Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[dropzone]

17 pages in and ergo is still at it? And there isn't a point at which we can stop being polite and reasonable and start being graphically dismissive of his idiotic unsupported beliefs?

This board lacks something. I mean, Randi, himself, isn't this nice.

 

[ergo]

If you don't need CD to start the collapse why do you need it at all?

Hmm, thought I just explained that. Because you wouldn't get a global collapse without it? And to sink the core. And possibly to pulverize all building contents beyond recognition.

 

[beachnut]

Hmm, thought I just explained that. Because you wouldn't get a global collapse without it? And to sink the core. And possibly to pulverize all building contents beyond recognition.

Got some math to go with this. Where are your differential equations. Did you have differential equations in your engineering courses? Oh, I missed you were using the Fetzer method of proof, saying it is so, so it is so.

All you are missing is the math, engineering and understanding gravity and fire science. Other than that, you are on track to keep 911 truth committed to 10 years of solid failure, evidence free claims, no math or physics to back up what would be Pulitzer Prize winning claims. Reduce to fiction, and a movement based on ignorance.

I assume your equations got lost, or your dog ate them; what is your excuse?

Do you know the energy released by the collapse? The formula? Anything to do with physics?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Got some math to go with this. Where are your differential equations. Did you have differential equations in your engineering courses?

If you can't handle differential equations, by the way, you can get a reasonably good estimate by discretising the structure into separate floors and treating the collision with each floor separately. Calculate the fall time of the upper block through the height of a floor under 1G acceleration, then do the conservation of momentum calculation for a discrete impact with each floor in turn, and sum the results to give the time for the top block to strike the ground. The structural resistance is a bit harder to calculate - you have to make an assumption about how far each column buckles before fracturing, and how its resistance changes over that distance - but you can do all the calculations in a spreadsheet and get an overall collapse time, include the energy lost to structural deformation as an adjustable parameter, and verify that the collapse times are entirely reasonable quite simply.

Dave

 

[walkyrie]

The way in which hundreds of heavy steel wall chunks of the twin towers buildings jump up at high speed show us that the cause would not have been the colision of both planes or the about one hour fire : if anything, when heated, steel structures should bend at the point that first looses the demanded resistance and would never colapse in a fragile manner throughout their whole entire length simultaneously.

The world is onto one of the Biggest and most obvious Lies ever told in history and the truth is bound to come out. I'll be really glad to help accelerate the process.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The way in which hundreds of heavy steel wall chunks of the twin towers buildings jump up at high speed show us that

...we shouldn't have eaten so much cheese before going to bed. Reality, on the other hand, is perfectly consistent with the cause of collapse being impact and fire damage. If you have to make up your evidence this blatantly, you must realise you're trying to justify a lie.

Dave

 

[ergo]

If you can't handle differential equations, by the way, you can get a reasonably good estimate by discretising the structure into separate floors and treating the collision with each floor separately.

On both upper and lower blocks...

Calculate the fall time of the upper block through the height of a floor under 1G acceleration, then do the conservation of momentum calculation for a discrete impact with each floor in turn,

for both upper and lower blocks...

and sum the results to give the time for the top block rubble that didn't get ejected over the side to strike the ground.

The structural resistance is a bit harder to calculate - you have to make an assumption about how far each column buckles before fracturing,

No, not really a good idea. Consult some structural or mechanical engineers instead.

and how its resistance changes over that distance - but you can do all the calculations in a spreadsheet and get an overall collapse time,
include the energy lost to structural deformation

in both upper and lower blocks...

as an adjustable parameter,

This would be an output, not an input.

and verify that the collapse times are entirely reasonable.

The ones you get, that is. If any.

 

[Animal]

The way in which hundreds of heavy steel wall chunks of the twin towers buildings jump up at high speed

You have proof of these chunks "jumping up at high speed"

show us that the cause would not have been the colision of both planes or the about one hour fire : if anything, when heated, steel structures should bend at the point that first looses the demanded resistance and would never colapse in a fragile manner throughout their whole entire length simultaneously.

Argument from ignorance noted.
The buildings collapsed as would be expected given the circumstances.

The world is onto one of the Biggest and most obvious Lies ever told in history and the truth is bound to come out. I'll be really glad to help accelerate the process.

Enjoy your fantasy world

 

[aggle-rithm]

You have proof of these chunks "jumping up at high speed"

Maybe he's talking about the steel members whose supports broke when the steel was in its elastic phase, releasing a huge amount of potential energy and slinging the members away from the building.

Truthers have a REALLY tough time understanding how this could happen.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The world is onto one of the Biggest and most obvious Lies ever told in history and the truth is bound to come out. I'll be really glad to help accelerate the process.

It's been ten years! Better get after it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

On both upper and lower blocks...

Yes, of course. Perfectly straightforward. It's possible to calculate simultaneous crush-up and crush-down, if that fits better with your belief system. It makes a small difference, well within the bounds of experimental error.

No, not really a good idea. Consult some structural or mechanical engineers instead.

... and use their recommendations to determine your assumptions.

This would be an output, not an input.

Unless you set up the calculations slightly differently and use the kinetic energy lost to buckling as an input. It's pretty trivial to relate to the force against distance curve that your structural engineers gave you.

The ones you get, that is. If any.

If you use the advice you get from a competent structural engineer, you'll get a collapse time. You can then verify that the observed collapse times are reasonable because, within a reasonable margin of error, they agree with your predicted collapse time.

Of course, if you insist on taking advice on the buckling behaviour of steel from someone who isn't a competent structural engineer, you've just completely randomised your results, so the whole thing will be a waste of time.

Dave

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Maybe he's talking about the steel members whose supports broke when the steel was in its elastic phase, releasing a huge amount of potential energy and slinging the members away from the building.

Truthers have a REALLY tough time understanding how this could happen.

 

[ergo]

The buildings collapsed as would be expected given the circumstances.

Wrong. It was not expected at all.

Stop spewing this nonsense.

 

[ergo]

Unless you set up the calculations slightly differently and use the kinetic energy lost to buckling as an input. It's pretty trivial to relate to the force against distance curve that your structural engineers gave you.

Your formula should be doing that work. You shouldn't have to manually manipulate the calculations unless you're trying to work backwards from a result that you want.

Are you working backwards from a result that you want, Dave?

 

[TruthersLie]

The way in which hundreds of heavy steel wall chunks of the twin towers buildings jump up at high speed show us that the cause would not have been the colision of both planes or the about one hour fire : if anything, when heated, steel structures should bend at the point that first looses the demanded resistance and would never colapse in a fragile manner throughout their whole entire length simultaneously.

The world is onto one of the Biggest and most obvious Lies ever told in history and the truth is bound to come out. I'll be really glad to help accelerate the process.

I really wish you would either make up your mind or take your meds.

First you say the buildings disintegrated, now you claim there are heavy steel wall chunks...

Please decide which one you are talking about?

P.s. punctuation, spelling, grammar and capitalization of words are your friends. Please stop murdering them so badly.

 

[DGM]

Your formula should be doing that work. You shouldn't have to manually manipulate the calculations unless you're trying to work backwards from a result that you want.

Are you working backwards from a result that you want, Dave?

You really have no idea what Dave said.

Your post proves it.

 

[ergo]

Why don't you explain for us, DGM?

 

[beachnut]

The way in which hundreds of heavy steel wall chunks of the twin towers buildings jump up at high speed show us that the cause would not have been the colision of both planes or the about one hour fire : if anything, when heated, steel structures should bend at the point that first looses the demanded resistance and would never colapse in a fragile manner throughout their whole entire length simultaneously.

The world is onto one of the Biggest and most obvious Lies ever told in history and the truth is bound to come out. I'll be really glad to help accelerate the process.

Accelerate?
At your present rate of exposing the truth and understanding 911, you are going back-wards. Try physics, you left out engineering and have adopted delusions from 911 truth. There is not a thing in your post that makes sense. I recommend becoming an engineer, as soon as possible. See you in 8 years.

If anything? Did you make this up from scratch?

 

[TruthersLie]

Why don't you explain for us, DGM?

You first.

make sure you use the math to support your claims.

or you can link us to any peer reviewed refutation of NIST/Bazant by any of the 1400+ architectural and engineering professionals?

Oh why do you keep spreading the truther lie that they are ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS when they aren't?

 

[DGM]

Why don't you explain for us, DGM?

Sure. "It's pretty trivial to relate to the force against distance curve that your structural engineers gave you".

This is the part you missed. A "formula" does not "do the work". It shows that the work was done correctly.