The Progressive Collapse Challenge!

[maxpower1227]

I agree with the physics part, but how does gravity force debris up and out instead of down?

Collisions cause that, not gravity.

Here's an idea. Take a supply of marbles, or gravel, or something similar, and dump it out of a container toward the ground. Will it all fall neatly, straight down, and end up in a nice vertical pile? Or will the particles' collisions with the ground and each other force them to spread out on the way down?

The same thing happens here. When a collapsing section of a building falls and slams into the floors below, the momentum of the falling debris gets redirected horizontally as it continues to fall.

EDIT: ok, for some reason I didn't see the last 5 or so posts before mine. Looks like I was beaten.

 

[JimBenArm]

Collisions cause that, not gravity.

Here's an idea. Take a supply of marbles, or gravel, or something similar, and dump it out of a container toward the ground. Will it all fall neatly, straight down, and end up in a nice vertical pile? Or will the particles' collisions with the ground and each other force them to spread out on the way down?

The same thing happens here. When a collapsing section of a building falls and slams into the floors below, the momentum of the falling debris gets redirected horizontally as it continues to fall.

EDIT: ok, for some reason I didn't see the last 5 or so posts before mine. Looks like I was beaten.

No, I think Mr. Dangler was beaten. With a clue-bat.

 

[CHF]

If I'm not mistaken, when a vertical force meets a vertical structure the resulting trajectory is often horizontal, isn't it?

Perhaps that explains debris being pushed "out" when those top blocks of the WTC1 and WTC2 came down.

 

[DGM]

Swing:
Have you spoke to the "truther" rank and file about my offer? If your support is what you say my $100 Million is less than $1 per person. Money well spent for the truth.

 

[leftysergeant]

I agree with the physics part, but how does gravity force debris up and out instead of down?[qimg]http://www.ae911truth.net/images/explo2.jpg[/qimg] and here-

It's quite simple, actually. Stuff above is falling just a little faster than stuf below can get out of the way. So the stuff above has to go somewhere. Some of it rides up over the stuff that is blowing straight out.

The stuff that is slightly lifted is not really going very high. It just appears that way because the stuff below has moved odwnward a little bit before the stuff that was lifted can start falling.

When stuff starts moving, it has to go somewhere until it runs out of energy or hits something.

Is that simple enough for a twoofer mind to grasp?

 

[beachnut]

Nice one! They need more people for the facade. And I don't think they could withstand a sustained 100mph wind, but you never know.


It might be considered ridiculous if you choose to use silly materials.
Scale the structure down using similar materials as used in the towers.

Is there any chance of reducing the costs in order by scaling down the project down for the challenge?

Including the relevant materials that were found in the towers could be used as well, of course.

I agree with the physics part, but how does gravity force debris up and out instead of down?

and here-

Check with some physics teachers and they can show how you are making a big mistake. You should have taken physics and stayed in school.

Cute still pictures, if you watch the video there is no up stuff from explosives. You must not be a thermite guy.

 

[Apollo20]

For those out there who think that the force of gravity cannot force impact debris UPWARDS, let me assure you that I have physical proof that it can!

When I was about 10 years old I did a little experiment in my back yard. I balanced a piece of wood, (about 6 inches long and 1 inch round) on a metal frame several inches off the ground. Then, while standing over this set-up, I dropped, from a height of about 4 feet, a 16 pound iron ball (a sports shot put no less), onto one side of the balanced piece of wood.

Well guess what happened?

Let me tell you!

The piece of wood flew upwards with great velocity and smashed into my nose! I was almost knocked unconscious and wound up with a nasty broken nose and blood splattered all over my face!

I still have the scars and a crooked nose as proof!

Yes, that's one physics lesson I will never forget!

Oh, and one more point - I swear that piece of wood would have shot 50 feet in the air if my nose hadn't got in the way!

 

[MIKILLINI]

Here's something, Swing, to practice with. You can make it collapse at any point you want to. If you can get yourself some scaled down aluminum cladding for the outside perimeter, it may withstand scaled down wind speeds resembling 100 mph.

 

[Furcifer]

Meow

 

[FactCheck]

This page...

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

...and this page...

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

...explains everything. For instance...

The video below shows a large section of perimeter columns leaning over to land flat on it's face.

Like cutting the top of a milk carton off and slitting the corner edges - the walls lean over to land flat on it's face. Some easily hit the Winter Garden building.

As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. The evidence points to a combination of unfought fire and damage which brought down the WTC 7. That's what the NIST draft said as well. The Bankers Trust was also constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter.

Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns.

With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance.

The above photo illustrates just how far the perimeter columns could have gone. If the columns didn't break up as they leaned out they could have made a path to the Hudson river. Reaching Building 7 and the Winter Garden would have been well within reason.

 

[damien pastaume]

I haven't posted in this thread yet, but I wanted to make sure you had noticed this:





If you look at Swing's post, it's clear he has read a lot of this thread - he quotes quite a few messages. But it's also clear, from his two lines above, that he has ignored (on purpose? Perhaps) the posts that deal with the main problems in this "challenge" in the most serious and thoughful manner - that being, the problems with scaling the structures such that the properties of the materials used is consistent with the full-scale buildings.

This is why we usually just goof on such inane challenges - we've seen this sort of behaviour before, and we know our most thoughtful respsonses will simply be ingnored. At some point, most people just get tired of putting in that effort, for no useful result. It used to be we'd kitten the hell out of a thread like this, but that is now frowned upon.

In any case, if you bring up a serious question that hasn't been beaten to death already, you'll find that a lot of people are still willing to discuss it reasonably. 9/11 topics are pretty much exhausted, but if you look at some of the other CTs we've discussed, you'll see some more serious posts.

It isn't the most rigorous of challenges, I'll admit.

Time will only tell if the subject of 9/11 is indeed exhausted.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[NYCEMT86]

i can make a fruit salad and one mean martini do i win?

 

[Horatius]

i can make a fruit salad and one mean martini do i win?

Only one martini? Not a chance....

 

[NYCEMT86]

Only one martini? Not a chance....

Well, if you have more than a few it may start a progressive collapse and the possibility of ejecting 80 percent of your "debris" outside your foot print unless you want some messy shoes.

 

[AZCat]

Swing - could you answer a simple question for me? If I build a structure that meets the dimensional requirements of Challenge #2, does it have to withstand 100 mph wind, or a wind that is scaled properly for the ratio between the size of my model and the size of the WTC towers?

Bonus question: if I build a 1:100 scale model, what would be required wind speed for my model to produce the equivalent effects of a 100 mph wind on the WTC towers?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Time will only tell if the subject of 9/11 is indeed exhausted.

You don't mind if I make popcorn while we wait to find out do you?

 

[Minadin]

I can make a martini that tastes almost exactly like rainbow sherbet ice cream. I'm not sure if that wins me anything here, but girls seem to like it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I can make a martini that tastes almost exactly like rainbow sherbet ice cream. . . .

[purist]
Then it's not a martini.
[/purist]


(NOTE: This in no way should be construed to imply that you shouldn't be proud of making a tasty cocktail; especially if the ladies enjoy it)

 

[Anti-sophist]

For those out there who think that the force of gravity cannot force impact debris UPWARDS, let me assure you that I have physical proof that it can!

As do I. But I got video. I win.



I believe you'll find the same physical principles apply in all cases.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Here's something, Swing, to practice with. You can make it collapse at any point you want to. If you can get yourself some scaled down aluminum cladding for the outside perimeter, it may withstand scaled down wind speeds resembling 100 mph.

[qimg]http://www.mypeopleconnection.com/community/games/2003gamepics/jenga01.jpg[/qimg]

Nice Jenga. Now, you will have to remove "one level" all at the same time to get symmetrical failure at all critical points. Or better yet, separate the the top few levels of the Jinga, lift the top remaining levels and drop it onto the bottom part.
Global collapse or did the top slide off the rest of the structure that still stands?

Cl1mh4224rd The Department of Civil Engineering at Tsinghua University in Beijing already did this back in 2002, Swing Dangler: http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

Did anyone else see the core in this picture? Or am I missing something??