Nope. A structure can be destroyed solely because of the load that is upon it, not because of the speed at which the load lands upon it. Even 4-year-olds are familiar with this concept, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckaroo!
Are we talking about the same video?
Yes. Reread my first post again. Try to understand the difference the pencils make.
Do you mean this one?
Don't we just completely agree? Namely, that
Ah, I see. I was being imprecise and you are right. My point was only that if you're going to propose a model that looks like the WTC collapses you need *all* the energy to come from (potential stored) inside the initial state of the system. Your point is more subtle, and I have no issue with it.
So what? Despite your reluctance to comprehend the actual mechanism, the WTC Twin Towers did in fact collapse as a consequence if a small upper portion shearing floors off the larger lower tower. It did happen, false analogies by verinage examples or Karate tricks set aside. And the actual mechanisms of WTC Twin Towers collapses have been fully explained.
For the WTC Twin Towers here is no need to "imagine". It did happen. All that is needed is an explanation of how. And that explanation has been available, posted on line, since 2007 AND repeated in this thread.
Utter nonsense. The actual WTC collapses are clearly accessible in the video record. The barrier to understanding is in the resistance of some members who choose to not see the obvious.
OR "would do it". Yes. And both options were identified way back in this thread before all the derailing and side tracking took over. Again.
The actual challenge is to understand what really happened and that is not difficult.
Of course there were no need for calculations. It is obvious to anyone who understands the simple mechanism that progression, once started, would be unstoppable. There is no need for "sums" to prove it. The difficult part to explain is how it was started. But there is no doubt that it did start.
The tower had held the weight of the top block just fine for decades, and the plane impact didn't increase that weight. The only reason there would be any substantial collapse at all would be if the top block started to drop, like a verinage demolition, and then impacted the lower section… This would cause an amplified load much greater than its weight. Similar to dropping an anvil on your foot rather than slowly setting it on your foot. An amplified load requires a deceleration, though.
It's not always unstoppable, though:
@Henkka it is becoming very clear that you are not serious.
1 plus 1 equals 2 doesn't need explaining.
1. The weight was held by columns.
Was this building a hollow tube with open-plan office space? No? There you go different structure, different situation.
Was done, NIST FAQ #18.
Well, there's never going to be a 1:1 comparison because I can't build an exact replica of the North Tower and fly a plane into it to see what happens. And since the entirety of engineering acamedia seems uninterested in doing computer simulations of this event, what else can you do but compare it to other buildings? To that end, I think videos of failed demolitions are interesting, since they show that even deliberately engineered collapses can sometimes stop halfway. You can go on Youtube to find many such videos. But in the case of the three WTC towers, you would have to believe that random processes like fire did a better job in demolishing these buildings, and there's no way the collapses could have stopped.
Was the core of the WTC towers a hollow tube?
How does this connect logically to the WTC collapse?
Do you think a random process cannot demolish a building?
Who claimed that it was?
Why, do you think, are they not interested?
All buildings are "hollow" because they are usually more than 90% air.
Henkka knows this. Telling it again isn't going to help them think about it.
Yet in some buildings, before furniture is installed, you can run around blindfolded almost safely, while in others you're more likely to quickly run out of air and collide with something hard (not air). In that sense, the WTC is exceptionally hollow.
BUILDINGS are essentially 90% air and then they are filled up with "contents" people, equipment, furniture, stored materials - "things". A "building" like a pyramid is essentially solid with only passages within it.
And you think formulas/calculations are going to help you understand this better than people here in this forum describing and illustrating the mechanics/processes that caused total collapse? How? Do you need formulas and calculations to believe/understand how planes fly?
So why didn't the core behave like the failed demolition I posted?
Well, my overall goal in creating an account here was just to discuss the WTC collapses. Obviously I'm coming from a point of view where I'm pretty skeptical of the official explanations. It's a rabbit hole I started going down maybe like a year ago, and I found the arguments made by people like David Chandler pretty persuasive. I've gotten into discussion about this before with people on Reddit, but the problem there is that whoever I got into an argument with was usually not that informed about the topic. It felt like people would just type "wtc conspiracy debunked" into Google and copy whatever they found back at me. So I thought creating an account here would be interesting, to see what people would say about some stuff I had been thinking about, like the topic of this thread of how high the plane could've hit and still caused a total collapse. The consensus here seems to be yes, the plane could have hit even higher, with the minimum to cause a total collapse being six floors. Like I'm sorry, but I find that pretty unbelievable... That such a thin slice of the building could reduce the 100+ floors below into a pile of rubble. Combined with other anomalies like the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7, I still find the entirety of the 9/11 event to be suspicious in the extreme. I do agree though that some of these conversations are just going around in circles.
Labels.... It's possible for a confused person... ie one who doesn't have a technical background or know much about the details of the collapses could ask questions in an attempt to understand. Truthers are essentially "deniers"... science deniers who essentially have a "political agenda" which amounts to the media and the authorities are lying/deceiving the public to conceal some "insider plot".
Because it collapsed like both WTC Twin Towers AND "we" - or at least "I" - can explain if ever you decide to take my advice and understand the collapses of the WTC Towers NOT any other building whether it did or did not collapse.
Then post any one of David Chandler's claims in its own thread and I will explain why he is wrong and what the correct explanation is. (AFAIK he is right on ONE topic - it was a plane that impacted Pentagon.)
Then stop playing games and get serious. Decide to learn - remember that was your intention stated in the OP.
The ball is in your court to avoid circling.
I guess not, but I know for a fact that such calculations exist and have existed for over a hundred years. With the WTC collapses, we have John Gross saying NIST didn't do calculations on why the collapse wasn't arrested, and Bazant's calculations which are so sketchy that not even people here believe he got it right.
What my current conclusion about the event currently is is irrelevant imo... I think you can discuss this stuff without dividing into the camps of "truthers" and "debunkers". But I don't think I'm exactly hiding the ball that I think it's possible, or even probable, that all three buildings were deliberately blown up.
Why did you leave out the part of my quote where I asked if you understood the mechanics/processes explained in econ41's post #167?
YOU are a denier of science/engineering and prefer to believe in "magic".
And load calculations for floors, connections, structural components, etc. DON'T exist?
How do you know it didn't?
What is a good discussion like for you? How is it different from a bad discussion?
