Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

[Clayton Moore]

Wrong. 2/11(18%) of the building completely crushed the floor beneath it 1/110(.01%)

So the 1/110 and 1/110 that made contact would both be crushed?

 

[twinstead]

So the 1/110 and 1/110 that made contact would both be crushed?

Do you mean the 2/11 and 1/100? If so, yes, but the one on the loosing side of gravity would suffer the most. Unless you think that crushing somehow makes mass vanish.

Lefty is right; you just disproved verinage. VERINAGE IS A HOAX!!!111!!!1

 

[Clayton Moore]

Do you mean the 2/11 and 1/100? If so, yes, but the one on the loosing side of gravity would suffer the most. Unless you think that crushing somehow makes mass vanish.

Wrong. Not even close.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The math says it all.
2/11(18%) of a building is not going to completely crush the undamaged portion, 9/11(82%), of the building beneath it.

Please explain why that would be the case......are you confusing mass with strength?
Build a house of cards and see why you are wrong (again)

In any case the top didn't crush the bottom in the way you suggest. It didn't need to as the pancaking of the floors destroyed the buildings.

 

[twinstead]

Wrong. Not even close.

You haven't exactly shown your engineering expertise in your posting history; pardon me if I require a second opinion.

 

[000063]

The math says it all.
2/11(18%) of a building is not going to completely crush the undamaged portion, 9/11(82%), of the building beneath it.

Someone worked it out. The portion that collapsed hit the lower portion with the force of roughly thirty times its own weight.

 

[Edx]

And that no other material looks like "molten material" when viewed falling from a distance.

And this

http://translate.google.com/transla...//www.nrk.no/vitenskap-og-teknologi/1.7793083

As far as I can make out it wasn't to show that aluminium glows when it melts, but to show the explosive reaction when it comes in contact with water.

However, look at what happened to it and how it behaves.

 

[LSSBB]

Wrong. Not even close.

What's the ratio of all the floors above to the one floor below it crushes first?

 

[leftysergeant]

Wrong. Not even close.

Okay, Clayton, adjust your tin foil and think for a moment.

Let us say that we have four slabs, each weighing three pounds, suspsended one above the other on brackets that break at a static load of four pounds.

What happens if we drop the top slab onto the next-to-the-top?

 

[Travis]

Heck just look at a video of a human pyramid where the person at the top falls.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Someone worked it out. The portion that collapsed hit the lower portion with the force of roughly thirty times its own weight.

Did they?

Your scenario has TWO "portions" meeting with the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion"

The concussion would damage both portions equally.

The two damaged "portions" would become a buffer between the remaining 19 upper floors and the intact 89 floors.

Would the 19 floors plus the two damaged floors have the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion" against the next floor?



For a pancake theory to work the floors had to stay INTACT in order
maintain the force needed to "collapse" the next lower floor.

A crushed floor(s) would defuse the force. Just as a falling bag of sand would be destructive, the release of the same amount of loose sand would have much less force and be much less destructive.

 

[Justin39640]

Did they?

Your scenario has TWO "portions" meeting with the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion"

The concussion would damage both portions equally.

The two damaged "portions" would become a buffer between the remaining 19 upper floors and the intact 89 floors.

Would the 19 floors plus the two damaged floors have the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion" against the next floor?



For a pancake theory to work the floors had to stay INTACT in order
maintain the force needed to "collapse" the next lower floor.

A crushed floor(s) would defuse the force. Just as a falling bag of sand would be destructive, the release of the same amount of loose sand would have much less force and be much less destructive.

My brain hurts now...

 

[ozeco41]

My brain hurts now...

We know he doesn't understand - or doesn't want to admit that he understands.
BUT try this:

...Your scenario has TWO "portions" meeting with the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion"...

I couldn't guarantee 30 times but certainly of that order and overwhelming.

...The concussion would damage both portions equally....

Outright wrong.

...The two damaged "portions" would become a buffer between the remaining 19 upper floors and the intact 89 floors....

Depends what he is implying by "buffer". There would be damaged bits between the undamaged parts. BUT so what? it has no effect on the collapse.

...Would the 19 floors plus the two damaged floors have the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion" against the next floor?...

whether exactly 30 times I cannot say. But the force would still be overwhelmingly large relative to the strength of the next bit to fail.

...For a pancake theory to work the floors had to stay INTACT in order maintain the force needed to "collapse" the next lower floor...

Hogwash. Outright untrue naturally.

...A crushed floor(s) would defuse the force....

More hogwash. The falling mass if imposed statically would still be overwhelming. Whether or not the crushed material had any dampening effect in the actual dynamic application it would be second or lower order. No effect on outcome..

...Just as a falling bag of sand would be destructive, the release of the same amount of loose sand would have much less force and be much less destructive.

A stupid false analogy which has been dealt with in other threads.

 

[Travis]

Incredibly a thousand tons of rubble weighs the same as a thousand ton block!

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

...The concussion would damage both portions equally....

Outright wrong.

Why wouldn't the damage be basically the same?

 

[Toke]

Incredibly a thousand tons of rubble weighs the same as a thousand ton block!

There exist a video of a huge bulldozer tipping a few tons of water onto a car. It is clearly faked as the car is totalled and we all know that water is softer than steel.

I assume you have heard of ships getting damaged by waves during storms, those are clearly insurance scams.

 

[ozeco41]

Why wouldn't the damage be basically the same?

You are talking about the start of the "global collapse".

Remember that we are not dealing with homogeneous solids (The Heiwa mistake and part of the Richard Gage cardboard boxes mistake).

The bits that came into contact were not the same strength.

For example at the outer perimeter the contact was mainly "floor plus outer columns" striking "floor only" - that for those sides where the outer perimeter of the top section fell inside the outer perimeter of the bottom section. Vice versa in the reverse case.

The core on core was similar but a bit more complicated.

All of it best understood if you gain a good understanding of the mechanisms.

 

[leftysergeant]

For a pancake theory to work the floors had to stay INTACT in order
maintain the force needed to "collapse" the next lower floor.

A crushed floor(s) would defuse the force. Just as a falling bag of sand would be destructive, the release of the same amount of loose sand would have much less force and be much less destructive.

Bull feathers. Now you are as good as asserting that snow cannot crush a roof.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You are talking about the start of the "global collapse".

Remember that we are not dealing with homogeneous solids (The Heiwa mistake and part of the Richard Gage cardboard boxes mistake).

The bits that came into contact were not the same strength.

For example at the outer perimeter the contact was mainly "floor plus outer columns" striking "floor only" - that for those sides where the outer perimeter of the top section fell inside the outer perimeter of the bottom section. Vice versa in the reverse case.

The core on core was similar but a bit more complicated.

All of it best understood if you gain a good understanding of the mechanisms.

I'm referring to portion 1/110A with 19/110 connected above it smashing into another portion 1/110B.


The concussion would damage both portions equally.

 

[leftysergeant]

For example at the outer perimeter the contact was mainly "floor plus outer columns" striking "floor only" - that for those sides where the outer perimeter of the top section fell inside the outer perimeter of the bottom section.

You can see in some of the video that there is dust being ejected from windows several floors below the wave of destruction of the perimeter columns, often well in advance of the ejection of dust on the other side of the tower. This could very well be the result of core columns coming straight down onto the floors and penetrating a little faster than would the mere accumulated mass of rubble.