- Thread starter
- #901
look asswipe, unlike you I dont pretend to know everything and pass myself off as an expert. Calling someone a dumbshit for admitting to not being an expert at something is classless but typical of you.
In my post I deferred to the "experts", and you responded.
So what makes you an "expert"?
In your example above you estimate a tonnage per floor and average it out, leaving out the fact that the top half of the building is constructed in a tapered fashion, needing less robust columns and weight bearing materials, and therefore using less of it making your
2,727 tons per floor at velocity of 4.43 meters / second.
not even an accurate example.
Moving along,
As you said-"Local structures fail as the collapse progresses, so pretending the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section all at once is just retarded."
And no where am I pretending the top half had to destroy the lower all at once, and you know it.
What is retarded is pretending the weaker top block can crush through the stronger lower block in the amount of time it did.
Tower’s columns tapered as they ascended.
Your critique of Chandler is noted and I will review what you say about the dynamic loads you say he leaves unaccounted, I have already found some refutations for his calculations here-
NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: Chandler's Data Support a Gravitational Collapse!
but don't forget the NIST claims 200 "experts" and signatories to their report, and it was this Dr. Chandler, a simple high school physics teacher that properly corrected one major obfuscation of their report in where they completely left out the fact WTC 7 experienced freefall, this after Sunder claimed it was impossible because the structure had to have provided resistance.
Getting back to it, ..even if all the great forces of energy you site were sound, (which I just showed in one example, may not be)
it doesn't look like you are taking into account the fact that the top "block" had to overcome the resistance of the rigid lower "block", and that would not happen instantaneously. It would be met by an opposing force. The question seems to be if the dynamic loads in the top block was sufficient enough to cause the destruction as we saw it, in the short amount of time it occurred in.
The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it.
Which clearly shows it did pulverize in the many videos.
There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high winds—and gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind. The lower block was not weak, nor (excluding stories 93-98) was it damaged by plane impact or fire.
The weight of the upper block posed no threat to it. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from the momentum of the upper block. But momentum is a product of mass and velocity, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity.
It looks like this study is referring to dynamic loads/force.
Much of the building fell off to the sides, as the debris field suggests, and pulverized, so the accumulation of its mass to provide the dynamic load is in question.
Since NIST’s theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on the lower structure. So it is no surprise that the NIST authors, however shy they are about affirming it, eventually come out in favour of the falling of the upper block. [7]
Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.
What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the ground.
The top half of the building was lighter and weaker as most tall buildings are built that way, as they increase in height.
The WTC Tower’s columns tapered as they ascended.
In summary, even if it was possible for their theory to stand up to scrutiny, which it doesn't, the top "block" would have had to overcome the lower blocks resistance, and the collapse would have taken considerably longer. As it stands we are faced with collapses that occurred in 10 to 18 seconds or there abouts.
The 9-11 commission endorses a figure of 10 secs.
As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a powerful jolt. While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic.
This is why it takes more then one hammer blow to drive a nail, unless you are driving it into Styrofoam.
Journal of 911 Studies 1 January 2009/Volume 24
The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
Graeme MacQueen
Tony Szamboti
I am also not trying to look at it the collapse as 12 floors falling onto 98 floors and figure that the 98 are greater than the 20 so would withstand the force. I think of it as 12 falling onto 1, then 13 falling onto 1, then 14 falling onto 1, then 15 falling onto 1, then 16 falling onto 1, and so on, this would take longer then 10 to 15 seconds, and this would take time.
And I am also taking into account the destruction of the top block as it hits the lower parts, pulverizes and falls away. Less mass, less dynamic energy/forces.
We should expect to have a massive collapse but take much longer to complete.
Last edited:
Apparently someone needs to have a little chat with your NWO teachers. ANY kind of thermite, thermate, nano thermwhatever doesn't use iron. Iron is a result of the reaction, not an ingredient. For any of the thermitic reactions you need iron oxide or rust. Now, if they had found nano-sized particals of pure aluminum which doesn't occur in nature much at all, I would have been suspicious. Aluminum oxide (the other byproduct of a thermite reaction along with the iron) is extremely common in nature.
to Jones as he actually put out a lucid and valid defense of his beliefs. I can respect that.
