Actually yes, something else you overlooked. There are still photos
(stop frame analysis) of the collapse linked in the original post.
There is also
video which has posted
repeatedly to walk you through the behavior of the dust cloud. Do we have to take baby steps to help you understand such a very simple concept? Apparently you can't put two in two together, are you that desperate?
Yes, nice try, but attempting to convince people of the behavior of the dust cloud based on a single still photo is quite laughable.
I'm wondering if you'll ever look at them in sequence frame by frame...
We shuold be seeing about 1000 feet of core column structure there at
that point in the collapse.
The core columns were designed
strictly for gravity loads, they were never intended to stand freely. You clearly have no sense of why they braced them laterally in the first place.
Here's an experiment for you, buy a box of legos and try to stack a single column as high as you can without bracing it. I can guarantee that after about a foot and and a half you'll have a fun time trying to add more without buckling that column.
This is the same principal that faced the towers. Of course, you're a 'legendary' physicist who claims to understand the physics involved. If you think I'm wrong, I'll give you some equations relevant to column design so you can do a representative comparison to see if you're right. While I may not be able to give exact values relevant to the towers themselves the equations I have will suffice more than enough to explain the general concept you continue to miss.
No volcano, but here are explosives.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Give us a reason to believe that your explosives are powerful and at the same time small enough to not only be hidden prior to the event but capable of hurling large sections of the towers upwards of 300 ft in any lateral direction.
Also show me an example of a controlled demolition where the demo charges generated the majority of the dust. You've set the bar... good luck
Ask yourself why you don't see the pyroclastic flow as the building is smoking....before collapse? Think about it.
Yes, why don't you apply some critical thinking skills to this? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the building at this point is not collapsing, perhaps because the towers aren't volcanic islands as your
pyroclastic flow has been grossly applied to the wrong context.
LMAO! That spire 'fell' straight down into itself LMFAO! How does that happen?!
Remember that lego experiment I told you about? A layman should be capable of trying that experiment and understand the context in the most basic terms. Of course if you'd like I can give a representative equation with math included that will explain the concept to you better. Pick and choose, which would you prefer?
Why don't you try it for yourself.
Grab four bricks. Stack three of them end to end.
Get your video camera rolling...
Take the fourth and throw it down onto the three stacked bricks.
Observe the damage, and notice the debris left over.
Also be aware that you are throwing the brick much faster than free fall,
so the impact force will be much greater.
As Myriad so elegantly put it, aside from the resemblance in the approximate shape what is similar between your bricks and the twin towers? This is a perfect example of where your standard of physics has failed. Just like Richard Gage tried to represent the towers as empty cardboard boxes, and Jones tried to compare one acre floors of concrete 4-inches thick (concrete component) to a cinder block. There is an analogy I like to use to put these into perspective.
The Hercules Beatle can carry up to 800 times its own weight, imagine a 200-pound person attempting to carry 800 times his own weight. The person is clearly stronger than the beatle on the order of many magnitudes but the beatle is far stronger than the man in the in the area discussing the ratio of the weight it can carry compared to how much it itself weighs.
In your experiment the brick is the beatle, and the tower is the person.
