Debunked: WTC: Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally.

Christopher 7

Active Member
Two images from "Above Hallowed Ground" By the NYC PD.

The first one shows the state of West Street on 9/11, possibly even before the collapse of WTC7
View attachment 41726
View attachment 41727

In the second image, a part of the WTC1 outer wall can be seen on the Winter Garden atrium
View attachment 41728

Closeup on that area, also from AHG
View attachment 41729

View attachment 41730
Thank you for that. The framing piece in the roof of Winter Garden is clearly a separate piece. Again, if it were part of the massive framing section on the ground there would have been continuous damage to that point.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Newton's law applies in all cases.* The fact that there were many collisions is irrelevant**. The lower part is providing resistance***. That resistance applies force to the upper part****. The claim that Newton's law does not apply to the Trade Towers is ludicrous.*****
* Yes. That much is not in dispute.
** Error. Each element of the impact has to be considered - to the extent that Newton applies it applies to each part and the whole PROVIDED THE PARTS ARE ADDED UP appropriately. In both timing and 3D vectors.
*** PART of the lower part is providing resistance THEN parts of the lower part THEN more....
**** That PART of the lower part applies force to the relvant PART of the upper part.... et simile...
***** Your strawman - I haven't made that claim and I don't think any member other than you has.
 

econ41

Senior Member
It takes the force of the upper portion to break the slab to column connections. The floor connections resist that force, applying force to the upper portion. The columns also resist the downward force of the upper portion, applying more force to the upper portion.
You are conflating the stages of collapse. Specifically the second or "Transition" stage which started as the Top Block AKA "upper part" started to move downwards with the third or "established progression" stage. The difference being that the "Upper Part" was destroyed (actually "dismantled" - ceased to be an integral structure and became debris) during the transition stage. And did not exist in the "progression" stage. The "applying force to the upper portion" comment needs to address the dynamic of that change. It is easier to analyse if we deal first with the third stage of collapse viz "established progresion".

So I will take that simpler situation first - we can defer discussion of the earlier stage (OR split the topic given the posting rules)

There are several slab to column situations. Taking ONLY the "office space" floor to perimeter column connections during the third stage of the collapse - the stage of established "progressions" this graphic shown the mechanism: 003c350.jpg
The main sources of applied force are:
DOWNWARDS >> The impact force of the falling debris
RESISTED BY >> The transfer of momentum as the falling debris overcomes the inertia of the next floor up to speed; overcoming the shear force disconnecting the joist to column connectin "it fails here" and some friction as the falling debris "rubs" agains the perometer column face.

Analysis over many years has shown that the dominant "force" is the impact resulting from changes of momentum. The joist to column disconnecting - shearing force - is secondary.

The assertions:
The columns also resist the downward force of the upper portion, applying more force to the upper portion.
..... are both wrong. The debris misses the columns and essentially imposes no load other than the friction rubbing the face. This issue - columns being "missed" or "bypassed" was a cause of much confusion in earlier years of debate.

I can explain the minor differences which apply in the earlier transition stage. And - tho I've only illustrated one "end" of a floor joist the other end is analogous. As is the situation in the core. Questions and discusion welcomed - subject to any moderating concerns about "Topic Drift".
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Of course the laws of Newton and thermodynamics MUST apply. The hurdle may be in the complexity of the interactions... of which there were millions or billions.
The collapses are analogous perhaps to a rock slide on a mountain... looks chaotic but laws of motion apply and no one disputes this... static one moment and dynamic chaotic in another.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
You are conflating the stages of collapse. Specifically the second or "Transition" stage which started as the Top Block AKA "upper part" started to move downwards with the third or "established progression" stage. The diference being that the "Upper Part" was destroyed (actually "dismantled" - ceased to be an integral stucture and became debris) during the transition stage. And did not exist in the "progression" stage. The "applying force to the upper portion" comment needs to address the dynamioc of that change. It is easier to analyse if we deal first with the third stage of collapse "established progresion".

So I will take that simpler situation first - we can defer discusion of the earlier stage (OR split the topic given the posting rules)There are several slab to column situations. Taking ONLY the "office space" floor to perimeter column conmections during the third stage of the collapse - the stage of established "progressions" this graphic shwn the mecanism: View attachment 41746
The main sources of applied force are:
DOWNWARDS >> The impact force of the falling debris
RESISTED BY >> The transfer of momentum as the falling debris overcomes the intertia of the next floor up to speed; ovecoing the shear force discsonecting the jist to column connectin "it fails here" and some friction as the dalling debris "rubs" agains the perometer column face. ramebrings th
the vertical
Well year... the motion of the top block is mostly the shell/facade... by the time it moves down... the inside of top block have significantly already broken apart and much of it has already drop some distance breaking up what it falls on. This leads to loss of lateral stability of the core and framing which leads to a slight displacement of the facade "cage" which then becomes uncoupled to the tops of the facade columns they were bearing on / bolted to... and the upper cage drops... and with it what was still connected inside impacts the interior top most slabs and structure of the lower block... and sets off a runaway interior vertical avalanche... inside the cage of the lower block's facade... which without lateral bracing from the floor trusses....topples outward .
 

econ41

Senior Member
...the motion of the top block is mostly the shell/facade... by the time it moves down... the inside of top block have significantly already broken apart and much of it has already drop some distance breaking up what it falls on....
My comments are generic to WTC1 and WTC2. I'm aware of unresolved claims referencing the early movemnt of the Antennae on WTC1. The issue has no effect on my explantion and its relevance to the later transition and progression stages..
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It takes the force of the upper portion to break the slab to column connections. The floor connections resist that force, applying force to the upper portion. The columns also resist the downward force of the upper portion, applying more force to the upper portion.
Yes.
(And no -- the columns do not apply "more force".)

What do you think is the effect of these forces?
How big exactly are they?
Do we need to consider that the force is applied suddenly andnot gradually?
(Have you ever played a bridge building game?)
 

Oystein

Senior Member
It takes the force of the upper portion to break the slab to column connections. The floor connections resist that force, applying force to the upper portion. The columns also resist the downward force of the upper portion, applying more force to the upper portion.
You write of "the force of the upper portion", as if that was an intrinsic property of the upper portion. It isn't. A force arises (and changes) in response to things hitting things and deforming them elastically or inelastically.

But yes - the upper perimeter exerts a force on a floor assembly as the two collide, and the floor assembly exerts the same force, only in the opposite direction, on the upper perimeter.

That force increases and increases as both parts deform elastically (and yes, this in turn exerts a force on the lower columns via truss seats) ... until ... Well, until when? -> Until one of the elements involved reaches its load capacity, its maximum elastic deformation, and starts deforming inelastically.

Now which element would that be - the upper column, the lower column, or the floor truss, or the truss seat?

Now plastic deformation continues - until either the fall of the top part is halted, or a first element no longer can deform plastically and instead breaks, ruptures, tears out - in other words: Fails and splits in (at least) two parts.

Now which element would that be - the upper column, the lower column, or the floor truss, or the truss seat?

Theory, observation and even intuition tell us that the truss seat is the weakest element that will fail - long before the columns get even near their elastic limit.

When the truss seats fails, the lower column unloads, the upper column unloads mostly (still some lesser force to accelerate, perhaps deform the floor slab), and the floor goes down.

(Ok, floor goes down after ALL truss seats have failed - which they will do in very rapid succession, as the same drama plays out at all truss seats within a short period of time).
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
You write of "the force of the upper portion", as if that was an intrinsic property of the upper portion. It isn't. A force arises (and changes) in response to things hitting things and deforming them elastically or inelastically.

But yes - the upper perimeter exerts a force on a floor assembly as the two collide, and the floor assembly exerts the same force, only in the opposite direction, on the upper perimeter.

That force increases and increases as both parts deform elastically (and yes, this in turn exerts a force on the lower columns via truss seats) ... until ... Well, until when? -> Until one of the elements involved reaches its load capacity, its maximum elastic deformation, and starts deforming inelastically.

Now which element would that be - the upper column, the lower column, or the floor truss, or the truss seat?

Now plastic deformation continues - until either the fall of the top part is halted, or a first element no longer can deform plastically and instead breaks, ruptures, tears out - in other words: Fails and splits in (at least) two parts.

Now which element would that be - the upper column, the lower column, or the floor truss, or the truss seat?

Theory, observation and even intuition tell us that the truss seat is the weakest element that will fail - long before the columns get even near their elastic limit.

When the truss seats fails, the lower column unloads, the upper column unloads mostly (still some lesser force to accelerate, perhaps deform the floor slab), and the floor goes down.

(Ok, floor goes down after ALL truss seats have failed - which they will do in very rapid succession, as the same drama plays out at all truss seats within a short period of time).
I wonder if the slabs would disintegrate before the truss seats "fail". The floors would acquire loads as material from above falls on the slab. This would be a dynamic load... and these loads would be then conveyed to the truss seats at the facade and the belt girder surrounding the core. The increased loads would be transferred to the axial structure which can support the load (load instead of where it was applied when the collapsed floor was intact). The slabs being rained upon would see loads increasing and passing their design limit. At first they would sag under the increased load... the sagging would pull inward at the seats. And the seats would see increased loads. Hard to know which would fail first... the seat... the bolts of the trusses to the seats... or the slabs breaking/fracturing under the increased load. Regardless the floor slab system would likely "fail" and then it and the loads upon it would drop to the next floor presenting the same scenario but with more load.
I believe there were photos seats bent downward indicating that they deformed before failing. There was also evidence of bolt tear out at the truss to seat connections.
 

Edward Current

New Member
If the section imbedded in floor 17 was part of the framing section on the ground, there would have been as much damage to the floors between 10 and 17 as there was to floor 17.
if it were part of the massive framing section on the ground there would have been continuous damage to that point.

These bare assertions assume, without evidence, that the framing sections didn't and couldn't have come apart upon impact.

Unless you have everyday personal experience with large structural elements falling hundreds of feet and then hitting other buildings, you can't say what "would have" happened based upon intuition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's a rough analogy. Consider the splice plate that hits the wheel of my chipper on the right.




It gets its velocity from tipping. It actually stay attached until it hits something. Then it's separated.
 

Attachments

  • A Physical Model loop.mp4
    2.4 MB · Views: 0
  • A Physical Model crop slow.mp4
    1.8 MB · Views: 0

Christopher 7

Active Member
Thank you for your reply!

My point was that Newton's law does not extend to observing an equal and opposite effect -- which is understandable from a look at the actual law, and high-school physics. Commingling "force" and "effect" leads to wrong conclusions.

"Destruction" refers to the use of "destroyed" in posts #383 and #355 and "reduced to powder" in #380. In some video games, destroyed objects are taken out of the simulation, but real physics do not allow this. It's also unclear what this assertion of destruction does to distinguish the NIST version of the collapse from the AE911 version: what would the difference be, and where is the evidence for it? A seemingly dense cloud of powder can contain a surprisingly small amount of material, so the amount of "powder" seemingly present in the debris plume is probably easy to overestimate if going by intuition

I was trying to point out two instances where intuition can mislead us into believing things that the physics will not support.
This, and the last 6 posts are a lot of word salad trying to talk around the simple fact that the upper portion would be destroyed at the same rate as the lower portion. I can say no more.
 

econ41

Senior Member
This, and the last 6 posts are a lot of word salad trying to talk around the simple fact that the upper portion would be destroyed at the same rate as the lower portion.
A point I've made many times AND agreed with you over. The Top Block (aka "upper portion") and upper levels of the Lower Tower ("lower portion") were destroyed (as in dismantled) concurrently as soon as the Top Block started to fall bodily. That reality is fatal to Bazant & Verdures "crush down/crush up" which could not apply to WTC Twin Towers. Here is a graphic which shows why - yellow arrows show relative perimeter motion blue lines the original location of floors. BOTH "crush down" and "crush up" running concurrently.

ArrowedROOSD.jpg

Yes it is the worst case 2 out of 8 possibilities. The other six are analogous. Column end hitting floors. "Crush down" on the left. "Crush up" on the right. Source graphic courtesy of truther researcher "Achimspok". Hence my repeated caution that all members should be explicitly clear which stage of collapse we are debating. Specifically the need to distinguish late stage transition from established progression.
 
Last edited:

Christopher 7

Active Member
You write of "the force of the upper portion", as if that was an intrinsic property of the upper portion. It isn't. A force arises (and changes) in response to things hitting things and deforming them elastically or inelastically.

But yes - the upper perimeter exerts a force on a floor assembly as the two collide, and the floor assembly exerts the same force, only in the opposite direction, on the upper perimeter.

That force increases and increases as both parts deform elastically (and yes, this in turn exerts a force on the lower columns via truss seats) ... until ... Well, until when? -> Until one of the elements involved reaches its load capacity, its maximum elastic deformation, and starts deforming inelastically.

Now which element would that be - the upper column, the lower column, or the floor truss, or the truss seat?

Now plastic deformation continues - until either the fall of the top part is halted, or a first element no longer can deform plastically and instead breaks, ruptures, tears out - in other words: Fails and splits in (at least) two parts.

Now which element would that be - the upper column, the lower column, or the floor truss, or the truss seat?

Theory, observation and even intuition tell us that the truss seat is the weakest element that will fail - long before the columns get even near their elastic limit.

When the truss seats fails, the lower column unloads, the upper column unloads mostly (still some lesser force to accelerate, perhaps deform the floor slab), and the floor goes down.

(Ok, floor goes down after ALL truss seats have failed - which they will do in very rapid succession, as the same drama plays out at all truss seats within a short period of time).
None of that changes the fact that the upper part would be destroyed at the same rate as the lower part.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
These bare assertions assume, without evidence, that the framing sections didn't and couldn't have come apart upon impact.

Unless you have everyday personal experience with large structural elements falling hundreds of feet and then hitting other buildings, you can't say what "would have" happened based upon intuition.
If the framing sections had broken apart on contact with the ground, they could not have 'bounced' up to the 17th and 24th floors or the top of the Winter Garden. Those were obviously separate sections.

As to your second paragraph, it is an observable fact that there is not continuous damage which there would have to be if the sections in the 17th and 24th floors and the top of the Winter Garden were part of the massive exterior framing section on the ground.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
Here's a rough analogy. Consider the splice plate that hits the wheel of my chipper on the right.




It gets its velocity from tipping. It actually stay attached until it hits something. Then it's separated.
That simplistic "experiment" cannot be use to explain the lateral ejection of a multi-ton framing section at 56 mph.

Also, you have not responded the fact that there is no continuous damage to WTC 3 from the ground up, like the damage between floors 20 and 24, which there would have to be if the framing sections in floors 17 and 20 were part of the massive framing section on the ground. The same is true of the Winter Garden.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This, and the last 6 posts are a lot of word salad trying to talk around the simple fact that the upper portion would be destroyed at the same rate as the lower portion. I can say no more.
Well, you really should.

Why don't you start by explaining what you mean by "destroyed", and how that is relevant. Seriously.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
That simplistic "experiment" cannot be use to explain the lateral ejection of a multi-ton framing section at 56 mph.

Also, you have not responded the fact that there is no continuous damage to WTC 3 from the ground up, like the damage between floors 20 and 24, which there would have to be if the framing sections in floors 17 and 20 were part of the massive framing section on the ground. The same is true of the Winter Garden.
Actually a simple experiment can explain the lateral ejection of material from the WTC tower collapse. There was enough energy released, E=mgh, to accomplish all the ejections seen. Each tower released energy was equal to more than 130 tons of TNT. How much explosive is required to do the conspiracy theory CD ejections, a theory with no evidence for explosives. How much explosives are required to do what you think happened, and why is the energy released due to collapse, of 130 tons of TNT, not enough? Simple experiments are enough, and prove ejections are possible in a gravity collapse. Now prove with physics it is not possible, which is impossible.

Not sure what the destroyed upper section means, since the mass does not disappear, the mass continues to overload lower floors destroying the tower.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...the simple fact that the upper portion would be destroyed at the same rate as the lower portion.
This is a bare assertion. You think it is a direct result of Newton's third Law, but that is unequivocally rubbish.
I can say no more.
And that is the heart of your problem: You cannot support nor defend your bare assertion. You can say no more than repeat the bare assertion. It will remain forever a bare assertion.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
None of that changes the fact that the upper part would be destroyed at the same rate as the lower part.
I didn't claim it would.

I merely tried to explain to you how forces arise as parts of the building collide during collapse - and how such forces are not intrinsic properties of the "top part", as your previous post appeared to imply.

It appears you totally missed the lecture and its topic. Perhaps you want to read it again. Make sure to scroll up a bit and try to understand the context.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
A point I've made many times AND agreed with you over. The Top Block (aka "upper portion") and upper levels of the Lower Tower ("lower portion") were destroyed (as in dismantled) concurrently as soon as the Top Block started to fall bodily. That reality is fatal to Bazant & Verdures "crush down/crush up" which could not apply to WTC Twin Towers.
One of these days I may have to convince you that you are overshooting the target.

Yes, upper and lower portion were destroyed "concurrently" - but certainly not at the same rate. Initially maybe, during the first less than a handful of floors.
But as soon as a compacted debris layer has formed (such as 2 or 3 floor assemblies on top of each other) AND that compacted debris layer is falling and accelerating into the lower part, the situation is not longer symmetric: ROOSD will be stronger, faster going down than going up.

Bazant & Verdure are not right with their cd/cu model - but they are also not entirely wrong.
 

econ41

Senior Member
One of these days I may have to convince you that you are overshooting the target.
Maybe. I will still continue to agree with those parts of Christopher 7's claims which I know and can demonstrate are true. (And disagree with him when he is wrong And agree with "debunkers" when they are right etc..etc....)
Oystein said:
Yes, upper and lower portion were destroyed "concurrently" - but certainly not at the same rate. Initially maybe, during the first less than a handful of floors.(1)
But as soon as a compacted debris layer has formed (such as 2 or 3 floor assemblies on top of each other) AND that compacted debris layer is falling and accelerating into the lower part, the situation is not longer symmetric: ROOSD will be stronger, faster going down than going up.(2)
There is the conflation I am warning about. Failing to make clear distinction as to which stage is under discussion.

I am referencing three clearly identifiable stages which are sufficiently distinguishable to support reasoned argument DESPITE having "fuzzy" boundaries. They are:
(a) "Initiation" whatever happened from plane impact until the "Top Block" started to move bodily downwards (First admittedly "fuzzy" boundary which we can reason past.)
(b) "Transition" the very much chaotic process for the first few stories of dropping in which debris was accumulating AND mutual dismantling of top block and UPPER LEVELS of lower tower occurred. (second admittedly "fuzzy" boundary which we can reason past. NEITHER of those boundaries needs defining with any precision OTHER than identifying what necessary argument parameters pass from one stage to the next.)
(c) "progression" - established progression by the process I prefer to label by the descriptive acronym "ROOSD" and which involved broken up debris falling down the open spaces, effective missing the columns AND the Top Block no longer existing as a still integral structure.

So THIS is my claim that we are disagreeing over OR you and other members may not be understanding:
"Mutual concurrent dismantling" occurred during the transition stage and was near enough symmetrical - same number of floors dismantled in upper levels lower tower as were in the respective Top Block. AND

The progression stage - call it "established progression" for clarity - was primarily driven by falling debris. The Top Block has essentially been dismantled although some minor sub assemblies may have still been joined together. But any that were were essentially behaving as debris.

Oystein said:

Bazant & Verdure are not right with their cd/cu model - but they are also not entirely wrong.
Again I caution about conflating. My claims about B&V are specific.
(1) B&V are ENTIRELY wrong to claim that CD/CU apply to WTC Twin Towers. There are four fatal errors - three of them independently fatal. >> A topic for another place I suggest.
(2) B&V MAY be correct in their original goal of seeking a generic model for high rise progressive collapse. Their maths is valid for a grid array of closely located columns AKA a "traditional" layout. Because their maths implicitly assumes or at least resembles a one dimensional approximation. And 1D approximations don't work for wide spaced columns in "tube in tube" arrangements. THAT was the basis of most of the many years confusion resulting from Bazant and Zhou's "limit case approximation". It was circa 2013 that I last attempted discussion of that topic - how to "adjust" B&V's CD/CU so it would better apply to wide spaced column layouts. >> side track.

Yes they are "not entirely wrong" BUT we know or at least I think I know where they are wrong and where they are right and what is needed to make CD/CU better. And all of it a topic for another place.

The relevance to THIS THREAD is that there was mutual destruction. C7 May be right - he refers to same "rate" which is ambiguous. He is correct as to same "time" within the stages as I have described and subject to all the disclaimers about "fuzzy boundaries".
 
Last edited:

Christopher 7

Active Member
Well, you really should.

Why don't you start by explaining what you mean by "destroyed", and how that is relevant. Seriously.
By destroyed I mean that, in a gravity collapse, the top and bottom parts would be broken apart at the same rate.

Something that has not been mentioned is the 47 core area columns were held together with large girders that were a lot stronger than the floor connections.
These columns and girders would break apart the core above at an equal rate as they were being broken apart.
 

econ41

Senior Member
...at the same rate.
Hey Christopher I just posted several explanations to dig you out of that "same rate" trap. Sorry - but you are on your own. There was only one bit of "same rate" arising legitimately from recent comments. ;)

I'll leave you with it.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
Actually a simple experiment can explain the lateral ejection of material from the WTC tower collapse.
No, it merely shows one piece being pushed a little by another piece that had bounced off of the floor. That hardly constitutes being ejected at high speed.


Each tower released energy was equal to more than 130 tons of TNT.
All the energy was directed downward. It has not been shown how this downward motion could eject multi-ton framing sections laterally at 45 to 70+ mph.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
I merely tried to explain to you how forces arise as parts of the building collide during collapse - and how such forces are not intrinsic properties of the "top part"
???
Intrinsic definition, belonging to a thing by its very nature
The kinetic energy stored in the top part is intrinsic.
The ability to resist collapse is intrinsic quality of the lower part.

You are the one talking rubbish while accusing me of same.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It's not rubbish, it's Newton's law, and you may not break Newton's laws. This is high school science that you are trying to disavow.
Newton's law is about forces, not effects. Imagine two cars of equal weight in a head-on collision. Will they be "destroyed at the same rate"? No, because that depends on the design of the crumple zones, on how that energy is transferred to the car structure, which is not "simple", but requires a complex analysis to predict or explain.

You can hit a steel sheet with a steel hammer, and regardless of the weight, the steel sheet will bend and the hammer will not.
Unless you understand Newtonian mechanics, and unless you know how buildings fail, your intuition will lead you astray here.

And seriously, play a bridge building game. "Cargo Bridge" is free. It can teach you that mechanical stresses don't break a structure equally; they break the weakest links. Your "destruction at equal rate" mantra is at odds with physics.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
??? How does tipping explain ejections at 56 to 70+ mph?
It takes 3 seconds of free fall (disregarding air resistance) for an object to accelerate to 60 mph. The vertical distance covered is ~45m or 130 ft, which is approximately 10% of the height of the WTC. This is high school physics applied.

There is no reason to be incredulous at the magnitude of this speed. Personally, I need no further explanation; I'm just assuming something got deflected in the mess of the collapse (as you could see in both videos of "garage model" collapses posted here), and that explains it. There's clearly sufficient energy around for that to happen.
 

Gamolon

Member
??? How does tipping explain ejections at 56 to 70+ mph?
You have not shown any multi-ton steel assemblies being ejected form the side of the tower at the time the supposed explosives went off. You show an assembly falling in a parabolic trajectory far from the tower, WAY after the supposed explosives went off. How many seconds after the supposed explosives went off was that piece calculated to be travelling at 56 mph? What was the speed at the precise moment of ejection from the side of the tower?
 

Gamolon

Member
It takes 3 seconds of free fall (disregarding air resistance) for an object to accelerate to 60 mph. The vertical distance covered is ~45m or 130 ft, which is approximately 10% of the height of the WTC. This is high school physics applied.
^^^This!
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
V = sqrt(2gh).

lots of potential energy available to be converted to kinetic energy. Is the claim being made that when things fall they can only move straight down? That may be true for a single solid object, but one that is falling apart as it collapses can clearly have parts moving out to the sides.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
All the energy was directed downward. It has not been shown how this downward motion could eject multi-ton framing sections laterally at 45 to 70+ mph.
So what? Energy (whether kinetic, strain, potential, themal...) is not a vector. The kinetic energy in a falling ball just before hitting the ground is what makes the ball move UP a split-second later. If the ball hits a 45° slope instead, that "energy directed downward" is what gives the ball its LATERAL motion after the bounce.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
???
Intrinsic definition, belonging to a thing by its very nature
The kinetic energy stored in the top part is intrinsic.
Yes. But why would you change the topic? Neither you and I were talking about kinetic energy. You talked about forces as if they were intrinsic (quote: "It takes the force of the upper portion to break the slab to column connections"), and I explained to you that forces are not intrinsic, and that thus your claim "It takes the force of the upper portion to break the slab to column connections" is incomplete at best, and possibly just plain nonsense.

The ability to resist collapse is intrinsic quality of the lower part.
...
No. This is rubbish. The ability to resist collapse is conditional to the external stresses "trying" to cause or progress collapse. Given a set of external stressing events, one structure "A" might be collapse resistant and another structure "B" might be collapse-prone, while the situation would reverse given some other set of external stressing events-
Therefore, the ability to resist collapse is NOT an intrinsic quality of the lower part.
 

econ41

Senior Member
No, it merely shows one piece being pushed a little by another piece that had bounced off of the floor. That hardly constitutes being ejected at high speed.
Correct. It demonstrates the principle whereby vertical motions can be converted to horizontal. It dos not provide quantified proof of "high speed" however "high" may be defined.

All the energy was directed downward. It has not been shown how this downward motion could eject multi-ton framing sections laterally at 45 to 70+ mph.
Your assertion "It has not been shown...at 45 to 70+ mph" is correct BUT it is confusing because you and some of your opponents are conflating two separate issues viz 'laterally' and 'at "X" mph'. It should be agreed - common ground - that horizontal AKA 'lateral' motion can be imparted. The quantification seems to be unproven by both sides. You Christopher seem to be making a general claim of quantified velocity. You need to 'prove' it and preferably with a specific example in mind. As far as I can see your opponents are treating the proof of the principle as proof of the magnitude. It isn't.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
Maybe. I will still continue to agree with those parts of Christopher 7's claims which I know and can demonstrate are true. (And disagree with him when he is wrong And agree with "debunkers" when they are right etc..etc....)

There is the conflation I am warning about. Failing to make clear distinction as to which stage is under discussion.

I am referencing three clearly identifiable stages which are sufficiently distinguishable to support reasoned argument DESPITE having "fuzzy" boundaries. They are:
(a) "Initiation" whatever happened from plane impact until the "Top Block" started to move bodily downwards (First admittedly "fuzzy" boundary which we can reason past.)
(b) "Transition" the very much chaotic process for the first few stories of dropping in which debris was accumulating AND mutual dismantling of top block and UPPER LEVELS of lower tower occurred. (second admittedly "fuzzy" boundary which we can reason past. NEITHER of those boundaries needs defining with any precision OTHER than identifying what necessary argument parameters pass from one stage to the next.)
(c) "progression" - established progression by the process I prefer to label by the descriptive acronym "ROOSD" and which involved broken up debris falling down the open spaces, effective missing the columns AND the Top Block no longer existing as a still integral structure.

So THIS is my claim that we are disagreeing over OR you and other members may not be understanding:
"Mutual concurrent dismantling" occurred during the transition stage and was near enough symmetrical - same number of floors dismantled in upper levels lower tower as were in the respective Top Block. AND

The progression stage - call it "established progression" for clarity - was primarily driven by falling debris. The Top Block has essentially been dismantled although some minor sub assemblies may have still been joined together. But any that were were essentially behaving as debris.
I agree that the collapse can be divided into those three stages, and that during "transition", there is significant "mutual destruction" of upper and lower structure - initially perhaps near enough to being "at the same rate" (and this is even a result of B&V for the first story!).

BUT the upper parts were initially something like 15 and nearly 30 floors - and as your "Transition" phase is "the very much chaotic process for the first few stories of dropping", I think you agree that by the time Transition has turned into "Progression", there is still a major portion of upper part left undismantled, simply because "the first few" stories is surely less than 15. During Progression, ROOSD is driven by the debris layer at least as much as by the weight of the remaining upper part - and the debris layer has a large velocity relative to the lower part, but a low velocity relative to the upper part; and that is why in the process, the Crush Down goes at a higher rate than Crush Up.

And that is why B & V were NOT entirely wrong, not even in the case of WTC. Reality sure is messier than their simple and idealized (essentially 1D and homogenous) model, but it points in the direction of something that surely played a role.

---

Now, most of Transition and Progression played out veiled behind a dust cloud, and we can't very well support our respective claims with observables, or can we?

Back to Truther claims: I think many Truthers (and Debunkers alike) underestimate the acceleration of the top - how far down collapse has already progressed behind the dust clouds at moments when this or that sheet of perimeter or piece of "projectile" emerges on video.

And how much of the upper structure is then still riding on the accumulating debris layer.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel 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
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Related Articles


















































Election 2020

Related Articles

Top