99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by Darkwing01


Ok, forget the columns, forget the antenna, forget any mass but the 12 floors. Do you agree that when 12 floors fall on a single floor, the single floor inevitably fails? And once it has failed, 13 floors falls on the next floor, which also inevitably fails? And after that ones failed, 14 floors etc.. If you do agree to that, do you also agree that collapse was inevitable once it was initiated?

reply to post by -PLB-

To get this clear, the distinction you make between pancake collapse and crush down collapse is that in a pancake collapse the floor connections fail, and in a crush down collapse the support columns fail?

Bazant was never particularly clear how his model related to the real world, but you can picture it that way.

Strictly speaking the difference is in the way the calculation is made rather than what is happen in actual fact:

- For "pancake" or ROOSD theories you are modelling what happens as one floor impacts the next, overcomes the supports of whatever type and then iterate that collision over the whole process.

In this type of model you have to be sure that you know EXACTLY what is going on with each collision. This is what psikey keeps going on about, it is no good to hand-wave some approximate figure for the floor weights and look at edge on floor assemblies.

Any tiny error will multiply and become a gross distortion. So you have to know EXACT weights and EXACT failure points.

- For a crush down theory you don't need to know precisely every detail, but you do need a way to accurately account for ALL the forces present.

If you miss a force the whole calculation is off because crush down is only considering the net force over the whole process. So resistances, for example, are treated as if they were not successive floors breaking, but as if the it is the density of a medium through which the upper block is falling.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The difference may seem technical but it makes a huge difference in the end because we are dealing with incomplete data sets here.

reply to post by Darkwing01


It is good that you can give a fairly detailed description of both theories. What Bazant says about this is:

The details of the failure process after the decisive initial trigger that sets the upper part in motion are of course very complicated and their clarification would require large computer simulations. For example, the upper part of one tower is tilting as it begins to fall ~Appendix II!; the distribution of impact forces among the underlying columns of the framed tube and the core, and between the columns and the floor-supporting trusses, is highly nonuniform; etc. However, a computer is not necessary to conclude that the collapse of the majority of columns of one floor must have caused the whole tower to collapse. This may be demonstrated by the following elementary calculations, in which simplifying assumptions most optimistic in regard to survival are made.

So what assumption does he make:

For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest.

He says it himself. His "crush-down" model as you call is is "Unlikely". He assumes that all the impact force go into the support columns because it is in favor of arrest. That did not happen in reality. So crush-down as you define it did not happen. In the "official explanation" crush-down as you define it is called "unlikely". (if you count Bazants work as official explanation).

reply to post by -PLB-

Ok, forget the columns, forget the antenna, forget any mass but the 12 floors. Do you agree that when 12 floors fall on a single floor, the single floor inevitably fails? And once it has failed, 13 floors falls on the next floor, which also inevitably fails? And after that ones failed, 14 floors etc.. If you do agree to that, do you also agree that collapse was inevitable once it was initiated?

No.

One floor impacts one floor.

At the point of impact the only force that can be imparted is the maximum force that can be resisted.

Say that you have a stack of twelve floors at the top, each capable of resisting the upwards force generated by the mass of 3 floors pushing up against it from below at the speed of the falling floors.

But say that the lower floor can resist of mass of 4 floors pushing down on it from above falling at whatever speed.

Which one will break first d o you think?

Floor assemblies are not designed to resist as much force from below as they are from above for what I assume is fairly obvious reasons. So obviously you cannot transmit the full force of all the upper 12 stories onto the lower floor, you can only transmit until the failure point of either the upper or the lower assembly, and no more.

Of course it is true that you now have this static load lying on top of this floor plus any damage from the impact reducing the load capacity of the lower floor, and after one or two more such impacts it will surely fail.

But after this the floor is wrecked, it is not a connected assembly anymore, by the time all 12 floors have been destroyed like this you no longer have floors, you have an uncompressed heap of rubble. So each time you have a collision the pancaking collisions become more and more like crush down collisions.

But this isn't Bazant's crush down, it is not an indestructible element impacting a frangible lower body in a one-dimension. This is uncompacted rubble we are talking about, the coefficient of restitution has now grown to enormous proportions.

So at this point it is no longer possible to speak in any meaningful sense of however many floor impacting however many floors.

Go back to the rice falling on the scale: Take that same pile of rice out of the packet and drop in onto the scale, see the difference?

He says it himself. His "crush-down" model as you call is is "Unlikely". He assumes that all the impact force go into the support columns because it is in favor of arrest. That did not happen in reality. So crush-down as you define it did not happen. In the "official explanation" crush-down as you define it is called "unlikely". (if you count Bazants work as official explanation).

Which makes it all the more telling that they decided to go with this over pancaking.

Pancaking doesn't work because you can't fudge the numbers as easily and the projected collapse time even without losses just doesn't add up.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
No.

One floor impacts one floor.

....

So each time you have a collision the pancaking collisions become more and more like crush down collisions.

So your conclusion is that once the collapse is initiated, complete collapse in inevitable? I want you to answer this question, as I think it is relevant. For the moment, I don't really care how this happens in detail, or whether you call it crush down, pancaking, ROOSD, or whatever.

But this isn't Bazant's crush down, it is not an indestructible element impacting a frangible lower body in a one-dimension. This is uncompacted rubble we are talking about, the coefficient of restitution has now grown to enormous proportions.

So at this point it is no longer possible to speak in any meaningful sense of however many floor impacting however many floors.

Go back to the rice falling on the scale: Take that same pile of rice out of the packet and drop in onto the scale, see the difference?

This is why I want to drop the terms "crush-down" and "pancaking". You have already given 2 different definitions of "crush-down", and I haven't even given my own definition yet. This is why these terms only confuse discussion.

Which makes it all the more telling that they decided to go with this over pancaking.

Again, I am not going with "this". My definition of crush down is not the same. That is why I want to drop these terms. It only causes confusion, this reaction being proof of that.

Pancaking doesn't work because you can't fudge the numbers as easily and the projected collapse time even without losses just doesn't add up.

And I don't know what you mean by this. Pancaking as a model doesn't work? Pancaking as a hypothesis doesn't work? Pancaking as an explanation does not work? Describe what it exactly is that does not work without using the term pancake.

reply to post by -PLB-

So your conclusion is that once the collapse is initiated, complete collapse in inevitable?

No, the only thing that is inevitable is that collapse would eventually be arrested.

You have already given 2 different definitions of "crush-down", and I haven't even given my own definition yet. This is why these terms only confuse discussion.

They are not different definitions and they are perfectly well defined.

But maybe you should state your definition of these things if you are so concerned.

It only causes confusion, this reaction being proof of that.

You can call it whatever pleases you, what you described was pancaking by both the definitions of pancaking I gave.

Pancaking as a model doesn't work? Pancaking as a hypothesis doesn't work? Pancaking as an explanation does not work? Describe what it exactly is that does not work without using the term pancake

.

You description of the collapse does not work as a model because has no connection to what can readily be observed in the collapse footage, in fact it directly contradicts it. It also doesn't work as a model because it only addresses the first in a putative series of iterations and fails to account for the rubble which formed during the collapse.

Your description of the failure of the floor assemblies does not work as an hypothesis because it is falsified by the rubble pile and computed collapse time.

It does not work as an explanation because it doesn't explain what is to be explained: How the collapse happened so fast, so completely and so symmetrically.

Your theory basically amounts to this:
-Something heavy fell on something else, breaking it.
-[Insert Miracle here]
-The government would never do such a thing.
-Therefore gravity alone was responsible.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
No, the only thing that is inevitable is that collapse would eventually be arrested.

Then explain which floor would eventually arrest the collapse. How is this possible when there is the mass of at least 12 unsupported floors above it? How can a single floor support the mass of 12 floors?

You description of the collapse does not work as a model because has no connection to what can readily be observed in the collapse footage, in fact it directly contradicts it. It also doesn't work as a model because it only addresses the first in a putative series of iterations and fails to account for the rubble which formed during the collapse.

What observation contradicts my explanation?

Your description of the failure of the floor assemblies does not work as an hypothesis because it is falsified by the rubble pile and computed collapse time.

How is it falsified by the rubble pile?

It does not work as an explanation because it doesn't explain what is to be explained: How the collapse happened so fast, so completely and so symmetrically.

It is a very brief and simplified description. It is not meant to explain everything in detail.

Your theory basically amounts to this:
-Something heavy fell on something else, breaking it.

So far, ok.

-[Insert Miracle here]

Why is a miracle required? Once that something else broke, it also started falling. Is that a miracle?

-The government would never do such a thing.
-Therefore gravity alone was responsible.

I nowhere said that.

reply to post by -PLB-


You nailed it. Therefore this must be the truth after all

reply to post by Cassius666

You nailed it. Therefore this must be the truth after all

I think it is worthwhile to remember that given the fact that there is no independent scientific support for the OS that the ONLY real evidence we have is the good word those guys.

Then explain which floor would eventually arrest the collapse. How is this possible when there is the mass of at least 12 unsupported floors above it? How can a single floor support the mass of 12 floors?

PLB!!!!

It is one thing to quote out of context, but it is quite another when you start criticizing the preamble or conclusion for not being the main body. Just two posts above I gave you a detailed outline and you have given NO indication that you understand it.

Until you can demonstrate that you have some grasp of what I am talking about it isn't really worth discussing.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
PLB!!!!

It is one thing to quote out of context, but it is quite another when you start criticizing the preamble or conclusion for not being the main body. Just two posts above I gave you a detailed outline and you have given NO indication that you understand it.

Until you can demonstrate that you have some grasp of what I am talking about it isn't really worth discussing.

It is a tough question for you to answer, I understand why you are avoiding it. Still, too bad you choose to chicken out.

reply to post by -PLB-

It is a tough question for you to answer, I understand why you are avoiding it. Still, too bad you choose to chicken out.

How exactly am I avoiding it when I answered before you asked it?

If you want an exact answer I would say at around 20 floors down or so, depending on how you calculate the increase in the coefficient of restitution.

This should help you visualize the principle:


Another one that is less clear:

reply to post by Darkwing01


You did not answer it. You explanation, the one I supposedly did not understand, ended with:

But after this the floor is wrecked, it is not a connected assembly anymore, by the time all 12 floors have been destroyed like this you no longer have floors, you have an uncompressed heap of rubble. So each time you have a collision the pancaking collisions become more and more like crush down collisions.

So we have, according to you, an uncompressed heap of rubble, with a mass of at least 12 floors, falling down. You claim that at one moment, this mass will be arrested. Which floor is going to arrest this mass? How come this floor is capable of holding this mass? Explain this.

reply to post by -PLB-

Which floor is going to arrest this mass? How come this floor is capable of holding this mass? Explain this.

I did.

Take a bag of rice:
Put it on a scale, take the weight.
No drop it on the scale from some height, note the maximum measured weight.
Now take the rice out the bag and drop them as loose grains on the same scale, note the weight.

12 floors do not impact as a single coherent mass once they have been reduced to rubble.

They don't impact uniformly either, and they do not come to rest on the same floor.

reply to post by Darkwing01


You seem to have missed the fact that we have been ignoring dynamic load altogether. You say that the mass is arrested. So at some moment in time, all the mass of the at lest 12 floors must be resting, without moving, on a floor that was able to stop it. Which floor is capable of doing that? How come this floor is capable of holding the mass of at least 12 floors? Note that the mass is not moving, so your scale has nothing to do with this question.

reply to post by -PLB-


I am not ignoring dynamic load, I included dynamic load in the description.

Did you miss the fact that I asked you to DROP the bag of rice on the scale?

reply to post by Darkwing01


Answer the question. Once the collapse arrested, which floor is holding the mass that is arrested? How is this floor capable of holding this mass without failing?

reply to post by -PLB-


The floor isn't holding the mass.

The last floor may be holding some mass and resist some unconnected rubble falling on it, but most is falling beside the building, getting stuck on unbroken bits of perimeter, core or higher floors.

The problem is that you are looking at a 2-d side-on picture of the floor assemblies whereas in reality these were 3-d objects.

Even if no floor was able to resist in the end and the collapse WAS global, the time would be MUCH longer (i.e. an order of magnitude) higher than free-fall.

reply to post by Darkwing01


You think the majority of mass falling not down (the direction gravity is pulling it), but falling to the side? What force is causing this to happen? How is this a reasonable assumption to make?

off course it was an inside job....... where there is smoke there is fire

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Darkwing01

 

You think the majority of mass falling not down (the direction gravity is pulling it), but falling to the side? What force is causing this to happen? How is this a reasonable assumption to make?

It is a reasonable assumption because that is what happens in every natural collapse known to man.

This is why I keep saying that OS'ers need a reproducible experiment in the mode of psikey's. Without that the only recourse is to historic collapses, none of which support the OS. F.E.A. also doesn't support the OS, they all indicate halting, the only F.E.A. that doesn't is the one that we don't have the source code for (the NIST one for WTC7).

EVERYTHING says that this is the reasonable assumption and that the O.S. is the "could happen in principle under very special conditions" scenario.

You need a PHYSICAL test to support your hypothesis, truthers have plenty.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I think you must recognize that almost anything "could happen in principle under very special conditions".

Time travel "could happen in principle under very special conditions".
An alien"could appear in front of me in principle under very special conditions", just from random quantum interactions.

This is why "could happen in principle under very special conditions" is not a way to do science. You need a PHYSICALLY reproducible experiment or you are just making stuff up.