Demolition Monitor Disputes CD Theory

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Yes or no..

Scroll back to our last convo Milky & all shall be revealed.

This is quite a good debate I dont wish to spoil it.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Scroll back to our last convo Milky & all shall be revealed.

This is quite a good debate I dont wish to spoil it.

You don't think the centre of mass was enough I presume, the dynamic load from the top section wasn't enough to fail the uppermost floor of the bottom section? You must have an answer if you think this?

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

You don't think the centre of mass was enough I presume, the dynamic load from the top section wasn't enough to fail the uppermost floor of the bottom section? You must have an answer if you think this?

Thought we agreed it disintegrated?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Thought we agreed it disintegrated?

Like I've always said, yes it did.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Like I've always said, yes it did.

You sure now Dont?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

You sure now Dont?

Yes are you? Or are you going to cite the following (paraphrase)

Disintergrated 'maybe' but the section was still a mass. Meaning disintergrated (which it was and I've never said otherwise) or otherwise the mass is still present and still too much for the lower section to deal with.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Yes are you? Or are you going to cite the following (paraphrase)

Disintergrated 'maybe' but the section was still a mass. Meaning disintergrated (which it was and I've never said otherwise) or otherwise the mass is still present and still too much for the lower section to deal with.

Like I said scroll back. I don't wish to go into it, you know my thoughts already.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Like I said scroll back. I don't wish to go into it, you know my thoughts already.

You make claims but then suddenly have no knowledge to back them up with.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

You make claims but then suddenly have no knowledge to back them up with.

nope I dont wish to spoil a conversation i commented on & made this perfectly clear to you, I already know your opinion so am not interested in what you have to say thanks.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by porridge

Exactly Marky & as you pointed out several times, most of the mass was being projected away from the core.

For it to be projected away there would have been a 'pressure' or force within the collapse to do so which may have been acting upon the core. IE the jumble of floors, columns and mass collapsing would have been smashing together and against anything else as it went down.

Or do you think the core would have stood there unscathed?

[porridge]

Originally Posted by wispy

For it to be projected away there would have been a 'pressure' or force within the collapse to do so which may have been acting upon the core. IE the jumble of floors, columns and mass collapsing would have been smashing together and against anything else as it went down.

Or do you think the core would have stood there unscathed?

You already told me your opinion on this:

Originally Posted by wispy

If by projected away you mean there was debris being flung outwards then I agree, but the debris would also be, because of the churning, crushing, smashing as the towers collapsed, also be smashing inwards towards the central columns damaging them.

Once the floors were stripped off, the core columns, which were damaged in the process, wouldn't have been able to stand on their own. They did stay upright momentarily which you can see in some vids before they then collapsed. But they would have been too slender to stay upright as they relied on the outer columns to form an upright structure that was the towers.

My opinion has not changed.

zzz

[wispy]

Originally Posted by porridge

You already told me your opinion on this:



My opinion has not changed.

zzz

So how would the core remain unscathed then?

I'll need something more than 'because they're big bits of steel and look at these photo's of the core being built which proves the point'. But it doesn't prove the point.

[marky78]

Originally Posted by gamolon

Simple question. Was the core below designed to withstand the force of the upper section dropping onto it? Would it cause a localized failure with the first components the upper section contacted?

no of course it wasn't 'designed' to have anything fall on it, and again of course it is going to cause LOCALISED failure.

Why would it drop so suddenly at essentially free fall for one floor? what symmetrically and instantaneously removed all this support?

[marky78]

Originally Posted by gamolon

No, it is true. No matter what an engineer designs structurally, if even one component is failed or weakened, the entire structure AS A WHOLE is not functioning at 100%.

How much does the section above the damaged area weigh?

key words - 100% - as a whole.

I could take a sledge hammer to the side of my house and knock a hole through, whilst the structure is now not functioning at 100% or as a whole, but is the house going to fall into a pile of rubble??

So what are you saying? if one component is removed it is functioning at 99%, can't see any issues with that.


If you remove some structure at the top how does this effect the tens of storeys of undamaged core structure below?


What does the top section weigh if it is accelerating down? if it's accelerating what percentage of it's kinetic energy is being used to destroy structure and what is being used for purely downward motion.

[marky78]

Originally Posted by rosie789

Well which verinage collapse are you talking about then and where and by how much does the building decelerate?

A smaller building?

Well I'll take a wild guess at what you mean and say you mean a visible deceleration that is sometimes present with a verinage demolition: The upper mass falls through air for a storey then decelerates as it hits the lower building. I'd guess this distinct deceleration would be more visible in a smaller concrete building which did not tilt. Smaller buildings are able to be over built for their size and are more 'pyramidal' than massive skyscrapers. The Twin Towers did have steel columns yet these were required to take the far greater masses. The columns would not be designed to arrest a collapse where a portion of the building falls on the rest.

In general the same idea would apply, the upper mass accelerates roughly between storeys and decelerates as it hits floors and other objects. The collapse does not come to a stop despite fragmentation.

They all decelerate my petal.

What causes them to decelerate?

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by dude111

I can show you a video WHERE YOU CAN HEAR THE EXPLOSIONS seconds before each fall! (But i guess it wouldnt matter since you appear to be in denial of how they came down)

Still waiting dude.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...&postcount=123

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by marky78

They all decelerate my petal.

What causes them to decelerate?

Verinage collapses go from falling through air to hitting floors then spaces then floors. The upper mass at first accelerates then decelerates... but the collapse does not come to a stop because the upper building is still being influenced by gravity as it falls. This is enough for the fragmented upper section (combined with the mass of extra floors) to destroy the lower sections.

At the same time a normal verinage collapse is different from the Twin Towers' collapse because with WTC 1 and 2 the upper tower began to tilt. That and you're dealing with HUGE masses and a more precisely balanced skyscraper that can't afford to over compensate by much.

I mean with a 20 storey building you can more easily use the 'thicker walls at bottom' idea and whack in extra supports. With the Twin Towers most of the load was transferred down core columns which were stronger at the bottom. In a non critical situation these steel columns would stop the building from collapsing, but at the same time each column does not take up a great area of floor...

Have you figured out that objects moving faster impact with more force? Rock sitting on the ground vs meteor crater etc.

[marky78]

Originally Posted by rosie789

Verinage collapses go from falling through air to hitting floors then spaces then floors. The upper mass at first accelerates then decelerates... but the collapse does not come to a stop because the upper building is still being influenced by gravity as it falls. This is enough for the fragmented upper section (combined with the mass of extra floors) to destroy the lower sections.

At the same time a normal verinage collapse is different from the Twin Towers' collapse because with WTC 1 and 2 the upper tower began to tilt. That and you're dealing with HUGE masses and a more precisely balanced skyscraper that can't afford to over compensate by much.

I mean with a 20 storey building you can more easily use the 'thicker walls at bottom' idea and whack in extra supports. With the Twin Towers most of the load was transferred down core columns which were stronger at the bottom. In a non critical situation these steel columns would stop the building from collapsing, but at the same time each column does not take up a great area of floor...

Have you figured out that objects moving faster impact with more force? Rock sitting on the ground vs meteor crater etc.

Well you've kind of explained what causes the destruction (I've highlighted those parts)

milky keeps banging on about static loads vs dynamic loads but I don't think he realises that this doesn't really apply to the towers, although it should've done if you're explaning the tower collapses as natural.

we know the building coped fine with the static loads (which is pretty much only gravitational loads anyway) and also had a safety overload factor of about 5, so in order to demolish the structure below we need a larger load than the building was holding up.

The only way to acheive this larger load is for the top block to fall and accelerate increasing its potential energy which I'm sure you agree on.

BUT, this only becomes an amplified load when it decelerates on impact (like you described above) it needs to slow down on impact in order to apply more load than when it was stationary.

I've seen you guys mention several times about resting a brick on your head and dropping a brick and which hurts most etc etc but again its all the same principle, it the deceleration that causes the increased load or g force.



So how do you apply this physics that me, you, newton and most people here agree on to the towers when there was no deceleration recorded during there collapse


If there was no deceleration then there was no amplified load!



So what caused the columns to fail?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by marky78

Well you've kind of explained what causes the destruction (I've highlighted those parts)

milky keeps banging on about static loads vs dynamic loads but I don't think he realises that this doesn't really apply to the towers, although it should've done if you're explaning the tower collapses as natural.

Why would it not apply? Explain....this should be interesting.

Originally Posted by marky78

we know the building coped fine with the static loads (which is pretty much only gravitational loads anyway) and also had a safety overload factor of about 5, so in order to demolish the structure below we need a larger load than the building was holding up.

The only way to acheive this larger load is for the top block to fall and accelerate increasing its potential energy which I'm sure you agree on.

As I've said many a time we know it was built with a FOS of 3-5. That's why I always tell you about static vs dynamic loads. Something you don't seem to understand.

How does the 'potential' energy increase, please explain.

Originally Posted by marky78

BUT, this only becomes an amplified load when it decelerates on impact (like you described above) it needs to slow down on impact in order to apply more load than when it was stationary.

I've seen you guys mention several times about resting a brick on your head and dropping a brick and which hurts most etc etc but again its all the same principle, it the deceleration that causes the increased load or g force.

Deceleration does occur, otherwise the collapse would be at g.

Originally Posted by marky78

So how do you apply this physics that me, you, newton and most people here agree on to the towers when there was no deceleration recorded during there collapse


If there was no deceleration then there was no amplified load!



So what caused the columns to fail?

The heat from the fires.

[marky78]

Why would it not apply? Explain....this should be interesting.

did you not read what I just wrote? for dynamic loading you would need a force/impact of over 1g.

As I've said many a time we know it was built with a FOS of 3-5. That's why I always tell you about static vs dynamic loads. Something you don't seem to understand.

How does the 'potential' energy increase, please explain.

well it seems you don't understand dynamic loading and that is probably why your questioning my obvious spelling mistake of potential instead of kinetic.

Deceleration does occur, otherwise the collapse would be at g.

collapse was pretty much constant at 0.7g

The heat from the fires.