2 questions re 1120 'Missing bodies' from WTC 1&2 & media complicity in mass murder

[tsig]

Because using Occam's razor, reviewing the particle-ization and propulsion of what was furnishings and thousands of human bodies, along with the testimony of many who heard or saw explosions, along with the appearance of explosions destroying the building, we would have to conclude that explosions took place. Yet you claim they didn't. So you have to explain the observable that is the subject of this thread. If you don't want to, don't post in this thread.

Sure, now tell us what was exploding?

 

[tsig]

No, we would not conclude explosions, that would add to the complexity. We would correctly assume two 100+ story buildings collapsed, peeling themselves like a banana (the sides of the buildings, you know). Collapsing things sound like explosions, and things like transformers and so on can explode - there was already a fire, by the way, to provide the explosive noise.

Thanks for providing a point illustrating your lack of understanding.

Explosions =/= explosives.

 

[LSSBB]

No, we would not conclude explosions, that would add to the complexity. We would correctly assume two 100+ story buildings collapsed, peeling themselves like a banana (the sides of the buildings, you know). Collapsing things sound like explosions, and things like transformers and so on can explode - there was already a fire, by the way, to provide the explosive noise.

Thanks for providing a point illustrating your lack of understanding.

A point of clarification - my intent was to state we would not conclude explosions destroyed the building.

ETA: Helpful definition for ergo:

Oc·cam's razor noun \ˈä-kəmz-\

Definition of OCCAM'S RAZOR

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Good grief. How many times do these pages need to be linked??

• https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard
• http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
• http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html

Seriously. 2013. And conspiracy fantasists are still peddling this meme. Amazing.

 

[000063]

Still waiting to hear how a steel-framed building storey with very little concrete "pulverizes" itself against the one below it, which, according to your model, must also be pulverizing, and then repeat this 80 to 90 times through successive storeys of steel-framed structure, at the rough average rate of 0.18 seconds per floor. While simultaneously rendering furnishings and human bodies into particles and fragments and spewing them laterally and upward.

If the floors didn't pancake (and bedunkers still can't seem to agree on this point, since their model needs to explain all the consequent evidence) what did they do?

I invite Major Tom to offer a pulverization model as well.

Ergo, you do not want to start us talking about who has more unanswered questions.

Because using Occam's razor, reviewing the particle-ization and propulsion of what was furnishings and thousands of human bodies, along with the testimony of many who heard or saw explosions, along with the appearance of explosions destroying the building, we would have to conclude that explosions took place. Yet you claim they didn't. So you have to explain the observable that is the subject of this thread. If you don't want to, don't post in this thread.

Explosions without, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, pressure waves, barotrauma, or audio signatures consistent with explosives. You constantly try to conflate the two, no matter how often you're corrected.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Because using Occam's razor, reviewing the particle-ization and propulsion of what was furnishings and thousands of human bodies, along with the testimony of many who heard or saw explosions, along with the appearance of explosions destroying the building, we would have to conclude that explosions took place. Yet you claim they didn't. So you have to explain the observable that is the subject of this thread. If you don't want to, don't post in this thread.

Rather than bickering with what must appear to your educated and razor-sharp mind halfwits who trust in the OCT, why don't you go and interview a qualified and appropriately-accredited skyscraper architect and engineer and use them as sounding boards for your intelligence. Once you've got from them the truth, come back here and explain who you talked to and slowly (using small, monosyllabic words) explain to us halfwits the complexity which you surf so magnificently.

Fitz

p.s. Oh, and be sure to videotape the interview so we can get the full wisdom of your presentation

 

[ergo]

double post.

 

[ergo]

Put a piece of concrete on concrete. Or on massive steel.
Slam another piece of concrete hard on it. Or a piece of massive steel.
Observe.

Yes, the concrete would probably break up. The steel wouldn't.

The floors fell down from an average height of 200 meters. So to get a feel, drop a big piece of concrete (say, one tonne) onto concrete from 200 meters up.
Observe.

What does the 200 m refer to? And why are you using concrete here?

The floors had, on average, about 140,000 tons of steel, concrete and stuff fall onto them, at an average speed of roughly 21.5 m/s (77 km/h, 48 mph). That's the speed attained after 2.2 seconds of free fall, from a height of 23.5 meters / 77 feet.

Where are you getting free fall from? Where are you getting 2.2 seconds from? Where are you getting 23.5 m from?

Now drop 140,000 tons of steel, concrete and stuff (to visualize: that might be a solid block 63x63 meters wide and about 7 meters high/thick) onto a concrete slab from a height of 23 meters.
Observe.

Again, for clarification, what is the 23 m drop? And why are you still using concrete?

As for pancaking: Yes. Did happen in the total collapse progression phase after release. Could you show, by way of quotation, who in this sub-forum denies this?

My mistake. I thought the 9/11 bedunker collapse model was at least 50% non-pancaking. But if you all agree that the floors pancaked, then we can work from this assumption.

If you want to model pancaking: Each floor took part in 109 floor-floor collisions. Each collision occurred after a vertical distance of about 3.6 meters was diminished by a fall.

A fall through what?

So take a piece of floor slab.
Drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

And walls, furnishings and people.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Collapse progression is slowing down.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Some crushed walls, furnishings and people, bent steel floor panels, broken concrete. Collapse progression is slowing down.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Some crushed walls, furnishings and people, bent steel floor panels, broken concrete. Collapse progression is slowing down still further.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Some crushed walls, furnishings and people, squished steel floor panels, some cracked or broken concrete. Collapse progression is slower and erratic.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Some crushed walls, furnishings and people, squished steel floor panels, some cracked or broken concrete. Collapse progression is slower and erratic.

Gather what remains and again drop it 3.6 meters onto another floor slab.

Some crushed walls, furnishings and people, squished steel floor panels, some cracked or broken concrete. Global collapse has arrested.

 

[Oystein]

Yes, the concrete would probably break up. The steel wouldn't.

Would depend on the dimensions of the pieces of concrete and steel in that particular experiment, and how hard you slam them, wouldn't it? I specified neither, but yeah, I'd suggest that concrete breaks and crumbles more than steel might.

What does the 200 m refer to? And why are you using concrete here?

The 200 meters refer to the average total height that floors fell down from, silly, I wrote that in the bit you quoted!

See, the roof fell from a height of 415 meters. The 110th story floor slab fell from 411 meters, the 109th story floor slab from 398 meters, the 108th story floor slab from 407 meters, etc. On average, each floor fell from a height of (slightly more than) 200 meters.

Now please your reply to:

The floors fell down from an average height of 200 meters. So to get a feel, drop a big piece of concrete (say, one tonne) onto concrete from 200 meters up.
Observe.
Now drop a big piece of concrete (say, one tonne) onto concrete from 200 meters up, but this time place your body underneath.
Observe.

(I notice that you snipped the part from the quotes where I ask you to consider what happens to people when they are caught underneath large masses falling from large heights. Why did you do that?

Where are you getting free fall from? Where are you getting 2.2 seconds from? Where are you getting 23.5 m from?

Simple high school physics.

Starting from the claim that each floor slammed on the one below at an average speed of 21.5 m/s. Strange you don't ask "why 21.5 m/s?" - that's the only number I should have justified. Well, in the case of the south tower, the first floor to collapse was about 300 meters high, and collapse took about 14 seconds. 300 meters in 14 seconds is, on average, 300/14 m/s, or about 21.5 m/s.

Now an object falling freely (note that I want you to do an experiment with a free-falling object) attains that average speed after a free-fall time of 2.2 seconds:
From the equation for velocoity v of freefall:
v = gt
you get
t = v/g = (21.5 m/s) / (9.805 m/s²) = 2.1927587965... s, which I rounded to 2.2 s.

Drop distance s of a free-falling object is
s = 1/2 g t² = 1/2 * 9.805 m/s² * (2.1927587965... s)2 = 23,57215706... m, which I rounded to 23.5 meters.

In this thought experiment, I want you to consider the effect of half the building's mass falling on a floor slab at the average speed this happened at the WTC. This speed would be reached, in an experiment, if you let that mass fall freely from a height of about 23.5 meters, from whence it would take a fall time of about 2.2 seconds.

Clear now?

Then please answer:

The floors had, on average, about 140,000 tons of steel, concrete and stuff fall onto them, at an average speed of roughly 21.5 m/s (77 km/h, 48 mph). That's the speed attained after 2.2 seconds of free fall, from a height of 23.5 meters / 77 feet.
Now drop 140,000 tons of steel, concrete and stuff (to visualize: that might be a solid block 63x63 meters wide and about 7 meters high/thick) onto a concrete slab from a height of 23 meters.
Observe.
Do the same, but this time place your body underneath.
Observe.

Again, for clarification, what is the 23 m drop? And why are you still using concrete?

I am not using just concrete - can't you read?? I wrote, and you quoted, "steel, concrete and stuff"!

My mistake. I thought the 9/11 bedunker collapse model was at least 50% non-pancaking. But if you all agree that the floors pancaked, then we can work from this assumption.

Tztztz.
Nice try.

A fall through what?

Through a height of about 3.6 meters, mostly filled with air, with zero structural resistance from the building structure.

And walls, furnishings and people.

Yes, exactly, that's the point: I want you to visualize what happens to partition walls, furnishings and people (especially people!) when you drop an average of 140,000 tons of steel, concrete and stuff upon them, at a speed equivalent to that which is reached after 23.5 meters of free-fall.

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?
You keep forgetting that potential energy is comverted to kinetic energy!

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?
You keep forgetting that potential energy is comverted to kinetic energy!

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?
You STILL keep forgetting that potential energy is comverted to kinetic energy!

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?
You STILL keep forgetting that potential energy is comverted to kinetic energy!

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?
You STILL keep forgetting that potential energy is comverted to kinetic energy!

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?
You STILL keep forgetting that potential energy is comverted to kinetic energy!

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Still further dissipation of kinetic energy in crushing.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?
You STILL keep forgetting that potential energy is comverted to kinetic energy!

Crushed walls, furnishings and people, mangled steel floor panels, broken concrete. Collapse progression is slowing down.

Wait a second - you repeat the experiment, and now suddenly, something else happens?
Did the collapse progression not slow down earlier? What new effect os kicking in here?



But tell me, ergo, did the collapse in fact arrest?
Or did it not in fact progress all the way down, at an average speed of 21.5 m/s (give or take some)? And did not in fact fall an average of more than 100,000 tons fall on top of the floors below? And did all these floors not in fact drop an average of 200 meters? Weren't there in fact 109 floor-on-floor collisions in that collapse?

So the question is: Wasn't there in fact a whole lot of crushing going on that totally would have destroyed any partition walls, furniture, fixtures and human bodiies caught within?

I think all this can be affirmed, regardless of how you imagine what forces made the towers collapse in 14 s (or 16 s or whatever value you accept), such that there is no need to speculate that explosives directly tore apart those "office contents".

 

[000063]

(I notice that you snipped the part from the quotes where I ask you to consider what happens to people when they are caught underneath large masses falling from large heights. Why did you do that?

I assume this is rhetorical.

Tztztz.
Nice try.

Ah, yes, ye olde Ergo "you all have to agree with each other before I address your argument" tactic.

I'm curious as to where this kinetic energy is being "dissipated" to, exactly. I mean, given the low amount of matter ejected out of the sides, and thin air's well-known lack of significant energy-absorption properties, the vast bulk of the kinetic energy would be in downwards direction. And, gosh, your average office and its contents are rarely very good at absorbing multi-ton impacts, especially after being crushed, which means, by definition, that they were not able to withstand the impact.

I guess the multi-ton impacts could be precisely enough to crush the office contents and nothing more, but it seems rather unlikely.

Say, Oystein, I've mentioned a now-defunct thread on PoliticsForum that calculated that the upper portion of the towers impacted with the force of several times the total weight of both of the towers. Unfortunately, I didn't take high school physics. Can you do the math? I think it'll be edifying for ergo. Pardon the pun.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm curious as to where this kinetic energy is being "dissipated" to, exactly. I mean, given the low amount of matter ejected out of the sides, and thin air's well-known lack of significant energy-absorption properties, the vast bulk of the kinetic energy would be in downwards direction. And, gosh, your average office and its contents are rarely very good at absorbing multi-ton impacts, especially after being crushed, which means, by definition, that they were not able to withstand the impact.

Not to interfere with Oystein, it might be best for him to complete the model, however the kinetic energy can be dissipated into both heat and also transferred into the ground when the mass hits bottom, beyond what is transferred into breaking the connections to the pillars at each floor and additional breakage of things in the way at each floor. Heat can be absorbed by material or radiated (somewhat).
Maybe there are other ways also.

 

[Oystein]

...
I'm curious as to where this kinetic energy is being "dissipated" to, exactly. I mean, given the low amount of matter ejected out of the sides, and thin air's well-known lack of significant energy-absorption properties, the vast bulk of the kinetic energy would be in downwards direction. ...

Well, all that moving mass eventually DID come to a full stop, which means kinetic energy was dissipated 100% eventually. There are three potentially significant energy sinks (that I can think pf) that it dissipated to:
1. Inelastic deformation
2. Seismic waves (going into the ground)
3. Heat (through friction and other processes)

1. Includes fracturing materials (common to concrete) and bending things (common to steel, although of course steel also fractured).
2. Eventually also turns to heat
3. I once thought that heat generated from the collapse could locally induce significant temperatures, but a quick calculation involving the heat capacity of concrete and steel told me this was not so. At most you could expect sparks, and sparks could ignite something, but the heat produced by dissipation of kinetic energy would be rather insignificant

I can't explain why one would have to expect that most energy goes into inelastic deformation, or "destruction", and only small proportions would turn to heat or seismic waves. I guess Bazant covered that in one of his papers.

It turns out that only a small fraction of the available energy would be needed to sever all floor-to-column connections and many column-to-column connections, and a great lot is left over to further crush and bend and twist lots more material. Greening, contributing to Bazanz, estimated how finely the concrete could be crushed, and found it to be in good agreement with observations.

So far, I was looking at the big picture, where most of the energy is dissipated as the debris does in fact slow down to a full stop on the ground.

However, already during the collapse, as kinetic energy is increasing, a fraction of the potential energy is converted to destruction. For example, if the collapse (actually: the center of gravity of the falling portion of the building) is measured to accelerate at 70% of gravity, then indeed 30% of the potential energy differential is dissipated elsewhere, and mostly as inelastic deformation, iow: destruction.

Say, Oystein, I've mentioned a now-defunct thread on PoliticsForum that calculated that the upper portion of the towers impacted with the force of several times the total weight of both of the towers. Unfortunately, I didn't take high school physics. Can you do the math? I think it'll be edifying for ergo. Pardon the pun.

No, I can't do that calculattion, as I am sure the result, the way you word it, is incorrect. Perhaps you are mixing up things?

An easy way to look at this would be a simple model:

Start out with a free-fall of the upper part through the height of one floor - let's call that distance "1 fl". It then meets another floor. This floor somehow is designed to carry a maximum load statically, and that would, initially, be the maximum force it can exert without deforming inelastically. That force would slow the impacting mass down, but the impacted, lower floor would have to move down doing so. If it didn't move down, it would be totally inflexible and stop the upper mass instantly - that would be equivalent to in infinite force - and thus impossible.
So the impacted floor has to give way - in elastic deformation, if it is not to be damaged.
Now: How far can the lower structure deform before it fails, by breaking, shearing, whatever? 1 inch? 6 inches? A foot?
If you assume that it can give way elastically for 10% of a floor height (36 cm or so), AND you want to arrest the collapse in that space, then the force it would have to exert would have to be 10 times (100%/10%) the force of gravity - PLUS once more the force of gravity, because gravity of course is also pulling down.

As for columns, truthers usually assume that those have a safety factor of perhaps 3 - so if those can deform elastically by 10% of their length, that would not suffice to arrest the collapse.

In the case of the floor slabs, NIST has determined that the floor-to-column connectors could carry about 10-12 times the static weight of one floor. So if these commectors could deform flexibly by 36 cm, they might just barely be able to arrest the collapse of one floor falling freely through 1 fl.

However, just looking at these connectors, it is easy to see that they would fail sooner, after a shorter distance of deformation, so in fact they could NOT arrest the fall of one floor - let alone the fall of multiple floor slabs plus that portion of the columns which dropped on the floor slabs, too.

Once two floor slabs have pancaked, the rest of the slabs will be outperformed by even larger margins.

So it takes only 0.1 fl or less to break the static support of a floor, and then the rest of the distance to the next slab, 0.9 fl, occurs in essentially free-fall.

And that is why speed is gained on balance on each floor slab: The connectors could only dissipate a fraction of the kinetic energy won by the fall through 1 (or 0.9) fl.



(In reality, of course, things are a lot more complicated; with the top part having tilted, being somewhat flexible and malleable itself, some mass shedding, etc. That's why there is no easily descernible jolt).


It is reasonable, IMO, to assume that the pancaking collisions are mostly inelastic, i.e. most of the deformation is destructive, and the loading of any "springs" is marginal. Applying the laws of Conversation of Momentum and Conversation of Energy to inelastic collisions results in a certain proportion of the kinetic energy being dissipated by the inelastic collision itself - and the magnitude of that soon and easily exceeds that which is needed to just break critical static supports. So the crushing of non-structural material, such as concrete, furniture and people, is directly where that much of that dissipated kinetic energy goes.

 

[ergo]

Not to interfere with Oystein, it might be best for him to complete the model, however the kinetic energy can be dissipated into both heat and also transferred into the ground when the mass hits bottom, beyond what is transferred into breaking the connections to the pillars at each floor and additional breakage of things in the way at each floor. Heat can be absorbed by material or radiated (somewhat).

This is supposedly a model that explains pulverization. So not only does it take energy to deform things, but even more so to pound them into tiny fragments and particles (and spew them laterally and upward.)

 

[LSSBB]

This is supposedly a model that explains pulverization. So not only does it take energy to deform things, but even more so to pound them into tiny fragments and particles (and spew them laterally and upward.)

And.... ? Of course it does. The question, as always, is how much, and to account for it all to conserve energy.

Did you read Oystein's post? More comprehensive for you. I was thinking of deleting mine once he posted it. What are your comments on what Oystein said?

 

[Oystein]

This is supposedly a model that explains pulverization. So not only does it take energy to deform things, but even more so to pound them into tiny fragments and particles (and spew them laterally and upward.)

Lateral and upward velocities were so low, and masses invloved so few, that this played no major role at all. Insignificant, disappears under rounding errors.



ETA: Oh, and I hope you will respond to post #309, now that I answered your questions

 

[ergo]

The 200 meters refer to the average total height that floors fell down from, silly, I wrote that in the bit you quoted!

See, the roof fell from a height of 415 meters. The 110th story floor slab fell from 411 meters, the 109th story floor slab from 398 meters, the 108th story floor slab from 407 meters, etc. On average, each floor fell from a height of (slightly more than) 200 meters.

This is a bizarre an irrelevant figure. An "average" drop for 100+ floors? Why do you need that?

Starting from the claim that each floor slammed on the one below at an average speed of 21.5 m/s. Strange you don't ask "why 21.5 m/s?" - that's the only number I should have justified. Well, in the case of the south tower, the first floor to collapse was about 300 meters high, and collapse took about 14 seconds. 300 meters in 14 seconds is, on average, 300/14 m/s, or about 21.5 m/s.

No, the first floor to "collapse" was 3.5 metres high.

Now an object falling freely (note that I want you to do an experiment with a free-falling object) attains that average speed after a free-fall time of 2.2 seconds:
From the equation for velocoity v of freefall:
v = gt
you get
t = v/g = (21.5 m/s) / (9.805 m/s²) = 2.1927587965... s, which I rounded to 2.2 s.

Drop distance s of a free-falling object is
s = 1/2 g t² = 1/2 * 9.805 m/s² * (2.1927587965... s)2 = 23,57215706... m, which I rounded to 23.5 meters.

In this thought experiment, I want you to consider the effect of half the building's mass falling on a floor slab at the average speed this happened at the WTC. This speed would be reached, in an experiment, if you let that mass fall freely from a height of about 23.5 meters, from whence it would take a fall time of about 2.2 seconds.

Clear now?

No free fall drop is possible in your model, and certainly not one lasting 2.2 seconds. You are borrowing a calculation from 9/11 researchers and trying to fit it into your model and it's illogical.

I am not using just concrete - can't you read?? I wrote, and you quoted, "steel, concrete and stuff"!

You seem to want to use the word "concrete" a lot, which is strange since 9/11 bedunkers go to great lengths to ensure everyone is aware of how little concrete there was in the towers. But if you acknowledge you are also talking about core box columns (leaving out the perimeter columns for these purposes), support walls, partition walls, 100+ storeys of office furniture, steel floor assemblies, carpeting and fixtures, then we are at least on the same page.

Tztztz.
Nice try.

So bedunkers agree on a pancaking model? Does Ryan Mackey agree? Would Major Tom agree with this model?

Through a height of about 3.6 meters, mostly filled with air, with zero structural resistance from the building structure.

Actually, filled with core box columns, support walls, partition walls, 100+ storeys of office furniture, steel floor assemblies, carpeting and fixtures.

Yes, exactly, that's the point: I want you to visualize what happens to partition walls, furnishings and people (especially people!) when you drop an average of 140,000 tons of steel, concrete and stuff upon them, at a speed equivalent to that which is reached after 23.5 meters of free-fall.

Yes they get pretty flattened, even after a drop of 23.5 metres, which of course never happened in the towers.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?

That's the same energy. From gravity. And there's no free fall.

Any kinetic energy perhaps added by converting potential energy as 3.6 meters of height are travelled?

etc.

Wait a second - you repeat the experiment, and now suddenly, something else happens?
Did the collapse progression not slow down earlier? What new effect os kicking in here?

Well, it's a rough sketch made with crayons, as yours was. I was indeed even assuming somewhat of the Bazantian crush-down model, where the top section of building does not get obliterated before collapse progresses through the intact lower building.

Strictly speaking, in your model, collapse arrest would have occurred earlier.

No new effect. As in real world physics, one has to account for energy dissipation through normal resistance and deformation. Let alone pulverization.

But tell me, ergo, did the collapse in fact arrest?
Or did it not in fact progress all the way down, at an average speed of 21.5 m/s (give or take some)? And did not in fact fall an average of more than 100,000 tons fall on top of the floors below? And did all these floors not in fact drop an average of 200 meters? Weren't there in fact 109 floor-on-floor collisions in that collapse?

That's right, they didn't, and there were not.

So the question is: Wasn't there in fact a whole lot of crushing going on that totally would have destroyed any partition walls, furniture, fixtures and human bodiies caught within?

If we're talking about pancaking, we're talking about contents being squashed and flattened. How does this pulverize into fine particles and spew them laterally and upward at an average rough rate of 0.18 seconds per floor? What you are seeking is some kind of grinding action. There simply wasn't enough time or energy for that. And even if you found grinding action, this would not really occur along with propulsive action.

I think all this can be affirmed, regardless of how you imagine what forces made the towers collapse in 14 s (or 16 s or whatever value you accept), such that there is no need to speculate that explosives directly tore apart those "office contents".

The particle-ization of all the buildings' contents does not suggest flattening or pancaking. The fact that many witnesses reported hearing and seeing explosions take place, the fact that furnishings and bodies were fragmented into pieces less than an inch and propelled laterally, and the obvious explosive appearance of the buildings' destruction suggests to normal people that explosions took place.

 

[NoahFence]

This is supposedly a model that explains pulverization. So not only does it take energy to deform things, but even more so to pound them into tiny fragments and particles (and spew them laterally and upward.)

Tiny fragments and particles are easily spewed upward and laterally by gale-force winds.

You've never got dirt in your eye while outside your mother's basement?

 

[beachnut]

... The particle-ization of all the buildings' contents does not suggest flattening or pancaking. The fact that many witnesses reported hearing and seeing explosions take place, the fact that furnishings and bodies were fragmented into pieces less than an inch and propelled laterally, and the obvious explosive appearance of the buildings' destruction suggests to normal people that explosions took place.

You make up words, and can't figure out what happen on 911. Is it because of your moon size debris field physics? lol

No one on 911 heard explosives. There are blast effects.

Because you believe in explosives based on sounds of floors hitting floors, and the building collapsing. Does this mean thermite was not used, but real explosives in your dumbed down fantasy of made up words?

Your statement nonsense. The WTC collapse energy release due to gravity, E=mgh, is more than enough energy to crush bodies down to small parts and destroy the WTC complex as if 260 2,000 pound bombs were dropped on it. But in this case all the energy was used for crushing and destroy, no energy lost to blast effects. A kinetic energy weapon, the building itself.

With your nonsensical display of failed physics, it is not surprising you make up nonsense like this and rant about woo.

You can't give the energy in the WTC, how do you know it can't do what we saw on 911. Oops it did. Solve for E=mgh, and see how much energy we have.

Please tell me to the joule how much energy it takes to destroy a body as you think they were on 911. Let us do the math, subtract each body, from the total energy E=mgh?

What? You can't do the math? Well can you? Do you feel lucky? Well do you ergo?

 

[LSSBB]

Hey ergo, are all "Explosions" from "Explosives"?

 

[beachnut]

From this pic:
http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff475/TwitchingLima/911-body-part-graphic-fox-news.jpg
...looks like the maximun is actually more like 600 feet. Anyways I would be happy to see a gravity driven collapse with something bouncing +200 feet away. All pictures of collapsed buildings you can find are with stuff with about max 100 feet radius in one big pile of big chuncks of concrete. no dust. Take a look at
these.

The answer to why a 1300 foot building with it's own energy of collapse spreads debris for 600 feet is not unusual. Solve for the energy available, E=mgh, and see if there is enough energy to eject small (yes tons of material, but small parts of a 207x207x1300 foot building) parts of a building hundreds of feet. We are talking about energy equal to more than 260 2,000 pound bombs. Have you seen what a 500 pound bomb can do, not to mention a 2,000 pound bomb times 260?

You posted photos of buildings 30 feet high with debris spread 15 feet. Thus, 1300 foot WTC spreads debris 650 feet.

Did you think before you debunked yourself with your own evidence?

Where did you go? Get yourself to the nearest physics class, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.

Where did you go? I was going to make espresso...