Momentum Transfer in WTC

[rwguinn]

hand up.
anyone notice that the Delta on his evidence is just about as high as the damaged floors.

Hint to the terminaly credulous 'deeker:
If your going to compare things like that, draw your lines at the part that is undamaged, not below the damaged section...
I don't know which is more insulting: The stupidity of the LC'ers, or their assumption that we are as stupid as they...

 

[Pardalis]

Sometimes this feels like it's the WOI (war on idiocy).

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Pardalis whined

What is this supposed to prove?

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

 

[twinstead]

Pardalis whined

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

Your red lines are improperly placed. You have no qualifications to judge what is happening by looking at pictures and video. You are looking at the collapse with a predisposed conclusion. You have an ideological axe to grind.

Tell me how you can be considered a seeker of truth?

 

[chran]

Truthseeker excremented

Pardalis whined

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

I know I'm not Pardalis, but here's what I see:

I see the top part of WTC1 falling through the damaged floors (where the plane impacted).

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

twinstead accused

Your red lines are improperly placed

how so?

 

[Gravy]

Pardalis whined

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

When you say "the bottom part holds," you're including the interior of the building. All of it. If you don't have x-ray vision, then what's the basis for that statement?

 

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground.

I don't remember reading anyone saying that.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

I do not have the proper expertise to analyse these pictures. I just see the top section falling into the building. My uneducated guess is it's because the impact floors couldn't support the weight of the top section.

I see no explosions.

 

[apathoid]

Pardalis whined

It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen.

Who suggested that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

chran opined

I see the top part of WTC1 falling through the damaged floors (where the plane impacted).

Then why doesn't the bottom part move?

 

[Pardalis]

Then why doesn't the bottom part move?

Move where?

 

[Gravy]

chran opined

Then why doesn't the bottom part move?

Remember those strong outer columns? Remember how much of the outer walls of both towers remained standing after the collapses?

 

[chran]

chran opined

Then why doesn't the bottom part move?

Fairies.

 

[Belz...]

Here is a nice couple of pictures that we can observe and analyze.
Clearly, the upper section does not remain "relatively intact" until it hit the ground. Quite the opposite. The Floors below remain intact until the top has gone to about half its former size.

Is there an eye-twitching smiley ?

How can you POSSIBLY tell through all that smoke ?

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

OR, that the section BELOW the top portion is collapsing, leaving said portion relatively intact.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see.

Lots of smoke.

 

[apathoid]

chran opined

Then why doesn't the bottom part move?

???

Bottom part of what? The WTC? I think its clear that it didnt remain intact, ergo - it moved.

 

[twinstead]

twinstead accused

how so?

The fact that you have lines at all is what is incorrect. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but unless you can see through the walls, you have no idea what is going on in that building. You are just trying with your red lines to focus our attention to a specific area for no reason.

In fact, you have no more idea what is happening with those buildings than I do. Yet you, unlike me because you have decided you are now a qualified photo analyst and structural engineer, are claiming foul and trumping all the REAL qualified engineers who watched the same collapse as you did yet came to a different conclusion.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

apathoid forgot

Who suggested that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground?

it was kevin who said

Not to mention the top floors above the collision would've remained fairly intact during the fall and slammed into everything underneath when it hit bottom. basically a double impact.

 

[tsig]

Greening: No, I find Ross persuasive. He says that even if Greenings criticisms are correct, it only delays the stoppage of the collapse by a fraction of a second.

Kausel: Kausel estimates the gravitaional potential energy, but does not estimate the energy sinks. He shifts immediately to editorializing with words like "small nuke" and so forth. Yes, there is a lot of GPE, but every chemical bond broken requires energy. So does the expansion of the dust cloud. So does the molten metal. All of this must come after considering the rate of fall. The closer to free-fall, the less energy available to do anything else. The attempts to quantify this (hoffman, Trumpman, Ross) seem to corroborate what is intuitively obvious, that is, absent explosives, there is not nearly enough energy to explain the observations.

I know intuition is not science, but when calculations corroborate intuition, it is pretty strong stuff.

The subject of this thread was (generally) the collapse of the towers, so NIST is not an authority at all, as they did not study the collapses.

Yes, observation (photos and videos) is preferred evidence over hearsay. That does not totally invalidate what people say. When hearsay agrees with observation, as in the case of the litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard, felt and were horribly injured by explosions, then it is very compelling. When hearsay conflicts with observation, I tend to side with observation.

Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Is there an eye-twitching smiley ?

This is the best I could come up with in my collection of smilieys.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

twinstead clarified

The fact that you have lines at all is what is incorrect. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but unless you can see through the walls, you have no idea what is going on in that building.

The red lines do not move. They demonstrate that the roofline moves down about 6 stories, while the 98th floor and below does not move.

It is true that we cannot see what is inside, but we can see what is outside. The perimeter columns above the impact zone are failing, while the perimeter columns below that point are holding.

I can appreciate that many of you are falling back on an appeal to authority. Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.