|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
26th April 2015, 12:44 AM | #2241 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
A couple of remarks on details:
|
26th April 2015, 01:08 AM | #2242 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
26th April 2015, 01:12 AM | #2243 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Tony's stubborn insistence on seeing video of a specific side of one building is designed purely to justify his continuing ignorant bluster. There is ample photographic evidence of bowing in the minutes before collapse.
|
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
26th April 2015, 02:33 AM | #2244 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
And that, quite simply, is the problem in microcosm; you choose to disbelieve anything that disagrees with your preferred conclusion, and edit your recollections to suit. Your entire thought process is GIGO, and you set yourself up as a gatekeeper to ensure that nothing but garbage goes in. I'd tell you to go back and read NCSTAR1.6D again, but what would be the point? You'd decide in advance what you wanted it to say, and see excuses where there are actually explanations. So you might as well carry on believing to the depths of your being that reality is other than what it is, and that the whole world is out of step with you, and revel in your irrelevance.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
26th April 2015, 03:09 AM | #2245 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
|
Undoubtedly so, but this is common in most people at some level, such as, "My son/daughter would never do that!" I.e. parental denial. The heartland of the U.S. has been griped with a similar situation albeit from different circumstances -- the shooting death of Michael Brown at the hands of a white police officer. Many people who wanted the issue to be nothing other than a racial one refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence of the incident. They can't admit that sometimes white officers use appropriate force to respond to an incident involving black people because their belief is that *all* white police officers who or will kill black people do so *only because* they are *all* racists who hate black people because they're black. It is a rigorous militant ideological construct similar to new wave feminism, certain environmental groups, anti-abortion groups, the so-called Freemen of the Land, religious fundamentalists, die-hard sports fans, political partisans, Beliebers, and on down the line.
|
26th April 2015, 04:13 AM | #2246 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
There is a big difference between core led vs. perimeter led collapse and it is important to get it right. It isn't very hard, as only core led is possible and it then explains inward bowing and buckling of the perimeter due to its pull-in by the core through the floors.
NIST needs to redo the analysis to show core led collapse and also explain how the horizontal propagation across the entire building could occur in less than a second. |
26th April 2015, 04:45 AM | #2247 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
I don't tend to believe irrational explanations and that is what we have been given for why they did not get pull-in forces sufficient to cause exterior column inward bowing due to truss sagging.
FEA models are fully capable of generating the forces and showing the deformation if it was actually there. It is in fact the nonsensical staying with the hypothesis of truss sagging causing inward bowing minutes before collapse, when it couldn't be shown as a mechanism, that would actually fit what you are saying. It is the GIGO here and you haven't and can't show otherwise. All you can do is accuse me of the same thing without a basis. The basis for what I am saying is in the NIST report. The explanation there is not rational. |
26th April 2015, 05:05 AM | #2248 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
False statement, no the models can not possible create the conditions seen on 9/11/2001 in the twin towers, just ask any competent structural engineer, the only way to duplicated the event would be to build an exact duplicate of the buildings and crash planes into them!
The models are not designed to duplicate the real events, and the collapses were not core lead, or perimeter lead both seemed to have failed at the same time, do to connection Failure. When the connections the weakest parts fail disunification occurs, and the structure that resists gravitational collapse no longer exists. |
26th April 2015, 05:35 AM | #2249 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
If you can't duplicate your hypothesis with a finite element model then you are supposed to test. A test to see if sagging trusses could have pulled in the exterior columns could have easily been done. It would not require more than a few floors from one side of the building. That was not done and the reason it was not done is that there is no chance sagging trusses caused exterior column inward bowing minutes before collapse. The truss sagging explanation for inward bowing has no basis. It is utter nonsense and the gullible here don't question it.
|
26th April 2015, 05:44 AM | #2250 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
To the best of my knowledge there are no videos of the South face in the public domain. There were not "several helicopters" filming from all sides in the minutes leading up to the collapse. All but one (the NYPD) were grounded shortly after the second impact. The NYPD was not video taping, they provided still pictures and Tony claims the NIST altered their timing.
The inward bowing was reported to the NYPD and FDNY. Up thread a bit Tony quoted a passage saying ALL the emergency responders didn't get the message, to him this means it as never reported. Several commanders did report hearing the warning from the helicopter and the news did report it (video of news report up thread) . |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
26th April 2015, 05:51 AM | #2251 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
26th April 2015, 05:53 AM | #2252 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Where I am
Posts: 412
|
Tony, apologies but I haven't been here for that much of the thread and I've just realised I'm not clear on your position.
How much of the 'official narrative' do you disagree with? That the collapse was unplanned but not how NIST claims it happened, or that the towers were deliberately destroyed with explosives instead, or...? |
__________________
put tiny words on my posts how change signature forum signatue ideas best sandwich filling to disguise mold steal forum signature not get caught peanut butter expiry danger pictures how clear search history |
|
26th April 2015, 05:55 AM | #2253 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
26th April 2015, 06:10 AM | #2254 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
NIST even talks about videos being examined where they talk about this alleged "minutes before collapse" inward bowing in their report. I would like to see them.
In the article I showed you here from 2004 the NIST representative said the alleged NYPD mention of inward bowing on 9/11/2001 was "not communicated". This contradicts what you say as you had earlier claimed you heard about it on Sept. 11, 2001. |
26th April 2015, 06:25 AM | #2255 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
26th April 2015, 06:31 AM | #2256 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
26th April 2015, 06:44 AM | #2257 | |||
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Evidently the NYPD was video taping.
From a NIST FIOA request. |
|||
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
||||
26th April 2015, 07:34 AM | #2258 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
cherry picking and quote mining, the stuff of woo, the tools used to create 911 truth fantasy CD
No legitimate reason from 911 truth; for 13 years. Bowing, appears 40 times in the final report (bow - 55). Thermite, zero. CD, 3 times, as in CD did not happen. Who planted the explosives in your CD fantasy. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
26th April 2015, 08:33 AM | #2259 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
|
Well, I will leave Ozeco41 to explain the absence of deceleration for the 41st time, or Dave Rogers to show the graph of deceleration again. And BTW, if there was no deceleration in the Towers, why did the building collapse at 70% of freefall? That by definition is deceleration, with or without a jolt.
But the main point you bring up, that I asked the wrong question, is very interesting. Tony, you know very well that there are people in 9/11 Truth who have said that a steel-framed building has never AND CAN never collapse by fire alone, that even if one floor collapses the next floor would arrest the fall, etc etc etc. But even more importantly, you said that if YOU were to show them lack of deceleration etc, my 14 physicists would give a very different answer. And BTW I have also talked with several structural engineers, including one licensed in New York who works on high-rises and who believes the US government "Let it Happen On Purpose." They too had the same answer for me, and the New York LIHOP S.E. guy even had studied the collapse of the Towers! He went through a long detailed explanation of how the structure weakened to the point of collapse inevitability with NO evidence or need for CD. Can you see why I reject your theories when you can't even get the support of a LIHOP guy when I go "out on the street" to get independent opinions on the 9/11 collapses? But I digress. My main point is this: you said that IF you were to ask my 14 physicists about the alleged lack of deceleration, you would get a different answer. So DO IT. Find a structural engineering firm that does work on skyscrapers, and hire them to write a white paper analyzing your work. Here in Colorado, a local radio guy on the station where I volunteer organized a live conversation between Lesley Robertson and Steven Jones, and oh my, there's another guy in the structural engineering world who totally disagrees with you. And I have asked expert after expert about every aspect of the 9/11 Truth theory and NO ONE ever agrees with anything any of you say! I've done my homework, checking out your theories against the views of experts as best I can. Now it's your turn. Raise a few thousand dollars and hire an accredited expert in the field to analyze your work. Come back to us when you have something tangible from them. |
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com |
|
26th April 2015, 08:38 AM | #2260 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
For clarity on the article Tony claims supports his belief:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news A couple additional quotes:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
26th April 2015, 08:52 AM | #2261 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
No this is wrong. The core would need to have dropped 23 feet to cause the 55" bow seen and causing the building to collapse. Also the perimeter columns bowed at the edges where there were no columns to pull.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...59#post9060359
Quote:
You admit that the horizontal propagation took time to spread across the entire building. This occurred for both towers. As a corollary to this, the misalignment by rotation and sequential columns failures proves “the Jolt” wrong, as this “jolt” requires two conditions to be true, that the columns impact simultaneously and that they hit axially, that is with all the surfaces mating perfectly. Since the perimeter column walls were 1 /4” thick, this simultaneous, axial columns impact after a rotating, sequential fall of 12 feet is impossible, as observed by the successive columns collapse of the initial failed floor in each of the towers. The three claims: the core collapse pulling in the perimeter columns, the claim there is no explanation how the failure propagated over time across the entire building, and the “Jolt” are conclusively shown to be wrong. It is your obligation then to publicly correct these mistakes, as these false claims, uncorrected, deceive those less competent to determine what is right. Will you publicly correct these errors. |
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum |
|
26th April 2015, 09:45 AM | #2262 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
911 truth experts can't simulate bowing? Why not? NIST simulation showed 43 inches of bowing. Who planted the explosives which left no evidence, no blast effects, no sounds of explosives, etc.
Can you source your claim? The NIST simulation shows 43 inches of bowing. ... read NIST. How does the core pull in the shell, cause bowing over 5 minutes? Did your explosives suck in the core slowly? Explain how bowing works with the core, when bowing was slowing increasing over many minutes? Oh, you have to make up a lie an say the bowing never happened slowly... or what. What does 911 truth have; silent explosives which cause the core to slowly fail over many minutes? Where is 911 truth's simulation, where is their model? No engineering was used to make up the fantasy of CD. Have you told the FBI it was CD? Do you understand NIST is not the crime stoppers, the FBI is? What did the FBI say when you flooded them with the overwhelming evidence 911 truth claims to have? |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
26th April 2015, 11:54 AM | #2263 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Is that Tony Szamboti's state of knowledge also? Does he also agree that there are no videos of the south face in the minutes and seconds before collapse?
Does Tony Szamboti accept this explanation for the absence of such videos? Or does he make additional claims in that regard? Which? Does Tony Szamboti offer any evidence for this claim? Does Tony Szamboti agree that such eyewitness testimony exists? Does Tony Szamboti accept such eyewitness testimony as evidence? If not, why not? |
26th April 2015, 12:03 PM | #2264 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
He asserts there has to be with no supporting evidence.
After further looking I found there were 2 NYPD helicopters present. I posted the video available from one of them. Besides "there has to be", no. No. No. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
26th April 2015, 01:24 PM | #2265 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
I'm beginning to think I'm slightly deranged in persisting with the case of the still photos of the S side of WTC1 when almost everyone seems obsessed with video. The photos are proof postive that the bowing occurred as claimed.
Fretting about non-existent video is just dancing to Tony's tune. |
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
26th April 2015, 01:34 PM | #2266 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
26th April 2015, 01:42 PM | #2267 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
I merely want to get to the core and structure of Tony's claims and arguments wrt those (non-existing) videos. I actually would love if Tony himself answered my question. I try to word them precisely and hope for precise answers that actually answer the questions, not strawman versions.
Of course the aim to expose Tony's utterly fallacious reasoning and irrational criteria for evidence. |
26th April 2015, 01:51 PM | #2268 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Deceleration has the opposite sign of acceleration. It actually causes velocity to decrease. Acceleration that is 70% that of gravitational acceleration is still positive and continues to cause velocity to increase. It is not deceleration. This kind of misunderstanding on your part makes me realize that you, along with a lot of others here, are rejecting controlled demolition theories because you don't know enough to make a proper determination, even when the information is given to you.
The technical people you say you talked to may have had enough knowledge of engineering and physics but did not have all of the information available to them to make a proper determination. I am sure they would have sided with me if they had all of the information such as constant acceleration (no deceleration), the antenna drop indicating core led collapse, no mechanism for the alleged inward bowing, focused jets observed on the corners of the building etc. I know someone who went to Stanford in the last five years and he asked for and got an appointment with a well known civil engineering professor in his office. He asked his opinion about the building collapses after telling him the North Tower never decelerated. He quickly said he realized the building had to have been demolished and then said he was already involved in some things that had some political issues and that 911 was 100 times more severe in that sense and he felt he really couldn't do much and that it would cause him problems in other things he was doing where he had a chance to make a difference. |
26th April 2015, 02:08 PM | #2269 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
The only information conveyed by this paragraph is that Tony doesn't understand the concept of vector algebra, and can't conceive of the fact that a force in one direction sums with a smaller force in the other direction to produce a smaller resultant force in the original direction. Nor does he particularly understand that dynamic loading involves a force being exerted, rather than a deceleration occurring, and that acceleration is the effect and force the cause. Further evidence for this lack of understanding will of course be provided by his response to this post, if he's foolish enough to offer one.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
26th April 2015, 02:21 PM | #2270 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
26th April 2015, 02:24 PM | #2271 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
26th April 2015, 02:57 PM | #2272 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
How fast was a gravity collapse suppose to be? The time of the collapse on 911 is exactly what a gravity collapse would be. The failed fantasy of CD, in the 13th year of nonsense. You offer no math, no physics, no engineering.
Name the engineers. You can't, you made up the story. Or you found another failed engineer who can't explain 911. LOL, the paranoia of BS on 911. How does a failing building decelerates, slows down? Explain in great detail. oops, you can't. No building could collapse. Even CD uses the building to collapse the building. The explosives used for CD are small, and energy stored in the building is released and E=mgh makes up the majority of the energy to destroy the building. CD is a gravity collapse, thus you offer nothing but BS on the topic. Did you report the CD to the FBI? No, you can't, it is a fantasy. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
26th April 2015, 03:52 PM | #2273 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
26th April 2015, 04:43 PM | #2274 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
26th April 2015, 04:48 PM | #2275 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
That is my concern also.
Tony is simply trolling. His posts continue to display a near zero regard for honesty and abysmal ignorance of BOTH engineering applied physics AND the underlying basic principles of physics. Whether he is truly so lacking in understanding OR is simply fabricating untruths deliberately is of little relevance. Which begs the question of "Why does he come here spouting untruths when he knows he is wrong AND knows that we all know he is and several of us can explain in detail what is right and why he is wrong?" And that goes to the behavioural psychology of obsession...which I won't pursue here. He is wrong. And has been told many times by me and others exactly where the root of his errors is wrt Twin Towers collapse initiation. He does not understand the essentially 3D mechanisms of the cascading failures that initiated the Twin Towers collapses. Like you GlennB I do not see the benefit of feeding his ego by pursuing his derailing bits of nonsense. Your comments about still pictures are valid. But the real issue underlying the while this is that the cascading failure succeeded. Whether it was core led or perimeter lad doesn't change the fact - is succeeded. Whether or not Tony comprehends the engineering/physics is not relevant. The real answer for Tony's lack of comprehension is EITHER: 1) Learn physics so he can understand the mechanism for himself; OR 2) Stop ignoring those members who like me - ozeco41 - both understand what happened and are capable of explaining it in language that a person who does not understand the physics can comprehend. I do not see the benefit of chasing his rabbit burrowing derails and trolling BUT I'll sit on the side until we get back to the real issue. (The actual OP topic long lost in history - and my answer is still "Yes" ---and for those who don't read the IP logic "Undecided" is a valid opinion. ) |
26th April 2015, 07:21 PM | #2276 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Dave, you couldn't answer the request for a mechanism to cause the inward bowing minutes before collapse and now you are just talking gibberish relative to what I was saying about no deceleration being a problem for a natural collapse. Of course, you are injecting irrelevant out of context points so it doesn't look like you are. You have to know it as you can't be that out of it.
To get the amplified load necessary to continue the collapse the impacting object (upper section) has to transfer its kinetic energy in an impulsive way and it is understood that it accelerates the object it hits (the lower section) while decelerating itself. If the impacting object does not decelerate there was no amplified load. Anyone who wants to understand the difference between constant acceleration and what a deceleration would have looked like had the North Tower upper section had any can look at the video at the below link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8 |
26th April 2015, 07:41 PM | #2277 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
Civil engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment, including works like roads, bridges, canals, dams, and buildings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering Weird. It's almost as if that's a rather different field from structural engineering. |
26th April 2015, 07:45 PM | #2278 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Tony this gets beyond a joke.
Posting links to Chandler's videos on a forum which has numerous members who are competent in physics? You cannot be serious. The man is a joke. Time to first lie 25 seconds. Time to first bit of Chandler idiocy 40 seconds. HINT - if his claim was true it would apply equally to a CD scenario as to the NON-CD event which actually happened. . |
26th April 2015, 07:51 PM | #2279 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
You can have a controlled demolition without deceleration as you can just keep removing enough resistance so the building cannot handle its static load.
You can also have a controlled demolition with deceleration as you can just take out some stories and let gravity do the work. You cannot have a natural collapse without deceleration. It is a shame you are trying to denigrate David Chandler without any attempt at refuting his argument. Of course, those of you here who still want to believe the collapses were natural can't and that is why you are saying what you are with no countering technical points. |
26th April 2015, 08:04 PM | #2280 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
Tony, this is just damned embarrassing. Surely you realize that the fall of the top part of the structure through the rest wasn't one continuous event, as though it had fallen through a tub of goo; it was a series of discontinuous collisions, decelerations, and accelerations which averaged to an equivalent of one continuous fall at 0.64 g, if David Chandler's figures are taken as canonical.
IOW, acceleration at g led to a collision and deceleration with the lower floor which resulted in the destruction of the floor connections which led to acceleration at g which led to a collision and deceleration with the next lower floor which resulted in the destruction of the floor connections which led to another acceleration at g, etc. Lets do some "back of the envelope" math: The North Tower collapse initiation point was at about the 90th floor. If the collapse proceeded equivalent to a continuous fall at 0.64 g, the average deceleration at each floor was (0.36/90) g, or 0.004g. How do you propose to measure that? At the NASA facility where my nephew works they have a hi-res camera that takes 10,000 frames per second; but how are you going to measure that with a 30fps low-res news video camera? |
Thread Tools | |
|
|