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

[Architect]

I'm Stundie nominating this one, because it's one of the clearest examples of the unevaluated inequality fallacy I've seen yet.

Dave

Seconded.

It's a pretty good example of a crap grasp of basic physics, too.

 

[CHF]

So you don't have any examples to compare to something that happened three times in one day? Not even one?

You mean can I find examples of skyscrapers without concrete cores being rammed by airlinlers or getting struck by a falling 110 story building? No I can't. I suppose that's what made the events of 9/11 so unprecedented and why it resulted in unprecedented things.

Can you find me one non-Titanic example of a massive "unsinkable" ocean liner striking an iceberg and then sinking? Not even one? If not, I guess that means there really was something fishy about the Titanic, huh?

There's one here. Did you miss the still standing burnt out building in the op?

No, I saw it. I also saw that the steel part of the building had collapsed, so God only knows how that backs you up.

So. If it's not controled demolition in the traditional sense of the term your official theory is correct by default?

No it means that there are papers that show how the observed WTC collapses were indeed possible according to the "official story."

You meanwhile, are left with having to argue that the WTC was not a "traditional" demoltion, and so the jury is therefor still out.

Lame doesn't begin to describe such "logic."

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is that a double or a triple negative there Genius? Careful you don't stundie yourself. And when you’re all done maybe you can answer the question instead of dodging it.

Your own poor reading comprehension isn't normally something to crow about, LastChild. And the answer to your question is that you can't possibly tell which of two quantities is larger if you're too lazy to try and work either of them out.

Dave

 

[CHF]

It's worth noting that LastChild's non-traditional demolition theory leaves him with the exact same problem he identifies with the "official story": it's unprecedented!

Name me one non-traditional, top-down demolition using silent bombs that occured on a day other than 9/11, LastChild.

 

[tsig]

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.

1+1=2

We will start slow ok

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm Stundie nominating this one, because it's one of the clearest examples of the unevaluated inequality fallacy I've seen yet.

Dave

I still think you should write up the Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy for Wikipedia. It's a good one.

 

[lapman]

I'm sure that ALL of the building could possibly be destroyed by fire if ALL of the building was on fire. But do you have an example of one? A skyscraper that is.

No I don't. So, do you have an example of a skyscraper that survived a large airliner slamming into it and the ensuing fires?

The picture posted of the Windsor is of a building that was completely on fire. Did it even suffer global collapse? For how long was it completely engulfed in flames? Was it for only for an hour and only a few floors near the top?

The Windsor was not a steel structure either. Only parts of it were and they suffered complete collapse solely due to fire.

If you are going to compare to the Windsor building that was completely engulfed in flames for hours but did not suffer global collapse then what the hell is your point again?

Logic?

The claim is that steel structures do not collapse due to fire. The collapse of the steel portions of the Windsor and Kader Toy Factory fires prove that the theory is false.

 

[lapman]

Oh I know the difference do you? So a broken lighter dynamic force that is losing mass over the sides with most of it's floor loads burnt up in smoke has more force to push down then a static intact mass?

How so?

Here's an experiment. How about we suspend a SUV 12 feet above your head. We drop it and measure the difference in speed from the time it hits your head until it hits the ground.

The idiocy of your statement is that you assume that the floors were designed to hold the weight of the floors above it. That is false. The floors were only designed to hold the weight of the concrete and other things placed on those floors and nothing more.

 

[Myriad]

Not valuable to know how much time one might have to get out of a building after it sufferers some type of structural damage and fire to a few floors near the top? Why not? There are still plenty of buildings in NYC and plenty of airports and there is a war on terror presently no? Someone has got to think of these morbid realities no?

Assume that you have zero time to get out of a building after it is on fire. That is, assume that you must exit as quickly as possible and that a moment's delay could cost your life. (If you want to spend time helping others to also exit as quickly as possible, then good for you, but be aware of the risk you're taking if you choose to be a hero.)

Firefighters are trained to assess the risk of collapse based on the immediate situation; they will not wait for an engineering analysis nor will they be foolish enough to trust the results of some previous analysis of a different building which will necessarily differ in crucial details. That means they must often take risks because they have incomplete information for an assessment. That's one reason we call them heroes.

I'm sure they'd be touched by your concern for their safety, though.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

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.

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

Here are the calculations you wanted.

x = 20 (upper portion, in motion)
y = 90 (lower portion, in motion)

Assume that the mass of 20 floors is enough to collapse ONE floor at near free fall speeds.

After one floor collapses:

20 + 1 = 21
90 - 1 = 89

x = 21
y = 89

If 20 floors is sufficient to collapse one floor at near free fall speeds, then 21 floors is also sufficient to collapse one floor at near free fall speeds.

After two floor collapse:

21 + 1= 22
89 - 1 = 88

x = 22
y = 88

If 21 floors is sufficient to collapse one floor at near free fall speeds, then 22 floors is also sufficient to collapse one floor at near free fall speeds.

Do you see the pattern here?

If you continue with these equations, you will find that y (the number of floors that have not yet collapsed) will eventually reach zero. This means that what starts out as 20 floors grows in size until it encompasses the whole building.

If you doubt that 20 floors can collapse one floor at near free-fall speeds, then you phrased your question oddly. It should have been:

Are you going to explain how the dynamic force allowed 20 stories to fall through 1 story essentially in freefall?

But, of course, that would have lacked the rhetorical impact. As we all know, the troof is about rhetoric, not logic or mathematics.

 

[aggle-rithm]

lurkers - Jharrow is ignoring the EXPERT testimony of those who are EXPERTS in their field of study, and their calculations.

This flash of insight occurred to me over the weekend:

The information that leads a person to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job, pales next to the information he must ignore in order to maintain this conclusion.

 

[LastChild]

Here's an experiment. How about we suspend a SUV 12 feet above your head. We drop it and measure the difference in speed from the time it hits your head until it hits the ground.

Here’s a better experiment. What would you rather have a one ton boulder dropped on your head or one ton of loose sand poured over your head? I wouldn't want either personally but if I had to choose I'd pick the sand poured over my head how about you?

The idiocy of your statement is that you assume that the floors were designed to hold the weight of the floors above it. That is false. The floors were only designed to hold the weight of the concrete and other things placed on those floors and nothing more.

I wasn't the one bringing up static and dynamic forces. Were the floors above the impact zone in the WTC now raised up and dropped and fully intact when they fell? Was there nothing in-between when they dropped? Where did it all go? The resistance that is? Was there no structural damage from the plane crash or loads burnt up by the fire? How is this load now heavier all of a sudden? Did all of this mass fall straight down the middle like a pile driver or did much of it fall over the sides? In fact isn't your wtc7 story say that it was damaged from the falling of the tower? Did someone place wtc7 directly under this pile driver? Or did much of the towers fall to the side? How much? What was left to pile drive?

Got that?

 

[Garrette]

It's worth noting that LastChild's non-traditional demolition theory leaves him with the exact same problem he identifies with the "official story": it's unprecedented!

It's more than that. LastChild's logic says that nothing can ever happen because nothing can happen unless it has happened before, therefore the first time it happened couldn't have happened.


And this is ignoring LastChild's intentional ignoring of the fact that his burning skyscrapers were not slammed into by an airliner laden with jet fuel.

 

[R.Mackey]

Here’s a better experiment. What would you rather have a one ton boulder dropped on your head or one ton of loose sand poured over your head? I wouldn't want either personally but if I had to choose I'd pick the sand poured over my head how about you?

Completely false analogy. If your head was wide enough that all of the ton of sand would impact it, the change in momentum would be the same at impact, and both would kill you.

The boulder in some situations actually delivers less damage, because it can ricochet in a coherent fashion, and its material strength can absorb some of the energy. Look up "dead blow hammer." This is also why aircraft midair collisions are sometimes survivable, but an aircraft flying through a flock of geese is going to have a bad day guaranteed.

 

[Garrette]

Here’s a better experiment. What would you rather have a one ton boulder dropped on your head or one ton of loose sand poured over your head? I wouldn't want either personally but if I had to choose I'd pick the sand poured over my head how about you?

You're not equating the two properly. If the sand is "poured", i.e., it is not realeased as a mass, then pouring is preferable and may offer you a chance at survival. On the other hand, if the sand is held up as a mass, with the same footprint size as the 1 ton boulder, and dropped as a mass, it will kill you just as dead, and if you're standing on JHarrow's shoulders it will kill him, too.

I wasn't the one bringing up static and dynamic forces. Were the floors above the impact zone in the WTC now raised up and dropped and fully intact when they fell?

You brought in "raised up." They dropped, intact, minuse the things that burned. The dynamic force of 20 moving floors is not marginally greater than the static force of 20 stationary floors; it is orders of magnitude greater. Assume that the building lost 2 floors worth of material in the burning; 18 dynamic floors will still collapse the next one.

Was there nothing in-between when they dropped? Where did it all go? The resistance that is? Was there no structural damage from the plane crash or loads burnt up by the fire? How is this load now heavier all of a sudden? Did all of this mass fall straight down the middle like a pile driver or did much of it fall over the sides? In fact isn't your wtc7 story say that it was damaged from the falling of the tower? Did someone place wtc7 directly under this pile driver? Or did much of the towers fall to the side? How much? What was left to pile drive?

Got that?

It is evident you're not paying attention. I got that.

 

[Garrette]

Look up "dead blow hammer." This is also why aircraft midair collisions are sometimes survivable, but an aircraft flying through a flock of geese is going to have a bad day guaranteed.

I had never heard of a dead blow hammer. Looked it up and went "wow." Amazing what you can learn here.

 

[WildCat]

Here’s a better experiment. What would you rather have a one ton boulder dropped on your head or one ton of loose sand poured over your head? I wouldn't want either personally but if I had to choose I'd pick the sand poured over my head how about you?

Are you really claiming that the upper block turned into fine particles and trickled slowly down on the lower part of the WTC? Really?

I wasn't the one bringing up static and dynamic forces. Were the floors above the impact zone in the WTC now raised up and dropped and fully intact when they fell? Was there nothing in-between when they dropped? Where did it all go? The resistance that is? Was there no structural damage from the plane crash or loads burnt up by the fire? How is this load now heavier all of a sudden? Did all of this mass fall straight down the middle like a pile driver or did much of it fall over the sides? In fact isn't your wtc7 story say that it was damaged from the falling of the tower? Did someone place wtc7 directly under this pile driver? Or did much of the towers fall to the side? How much? What was left to pile drive?

Got that?

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is all that's left of the truth movement!

 

[lapman]

Here’s a better experiment. What would you rather have a one ton boulder dropped on your head or one ton of loose sand poured over your head? I wouldn't want either personally but if I had to choose I'd pick the sand poured over my head how about you?

The floors above the crash would be the boulder. On WTC 2, the video shows the upper floors were quite intact for most of the way down.

I wasn't the one bringing up static and dynamic forces. Were the floors above the impact zone in the WTC now raised up and dropped and fully intact when they fell?

Who said they were raised up? However, once the columns gave way, they dropped that 12 feet without resistance.

Was there nothing in-between when they dropped?

Mainly air.

Where did it all go? The resistance that is?

Again, how is something that is only supposed to hold a 1,300 ton static weight going to even slow down 25,000 tons of material that is in motion.

Was there no structural damage from the plane crash or loads burnt up by the fire?

Yes, and that is were the collapse began.

How is this load now heavier all of a sudden?

Who said it was?

Did all of this mass fall straight down the middle like a pile driver or did much of it fall over the sides?

It fell straight down. Much of the "overflow" is from the perimeter columns being thrown out due to both air pressure and springing back after the floors were torn away. That happened well after the start of the collapse.

In fact isn't your WTC7 story say that it was damaged from the falling of the tower?

From material that was below the "pile driver."

Did someone place WTC7 directly under this pile driver?

See previous statement.

Or did much of the towers fall to the side? How much? What was left to pile drive?

Irrelevant since the "pile driver" did not hit WTC 7.

 

[LastChild]

You're not equating the two properly. If the sand is "poured", i.e., it is not released as a mass, then pouring is preferable and may offer you a chance at survival. On the other hand, if the sand is held up as a mass, with the same footprint size as the 1 ton boulder, and dropped as a mass, it will kill you just as dead, and if you're standing on JHarrow's shoulders it will kill him, too.

I believe you have a debate with Mr. Mackey. You two seem to disagree on this point.

You brought in "raised up."

No. I didn't bring up the dropping of a suspended SUV .

They dropped, intact, minuse the things that burned. The dynamic force of 20 moving floors is not marginally greater than the static force of 20 stationary floors; it is orders of magnitude greater. Assume that the building lost 2 floors worth of material in the burning; 18 dynamic floors will still collapse the next one.

At what point did it become not intact? It wasn't still there when the collapse was complete was it? What caused it to become not intact and at what point?

It is evident you're not paying attention. I got that.

Insinuating there was nothing but air in-between and virtually no resistance offered all the way down is paying attention? Do you see the emperor’s new cloths too? Is it pretty?

 

[CHF]

You just know that this very second there are twoofers screaming "Disinfo!" at their computer screens as they read posts by LastChild and JHarrow.