If "partial collapse" is POSSIBLE why is "complete collapse" IMPOSSIBLE?

[cisco]

What’s logical about a few burnt out structurally damaged floors pile driving through 70 floors of undamaged, not on fire, fully intact structure, offering virtually no resistance?

Does this happen much?
It was just a few floors considering there were 110 floors all together.

Do you have any examples of this logical thing happening other then 9/11?

What kind of games are you playing, LastChild? I'm not kidding, this is seriously offensive stuff. Are you pulling our legs or what? Do you seriously expect us to believe an adult, capable of writing English in complete sentences, is this clueless about something so simple? I'm not joking here. This stuff screams with the ignorance of a 3rd grader. Are you for real? Explain yourself.

 

[slickcat]

In reference to Alferd_Packer post #37

AP, you beat me to the punch. What twoofers cannot seem to comprehend is that the building was designed to support the static weight of the floors. It was never intended to absorb the kinetic energy of a floor collapsing into another floor. A Civil Engineering friend of mine showed me (mathematically) what would happen to my house if the roof system was raised a foot and suddenly dropped onto the support walls. Scary stuff!!

 

[X]

OK, fair enough. This has been explained before, but by all means:

Assume a structure held up by something, why not spaghetti? (you could actually try this at home) And let's use 47 strands, if you prefer.

The initial situation is this: The supports (spaghetti strands) are stiff, relatively brittle, and they share the weight of the structure above. Ideally, they each carry 1/47 of the weight. We need one more information: The maximum weight each support can carry. Let us assume that each strand of spaghetti can at most carry 1/30 of the weight.
<snip>

I'd like to point out one additional point:
The spaghettis will fail when >30 are left only if the load is evenly re-distributed between the strands each time a spaghetti fails (Why always spaghetti? It's bland and tasteless.).
If the load is not re-distriduted equally across the remaining strands, then one strand will reach failure before the others.
This will result in a rapid chain-reaction of failures.

And this is only a simplified case with no interdependancy.

 

[JamesB]

How did it have the capacity to hold "the mass" for all the years before it collapsed?

Ack, go look up "static force", and "dynamic force", come back and then explain the difference, and then you will be allowed to talk again.

 

[JHarrow]

Ack, go look up "static force", and "dynamic force", come back and then explain the difference, and then you will be allowed to talk again.

Are you going to explain how the dynamic force allowed 20 stories to fall through 90 stories essentially in freefall?

 

[CHF]

Are you going to explain how the dynamic force allowed 20 stories to fall through 90 stories essentially in freefall?

Sure. Each of those 90 floors was easily overwhelmed by the dynamic mass of the above floors.

How long do you think such a collapse should have taken?

I realize that twoofers think such an event should unfold in slow motion, but the real world, as always, is quite different.

 

[JHarrow]

Sure. Each of those 90 floors was easily overwhelmed by the dynamic mass of the above floors.

How long do you think such a collapse should have taken?

I realize that twoofers think such an event should unfold in slow motion, but the real world, as always, is quite different.

Wow, you really blinded me with science there.

You got any calculations to back up your claim that:

Each of those 90 floors was easily overwhelmed by the dynamic mass of the above floors.

You can't just make a statement like that as if you were saying that night follows day. Back it up.

 

[CHF]

Wow, you really blinded me with science there.

You got any calculations to back up your claim that:



You can't just make a statement like that as if you were saying that night follows day. Back it up.

Unlike truthers, I'm not gonna pretend to be a scientist or engineer. I prefer to let the experts' work speak for itself. Frank Greening and Keith Seffen are among those who have written papers explaining the WTC collapses.

Look em up.

 

[JHarrow]

Unlike truthers, I'm not gonna pretend to be a scientist or engineer. I prefer to let the experts' work speak for itself. Frank Greening and Keith Seffen are among those who have written papers explaining the WTC collapses.

Look em up.

So you have absolutely no calculations to back up your statement. Glad we got that cleared up.

Quoting a couple of scientists names at me wont cut the mustard i'm afraid.

 

[Drs_Res]

How long should it have taken JHarrow?
And remember to include the calculations to back up your claim.

 

[JHarrow]

How long should it have taken JHarrow?
And remember to include the calculations to back up your claim.

Where did I mention collapse duration?

 

[X]

Where did I mention collapse duration?

I think Drs_Res is referring to the bolded portion below:

Are you going to explain how the dynamic force allowed 20 stories to fall through 90 stories essentially in freefall?

I also think you are needlessly nitpicking on semantics, but, if it's alright with Drs_Res, I will rephrase it:

"What rate of acceleration or speed should it have fallen at?"

 

[1337m4n]

Are you going to explain how the dynamic force allowed 20 stories to fall through 90 stories essentially in freefall?

Nope, not an answer. Just a repeat of the freefall lie.

It was nice knowing you.

 

[Unfit4Command]

Are you going to explain how the dynamic force allowed 20 stories to fall through 90 stories essentially in freefall?

Both of the Twin Towers collapsed in a longer timespan than free-fall speed. To put this into perspective, use this free-fall calculator.

Based on this video of the North Tower collapse, the collapse time can be measured to roughly 16-18 seconds in length, maybe a bit longer but it's impossible to tell because of the view being obscured by dust clouds. 911myths has a video that allows you to listen to the collapse in order to form a better opinion of the collapse time based on both video and audio evidence.

But let's just go with the 16 second collapse time and plug the number into the calculator above. You get 4115.456 feet if the building truly fell at free-fall speeds. But the collapse could easily be longer, the 18 second mark plugged in reaches 5208.624 feet.

The South Tower has a similar effect, just take a look at the 911myths page and any other videos to get an idea of how long the collapse took.

The buildings fell quickly, certainly. But I'm not anywhere near being qualified in any of the fields needed to truly investigate the speed of the collapses, compared to how long they should have taken to collapse. So like CHF said, let the experts deal with that.

 

[CHF]

So you have absolutely no calculations to back up your statement. Glad we got that cleared up.

Quoting a couple of scientists names at me wont cut the mustard i'm afraid.

You mean do I have my own calculations? No, I'm not trained in the fields that would allow me to crunch the numbers on such a complex event. That's why I refer to those who have done so.

I trust you have your own calculations on the WTC collapses?

 

[JHarrow]

I think Drs_Res is referring to the bolded portion below:



I also think you are needlessly nitpicking on semantics, but, if it's alright with Drs_Res, I will rephrase it:

"What rate of acceleration or speed should it have fallen at?"

You are yet to prove it should have fallen through those 90 floors at all. Proceed.

And don't forget the calculations.

 

[JHarrow]

You mean do I have my own calculations? No, I'm not trained in the fields that would allow me to crunch the numbers on such a complex event. That's why I refer to those who have done so.

I trust you have your own calculations on the WTC collapses?

No, you don't have to have derived the calcultions yourself. I am happy for you to quote them from a scientists work.

Please show me the calculations which prove your statement.

 

[Drs_Res]

I think Drs_Res is referring to the bolded portion below:



I also think you are needlessly nitpicking on semantics, but, if it's alright with Drs_Res, I will rephrase it:

"What rate of acceleration or speed should it have fallen at?"

It's quite alright.

 

[X]

You are yet to prove it should have fallen through those 90 floors at all. Proceed.

And don't forget the calculations.

que?

I was merely clearing up what seemed to be a misunderstanding.

So why are you asking me for calculations?


ETA: Apologies, to 1337m4n, below.

 

[1337m4n]

One more time, people. We've had enough derails:


If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building?

I ask that nobody respond to non-answers,
unless it's just to repeat the question for them. Do not let them dodge.