower floors. This didn't happen, of course. I'm just saying that in the theoretical universe that the upper twenty floors fell twelve feet and hit the lower floor of the WTC, it probably would have held. It absolutely would have significantly slowed the descent of the upper floors, had this happened, which it didn't.

It is?

Isn't the capacity for something to resist or somewhat resist a load from another object a relative thing?

Let's put this into perspective in regards to a object or structure providing visible resistance to varying loads being applied to it.

Let's take the cardboard core tube of a paper towel roll and stand it on end. let's take the following three scenarios.

1. Place on orange on the top end of the tube. Take a video of it
2. Remove the orange and drop a honeydew melon on it from three feet over the top of the tube
3. Get another tube and drop a 1 ton block of concrete on the tube

Are you trying to tell me that in the third scenario you would visibly see the concrete block's descent slow down do to the resistance of the cardboard tube?

So in other words, no matter what weight load is dropped onto another object or structure, some resistance will always be visible. That's what you believe? Or is there a point at which the load applied to the calculated resistance of a structure or object can be so overbearing as to cause the object or structure to provide no resistance at all?

 

[WTC Dust]

An estimate of the final destruction timing. Not precise.

You haven't addressed your "they went away in a dozen seconds" quote.

You've also been proven wrong on that.

 

[WTC Dust]

No it isn't, lefty. Insulation isn't made of iron chips.

The "foam" that Dr Blevins found is just insulation. It was everywhere in the area, exactly like the paint chips. We already have a source. We expect it to be there. There is no identified process that could have created it out of the rubble.

It is also absurd to think that any directed energy could start effecting and interior space of a building without some external signature.

One of the reasons that people see an anomoly in the rate of acceleration in the collapse may be that we have been thinking of initiation as sort of a sudden event, a comedian doing a pratfall on a fragile chair would be a good parallel. It resists from an instant, then collapses.

What happened may be more like a grotesquely fat person sitting down carefully on a folding aluminum deck chair and causing it to fold slowly around himself.

No missing jolt.

 

[WTC Dust]

Twelve feet isn't enough vertical distance to build up incredible velocity and force. So, AFTER the floors falling was initiated in the gravity collapse model, all you have is twelve feet. And the gravity collapse model fails to explain the initiation of the "falling floors". Nothing related to gravity could cause the steel framework of the WTC to weaken.

Yes. Once the debris is in significant motion, it stops being a statics problem and turns into a dynamics problem. And that means any remaining resistance to the downward acceleration can be treated as a simple problem in vector addition.




Not what I saw.

If the entire building was equally weakened, where would the first failure occur? Where the load is greatest. If any floor below the progressive collapse had already been destroyed, then all of the building above that floor would be in motion. And that simply isn't observed.





At least you got that far in your orientation to the sciences. It isn't sufficient to show the existing paradigm has weaknesses. You need to provide a well-worked out alternative.

Concentrate on the positive, not the negative. How does YOUR theory explain the evidence? Does it do a better job? Does it account for more of it?



Do you understand the concept of validation of the model? One compares the output of the model to ALL appropriate observation, not just to the end state.



No-one is arguing against that. What you are failing to do is to quantify this slowing down.

We DO observe that the towers fell slower than free fall. What you haven't shown is that this progressive fall is still too fast. And you won't get anywhere with that argument until you can properly quantify it.

 

[WTC Dust]

Good. Then you should be able to wrap your mind around just how strongly built the WTC was and realize any falling floors would have been slowed by the steel framework of the building. Not that floors fell, of course. By the time they started falling, they were not floors anymore. They were bits and pieces of floor material, which doesn't give a solid jolt.

Drop foam a dozen feet. It doesn't produce a very big jolt. That's what happened. Foam fell. Not floors.

So you're equating that the mass, velocity, and resulting momentum of 20+ floors would be RESET to initial rest at every floor?!

Good lawd no!
At best that next floor would MAYBE offer enough resistance to slow the fall by the tiniest fraction of a nanosecond at that momentum.
Best case scenario the pillars and supports are intact, and the momentum is (as you put it) "disturbed" for double-digit milliseconds.
But the likelihood of that being true is very very VERY unlikely.

Your avalanche theory falls apart quite substantially as well, and I will tell you why.

By throwing a pebble into the avalanche, yes I would slow the avalanche's flow. Noticeably? Heck no.
What about a small rock? Uhm... nope.
Ok what about a boulder? Still no.
How about one twentieth of a dam? Ok, sure, if that twentieth of a damn fragment was COMPLETELY 100% intact and structurally sound, it will slow the avalanche by 0.0000001% for around 100 milliseconds...

 

[Gamolon]

At the relatively low speeds that gravity alone would produce, a twelve foot fall (as the gravity collapse model says was the initiator), would not produce a force strong enough to collapse lower floors.

So you're telling me that the downward motion and weight of the entire upper block, in a "hypothetical scenario", would not be enough to over-stress a single floor? A floor that was designed to support a specific load of people, computers, cubicles, etc.

Here's something easy for a scientific of your caliber to figure out. What was the load that one of those floors was designed to support? Compare that to the load the upper block would have created.

Please come back and tell me what you get.

Of course, this is a hypothetical situation. I want to see if you can validate your claim that a single floor in the tower would have resisted the upper block.

As a scientist, you completely understand why I am asking you this right? I have asked you what you base this thinking on before and you have yet to give me a straight answer. All you keep saying is that it would resist.

I want to know why you think that.

 

[Gamolon]

An estimate of the final destruction timing. Not precise.

Pardon me, but your estimate sucks.

The time for total destruction of either tower is almost double what you estimated. Plus, there are videos and photographs which should have helped you make a more accurate estimate. Making an estimate like you did and missing by as mush as you did shows that your research is less than desirable.

 

[000063]

The upper floors were in the process of being foamed. They were somewhat intact at the very beginning, but the upper floors certainly did not survive for very long at all.

Some parts of the building survived. No doubt about it. But not intact floors, and certainly not a twenty story block of floors. The structural elements of the top twenty floors of the WTC were essentially a steel cage. Even if you could explain how this steel cage got detached from the rest of the building, you still have to figure out why you didn't end up with a steel cage on the ground. The gravity collapse model doesn't do this. It fails to accurately describe the events at Ground Zero for this and for a multitude of other reasons.

You missed the part where I pointed out your post was self contradictory, as well as proving the model is faulty. Not explaining several aspects of the collapse you think is important is not the same as faulty, especially since you are wrong.

The steel structural elements were fastened together like just about any other similar steel construction, and subject to breaking, buckling, and otherwise failing when subjected to stresses far outside of their parameters, such as a jet running into them at top speed plus an hour of fire, your incredulity notwithstanding.

Prove that the so-called steel cage would have survived the stresses and arrived intact on the ground. I really want to see your logic.

...
Here's something easy for a scientific of your caliber to figure out. What was the load that one of those floors was designed to support? Compare that to the load the upper block would have created.

Please come back and tell me what you get.

Of course, this is a hypothetical situation. I want to see if you can validate your claim that a single floor in the tower would have resisted the upper block.....

 

[000063]

As a scientist, I have considered this at great length. The main focus of mine for the last ten years has been an answer to the question, "What destroyed the World Trade Center?"

One thing you might consider are the instances where controlled demolition didn't work. There are some videos out there. You can look them up. The building slams down a bit but stops. It doesn't continue crushing all the way to the ground, as the faulty gravity collapse model suggests.

And what about the instances where it did work?

How about the instances of verinage, which is the method of CD most comparable to the official story in both its initiation and effects, and seems to be closest to what you're describing?

Were any instances of CD ever performed on buildings the size of WTC 7, much less WTC 1 and 2?

 

[WTC Dust]

Thanks for rephrasing your question. I would say that the engineering of the WTC itself is what I base my estimation of "it would hold" on. Those buildings were over-designed in terms of building load. They were built with the idea that plane crashes were possible. They were built to resist hurricanes. They were built to resist fires, and even did historically survive intense office fires.

Also, the material properties of steel are important here. Steel would fracture, given an intense enough whack, but it mostly deforms. It doesn't really shatter from things like car crashes which give intense forces in a localized manner.

Twelve feet is not enough distance for the top floors to have achieved a great enough amount of force to crush the lower floors, as the faulty gravity collapse model suggests, but that's the weaker conclusion. The stronger conclusion is that the descent would have been quite slowed. Stopped? Maybe. Slowed? Definitely. And not slowed just a bit. A lot. But it's dumb to talk about it, really, because floors didn't fall onto other floors. Foam that used to be floors was doing the falling, and foam doesn't produce a big whack when it hits something.

So you're telling me that the downward motion and weight of the entire upper block, in a "hypothetical scenario", would not be enough to over-stress a single floor? A floor that was designed to support a specific load of people, computers, cubicles, etc.

Here's something easy for a scientific of your caliber to figure out. What was the load that one of those floors was designed to support? Compare that to the load the upper block would have created.

Please come back and tell me what you get.

Of course, this is a hypothetical situation. I want to see if you can validate your claim that a single floor in the tower would have resisted the upper block.

As a scientist, you completely understand why I am asking you this right? I have asked you what you base this thinking on before and you have yet to give me a straight answer. All you keep saying is that it would resist.

I want to know why you think that.

 

[WTC Dust]

Twenty four seconds? Really?

Pardon me, but your estimate sucks.

The time for total destruction of either tower is almost double what you estimated. Plus, there are videos and photographs which should have helped you make a more accurate estimate. Making an estimate like you did and missing by as mush as you did shows that your research is less than desirable.

 

[WTC Dust]

The answer to your question is "no", but I wonder where you're going with this line of thought. I don't think controlled demolition was what took down the WTC. I think advanced weaponry did it. I talked about controlled demo because there have been examples of top parts of buildings that began to fall but stopped short. That's it.

And what about the instances where it did work?

How about the instances of verinage, which is the method of CD most comparable to the official story in both its initiation and effects, and seems to be closest to what you're describing?

Were any instances of CD ever performed on buildings the size of WTC 7, much less WTC 1 and 2?

 

[carlitos]

A modest proposal.

 

[alienentity]

Twelve feet is not enough distance for the top floors to have achieved a great enough amount of force to crush the lower floors, as the faulty gravity collapse model suggests, but that's the weaker conclusion. The stronger conclusion is that the descent would have been quite slowed. Stopped? Maybe. Slowed? Definitely. And not slowed just a bit. A lot. But it's dumb to talk about it, really, because floors didn't fall onto other floors. Foam that used to be floors was doing the falling, and foam doesn't produce a big whack when it hits something.

I submit that you do not have a clue what you're talking about. You've never offered any math to back up these bare assertions. May I remind you that persons far more qualified than you in science (ie leading scientists in the relevant field of structural engineering) have produced such math, fully published in standard peer-reviewed journals?

May I also remind you that your Pharmacology PhD is not adequate in itself to support your bare assertions?

Thank you.

 

[Gamolon]

Thanks for rephrasing your question. I would say that the engineering of the WTC itself is what I base my estimation of "it would hold" on. Those buildings were over-designed in terms of building load.

Do you understand he difference between "building load" and "individual floor load"?

They were built with the idea that plane crashes were possible.

Did they resist the plane impact and remain standing? Yes or no?

Twelve feet is not enough distance for the top floors to have achieved a great enough amount of force to crush the lower floors, as the faulty gravity collapse model suggests, but that's the weaker conclusion. The stronger conclusion is that the descent would have been quite slowed. Stopped? Maybe. Slowed? Definitely. And not slowed just a bit. A lot.

Being a scientist, I would think you would provide calculations and numbers to support this claim. You have not yet. Why?

 

[beachnut]

Thanks for rephrasing your question. I would say that the engineering of the WTC itself is what I base my estimation of "it would hold" on. Those buildings were over-designed in terms of building load. They were built with the idea that plane crashes were possible. They were built to resist hurricanes. They were built to resist fires, and even did historically survive intense office fires.

Also, the material properties of steel are important here. Steel would fracture, given an intense enough whack, but it mostly deforms. It doesn't really shatter from things like car crashes which give intense forces in a localized manner.

Twelve feet is not enough distance for the top floors to have achieved a great enough amount of force to crush the lower floors, as the faulty gravity collapse model suggests, but that's the weaker conclusion. The stronger conclusion is that the descent would have been quite slowed. Stopped? Maybe. Slowed? Definitely. And not slowed just a bit. A lot. But it's dumb to talk about it, really, because floors didn't fall onto other floors. Foam that used to be floors was doing the falling, and foam doesn't produce a big whack when it hits something.

How much does one floor hold? Can it hold 12 floors? Do some research before making up silly fantasy answers out of thin air.

What kind of aircraft impact were the towers designed to resist?
You have no idea because you failed to talk to Robertson the person who took did the design. He made it for a slow moving 707 lost in the fog low on fuel. The only rational accident that could happen, the one you never thought of. The design was verified by a study, it the WTC steel exterior was 1/2 inch, the 911 planes would have been stopped.

Design of WTC impact by a plane 187 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy.
Flight 11, 1300 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy, oops too much.
Flight 175, 2093 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy, 11 times too much.

You failed to think before you make up your fantasy. You don't understand physics or structural engineering, you don't know any facts about 911 or the WTC towers.

You don't understand momentum. You have no clue how long it took the towers to fall.

 

[DGM]

Is it me or does WTC Dust's avatar just add that little extra to the hilarity of her posts? It's like "I'm stoned as a bone and I'm typing................WOW"

 

[000063]

The answer to your question is "no", but I wonder where you're going with this line of thought. I don't think controlled demolition was what took down the WTC. I think advanced weaponry did it.

Advanced weaponry never used before or since in any known capacity, that produced effects comparable to no known weapons, which would've cost more to develop and use than any possible profit gained by the conspirators, which would require a massive logistical and support base.

I talked about controlled demo because there have been examples of top parts of buildings that began to fall but stopped short. That's it.

And there have been examples of the top parts of buildings starting to fall and then making the building collapse under them.

A modest proposal.

Good idea.