Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[DGM]

* Cl1mh4224rd points at RedIbis standing in the corner.

Maybe I should have said "proves".

ETA: "Shows any evidence of" would work.

 

[Oystein]

The collapsing material material represents a front. If it begins uniformly the following floor (at all points of its area) is collapsing at the same rate.

If on the next floor 3 out of the 4 walls of the core fold but the fourth lags the others, more debris and force moves toward the side that folded quicker.

On the next floor the story repeats again except that there is a little less debris above the point that lagged previously.

Any non uniformity of the forces in the collapsing front will increase, the debris will choose the path of least resistance.

Devris is not an intelligent actor that chooses among options. It goes wherever momentum (straight down) and prevailing forces (gravity: straight down; resistance: straight up, or random directions; sum/average: vertical) push it. That's straight down, by and large.

One side of the building will resist more than another side.

No.

For the debris to continue to fall straight down indefinitely, is not probable.

Wrong.

Think of the debris as a marble on top of a concave surface . It will want to roll down the highest incline. The collapsing front will move faster down one side of the core than the other, random variation is sufficient. If the building were infinitely tall the front would always move to one side (random) and the collapse would stop.

After collapse initiation, debris is not resting on top of something. Insteaf, it has momentum downwards. It can easily be shown that the dynamic force of that momentum will overwhelm the remaining structure and pick up more momentum from the main force at play: Gravity, which acts straight down, and only straight down.
So your comparison limps badly.

 

[tsig]

But NIST would never lie, would they?

No.

 

[uke2se]

I present evidence but you just deny it.

Free fall acceleration is proof of CD but you refuse to accept that.

The fire that NIST says started the collapse had gone out but you refuse to accept that too.

This is pretty much the same mantra that C7 always fall back on when he's all out of ideas. Simply asserting nonsense don't make it true, but C7 apparently doesn't consent to that.

The "quote-mining is a meaningless word used by deniers" is also a C7 classic. These last two pages have been a veritable "Greatest Hits".

 

[DeathDart]

A liquid will allow the undistorted passage of a sound wave.

At the structural level, the liquid is a perfectly uniform structure to the sound wave.

Any man-made building is not a perfect uniform structure. A bolt is stronger here, a beam is weaker there. Once an imbalance begins in the collapsing wavefront, it will get worse.

The path of least resistance is through the air, not through the building.

 

[uke2se]

The path of least resistance is through the air, not through the building.

Through what air? The air on the side of the building? How would all the debris get there? What causes the horizontal force vector? Remember, you can't invoke explosives here as we're talking natural collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

The collapsing material material represents a front. If it begins uniformly the following floor (at all points of its area) is collapsing at the same rate.

It did not begin exactly uniformly, as seen in videos of the collapses.

If on the next floor 3 out of the 4 walls of the core fold but the fourth lags the others, more debris and force moves toward the side that folded quicker.

Sorry, what? What would cause more debris to be on the side that collapses quicker? What horizontal force is being applied?

On the next floor the story repeats again except that there is a little less debris above the point that lagged previously.

Again, this would require a horizontal force.

Any non uniformity of the forces in the collapsing front will increase, the debris will choose the path of least resistance.

Untrue, all collapsing material will follow the forces applied to it, the most significant of these being gravity which will always be in the same direction, down.

One side of the building will resist more than another side. For the debris to continue to fall straight down indefinitely, is not probable.

If parts of the building collapse later than others they will be subject to long column type failures which will not favour one direction over others, except in the direction of the force on them, due to gravity.

Think of the debris as a marble on top of a concave surface . It will want to roll down the highest incline. The collapsing front will move faster down one side of the core than the other, random variation is sufficient. If the building were infinitely tall the front would always move to one side (random) and the collapse would stop.

OK I see what you envision happening. You have a problem with acellerating frames of reference.
Although the collapse may be assymettric the debris is subject to very little horizontal force due to your 'incline'. This would be more significant if that 'incline' itself was not acellerating downward.

To illustrate this imagine the following;
Set up an incline in an elevator. Dump sand on it and measure the speed of debris moving accross the incline.
Now try it again as the elevator moves downward at an acelleration of 0.5g and measure the rate at which the sand moves accross the incline.
Try again with the elevator acellerating downward at 0.8g

Basically the acelleration in the horizontal will be 0.5 and 0.2 times what it was when the elevator was stationary.

In the case of the towers we have not a smooth incline so friction will play a greater part.
However we also have to take into account the core which itself lagged the perimeter in collapsing. This would separate the sides of the towers slowing any lateral movement of debris and, as I believe Oystein or Lefty pointed out, would then be a guide that would allow the sides to collapse largely independant of each other.

 

[tsig]

"Quote mining" is a meaningless term used by deniers to describe any quote that makes a point they want to deny. It's a perfect last stand denial technique.

Really?" mining" is a term used by deniers to describe any quote that makes a point .

 

[DeathDart]

No.

If you read between the lines of (at least) 1-3b they give the limitations they were working with and appear to be holding their noses as they give out the report.

They were stuck with writing something that did not have enough data to support it. As soon as they saw the inventory, they knew they were screwed. Too much information on initial conditions, which is the critical step in any modeling, was missing.

1% physical evidence of a floor means that 99% of the initial conditions is just pulled out of a hat. Or pulled out of somewhere else.

So how would you set the initial conditions for the model, with the information that they had?

 

[DGM]

A liquid will allow the undistorted passage of a sound wave.

At the structural level, the liquid is a perfectly uniform structure to the sound wave.

Any man-made building is not a perfect uniform structure. A bolt is stronger here, a beam is weaker there. Once an imbalance begins in the collapsing wavefront, it will get worse.

The path of least resistance is through the air, not through the building.

And all we are is dust in the wind...............dude.

 

[beachnut]

A liquid will allow the undistorted passage of a sound wave.

At the structural level, the liquid is a perfectly uniform structure to the sound wave.

Any man-made building is not a perfect uniform structure. A bolt is stronger here, a beam is weaker there. Once an imbalance begins in the collapsing wavefront, it will get worse.

The path of least resistance is through the air, not through the building.

Why in car accidents are cars totaled when they should be taking the "path of least Resistance", and aim for the air versus the car? Please explain in great detail, with some math, differential equations, and physics showing the formula for the path of least resistance. Go ahead make my decade. This will be good. Do you suspect 911 truth took the path of least resistance when making up the delusional nonsense they fool you with?

 

[DGM]

.

The path of least resistance is through the air, not through the building.

Let's test this thinking. If you were to fall down and there happened to be a house of playing cards between you and the ground, would you "naturally go around them" to hit the ground? The cards would offer more resistance than air.

 

[leftysergeant]

Any non uniformity of the forces in the collapsing front will increase, the debris will choose the path of least resistance.

One side of the building will resist more than another side. For the debris to continue to fall straight down indefinitely, is not probable.

This is all perfectly rational and is, to some extent, what happened. It is clear from almost all the videos that the front did not progress uniformly. There are puffs of dust out the windows of each floor as they collapse, and it can be observed, especially in the south tower, that floors on one face are collapsing faster than on the others.

The wild card here is that the perimeter columns were all so inter-connected that they tended to place some stress on other columns not being directly impacted by falling debris.

Had the towers been at least twice as tall, it is concievable, though that the randomness would have become so magnified as to arrest collapse.

The existance of the spires is also proof that the collapse was not proceding uniformly.

In the end, the randomness kind of argues against CD.

 

[000063]

* Cl1mh4224rd;7363301 points at RedIbis standing in the corner.

Yep, I meant Red's statements.

Say, Chris7, why did you call my question about water availability on 9/11 "sarcastic"? I pointed out that it might've been sardonic, but wasn't sarcastic, and you never responded.

 

[leftysergeant]

Why in car accidents are cars totaled when they should be taking the "path of least Resistance", and aim for the air versus the car?

In all fairness, a moving car will bounce off and procede along a different path after impact if there is nothing to restrict it from doing so.

Of course, it will do a lot of damage before being forced onto a new path.

A great deal of the material in the towers did take that path of least resistance, moving outward and taking huge swaths of the perimeter columns with it. What was not deflected outward just happened to be enough to stave in the next few floors below.

 

[sylvan8798]

Once the core peals back (uniformly) it will only stop when, or if, the shearing force converts back to tensile. This can be when the core material is too thick to bend anymore. The central core had wall thicknesses of ¼ inch at the top and 3 inches at the bottom.

I was referring in particular to this part. I think I understand your idea about there being some non-uniformity, although as lefty has pointed out, the presence of the core columns kind of acts as a guide for the falling mass. In addition, the moving area ABOVE the front is framed like a "box" which will have some tendency to try to hold together as it descends. (That's part of how the wind resistance worked, BTW.)

Please reference a physics text which makes use of the phrase "path of least resistance". I would like to have it for my collection.

 

[tempesta29]

Why in car accidents are cars totaled when they should be taking the "path of least Resistance", and aim for the air versus the car? Please explain in great detail, with some math, differential equations, and physics showing the formula for the path of least resistance. Go ahead make my decade. This will be good. Do you suspect 911 truth took the path of least resistance when making up the delusional nonsense they fool you with?

Do you really think there is any validity to your analogy here? The impact of two cars often occurs in a split second. Even in those car accidents, does one car usually go through the other one? Let's take two other vehicles: two trains. If two locomotive cars hit each other head on does one plow all the way through the other one?

The Twin Towers were not damaged evenly. In fact, one tower was damaged toward one of its corners. Its collapse did not reflect this lack of uniformity however.

 

[tempesta29]

In all fairness, a moving car will bounce off and procede along a different path after impact if there is nothing to restrict it from doing so.

This.

Of course, it will do a lot of damage before being forced onto a new path.

Sure.

A great deal of the material in the towers did take that path of least resistance, moving outward and taking huge swaths of the perimeter columns with it. What was not deflected outward just happened to be enough to stave in the next few floors below.

Was that material mass from the falling section or mass from the lower section? Methinks it was from the lower section.

Also, one of the upper section was maybe a dozen floors in size. Why was it not destroyed by the lower section as it (the upper section) fell?

 

[dafydd]

Also, one of the upper section was maybe a dozen floors in size. Why was it not destroyed by the lower section as it (the upper section) fell?

Think,and all will become clear. Where did you study physics?

 

[332nd]

This.



Sure.



Was that material mass from the falling section or mass from the lower section? Methinks it was from the lower section.

Also, one of the upper section was maybe a dozen floors in size. Why was it not destroyed by the lower section as it (the upper section) fell?

What? Who's saying the upper section wasn't destroyed as it fell?

I doubt it made it more than 3 floors before it was mostly rubble.