More drivel, Howard?
The challenge is to reproduce your theory with some sort of model or simulation and
prove that it
isn't drivel, not explain it to us
again, as if we have somehow forgotten with what we disagree.
But since you brought up this point-by-point excrement, I might mention that there was one point in particular that I notice you left out totally in
your recap of NIST's whitewash.
- Explosive ejections of debris and dust tens of floors below the collapse level.
Ie,
To which you say:
Maybe it's because NIST also totally neglected to address these explosions in their in-depth, "scientific" report.
Well, go ahead, Howard. Just take a shot at it and fail. Get it over with and out of your system so we can move on and get to some modelling or
simulations or something
testable. You know you're going to keep seeing them anyway.
Try not to contradict yourself, though, because you're on record here ridiculing the idea that air travels like a solid projectile. We all know that
it does not. We also know that compressed air equalizes immediately upon meeting less dense air. So you'll have to pull something else out of your
imagination to get the
job done on this one.
Some commentary on other points..
Given the forces involved, why do you find it hard to accept that some of the debris was thrown out as the steel warped, twisted and bent when
the massive bulk of the building collapsed?
This is one of the things you should test when you finally get around to trying to prove us wrong. That is to say, when you finally get to work on
some models or simulations or something. I say this because you offer absolutely no evidence that such ejections would be possible with a
gravity-driven collapse. Rather, you imply we should just accept that it could happen without any evidence.
Also, give that he buildings were well over 600 feet high, the distance that the debris traveled doesn't seem that far to me.
So let me guess: since the buildings were over 1350 feet high, the debris should've shot out over 1350 feet laterally?
I'm sure you realize how ridiculous it is to assume the height of the towers had much of anything to do with the force applied to the debris to send
it laterally. There is no such connection, as you imply, between a downward, gravity-driven fall, and a lateral ejection by a separate force. Two
totally different forces at work.
Provide proof that all of the concrete was ground into "nano-dust."
Why would all of the concrete need to be ground into dust, anyway? It's certainly an amazing point that most all of it was turned to a powder (the
slabs between floors), but that even a majority was turned to dust is odd, wouldn't you say? A vast majority of fine, powdery dust, rather than small
pieces or even pebbles. And
no large pieces were apparent during collapse at all, or appeared shattered on the ground afterwards. Just dust
covering the streets like a fine, dirty gray snow.
If you want to prove that this would be possible without explosives, you know what you could do?
Create a simulation showing that there was indeed enough energy to do so without explosives, and then give us the procedure so that we may duplicate
it and confirm it.
Hey, wait - isn't the whole point of this thread to encourage such a thing? Who would've thought.
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
- Complete destruction of the undamaged lower levels once the potential energy of the upper "caps" was spent.
That statement stands on its own in demonstrating you lack of understanding in the impact forces generated by a falling object and the capability of
the structure to withstand those forces.
The point was, there was no longer a falling object per se, and yet the floors continued to collapse at the same rate of speed.
How?
It's plain as day that the tops of the buildings were no longer acting as solid masses - single, unified objects - into the collapses. Rather, the
top sections were completely destroyed and the debris was scattered. The tops of the buildings no longer existed as tops of buildings. Yet the
buildings continued to fall, of course, at the same incredible rate of speed.
Try this simple experiment:
Take a 50 pound rock and drop it on a car from a height of maybe 20 feet. Then take 50 pounds of gravel and drop it on a similar car from the same
height. Observe which causes more damage.
You'll find that the single rock will cause far more damage, because its force is concentrated on a single location, because it has a much greater
mass, etc.
Common sense, right? Well, apply the same idea to the WTC towers. How did disjointed, destroyed masses that were once tops of buildings manage to
carry the same amount of force down onto the lower floors as they did when they were
still intact? Debris was coming off the sides in all
directions, concrete was turned to dust, steel columns were shredded and sent in various directions.. And yet the building continued to fall at the
same rate, with the same amount of utter destruction to all the floors it reached.
Again, I ask, how?
Build a model, or make a simulation, and
show us how.
In response to the rate of collapse, you imply we're looking at the free-falling debris. Not so.
Note how the large sections in the above photo are falling in free fall, faster then the building behind it. Also note the lack of a "majority
of the columns and beams snapped into 12 foot lengths."
Check out this bit of info taken from
here:
For the South Tower we define onset of collapse as the moment downward movement of the highest point of the roof starts. Unfortunately this
time is difficult to determine since the roofline is obscured by smoke when the fall begins. The fall is preceded by a leaning movement that begins
around the time the movie begins and accelerates for about three seconds. At somewhere between two and three seconds the top starts to fall. Once the
top starts to lean, the highest point of the roof is the northwest edge. 2.5 seconds may be a good estimate for the time that starts to fall. A good
marker for this is a small white squib that emerges from the level of the impact zone about three-quarters of the way back on the right face. That
immediately precedes the first large ejections from the southeast face.
Using that marker it is possible to time the fall of the South Tower's top up to the moment it gets swallowed up by the dust cloud. At that point the
dust cloud rises only slightly above the level of the 78th-floor sky lobby visible as a two-story band on the adjacent North Tower. A small
extrapolation gives a good estimate of the time of fall of the South Tower's roof to the level of the 78th floor of five seconds. That distance is
about 384 feet (12 feet per story times 32 stories).
That info is based, as the site itself mentions, on
this video
footage.
A fall of 384 feet in 5 seconds is 76.5 feet per second. That's 6.4 12-foot floors in one second. That's about 0.15 seconds to crush each 12-foot
floor, resisted by steel, concrete, air, and all.
I don't know how WeComeInPeace got his figures, but for all I know they may be more accurate than these. Maybe we can compare sources or something.
But either way, 0.03 seconds per floor or 0.15, that is an
extremely, no,
ridiculously fast rate of fall when the force driving the
collapse from above is shattered and coming off the sides. Hell, it would be ridiculously fast anyway.
And again, if you want to prove that this is possible without explosives...
feel free to submit a model or simulation with instructions so that we
may duplicate your trials.
Maybe you can even reread the first post to get an idea of what the objective here is again.
[edit on 23-8-2005 by bsbray11]
I have
maintained that the steel beams were snapped into floor-length, 12 foot pieces from the very beginning. Here, check out my original post on the
matter. 
) 
