I do hope you're not trying to suggest that one or both the towers could ever be pulled down in this type of demolition? Some cable and a couple of Hi-Macs might struggle with that. The fact the building you show can be pulled down like that shows just how it was built - not like a wtc tower, not even close. Shall we look at some plans and pictures of those types of construction and compare to the wtc?
Scale is the confusing factor here. Have a look at how small the Pres Saint Jean tower is next to the WTC:
Obviously it's not going to look exactly the same, but it demonstrates the principle.
and doesn't that last also show the falling upper portion of the building clearly crushing itself as well as the structure below? Yes it does, very clearly. And roughly at a 1:1 ratio with the lower floors. Thanks for that.
your website is increasingly fractious. it's very tedious.
Yes, the other building looks very small in your montage. I'm not sure why you think it's confusing though.
Anyone need just look at the pictutre we are discussing and if they are looking at it with an honest eye, what words might come to mind?
Can't argue with that.Originally Posted by lee h oswald
It's confusing because people tend to scale things up, and expect them to behave the same. But weight is proportional to the cube to the length, and there are other scaling difference. Drop a kitten from ten times its height and it will be fine. Drop an elephant from ten times its height and it will splatter.Yes, the other building looks very small in your montage. I'm not sure why you think it's confusing though.
"Large", "dust", and "wow". How about you?Anyone need just look at the pictutre we are discussing and if they are looking at it with an honest eye, what words might come to mind?
I made you another video:
Here's an excellent example of someone confused by scale:
Eruption
There's no precedent for this, that's why you can't find any examples. Using all the ability we have going for us, and despite your protests, it is clear that the official version is not true. I would like to know the truth. It won't be found here.
Eruption implies things being thrown into the air. This is all falling down and sideways.
Here's an eruption - note it's all going up, carried upwards by the hot air.
Pyroclastic flow would be a better volcanic analogy, like this:
Last edited by Mick; April 7th, 2012 at 12:49 PM.
Mick,
You have the patience of a saint. That's all i can say.
Verinage looks exactly like the wtc collapses.
Not as much fun or mystery as space beams or hidden explosives granted.
But which is more likely?
You would use these words to describe: "Large", "dust", and "wow". Then you asked: How about you?
I said: Eruption and you reply: Eruption implies things being thrown into the air. This is all falling down and sideways. And you even provide pictures.
Eruption implies things being thrown in the air, does it? What are you talking about? Are you saying nothing was thrown in the air? Anyway, you're wrong again, the meaning of the word 'eruption' does not 'imply' anything. Words are used as a means of identifying and communicating. Eruption:a sudden violent spontaneous occurrence (usually of some undesirable condition). I think that sums it up quite well. You shouldn't attempt to lecture me on the meaning of the words I choose, you really are on pretty thin ice with that one.
Last edited by lee h oswald; April 8th, 2012 at 03:46 AM.
You say the wtc destruction looks exactly like a controlled demolition. You have now all agreed that the wtc destruction looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Well done everybody! Now, I'm still waiting to see some evidence, an example - one will do, of this famous 'progressive collapse' everyone here seems to be so knowing about, which is not a controlled demolition - anyone?
Last edited by Mick; April 8th, 2012 at 06:12 AM. Reason: Politeness deletetions
Just because somethings resembles something does not mean it IS that thing.
The question at hand is if the collapse of the WTC is consistent with progressive collapse, or as lee put it "Would anyone care to say that this looks like a 'progressive collapse'?"
Verinage is an example of progressive collapse, but on much smaller buildings.
Allowing for scale, the WTC collapse looks like the Verinage collapses.
Hence it is consistent with progressive collapse.
Mick:It would be more logical to say: the WTC collapse looks like the Verinage collapses.the WTC collapse looks like the Verinage collapses.
Hence it is consistent with progressive collapse.
Hence it is consistent with controlled demolition.
That's what you meant, wasn't it? Just admit that this whole angle of yours is absurdly flawed.
Where exactly is that example of progressive collapse that is not a controlled demolition? How come you claim to be an expert on 'progressive collapse'. What is a progressive collapse? The result of a controlled demolition? Show me an example that is not.
I love the way you just ignore things you can't answer; practise didactic dribble on the meaning of words (and get it wrong); deceive by omission; and last but not least, think that the official account of 9/11 is 'a perfectly reasonable account of what happened that day'.
Last edited by Mick; April 8th, 2012 at 07:12 AM. Reason: quote tags
Obviously the WTC was not brought down by Verinage. It was a progressive collapse LIKE verinage.
After I said this you said this: that's just nonsense
But then you posted this:
which shows very clearly the upper block being broken into smaller pieces at about the ratio (in floors) of 1:1, thus confirming that what I said was correct and in full agreement with Newton's third law of motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Even these little buildings require a lot of care to prepare for such an event - to ensure vertical collapse by engineered means. It's really not that hard to understand. That the towers both came down in almost identical fashion was a real stroke of luck, eh? What are the odds?
Last edited by Mick; April 8th, 2012 at 07:18 AM. Reason: fixed image, that was odd.
But it is just nonsense, you said:
Where does the mass go?This means that the mass of the falling upper block was being reduced in mass by the ratio (in floors) of 1:1, ie. one floor per floor crushed below.
The upper floors are not being "reduced in mass" as they break up. They are still there, still falling.
The mass of falling debris increases, as more floors are broken up, and continue to fall.
Like I said: Where exactly is that example of progressive collapse that is not a controlled demolition? How come you claim to be an expert on 'progressive collapse'. What is a progressive collapse? The result of a controlled demolition? Show me an example that is not.
The mass is broken into lots of smaller masses, thus reducing its crushing ability - have a look at the photo we're discussing, the eruption - see all the large pieces of steel flying - no sorry, bouncing off into the distance.....? Have a look at the video you put up - it clearly shows the falling upper portion being broken into smaller pieces and spread.
Anyway, I refer you to the above - until you answer those questions, you've got nothing going in this argument.
I never claimed to be an expert in anything except programming computer games.
Plenty of examples and explanations here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse
What has "crushing ability" got to do with it?
The floors are designed to support their own weigh, plus the weight of the people and contents on that floor only. If you were to drop 10000 tonnes of sand on any one floor, then that floor would fail. In fact it would fail with vastly less than 10000 tons.
Even if the upper floors were reduced to grains of sand, the tower would still collapse.
Question: How much weight can one floor support? (Not the columns, the floor). If that floor fails with 10000 tons of weight on top of it, then what happens?
Here's a good example of what we are talking about - a progressive collapse due to excessive load.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versail..._hall_disaster
There is video of the collapse here (Warning: somewhat disturbing)Initially, the side of the building that failed was designed to be a two story structure, while the other side was designed to be three stories. Late in the construction process, it was decided that both sides of the building should be equal heights, and a third story was added to the shorter side. Unfortunately, the live load due to occupancy is typically much greater than the design load for a roof. As a result, the structure supporting the new third story was subjected to much greater loading than was originally anticipated. The effect of this error was somewhat mitigated by the construction of partitions on the floor below, which helped redistribute the excess load well such that no damage was incurred.A few weeks before the collapse, the wedding hall owners decided to remove the partitions. With the load path eliminated, the floor above began to deflect (or sag) several inches. Generally, engineers design a structure to fail in a controlled, ductile manner so that occupants have ample warning that a collapse is imminent and can evacuate. The owners failed to recognize this and viewed the sagging floor primarily as a cosmetic problem. Their solution was to level the floor with additional grout and fill. However, their approach not only failed to provide additional structural capacity, it also inadvertently introduced a new and significant dead load at the weakened area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0r9LNdhuAs
Now of course this floor failed because of structural defects - but it illustrates the concept of live load, and dead loads, and that there is a point at which a floor will fail if too much load is put on it.
Once a single floor fails, progressive collapse is inevitable.
That's an interesting point, but it does not really hold up.After I said this you said this: that's just nonsense
But then you posted this:
which shows very clearly the upper block being broken into smaller pieces at about the ratio (in floors) of 1:1, thus confirming that what I said was correct and in full agreement with Newton's third law of motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Say you start off with a "block" of ten intact floors, they fall one floor (10 feet) and hit the floor below.
That floor and the bottom floor of the block are crushed together, so now you've got a block of 9 floors plus two floors that are crushed together. 11 floors falling, with the mass increasingly concentrated on the leading edge.
This all falls another 10 feet, continuing to gather speed, the two crushed together floors crush another floor, so now you've got three crushed together floors on the bottom of the block. The 8th floor the block will probably sustain damage, but not that much, as the two floors below do most of the crushing.
So it continues. Eventually the falling mass from the lower floors is more than enough to destroy the remaining floors with no more damage to the upper floors.
The example in the image above does not show this clearly, as it's such a relatively small tower. But the very top two floors seem to stay intact until the effect of the proximity to the ground cause more pushback.
Last edited by Mick; April 8th, 2012 at 09:12 AM.
More fallacy to feast on. I said that the smaller, broken, spread constituent parts of the building being destroyed would have a reduced ability to crush. That isn't arguable, is it? You can see large amounts of smaller, crushed building falling to the side of the footprint in the video you put up. I'm being serious when I ask if you've got an eyesight problem? If you don't then you've got a psychological one that doesn't allow you to see what is uncomfortable.
Here's where you get your knickers all in a twist and prove to anyone who does know that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the design of structural elements of a building: The floors are designed to support their own weigh[t], plus the weight of the people and contents on that floor only.
You haven't worked with any engineers lately, have you? No need to answer.What you seem to be wanting people to forget, is that even the humble Victorian terraced house can handle an influx of maybe a hundred people or more, all dancing and jumping about, playing the grand piano in the middle of the room, jumping on the sofa and the sideboard and chairs and bookshelves, and generally adding a pretty significant 'live' load to the one always present. Funnily enough, the house doesn't collapse neatly, or messily, into its footprint; it survives to see the next party. And it's made with wood and bricks; the floors are made entirely of wood in fact, of quite modest proportions.
I think we need to forget all these examples of controlled demolitions you keep using as evidence to prove that something else was not a controlled demolition. That just doesn't make any sense. What we do need to do is to start looking at the actual buildings involved and to look specifically at their construction detail.
Let me explain something I know more about than you: floor failures - floor failures are in almost all cases not universal and instantaneous, they are creeping and local. In the case of the wtc towers, which you admit looked like a form of controlled demolition from inception to final result, the buildings were constructed in their entirety around a dense net of steel beams and columns, steel r/concrete, steel decking, spandrels, bolts, welding and bracing. The nature of this construction meant that eighty thousand tons of structural steel was tied together into effectively one piece. It was 'over' engineered to the tune of a factor of seven. Nowadays that factor would be even greater, mainly down to engineers being overly circumspect. The chances of one of those towers behaving like a controlled demolition when it wasn't is pretty implausible, the chance of two doing exactly the same thing after suffering different damages to different areas beggars belief. When you really address this then you can see that the official version is a lie - add to that that explosive material was never looked for, plus the demolition of wtc7 then you know you're being lied to. It's obvious; it's blatant: wakey wakey!
Last edited by lee h oswald; April 8th, 2012 at 10:19 AM.
You are comparing a live load of a building packed with people, some of them dancing, to the live load of 10,000 tonnes of steel and concrete being dropped on the floor?
In order to get the same live load with people, you'd need approximately 150,000 people, all on one floor, and all jumping ten feet in the air.
https://www.google.com/search?source...%2F(150+pounds)
And even that's a gross underestimation of the actual loading, as people are inherently more elastic and deformable than steel and concrete. You'd probably need something like half a million people on one floor. All jumping up and down.
And live load, of course, is not just about weight. It's about force. F = ma. There's a huge difference between standing on something and jumping on it.
That is what is known in the trade as 'bollocks'.
The more you speak the less you know.
Shall I go find that post you made about Newton's laws having nothing to do with this? Do you remember that one?
I stand by all my posts.
Live loads are not just weight. The wind, for example, is a live load. Earthquakes are a live load. How much does an earthquake weigh?
you're telling me about loads? get back to your googling. what a load of utter bollocks!
Please explain why you think this is right.
Because the live load is magnified. Previously it was the force of 10 stories falling one floor. Now it's 11 stories falling two floors (less the energy needed to break one floor). The collapse will accelerate. In the case of the WTC collapse, the individual floors offered so little resistance to the massive impact that the collapse was nearly at free fall speed.
Please explain why you think this is right.
and that wasn't an accident
and remember you said this and that it is not right: The floors are designed to support their own weigh, plus the weight of the people and contents on that floor only.
i'm trying to help you with that last one
So: why do you think this statement is right?
Last edited by Mick; April 8th, 2012 at 12:41 PM. Reason: merged multiple posts
Perhaps you can explain why you think my previous answer was wrong?
see above
work it out for yourself
it's a fundamental definition
Last edited by Mick; April 8th, 2012 at 12:44 PM. Reason: Merged
That's not particularly helpful. I don't think it is wrong (seing as that's exactly how Verinage works), but you apparently do, yet you refuse to tell me why?
I'm afraid I'm done for the day, but feel free to expound at length.
I find it interesting that people say the WTCs fell into their "own footprint"- and yet point material falling outside of the footprint as proof of some sort of explosive...
The fact is the buildings fell pretty much straight down and yet so much was outside the foot print that 40+ others buildings were damaged in the surrounding area...including WTC7.
Be that as it may- the rubble pile was quite large and was what one would expect- It reached 5 stories high on the ground level and yet also included several stories below ground.
...and yet, there WAS an explosive event that contributed mightily to the collapse...that being fully a full loaded airplane slamming into the building at ~500mph.
Here is an interesting analysis of the collapse:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Cause%20It.pdf
forget about any of the videos, 10 becomes 11 and all that - it doesn't matter - the live load is nothing like what you are thinking it is because you're missing the point
no more clues
How interesting do you find something you made up in your own head? Did I say that material falling outside the footprint was proof of explosives? Please show me where I said that. I don't think I did. In fact, I know I didn't; and so do you. Show me where I or anyone else said that. I look forward to that.
Go back to sleep, have another beer - isn't there something on tv?
why didn't they test for explosives?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks