OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[Grizzly Bear]

OMG, that's a facepalmer.

Not only was it growing in size as it accumulated failed floors and their contents, it was also accelerating. That's what gravity does: It does move things at a constant speed, it accelerates them.

My God, that's just incredible, that error.

Not to mention that the size of the core columns is irrelevant. The connections joining the core with the floor systems broke first.

 

[tempesta29]

I'm sorry..........WHAT????????????

It's larger on a horizontal plane. It's a tapering structure, therefore its ability to resist force is greater.

 

[GlennB]

deleted. probably talking bollocks

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This isn't a rubber ball falling through the air, nor is it a set of washers accumulating on a wire. You are aware there are other actions at play here, right?

So says the spectator/cheerleader with no actual counterargument whatsoever. If there is some error, then let's hear you argument. Or you could just pay attention and learn, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Excuse me?

This is what you said:

and the bonus to it all is: The core structure gets larger and stronger as the collapse progresses.

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.

Force=mass times acceleration. The mass of the upper segment is increasing as the upper segment falls and gathers floors. If you think the mass shedding outside the perimeter is sufficient to negate the weight of each floor - or to put it another way, if you think that for every floor the upper section hits, it's ejecting the equivalent of that entire floor minus some small amount to account for the increasing column sizes - that is up to you to demonstrate. And you haven't even attempted to do so yet.

Furthermore, acceleration: After 1 second, the rate is 32 some feet per second squared (9.3 m/s²), minus some utterly miniscule amount due to "resistance". After 2 seconds, it's 64 some feet/s². At 3 seconds, it's 96-some ft/s². At 4, 128-some ft/s². Get the picture? Both your mass and your velocities at each floor is increasing (that's exactly what "acceleration" is), so that means that force is increasing. Unless your definition of constant power is increasing force, you're wrong. Get it?

Now, you think that the increase of the core columns' size has anything to do with this? Why is that? You've just demonstrated that you've completely ignored what I wrote about the construction of the towers, as well as what has been known for years about what failures occurred. The floorspan to column connection is the important factor here! You really think the falling masses were expending all of their force against the columns? This in the face of how llittle area the columns present to the falling mass when compared to how much the floors do?

Mass and acceleration velocity due to gravitational acceleration is increasing, yet you posted what you did above? Now who has no idea what he's talking about? Not me. It's you. All you. If I had asked you to identify what the weak point of the core column - floor truss - perimeter column assembly was, would you have been able to identify it prior to today?

The person clearly demonstrating he has no idea what he's talking about is you. So you had better start playing nice around here and learning what we're trying to teach you. You have demonstrated that you have no idea what the basic structure of the towers were, let alone how they failed. Because of that, you have some seriously remedial reading to do. For starters:

• Failure mode in WTC towers: Exactly what it says.
• Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires: More remedial reading.
• Floor trusses & bolts: Lots of noise, but the signal regarding the floor to column connections is worth the effort.
• Post that provides a starting point for you to calculate mass shedidng during the collapse.
• New mass and potential energy calculation for WTC1: A more detailed treatment of energy and momentum issues. By a truther, no less.
• A Review of Energies And How They Are Dissipated of WTC 1 & 2: Exactly what it says it is.
• Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone: While there's much noise compared to signal, it's a memorable thread addressing the question of the lower segments supposedly having the abilities to arrest the upper segments fall in either tower.
  
• The "Layman's terms" threads:
  • Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue: Thread discussing issues of momentum, collapse times, and collapse mechanisms.
  • WTC collapses - Layman's terms again: Notable for posts from Architect and others regarding the proper descriptions of the towers designs, as well as the collapses.
• Why did the WTC columns pull in? Important for what it teaches about the basics regarding the floor truss to column design.
• A thread and two posts that help with understanding the "resistance" the lower floors gave to the upper segments (this'll help with the notion of the lower part of the core increasing in size and strength in that they point out how to deal with the issue qualitatively):
  • Szamboti's Missing Jolt Paper: Notable for a truther's attempts to describe what resistance should be seen, and others corrections of his misapprehensions.
  • Kenneth Kuttler's letter on the Twin Towers collapse times: Mostly discusses something else, but includes some discussion of resistence.
  • Dave Roger's post specifically addressing point decelerations - "resistance" - quantitatively.
• And a trio of threads involving forum member Architect discussing the details of the towers design and failure modes with a particularly hardheaded truther:
  • The Heiwa Challenge
  • More Real Structures for Heiwa
  • Continuation - The Heiwa Challenge

Yes. All that. You are, at minimum 4 years or so behind everyone else here. You need to understand all of that - all of it. Those are the threads where we eventually worked out our understanding of how the towers were built, and you are not up to speed. You at least skim those threads for the basics before you continue on about what your misunderstandings of the collapses are. We've dealt with all of this before, and you are NOT going anywhere previous truthers haven't gone - and failed - before.

Learn. And drop the arrogance. If you don't like getting made fun of, then don't post nonsense.

 

[chipmunk stew]

The debris pile is clearly highest within the buildings' footprints. Their peaks are nearly as high as some of the surrounding buildings. Higher, if you include the sub-basements.

Look up WTC LIDAR images produces by NOAA.

Example:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/manhattan-lidar092701.jpg

 

[chipmunk stew]

It's larger on a horizontal plane. It's a tapering structure, therefore its ability to resist force is greater.

It doesn't matter how big the cross-sections were: They were bearing a negligible portion of the impact.

If you had a platform hooked on the sides of some poles and then dropped a bunch of rubble on it, how much of the force of impact would be taken up by the poles?

 

[triforcharity]

Straw man. I never suggested debris didn't accumulate at all, but there is nothing to suggest that this mass is some growing entity. It isn't. Not only is mass going in all directions out of the path of collapse, but this upper section itself is being destroyed and losing some of its ability to exert force downward. We can't quantify how much mass is being added to this collapse, but we know three things: a lot of mass is being lost by these ejections, the upper section is losing ability to exert downward force as its destroyed, the upper section loses momentum every time it creates this new falling mass. And the bonus to it all is: the core structure gets larger and stronger as the collapse progresses.

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.

Ah, yes, the old "rubble can't exert as much force as something solid" failure.

Oh, got any math to back up the hilited portion?

 

[jaydeehess]

As I indicated above,,,, a continuation of my response,,,,,,,,

The failure occurs at the core and that is where the overwhelming predominance of resistance is overcome as it collapses. The core is constant and tapered structure. And your little equation is ridiculous: the column does not just instantly fail without floor pans.

1) the predominant source of resistance to collapse simply cannot be the columns since in order for that to be the case the loads would have to somehow be predominantly transfered to those columns. The ONLY way for that to occur is to have the floor pans do so via their truss seats BUT those floor trusses and truss seats simply cannot survive the impact of the mass falling on them and thus fail before arresting the motion of the falling mass and thus do not transfer the force of impact (a transfer of momentum over time) and so the columns is left there doing essentially nothing to arrest the collapse.

Columns, long columns, simply cannot support themselves unless they meet certain criteria of base widths to height and mass ratios. The columns of the WTC towers were NOT designed to support themselves, the core system was NOT designed to support itself and the perimeter system of columns was NOT designed to support itself. This is one reason why the structure was built by constructing the core and the perimeter and the floor pans in conjunction rather than build the core first and then surround it with floors and a perimeter system of columns.
Remove floor trusses from several levels in a row and the columns become unstable. Add to this the fact that the trusses are being ripped away as opposed to carefully removed , nad the huge buffeting that would be taking place and the columns have no chance of remaining intact.

And why exactly do we see so much pulverized concrete? What force is creating this, the failure of lateral supports? Enjoy trying to support that argument.

Multi-ton chunks of concrete and steel ramming together at highway velocities over 1000 feet makes this collapse an enormous high speed rock crusher(seems to me I've said this before).

I suppose you expect to tell me that huge amounts of high explosives were loaded into the concrete floors(each and every floor) and that is what caused the concrete to break up?

Quote:
I have looked at the 'evidence' and have seen nothing to dissuade me from the senario I put forth. I have also not seen you employ any science whatsoever, instead choosing personal incredulity as your guide.
You bandy about terms like 'decelleration', 'resistance' and speak of Newtons third law of motion but have demonstrated time and again your lack of understanding of these and other things.

If you knew how such terms were spelled, you might more accurately demonstrate your understanding of such terms (or perhaps you're doing just that).

Oops , two 'c's one 'l'. You caught me. However de-celleration, however you wish to spell it, is not a scientific term. 'Acceleration' is a vector and contains therefore its direction with out needing a separate term for the negative direction. In this case we usually define + as the direction in which gravity acts.

Anyway, your above paragraph is pure ad hominem. I can't be bothered to respond to much more of it.

Yep, everything after the word 'guide' is ad hom. Basically my personal estimation of you.
However you do in fact demonstrate that you are operating from a standpoint of personal incredulity and not much else. A point made prior to the word 'guide'

Quote:
Lastly, my question still stands, and your attempt to deflect is noted, but let's break it down.

1) When the initial collapse occurs, what is happening to the columns at that level? In answering this question I do not care whether you are invoking explosives being used to sever the columns or if they bend and buckle due to heat and increased load due to other failed columns.
If in the pristine structure a column was a straight line through these floors what does that line look like at initial failure?

You answered your own question: core columns are being severed. I do not think there is any significant degree of buckling taking place because I do not believe that the upper section is applying any significant degree of force on the core structure below it.

I did say I did not care, for this part of the questions, whether or not you considered it explosive severing of the columns or any other process.
You did not answer the highlited part of the question. We can agree that the columns were not in pristine shape at this moment of initial collapse. I want to know what shape they are in. Are they severed but the two parts still in line with each other, or severed and not in line?

Quote:
2) Given that the load on any floor was transfered to the columns via the truss seats, would you expect all floors to be essentially the same (aside from the handful of floors that used heavy beams rather than lightweight trusses)?

Same in terms of what?

Was each floor pan constructed the same as each other floor pan from top to bottom? (ignoring the handfull of mechanical floors)

I thought the question was clear before but perhaps it is more so now.

:
3) Do you know the principal of long slender column buckling and the need for lateral bracing? Are you aware that the floor trusses provided this lateral bracing between the core column system and the perimeter columns system?
What is the result of the removal of lateral bracing?

Are you implying that the absence of lateral support on a given level would have caused instant failure (and apparently pulverization)? I hope not.

Instant? No, I have never said that. In fact it is well known that part of the core of one towers survived the collapse but in such unstable condition that it soon succumbed to exactly the forces I describe here. It also serves to illustrate that core collapse lagged floor and perimeter collapse, again, exactly as long column buckling would be expected to proceed given the senario I have repeated a dozen or so times in this thread.
,,, oh,,, yeah,,, that would be using those videos you say are the evidence that should be used.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Still no facts ot figures, just your own personal estimation?
As pointed out above the dense debris that was ejected should be ahead of the dustfall and IF your contention is correct then we should have seen a vast number of such heavy debris pieces falling past the collapse zone. We do not and thus your contentiuon fails on the evidence YOU choose to put forth. The videos.

It works both ways: you don't have data regarding how much debris "stacked up," as you're claiming. We have to use the available evidence.

Well how much do you suppose the upper block weighed at initial collapse?

As collapse proceeds how, what mechanism, is employed to move enough mass away from the footprint of the next lower floor pan? Certainly not explosives. I have seen unmatted solid granite rock faces blown apart using hundreds of pounds of dynamite. A few pieces, some the size of a desk, thrown a hundred feet but the enormous majority of the mass remains within a dozen feet of its original position and most of it does not more more than a few inches. Despite this the granite is in pieces a few inches to a few feet in size.
You are supposing that massive amounts of concrete and steel are being accelerated horizontally while being destroyed?
Seems to me this should have been a lot noisier than it was, what with all these high explosives going off.

Quote:
As pointed out above there was a compacted debris zone between upper and lower blocks. Yes both upper and lower blocks would be coming apart at approximately the same rate but all this does is make the debris zone larger and larger.
I cannot envision how you would think that I was sayiong that the upper block was getting heavier. I was saying that the amount of loose debris impacting lower floors was getting heavier and heavier with each destroyed floor.
,,,,and again,,,,,,, the size of the columns simply does not enter into it since the falling mass has no way of having its force transfered to those columns unless the floors are capable of doing so, and it is patently obvious that a floor was only designed to carry and transfer the forces that could normally be expected to impinge upon ONE floor, not the mass of a dozen floors.

Yet despite your theory, acceleration remains constant. If momentum were increasing exponentially then so would measurable acceleration.

The collpase zone is not visible through the entire collapse as debris falling outside the towers quickly obscures the collapse zone.
In addition I have been saying all along that the collapse of interior floors preceeded the visible collapse of the perimeter columns and that preceeded the collapse of the core. It is quite possible that the interior collapse accelerated at first at 0.6g and reached something higher before hitting the earth.
What evidence do we have of this?
Well the supposed 'squibs' , windows being blown out well ahead of the visible collapse zone would be one indication of internal collapse occuring first.

Can't imagine how I misinterpreted the oft-cited "pile of gravel" analogy. Now that I understand it, it's even less clear. In fact, it may be the most ridiculous unsupported assertion I've seen yet: debris in the towers piled up like a pile of gravel rocks and ejected itself horizontally at up to 125 miles per hour.

How do you arrive at "125 MPH"?

Quote:
whhoo boy,,,,
YOU said that the mass was being ejected and the only way for LESS mass to hit the second failed floor than hit the first failed floor would be for MORE mass to be ejected than was created by the destruction of that first floor. THIS is the only way for a collapse to be brought to a halt SINCE we already have that the falling massd that hit the first floor was sufficient to fail it.
I then supposed that it might , in some possible scheme of things, be that the falling mass did not change in quantity, that ejections equaled accumulation (of loose debris-material no longer connected to the structure)

Sure, some of the newly-destroyed structure is accelerating downward, no doubt. And?

,,, and that newly destroyed mass will now impact the next floor down along with the origianl falling mass of debris minus whatever portion was ejected.
Unless that ejected mass is >> than the newly accumulated mass the collapse cannot be arrested.

On one hand we have the upper sections being destroyed by their lower counterparts. On another hand we have large quantities of debris, including massive steel girders being ejected laterally at high speeds. Furthermore we have a core structure that is growing larger and stronger further towards the base. What part of this, in your mind, equates to some constant increase in mass?

The increase is in unconnected (to lower block columns) mass the vast majority of which must be moving in the direction gravity dictates,, towards the next lower floor pans.

Quote:
BUT even if that is so then it is also obvious that the velocity is increasing. YOU EVEN know this since the collapse acellerated. It does not matter that it did not become a lesser acelleration since if acelleration is greater than zero then velocity must increase over time. Increased velocity results in increased momentum/kinetic energy and if mass remains the same and was sufficient at velocity 'v', to fail a floor then that same mass at velocity 'v+delta v' will be more than sufficient to do so to the next floor.

You've created a grave error in logic. You attempt to reverse engineer your argument from available data, and you fail miserably. You claim that since velocity is increasing, according to our measurement of acceleration, that this means that this mass' momentum is increasing, which is undeniable. However what you fail to realize is that you have no proof that mass "was sufficient at velocity 'v' to fail" any floorsYour argument presupposes this. You can't use this to support your argument because it in and of itself is a theory that requires support (seeing as it cannot be proven absolutely)..

Bazant showed that a first approximation was that the forces on the first floor impacted would be 30X greater than required to fail the floor trusses.

That is documentary evidence whereas you employ bald assertion. If both 'theories' cannot be proven absolutly then the one with the supporting documentary and circumstantial evidence is the most likely.
Yours fails on this account.

I propose that the upper sections are not causing any structural failures to the lower sections, that, in fact, the upper sections are simply passing through debris as the lower structure is destroyed by controlled means. The constant rate of acceleration confirms this, both through the crash zone and as the upper section encounters greater resistance from the enlarging core, an upper section, mind you, that is being destroyed in the process, further limiting its ability to apply constant force to the lower structure

.

If acceleration remained constant then that indicates a constant balance of forces.

Quote:
Really? Mass of some quantity m exerts less force if it is a loose collection of particles than if its a solid?
What physics realm does this oddity take place in?
I explained why a falling loose collection of particles exerts less dynamic force than a solid. You did not read past the words 'straw man' did you?

We're talking about structural failure here. Time is incredibly important. Exerting a force over a period of time may not yield any failure but that same force exerted over a shorter period (impact force) may in fact yield failure. Mass in both instances is the same yet the results are different. Are you under the impression that this fact is irrelevant? I assure you it is just the opposite.

Nope, that IS what I have been saying here.
I am saying that the mass alone was probably enough to fail the floor pans and that the impact forces simply added to that. The most significant 'resistance' was the momentum transfer to previously unmoving mass.

We're talking about a falling mass whose force allegedly overcame resistance of the structure below. The upper mass, however, is losing its ability to exert force as it descends because it is being broken up. Then add in the fact that the core structure is growing slightly larger further down. This factors do not allow for constant acceleration: both factors work against the collapsing mass' net force

The size of the columns enters NOT into resisting the internal collapse since they cannot be taking much of the mass or impact of the falling debris.
,and so I ask again

Quote:
Tell me how it would be possible for the vast majority of the falling mass to hit axially on the columns and avoid the floors!

I answered this with my response to your earlier question #3.

I do not recall that ever being the case. Please quote the post number and the first few words of this response.

 

[tempesta29]

Excuse me?

This is what you said:

​

Force=mass times acceleration. The mass of the upper segment is increasing as the upper segment falls and gathers floors. If you think the mass shedding outside the perimeter is sufficient to negate the weight of each floor - or to put it another way, if you think that for every floor the upper section hits, it's ejecting the equivalent of that entire floor minus some small amount to account for the increasing column sizes - that is up to you to demonstrate. And you haven't even attempted to do so yet.

What is it exactly that you think is accumulating? The perimeter steel girders are launching away from the structure. The concrete core is being blown into dust. Is the dust gathering? Also, you are aware that the upper section is being destroyed in almost exactly the same manner too right? What impact would you estimate that this would have on its ability to apply force?

Furthermore, acceleration: After 1 second, the rate is 32 some feet per second squared (9.3 m/s²), minus some utterly miniscule amount due to "resistance". After 2 seconds, it's 64 some feet/s². At 3 seconds, it's 96-some ft/s². At 4, 128-some ft/s². Get the picture? Both your mass and your velocities at each floor is increasing (that's exactly what "acceleration" is), so that means that force is increasing. Unless your definition of constant power is increasing force, you're wrong. Get it?

Now, you think that the increase of the core columns' size has anything to do with this? Why is that? You've just demonstrated that you've completely ignored what I wrote about the construction of the towers, as well as what has been known for years about what failures occurred. The floorspan to column connection is the important factor here! You really think the falling masses were expending all of their force against the columns? This in the face of how llittle area the columns present to the falling mass when compared to how much the floors do?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. I've read through these two paragraphs and it almost seems like you're mistaking me for a different poster. I looked back and all I remember you ever saying was "OMG that's a facepalmer". It was as compelling then as it is now. You must have been proud about your very basic math paragraph, but it has no bearing on anything I'm discussing. You need to recognize, in writing, where someone's main points are and then directly refute them. You say I ignored something you said about the construction of the towers. Again, huh?

Mass and acceleration velocity due to gravitational acceleration is increasing, yet you posted what you did above? Now who has no idea what he's talking about? Not me. It's you. All you. If I had asked you to identify what the weak point of the core column - floor truss - perimeter column assembly was, would you have been able to identify it prior to today?

Again, what is with these bizarre, quasi-rhetorical, off-topic questions from people around here? Are you trying to flex muscle or do you consider the above relevant to the conversation. Instead of saying things like "not me--you, yep all you not me!", perhaps you should try and tie some of this stuff direction into the argument.

The person clearly demonstrating he has no idea what he's talking about is you. So you had better start playing nice around here and learning what we're trying to teach you. You have demonstrated that you have no idea what the basic structure of the towers were, let alone how they failed. Because of that, you have some seriously remedial reading to do.

What a bizarre rant. I feel like I'm being talked down to by a 4th grade teacher. What is this? What aspect about the towers' construction have I misinterpreted exactly?

Yes. All that. You are, at minimum 4 years or so behind everyone else here. You need to understand all of that - all of it. Those are the threads where we eventually worked out our understanding of how the towers were built, and you are not up to speed. You at least skim those threads for the basics before you continue on about what your misunderstandings of the collapses are. We've dealt with all of this before, and you are NOT going anywhere previous truthers haven't gone - and failed - before.

Frankly, I'm not too concerned with how you've assessed my knowledge on this subject. I disagree with your assessment, and since I'm sort of "numero uno" when it comes to deciding what I do, I'll go ahead and ignore all of your very gracious advice. With respect with my short time on this forum, I have no rapport with you as a poster. I don't think we've ever had a legitimate back and forth once here. You 'OMG facepalm'd' a post of mine in this thread without explanation, I challenged that, and then you quoted--not the original post I made--but the 2 or 3 sentence rebuttal. Not only that, but you've responded to that short post of mine with a long, drawn-out lecture. It's odd, to say the least.

Learn. And drop the arrogance. If you don't like getting made fun of, then don't post nonsense.

And your giant ad hominem sludge fest finally comes to an end.

 

[davefoc]

My apologies, perhaps this is obvious, but is this thread still about about thermite demolition of the WTC or is it about thermite plus explosive demolition of the WTC or is it about any CD theory of the WTC?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yet despite your theory, acceleration remains constant. If momentum were increasing exponentially then so would measurable acceleration.

That is the stupidest statement I've heard from a truther in a long while. Weren't you paying attention in high school physics classes, when they told you that the acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass of the object accelerated? A chap called Galileo figured this one out in the sixteenth century. You've got about half a millennium to catch up on.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

What is it exactly that you think is accumulating?

How do you think the debris created near the centre of the building is being shifted 100 feet sideways so it can exit the sides of the buildings? How are the core columns, the floor trusses and the heavyweight concrete slabs forming the floors in the core magically jumping sideways? And what on earth makes you think all the concrete was pulverised in the initial impact? This is another of the idiotic strawman arguments truthers throw around. Even your high priest Steven Jones has admitted that a lot of the concrete ended up in large chunks, and you've posted pictures yourself of enormous lumps of debris that were found inside the building footprint.

I feel like I'm being talked down to by a 4th grade teacher.

That would be a good start.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

The concrete core is being blown into dust. Is the dust gathering?

What "concrete core" ?? The only concrete was in the floors.

 

[twinstead]

Oh God. Not the concrete core. We don't want another "thread that shall not be named"!

(and ixnay on the ebar ray)

 

[Dave Rogers]

I mentioned C4 once, but I think I got away with it.

Dave

 

[Travis]

What is it exactly that you think is accumulating? The perimeter steel girders are launching away from the structure. The concrete core is being blown into dust. Is the dust gathering? Also, you are aware that the upper section is being destroyed in almost exactly the same manner too right? What impact would you estimate that this would have on its ability to apply force?

Ignoring that you think there's a concrete core I would like to point that the disattachment of the debris to each other does not impact it's force. Force is still only mass times acceleration and that mass--whether an intact structure, a pile of debris or a huge collection of sand--is still there traveling down.

Or maybe you will argue that the acceleration itself is illusory.

Do I need to bring up the youtube clip of the car being crushed by water?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

What is it exactly that you think is accumulating? The perimeter steel girders are launching away from the structure. The concrete core is being blown into dust. Is the dust gathering? Also, you are aware that the upper section is being destroyed in almost exactly the same manner too right? What impact would you estimate that this would have on its ability to apply force?

Before I start: The core was not concrete. The floor pans were. That right there is illustrative of how you're unaware of basic facts regarding the towers.

And further: You seriously believe that as the collapse front progresses, everything being impacted is launching outside the perimeter of the towers? You believe that, as the collapse progresses, the equivalent of each floor it hits gets thrown out the side? And furthermore, that the core you've misidentified as concrete is "being blown to dust", which oddly enough you equate to meaning that it loses mass?

The size and location of the debris piles alone is sufficient to refute your assertion. So are videos of the collapses that show pieces ejecting, but not entire floors worth of mass.

Again, links on that very issue:

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93119
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87583
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87749
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81444&page=29

The falling debris from the upper segments are impacting the floors and tearing them away from the columns. With no lateral bracing, the columns not only lose load bearing ability, but due to their length, compromise load bearing capacity on floors below. That is essential to understand. So even if you were correct about no mass being accumulated, you still have the falling initial mass accelerating as it dropped.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. I've read through these two paragraphs and it almost seems like you're mistaking me for a different poster. I looked back and all I remember you ever saying was "OMG that's a facepalmer". It was as compelling then as it is now. You must have been proud about your very basic math paragraph, but it has no bearing on anything I'm discussing. You need to recognize, in writing, where someone's main points are and then directly refute them. You say I ignored something you said about the construction of the towers. Again, huh?

You have no idea because you don't even understand rudimentary physics, nor do you know what happened to the towers that day. You've demonstrated this amply. You wrote:

Straw man. I never suggested debris didn't accumulate at all, but there is nothing to suggest that this mass is some growing entity. It isn't.

And

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.

Yet both demonstrably false. You not only provided zero evidence for your claim that "this mass is some growing entity", but you said that in the face of knowledge of how big and where the debris piles were, as well as videos that do not support your contention. I addressed your point and refuted it.

You also claimed that the collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it fell. I addressed that claim directly and refuted it too.

You cannot simply pretend that a direct refutation did not occur. All it takes is for someone to click the post link and see for themselves that your point was refuted.

Again, what is with these bizarre, quasi-rhetorical, off-topic questions from people around here? Are you trying to flex muscle or do you consider the above relevant to the conversation. Instead of saying things like "not me--you, yep all you not me!", perhaps you should try and tie some of this stuff direction into the argument.

The links I provided are directly relevant to your misunderstanding. They directly address the towers construction as well as the collapse dynamics. You need to read them because they are on topic.

Quit acting like a small child and pretending to not hear. We are directly telling you that you do not understand the towers construction nor the events involved in the collapse. We are giving you resources to aid your understanding. That is as on topic as it gets.

What a bizarre rant. I feel like I'm being talked down to by a 4th grade teacher. What is this? What aspect about the towers' construction have I misinterpreted exactly?

No, you are being talked to by people who understand the collapses better than you. You want to bring maturity into it, then understand that mature argument requires presentation of facts and evidence. You've provided incorrect facts and practically no evidence.

And the aspect of the towers construction you do not understand has already been given to you. What do you think those links are for? Again: The critical understandings are as follows:

• The columns are the load bearing elements of the towers, not the floors.
• The floors are merely bolted to the columns.
• The columns depend on the floors for lateral stability. Furthermore, they're not set up to resist lateral movement without the floors.
• Therefore, remove the floors, the columns no longer can resist being moved side to side. Move them side to side enough, they can buckle. And once they buckle, they have zero load bearing ability.

There is more, but those are the essentials. Work through the consequences of what occurs when the upper segments masses hit and destroy the floors.

Frankly, I'm not too concerned with how you've assessed my knowledge on this subject. I disagree with your assessment, and since I'm sort of "numero uno" when it comes to deciding what I do, I'll go ahead and ignore all of your very gracious advice.

Your disagreement has no basis. This is not my knowledge. This is a summary of the knowledge generated by researchers who've studied the collapse. If you have zero understanding of how the towers were built - and so far, you're showing that you do - then you have zero basis for your arguments.

This is even ignoring the fact that you've not substantiated your claims about mass ejection quantitatively.

With respect with my short time on this forum, I have no rapport with you as a poster. I don't think we've ever had a legitimate back and forth once here. You 'OMG facepalm'd' a post of mine in this thread without explanation, I challenged that, and then you quoted--not the original post I made--but the 2 or 3 sentence rebuttal. Not only that, but you've responded to that short post of mine with a long, drawn-out lecture. It's odd, to say the least.

You're getting the lecture because I see all the posts you've made, not just the ones addressed to me, and you're demonstrating that you do not yet have the understanding needed to analyze the collapses. Furthermore, others here have also correctly identified which of your posts I addressed, so you seem to be the only one who can't figure out what I was referring to.

I identified which post I thought was facepalm worthy, quoted it, and even explained why. If you don't understand that, then that's your problem to work through.

And your giant ad hominem sludge fest finally comes to an end.

There's a difference between ad hom and a straight put down: One is "your argument is invalid because you're ignorant", the second is "your argument is incorrect because of (X,Y,Z), and you're ignorant". I commit the latter.

Read those links. I don't care what you think of me, but if you want to understand what we know here, you'd better read those links. They directly cover what you need to know to debate with people here.

 

[Thunder]

The concrete core is being blown into dust.

how can you say something as inaccurate as this, and expect folks to take your comments on the WTC collapses seriously?

Its a very honest question.

 

[Edx]

They're meant to avoid such ejections for what reason? And how would that reason apply to this situation? And have buildings of these design ever been destroyed in such a manner?

So why on Earth would the objectives of professional CDs apply here?

Uh...because in CDs you don't have to launch material laterally with really intense explosives. Why would you use explosives that are beyond what is necessary to knock out the columns?

Richard Gage tells us that the conspirators decided to use really intense explosives such as to hurl beams laterally at 65mph. But before he explains all this, he sort of hints at a very obvious problem with his laughably preposterous hypothesis:

"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."-Richard Gage

Ok Richard, so we just need to cut these beams with thermite, and the noise control problem is solved. Oh but wait, we have more from Gage!

"The explosives had to be so intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage

Oh, so now they are using explosives; and we're not talking about just any explosives, these are REALLY INTENSE explosives (which means REALLY INTENSE explosions that would give a way your project ) that don't only knock out the beams (the beams which are already cut by the thermite, and that could be blasted with less intense eplosives like those used in other CD's where the columns are NOT ejected laterally) but actually EJECT them laterally at 65 mph landing 500 feet away!

Hehe exactly

I made a video on this ages ago which shows how ridiculously contradictory Gage is in this regard.

So anyone wanting to hear Gage saying those stupid things above should watch it: