Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[000063]

Thanks. I forgot all the support steel had been removed by explosives and all the cement floors were pulverized to dust by explosives making the resistance of the lower floors nonexistent as in .72 floors of resistance.

Who is claiming this? Because the last time I checked, the official story was that the lower floors simply didn't provide enough resistance to stay up. There's more options between "stands up perfectly" and "provided no resistance whatsoever", no matter how much you try to deny it.

 

[Robrob]

Who is claiming this? Because the last time I checked, the official story was that the lower floors simply didn't provide enough resistance to stay up. There's more options between "stands up perfectly" and "provided no resistance whatsoever", no matter how much you try to deny it.

CT loons tend to be very black & white. E.g. their difficult in understanding the difference between "steel heated till it softened and lost the majority of its structural integrity" vs. "steel molten into a puddle."

 

[tfk]

A progressive collapse would have either continued to accelerate, or terminated.

Dave

I disagree.

A progressive collapse is merely one that continues to an amount disproportionate to the initial failure.

It doesn't have to, and usually does not, progress to total collapse. And it didn't progress to total collapse in the case of either WTC1, 2 or 7. All of them had a few columns still standing at the end, but clearly fit into the category of progressive collapse.

There is nothing in the definition that says whether or not it must progress thru the structure at an accelerating, decelerating or constant rate.

The single most common example of progressive collapse - dominoes - progresses at a fairly constant rate. I'd guess that the speed is inversely proportional to the distance between dominoes.

The upper blocks of the towers initially accelerated, but to a very high probability, reached a near constant terminal velocity that occurred when gradually increasing force required for the expulsion of air (plus the other approximately constant fracturing & disassembling forces) equilibrated with the gradually increasing weight of the falling mass.
___

BTW, I don't like the term "crush" used to describe what happened to the floors during the crush down phase.

In order to crush things, you have to restrain them from both directions. For the large structural components (core columns & concrete), they were not restrained from below until the falling mass reached the ground.

On the way down, the concrete fractured. Since it is brittle, it will throw out lots of small particles in a wide range of sizes coming from the fracture planes. But between the fracture planes, the vast majority of the concrete will remain in blocks & chunks, not reduced to small particles.

Most of the outer columns got thrown out of the footprint. No crushing there. The outer columns that got entangled within the falling mass, along with the core column, generally didn't get crushed either. Bent, fractured, but not crushed. Some did in some local areas, but that was few & far between in my opinion from looking at the columns in photos of GZ.

Comparatively weak structures (desks, office contents and, alas, people, etc.) obviously did get crushed. But the energy required for this is inconsequential in the big picture.

I think "fractured" is a better term than "crushed".

It describes the failures of connections, welds, support plates & concrete better than "crushed".

 

[Dave Rogers]

I disagree.

A progressive collapse is merely one that continues to an amount disproportionate to the initial failure.

It doesn't have to, and usually does not, progress to total collapse. And it didn't progress to total collapse in the case of either WTC1, 2 or 7. All of them had a few columns still standing at the end, but clearly fit into the category of progressive collapse.

That would come under "terminated".

There is nothing in the definition that says whether or not it must progress thru the structure at an accelerating, decelerating or constant rate.

Fair point. I'm not sure that dominoes are a good example given that the collapse mode of each domino is predictable, separable and, more or less, identical, but I can see that a terminal collapse velocity is a perfectly feasible property of the collapse. I stand corrected.

Dave

 

[Clayton Moore]

Who is claiming this? Because the last time I checked, the official story was that the lower floors simply didn't provide enough resistance to stay up. There's more options between "stands up perfectly" and "provided no resistance whatsoever", no matter how much you try to deny it.

I don't believe any of the non demolition bs. But whatever, let's say that's fine initially, but after 30 or 40 floors how could the "collapse" continue without slowing down?

 

[TruthersLie]

[facepalm]

incredulity and lack of any understanding of physics noted

 

[Clayton Moore]

[facepalm]

incredulity and lack of any understanding of physics noted

Special effects physics.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Special effects physics.

Nothing special about it, but it's clear at this point that you don't understand. I ask once again (the last time it got moved to AAH because it was responding to one of your innumerable thread derails), have you figured out yet why the WTC Twin Towers were not like a stack of pancakes?

 

[twinstead]

I don't believe any of the non demolition bs. But whatever, let's say that's fine initially, but after 30 or 40 floors how could the "collapse" continue without slowing down?

If this is a serious question then you've no business investigating where you left your car keys, much less 9-11.

 

[000063]

I don't believe any of the non demolition bs. But whatever, let's say that's fine initially, but after 30 or 40 floors how could the "collapse" continue without slowing down?

No, seriously, who was making that claim? Can you provide a link? Which of the points I made do you acknowledge, contest, or remain indifferent on?

And stopped by what? The same building that couldn't stop the first few dozen floors? What logic do you have to support a claim that something like half the building would just slow down? Slow down by roughly how much? Because we know none of the buildings were all falling at FFA, despite the Truther canard that there was "no resistance" therefore aliens explosives.

 

[Seymour Butz]

I don't believe any of the non demolition bs. But whatever, let's say that's fine initially, but after 30 or 40 floors how could the "collapse" continue without slowing down?

By either continue to accelerate at the same rate...

or by accelerating at a lesser rate.....

or by achieving zero net acceleration - steady speed.....

or by declerating, but at a rate that is slow enough to achieve complete collapse before the building is done collapsing...

 

[Clayton Moore]

No, seriously, who was making that claim? Can you provide a link? Which of the points I made do you acknowledge, contest, or remain indifferent on?

And stopped by what? The same building that couldn't stop the first few dozen floors? What logic do you have to support a claim that something like half the building would just slow down? Slow down by roughly how much? Because we know none of the buildings were all falling at FFA, despite the Truther canard that there was "no resistance" therefore aliens explosives.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[femr2]

we know none of the buildings were all falling at FFA

~1.75s ~FFA, including ~0.5s >g, WTC7...

 

[000063]

Sorry, "at FFA for all or even a large portion of the entire descent". I forgot to mention that.

Thanks for the laugh.

Clay, everyone can see that you did not actually answer a single one of my questions.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I disagree.

A progressive collapse is merely one that continues to an amount disproportionate to the initial failure.

It doesn't have to, and usually does not, progress to total collapse. And it didn't progress to total collapse in the case of either WTC1, 2 or 7. All of them had a few columns still standing at the end, but clearly fit into the category of progressive collapse.

There is nothing in the definition that says whether or not it must progress thru the structure at an accelerating, decelerating or constant rate.

The single most common example of progressive collapse - dominoes - progresses at a fairly constant rate. I'd guess that the speed is inversely proportional to the distance between dominoes.

The upper blocks of the towers initially accelerated, but to a very high probability, reached a near constant terminal velocity that occurred when gradually increasing force required for the expulsion of air (plus the other approximately constant fracturing & disassembling forces) equilibrated with the gradually increasing weight of the falling mass.
___

BTW, I don't like the term "crush" used to describe what happened to the floors during the crush down phase.

In order to crush things, you have to restrain them from both directions. For the large structural components (core columns & concrete), they were not restrained from below until the falling mass reached the ground.

On the way down, the concrete fractured. Since it is brittle, it will throw out lots of small particles in a wide range of sizes coming from the fracture planes. But between the fracture planes, the vast majority of the concrete will remain in blocks & chunks, not reduced to small particles.

Most of the outer columns got thrown out of the footprint. No crushing there. The outer columns that got entangled within the falling mass, along with the core column, generally didn't get crushed either. Bent, fractured, but not crushed. Some did in some local areas, but that was few & far between in my opinion from looking at the columns in photos of GZ.

Comparatively weak structures (desks, office contents and, alas, people, etc.) obviously did get crushed. But the energy required for this is inconsequential in the big picture.

I think "fractured" is a better term than "crushed".

It describes the failures of connections, welds, support plates & concrete better than "crushed".

At what point in time was the initial falling mass itself fractured?

It gives a licking and takes a licking yet keeps on giving and taking a licking?

 

[thedopefishlives]

At what point in time was the initial falling mass itself fractured?

It gives a licking and takes a licking yet keeps on giving and taking a licking?

What does it matter? Once it is moving downwards and impacting on the floor slabs, the solidity or fractured-ness of the mass is irrelevant. There is still enough mass impacting the floor to break the connections and continue the collapse. I will ask you yet again, since you keep dodging the question: Have you figured out yet why the WTC Twin Towers were not like a stack of pancakes?

 

[000063]

At what point in time was the initial falling mass itself fractured?

It gives a licking and takes a licking yet keeps on giving and taking a licking?

Clay, we can also see that your response to complex posts with multiple facts is to question, not refute, some small aspect of it, usually with a one liner, instead of making an actual argument.

When the initial mass was fractured makes very little difference to the ultimate result, and may well be impossible to determine. Doesn't matter if it's rubble or intact or some combination, the joint is going down. You're just trying to keep the wheels spinning so you don't have to address those inconvenient facts we keep bringing up.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clay, we can also see that your response to complex posts with multiple facts is to question, not refute, some small aspect of it, usually with a one liner, instead of making an actual argument.

When the initial mass was fractured makes very little difference to the ultimate result, and may well be impossible to determine. Doesn't matter if it's rubble or intact or some combination, the joint is going down. You're just trying to keep the wheels spinning so you don't have to address those inconvenient facts we keep bringing up.

Yeah it's really complex. Object one hits object two. When do the successive concussions completely fracture object one?

 

[tfk]

Thanks for the laugh.

Special effects physics.

I don't believe any of the non demolition bs. But whatever, let's say that's fine initially, but after 30 or 40 floors how could the "collapse" continue without slowing down?

That was a dumb thread. The duhbunkers make the famous SNL Jon Lovitz character seem a saint in comparison.

Yeppers. Like the successful planned controlled demolitions always do?

Really?

What's there to know?

The world saw two huge skyscrapers become completely demolished in about a 1/4 of minute. That's about 7 tower floors a second.

What is sadly hilarious is that they say no way the three buildings could have been rigged yet they insist that the buildings were able to demolish/pulverize themselves with force of their own mass.

The trusters believe explosives technology hasn't changed for the past 70 years.

Plenty of witnesses heard explosions. Including firemen and TV broadcasters/reporters.

Whatever it was it was state of the art military.

More than none.

blah, blah, blah
[a tedious litany of non-arguments, non-answers, JAQ's, & evasions, stretching back years…]

Inability to construct a minimally cogent argument noted.

Long term abandonment of the slightest pretense to even TRY to construct a minimally cogent argument amusingly noted.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Inability to construct a minimally cogent argument noted.

Long term abandonment of the slightest pretense to even TRY to construct a minimally cogent argument amusingly noted.

I'm crushed. As is your wont, fractured.