A Truther writes...

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Here is an example of why the verinage technique does not apply to the 9/11 paradigm. You. like many another before you have tried to cloud the minds of concerned citizen Readers with this red herring.

If you watch the example video yoou will note the grinding mnoise as the upper section's weight begins to bear n the larger lower section. This is the force of gravity acting. But why is the upper section now crushing the lower section that had carried it for it's entire working lfe ?

A person doesn't have to be very clever to realise that some structural elements have been mechanically removed or modified with jacks or cables in the lower load bearing structure allowing the upper portion to crush the weakened lower portion. Have a look at the structure that remains after the initial collapse.

Freeze the video at 27 seconds.Can you see that that part has not yet been set up for demoliion and is still standing strong ?

Verinage will not help debunkers..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s grinding concrete

That is a lie Bill, and you know it.

You have been shown time and again that the lower section does not have to be weakened structurally at all. It even says so in the patent.

Now, stop lying bill.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I wonder if your colleagues agree ?

Yes, I agree also. Even if it was 5 floors on a 10,000,000,000 story building. Built like the WTC, it would have collapsed to the ground. It would have taken about a week, but it would have happened.

I wonder if your doltish friends would still claim that it fell at freefall speed?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Did you know that in WTC1 only 15% of the supporting columns .core and perimeter wre destroyed by the plane. Only two of the 47 massive core columns were taken out.

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact do you still consider that enough ' structural elements were removed by force ' to allow the free collapse of the upper block onto the lower ?

Do you not think that the steel would have slowly softened to the point where the top lowered itself gently onto the lower block.

Of course if this happened then there was next to no dynamic force applied on the lower block which in turn means that collapse arrest should have happened immediately.

Can a brother get a laughing dog please????

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by bill smith

And do they also carry out verinage on steel framed buildings ? Like do you think that example in the video had a steel core ? Or is verinage carried out on brick and concrete buildings mostly ?

I bet you could carry that technique out on any building. Even one made of Jello!

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

And do they also carry out verinage on steel framed buildings ? Like do you think that example in the video had a steel core ? Or is verinage carried out on brick and concrete buildings mostly ?

As most buildings are brick or concrete, I guess most demolitiojn techniques are mostly carried out on brick and concrete buildings.

However there really is no reason to assume it would not work just fine or even better on other kinds of structures.

The basic idea remains: You initiate the demolition by taking out one story worth of supports.
Top portion falls the height of one story.
Picks up momentum through gravity.
Force needed to arrest that momentun at next story far exceeds design loads.
Next story fails and is added to the fall.
Top portion plus one more story picks up even more speed.



Thinking about it, I think verinage technique would work even better on steel frame.
Reason: Most buildings involve reinforced concrete because that material is so much better at resisting bending and crushing forces.
WTC was done in steel only because reinforced concrete would have been too heavy and massive at that height and would not have allowed the open office spaces.
Therefore, steel represents a compromise at the cost of lower resistance to bending and crushing forces.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.

Hey Bill. I want to try your experiment, but I don't have alot of spaghetti laying around, so I'm going to use a lot less than you called for in your design.

Is this ok with you?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.

I kinda like the model.

However, I bolded the two problems (really only one) I have with it:

1. How long do you want the spaghetti to be? Standard Spaghetti are about 2mm wide and 300mm long (150:1) and weighs about 1g.
A column of the twin towers would have a full length of over 432m from basement to roof. The perimeter columns were 36cmx36cm, giving them a ratio of length:width of 1200:1. The biggest core columns were 90x30cm - or width was 60cm on average - at the basement! Getting thinner towards the top.
So standard spaghetti would be relatively too thick - but of course they are made of semolina and not of steel ^^

2. How do you scale your model correctly, especially with regards to length:mass and length:load bearing capacity?
I just did a simple measurement in my kitchen. I took one spaghetto* (is spaghetto the correct singular of spaghetti?), a good electronic kitchen scale, placed the spaghetto vertically on the scale (1g - but that is actually below the pecision of my scale; I weighed them by counting 20 and finding 20 of them weigh 19g). Then I pushed down on the spaghetto. Since it is not straight, it started bending right away. But it being flexible, I was able to put the equivalent of 30g on one specimen, 19g on another specimen and 22 on a third before they broke. Make that an average of 24g. They bent along their entire length, of course.
No i introduced some lateral bracing near the middle of the spaghetto and measured again: This time I was able to place somewhere between 70 and 100g on top of one spaghetto without breaking it!
Now suppose I divide my 300mm spaghetto into 110 pieces, each about 3mm long, and measure the weight a 3mm section of spaghetti can support; actually, that is hard to do (I am the kind of guy who was born with two left hands ). So ooookay I do it with 9mm (remember columns were stacked with individual sections spanning 3 stories): I could now put a weight of more than 300g on it, and it didn't break (due to my clumsiness, when I pressed harder, the piece would get snipped to the side).

Now.
10% of 1 spaghetto weighs 0.1g
one column section spanning 3 stories can support 300g (at least! possibly much more than that, I was just too clumsy to increase static load). That is 3000 times the column mass of the top 10%.
You may add the mass of the floors. I am okay if you assume that the floors weigh 10 times as much as the columns; still your spaghetti columns can carry 300 times the weight of your top 10%.
If you build your model to scale, your dimensions should be such that load bearing capacity of your spaghetti is only like 3-5 times the weight of your top 10%.
You could achieve this correct scale by building the model with only 5 to 9 spaghetti but making the tower the mass of about 10 packs of spaghetti one pound (500g) each.

I am fairly confident if your spaghetti-and-sugar-tower is thusly build to scale, it will crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top.




* footnote: I actually did not use standard spaghetti but bavette, which differ from spaghetti by not being round but oval. Long diameter is 3mm and short diameter is 1mm - so by coincidence, they are 3x1 just like the core columns.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I kinda like the model.

However, I bolded the two problems (really only one) I have with it:

1. How long do you want the spaghetti to be? Standard Spaghetti are about 2mm wide and 300mm long (150:1) and weighs about 1g.
A column of the twin towers would have a full length of over 432m from basement to roof. The perimeter columns were 36cmx36cm, giving them a ratio of length:width of 1200:1. The biggest core columns were 90x30cm - or width was 60cm on average - at the basement! Getting thinner towards the top.
So standard spaghetti would be relatively too thick - but of course they are made of semolina and not of steel ^^

2. How do you scale your model correctly, especially with regards to length:mass and length:load bearing capacity?
I just did a simple measurement in my kitchen. I took one spaghetto* (is spaghetto the correct singular of spaghetti?), a good electronic kitchen scale, placed the spaghetto vertically on the scale (1g - but that is actually below the pecision of my scale; I weighed them by counting 20 and finding 20 of them weigh 19g). Then I pushed down on the spaghetto. Since it is not straight, it started bending right away. But it being flexible, I was able to put the equivalent of 30g on one specimen, 19g on another specimen and 22 on a third before they broke. Make that an average of 24g. They bent along their entire length, of course.
No i introduced some lateral bracing near the middle of the spaghetto and measured again: This time I was able to place somewhere between 70 and 100g on top of one spaghetto without breaking it!
Now suppose I divide my 300mm spaghetto into 110 pieces, each about 3mm long, and measure the weight a 3mm section of spaghetti can support; actually, that is hard to do (I am the kind of guy who was born with two left hands ). So ooookay I do it with 9mm (remember columns were stacked with individual sections spanning 3 stories): I could now put a weight of more than 300g on it, and it didn't break (due to my clumsiness, when I pressed harder, the piece would get snipped to the side).

Now.
10% of 1 spaghetto weighs 0.1g
one column section spanning 3 stories can support 300g (at least! possibly much more than that, I was just too clumsy to increase static load). That is 3000 times the column mass of the top 10%.
You may add the mass of the floors. I am okay if you assume that the floors weigh 10 times as much as the columns; still your spaghetti columns can carry 300 times the weight of your top 10%.
If you build your model to scale, your dimensions should be such that load bearing capacity of your spaghetti is only like 3-5 times the weight of your top 10%.
You could achieve this correct scale by building the model with only 5 to 9 spaghetti but making the tower the mass of about 10 packs of spaghetti one pound (500g) each.

I am fairly confident if your spaghetti-and-sugar-tower is thusly build to scale, it will crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top.




* footnote: I actually did not use standard spaghetti but bavette, which differ from spaghetti by not being round but oval. Long diameter is 3mm and short diameter is 1mm - so by coincidence, they are 3x1 just like the core columns.

I envision the model being built to scale to around 6 feet tall so that the top of the lower block is at eye level. Then the top and lightest one-tenth of the structure is raised 12'' and dropped on the lower and more robust nine-tenths of the structure.l I invite the Readers to picture your ' crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top ' scenario

[CORed]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I envision the model being built to scale to around 6 feet tall so that the top of the lower block is at eye level. Then the top and lightest one-tenth of the structure is raised 12'' and dropped on the lower and more robust nine-tenths of the structure.l I invite the Readers to picture your ' crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top ' scenario

I guess pizza boxes and office trays just aren't silly enough.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I envision the model being built to scale to around 6 feet tall so that the top of the lower block is at eye level. Then the top and lightest one-tenth of the structure is raised 12'' and dropped on the lower and more robust nine-tenths of the structure.l I invite the Readers to picture your ' crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top ' scenario

It's funny how you have, in 100% original truther fashion, completely dodged, ignored, missed the one important point of my previous post:

That of scale.

If you build your model 6ft (180cm) tall, that would be 6 spaghetti high, about 18 stories = levels of lateral bracing per spaghetto. Too bad I already ate my broken spaghetti, so I'll have to break another, make it 300mm/18 = about 16,5mm, measure the strength of that lenght of spaghetti...
but at least with 6 spaghetti, you are now up to a height-thickness-ratio of 900:1, which is reasonably close to scale.

*doing measurement on my kitchen scale*

Oh! Bad news: 16.5 mm are a lot more easily to handle for a clumsy person like me!
Turns out my first story-length piece (actually 17.5mm) of spaghetti supported at least 1100g before it broke.
My second piece (16mm) was even stronger: I gave up when I peaked briefly a little above 3000g because my thumbtip hurt from the tip of the piece poking into it.
Third piece (17mm) resisted 1500+g several times, where again I gave up as my thumb now seriously hurts. Dang, that spaghetti-stuff is strong!

So by experiment one column of story-height can carry a static load of at least 1500g.

Let's be conservative and say this is 5 times the actual load. Hence, let the top 10% (ohhh - can we make that 16.7%, so our top portion is as high as standard spaghetti are long?) weigh 300g per spaghetti column. As there are 522 columns, the total weight of the top block in our model would therefore have to have a mass of 522*300g = 156.6 kg.

522 spaghetti is coincidentally quite close to the number of spaghetti in a standard 1 pound (500g) pack that serves 4 to 5.

So would a pack of spaghetti withstand 156.6 kg (twice my body weight) if it falls onto it?

Hmmm.


Let's further improve our model and calculations:
I said that our spaghetti are laterally braced every 16.5mm - that is one story. Initially, our 156.6 kg would have to fall only those 16.5mm.

What velocity will the upper block have?
Let's see:
potential energy U = m*g*h
gets converted into
kinetic energy E_k = 1/2 m*v²

m*g*h = 1/2 m*v²
<=>
v² = 2*g*h
<=>
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = sqrt(2 * 9.8m/s² * 0.0165m) = 0.56 m/s


Next step: The top block, falling at 0.56 m/s, falls onto our next set of 16.5mm long spaghetti, which excert a force up and will decelerate the block. At the same time, gravitation still pulls down (accelerate) at a rate of g.
The movement cannot be stopped instantaneously in this universe, as that would be equivalent to an infinite acceleration and hence an infinite force.
So as the falling block touches the tips of our spaghetti, the will get strained and bent. How much can you bend a spaghetto before it breaks?


Next experiment:
I bent a bavetta (a relative of the spaghetti family, see footnote in my previous port; mine are 257mm long) carefully in roughly a circular shape. Needless to say, the thing broke before it had formed a full circle, but it went round more than 180°. I am doing this in a very clumsy fashion - my best estimate is that I reached 240° of a circle, or 2/3 of a full circle. Full circle would have had a circumference of 257mm / (2/3) = 385mm. Radius therefore 385mm/2pi = 61mm.
Now comes the tricky math part - if I bend an upright column piece of 16.5 into a radius of 61mm, it represents an angle A of (16.5mm/385mm)*360° = 15°. What is the distance h_bent of the two ends of that column piece?

*consulting my Bronstein-Semendjajev Pocket book of Mathematics*
Aha!
h_bent = 2r * sin(A/2) = 2 * 61mm * sin(7.5°) = 15,924mm = 96.5% of column height.

In other words: Our spaghetti columns of 16.5mm can elastically bend until the floor resting on them has moved down by 0.576mm = 0.000576m


So if we want to stop the top floor's 0.56 m/s before the spaghetti break and the story collapses, deceleration to 0 has to occur within 0,576mm.

Now, the formula to derive distance from acceleration is
s(t) = 1/2 a*t² = 0,000576m
<=>
t = sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a)

same for velocity vs. acceleration is
v(t) = a*t = 0.56 m/s
<=>
t = 0.56 m/s / a

so

sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a) = 0.56 m/s / a
<=>
2 * 0,000576m / a = (0.56 m/s)² / a²
<=>
2 * 0,000576m = (0.56 m/s)² / a
<=>
a= (0.56 m/s)² / (2 * 0,000576m) = 272 m/s² = 27.8g

Ok here is a problem: We said that our columns are designed to be able to carry 5 times the static load, that is, resist a force of 5g times the mass on top. However, we'd need columns that are nearly 6 times as strong! That means: Our spaghetti will break before the top mass has come to rest. Collapse will continue!


Did we at least slow the fall somewhat? Sure, let's see by how much.

Initial velocity (down) vⁱ = 0.56 m/s
Max. upward acceleration that our columns can bear is a = -5g = 49 m/s²
But this -5g is diminished by the constant pull of gravity, so our spaghetti can effectively decelerate the falling mass by a = -4g = -39,2m/s²

Velocity is
v(t) = v_i - 39.2m/s² * t
Distance (fallen) is
s(t) = v_i*t - 1/2 39.2m/s²

I am too lazy now to figure out analytically at what t s(t) >= 0,000576m and what v(t) is then. I quickly ran the formulas through a spreadsheet:

t v s
0,0000 0,5600 0,000000
0,0001 0,5561 0,000056
0,0002 0,5522 0,000111
0,0003 0,5482 0,000166
0,0004 0,5443 0,000221
0,0005 0,5404 0,000275
0,0006 0,5365 0,000329
0,0007 0,5326 0,000382
0,0008 0,5286 0,000435
0,0009 0,5247 0,000488
0,0010 0,5208 0,000540
0,0011 0,5169 0,000592

So we see: After only 0.0011s, we have exceeded the maximum elastic deformation our spaghetti can bear, at which pint they break.
Velocity is then still 0.5169m/s, or 92% of the initial 0.56m/s

Our accumulated stories can now fall more or less freely for 15.96mm, during which velocity increases to about 0.7609m/s. Then we have another spaghetti crash which will again reduce velocity by only about 8% etc. etc.


Result: We can expect our 6' tower with 522 spaghetti columns and a total mass of 939.6kg to collapse within 10% of free fall speed

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Oystein

It's funny how you have, in 100% original truther fashion, completely dodged, ignored, missed the one important point of my previous post:

That of scale.

If you build your model 6ft (180cm) tall, that would be 6 spaghetti high, about 18 stories = levels of lateral bracing per spaghetto. Too bad I already ate my broken spaghetti, so I'll have to break another, make it 300mm/18 = about 16,5mm, measure the strength of that lenght of spaghetti...
but at least with 6 spaghetti, you are now up to a height-thickness-ratio of 900:1, which is reasonably close to scale.

*doing measurement on my kitchen scale*

Oh! Bad news: 16.5 mm are a lot more easily to handle for a clumsy person like me!
Turns out my first story-length piece (actually 17.5mm) of spaghetti supported at least 1100g before it broke.
My second piece (16mm) was even stronger: I gave up when I peaked briefly a little above 3000g because my thumbtip hurt from the tip of the piece poking into it.
Third piece (17mm) resisted 1500+g several times, where again I gave up as my thumb now seriously hurts. Dang, that spaghetti-stuff is strong!

So by experiment one column of story-height can carry a static load of at least 1500g.

Let's be conservative and say this is 5 times the actual load. Hence, let the top 10% (ohhh - can we make that 16.7%, so our top portion is as high as standard spaghetti are long?) weigh 300g per spaghetti column. As there are 522 columns, the total weight of the top block in our model would therefore have to have a mass of 522*300g = 156.6 kg.

522 spaghetti is coincidentally quite close to the number of spaghetti in a standard 1 pound (500g) pack that serves 4 to 5.

So would a pack of spaghetti withstand 156.6 kg (twice my body weight) if it falls onto it?

Hmmm.


Let's further improve our model and calculations:
I said that our spaghetti are laterally braced every 16.5mm - that is one story. Initially, our 156.6 kg would have to fall only those 16.5mm.

What velocity will the upper block have?
Let's see:
potential energy U = m*g*h
gets converted into
kinetic energy E_k = 1/2 m*v²

m*g*h = 1/2 m*v²
<=>
v² = 2*g*h
<=>
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = sqrt(2 * 9.8m/s² * 0.0165m) = 0.56 m/s


Next step: The top block, falling at 0.56 m/s, falls onto our next set of 16.5mm long spaghetti, which excert a force up and will decelerate the block. At the same time, gravitation still pulls down (accelerate) at a rate of g.
The movement cannot be stopped instantaneously in this universe, as that would be equivalent to an infinite acceleration and hence an infinite force.
So as the falling block touches the tips of our spaghetti, the will get strained and bent. How much can you bend a spaghetto before it breaks?


Next experiment:
I bent a bavetta (a relative of the spaghetti family, see footnote in my previous port; mine are 257mm long) carefully in roughly a circular shape. Needless to say, the thing broke before it had formed a full circle, but it went round more than 180°. I am doing this in a very clumsy fashion - my best estimate is that I reached 240° of a circle, or 2/3 of a full circle. Full circle would have had a circumference of 257mm / (2/3) = 385mm. Radius therefore 385mm/2pi = 61mm.
Now comes the tricky math part - if I bend an upright column piece of 16.5 into a radius of 61mm, it represents an angle A of (16.5mm/385mm)*360° = 15°. What is the distance h_bent of the two ends of that column piece?

*consulting my Bronstein-Semendjajev Pocket book of Mathematics*
Aha!
h_bent = 2r * sin(A/2) = 2 * 61mm * sin(7.5°) = 15,924mm = 96.5% of column height.

In other words: Our spaghetti columns of 16.5mm can elastically bend until the floor resting on them has moved down by 0.576mm = 0.000576m


So if we want to stop the top floor's 0.56 m/s before the spaghetti break and the story collapses, deceleration to 0 has to occur within 0,576mm.

Now, the formula to derive distance from acceleration is
s(t) = 1/2 a*t² = 0,000576m
<=>
t = sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a)

same for velocity vs. acceleration is
v(t) = a*t = 0.56 m/s
<=>
t = 0.56 m/s / a

so

sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a) = 0.56 m/s / a
<=>
2 * 0,000576m / a = (0.56 m/s)² / a²
<=>
2 * 0,000576m = (0.56 m/s)² / a
<=>
a= (0.56 m/s)² / (2 * 0,000576m) = 272 m/s² = 27.8g

Ok here is a problem: We said that our columns are designed to be able to carry 5 times the static load, that is, resist a force of 5g times the mass on top. However, we'd need columns that are nearly 6 times as strong! That means: Our spaghetti will break before the top mass has come to rest. Collapse will continue!


Did we at least slow the fall somewhat? Sure, let's see by how much.

Initial velocity (down) vⁱ = 0.56 m/s
Max. upward acceleration that our columns can bear is a = -5g = 49 m/s²
But this -5g is diminished by the constant pull of gravity, so our spaghetti can effectively decelerate the falling mass by a = -4g = -39,2m/s²

Velocity is
v(t) = v_i - 39.2m/s² * t
Distance (fallen) is
s(t) = v_i*t - 1/2 39.2m/s²

I am too lazy now to figure out analytically at what t s(t) >= 0,000576m and what v(t) is then. I quickly ran the formulas through a spreadsheet:

t v s
0,0000 0,5600 0,000000
0,0001 0,5561 0,000056
0,0002 0,5522 0,000111
0,0003 0,5482 0,000166
0,0004 0,5443 0,000221
0,0005 0,5404 0,000275
0,0006 0,5365 0,000329
0,0007 0,5326 0,000382
0,0008 0,5286 0,000435
0,0009 0,5247 0,000488
0,0010 0,5208 0,000540
0,0011 0,5169 0,000592

So we see: After only 0.0011s, we have exceeded the maximum elastic deformation our spaghetti can bear, at which pint they break.
Velocity is then still 0.5169m/s, or 92% of the initial 0.56m/s

Our accumulated stories can now fall more or less freely for 15.96mm, during which velocity increases to about 0.7609m/s. Then we have another spaghetti crash which will again reduce velocity by only about 8% etc. etc.


Result: We can expect our 6' tower with 522 spaghetti columns and a total mass of 939.6kg to collapse within 10% of free fall speed

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone. For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?

[Bell]

Originally Posted by bill smith

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's persona experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths og the same structure down flat on the ground by graity alone as we saw aon 9/11 and as we see in the spaghetti model.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed it's other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone.

How is it that you don't understand or react to our explanations on how the top 10% only needed to crush 1 floor, then the top 10% + 1 floor crushed the next floor and so on and so forth. This has been explained to you multiple times.

[DGM]

I see Bill's still trying to sell the "truther" lie.



Bill, no one's buying.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Bell

How is it that you don't understand or react to our explanations on how the top 10% only needed to crush 1 floor, then the top 10% + 1 floor crushed the next floor and so on and so forth. This has been explained to you multiple times.

Then make with the countless other documented examples there must be if this can really happen. I am willing to accept examples from the entire recorded history of planet Earth of any pther of millions of different types of structure where the top one tenth has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same object by gravity alone.

Let's face it....if you cannot do this simple thing then we have no reason to believe that it can happen at all except in a managed way like the deliberate demolitions on 9/11.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Then make with the countless other documented examples there must be if this can happen. I am will to accept examples from the recorded history of planet Earth of any pther of millions of different types of structure where the top one tenth has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same object by gravity alone.

Let's face it....if you cannot do this simple thing then we have no reason to believe that it can happen at all except in a managed way like the deliberate demolitions on 9/11.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Bell

Don't worry about it. He's only talking to himself (and anyone here that's bored to reply).

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by DGM

Don't worry about it. He's only talking to himself (and anyone here that's bored to reply).

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results.


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results.


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

By the way, I nominated those posts

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results.


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

If it's any consolation, some of us here enjoyed the mental exercise.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results.


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ?

[dudalb]

I see bill smith has not changed any in his/her abscence.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ?

Watch the verinage demolition videos once more, and while you do that and observe how story after story gets crushed by the top floors, ask yourself the same question.

Then consider the likelihood that the best conclusion is urrrr "inside job" or whatever it is you want to sell.
And consider the possibility that you do not understand structural engineering and dynamic mechanics.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Bell

By the way, I nominated those posts

Where are those nominations? I only follow the Stundies briefly

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Watch the verinage demolition videos once more, and while you do that and observe how story after story gets crushed by the top floors, ask yourself the same question.

Then consider the likelihood that the best conclusion is urrrr "inside job" or whatever it is you want to sell.
And consider the possibility that you do not understand structural engineering and dynamic mechanics.

Not very convincing are you Oystein ? Eh Readers ?

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Where are those nominations? I only follow the Stundies briefly

Nominations for the Language Award in Forum Community. Yours are on page 4.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Not very convincing are you Oystein ? Eh Readers ?

About as convincing as your previous post. Eh Readers?

Maybe, next time you want make a claim of your own, back it up with facts, list assumptions, do work and discuss results, insteaf of just flinging suggestive questions across the table?

Would be a nice change - seeing a Truther do some real work and get it right.
(Of course "getting it right" would be the same as you finding out that in fact both twin towers and spaghetti towers are doomed to total collapse once you allow one floor to fail completely.)

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Oystein

About as convincing as your previous post. Eh Readers?

Maybe, next time you want make a claim of your own, back it up with facts, list assumptions, do work and discuss results, insteaf of just flinging suggestive questions across the table?

Would be a nice change - seeing a Truther do some real work and get it right.
(Of course "getting it right" would be the same as you finding out that in fact both twin towers and spaghetti towers are doomed to total collapse once you allow one floor to fail completely.)

[Sigh]..Just answer the dang question if you dare...

' Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Not very convincing are you Oystein ?

Aaawwww... does widdle Biwwy need a band-aid?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Bell

Nominations for the Language Award in Forum Community. Yours are on page 4.

Language?!?!?!?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Language?!?!?!?

An award given by JREF for the most brilliantly written post of the month.

Basically it's the Anti-Stundie.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

[Sigh]..Just answer the dang question if you dare...

' Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '

Ok - assembly dropping on assembly.

What's your point?

The assembly of 13 single floors falls (picks up velocity, momentum) as a block.
I guess the assembly consideration is not unimportant. However as long as the assembly is intact, it can push its momentum down on the next stuctural elements it hits. If the assembly comes apart, momentum is not acted against an parts keep falling.
Crush-up occurs.

You can't get away from the fact that once the top floors fall, the structure below must eat away all the momentum and kinetic energy, and will fail doing so.


But I sense you want make a point here? Please make it! Improve on the way I modelled your spaghetti tower!

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Ok - assembly dropping on assembly.

What's your point?

The assembly of 13 single floors falls (picks up velocity, momentum) as a block.
I guess the assembly consideration is not unimportant. However as long as the assembly is intact, it can push its momentum down on the next stuctural elements it hits. If the assembly comes apart, momentum is not acted against an parts keep falling.
Crush-up occurs.

You can't get away from the fact that once the top floors fall, the structure below must eat away all the momentum and kinetic energy, and will fail doing so.


But I sense you want make a point here? Please make it! Improve on the way I modelled your spaghetti tower!

Well maybe we will revisit this some time Oystein. Block-assembly eh ? Interesting

[TheRedWorm]

No you won't, Bill. You will offer nothing of substance, just continue to spout the same nonsense, and run from questions and points you can't answer.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

No you won't, Bill. You will offer nothing of substance, just continue to spout the same nonsense, and run from questions and points you can't answer.

Well Red we will see in due course, in the fullness of time, at the appropriate juncture. You know how it goes.

[TheRedWorm]

Yeah, it will go exactly how I said it will go. Unless you plan to reveal yourself as a troll, and that you were stringing us along the whole time. That's the only thing I think you could possibly say that would give any of us pause.

[angrysoba]

Oh well, here goes with the response to Oystein's response ("glenn" is the Truther in question) :

Quote:

Hello Angry,

Jolly decent of you to take the time, may I respond to your responses.

glenn: “…We are expected to believe that as it suddenly (with a flash)lost all its structure and fell onto the floor below, ...”

Angry: ----It doesn't matter at all if the top section above the burning floors lost all their support in a flash or somewhat gradually. All that matters is that a cross-section of the tower crashed (columns/joints buckling and breaking) and the top section picking up some speed as it is accelerated by gravity.----

Actually, it's rather surprising to see such a large flash! But apart of that waving aside of an awkward observation, yourmate added nothing to the discussion there.

glenn: “…how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above?”

Angry: ----Strawman. It doesn not assume the speed, it assumes the momentum, thereby losing some speed (as some of the mass starts out at rest)----

Strawman my arse. If it did _not_ assume the speed, how does your mate account for the fact that we saw acceleration at virtually free-fall speed, which was the actual point? Slippery customer, this mate of yours.

glenn: “We're talking about a progressively heavy core structure (it having been built to bear the weight of the entire structure above, at each stage). So why did it not _substantially_ arrest the downward motion?”

Angry: ----As lower stories became progressively heavy (and strong), so did the weight and the speed of the already falling top part accumulate. So while the static strength of the lower stories increased basically in a linear function, the momentum of the fall increased basically with a function that contains a power of 2 - momentum increased faster than resisting static force.----

Ahem, your mate really needs to stop blowing smoke, and explain why the progression was not _substantially_ arrested. Your learned friend also forgets that a major component of that structure mysteriously turned into fine powder on the way down, so the momentum (weight x speed) of the falling structure was not accumulating to anything approaching the extent he pretends.

glenn:“As Frank Verismo points out, a great deal of the mass was pulverised in any case, so the full weight of the above sections were dispersed each time a new floor was reached by the downward progression.”

Angry: ----When we are looking at conservation of momentum, it doesn't matter if the mass you want to arrest is already pulverized or still structurally intact. If you want to arrest the collapse, you need to arrest the downward momentum of all the masses involved, as it wouldn't do much good to stop the intact parts and let the pulverized parts keep falling (all the way).----

Huh! For crying out loud, that pulverised structure was billowing out over half of Manhattan, not neatly falling in a vacuum tube! Has your
mate observed that under real-world conditions, dust doesn't fall quite the same way as bricks? Jesus!

glenn: “How did the really heavy mid to lower sections suddenly start moving at the same pace as the falling upper sections, unless they were
offering _virtually no resistance at all_ - unless they were already falling themselves immediately before the progression hit them.”

Angry: ----Because the dynamic load of n upper stories at velovity v with mass m is magnitudes greater than the static load these mid to lower
sections were designed to carry. They were designed to excert the upward force of several (3-5?) times the weight of all the floors above, but to arrest these floors within the short distance that the columns still remain elastic would require a force much more than 10 times the weight.----

Your mate has explained why the floors might have collapsed, not why they magically assumed the speed of the falling upper section without
slowing it down. Is your mate fond of answering his preferred questionto that asked?

glenn: “The towers did not come down quite at free-fall speed, but it was not far off it. It was way too close to free-fall acceleration to believe
even for a moment than a substantial structure of increasing strength was being crushed by the powdered remains of the floors above.”

Angry: ----Towers came down around 2/3rds of free fall speed which actually is a considerable distance off. Plus Argument from incredulity.----

Being incredulous at an explanation is not proof that the explanation in question is correct, you know. The precise time is difficult to
say, because the base was surrounded by a plume of dust that your mate thinks is entirely pressing downwards on the structure (and in a neat
column). It goes no way to altering the fact that a mild slowing (which I freely allowed for) is far removed from what we observed.

Think about your famous bowling balls, AS - would you expect it to fall to the bottom of a deep lake almost as fast (2/3rds, say) as it would
through the air? No? Do you think the structure of the towers should have offered even the resistance of water?

glenn: “If the motion was entirely downwards, with no other force than downward gravity operating after collapse was initiated, why do we see
massive steel girders ejected out laterally for hundreds of feet? Why did tiny body parts (sections of finger, etc.) appear on rooftops hundreds of
yards away?”

Angry:----Drop a paper bag full with assorted things (screws, tomatoes, marbles, toys) from your upper floor down onto your terrace. Watch what happens. See how some of the things are flung sideways?----

Your mate is an idiot. If I dropped a sack full of _heavy_ bolts which are not going to be blown around by the wind, they'll land pretty much
below where they are dropped. What made the 40-ton steel girders of the Twin Towers go laterally with such substantial energy - brownian motion, perhaps?

glenn: “In standard building collapses, one would find at least a few things intact. A chair, a monitor, something. How come the biggest items
found were fragments of telephone keypads?”

Angry:----Twin Towers were non-standard building collapses. They were just so very much bigger than anything we've seen so far. Potential energy of one tower, just standing erect, equals that of a formidable nuke. That is as much "standard building collapse" as Hiroshima was "standard bombing".----

Oh, crap. I'll agree on one thing - this was non-standard. But the idea that _nothing_ substantial survived due to this hand-waving explanation
is weak to say the least. Is this guy supposed to be a scientist? He should be ashamed of himself, pretending potential energy was neatly
converted into lossless explosive energy to pulverise everything.

glenn:“Look at the column on the last picture on this page: How did it acquire that precise cut, consistent with a controlled demolition?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm “

Angry:----As has been pointed out before: Welcome to the dark ages of trutherism.----


Angry: (Poster EDx writes: “lol he promotes the thermal lance cut column picture as evidence of thermite lol.”


Uh huh. Do you usually have firemen hanging around like that when a demolition clearance is well underway? So these lance-cutter
boys had rushed in (not bothering to clear a path), cut a bunch of core columns (why?), and rushed off again why firemen were still
scratching their chins at the sight? Uh huh.

glenn: “But back to conservation of momentum. Inertia dictates that a mass will not suddenly assume the velocity of the moving object falling onto it, even if it is so tenuously structured that a feather falling onto it would initiate its collapse. In this case, we are talking about an increasing substantial structure the further down the building we go. Yet it offered little more resistance than fresh air on the day of 9/11.”

Angry: ----Increasing substantial structure met even faster increasing momentum the further down the building we go.----

Which might have achieved some equilibrium what with losing all that structure mass to powder, flying girders an' all, but your mate ignores the point entirely, and is blowing smoke yet again. There is absolutely no way the falling structure would make the floors below assume the VELOCITY (and not just the momentum) and continue the progression.
*

Nice try, maybe worth 2.5/10 and it might even pass as plausible to someone completely ignorant about physics, but please get better help
than this if you seriously want to refute my argument on momentum.

But thank you again for taking the time. I admire your doggedness in sticking up for the Official Story through thick and very, very thin.

A few hours later, the said Truther who goes by the handle "Glenn" added this:

Quote:

Btw, Angry, how long do you think it'll take for you to relay my reply back to your mates at forums.randi.org, for them to make their various replies, and then for you to compile them all again?

Why are you so utterly uncritical of _their_ replies, while the knee-jerk thing happens for you at every word from an Official Story doubter?

One last thing puzzles me... and you can ask them this (fully attributed, if you don't mind!)... doesn't your nauseating obsequiousness bother them there at all, or do they actually get off on it?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones.

You are realling appealing to people's incredulity, lack of imagination and scientific laziness.

Originally Posted by bill smith

And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.

This is something they just cannot know in their bones, for their bones are so extremely tiny compared to the dimensions of the tallest buildings in the world. The dynamics therein utterly defy intuition.

Originally Posted by bill smith

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone.

You dodge and ignore the examples we already provided, especially that of avalanches.
I give you another: cardstacks. Watch what happens around 2:00:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Originally Posted by bill smith

For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?

It may be intuitive, but it's wrong. If people go only by intuition, they'd understand that the sun moves around the earth. And they'd be wrong. It takes more than intuition, namely some scientific rigor, to figure out that actually it is the spinning of the earth.

But I am fairly certain that Readers' intuition will understand that 6 packs of spaghetti may carry a static load of a whopping 1 ton if you build your tower carefully, but will come down crashing wildly if you break enough pieces near the top, when the weight of 2 grown men starts falling. And that it will continue to crash because it gets the mass of 10 more grown men along the way. Cause you see, that would be the necessary mass for the model to be near scale.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

An award given by JREF for the most brilliantly written post of the month.

Basically it's the Anti-Stundie.

And it has been known to be won by posts in the Conspiracy Theories sections .

Dave

[The Big Dog]

"Uh huh. Do you usually have firemen hanging around like that when a demolition clearance is well underway? So these lance-cutter boys had rushed in (not bothering to clear a path), cut a bunch of core columns (why?), and rushed off again why firemen were still scratching their chins at the sight? Uh huh."

What an offensive argument from incredulity. Your friend appears completely unaware that is a cropped picture, and IIRC, you can see a crew working on another vertical beam in the background. And yes, the FDNY was at Ground zero. You might remind your "mate" that hundreds of FDNY firemen died at Ground Zero and were there throughout the recovery activity at the pile.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by 16.5

"Uh huh. Do you usually have firemen hanging around like that when a demolition clearance is well underway? So these lance-cutter boys had rushed in (not bothering to clear a path), cut a bunch of core columns (why?), and rushed off again why firemen were still scratching their chins at the sight? Uh huh."

What an offensive argument from incredulity. Your friend appears completely unaware that is a cropped picture, and IIRC, you can see a crew working on another vertical beam in the background. And yes, the FDNY was at Ground zero. You might remind your "mate" that hundreds of FDNY firemen died at Ground Zero and were there throughout the recovery activity at the pile.

I'm not quite sure what he is talking about but I do have a few pictures here of clean-up crews working on the site which I would like to add to:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

Do you know where I could find similar pictures which show the beams being cut?

---I should also have edited that part out of my mate's post because I don't want the focus to be on such easily distracting questions---