A Truther writes...

[triforcharity]

Here is an example of why the verinage technique does not apply to the 9/11 paradigm. You. like many another before you have tried to cloud the minds of concerned citizen Readers with this red herring.

If you watch the example video yoou will note the grinding mnoise as the upper section's weight begins to bear n the larger lower section. This is the force of gravity acting. But why is the upper section now crushing the lower section that had carried it for it's entire working lfe ?

A person doesn't have to be very clever to realise that some structural elements have been mechanically removed or modified with jacks or cables in the lower load bearing structure allowing the upper portion to crush the weakened lower portion. Have a look at the structure that remains after the initial collapse.

Freeze the video at 27 seconds.Can you see that that part has not yet been set up for demoliion and is still standing strong ?

Verinage will not help debunkers..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s grinding concrete

That is a lie Bill, and you know it.

You have been shown time and again that the lower section does not have to be weakened structurally at all. It even says so in the patent.

Now, stop lying bill.

 

[triforcharity]

I wonder if your colleagues agree ?

Yes, I agree also. Even if it was 5 floors on a 10,000,000,000 story building. Built like the WTC, it would have collapsed to the ground. It would have taken about a week, but it would have happened.

I wonder if your doltish friends would still claim that it fell at freefall speed?

 

[triforcharity]

Did you know that in WTC1 only 15% of the supporting columns .core and perimeter wre destroyed by the plane. Only two of the 47 massive core columns were taken out.

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact do you still consider that enough ' structural elements were removed by force ' to allow the free collapse of the upper block onto the lower ?

Do you not think that the steel would have slowly softened to the point where the top lowered itself gently onto the lower block.
Of course if this happened then there was next to no dynamic force applied on the lower block which in turn means that collapse arrest should have happened immediately.

Can a brother get a laughing dog please????

 

[triforcharity]

And do they also carry out verinage on steel framed buildings ? Like do you think that example in the video had a steel core ? Or is verinage carried out on brick and concrete buildings mostly ?

I bet you could carry that technique out on any building. Even one made of Jello!

 

[Oystein]

And do they also carry out verinage on steel framed buildings ? Like do you think that example in the video had a steel core ? Or is verinage carried out on brick and concrete buildings mostly ?

As most buildings are brick or concrete, I guess most demolitiojn techniques are mostly carried out on brick and concrete buildings.

However there really is no reason to assume it would not work just fine or even better on other kinds of structures.

The basic idea remains: You initiate the demolition by taking out one story worth of supports.
Top portion falls the height of one story.
Picks up momentum through gravity.
Force needed to arrest that momentun at next story far exceeds design loads.
Next story fails and is added to the fall.
Top portion plus one more story picks up even more speed.



Thinking about it, I think verinage technique would work even better on steel frame.
Reason: Most buildings involve reinforced concrete because that material is so much better at resisting bending and crushing forces.
WTC was done in steel only because reinforced concrete would have been too heavy and massive at that height and would not have allowed the open office spaces.
Therefore, steel represents a compromise at the cost of lower resistance to bending and crushing forces.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.

Hey Bill. I want to try your experiment, but I don't have alot of spaghetti laying around, so I'm going to use a lot less than you called for in your design.

Is this ok with you?

 

[Oystein]

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.

I kinda like the model.

However, I bolded the two problems (really only one) I have with it:

1. How long do you want the spaghetti to be? Standard Spaghetti are about 2mm wide and 300mm long (150:1) and weighs about 1g.
A column of the twin towers would have a full length of over 432m from basement to roof. The perimeter columns were 36cmx36cm, giving them a ratio of length:width of 1200:1. The biggest core columns were 90x30cm - or width was 60cm on average - at the basement! Getting thinner towards the top.
So standard spaghetti would be relatively too thick - but of course they are made of semolina and not of steel ^^

2. How do you scale your model correctly, especially with regards to length:mass and length:load bearing capacity?
I just did a simple measurement in my kitchen. I took one spaghetto* (is spaghetto the correct singular of spaghetti?), a good electronic kitchen scale, placed the spaghetto vertically on the scale (1g - but that is actually below the pecision of my scale; I weighed them by counting 20 and finding 20 of them weigh 19g). Then I pushed down on the spaghetto. Since it is not straight, it started bending right away. But it being flexible, I was able to put the equivalent of 30g on one specimen, 19g on another specimen and 22 on a third before they broke. Make that an average of 24g. They bent along their entire length, of course.
No i introduced some lateral bracing near the middle of the spaghetto and measured again: This time I was able to place somewhere between 70 and 100g on top of one spaghetto without breaking it!
Now suppose I divide my 300mm spaghetto into 110 pieces, each about 3mm long, and measure the weight a 3mm section of spaghetti can support; actually, that is hard to do (I am the kind of guy who was born with two left hands ). So ooookay I do it with 9mm (remember columns were stacked with individual sections spanning 3 stories): I could now put a weight of more than 300g on it, and it didn't break (due to my clumsiness, when I pressed harder, the piece would get snipped to the side).

Now.
10% of 1 spaghetto weighs 0.1g
one column section spanning 3 stories can support 300g (at least! possibly much more than that, I was just too clumsy to increase static load). That is 3000 times the column mass of the top 10%.
You may add the mass of the floors. I am okay if you assume that the floors weigh 10 times as much as the columns; still your spaghetti columns can carry 300 times the weight of your top 10%.
If you build your model to scale, your dimensions should be such that load bearing capacity of your spaghetti is only like 3-5 times the weight of your top 10%.
You could achieve this correct scale by building the model with only 5 to 9 spaghetti but making the tower the mass of about 10 packs of spaghetti one pound (500g) each.

I am fairly confident if your spaghetti-and-sugar-tower is thusly build to scale, it will crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top.




* footnote: I actually did not use standard spaghetti but bavette, which differ from spaghetti by not being round but oval. Long diameter is 3mm and short diameter is 1mm - so by coincidence, they are 3x1 just like the core columns.

 

[bill smith]

I kinda like the model.

However, I bolded the two problems (really only one) I have with it:

1. How long do you want the spaghetti to be? Standard Spaghetti are about 2mm wide and 300mm long (150:1) and weighs about 1g.
A column of the twin towers would have a full length of over 432m from basement to roof. The perimeter columns were 36cmx36cm, giving them a ratio of length:width of 1200:1. The biggest core columns were 90x30cm - or width was 60cm on average - at the basement! Getting thinner towards the top.
So standard spaghetti would be relatively too thick - but of course they are made of semolina and not of steel ^^

2. How do you scale your model correctly, especially with regards to length:mass and length:load bearing capacity?
I just did a simple measurement in my kitchen. I took one spaghetto* (is spaghetto the correct singular of spaghetti?), a good electronic kitchen scale, placed the spaghetto vertically on the scale (1g - but that is actually below the pecision of my scale; I weighed them by counting 20 and finding 20 of them weigh 19g). Then I pushed down on the spaghetto. Since it is not straight, it started bending right away. But it being flexible, I was able to put the equivalent of 30g on one specimen, 19g on another specimen and 22 on a third before they broke. Make that an average of 24g. They bent along their entire length, of course.
No i introduced some lateral bracing near the middle of the spaghetto and measured again: This time I was able to place somewhere between 70 and 100g on top of one spaghetto without breaking it!
Now suppose I divide my 300mm spaghetto into 110 pieces, each about 3mm long, and measure the weight a 3mm section of spaghetti can support; actually, that is hard to do (I am the kind of guy who was born with two left hands ). So ooookay I do it with 9mm (remember columns were stacked with individual sections spanning 3 stories): I could now put a weight of more than 300g on it, and it didn't break (due to my clumsiness, when I pressed harder, the piece would get snipped to the side).

Now.
10% of 1 spaghetto weighs 0.1g
one column section spanning 3 stories can support 300g (at least! possibly much more than that, I was just too clumsy to increase static load). That is 3000 times the column mass of the top 10%.
You may add the mass of the floors. I am okay if you assume that the floors weigh 10 times as much as the columns; still your spaghetti columns can carry 300 times the weight of your top 10%.
If you build your model to scale, your dimensions should be such that load bearing capacity of your spaghetti is only like 3-5 times the weight of your top 10%.
You could achieve this correct scale by building the model with only 5 to 9 spaghetti but making the tower the mass of about 10 packs of spaghetti one pound (500g) each.

I am fairly confident if your spaghetti-and-sugar-tower is thusly build to scale, it will crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top.




* footnote: I actually did not use standard spaghetti but bavette, which differ from spaghetti by not being round but oval. Long diameter is 3mm and short diameter is 1mm - so by coincidence, they are 3x1 just like the core columns.

I envision the model being built to scale to around 6 feet tall so that the top of the lower block is at eye level. Then the top and lightest one-tenth of the structure is raised 12'' and dropped on the lower and more robust nine-tenths of the structure.l I invite the Readers to picture your ' crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top ' scenario

 

[CORed]

I envision the model being built to scale to around 6 feet tall so that the top of the lower block is at eye level. Then the top and lightest one-tenth of the structure is raised 12'' and dropped on the lower and more robust nine-tenths of the structure.l I invite the Readers to picture your ' crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top ' scenario

I guess pizza boxes and office trays just aren't silly enough.

 

[Oystein]

I envision the model being built to scale to around 6 feet tall so that the top of the lower block is at eye level. Then the top and lightest one-tenth of the structure is raised 12'' and dropped on the lower and more robust nine-tenths of the structure.l I invite the Readers to picture your ' crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top ' scenario

It's funny how you have, in 100% original truther fashion, completely dodged, ignored, missed the one important point of my previous post:

That of scale.

If you build your model 6ft (180cm) tall, that would be 6 spaghetti high, about 18 stories = levels of lateral bracing per spaghetto. Too bad I already ate my broken spaghetti, so I'll have to break another, make it 300mm/18 = about 16,5mm, measure the strength of that lenght of spaghetti...
but at least with 6 spaghetti, you are now up to a height-thickness-ratio of 900:1, which is reasonably close to scale.

*doing measurement on my kitchen scale*

Oh! Bad news: 16.5 mm are a lot more easily to handle for a clumsy person like me!
Turns out my first story-length piece (actually 17.5mm) of spaghetti supported at least 1100g before it broke.
My second piece (16mm) was even stronger: I gave up when I peaked briefly a little above 3000g because my thumbtip hurt from the tip of the piece poking into it.
Third piece (17mm) resisted 1500+g several times, where again I gave up as my thumb now seriously hurts. Dang, that spaghetti-stuff is strong!

So by experiment one column of story-height can carry a static load of at least 1500g.

Let's be conservative and say this is 5 times the actual load. Hence, let the top 10% (ohhh - can we make that 16.7%, so our top portion is as high as standard spaghetti are long?) weigh 300g per spaghetti column. As there are 522 columns, the total weight of the top block in our model would therefore have to have a mass of 522*300g = 156.6 kg.

522 spaghetti is coincidentally quite close to the number of spaghetti in a standard 1 pound (500g) pack that serves 4 to 5.

So would a pack of spaghetti withstand 156.6 kg (twice my body weight) if it falls onto it?

Hmmm.


Let's further improve our model and calculations:
I said that our spaghetti are laterally braced every 16.5mm - that is one story. Initially, our 156.6 kg would have to fall only those 16.5mm.

What velocity will the upper block have?
Let's see:
potential energy U = m*g*h
gets converted into
kinetic energy E_k = 1/2 m*v²
m*g*h = 1/2 m*v²<=>
v² = 2*g*h
<=>
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = sqrt(2 * 9.8m/s² * 0.0165m) = 0.56 m/s


Next step: The top block, falling at 0.56 m/s, falls onto our next set of 16.5mm long spaghetti, which excert a force up and will decelerate the block. At the same time, gravitation still pulls down (accelerate) at a rate of g.
The movement cannot be stopped instantaneously in this universe, as that would be equivalent to an infinite acceleration and hence an infinite force.
So as the falling block touches the tips of our spaghetti, the will get strained and bent. How much can you bend a spaghetto before it breaks?


Next experiment:
I bent a bavetta (a relative of the spaghetti family, see footnote in my previous port; mine are 257mm long) carefully in roughly a circular shape. Needless to say, the thing broke before it had formed a full circle, but it went round more than 180°. I am doing this in a very clumsy fashion - my best estimate is that I reached 240° of a circle, or 2/3 of a full circle. Full circle would have had a circumference of 257mm / (2/3) = 385mm. Radius therefore 385mm/2pi = 61mm.
Now comes the tricky math part - if I bend an upright column piece of 16.5 into a radius of 61mm, it represents an angle A of (16.5mm/385mm)*360° = 15°. What is the distance h_bent of the two ends of that column piece?

*consulting my Bronstein-Semendjajev Pocket book of Mathematics*
Aha!
h_bent = 2r * sin(A/2) = 2 * 61mm * sin(7.5°) = 15,924mm = 96.5% of column height.

In other words: Our spaghetti columns of 16.5mm can elastically bend until the floor resting on them has moved down by 0.576mm = 0.000576m


So if we want to stop the top floor's 0.56 m/s before the spaghetti break and the story collapses, deceleration to 0 has to occur within 0,576mm.

Now, the formula to derive distance from acceleration is
s(t) = 1/2 a*t² = 0,000576m
<=>
t = sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a)

same for velocity vs. acceleration is
v(t) = a*t = 0.56 m/s
<=>
t = 0.56 m/s / a

so

sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a) = 0.56 m/s / a
<=>
2 * 0,000576m / a = (0.56 m/s)² / a²<=>
2 * 0,000576m = (0.56 m/s)² / a
<=>
a= (0.56 m/s)² / (2 * 0,000576m) = 272 m/s² = 27.8g

Ok here is a problem: We said that our columns are designed to be able to carry 5 times the static load, that is, resist a force of 5g times the mass on top. However, we'd need columns that are nearly 6 times as strong! That means: Our spaghetti will break before the top mass has come to rest. Collapse will continue!


Did we at least slow the fall somewhat? Sure, let's see by how much.

Initial velocity (down) vⁱ = 0.56 m/s
Max. upward acceleration that our columns can bear is a = -5g = 49 m/s²But this -5g is diminished by the constant pull of gravity, so our spaghetti can effectively decelerate the falling mass by a = -4g = -39,2m/s²
Velocity is
v(t) = v_i - 39.2m/s² * t
Distance (fallen) is
s(t) = v_i*t - 1/2 39.2m/s²
I am too lazy now to figure out analytically at what t s(t) >= 0,000576m and what v(t) is then. I quickly ran the formulas through a spreadsheet:

t v s
0,0000 0,5600 0,000000
0,0001 0,5561 0,000056
0,0002 0,5522 0,000111
0,0003 0,5482 0,000166
0,0004 0,5443 0,000221
0,0005 0,5404 0,000275
0,0006 0,5365 0,000329
0,0007 0,5326 0,000382
0,0008 0,5286 0,000435
0,0009 0,5247 0,000488
0,0010 0,5208 0,000540
0,0011 0,5169 0,000592

So we see: After only 0.0011s, we have exceeded the maximum elastic deformation our spaghetti can bear, at which pint they break.
Velocity is then still 0.5169m/s, or 92% of the initial 0.56m/s

Our accumulated stories can now fall more or less freely for 15.96mm, during which velocity increases to about 0.7609m/s. Then we have another spaghetti crash which will again reduce velocity by only about 8% etc. etc.


Result: We can expect our 6' tower with 522 spaghetti columns and a total mass of 939.6kg to collapse within 10% of free fall speed

 

[bill smith]

It's funny how you have, in 100% original truther fashion, completely dodged, ignored, missed the one important point of my previous post:

That of scale.

If you build your model 6ft (180cm) tall, that would be 6 spaghetti high, about 18 stories = levels of lateral bracing per spaghetto. Too bad I already ate my broken spaghetti, so I'll have to break another, make it 300mm/18 = about 16,5mm, measure the strength of that lenght of spaghetti...
but at least with 6 spaghetti, you are now up to a height-thickness-ratio of 900:1, which is reasonably close to scale.

*doing measurement on my kitchen scale*

Oh! Bad news: 16.5 mm are a lot more easily to handle for a clumsy person like me!
Turns out my first story-length piece (actually 17.5mm) of spaghetti supported at least 1100g before it broke.
My second piece (16mm) was even stronger: I gave up when I peaked briefly a little above 3000g because my thumbtip hurt from the tip of the piece poking into it.
Third piece (17mm) resisted 1500+g several times, where again I gave up as my thumb now seriously hurts. Dang, that spaghetti-stuff is strong!

So by experiment one column of story-height can carry a static load of at least 1500g.

Let's be conservative and say this is 5 times the actual load. Hence, let the top 10% (ohhh - can we make that 16.7%, so our top portion is as high as standard spaghetti are long?) weigh 300g per spaghetti column. As there are 522 columns, the total weight of the top block in our model would therefore have to have a mass of 522*300g = 156.6 kg.

522 spaghetti is coincidentally quite close to the number of spaghetti in a standard 1 pound (500g) pack that serves 4 to 5.

So would a pack of spaghetti withstand 156.6 kg (twice my body weight) if it falls onto it?

Hmmm.


Let's further improve our model and calculations:
I said that our spaghetti are laterally braced every 16.5mm - that is one story. Initially, our 156.6 kg would have to fall only those 16.5mm.

What velocity will the upper block have?
Let's see:
potential energy U = m*g*h
gets converted into
kinetic energy E_k = 1/2 m*v²
m*g*h = 1/2 m*v²<=>
v² = 2*g*h
<=>
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = sqrt(2 * 9.8m/s² * 0.0165m) = 0.56 m/s


Next step: The top block, falling at 0.56 m/s, falls onto our next set of 16.5mm long spaghetti, which excert a force up and will decelerate the block. At the same time, gravitation still pulls down (accelerate) at a rate of g.
The movement cannot be stopped instantaneously in this universe, as that would be equivalent to an infinite acceleration and hence an infinite force.
So as the falling block touches the tips of our spaghetti, the will get strained and bent. How much can you bend a spaghetto before it breaks?


Next experiment:
I bent a bavetta (a relative of the spaghetti family, see footnote in my previous port; mine are 257mm long) carefully in roughly a circular shape. Needless to say, the thing broke before it had formed a full circle, but it went round more than 180°. I am doing this in a very clumsy fashion - my best estimate is that I reached 240° of a circle, or 2/3 of a full circle. Full circle would have had a circumference of 257mm / (2/3) = 385mm. Radius therefore 385mm/2pi = 61mm.
Now comes the tricky math part - if I bend an upright column piece of 16.5 into a radius of 61mm, it represents an angle A of (16.5mm/385mm)*360° = 15°. What is the distance h_bent of the two ends of that column piece?

*consulting my Bronstein-Semendjajev Pocket book of Mathematics*
Aha!
h_bent = 2r * sin(A/2) = 2 * 61mm * sin(7.5°) = 15,924mm = 96.5% of column height.

In other words: Our spaghetti columns of 16.5mm can elastically bend until the floor resting on them has moved down by 0.576mm = 0.000576m


So if we want to stop the top floor's 0.56 m/s before the spaghetti break and the story collapses, deceleration to 0 has to occur within 0,576mm.

Now, the formula to derive distance from acceleration is
s(t) = 1/2 a*t² = 0,000576m
<=>
t = sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a)

same for velocity vs. acceleration is
v(t) = a*t = 0.56 m/s
<=>
t = 0.56 m/s / a

so

sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a) = 0.56 m/s / a
<=>
2 * 0,000576m / a = (0.56 m/s)² / a²<=>
2 * 0,000576m = (0.56 m/s)² / a
<=>
a= (0.56 m/s)² / (2 * 0,000576m) = 272 m/s² = 27.8g

Ok here is a problem: We said that our columns are designed to be able to carry 5 times the static load, that is, resist a force of 5g times the mass on top. However, we'd need columns that are nearly 6 times as strong! That means: Our spaghetti will break before the top mass has come to rest. Collapse will continue!


Did we at least slow the fall somewhat? Sure, let's see by how much.

Initial velocity (down) vⁱ = 0.56 m/s
Max. upward acceleration that our columns can bear is a = -5g = 49 m/s²But this -5g is diminished by the constant pull of gravity, so our spaghetti can effectively decelerate the falling mass by a = -4g = -39,2m/s²
Velocity is
v(t) = v_i - 39.2m/s² * t
Distance (fallen) is
s(t) = v_i*t - 1/2 39.2m/s²
I am too lazy now to figure out analytically at what t s(t) >= 0,000576m and what v(t) is then. I quickly ran the formulas through a spreadsheet:

t v s
0,0000 0,5600 0,000000
0,0001 0,5561 0,000056
0,0002 0,5522 0,000111
0,0003 0,5482 0,000166
0,0004 0,5443 0,000221
0,0005 0,5404 0,000275
0,0006 0,5365 0,000329
0,0007 0,5326 0,000382
0,0008 0,5286 0,000435
0,0009 0,5247 0,000488
0,0010 0,5208 0,000540
0,0011 0,5169 0,000592

So we see: After only 0.0011s, we have exceeded the maximum elastic deformation our spaghetti can bear, at which pint they break.
Velocity is then still 0.5169m/s, or 92% of the initial 0.56m/s

Our accumulated stories can now fall more or less freely for 15.96mm, during which velocity increases to about 0.7609m/s. Then we have another spaghetti crash which will again reduce velocity by only about 8% etc. etc.


Result: We can expect our 6' tower with 522 spaghetti columns and a total mass of 939.6kg to collapse within 10% of free fall speed

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone. For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?

 

[Bell]

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's persona experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths og the same structure down flat on the ground by graity alone as we saw aon 9/11 and as we see in the spaghetti model.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed it's other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone.

How is it that you don't understand or react to our explanations on how the top 10% only needed to crush 1 floor, then the top 10% + 1 floor crushed the next floor and so on and so forth. This has been explained to you multiple times.

 

[DGM]

I see Bill's still trying to sell the "truther" lie.



Bill, no one's buying.

 

[bill smith]

How is it that you don't understand or react to our explanations on how the top 10% only needed to crush 1 floor, then the top 10% + 1 floor crushed the next floor and so on and so forth. This has been explained to you multiple times.

Then make with the countless other documented examples there must be if this can really happen. I am willing to accept examples from the entire recorded history of planet Earth of any pther of millions of different types of structure where the top one tenth has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same object by gravity alone.

Let's face it....if you cannot do this simple thing then we have no reason to believe that it can happen at all except in a managed way like the deliberate demolitions on 9/11.

 

[Bell]

Then make with the countless other documented examples there must be if this can happen. I am will to accept examples from the recorded history of planet Earth of any pther of millions of different types of structure where the top one tenth has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same object by gravity alone.

Let's face it....if you cannot do this simple thing then we have no reason to believe that it can happen at all except in a managed way like the deliberate demolitions on 9/11.

 

[DGM]

Don't worry about it. He's only talking to himself (and anyone here that's bored to reply).

 

[Oystein]

Don't worry about it. He's only talking to himself (and anyone here that's bored to reply).

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results.


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

 

[Bell]

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results.


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

By the way, I nominated those posts

 

[DGM]

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results.


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

If it's any consolation, some of us here enjoyed the mental exercise.

 

[bill smith]

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results.


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ?