Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[Ragnarok]

Uneven support, caused by the weakening of the structure on the side were the plane hit. There is nothing inherently dubious about that. The problem is the lack of the rotation of the block being reflected in the destruction bellow it.

However, that video does show an curious cloud of dust and debris rising from the upper section of the building after it tumbles off to the side, but before it has a chance to hit the ground.

It also shows a curious burst of fire off to the right hand side at 4 seconds in, but I suppose that was just oxygen being pushed into an already burning fire by the collapse? The flame did seem particularly white though, if that means anything.

And if the weight of the building itself was crushing everything below it, rather than an artificial weakening of certain parts contributing to it, why was there still a big spike of the tower left upright momentarily?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It also shows a curious burst of fire off to the right hand side at 4 seconds in, but I suppose that was just oxygen being pushed into an already burning fire by the collapse?

Most likely, yes, or the flame from an already-burning fire being redirected by air movement. Why would anyone think this was unlikely?

And if the weight of the building itself was crushing everything below it, rather than an artificial weakening of certain parts contributing to it, why was there still a big spike of the tower left upright momentarily?

Because it wasn't a homogeneous solid block. The most likely collapse scenario is that the debris from the crushing front was funnelled into the space between the core and the perimeter columns, and caused a progressive collapse of the floor pans which preceded the collapse of the perimeter columns and the core. Neither the core nor the perimeter columns could stand unbraced by the floors, as they exceeded the limit at which they could be self-supporting against buckling failure, so the perimeter columns peeled off after the internal collapse wave had passed. The core would have been badly damaged by collisions from debris, but appears to have failed last of all, leaving the well-known spires standing briefly at the end of the collapse. All this is entirely consistent with a gravity-driven collapse.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

It also shows a curious burst of fire off to the right hand side at 4 seconds in, but I suppose that was just oxygen being pushed into an already burning fire by the collapse? The flame did seem particularly white though, if that means anything.

And if the weight of the building itself was crushing everything below it, rather than an artificial weakening of certain parts contributing to it, why was there still a big spike of the tower left upright momentarily?

Are you really that dense?

a big spike of tower would be because UNLIKE what Bazant discussed and the verinage videos shows, the towers did not come down uniformly and it was not filled with column on column collapses. It was a messy deformation, and that ment that parts of the interior of the bulding were still standing.

Though it is very funny.. since when you implode a building you destroy the CORE first and the building collapses... that big spike of the tower which was left was the CORE. wow... there goes the CD theory...

 

[paulheinze]

Though it is very funny.. since when you implode a building you destroy the CORE first and the building collapses... that big spike of the tower which was left was the CORE. wow... there goes the CD theory...

The spires left standing were only a part of the cores.
For WTC1 see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHxDdbdsCDY
at 15 seconds
Interestingly, the comprised of the weaker columns of the core whereas intuition would suggest that the stronger columns would survive.

 

[Ragnarok]

Most likely, yes, or the flame from an already-burning fire being redirected by air movement. Why would anyone think this was unlikely?

So, why no intense bursts from any of the fires nearer to the collapse, genius? There was a pretty large fire blazing right in the centre of the building, and that didn't rear up with the sudden rush of oxygen, or we'd have noticed it as clearly as the one on the far side from the collapse point.

Because it wasn't a homogeneous solid block. The most likely collapse scenario is that the debris from the crushing front was funnelled into the space between the core and the perimeter columns, and caused a progressive collapse of the floor pans which preceded the collapse of the perimeter columns and the core. Neither the core nor the perimeter columns could stand unbraced by the floors, as they exceeded the limit at which they could be self-supporting against buckling failure, so the perimeter columns peeled off after the internal collapse wave had passed. The core would have been badly damaged by collisions from debris, but appears to have failed last of all, leaving the well-known spires standing briefly at the end of the collapse. All this is entirely consistent with a gravity-driven collapse.

Dave

Go on, I'll take your word for all that. You obviously know what you are on about. Whereas NIST decided to not even bother going there, as it was all too complex and irrelevant.

 

[TruthersLie]

The spires left standing were only a part of the cores.
For WTC1 see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHxDdbdsCDY
at 15 seconds
Interestingly, the comprised of the weaker columns of the core whereas intuition would suggest that the stronger columns would survive.

ah hem.
Let me repeat.

when you do CD to implode a building (which is all of the truther lies about falling into own footprint) you blow up the CORE (all of it) and the building implodes. If any part of the core is still standing, guess what that tells you? It wasn't CD.

Based on your wonderful intutition you have conflated many issues from your hatred of GWB and the immorality of the war in Iraq to jump on the MIHOP bandwagon. So pardon me if your intution doesn't mean squat here.

And thought it may be counterintuitive to you, it isn't to me. Stronger doesn't mean it handles sheering forces better. Oak is stronger than a willow tree... which one survives hurricanes and tornadoes better? the willow.

 

[TruthersLie]

So, why no intense bursts from any of the fires nearer to the collapse, genius?

PMSLMAO.... how about something simple, the initial collapse was where the impacts were... what else was there? Oh massive open spaces, and no place for the air to compress into..

so at the initiation where the impacts were the air flowed out pretty freely... then compress the air down and guess what it does? (feeds the flames, and created those "squibs" you twoofs love so much)

Go on, I'll take your word for all that. You obviously know what you are on about.

definately knows a lot more than you... I'd bet he has forgotten more about physics than you have ever learned. Watching him school you (and Kyle, and paul) has been great fun

 

[TruthersLie]

Whereas NIST decided to not even bother going there, as it was all too complex and irrelevant.

Which is yet another twoof lie. Thank you for playing... we have some lovely twoofie kool aid for you. Drink up.

You may want to think about going back to school and finishing it... I know it is hard and scary, but it really is worth it.

 

[Ragnarok]

Which is yet another twoof lie. Thank you for playing... we have some lovely twoofie kool aid for you. Drink up.

You may want to think about going back to school and finishing it... I know it is hard and scary, but it really is worth it.

Welcome to ignore, troll.

Oh, I've been dying to use that favourite line of all you open-minded thinkers on here!

Consider yourself honoured; you are my first and will always be my favourite.

 

[paulheinze]

ah hem.
Let me repeat.

when you do CD to implode a building (which is all of the truther lies about falling into own footprint) you blow up the CORE (all of it) and the building implodes. If any part of the core is still standing, guess what that tells you? It wasn't CD.

Based on your wonderful intutition you have conflated many issues from your hatred of GWB and the immorality of the war in Iraq to jump on the MIHOP bandwagon. So pardon me if your intution doesn't mean squat here.

And thought it may be counterintuitive to you, it isn't to me. Stronger doesn't mean it handles sheering forces better. Oak is stronger than a willow tree... which one survives hurricanes and tornadoes better? the willow.

So you suggest, I should not point out a detail in order to enhance the quality of a discussion. Do you mean the observation is not correct? If not, what is your problem.
If you think I take my position because of hatred of GWB, does it mean that you defend the official theory because you love GWB?

 

[NutCracker]

So, why no intense bursts from any of the fires nearer to the collapse, genius? There was a pretty large fire blazing right in the centre of the building, and that didn't rear up with the sudden rush of oxygen, or we'd have noticed it as clearly as the one on the far side from the collapse point.



Go on, I'll take your word for all that. You obviously know what you are on about. Whereas NIST decided to not even bother going there, as it was all too complex and irrelevant.

OMG, the ignorant, delusional (Rule 10) doesn't understand some detail, or does pretend not to -> inside jobby-job.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So you suggest, I should not point out a detail in order to enhance the quality of a discussion.

It's fine that you brought up the remnant core structure, however, it does nothing to support your assertion that the towers were "controlled demolitions." If you're arguing in favor of that you might want to choose a different piece of evidence.

Do you mean the observation is not correct? If not, what is your problem. If you think I take my position because of hatred of GWB, does it mean that you defend the official theory because you love GWB?

False dichotomy...

 

[paulheinze]

It's fine that you brought up the remnant core structure, however, it does nothing to support your assertion that the towers were "controlled demolitions." If you're arguing in favor of that you might want to choose a different piece of evidence.

I did not argue in favor of anything. You should be interested in precision of the arguments presented, too. You should try to stick the text written and not with "this-is-twoof-it must-be-wrong"-eyeglasses.

False dichotomy...

Wrong. I did not construct a dichotomy. You should recognize a rhethorical question when you read one.

 

[Ragnarok]

OMG, the ignorant, delusional (Rule 10) doesn't understand some detail, or does pretend not to -> inside jobby-job.

Or alternatively, I am pointing out something that has piqued my curiosity and would like to hear opinions on it - but that would be a far less glamorous thing to rail against, wouldn't it, fool?

 

[Ragnarok]

Btw, the "spike" you see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0 at 10 seconds in, looks more like the outer walls of the tower than the core, which is even more surprising, since seconds before the whole thing was crumbling. But, I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation!

 

[BadBoy]

If truthers can use pizza boxes, chicken wire and filing trays...

Dave

What about blueberries. I tried droping 10 blueberries onto a stack of 100 blueberries...

and suurrrrprise... NO ONEWAY CRUSHDOWN!!

so, government blue up the towers. QED. (cant get away from my dimond edge logic hu)

I tried crushing them down by jumping off a chair my while only wearing my underpants eating 10 blueberries AND holding a box of SIX eggs AT THE SAME TIME to simulate adding additional force with gravitating momentum and they did crush down causing quite a mess. But thats not the same thing at all. (scientifically speaking)

I know I know, I should be wroking for JPL. They wouldnt pay me enough though so Im sticking to stacking shelves.

 

[Ragnarok]

Again, "structural integrity" is not a well defined term.

WHAT? You mean architects have been building structures for centuries upon end, and there is no real clue how they are standing up?

Explain yourself, man!

 

[Ragnarok]

What about blueberries. I tried droping 10 blueberries onto a stack of 100 blueberries...

and suurrrrprise... NO ONEWAY CRUSHDOWN!!

Yes, but I bet you'd have got a nice drink out of it, if you'd done it in a bowl.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, why no intense bursts from any of the fires nearer to the collapse, genius?

Thanks for the recognition. Because chaotic processes produce chaotic results. We don't know any of the fine details enough to predict what should have happened, but it's simple enough to understand some of the details of what did happen.

Go on, I'll take your word for all that. You obviously know what you are on about. Whereas NIST decided to not even bother going there, as it was all too complex and irrelevant.

Exactly right. NIST would have been unable to offer more than a general description of the collapse due to the complexity of modelling it, and this would have added precisely nothing to their understanding of why the collapse began. Too complex, therefore, for anything other than a general account, and irrelevant to the vitally important question (to those with more than the most tenuous grip on reality) of what changes should be made to the way large buildings are constructed for safety.

This is borne out by what we saw, in fact, when NIST gave in to pressure from the delusional and incorporated a collapse model into the WTC7 report. As might be expected, the model didn't match the detailed features of the collapse particularly accurately, leading to the usual paranoid psychotic claims that they were somehow covering up for the impossibly vast conspiracy. I suspect that they regret ever bothering.

Dave

 

[NutCracker]

Or alternatively, I am pointing out something that has piqued my curiosity and would like to hear opinions on it - but that would be a far less glamorous thing to rail against, wouldn't it, fool?

Sure! Just curiousity! Just asking questions! Look, the intelligent are able make inferences from what and how you post.

Well, if the detail interests you, do some real research and report your conclusions and, above all, the logic that brought you to the latter.