WTC: Rate of Fall (rate of crush)

[Tony Szamboti]

Bazant's paper was never meant to model what happened. It was a worse case scenario.

No, Bazant's January 2011 paper, written with Jia-Liang Le, who was a graduate student of his at the time, is fraudulent. He is trying to say the jolt would not be observable and to make his point he embellished the kinetic energy via velocity and mass increases which were well beyond actuals or possibilities, and diminished the column energy absorption capacity by giving a plastic moment which is much lower than what it was in reality or what was possible.

 

[Jazzy]

I think you may mean they did not fall at G so they were being resisted in some way. It is true that the North Tower fell at about 64% of G. However, it was always accelerating and deceleration is needed to amplify the load.

This work here, as a physics teacher, is unpaid. In fact one receives payment in insult alone.

"They were being resisted in some way". Well, yes they were, by a succession of impacts with their non-moving parts. "It is true that the North Tower fell at about 64% of G". You cannot concede otherwise. So, if you compare a free-falling piece of the tower with a non-free-falling piece of the tower, from the point of view of the free-faller, the non-free-faller is decelerating, is it not?

You apparently do not understand the difference between acceleration and deceleration. One is positive and one is negative. Less than G acceleration is not deceleration in any universe.

And you have no understanding of relativity. If you don't adopt free-fall as the norm for considering the motion of the non-free-fall, then you are bound to speak gibberish.

In other words, the upper section needed to have a negative acceleration (deceleration) for an amplified (dynamic load) to occur

Which it did. It had a deceleration relative to free-fall of -0.36G.

Relative to the unmoving structure it only needed velocity. Hammers work by speed, not acceleration. (Hi, Mick.)

The only one wasting anyone's time here is the one who does not understand.

LOL. Thanks. I'll bank it tomorrow.

 

[MikeC]

No, Bazant's January 2011 paper, written with Jia-Liang Le, who was a graduate student of his at the time, is fraudulent.

right - someone who self-admittedly does a "simple" analysis using "approximations" and who thinks of his own work that

Errors by a factor of 2 would not be terribly surprising,...

Content from External Source

- that is fraudulent in your eyes...gotcha.

Thanks for adding another name to my list of [...] I can safely ignore.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This work here, as a physics teacher, is unpaid. In fact one receives payment in insult alone.

"They were being resisted in some way". Well, yes they were, by a succession of impacts with their non-moving parts. "It is true that the North Tower fell at about 64% of G". You cannot concede otherwise. So, if you compare a free-falling piece of the tower with a non-free-falling piece of the tower, from the point of view of the free-faller, the non-free-faller is decelerating, is it not?


And you have no understanding of relativity. If you don't adopt free-fall as the norm for considering the motion of the non-free-fall, then you are bound to speak gibberish.


Which it did. It had a deceleration relative to free-fall of -0.36G.

Relative to the unmoving structure it only needed velocity. Hammers work by speed, not acceleration. (Hi, Mick.)


LOL. Thanks. I'll bank it tomorrow.

If the hammer is used to pound in something which can support the hammer's static weight, such as a nail in a board, and the hammer is just placed on it, it can't have done any work. The hammer works during impact because it is transferring its momentum to the impacted object and applying a much greater load than its static weight. This causes the hammer to decelerate and lose velocity. The load amplification, beyond the static load, is a function of that deceleration.

What you are saying is akin to putting a hammer in a vat of custard and saying it is being decelerated because it falls through the custard at less than G. In that case it is not decelerating but accelerating at less than G.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

right - someone who self-admittedly does a "simple" analysis using "approximations" and who thinks of his own work that

Errors by a factor of 2 would not be terribly surprising,...

Content from External Source

- that is fraudulent in your eyes...gotcha.

Thanks for adding another name to my list of [...] I can safely ignore.

Bazant's errors amount to a factor of 11 when they are added up. That is not something to be ignored. It is also pretty hard to imagine the things he said in that January 2011 paper being just honest errors. Did you read the paper and our Discussion of it?

 

[Mick West]

The slope in A is occurring during the first story drop and is an acceleration. The slope in B is occurring during the impact and column deformation and is a deceleration. They are separate and distinct. I am surprised you needed to ask this question.

So what exactly happened in A, and what happened in B? In A the columns magically vanished, and in B they act like powerful springs retarding all progress?

Why would the columns even be retarding anything of note, what are points of contact?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So what exactly happened in A, and what happened in B? In A the columns magically vanished, and in B they act like powerful springs retarding all progress?

Why would the columns even be retarding anything of note, what are points of contact?

The acceleration in A is what was actually measured. I think it is far too rapid for natural circumstances.

The deceleration in B is what was calculated for natural circumstances.

What actually occurred was continuous acceleration at all times in the fall as you see in the Chandler measured data.

 

[Mick West]

And what are those natural circumstances?

 

[dunbar]

If the buildings were to collapse solely due to fire a slow, chaotic and visually progressive(elastic-plastic-severe structural deformation) collapse would be expected, not a rapid accelerating symmetrical implosion... x3.

 

[dunbar]

if you compare a free-falling piece of the tower with a non-free-falling piece of the tower, from the point of view of the free-faller, the non-free-faller is decelerating, is it not?

No, it is most assuredly not, it is merely accelerating at a lesser rate.

And you have no understanding of relativity. If you don't adopt free-fall as the norm for considering the motion of the non-free-fall, then you are bound to speak gibberish.

That may be how a politician or a lawyer defines deceleration, but a simple physical definition in this context would be something like 'decrease in rate of fall from previous rate'. What you are essentially saying is that anything not accelerating at the rate of 9.7536 m / s2 is decelerating. That's just blatant nonsense.

 

[Jazzy]

If the hammer is used to pound in something which can support the hammer's static weight, such as a nail in a board, and the hammer is just placed on it, it can't have done any work. The hammer works during impact because it is transferring its momentum to the impacted object and applying a much greater load than its static weight. This causes the hammer to decelerate and lose velocity. The load amplification, beyond the static load, is a function of that deceleration.
What you are saying is akin to putting a hammer in a vat of custard and saying it is being decelerated because it falls through the custard at less than G. In that case it is not decelerating but accelerating at less than G.

That's the correct response to my "velocity" prod.

However (once more) you have ignored my "relativity" prod. How did you respond to that? Are you still arguing that because the tower top is accelerating at less than G, it isn't being decelerated?

 

[Jazzy]

No, it is most assuredly not, it is merely accelerating at a lesser rate. That may be how a politician or a lawyer defines deceleration, but a simple physical definition in this context would be something like 'decrease in rate of fall from previous rate'. What you are essentially saying is that anything not accelerating at the rate of 9.7536 m / s2 is decelerating. That's just blatant nonsense.

If it were to fall free, the tower would be accelerated at G.

Something, "drag", is limiting this "G" acceleration, holding it back, making it less.

This is a negative function. The negative of acceleration is deceleration. One is looking at (G-D).

And less of this "politician/lawyer - blatant nonsense" crap, please.

 

[dunbar]

However (once more) you have ignored my "relativity" prod. How did you respond to that? Are you still arguing that because the tower top is accelerating at less than G, it isn't being decelerated?

It isn't in any way shape or form relative to G, it's falling at an objective rate. If that rate increases then it is accelerating, if it decreases, then deceleration. If the tower top is encountering sufficient resistance then its rate of fall will decrease, decelerate, if the resistance is not sufficient then its rate of fall will either remain constant or accelerate.

 

[Jazzy]

The acceleration in A is what was actually measured. I think it is far too rapid for natural circumstances. The deceleration in B is what was calculated for natural circumstances. What actually occurred was continuous acceleration at all times in the fall as you see in the Chandler measured data.

The "natural circumstances" would be acceleration of G. Less the resistance which the initial buckling briefly provides.

Further resistance would be provided by an increasing succession of individual failures of both the intact and moving structures, as the whole tower top momentum is resisted briefly by each of them in turn.

Because each of these resistances are very small in proportion to the moving mass, and because of the elastic nature of steel, this resistance would appear smooth.

 

[Jazzy]

It isn't in any way shape or form relative to G, it's falling at an objective rate.

It is being accelerated by the gravitational field it is in. Earth's. That is what falling is. Whenever any object is free, it will fall and be subject to an acceleration of G. You appear to be denying this.

If that rate increases then it is accelerating, if it decreases, then deceleration. If the tower top is encountering sufficient resistance then its rate of fall will decrease, decelerate, if the resistance is not sufficient then its rate of fall will either remain constant or accelerate.

What rate? The rate of what?

I am struggling to understand you here, and trying not to repeat myself without success, I fear.

A falling object which cannot accelerate at G must be being subjected to a deceleration.

 

[dunbar]

It is being accelerated by the gravitational field it is in. Earth's. That is what falling is.

That is correct, but G is simply the greatest rate of acceleration which a falling object can reach, but it is hardly the only rate.

Whenever any object is free, it will fall and be subject to an acceleration of G. You appear to be denying this.

No, I fully recognize G, but we don't determine acceleration by G, Acceleration is simply the rate at which the velocity of a body changes with time. The SI unit for acceleration is the meter per second squared (m/s2).

What rate? The rate of what?

Rate of fall or Rate of Velocity, which ever you prefer.

Surely, a falling object which cannot accelerate at G must be being subjected to a deceleration?

No, it is simply encountering resistance, its rate of fall will be determined by its mass and current velocity relative to the strength of resistance it encounters. If the force of the falling object is greater than the resistance it encounters then it's rate of fall will either remain constant or accelerate.

 

[Pete Tar]

... It is also pretty hard to imagine the things he said in that January 2011 paper being just honest errors....

So deliberate, purposefully misleading errors? Could you prove it?
Is that an accusation worth setting out in a thread?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And what are those natural circumstances?

Did you read the "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" that I sent you via e-mail? That paper can't be posted on the Internet for free use until January 1, 2014 per the publisher, but authors are allowed to send copies to colleagues for personal use. I sent you a copy and a discussion related to your question is in there.

 

[Jazzy]

That is correct, but G is simply the greatest rate of acceleration which a falling object can reach, but it is hardly the only rate.

It's the only rate the Earth's gravitational field will create at its surface. If you want a different surface rate, you'd have to go to some other gravitational body. Like the Moon.

No, I fully recognize G, but we don't determine acceleration by G, Acceleration is simply the rate at which the velocity of a body changes with time. The SI unit for acceleration is the meter per second squared (m/s2).

NO. You DO determine acceleration by G, which is 9.81 m/sec/sec. Thanks for defining general acceleration.

Rate of fall or Rate of Velocity, which ever you prefer.

"Rate of fall" would be velocity.

"Rate of velocity" would be acceleration, or deceleration. You are confusing your terms.

No, it is simply encountering resistance, its rate of fall will be determined by its mass and current velocity relative to the strength of resistance it encounters. If the force of the falling object is greater than the resistance it encounters then it's rate of fall will either remain constant or accelerate.

Substituting "rate of velocity" in your first sentence gives it the correct meaning.

Your second sentence is incorrect no matter which term you use.

You would have to say "If the force of the falling object is greater than the resistance it encounters then its rate of velocity will decrease from free-fall acceleration to a degree exactly proportional to the resistance it meets".

Note apostrophe deleted.

 

[Mick West]

Did you read the "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" that I sent you via e-mail? That paper can't be posted on the Internet for free use until January 1, 2014 per the publisher, but authors are allowed to send copies to colleagues for personal use. I sent you a copy and a discussion related to your question is in there.

Perhaps you could sum it up? Or we can wait until 2014.

 

[Mick West]

Those interested in how this argument might unfold might be wise to consider the past, lest they repeat it:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html

And the entire subforum dedicated to this topic:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc1-and-wtc2-collapse-progression-f56.html

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Perhaps you could sum it up? Or we can wait until 2014.

Mick, I am out of the house 12 hours a day between travel and work, while you seem to have a lot of time on your hands given the number of posts I see you make here.

I sent you the paper. I think you should read it and summarize it for the others here posting on your forum.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Those interested in how this argument might unfold might be wise to consider the past, lest they repeat it:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html

And the entire subforum dedicated to this topic:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc1-and-wtc2-collapse-progression-f56.html[/quote]

What a disappointment. It looks like you decided it wasn't worth soiling your hands trying to defend Bazant's fraudulent papers. At least you seem to know when to cut your losses.

The least you could have done was answer my question concerning what you thought about the Journal of Engineering Mechanics refusing to publish our critique of Bazant's paper by saying it was "out of scope" and not being able to show we were wrong.

 

[Mick West]

Chillax Tony, I've not had the time. I should get to it eventually. I'm a little slow, and have other things to debunk.

 

[Mick West]

"Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" is available on the internet via a Google search:
http://rethink911.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Szuladzinski.Johns_.Szamboti.pdf

At a glance, arguments from incredulity like:

From an engineering viewpoint the event had many fascinating aspects. Not the least of them was “the aircraft flying into the building” mentioned above. This means the aircraft structure cut the building structure on its way. The aircraft was built of an aluminum shell on the order of 2 mm thickness, which was additionally stiffened by longitudinal and lateral elements. At contact with the building the fuselage was pitched nose down by 10.6° and hit the building between the 95th and 96th floors. There was a 25° roll, so one wing impacted a higher part of the building than the other. The exterior columns in the area of impact had 6.9 mm thick hollow square sections of 356 mm side length. Yet, the thin aluminum wings cut through the much thicker steel.

Content from External Source

Do not bode well.

 

[gerrycan]

From an engineering viewpoint the event had many fascinating aspects. Not the least of them was “the aircraft flying into the building” mentioned above. This means the aircraft structure cut the building structure on its way. The aircraft was built of an aluminum shell on the order of 2 mm thickness, which was additionally stiffened by longitudinal and lateral elements. At contact with the building the fuselage was pitched nose down by 10.6° and hit the building between the 95th and 96th floors. There was a 25° roll, so one wing impacted a higher part of the building than the other. The exterior columns in the area of impact had 6.9 mm thick hollow square sections of 356 mm side length. Yet, the thin aluminum wings cut through the much thicker steel.

Content from External Source

@Mick West , just for clarity. Did "the thin aluminum wings cut through the much thicker steel." ?

 

[Mick West]

@Mick West , just for clarity. Did "the thin aluminum wings cut through the much thicker steel." ?

Back to semantics? Maybe check out this thread, from post #609.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-...a-progressive-collapse.364/page-16#post-10122

Or did you have some specific objection to the hole?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

"Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" is available on the internet via a Google search:
http://rethink911.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Szuladzinski.Johns_.Szamboti.pdf

At a glance, arguments from incredulity like:

From an engineering viewpoint the event had many fascinating aspects. Not the least of them was “the aircraft flying into the building” mentioned above. This means the aircraft structure cut the building structure on its way. The aircraft was built of an aluminum shell on the order of 2 mm thickness, which was additionally stiffened by longitudinal and lateral elements. At contact with the building the fuselage was pitched nose down by 10.6° and hit the building between the 95th and 96th floors. There was a 25° roll, so one wing impacted a higher part of the building than the other. The exterior columns in the area of impact had 6.9 mm thick hollow square sections of 356 mm side length. Yet, the thin aluminum wings cut through the much thicker steel.

Content from External Source

Do not bode well.

That post of the paper is unauthorized. I asked the publisher when we could post it for free use and they said January 1, 2014.

The paragraph you cite clearly explains the wings were made up of more than just the skin and that there was a stiffening structure internally. The fuel in them would also have had a lot to do with the impact. We all know the foam from the Space Shuttle Columbia's external fuel tank damaged the heat tiles under the wing in a 500 mph impact. In that situation many people would not intuitively think it was possible and thus, after separating it from the tragedy, it would be considered fascinating from an engineering standpoint. You have to be looking to nitpick and misinterpret things with a bias to say what was said in that paragraph has anything to do with an argument from incredulity.

Regardless, I am interested to hear what you have to say about that paper and what the Journal of Engineering Mechanics did in refusing to publish the critique of the Le and Bazant erroneous January 2011 paper, by Richard Johns and myself, while not being able to show our criticisms were incorrect.

 

[Hitstirrer]

A falling object which cannot accelerate at G must be being subjected to a deceleration.

That statement is wrong. A falling object that is accelerating at 0.00001 m/sec/sec is still accelerating, not decelerating. That negligible rate of acceleration is due to a resisting force that is preventing it achieving 9.81 m/sec/sec, but still does not mean that it is decelerating.

 

[Mick West]

That statement is wrong. A falling object that is accelerating at 0.00001 m/sec/sec is still accelerating, not decelerating. That negligible rate of acceleration is due to a resisting force that is preventing it achieving 9.81 m/sec/sec, but still does not mean that it is decelerating.

You are getting caught up in semantics. We understand the physics.

There's a constant accelerating force g.
There's a variable deceleration resistance, r.
The result averaged over time is a net acceleration less than g. (g + r)

That's it. That's all Jazzy means.

 

[Hitstirrer]

That's it. That's all Jazzy means.

I just prefer accuracy in such matters - especially from a physics teacher. But it goes deeper than that. He said earlier, in response to Tony S's input, as here :-

" It is true that the North Tower fell at about 64% of G. However, it was always accelerating and deceleration is needed to amplify the load."

Tony's point was that deceleration was required to amplify the load.

But Jazzy replied as follows :-

" So, if you compare a free-falling piece of the tower with a non-free-falling piece of the tower, from the point of view of the free-faller, the non-free-faller is decelerating, is it not?"

You see my point ? You speak for him, saying that he understands - but that statement shows that in fact he doesn't understand.
He claims that even though an element is accelerating at a lower rate than G, that it is somehow decelerating. This isnt semantics. Its a lack of understanding. But he wants to believe that it is decelerating so that the amplified load effect can take place, as described by Tony.

If part of the tower is accelerating at a lower rate of acceleration than another part, then it is still accelerating, and no amount of 'semantics' can make it decelerate and amplify a load.

 

[Mick West]

Jazzy is talking about relativity there, the slower piece is decelerating RELATIVE to the faster piece. You are inventing issues where there are none.

The real issue here is that Tony thinks there should be measurable periods of net deceleration of the roofline, whereas what actually happened was that either the resistance was effectively even, leading to only monotonic acceleration, or any periods of actual net deceleration were too small to be observed on video. Probably it was something of a hybrid the the two.

Tony then goes on to claim that this indicates explosives were used, as his calculations and assumptions call for much higher and more abrupt resistance.

 

[Hitstirrer]

Jazzy is talking about relativity there, the slower piece is decelerating RELATIVE to the faster piece. You are inventing issues where there are none.

Im not inventing anything. Im stating physics. No deceleration - no load amplification. Pretending that from the point of view of an observer sat on a piece of steel dropping at 9.81 m/sec/sec, then another piece dropping nearby at 8.25 m /sec/sec, is decelerating is poor science at best, and deceit at worst if the person making that statement knows that it is intended to give a false impression.

Then we have your own assertion :-

" whereas what actually happened was that either the resistance was effectively even...........etc "

That is a bare assertion with absolutely no proof.

You state with authority " what actually happened " as if that alone settles the matter. ( my emphasis ).

Well guess what - it doesn't.

 

[Jazzy]

That's it. That's all Jazzy means.

As far as Metabunk is concerned, perfectly true.

Im not inventing anything. Im stating physics.

Let's see.

No deceleration - no load amplification.

But there was plenty of deceleration. Otherwise the falling tower wouldn't have been left behind by its free falling debris. It would have fallen at the exact same speed as its debris, and that it didn't is plainly visible for all to see.

Pretending that from the point of view of an observer sat on a piece of steel dropping at 9.81 m/sec/sec, then another piece dropping nearby at 8.25 m /sec/sec, is decelerating is poor science at best

It's the ability to observe and deduce, and the basis of good science. Lots of people use relativity.

and deceit at worst if the person making that statement knows that it is intended to give a false impression.

Only when you end your own self-deception will you stop projecting your deceit on others.

Then we have your own assertion:-" whereas what actually happened was that either the resistance was effectively even...........etc " That is a bare assertion with absolutely no proof. You state with authority " what actually happened " as if that alone settles the matter. (my emphasis). Well guess what - it doesn't.

[...]

 

[Mick West]

Then we have your own assertion :-

" whereas what actually happened was that either the resistance was effectively even...........etc "

That is a bare assertion with absolutely no proof.

You state with authority " what actually happened " as if that alone settles the matter. ( my emphasis ).

Well guess what - it doesn't.

But that was what was observed to happen. That's what Tony described what happened. That's what the video shows.

Sorry HS, but you need to slow down a little before posting. you clearly don't understand the argument, and it's just heaping on confusion.

Forget about Jazzy. What's the actual disagreement here? It's the interpretation of what was observed, and if what was observed is possible without explosives.

 

[Jazzy]

And the entire subforum dedicated to this topic:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc1-and-wtc2-collapse-progression-f56.html

Thanks. It's nice to be so agreeably vindicated. I haven't consulted anyone ever with my energy calcs. It's lonely on this island.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Acceleration due to gravity which is lower than G because of resistance is not deceleration in any universe. Moving at a lower acceleration than G is increasing velocity whereas with deceleration velocity decreases.

I am loathe to explain it in too much more detail due to how badly some seem able to mangle the concept, but I will try.

As I stated earlier,

A static load is F = mg

and an amplified load due to impact is represented by F = mg + m(deceleration) where the m(deceleration) term is the amplification above the static load.

In the case of a structure which can support several times the load above it you could say the load above is trying to accelerate at 1g but it is restrained by the strength of the structure with an upward force equal to mg. In a situation where the structure below is somehow degraded and can then only provide an upward force of F =m x 0.36g the mass above will accelerate at 0.64G. This does not provide a load amplification and in a static sense the maximum load is mg.

If a story somehow fails and causes the upper mass to fall and impact with a structure below, which is still capable of supporting several times the static load above it, the load can be amplified due to the strength of the structure decelerating the load. However, if there is no deceleration and velocity loss, there cannot be an amplified load.

I am sorry to say that no deceleration of the upper section, at the time of impact with a structure below which was formerly capable of supporting several times the static load of that upper section mass, does indeed imply degradation of the structure below.

In the case of the North Tower there could not have been enough degradation due to aircraft impact and fire to a structure formerly capable of providing about 400% resistance to the static load above to decrease the resistance to just 0.36G and allow an acceleration of 0.64G through the lower structure. Since resistance was decreased from about 4G to just 0.36G something had to be eliminating about 91% of the structural integrity.

 

[Jazzy]

Acceleration due to gravity which is lower than G because of resistance is not deceleration in any universe. Moving at a lower acceleration than G is increasing velocity whereas with deceleration velocity decreases.

An object on the surface of our Earth, whether it is falling or not, is subject to Earth's gravity field, and no other. It will fall free, with an acceleration of 9.81m/sec/sec if nothing restrains it.

In the case of a structure which can support several times the load above it you could say the load above is trying to accelerate at 1g but it is restrained by the strength of the structure (beneath) with an upward force equal to mg. In a situation where the structure below is somehow degraded and can then only provide an upward force of F =m x 0.36g the mass above will accelerate at 0.64G.

There you are, you did understand it after all.

Now let's deal with your 'little misapprehensions'.

This does not provide a load amplification and in a static sense the maximum load can only ever be 1g. During impact with a structure below, which is still capable of supporting several times the static load above it, the load can be amplified due to the strength of the structure decelerating the load. However, if there is no deceleration and velocity loss there cannot be an amplified load.

This is a load of bull tits. Please read and re-read the following until you are able to repeat it back to me, using your own words:

From your previous "the mass above will accelerate at 0.64G" we shall ask ourselves what this means.

It means the tower top was going faster second by second. In that particular circumstance it was striking individual parts of the intact tower beneath in increasing numbers and with increasing velocity.

That 'elements of the falling tower' were being brought 'to a halt' from motion is the the 'load amplification' deceleration you are talking about.

That 'load amplification' deceleration would itself have increased exponentially (factor 2) as the impact velocity increased over time.

(It is interesting that there appeared to be a balance between this increasing intensity and number of impacts, the increasing mass of the falling tower, and the increasing strength of the structure being destroyed.)

Note it is NOT ACTUALLY the reduced acceleration of the falling tower itself. Each to its own, so-to-speak. You have been conflating entirely different decelerations.

But of course their energies will sum to each other - action and reaction. (On the one side, many small violent events, on the other the falling tower decelerated from free fall.)

This is the work being done. As I have said before, it's equivalent to more than thirty tons of TNT even if the tower was at its lightest putative loading.

Scientific discussion does not consist of demeaning one's opponent. This may feel better for you, but you are demonstrating very clearly your ignorance the moment you deviate from scientific rigor.

"Loathe" means "detest". "Loth" means "unwilling".

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Jazzy, deceleration above that needed to restrain the static load is what is required for an amplified load and an amplified load is what is required to defeat a lower structure capable of supporting several times the static load above it.

Your semantic argument that partial restraint of a static load is deceleration is not what constitutes the requirement for an amplification of the static load. You could say it is the deceleration above that required for static equilibrium which is required, as that would work better with the way you look at it.

The bottom line is that no resistance above that required for static equilibrium is proof that there was no amplified load and that the structural collapse could not have been natural, unless you can somehow show a way that the structure below had been degraded by about 90% naturally. I can't.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

"Loathe" means "detest". "Loth" means "unwilling".

The word I should have used was "Loath" with no "e" which does mean unwilling or reluctant.