The fact that, despite having admitted that your major premises are incorrect, you maintain that the conclusions you initially drew from those premises remain sound.
Here is an experiment with a model that has some structural features similar to the WTC twin towers:
- three floors per column length
- floors spanning between perimeter and a core
- floors attached to columns such that the connections (in this case: permanent magnets that create friction between floor end and column) can resist a few times the static weight of a floor
- Columns joined with splice plates (also held together with magnets)
- Floors provide lateral support to the tower such that the entire structure can resist some lateral loading (such as wind or the impact of a heavy object); it then swayes a few times back and forth
The choice of magnets may seem odd - the main reason is for the model not to be damaged when connections "break" - the tower can be re-assembled many times to repeat the experiment.
The collapse in this experiment is started by offsetting the columns of the top segment's (three floors) left wall and core by about acolumn width and letting go. This makes the falling columns impact the floor below near its connections, and at the time makes the bottom floor of the falling top section impact the standing column below.
As you can see, the floors quite easily shear off, and the entire structure collapses completely.
In the slo-mo, you can see the right wall of the top section break completely loose after having dropped less than it's own length; from then on, it descends at free fall acceleration. It reaches the ground first, but barely ahead of the internal collapse front.
The core and the left wall zig-zag down with some delay after all floors have rushed down, while the right wall is pushed outwards by falling floors, and its lower habe topples over.
This simple model shows a number of features of the real WTC collapses:
- Floors falling ahead of columns
- Floors collapsing with an acceleration not far from g
- Wall peeling and toppling outwards
- Core failing last
Please explain how the video you provided matches the actual motions observed during the collapse. Please show me where your video shows outward motion before downward motion throughout the entire collapse.
Please show me a picture of the actual collapse of WTC1 or WTC2 where such a large outer column remains standing while the floors are on or so close to the ground.
Your video is nothing more than a replication of a pancake style collapse. That theory has been abandoned. Your video also does not, in any way, replicate the motions observed during the actual collapse.
I do appreciate the fact that you provided a video to an actual experiment. The problem is that the motions observed in the video provided do not match what was seen.
Also, why is no one complaining about scale in your video? Hmmmm?
Why does scale not matter is the video you provided? Why does connection strength, building construction, and material strength not matter in your video? Your video is a demonstration of a progressive collapse. Your video is not a demonstration of similar motions. Why then, do you not have issues with this video that you have with Cole's video.
To be perfectly clear, by "you" I mean skeptics in general.
The fact that, despite having admitted that your major premises are incorrect, you maintain that the conclusions you initially drew from those premises remain sound.
And of course he needs to prove that a mechanism exists that can survive an aircraft impact and massive fire for an hour and still leave the explosives viable.
I have repeatedly said, the buildings can collapse from any cause that you want. Please perform an experiment to explain the motions that were actually observed.
Please explain how the video you provided matches the actual motions observed during the collapse. Please show me where your video shows outward motion before downward motion throughout the entire collapse.
Please show me a picture of the actual collapse of WTC1 or WTC2 where such a large outer column remains standing while the floors are on or so close to the ground.
Your video is nothing more than a replication of a pancake style collapse. That theory has been abandoned. Your video also does not, in any way, replicate the motions observed during the actual collapse.
I do appreciate the fact that you provided a video to an actual experiment. The problem is that the motions observed in the video provided do not match what was seen.
Also, why is no one complaining about scale in your video? Hmmmm?
Why does scale not matter is the video you provided? Why does connection strength, building construction, and material strength not matter in your video? Your video is a demonstration of a progressive collapse. Your video is not a demonstration of similar motions. Why then, do you not have issues with this video that you have with Cole's video.
To be perfectly clear, by "you" I mean skeptics in general.
If you drop a basketball from a height of 2m, here is what will happen. There will be an acceleration of g downwards minus the force created by air resistance in the opposite direction. The direction of the net force will be down. If you then drop a baseball, or any other similar object, the following will be true. There will be an acceleration of g minus the force created by air resistance. The direction of the net force will be down.
In every scenario, the accelerations will be similar. In every scenario the directions of net force will be similar. In every scenario the sequences of the net forces will be similar. Every. Single. Time.
You totally failed here, the point is to explain what happens when they hit the floor, not what happens while they drop.
If I drop the basketball from a height of 2 m onto a concrete floor and observe the result
Why are you ignoring the highlighted part?
What will be different are the magnitudes of the forces. Cole was not demonstrating magnitudes. He was demonstrating similarity between accelerations, directions of net force, and sequences of net forces.
Which are pretty much irrelevant to the entire situation.
The discussion is over. Deny this all you want, I have clearly shown what Cole is demonstrating. If you think he is wrong, fine. Until you perform an experiment proving he is wrong, your words are meaningless.
It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with having a valid experiment.
Oystein posted this experiment which is a far better representation of the WTC structure (though still not perfect) and it replicates the motions as much as Coles, if not better than his, all without firecrackers.
Please provide Evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses. Explosive reidue, explosive deformed columns, eye witnesses to the explosives in their offices, the explosions caught on tape, det cord... all of these would back up your claim.
Being able to show how much explosives would have been required would also be useful.
The official story does not explain the motions observed during the collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. If they don't explain it, and CD is the most likely hypothesis, then we need a real investigation to find out what really happened.
The purpose of ae911truth is not to investigate everything that happened on 9/11. The purpose is to get a real, independent investigation into the collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. There is no reason for them to discuss anything other than issues related to the collapses of those three buildings.
The purpose of ae911truth is not to investigate everything that happened on 9/11. The purpose is to get a real, independent investigation into the collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. There is no reason for them to discuss anything other than issues related to the collapses of those three buildings.
There's another thing you're wrong about. It's almost endless!
The purpose of ae911truth is to get Richard Gage money to finance a lifestyle his failed architectural career could not.
Understanding 9/11 in its entirety is vital to understanding what happened in NYC. Unless you're going to say the Pentagon and Shanksville hijackings and crashes were a coincidence, you have to accept the fact that they're connected.
So far only ONE narrative has been put forth that adequately explains the entire day's events. Only one. Unless or until you people come up with a better explanation, you'll remain nothing more than the internet chew toy that you currently are.
Your physics argument is now moot. If you continue to argue this, you are ignoring the clear evidence that exists in this thread. I have played your games, and now your arguments about how I don't understand basic physics are meaningless. I have proven that I understand basic physics to the satisfaction of the physics "experts" on this forum.
I'm asking for an experiment that replicates the observed motions. You can get as detailed as you want. So far no one has done anything, so discussing detail seems irrelevant at this point.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
