Debunked: NIST's collapse theory contradicts Newton's Third Law of Motion

Status
Not open for further replies.

lemonlover

Member
The mass is the mass, the floors are not going anywhere. So you have a falling mass, that is continually getting heavier.

Things weigh the same regardless of if they are moving or not.

But only a static weight, not a moving one.

By mass they mean the block of the building. To get the weight you do mass x acceleration. As you can clearly see the bottom part of the building has more mass that the top part and MR chandler explains in the video that the force of interaction is a third of the weight that the top of the building would be if it was just sitting there. With the collapse theory It doesn't matter weather the building was designed to withstand a static or falling mass what matters is the weight of the mass. Because that is what the official pancake theory is claiming. That you know it pancaked because of the weight of it.

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Because that is what the official pancake theory is claiming. That you know it pancaked because of the weight of it.
But there is no 'official pancake theory'. So Chandler's is a strawman argument and invalid.

lemonlover

Member
Thanks for setting it out. The more you put things in your own words the more we can get to the fundamental misunderstanding.
Obviously many here are in disagreement with Chandler's deduction, and hopefully they can and have made clear why to you.

The air pressure doesn't need to be contained by walls, bringing two masses together that have a separation (floor and ceiling) will push away the air separating them - if the masses are large and moving fast then the moment the air is squeezed out of the way quickly will be a high pressure moment.

"Obviously many here are in disagreement with Chandler's deduction, and hopefully they can and have made clear why to you." No you are all denying the laws of physics. Mr Chadler was a physics teacher for 35 years. He has already caught NIST lying through their teeth and forced them to admit freefall. He knows what he is talking about and he is an honest man with the right intentions of finding out what really happened on 9/11.

"The air pressure doesn't need to be contained by walls, bringing two masses together that have a separation (floor and ceiling) will push away the air separating them - if the masses are large and moving fast then the moment the air is squeezed out of the way quickly will be a high pressure moment.[/QUOTE]

But the top of the building falls outwards and it didn't crush the bottom because that would have been impossible and you clearly see bit's of flying debris right down the building.

Mick West

Staff member
The air pressure doesn't need to be contained by walls, bringing two masses together that have a separation (floor and ceiling) will push away the air separating them - if the masses are large and moving fast then the moment the air is squeezed out of the way quickly will be a high pressure moment.

The classic example of this is the Yosemite blast, where, with no walls at all, the air pressure from a large falling rock created a supersonic blast powerful enough to knock down 1000 trees:
http://news.sciencemag.org/1997/12/yosemites-supersonic-blast

The air blasts from the falling WTC were much less powerful, but still substantial.

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
No you are all denying the laws of physics
No they have an understanding of how the laws of physics work in complex situations.

lemonlover

Member
This isn't the time to get bogged down on semantics....it's really an attempt (my minor contributions, at least) to help clear up some misconceptions about physics....this is a concept that has LONG been a part of the so-called "9/11 Truth" movement, for over a decade...

My only intent, here, is to (hopefully) post comments that will make you (and others) think a bit more clearly about the real science, rather than be fooled by the many charlatans out there who tend to spout nonsense.

EDIT: I want to add, also to "lemonlover"....I have an urge to teach, and to help others learn....also to "Unlearn" bad information.

There is NEVER any reason to be embarrassed for thinking something, and then learning that you were wrong before...THAT is the essence of moving forward, and growing.

Anecdote: I used to, in conversation, use the word "irregardless"....constantly, and with some sense of 'authority', as if I sounded "smart".

(This, back in my twenties....yeah, I was pretty cocky!)

It took another person to gently explain to me that "irregardless" is not a proper word.

I was mortified....for a while, but I got over it.

Point is, a mistake in thinking, or acting, or talking is NOT the "End of the World"...it is a learning experience.

You are just denying Newton's laws of motion which states that the official 9/11 story is impossible. You are in denial.

Mick West

Staff member
it didn't crush the bottom because that would have been impossible

Just saying something does not make it so. WHY is it impossible?

Why do you think that Chandler is pretty much the only high school physics teacher in the world who thinks this?

Why do you think the people arguing here don't agree with Chandler, but you do? Are you just a lot better at physics than we are? Or are we all in cahoots, trying to trick you?

Mick West

Staff member
You are just denying Newton's laws of motion which states that the official 9/11 story is impossible. You are in denial.
But as has been explained in many different ways, Newton says no such thing. His laws don't even apply to large rigid masses, or deformable bodies. and even if they did, even in the super simple model, nothing is being violated.

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
1) towers were on fire over several floors
2) towers had suffered loss of column strength to a significant number of columns at aircraft impacts
3) heat weakening of more columns plus sagging of floors and other effects, led to constant redistributions of load via the hat truss and other structural systems.
4) at some point a redistribution of load caused immediate failure(s) of more columns leading to a progression of failure inducing redistributions in all columns on one or over a few of the impact /fire level floors
5) a failed column due to heat creep ( where , under load, the existing load is now sufficient to deform the column) will result in axial misalignment of the column at the failure point,
6) thus, at the point that all columns fail, the no longer align at the failure points.
7) thus the now falling mass cannot impinge upon the columns directly. Instead it will impact the floor pans.
8) floors were designed to transfer normal floor loads to the columns. Now they are being ( violently) hit with dynamic forces well beyond any they were designed to transfer to the columns. This tresults in floor trusses ripping from their column seats.
9) now the falling mass contains not just the orginial upper levels but also contains the mass of the next floor below initial failure.
10) unless either the mass slows down greatly, or falls to the outside in large amount, the collapse will not arrest since all floor pans have essentially the same ability to transfer loads to the columns. Since there is no mechanism by which the falling mass can be sufficiently slowed nor pushed to the outside of the towers in sufficient quantity, the collapse will continue.

The fact of greater column thickness at lower levels is irrelevant to this collapse since at collapse initiation the mechanism to transfer loads(static and dynamic) of the falling mass to the columns is woefully inadequate to that task.

That is the Cole's notes version and illustrates where LL and Chandler are going waaasay off.
IMHO

lemonlover

Member
No they have an understanding of how the laws of physics work in complex situations.
It's very simple, not complex at all. Official story = The top part of the building fell gained momentum (through kinetic energy) smashed into the bottom floor this smashed into the next floor gained more mass and kinetic energy, this crushed the building. So essentially, the weight of the top part of the building crushed the bottom part because weight is = to mass x acceleration and acceleration releases kinetic energy. Newton's third law says this is impossible because the mass of the top part of the building was far less than the bottom part and it was falling 64% off of freefall, so the interaction was 36% a third of what the top part of the building would have weighed if it were static and the building was designed to hold 3-5 times it's own weight.

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The air pressure doesn't need to be contained by walls, bringing two masses together that have a separation (floor and ceiling) will push away the air separating them - if the masses are large and moving fast then the moment the air is squeezed out of the way quickly will be a high pressure moment.
Drop a book on a dusty table. If the concept requires illustration.

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
It's very simple, not complex at all. Official story = The top part of the building fell gained momentum (through kinetic energy) smashed into the bottom floor this smashed into the next floor gained more mass and kinetic energy, this crushed the building. So essentially, the weight of the top part of the building crushed the bottom part because weight is = to mass x acceleration and acceleration releases kinetic energy. Newton's third law says this is impossible because the mass of the top part of the building was far less than the bottom part and it was falling 64% off of freefall, so the interaction was 36% a third of what the top part of the building would have weighed if it were static and the building was designed to hold 3-5 times it's own weight.
So close and yet,,........

The upper part crushed the floor pans, the trusses and beams. This left columns impotent to stay upright let alone be the mechanism by which the loads could be routed to the foundation.

lemonlover

Member
But as has been explained in many different ways, Newton says no such thing. His laws don't even apply to large rigid masses, or deformable bodies. and even if they did, even in the super simple model, nothing is being violated.
You are just in denial Mick. Newton's laws apply to buildings etc. It has been clearly demonstrated that the official pancake theory put foword by the government goes against this law. Meaning it is physically impossible.

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
As for slender column buckling. Take a supply of soup cans. They stack on top of one another quite well and are more than strong enough to support many times their own weight. See how high you can stack them.

You will be far from the point where the weight crushes the lowest can. Instead you will have a slender column instability cause it to wobble and buckle. That is the concept that has columns fail when floors, their lateral support, are violently removed.

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
You are just in denial Mick. Newton's laws apply to buildings etc. It has been clearly demonstrated that the official pancake theory put foword by the government goes against this law. Meaning it is physically impossible.
No, you are simply ignorant of the concepts involved, either willfully or not. Your political worldview coupled with that ignorance causes you to then accept simplistic physics that is ineneptly applied.

lemonlover

Member
1) towers were on fire over several floors
2) towers had suffered loss of column strength to a significant number of columns at aircraft impacts
3) heat weakening of more columns plus sagging of floors and other effects, led to constant redistributions of load via the hat truss and other structural systems.
4) at some point a redistribution of load caused immediate failure(s) of more columns leading to a progression of failure inducing redistributions in all columns on one or over a few of the impact /fire level floors
5) a failed column due to heat creep ( where , under load, the existing load is now sufficient to deform the column) will result in axial misalignment of the column at the failure point,
6) thus, at the point that all columns fail, the no longer align at the failure points.
7) thus the now falling mass cannot impinge upon the columns directly. Instead it will impact the floor pans.
8) floors were designed to transfer normal floor loads to the columns. Now they are being ( violently) hit with dynamic forces well beyond any they were designed to transfer to the columns. This tresults in floor trusses ripping from their column seats.
9) now the falling mass contains not just the orginial upper levels but also contains the mass of the next floor below initial failure.
10) unless either the mass slows down greatly, or falls to the outside in large amount, the collapse will not arrest since all floor pans have essentially the same ability to transfer loads to the columns. Since there is no mechanism by which the falling mass can be sufficiently slowed nor pushed to the outside of the towers in sufficient quantity, the collapse will continue.

The fact of greater column thickness at lower levels is irrelevant to this collapse since at collapse initiation the mechanism to transfer loads(static and dynamic) of the falling mass to the columns is woefully inadequate to that task.

That is the Cole's notes version and illustrates where LL and Chandler are going waaasay off.
IMHO

It illustrates nothing and is just repeating the pancake collapse. He's going by what he sees and measurements. The top mass was far to small and travelling to slowly to crush the bottom bit of the building.

Jazzy

Closed Account
@lemonlover - You quoted:
and then wrote: "if you cut through all the gibberish it just says the pancake theory. that the buildings pancaked. That is the bit which is obviously wrong according to NewTon's laws. NIST have been caught lying before so they cannot be trusted." which IS gibberish. Unsubstantiated gibberish to boot.

You then write: "I'm going to briefly mention building 7 in relation to NIST lying. NIST has admitted that the building collapsed at freefall after being caught out by Mr Chandler, they were going to leave it out because they know that again, the laws of physics state that only buildings that have been blown up fall at freefall, that is why they left it out of their original report. Them admitting freefall still hasn't convinced people that the building was demoloished, so if NIST were to be believed then Bin Laden has managed to rewrite the laws of physics from his cave and outsmart Isacc Newton. The look on their faces here is priceless" which is a whole farrago of lies and smears borne of your ignorance.

as demonstrated above by Mr Chandler the falling part of the building weighed a third of what it would if it was at rest
Weight is a static commodity. It cannot be used to consider moving situations because weight itself is the product of a STATIC mass under an acceleration of G.

Under these circumstances educated people use MOMENTUM, which is MASS TIMES VELOCITY, or ENERGY, which is MASS TIMES VELOCITY SQUARED (over two).

the bottom part was designed to hold 3-5 times it's own weight.
Actually more than ten times the expected maximum weight (of the building above the failure point), and clearly capable of dealing with only about a third of the additional downward momentum it received.

NIST says quite clearly:
However, material (both dislodged floors and dislodged columns) was BOUND to pancake over the point of collision because it was under free fall whereas the point of collision was not.

The equal and opposite reaction you keep coming back to is not always one vector. It can be the sum of multiple vectors - in this illustration, friction and the normal force. So even if the inputs are only on the vertical axis, all it takes is a surface which is not horizontal to create horizontal acceleration. This is the basis of several of the simple machines.
And as I have stated previously - @lemonlover - buckling caused several column units to shoot out of the collapsing structure laterally at speeds approximately equivalent to the downward speed of the collapse. They did so because they could, inclusive of Newton's Laws of Motion, about which you know very little.

The only denial around here is your confident denial of three centuries of engineering analysis. I find this very shocking.

Last edited:

Mick West

Staff member
It's very simple, not complex at all. Official story = The top part of the building fell gained momentum (through kinetic energy) smashed into the bottom floor this smashed into the next floor gained more mass and kinetic energy, this crushed the building. So essentially, the weight of the top part of the building crushed the bottom part because weight is = to mass x acceleration and acceleration releases kinetic energy. Newton's third law says this is impossible because the mass of the top part of the building was far less than the bottom part and it was falling 64% off of freefall, so the interaction was 36% a third of what the top part of the building would have weighed if it were static and the building was designed to hold 3-5 times it's own weight.

But that's not what happened. The top part of the building did not craush the bottom part instantly. There was a series of individual events.

A large mass of falling rubbled caused floors successively to fail ONE AT A TIME, increasing the amount of falling mass, accelerating under gravity, with minimal resistance.

Let's go one step at a time. Was there enough momentum in the falling part of the building to cause one floor to fail?

Assuming yes, then you now have a mass that is heavier than before, and moving faster than before.

So what about the next floor? The falling mass will now be heavier, and faster. So does it have enough momentum to cause the second floor to fail?

etc?

lemonlover

Member
But there is no 'official pancake theory'. So Chandler's is a strawman argument and invalid.
Mr Chandler isn't using NISTS measurements. This is for another thread. This thread is about the pancaking theory.

Mick West

Staff member
Mr Chandler isn't using NISTS measurements. This is for another thread. This thread is about the pancaking theory.

What pancaking theory? NIST have said there is no pancaking theory.

Redwood

Active Member
"The falling mass is getting bigger, it's not losing floors, there's nothing to run out of." Yes the mass is its floors.

Yes but as demonstrated above by Mr Chandler the falling part of the building weighed a third of what it would if it was at rest and the bottom part was designed to hold 3-5 times it's own weight.

What this shows is that David Chandler is either willfully obtuse, or he doesn't understand the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. A dynamic load exerted by an object will always be greater than the weight (static load) of the object.

Think of when you were working out, really getting into shape, feeling great and you just got back from the gym and you couldn't wait to weigh yourself on the scale. You jump onto the scale and it shoots far past your actual weight and for a moment you are disheartened, but then you realize this is the dynamic load you are exerting on the scale. The reading on the scale quickly falls to your actual weight, which is the static load you are exerting on the scale. Your dynamic load will always be greater than your static load!

Likewise, imagine you had placed a scale on the topmost floor beneath the initiation point of the Twin Towers collapse. As the upper storeys fell on it, it would have briefly registered far more than their actual weight. After the floor connections gave way, the reading on the scale would have dropped to zero, as the mass is in freefall.

The process repeats as each floor fails. The scale reading goes far past the weight of the mass impacting each floor, then drops to zero. Repeat until the building is completely destroyed.

Needless to say, at no point would there be a static reading of 36% of the weight of the upper part of the building. It's part of Chandler's deception in using an average acceleration on a complex structure.

Last edited:

lemonlover

Member
No, you are simply ignorant of the concepts involved, either willfully or not. Your political worldview coupled with that ignorance causes you to then accept simplistic physics that is ineneptly applied.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I bet you can't explain to me why what I've said is wrong and how mr chandler has applied the physics wrong.

lemonlover

Member
What pancaking theory? NIST have said there is no pancaking theory.
Yes I made a mistake I thought it was NISTS theory but it isn't. It still doesn't change the fact that it's physically impossible.

Mick West

Staff member
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I bet you can't explain to me why what I've said is wrong and how mr chandler has applied the physics wrong.

Sorry Lemon, you seem to be continually ignoring the answers given here. I'm going to give you a week off, and some homework.

NIST does not have a pancake theory, they have a "sudden excessive load" theory, if you want to put a name to it. It's still a simplification, but it proves that the collapse could not have been stopped. Here it is:
So the question is, if the sudden loading capacity of any floor is lower than the number of floors above it, then how could the collapse have been stopped?

Mick West

Staff member
Lemon Lover has been banned for one week to give him the opportunity to spend more time thinking about what is wrong with NIST's answers, and to read the various answers given in this thread.

While I'm assuming he's operating in good faith, his continue failure to listen to the points presented, or to present convincing points of his own, indicates no progress is being made. So I'm pausing this conversation for a week to allow time for reflection.

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Well, maybe flying debris is the wrong thing to say. These bits of debris and steel and people were being ejected at very high very high speeds. This is not a normal thing to happen if a building is collapsing naturally.

You're simply guessing, based on what you think "looks funny". That is NOT science. The pressures in that collapse were enormous- certainly capable of spitting stuff out laterally at high speeds.

Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
...what matters is the weight of the mass.

You're claiming that the bottom of the building HAS to be able to withstand the force of the top part falling on it because it WEIGHS more??

Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I bet you can't explain to me why what I've said is wrong and how mr chandler has applied the physics wrong.
How odd of you to say that given that that is exactly what I have been doing. Your post simply confirms my assessment of your […]

Jason

Senior Member
The classic example of this is the Yosemite blast, where, with no walls at all, the air pressure from a large falling rock created a supersonic blast powerful enough to knock down 1000 trees:
http://news.sciencemag.org/1997/12/yosemites-supersonic-blast

The air blasts from the falling WTC were much less powerful, but still substantial.
OT: I wonder how big of a surface area that is. Reminds me of Tunguska, not at the same scale of size, but the effect. The trees also look as if the branches and leaves have been ripped right off of them as they were layed down. Originally, I thought maybe the dust was covering them and thats why they look bare, but you can see a few stragglers standing in the area with no branches or leaves. One would also expect the wind (air) to dissepate outwards in a cone, but here it looks like the opposite effect where it got narrower the farther away. Really cool photo

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Just think about how quickly any one of those office floors was reduced to basically zero height. Whatever the time was for the top part of the building to drop one floor's height equals the time for the entire volume of air on that floor to be ejected out of the windows or whatever other openings existed at the moment. Without going through any math on it, I'm going to guess that the escaping air would have been moving at several hundred miles an hour as it passed the outer walls. That certainly would have been enough force to carry people or even heavier objects out the sides of the building at a fairly high speed.

All that is not to even mention the forces involved in the physical impact of falling debris on stuff below it. Of COURSE stuff was spit out sideways! How could it NOT be?

Last edited:

Delete.

Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
Just think about how quickly any one of those office floors was reduced to basically zero height. Whatever the time was for the top part of the building to drop one floor's height equals the time for the entire volume of air on that entire floor to be ejected out of the windows or whatever other openings existed at the moment. Without going through any math on it, I'm going to guess that the escaping air would have been moving at several hundred miles an hour as it passed the outer walls. That certainly would have been enough force to carry people or even heavier objects out the sides of the building at a fairly high speed.

All that is not to even mention the forces involved in the physical impact of falling debris on stuff below it. Of COURSE stuff was spit out sideways! How could it NOT be?
Was stuff actually "spit out" sideways, or was most of the debri falling away from the building the exoskeleton of the Trade Centers. I don't know what the force of air would be between each floor, I suspect it wouldn't amount to much, but in conjunction with the other floors on top adding to the force it was probably a great deal. Does the NIST report make any mention of the air force? Anyone watching the events unfold that day could see very easily that there was indeed "air/wind" wind force at play once the bldgs came down that was illustrated by the cloud of debri and dust. It sort of reminded me of an upside down mushroom cloud. In that the center fell first, hit the ground and rebounded back up, but the force of air was still falling in the center causing a billowing effect and pushing the dust and debri outward. Hence several city blocks were covered in debri and dust

Ron J

Active Member
You d

It's a pretty big thing to deny the obvious evidence you can see with your own eyes. but it's another thing altogether to try and brush aside Newton's laws of motion which have been in existence for over 300 years and are the basis for scientists and physicists understanding of the world. Maybe I'm a bit naïve in posting about physics, I'm not a physicist but I'm pretty sure Mr Chandler knows exactly what he is talking about. Why would he possibly lie? How can anybody claim that these buildings were not blown up? Just watch the first bit of this video ....

and watch the antenna move, now the antenna is on the core of the building which would have stayed up on it's own even if you had built nothing around it. It was the strongest part of the building. So for a controlled demolition to happen you would have had to take out the centre of the building first which you as can see is what happens.

I am not at all denying the obvious evidence i can see with my own eyes, which is that there was no evidence of controlled demolition in the collapse of One world Trade. Nor am i brushing aside Newton's laws of motion. One does not need to be a meteorologist, to know when it is raining. I can see that the Tower simply gave way. It fell apart due to the effect of the fire.

I have seen one of Chandler's videos, in which he proclaimed that a horizontal jet of black smoke at about the 95th floor was evidence of a cutter charge. The truth is that the jet of smoke was evidence that the air space on that floor was collapsing, forcing smoke out windows on the west side of the building. Chandler even proclaimed the jet of smoke was exiting the corner of the Tower, where there were no windows, but the smoke was exiting due west and was in fact exiting west facing windows. You tell me why Chandler would try to mislead me as to the cause of the jet of black smoke.

As for the wobbling antenna, that it wobbled was not proof of demolition, as a natural collapse would have caused the same result. Flight 11 flew into the core of One World Trade, causing damage to who knows how many core columns, with further damage caused to the core as a result of the spread of the fire.

"How can anybody claim that these buildings were not blown up?" Easily. I don't see any evidence of demolition explosions, moments before they collapsed. I have seen dozens of videos of building controlled demolitions over the years and the one thing they have in common, is a lot of very visible explosions just before the collapse begins. On 9/11, the Towers simply collapsed.

Jason

Senior Member
Why did you delete your post? There was good stuff in there

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Why did you delete your post? There was good stuff in there
I need a pencil and paper to keep things straight. I had done the same calc as a transfer of energy and got exactly half the dynamic force as I got with transfer of momentum.
Obviously I had a mistake in the handling of the 0.5 multiplier in one of the two treatments.
If I find time I'll write it all out THEN post.

Ron J

Active Member
Well I don't know I'm only going by what I can see. It appears every other commenter has missed it. I think it's in this video. Just watch the top of the building disappear into dust. This alone should give anyone reason to question the official pancake theory. Because as far as I can see there is nothing to pancake the rest of the building.

The top of One World Trade didn't disappear into dust, it disappeared into the dust cloud, thus it was no longer visible. There was plenty of debris falling down upon the 93d, 92d, 91st, 90th, 89th, to strip each floor truss off its flanges, sending it to crash down upon the next below, in a cascade of failing floors.

Mick West

Staff member
I need a pencil and paper to keep things straight. I had done the same calc as a transfer of energy and got exactly half the dynamic force as I got with transfer of momentum.
Obviously I had a mistake in the handling of the 0.5 multiplier in one of the two treatments.
If I find time I'll write it all out THEN post.

You might also want to look at this thread, which contains some more technical discussions along the same lines:

Particularly this illustration of how conservation of energy is different to conservation of momentum, which might be related to what you were doing:
Consider this little physics quandary, starting with four physical laws, which nobody disputes.
• Energy in a system is always conserved
• Momentum in a system is always conserved
• Kinetic Energy (e) = Mass * Speed^2
• Momentum (p) = Mass * Velocity
Consider a mass of 15kg (15 floors) travelling at 5m/s hitting a stationary mass of 1kg (a single) floor. They continue downwards as a single structure of 16kg. Now we can calculate the new velocity (v) (from the conservation of momentum, which must be unchanged.

15*5 = 16*v
v = 15*5/16 = 4.6875

Now can we do the same with energy? Energy is always conserved, so can we do:

15*(5^2) = 16*(v^2)
v = sqrt(15*(5^2)/16) = 4.8412

Hey, different answers! Why is this?

And extending this (and @OneWhiteEye's forey), does the following not apply to Kuttler's model:
• Momentum of a system is always conserved
• Crushing the concrete does not change the momentum of the system
• Hence crushing the concrete cannot affect the velocity of the system
I think an understanding of the two seeming paradoxes above is important in understanding what's going on here.

(Remember this is just in Kuttler's model, which, as we have seen, is far removed from reality).

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I fervently hope that our member "lemonlover" will take the opportunity to thoroughly read and evaluate all of these excellent contributions.

The purpose of 'de-bunking bunk' is seen, right here, in this thread. Unfortunately for some aspects of history moving forward, and in a way never before seen in Human history, a great deal of wrong and misinformation will exist, via the Internet, and many future generations will encounter it.

There are analogies to this, but those tend to veer off-the-topic....but, this is a significant concern (IMHO).

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The jets of smoke/dust a few floors below the exterior visible collapse zone is indicative of internal collapsing floors that leads the perimeter destruction. The so called 'spire' at the end of collapse indicates that the core destruction lagged behind both the floor destruction as well as the exterior. It was not like that throughout the collapse though.

The reason that "pancake" collapse is in error is that it is a great simplification of what occurred.
At collapse initiation upper column sections move past their lower counterparts. They have too. Collapse requires that they do, whether its common explosive demolitions or buckled columns. The only exception would be the Verniage technique but there is no jolt so that's not the case.
So, what happens next?
The first impact would be the upper column ends hitting the floor pans. A large steel column with the mass of ten or more storeys pushing it down would see them pass through 4 inches of lightweight concrete and a bit of corrugated steel almost as if it weren't even there. A very heavy hot knife through a thin sheet of butter.

Greatest damage then is in the core flooring system at this point. This does not bode well for the intercolumn beams supporting the core floor, nor for the connection between outer trusses and the core columns.
Perimeter columns bowed inward at collapse meaning the upper column sections are not doing the truss connection to perimeter any favours either.
So, before the first upper floor pan even gets down to impacting the next lower floor pan, that lower floor pan has suffered significant damage to its connection to the load carrying columns.
Now upper floor pan does impact lower floorpan. What detail can we surmise about this. Well there is that equal and opposite reaction thing that LL loves to talk about. The force of contact would lift the upper section floor off its column seats, a force direction simply never anticipated. ( or more to the point that floor pan is caused to slow while the rest of the upper section continues on). An equal downward force is exerted upon the damaged lower floor pan.
But what of the upper section columns? They are being driven still as part of an upper mass. They continue on and take the remaining upper floors with them.

Sounds somewhat like pancaking except that the upper section did not come down level, nor were the fire floor pans intact. There were areas where the trusses had sagged due to heat, there were areas significantly damaged by aircraft impact
AND
The upper section was tilted as it came down. This was not level, intact floor impacting level intact floor as a "pancake" collapse would suggest. The upper "pancake" was not level and had knives sticking out of its lower surface. Neither "pancake" was fully intact. This would be the case for the originally aircraft damaged floors and those suffering the greatest fire damage.

What about lower down, basically pristine floors?

Those upper section column pieces are still on their way, punching through floors. They are probably beginning to break away and are other than vertical. All of the now loose material is falling, and doing so at a greater velocity than the initial collapse.
Loose material by definition is separated by a distance. The mean distance between pieces , if large, means a lesser average force delivered at impact. However in this case its followed quickly by more mass. If an area does not fail due to the dynamic force of falling material, it will fail as mass builds on top of it. Furthermore, remember those column spears, they have produced weak spots in the overall floor pan. Dynamic overloading adjacent to those weak spots will be much easier when internal debris hits there, widening the weak areas.
Note that you are getting further away from pancake on pancake.
Very soon its a moot point as the internal falling large broken column pieces and partial slabs of concrete are moving fast enough to simply punch through floors.
By this time there is no intact upper section. So all you have in internal floor destruction( collapse is too orderly a word for what's happening inside the walls.). Once the floors are gone the exterior fails quickly, it takes a slightly longer unbraced length for the core columns to fail but fail they do.
I envision the occasional large floor slab section falling at an angle with the core adjacent edge lower than the outer edge. The air being pushed by this would be directed at the windows and contain a lot of smaller chunks and dust. Windows blows out when this happens a few floors below the perimeter collapse zone.

But that s just how I see the chaotic collapse.
CTs seem to completely ignore that this is a chaotic event with a few somewhat ordered mechanisms. They focus on the more ordered idiosyncrasies and decide that it means an intelligence in the design.

Sound familiar?

Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Mick, yeah, I am aware of the momentum vs energy conservation conundrum.
However using delta p and delta E to arrive at a average force should cancel that effect.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
43
Views
48K
Replies
336
Views
88K
Replies
1K
Views
265K
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 38
Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
[Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 4
Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs and Aliens 8
Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10