Demolition Failures Versus the WTC Collapses - Page 12

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 08:07 PM

[quote=dontdrinkurmilk;1060834964]Correct, How was this supposed to arrest the collapse of the top section?

I would like to see this paper.

How exactly are the laws of physics being ignored here?

The PE in the collpase was not all converted to KE. You have to consider that Frank Greening, Bazant and others, have shown there was more than enough potential energy to destroy the steel structure and enable complete collapse. Since acceleration of the center of mass of the falling parts of the twin towers never reached g, we know that some of the potential energy was more or less continually used up to break steel connections, crush concrete, move air, create heat, create seismic waves etc. which means the largest expender of energy would be material destruction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05155.pdf

Is that concrete?

Did I say anything to suggest otherwise?

Yes the columns many of them, would have been buckled and then come away from the main structure as it collapsed. they would never have needed to be completely destroyed in order for a collapse to take place.

Bump Porridge!

porridge · 20-05-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Are you gonna address my post on the prev post or not?

You threatened to grass me Dont. Im not sure I trust you now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge:
They stood momentarily, nothing like they should have from a collapse, specially a progressive collapse...

I was referring to the core that stood momentarily As it stood for mere seconds, unlike what some seem to be trying to push on here.

I can post you photos of a few stairwells that actually survived, but the rest I am afraid fell to bits.

So as I have shown in my photo, where is the mass that done this damage to the rest of the building? So pretty obvious how I come to that conclusion dont you think Drink?

Posts like this:

Quote:

But some of the core columns were left standing after the main collapse, and some of the perimeter columns were stripped off. It's just none of them stood for very long afterwards because they were damaged and they had all the floors stripped off them. I mean look at the spire that stood after the north tower collapsed.

LOL They stood for seconds. How did they even manage this with all that invisible mass coming down from above? Adding to my observations that there never was any pile driver in that photo.

Can you get your head round this basic observation Dont?

porridge · 20-05-2012, 08:13 PM

[quote=dontdrinkurmilk;1060835898]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Correct, How was this supposed to arrest the collapse of the top section?

I would like to see this paper.

How exactly are the laws of physics being ignored here?

The PE in the collpase was not all converted to KE. You have to consider that Frank Greening, Bazant and others, have shown there was more than enough potential energy to destroy the steel structure and enable complete collapse. Since acceleration of the center of mass of the falling parts of the twin towers never reached g, we know that some of the potential energy was more or less continually used up to break steel connections, crush concrete, move air, create heat, create seismic waves etc. which means the largest expender of energy would be material destruction.

Bump Porridge!

Now you are bumping posts aimed at me that I never even made?

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

You threatened to grass me Dont. Im not sure I trust you now.

I was referring to the core that stood momentarily As it stood for mere seconds, unlike what some seem to be trying to push on here.

What seems to be being pushed on here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

I can post you photos of a few stairwells that actually survived, but the rest I am afraid fell to bits.

Fell to bits and got smashed to bits by the KE in the collapse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

So as I have shown in my photo, where is the mass that done this damage to the rest of the building? So pretty obvious how I come to that conclusion dont you think Drink?

The mass was ejected, but not all, the perimeter columns peeled away from the main structure but only once the crush front had passed and done the damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

Posts like this:

LOL They stood for seconds. How did they even manage this with all that invisible mass coming down from above? Adding to my observations that there never was any pile driver in that photo.

Can you get your head round this basic observation Dont?

[quote=porridge;1060835910]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Now you are bumping posts aimed at me that I never even made?

Nope, just the part that was intended for you to address. Invisible mass? So what happened to the top section, the percentage that didn't go over the sides of the building? Did it just float away? Or did it fall onto the below floor and grow in mass as it took each floor with it?

porridge · 20-05-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

What seems to be being pushed on here?

I clearly made it obvious what is being pushed here, re-read my posts & quit asking ridiculous questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

The mass was ejected, but not all, the perimeter columns peeled away from the main structure but only once the crush front had passed and done the damage.

And how do you know this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Nope, just the part that was intended for you to address. Invisible mass? So what happened to the top section, the percentage that didn't go over the sides of the building? Did it just float away? Or did it fall onto the below floor and grow in mass as it took each floor with it?

Well clearly not it had virtually disintegrated half way down, as shown in the photo I posted. Ive already explained this to you how many times?
You seem to think it magically destroyed the whole building tho, which I find hilarious!!!!!!!!!! the whole theory is INSANE

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

I clearly made it obvious what is being pushed here, re-read my posts & quit asking ridiculous questions.

And how do you know this?

Well clearly not it had virtually disintegrated half way down, as shown in the photo I posted. Ive already explained this to you how many times?
You seem to think it magically destroyed the whole building tho, which I find hilarious!!!!!!!!!! the whole theory is INSANE

Its just something I observed from the video footage, disintergrated maybe, but was gaining in mass as the floors below that it destroyed would also fall. As I have said before, once columns start failing the building fails, it was like a chain reaction basically.

porridge · 20-05-2012, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Its just something I observed from the video footage, disintergrated maybe, but was gaining in mass as the floors below that it destroyed would also fall. As I have said before, once columns start failing the building fails, it was like a chain reaction basically.

Good you made from personal observation I like that & can see the mass had disintegrated.

I disagree about the rest but am not qualified so not going to try & argue about it.

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

Good you made from personal observation I like that & can see the mass had disintegrated.

I disagree about the rest but am not qualified so not going to try & argue about it.

Ok but atleast tell me the reasoning behind why you disagree.

porridge · 20-05-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Ok but atleast tell me the reasoning behind why you disagree.

I just cant visualize it.

My thoughts are:

Wouldn't there be floor slabs stacked up on each other?

Thats the remains I would expect if it happened as you said in the previous post.

I dont see there was enough weight behind it to smash it to bits.

For one thing, wouldn't the bottom part of the building be the strongest part?

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

I just cant visualize it.

My thoughts are:

Wouldn't there be floor slabs stacked up on each other?

Thats the remains I would expect if it happened as you said in the previous post.

I dont see there was enough weight behind it to smash it to bits.

For one thing, wouldn't the bottom part of the building be the strongest part?

Yes you're right the lower part of each tower was stronger! However take into account the huge collision at the end of the collapse and all the KE involved. Given the KE involved again, the end of the collapse is not going to be tidy, and I don't think we can expect to see much evidence of floors stacked on top of eachother.

That's the thing don't think of it as just a mass crushing what's below it, this did happen but also, when the collapse was in full swing, the destruction was everywhere and the building fell apart, thousands of connections failing etc.

porridge · 20-05-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Yes you're right the lower part of each tower was stronger! However take into account the huge collision at the end of the collapse and all the KE involved. Given the KE involved again, the end of the collapse is not going to be tidy, and I don't think we can expect to see much evidence of floors stacked on top of eachother.

That's the thing don't think of it as just a mass crushing what's below it, this did happen but also, when the collapse was in full swing, the destruction was everywhere and the building fell apart, thousands of connections failing etc.

WTC 7 remnants were all piled up.

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

WTC 7 remnants were all piled up.

Two different types of skyscraper with different collapses.

porridge · 20-05-2012, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Two different types of skyscraper with different collapses.

But you admitted that the lower half of WTC 1&2 would have been the same?

I am pure speculating here about something I dont have much of a clue about. So I shall leave it.

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

But you admitted that the lower half of WTC 1&2 would have been the same?

I am pure speculating here about something I dont have much of a clue about. So I shall leave it.

I said not admitted, that the WTC 1 and 2 were stronger the lower down you went, and WTC 7 was a very different type of sky scraper to the towers and so was the nature of its collapse and the fact it wasn't hit by a plane too.

porridge · 20-05-2012, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I said not admitted, that the WTC 1 and 2 were stronger the lower down you went, and WTC 7 was a very different type of sky scraper to the towers and so was the nature of its collapse and the fact it wasn't hit by a plane too.

Well that's the thing, it didn't have much structural damage atall. But then again I am not an expert.

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

Well that's the thing, it didn't have much structural damage atall. But then again I am not an expert.

It wasn't the structural damage that caused it to collapse.

porridge · 20-05-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

It wasn't the structural damage that caused it to collapse.

Yea a true miracle for sure.

For a sec I thought you was gonna post some photos of WTC 7 damage

Milky a little bird told me you only recently turned to the dark side?

Whats the hourly rate like & weekends?

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

Yea a true miracle for sure.

For a sec I thought you was gonna post some photos of WTC 7 damage

Milky a little bird told me you only recently turned to the dark side?

Whats the hourly rate like & weekends?

Not really a miracle, but unique yes.

You seem to imply I get paid to frequent these forums? I wish.

Yes I was more open-minded to the truther theories but was quick to learn just how silly most of them are.

porridge · 20-05-2012, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Not really a miracle, but unique yes.

You seem to omply I get paid to frequent these forums? I wish.

Yes I was more open-minded to the truther theories but was quick to learn just how silly most of them are.

Ah well Ive always thought the OS was a pile of poo.

Had you done much research when you was open minded then?

And I know you are telling the truth@payed as not even government could afford the overtime you guys put in.

dontdrinkurmilk · 20-05-2012, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porridge

Ah well Ive always thought the OS was a pile of poo.

Had you done much research when you was open minded then?

And I know you are telling the truth@payed as not even government could afford the overtime you guys put in.

Plenty as a few years ago I really bought into the 'truther' theories and that's what lead me here, but then I saw the light if you like!

Well the OS is generally agreed upon by most papers, but there will be differing opinions. Its the theories such as vicsim, DEW etc that really take the mick.