One and two. Three is all you.

The collapse happened. Bazant rushes out an explanation with no input from any investigation. He describes something that didn't happen because 1) it's theoretically impossible and 2) it is contradicted by a careful viewing of the video evidence.

Why don't I think the crush down/crush up is correct (meaning why I think it's theoretically impossible)? How many times do I have to say it? It violates Newton's third law. The top block, as I believe masque has indicated, would be destroyed first. And you were chiming in on my redundancy in the other thread? lol

ok.

So that's what I thought, and that's why I tried to explain your error to you by drawing that picture. Your Newton's third law argument flies off the window when you take into account the fact that there are things between the two blocks. Heavy heavy things.

This is not the first time I try to explain it to you, so I guess I'm redundant too. Maybe you just dont get it, or maybe you believe that 100% of the mass of the crushed floors gets ejected sideways, which would be an intriguing idea.

When you say "heavy heavy things" and specify "blocks" I know that you don't understand the laws.

Maybe, in the interest of science education, masque will confirm your misunderstanding for everyone since he has some credibility and has shown that he understands the third law as applied here.

Ok. I'll make it easier for masque to correct me by doing that physics problem from earlier:
1. Projecting everything on a vertical axis (m is the mass of B):
m×a = m×g + FAB + FBC

2. Let's say that the axis I projected on points downward. We get: (a-g)<0, FAB>0 and FCB<0.
We rewrite the previous equation:
m×(a-g) = FAB+FBC
Therefore: (FAB+FBC)<0
Based on the signs, we get |FAB|<|FCB|

3. Newton's third law implies that if |FAB|<|FCB|, then |FBA|<|FBC|.

Using this as a collapse model where B is the rubble between the two blocks, the lower block is subjected to a force more important than the upper block is, making crush-down possible.

Where did I go wrong?

I don't know why I'm surprised you still don't get it. I certainly shouldn't be. This is what I get for trying to actually talk to these idiots again.
The rest of you can deal with this.

Christ.

This is often repeated by Chandler and I know he completely misunderstands the redundancy in the WTC towers, and likely in structural engineering in general.

But please go ahead and explain what you mean exactly with this redundancy factor and where you got the number from.

I guess we can start with the NIST FAQs again and see what bull**** he comes up with to show they are wrong while he is being even more wrong:

kerowo... you seem like the forum's most ardent advocate of American victimhood, so I'll address you for now:

- has there ever been an unethical conspiracy involving any circle within the WH-Langley-Pentagon triumvirate? If so, which?
- did anyone in government deserve to lose their job for negligence after 9/11? if so, why didn't they get fired, in your view?
- do you believe the 9/11 money trail was absolutely followed to its obvious, exhaustive conclusion?
- was the 9/11 Commission given the funding and cooperation it deserved? Did it meet it's mandate?

bonus questions:
- do radical Islamists hate us for our freedoms?
- Is fascism more a subset of a left or right wing ideology?

I'll let you fire away with your obligatory vitriolic speculation on a personal level... But after you get your fix, hopefully you'll attempt to answer those questions so we can all see just how wide the gap in agreement actually is. Who knows? Maybe you'll surprise.

The actual weight of the building is only important if you have actual number for the steel columns and their cross section etc. The numbers i have used i believe are for steel and i have seen different places larger numbers that may refer to total mass. In any case if we are down not to a proof of concept but an exact calculation i can find the exact numbers to make the calculation accurate but it wont change the relative logic at all.

Do you have any reference for the 3-5 ratio of what it can hold without bucking vs the real weight? I dont buy that. If it was eg 4 then the building might never come down. And the collapse would be much less fast and even possibly not go through so straightforwardly.

When the plane hit the building, it didn't go down and all corners were still ok. The plane didnt make as much damage on the back as in the front of the building. The fires would not be able to take the strength of steel down a factor of 3 either unless real higher in temperature in many spots that still didnt include the corners visibly. They can do it locally though but that changes how the collapse is observed at start a bit (more asymmetry).

Who says the ratio is 4 for example? I need proof of that. If it was 4 the building wouldnt collapse at all as easily because the first floor doesnt drop to begin with in a coordinated way and even if it does it doesnt do it super fast as seen and probably has a lot of asymmetry leading to masses falling on one side more etc or collapse progressing differently in the same floor. The higher the ratio is the harder it gets and it can only be initiated locally. By that i mean it is much easier to break near the hit area but the rest of the building in the back and corners stays ok while that vulnerable spot breaks first.

If you start with 4 and the plane takes out 30% (lets investigate the exact % the plane took out by the way) that leaves still 2.8 and fire cannot take that down a factor of 2.8 to initiate it , you would need a lot more fire and all corners visibly burning very hot.

Give me a legitimate link of 4. The higher this number is the more important the details of how the collapse starts become. We then definitely need to know the exact position of the columns (and the location of the initial damage) and how the weight is distributed and how the building responds to partial collapse of the weak areas in the first 1-2 seconds in order to affect the rest of the floor that the support is still there near 4 locally. A smaller overall number eg 2 even at most 3 makes it easier to see a more uniform failure of all the floor rather than mostly one part of it. Do you see what i mean? You would be seeing a gradual initial drop like a domino effect in the same floor until it all fails but it wouldn't all happen in eg 0.5 sec say , it would probably take a bit more.

Besides i see a reference by Bazant in 2008 that even 0.5m drop out of 3-4m per floor is enough to break the structure of that floor so that is definitely not going to be a true statement if the ratio was 4 on the first floor dropping.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Cause%20It.pdf

I literally don't care at all about the part of 9/11 that you care about as I've said before all I care about is pointing and laughing at the no jetters and controlled demolition idiots.

I also want to add that what we are doing here is a generic proof of concept discussion. To cut the qualitative semi serious talk and become really responsible about it and not use bound style arguments we need to know exactly how the columns were supporting each other and how the trusses were placed and were helping distributing the overall load in each floor and how much of that was destroyed by the plane and how the removal of one part effects the neighboring ones etc (how it is all redistributed now in the absence of original symmetry i mean). We need a full course in the design of that building with complete analysis of the loads and how they are affected if you start removing things, how far are they placed between the core and the perimeter (what supports the in between area) and the exact role of each of the trusses in between.

A building can in principle hold a lot more than its weight but you also need to know how this property changes as you start removing support and it may not change linearly with the damage. By that i mean that maybe taking out 20% of the beams and trusses doesnt take the ratio of what it can hold vs weight by a factor of 20% also. It may be much worse.

To illustrate my point in some extreme mini building example that you have only 4 beams that require even 5x the weight to start bucking say if you remove 2 on one side the fact that the other 2 can still in principle hold the weight means little because the "building" will start to bend. Imagine removing 3/4 even and the original 5x ability is irrelevant now which naively would still tell you its ok it holds. Imagine that of course with over 100 beams of steel to see what is going on there in the real thing and you do not remove 2-3 or 5 but maybe even 20-30 of them with the first strike and trusses even and most of them from one major hit zone not randomly from all over the floor. Which ones you removed also may make a difference (like in the simplistic 4 example where removing 2 on one side is likely worse than removing diagonal ones).

Type, type, fast as you can,
can't catch me, I'm the gingerbread man!

OK, if you prefer to dwell only in the negative. But it helps with perspective to understand how people like you view the attacks from a fundamental level. It might lend a lot of credibility to your dismissals if you're willing to concede that America does some pretty awful and unethical things, and then goes to great lengths to cover them up.

Ever? ... Once?

You don't care if the 9/11 Commission received sufficient funding? Wow. That speaks volumes.

I guess you're gonna stand firm and pretend you "don't care" about any other aspect of 9/11 besides fighting MIHOP theory. I'm awed by your resolve. But while that sounds like you're not proud enough of your belief system re: what DID happen that day, we'll haveta go ahead and assume, based on your silence, that you:

- believe there has never been an unethical conspiracy involving any circle within the WH-Langley-Pentagon triumvirate...
- believe NO ONE in government deserved to lose their job for negligence after 9/11...
- believe the 9/11 money trail was absolutely followed to its obvious, exhaustive conclusion...
- believe the 9/11 Commission got the funding and cooperation it deserved, AND met its mandate wonderfully...

and, bonus questions:
- believe Islamists DO hate us for our freedoms...
- believe fascism is more a subset of left wing ideology.

Got it.

Would any other coincidence theorist like to take a stab at the above? Just for the sake of perspective? Or maybe just to find some semblance of common ground?

Probably not. Maybe start a thread where people care?

Deuce: since masque is apparently too busy developing the most detailed collapse model ever, maybe you can tell me where I'm wrong in the reasoning I posted? I'm talking about the one with the simple equations showing that crush-down is allowed by Newton's laws.

No, I'll keep it right here, thanks. It's covered quite nicely by the thread title, and my 100 unanswered points since half-time. It's really a rout, at this point.

It's telling that your team's final fallback position is to essentially plug your ears, and pretend you don't care about holes in your story. I guess your defense of the cozy official narrative only goes so far. I understand.

You are saying Bazant doesn't really mean that the top block crushed through the remainder. But in the paper Bazant concludes the model with "and then the top block crushes itself up into the ground". So no, he literally means the top block crushed the rest. This is how everyone has responded to the paper, and Bazant has even responded to those responses under that same assumption. You are wrong as you can be. I could see where you might think what you thought, but you just weren't familiar enough with the terrain to go and make such statements. Now, you know a little bit more.

That number is given by a lot of different sources. Do you challenge the number?

Ok so you are saying that the symmetry between the top block and the remainder doesn't exist because the rubble is there, and you also think that this column of rubble will eventually constitute the entire downward load on any intact structure below?

yes
no?
The rubble doesnt just apply its own weight to the structure below, it also transmits weight from the structure above.

It isnt rocket science, really. Just picture a pile of three objects: block, rubble, block. The lower block has more weight to hold than the upper block and is more likely to break.

Is there an animation of this you can link to? because what I am picturing what you are saying is even more messed up than Bazant's take. For one thing, there is going to needed to be a lot of rubble, fixed in a column, before it rivals the bottom part of the building, especially given the difference in density. Also, what do you make of the material sloughing off to the side in it's decompensating effect on the crushing process? Also, there is still a symmetry. Adding another element in the middle does not detract from the symmetry.

What is your opinion as to why NIST never released an animation of the the collapse? If collapse was so inevitable that they don't have to say how it happened, then it shouldn't be too hard to model it and animate it, right?

I challenge the context in which at leat Chandler is using the number and I'm looking for the sources.

This is a simple argument. Hunting for animations is not going to accomplish anything except for distracting you from it.

There is a lot of rubble even if you make generous assumptions regarding the fraction of it being is ejected or falling sideways. It does not need to be fixed in a column and can have whatever density it wants, it just needs to be there and have a mass.
I have no idea what you mean by decompensating effect. Is it a force? How does it act? If you think something is missing or wrong in the simplified equations I posted you can correct them, but I cannot argue with terms that you invent.
Gravity is not symmetrical.
Irrelevant to the discussion. Modeling exactly a chaotic process is way harder than knowing the process is inevitable, though.

Good lord.

Has Deuces McFraud ever produced one piece of mathematical modeling of any of his theories?