Hello again, Thanks for the comments. You are all correct in that I don’t have specific numbers. I said “all of the beams cut,” when it really should be “most, or allot of the beams were cut.” (I was not suggesting that a worker cutting steel beams apart with a torch was a conspirator. That of course would be ludicrous.) I used many generalizations that for me, gave a “picture” or “overview,” since no, I don’t have access to the actual numbers. However it seems like anybody who believes the official NIST account is likewise accepting generalizations, which in my opinion, are much more vague than the ones I used. I also saw somebody point to a link, explaining the cause of the collapse. (I was going to put the link, but the system won't let me being a nubie. whoever posted it, if you can repost) This explanation, in my opinion, is much more vague, and leaves out many factors, like the pulverizing of concrete, the horizontal movement of steel, the breaking of steel bonds (Correct, the steel was not one continuous piece, but pieces welded/bolted together.)
My question then is: why are you so convinced of the validity of this explanation, and of the NIST report? They have absolutely no math. They left out many important points.
I would love to have all of the math numbers, however, the pieces of evidence, the steel, the concrete, the “puzzle pieces” of the towers are all long gone. Nobody can do the math now. And the NIST wrote an official report without using these pieces. I consider this to be incompetence.
But, instead of crying over spilled-milk, or calling “fowl,” that all of the hard physical evidence is gone, I am trying to put together a “picture.” To me the analogy would be “Is $100 enough to buy 5 music CDs, 4 hamburgers, and a large pepperoni pizza?” You might say “No,” but I think most reasonable people would say “Yes,” or at least, “Very highly probable.” In contrast, “Is $100 enough to buy 5 CDs, 4 hamburgers, a 24” TV, and cheap portable mp3 player,” I think most people would say “No.”
Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain, eject steel out in a complete circle around its footprint?
I say no.
I chose not to discus energy, because in my opinion/experience, it relies too much on references, which, can be a little confusing and too complicated. (Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.) An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”
How about if we come up with an equation that balances the work done (the amount of time the top floors fell + the pulverizing of all of the concrete + the breaking of most vertical steel welds + horizontal ejection of many steel beams)
With
The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.
This will be our equation. Let me hear your opinions for how to set up this equation. I’m sure you all will have no problem with general numbers (for weight of steel, weight of concrete, strength of steel, etc.), since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.
(Tailgator, your comment about, extra floors means extra mass has problems in it. I see your logic, but you’re forgetting that extra floors also means extra load bearings to have to overcome. The energy/force that they add ends up being cancelled out because of the structural support that they provide. In the end, a true equation would be VERY complicated, and I’m sure I would not understand it. I do know what you mean, you watch the videos, you see floors falling, you see **** flying all over the place. “What’s the big deal?” I never saw a big deal until maybe a year ago. I think it’s because we’re seeing something we’ve never seen before. We’ve never seen a building that size come down before. So it’s easy to accept the explanation that “the building destroyed itself from pancaking floors.” Our “gut reaction” is that it all makes sense. To me it doesn’t. The Nova special was for ****.)
I also want to add a clarification about “collapsing in its footprint.” Steel was found hundreds of feet from the towers “footprint,’ but this steel was ejected outward. We see it happen in the video. The building did not tip over. There was no angular momentum. Anything outside of the footprint was ejected in a circle around the “Footprint.”
Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.
Thanks.
