Your first problem is you don't realize that the North Tower collapse initiated at the 98th floor which was nearly fully intact with NIST showing only one or two exterior columns damaged. The aircraft had impacted between the 95th and 96th floors, so the 97th floor did not have a lot of damage either. To cause a vertical progression first the columns on the 98th floor would need to be sufficiently heated, but there is no physical evidence of that. Next there would need to be a dynamic load to defeat the factor of safety which still existed below and is why there was not an immediate collapse...
Whilst this topic is strictly off-topic for WTC 7 it is appropriate that I once again explain to you Tony where your physics is wrong - causing you to make this sort of parody claim.
I would welcome a suggestion of a more appropriate thread BUT Tony is repeating the nonsense in this thread. So here goes.
First let me identify your persistent foundation errors:
1) your reasoning continues to follow the error you made back with "Missing Jolt" - the error of taking the B&Z assumption of a falling upper member landing on a static lower tower - and relying on that assumption as if it actually happen. It didn't happen that way. And what did happen did not leave the scenario for "Missing Jolts" or your other claims based on that same erroneous foundation;
2) you reasoning shows no recognition of the reality of:
(a) The initiation stage for WTC1 and WTC2 collapses was a "cascading" failure; AND
(b) Your explanations treat the process as block on block - not as the cascading failure which actually occurred which was an interaction of multiple individual members connected in a framework.
So lets get some basics in place. AND what I am about to explain for the severalth time will be neutral to CD - the understanding of the cascade is the same whether or not there was CD assistance. (that to pre-empt bare assertion claims for CD. if you want to assert CD - your burden of proof AND you still have to fit in within the cascade failure scenario which was observed.)
A) The cascade failure occurred in a zone affected by impact damage and fires. AND may have been assisted by some CD.
B) Your attempted relocation to Floor 98 therefore makes no difference. It was still a cascade - we can deal with the relocation later if we need to. it simply requires "more CD" because the "natural effects" possibly not as strong. I'm glad it is your burden of proof BTW.)
Now a cascade failure involves the sequential failure of members where, as each one fails, it sheds load which transfers to another member. In this case the members being columns.
This is the key point. As each member fails it is part of a mechanism which allows the progressive lowering of the floors above the failure zone. There is no opportunity for "dropping through a space". (As was properly assumed by Bazant for the B&Z limit case AND as wrongly adopted by you as the premise for "Missing Jolt")
Whether the column fails over 1-2-3-4 or more stories as it fails the top end of the failing column moves closer to the bottom end.
If it fails by buckling with assistance from heat the downwards movement of the top end means that the bits in the middle will buckle out of the way - and the ends if and as they buckle will bypass each other. They will not come back into axial contact -there is too much length of column for the available reduced and closing gap. (All those discussions by both sides about "tilt" causing/preventing axial contact were waste of time. For "tilt" to happen the top block had already fallen - biased to one side hence the tilt. Too late for axial contact. The opportunity already past. And it is not only truthers who have missed that "bleedingly obvious" point.)
(I have no doubt that you will want to insert a "yes but" at that point. I'll come back to it if necessary.)
IF the failure is CD induced it may create a gap - and that leaves potential for axial contact as the falling bit hits the bottom bit. Defer that one till later also.
The overall scenario is one where the weakest column - whichever one has the combination of increased load due to redistribution AND strength lowering due to heat - that column fails. Its loads transfer and the "dominoes process" of the cascade continues.
Allowing for some dynamic and distribution issues the process continues until the net remaining capacity of the unfailed columns is less than the weight of the top block. Those columns can no longer support the top block. The top block descends and immediately fails the columns that were still surviving.
And throughout that process - for
each column as it fails - the gap into which the column originality fitted is getting less. NOTE: "each column" - that is where the "single block mindset" leads people off the track.
In reality there was no opportunity for broken end bits of falling columns to move through a gap and land on their lower portions of broken column.
OK that is enough of an outline of what actually happened. Lets look at some of the points you claim:
P)
"Your first problem is you don't realize that the North Tower collapse initiated at the 98th floor which was nearly fully intact with NIST showing only one or two exterior columns damaged." Whether or not you succeed in relocating the initiation to 98th floor does not change my argument. So I will note the goalpost shift and pass on.
Q)
"The aircraft had impacted between the 95th and 96th floors, so the 97th floor did not have a lot of damage either." True and unsupported bare assertion respectively. If you need the "little damage on 97" factor - your problem because it is your burden of proof for your claim. The issue is NEUTRAL to what I am explaining.
R)
"...To cause a vertical progression first the columns on the 98th floor would need to be sufficiently heated,..." (Remember that I already accepted
for moot purposes the relocation to Floor 98.) Yes BUT watch for the implied "all" or "lots of" columns. The only columns which needed heating were the ones which at whatever stage of the cascade needed some heat effect to combine with the redistributed loads AND whatever bracing removal may have caused increased column length. (I suggest read that several times. And it needs a good understanding/grasp of the loading and thermal dynamics of the cascade failure to comprehend that comment.)
S) "but there is no physical evidence of that." your problem - your burden of proof.
NOW THIS NEXT ONE IS THE GRAND DADDY OF ALL THE MISUNDERSTANDING'S.
T) "Next there would need to be a dynamic load to defeat the factor of safety which still existed below.." Not so. And that is a big central error in your reasoning AND in the reasoning of all those - either side - who have played along with you.
So everyone read these two bits slowly:
There was very little dynamic loading needed to progress the cascade failure of initiation.
AND
Once the Top Block was moving - the cascade was already unstoppable.
U) "... and is why there was not an immediate collapse..." er... put simply...not so.
THEN - whether the following bits of phyasics are right or wrong is irrelvant. So I don't need to comment further.
....Dynamic load is an amplified load consisting of the static load plus the dynamic amplification. In equation form it would be
Force = mg + m(deceleration)
Where the m(deceleration) component is the dynamic amplification. Thus a dynamic force or load requires deceleration. When the North Tower (WTC 1) upper section descent was measured it showed no deceleration. This means there was no dynamic load. The structure had a factor of safety of at least 3 to 1 in the core and 5 to 1 on the exterior. This means it could support at least three times the static load without collapse even with 15% of its columns removed. Without a deceleration and dynamic load there is no natural collapse explanation.
The reality is that the initiation and the vertical progression were due to artificial weakening by the legs (core columns) being taken out from under it and pulling the exterior columns inward and causing them to buckle due to eccentric loading. Of course, the Styptics here will cry foul and try to come up with all kinds of fraudulent excuses because that is what they do, hence this forum should be called the International Styptics Forum.
