Using geometry to analyze angles of descent of falling debris from WT1 & WT2

I apologize if this has already been dealt with, but does anyone know of any attempts to use this type of approach with regards to the distance and angle at which debris came off the tower.

To be more specific, it seems that the math would be relatively straightforward.

Unless I am wrong, in a building collapse, gravity, in the X axis, would be the only force operating on the top floors especially. Until the "piledriver" of the top floors came down on the "nail" of the bottom floors, there would be no force pushing debris outwards. So, IF it could be shown that debris was moving out a trajectory that could not be accounted for by the forces of gravity, it would demonstrate that another force is involved.

Are there any problems with this particular approach? Has it been done and could someone provide any link to such an analysis.

Thanks.

It may seem that way to someone without a background in engineering or math, but it is not relatively straightforward.

Place a glass on the floor. Apply a downward force shattering the glass, such as with a hammer. Observe how you end up with glass shards all over the room.

Now, the only force you applied was in one direction, and you end up with glass shards all over the place.

Things that bend, buckle, break, and snap - such as an arrangement of thousands of interconnected things which were designed to stay put provided that most of the structure was intact - are going to be ejected in all directions when the structure falls apart.

I am predicating this on the idea that we could find debris that could be separated from the collision you are describing --so BEFORE the top floors hit the lower ones so hard that it produced such a massive amount of pulverized matter.

IF there is such debris, that is. It would all hinge on that.

What is the "downward" force in the case of 9/11?

Would you describe gravity as a downward force with all the variables that would entail?

Answer: No, it is entirely straightforward as is the mass and structure of the above floors.

So even if I was talking about AFTER the collision, it would be more straightforward than you imply.

Again, are you aware of any such approach and would you think it is a measurable approach that would yield demonstrable results?

What's stopping you, then?

If the analysis of failure of complex structures in conditions well beyond their design points, right down to modeling how fragments of the structure will behave after breaking free under overdesign stress, is "straightforward" to you, then I guess I don't understand why you don't present one.

So why don't you go ahead and do whatever it is you have in mind, instead of talking about it.

Again, I find it odd that you would choose to shoot down an approach and make such an attack so quickly.

I suggested what seems to me to be a rational way to approach a question. The fact that I have not supplied an predetermined conclusion to such a question does not invalidate the IDEA of the approach. Right? I am asking for agreement on an APPROACH, not asking if you think the CONCLUSION that you assume I have come to is true. Can you see the difference?

I suck at math. Ok? But that is not the same thing as saying that I am unable to ask the right questions.

"then I guess I don't understand why you don't present one."

Why such an attitude? Do you not see how silly that is? How obstinate? How unreasonable? I merely ask if anyone knew if such an approach had been taken or if they thought it was reasonable. I asked in very objective language and I get an emotion-laden attack? Why is this always the case?

It sounds a little like people who are against teaching of evolution because it bothers their sense of reality.

I suggest you go back and re-read jberryhill's first post in response to your OP. The issue here is that you clearly do not understand how difficult such a predictive simulation would be (essentially impossible). You admit you do not have a background in math or engineering but you refuse to accept his perfectly reasonable explanation that what you are suggesting is not strait forward in the way you think it is.

Then you attack him when he says 'gee if I am wrong and it is as simple as you say... why not just do it and present it to us?'

"I merely ask if anyone knew if such an approach had been taken or if they thought it was reasonable."
Answer: No it is not reasonable for the reasons given by jberryhill.

It is excellent that you are trying to discuss the matter in a reasonable fashion without name calling etc. It is also good that you are not just parroting old arguments but rather trying to look at things from a new angle. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your initial question IMO.

However, it does show that you do not understand the complexity of the structural failures. Thus pointing out that you do not understand the complexity involved, and that is the reason your idea will not work is perfectly valid.

I concede that it is not a 2-dimensional equation. But I am suggesting an approach and I do not think JBerryHill addressed the question directly even or said he thought it was an impossible approach, so let's let him speak for himself.

Anyway, I do not want to have a discussion about he said/she said, you were mean, you were nice.

I am asking a really simple question.

Also, although I have doubts, I do not have a fully formed conclusion. This seems the correct approach.

The approach I describe could be used to either prove or disprove the "crazy conspiracy idea", couldn't it?

And saying I wouldn't understand the answer seems to be a cop out. Even if I didn't it could be submitted for peer review and others more qualified could make that determination.

I guess I am saying, why put everything on me? I am asking a decent question and the fact that I am not an engineer doesn't mean it isn't a good one.

There is no 'before the collision' to look at. It isn't like a beam from the death star erased one floor from reality and the top of the building was in free fall for one story.
It may be *close* to that. You may be able to simplify to that *for certain calculations* but that was not what actually happened.
So you can't just say 'well before the collision x happened'. The upper and lower sections were in contact at various points throughout the collapse.
Furthermore as things progressed the upper section began to rotate. That alone would drastically change the loads on the various structural members creating any number of different breaking points etc.

You had an idea, you posted it here, but you are refusing to listen to the answer.
The idea of calculating what those trajectories should be is massively more complex than you think it is. People with a better idea of what the complexities involved are are telling you this.

As jberryhill pointed out, you are welcome to prove this statement incorrect. You can do the math and publish the paper and show it is possible.

Short of that you have no argument.

Bazant simplified to the point where we weren't modeling the reality at all and yet it is okay, and no, I don't want to shift to a Bazant study.

Anyway, your post just now is just another post talking about me. Whatever already. Please keep me out of it.


If you feel the question was answered, then you should be done with your responses to this OP. Period.

"The idea of calculating what those trajectories should be is massively more complex than you think it is. People with a better idea of what the complexities involved are are telling you this. "
-Fine. Accepted. Does this mean it can't be done?

"As jberryhill pointed out, you are welcome to prove this statement incorrect. You can do the math and publish the paper and show it is possible."
-Again. Is your position that IF I can't do the math, I should shut up and it shouldn't be asked?

Yes. It means the calculations are far to complex and chaotic to be meaningful in any way.

"-Again. Is your position that IF I can't do the math, I should shut up and it shouldn't be asked?"
No. I never said it shouldn't be asked. I pointed out specifically that asking was fine. I also pointed out the above answer.

"Bazant simplified to the point where we weren't modeling the reality at all and yet it is okay"
You opened the door so no complaints. Your statement about Bazant is more evidence that you are out of your depth and should be relying more on what others are trying to explain to you.

Let me put it this way for you.

With incuriosity of the magnitude that you evince, civilization would not have advanced very far and I mean that with no sarcasm or snark.

I'm trying to understand this. How could Rh revise it to make it more curious?

I also don't understand how geometry enters into your question. If you have evidence of debris being ejected sideways at a time when no known force could account for that, then you wouldn't need geometry to infer the existence of an unknown force. But when would that be?

So far, my honest impression is that you have either a radically intractable math problem, or no math problem at all.

ETA: The more of this I read, the more perplexed I get. It seems like you asked, Is this possible? JBerryhill said, No. You said, Well, I think it is straightforward. JBerryhill said, If you think it is straightforward, why haven't you done it? And you got upset about his emotional attack and how you admit that you're no engineer. And so on. Basically it seems that you just don't like the answer you got.

I was wondering that as well.

I was and am still very curious about the specifics of the WTC collapses, pentagon failure etc. That is why I read the reports, read the criticisms of them, discussed them here. I remember AZCat having some very interesting things to point out.
The same is true of the defense and ATC responses to the attacks. So I read up on them as well.

I don't see how it is 'incurrious' of me to say that a particular problem is much more complex than X person thinks it is. Nor that if they disagree they should demonstrate that it is not.
The fact is anyone who has the least idea what they are talking about knows that many problems are far to complex and chaotic to solve with any reasonable degree of certainty. Saying that a problem appears to fall in that category is hardly 'incurrious'.

But it appears bonobo just refuses to accept that answer.

Is that not only is Bonobo refusing to grasp the answer provided by several people with relevant technical backgrounds, but Bonobo is requesting an analysis that, by its own admission, it wouldn't understand.

You could sit down, do any number of calculations, and show the results to Bonobo, and it would make as much sense as translating your posts into Japanese.

The only metric by which Bonobo could judge the accuracy or validity of such an analysis would be whether the result is one that Bonobo likes or chooses to believe.

No one understands everything about everything. If such a thing was necessary in order to make advancements in civilization, we would be stuck in the Stone Age.

You make the argument that since I cannot understand the complexities of my question (strawman) or the answer (ridiculous given 'peer review as a manner of establishing facts), that I should not bother to ask questions.

In other words, "you are too dumb to understand the answers and besides we already told you." Told me what? That any question asked that involves ballistic trajectories and know forces is ridiculous or too complex? No, I do NOT believe it.

Is that all you can say? If all you have to criticize is my use or misuse of the phrase 'ad hominem', I will gladly concede the point and move on. :)

What answer?

That it is impossible to use ballistics to study the debris that was ejected and use that to measure forces involved? And from that derive certain data that would tend to either rule out or confirm additional forces being added on top of the range of influence expected from gravity alone Is that what you are saying? If so, say it again.

Look, is it your or jberry's position that there is no analysis that can be made, no information learned by measuring the trajectories of any of those pieces coming off the buildings?

If I'm missing your point, it isn't out of malicious intent.

My background is in physics and engineering. I know practically nothing about biology.

What I do know about biology, in fact, is that I know practically nothing about it.

I've also done some teaching, and I think the biggest lie told by teachers everywhere is "There is no such thing as a stupid question." I'm of the opinion there is. Maybe not "stupid questions", but questions which are themselves simple, but belie an ocean of ignorance in their superficial simplicity - i.e. the assumption that all simple questions have simple answers.

Asking "Why is the sky blue?" is a simple question. The answer is stunningly complex. If a child asks the question, I am not going to go into a semester course in electromagnetics in order to lay the foundation to understand Raleigh scattering.

Why is the sky blue? Because the number 4 appears next to a greek letter in this:



Are you going to tell that to a kid? No. You will tell the child "Because light is made up of a lot of colors, and the blue part of the light is bounced around more by air than the other parts of the light are" or something like that. In fact, most adults think it has something to do with refraction because they are familiar with the way a prism splits up light. That has nothing to do with Rayleigh scattering and in fact most adults have no freaking clue why the sky is blue. Those that think it has something to do with refraction - i.e. most that think they know why - are wrong.

But if you ask me to tell you, an adult, why the sky is blue, then I'm more likely to say "Rayleigh scattering". And if you don't like the answer, it is not because of some lack of curiosity on my part - because you are perfectly capable of going off and learning about it on your own.

I'm not curious about why the sky is blue. I know why, and I know the answer is actually quite complicated, and is not going to be really understood unless you have a foundation from which to understand the mechanism by which it occurs.

Now, your assumption in this and two other threads is that there is a "simple" way to model ejected debris from a failing structure comprising thousands of interconnected components stressed to the breaking point. Elsewhere in one of threads, you didn't even notice the dripping sarcasm from someone whose answer amounted to "sure, if you don't mind dealing with a zillion variables".

How solid things break, and what the pieces of those things do when they break, is easily two semesters worth of study alone.

Here is MIT course 3.35 - Fracture and Fatigue
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Materials-Science-and-Engineering/3-35Fall2003/CourseHome/

It's all about "how stuff breaks". There is not a third year MIT course in "how stuff breaks" because it is some kind of simple question.

What you've repeatedly gotten in response to your question, from people with technical backgrounds is "no it is not a simple question". And forgetting even the mechanics of it - which is what you want - to the simpler question of the dynamics of it, is still not a simple question. Bazant's papers discuss some large scale dynamics of the problem, but you seem to think there is some "simple" way to take a large scale dynamic framework and reduce it to the mechanical results for a fractured piece of a complex structure during collapse.

No, you can't do that.

But what any engineer knows from the overall dynamics of the situation is that there is a tremendous amount of energy available, and there are lots of mechanisms to fling things outward during the collapse. But you got upset with me for simply stating the first thing that came to my mind to attempt an analogy with hitting a glass with a hammer - downward force and outward shattering.

Curiosity is a great thing. Getting angry with people because you do not recognize the oversimplification inherent in your question is inappropriate.

I was curious about physics too once, and I remain curious about a lot of things. One of the things I did to satisfy my curiosity about physics was to spend years of my life studying it. Among the things I learned was that the simplest of questions, and one of my favorites is:

"Why is copper reddish colored while other metals are silvery?"

...is a question to which the answer is devilishly complicated. That's a simple question that I used to know, but would take me at least an hour to get back up to speed on the Brillouin space energy diagram of copper electron momentum levels to even try to reduce to a simple answer.

You are not being curious. You are being a bully. Your question "opens the door" to your lack of understanding of the complexity of structures, and why structural engineers need large computer modeling capability to understand what is going on in order to simply make a building stand up - which is a LOT less complicated than what goes on when a building fails.

But anyway, I have no idea how cells divide, when they divide, or what makes them want to do it. I also have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of French literature, and so I realize I'm not bloody likely to come up with a wizbang way for the Sorbonne to organize its library.

The biology analogy you offer basically amounts to the argument that the answer is too complex to discuss since I do not know enough to understand the answer. It is a cop out. It is an ad hominem argument, a ridiculous assertion since I would, of necessity, reply upon the final judgment of any results to be subject to peer review. Anything I suggest here is merely a conversation, a proposal, a discussion.

But the worst thing is that you follow up with a strawman argument.

"Now, your assumption in this and two other threads is that there is a "simple" way to model ejected debris from a failing structure comprising thousands of interconnected components stressed to the breaking point. Elsewhere in one of threads, you didn't even notice the dripping sarcasm from someone whose answer amounted to "sure, if you don't mind dealing with a zillion variables"."

No. I do not assume there is a simple way to model anything. I assume there is a simple way to observe and measure visually perceived and measurable data. Then I assume there is a way to calculate, based on known values such as gravity, what the trajectory of large material at the top should/could/would take. Is any such debris visibly identifiable?

Again, what is the resistance to the discussion. That is what I do not understand.

"No. I do not assume there is a simple way to model anything. I assume there is a simple way to observe and measure visually perceived and measurable data. Then I assume there is a way to calculate, based on known values such as gravity, what the trajectory of large material at the top should/could/would take."

Well, what you describe is the process of modeling. Except that when you try to model complex structures and numerous pieces of material, it rapidly becomes complex. You can still do it, it just requires a lot of hard work and computer power because you're dealing with so many calculations. The individual calculations are simple, but the more interacting variables you have the more complex it becomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

In brief, a linear change in the number of variables leads to an exponential increase in complexity. You can still use math, it's just not that simple. The upside is that it's becoming easier and easier because of the ever-increasing power of computers. Many special effects in movies are now done with computers, as I'm sure you're aware; but this has only become possible in recent years because the amount of computer power required is humongous. Effects compositors still make use of miniature physical models for a lot of things because it's much faster to just photograph a model under certain circumstances.

I am glad that you have come to that realization.

I think I need to start looking to see if such things have been done.

The only difference is that I have appreciated from the beginning how massively complex such a task would be. Maybe you should have started looking into this before you began the thread, since considerable effort has already been expended in simulating this stuff.

I also will search, of course, and be happy to share what I find, now that it is agreed in principle.

Please note my comment above: 'considerable effort has been invested in simulating this stuff'. I would not want you to be disappointed if it turns out not to be what you thought it was. You should also look into 3d reconstruction from photographs and video, here are some links about the technology involved to get you started.

http://www.rsi.gmbh.de/photomodeler_e.htm
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.61.9212
http://www-cvr.ai.uiuc.edu/ponce_grp/publication/paper/crest03.pdf
http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICDS.2007.23
http://www.visionbib.com/bibliography/match-pl538.html

http://grail.cs.washington.edu/rome/ << these two would seem particularly relevant and somewhat less technical
http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/cpc/

To effectively take advantage of these techniques (which would be an ongoing project, as the technology is changing and advancing rapidly), the smart thing for someone who really cares about the truth would be to establish or maintain a single archive with as much photo and video fottage as possible. I'm not talking about footage with some guy explaining his CT over a heavy metal soundtrack or photos with annotations, just gathering/indexing the largest possible archive of raw material.

So even with all those pieces and all that visual data and all that nice easy geometrical trajectory type of analysis, it is impossible to look into it. Wow? And I'm just too dumb to know that it is too complex? Oh. And it can't be simplified for analysis? Really? So nothing is acceptable or do it yourself or it isn't possible or whatever.

Fine. That is your opinion. Can we agree to disagree?

And therefore I will not simply agree to let it stand without pointing out that it is wrong. This is the same thing I do with creationists. They are of course entitled to their opinion, but their opinion is wrong, why would I 'agree to disagree' with them? I will just continue to point out the errors.

I would LOVE to hear you (re)frame that!!! LOL!

You did great. You TOTALLY shut me down, man. You DID it. Tell everybody about it. Now you can go onto a place where your skill at stopping discussion of 9/11 in a 9/11 forum is more needed.

Nice. Point 2.

I suck at spelling, grammar, punctuation, Spanish, and playing musical instruments.

None of which effect my argument in any way.

OTOH your inability to comprehend what is being written does have an effect on the discussion as it makes it impossible for us to hold any kind of reasonable discussion with you.

Point.

as they fell down. We also know that the tops were being ripped apart as they fell down. It is not as simple as a homogeneous, intact section of the towers falling straight down on the section below.

But a tipping object, subject only to the downward force of gravity, would fall in a predictable arc. Isn't that correct?

But it wasn't.

The top twenty or thirty floors of the towers are not a pair of dice that are going to roll around lower Manhattan and come up snake eyes. They are structures of thousands of elements that were designed and constructed to maintain vertical integrity of the structure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzUhu9vhZwY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAdoAHsNyvE&NR=1


PS: Anyway, sorry to hit with that. But, seriously, I don't want to get sucked into a side conversation (even that I wind up winning...) but I am just talking about an approach with very reasonable conditions and I am getting it shot down for no good reason. I have no results and the suggestion of a model which, although simplified for calculation, seems "do-able".

Why do you want to shoot down approaches as well as conclusions? I find this frustrating. As if one cannot begin a reasonable conversation.... or a reasonable study into a subject that we are discussing.

The only science worth anything is science that proves the official stories conclusion.
This has promise of doing the opposite so its meeting less than an enthusiastic response.
All contradictory evidence such as your videos can be explained away. All uncomfortable questions ignored and ridiculed.
First your called an idiot (in very careful language of course) for even calling into question the "facts" of that day.
Then you are given patronizing answers or answers that invite you to spend your entire life checking the archive for their nuggets
of wisdom while telling you all this stuff has been answered before. Some posters decry your waste of their time while seeming to do nothing else
but post on this forum. All the time you are heaped with the kind of sarcasm that makes you wonder what the hell they are so damn defensive about.
Isn't this a discussion forum ? Where you discuss the subject at hand 911?
But I have compassion. Why? Because its hard to be open minded to a world view where corporate criminals playing with tanks rule your life.
Where republicans and democrats are on the same team just wearing different jerseys. Bribed by the same masters but with different roles to play.
Where governments job is not to serve you but to keep you docile distracted and too busy to work on taking back your political power.
Where you are manipulated with disinformation and madison avenue type selling campaigns from a controlled monopoly media.Where the government is willing to start wars lie and steal for the sake of corporate profit margins
This forum is not about discovering any truth or even discussing the subject. Its about preserving world views desperately held and cherished.
A world with good guys and bad guys. A world where a government willing to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis is too pure to engage in a terrorist action on its own people even if it helps increase its power and swell its bank accounts. A world where an administration who had an admitted war on science has the only scientific studies to be trusted on 911. A world where our government commits evil acts such as torture to "help keep us all safe and secure"
Sometimes denial is good. So repeat after me. On 911 hijackers took over four jets and flew them into targets.......

Did you see my train wreck in GD.

"Look here brother, who you jivin' with that Cosmik Debris?"

Especially the "life long liberal" ones. :eyes:

:patriot:

:)

clearly demonstrates that you have no idea of the complexity involved in modeling the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Why not inform us poor idiots(sarcasm) as to all the delicate variables involved.
Be sure not to leave anything out cause we will be checking your work DUDE!

I won the (sub) point (and red herring) by any reasonable standard, but the deflection attempt is still noted.

The OP was very simple. Why not stick to it?

OK?

how about showing a steel framed building for valid comparison?

The question that you need to think about is how many degrees of deflection can the joint of a column or girder withstand before it fails. That's the failure point of a steel framed building. Concrete does not fail like that - there are no joints.

You are arguing reflexively. I am uninterested in being your "adversary". The point of my OP could support either proving or debunking a theory of an explosion of any type, The fact that you choose to continue to interpret me as being your enemy and thus continuing to attack is something that I find amusing at best and sad at worst.

do they have nothing to do with the OP?

Then YOU said only if it was an ideal solid object.

Your quote:
"The top twenty or thirty floors of the towers are not a pair of dice that are going to roll around lower Manhattan and come up snake eyes."

So I playfully posted videos that show that they are rather sturdier than one might expect. So that if they did fall after tipping, they might stay rather more rigid than you might expect UNTIL they met serious resistance.

they were being ripped apart as the tipped - if you had understood my deflection question you would understand.

the pair of dice quote is not mine.

Those videos show no such thing. They show a very different building built in a totally different way rolling.
If you look at the WTC videos you can see the upper sections beginning to come apart as they fall.

On one hand you want it to be a pile driver that can DRIVE through solid floors without any resistance, barely pausing at all, and falling at near free fall speed.

On the other hand, you want it to be this fragile thing that started to fall apart and send out debris even BEFORE it impacted with the lower floors.

Why was it falling apart and turning into pulverized dust before it hit anything anyway?

I think it odd as do many.

I posted a video downthread of what happens to a steel-framed building (as opposed to a concrete one) during demolition, showing how substantial deformation can occur. This, in a butshell, is why the top of the tower began falling apart in mid-air.

However, even with it crumbling and ejecting lots of dust and pieces, you're still talking about a massive amount of weight falling onto the rest of the building after structural integrity has been lost. The top part of the building does not need to have all its structural integrity to be a crushing weight.

As a simply analogy, imagine a breeze block and the equivalent weight of gravel. Obviously the breeze block has structural integrity whereas the gravel is just a bunch of loose stones. But if yo drop both of them from the same height, they'll hit with ground with equivalent force, because you have the same amount of mass accelerated by the same gravity.

The distribution of the force at the point of impact will be different, for obvious reasons, but if the force is sufficiently large it will still crush whatever is underneath it.

If it were possible to visibly identify debris as it comes off the building, is it possible to subject it to forensic analysis that would give useable data about the forces acting on that piece of debris?

IF such debris could be identified, and particularly IF It came from an upper portion of the building where there were less chaotic forces acting on it?

Bear in mind that the data available for such analysis are very, very coarse, and that the problem changes considerably with the nature of the debris.

For example: Suppose you had a brick just sitting on top of a collapsing brick building, and had high-resolution high speed footage of the collapse. Modelling what happens to the brick would be hard work, but quite doable. Now suppose you were trying to model the trajectory of one of the bricks in the walls: even if the brick were identical to the one sitting on the roof, you would also have to take into account the forces acting on it as it became separated from the rest of the wall.

So yes, you can do it, but it's not trivial.

Can you start from the observed behavior of said brick and then, after estimating speed and angle from the video for example. calculate, purely from known forces, the "expected" speed and trajectory and compare the two?

That would seem less difficult than modeling complex patterns although the results would be more.... ambiguous?

Not to overstate it, but I wish I could have had a response like that about 100 posts ago BEFORE everyone dumped their collective frustration all over me.

"Can you start from the observed behavior of said brick and then, after estimating speed and angle from the video for example. calculate, purely from known forces, the "expected" speed and trajectory and compare the two?"

Which brick, the free-standing one or the one embedded in the wall?
Which forces are known in advance here, besides gravity?
How much error are you willing to tolerate?

For very simple cases, yes you could calculate how well reality and model meet - that's basically what you're doing whenever you perform an experiment to test a theory. On the other hand, in an experiment you control as many variables as possible, which isn't possible in this case. The data would probably be so ambiguous as to be useless, because it's very unlikely you could gather enough information about the various forces.

You're not taking into consideration the energy transfer that would occur if all this massive material is being pulverized to dust from the falling top section.

This would not allow for a near free fall event.

What I fail to understand is why you don't just proceed to do whatever it is you are proposing.

If you think all buildings are built and behave the same way, so be it.

And no matter how nice, how reasonable, how scientifically one poses a question, one gets attacked.

The approach I am talking about, ironically, would be just as likely to prove that there WASN'T an extra force as proving that there WAS an extra force.

That is why it reminds me of people insisting Jesus rode on dinosaurs. It is the resistance to considering something that does not fit the story. That is not rational.

I actually bothered to write an essay in this thread about which neither you nor Bonobo seems to have any comment.

Why are you refusing to answer Bonobo's question in the original post?

Are you afraid to provide him with an answer?

You SEEM to be suggesting that if I, anonymous person Bonobo, cannot do the mathematics then it is a subject that cannot be discussed. It sounds like the taunting of a child.

Prove it, prove it.

I am discussing an approach, a methodology and you are saying "move it or lose it" or some other silly thing. It is really odd.

What I am suggesting to you is that your question, because it is simple, leads you to believe it has a simple answer.

No, you are not going to be able to develop a simple model of the initial forces acting on a debris fragment from among the thousands of members of a building that is failing.

Your answer to that statement is one of personal incredulity because you believe it to be a simple thing.

It is not within my power, nor my desire, to persuade you that it is not a simple thing.

Any creationist will tell you that a mommy animal and a daddy animal will have a baby animal of the same species. In fact, any biologist will tell you that as well. The creationist will then tell you that if the baby animal is a different species, then it will not successfully be able to mate with anything else. To be honest with you, I don't have an answer to that problem posed by the creationist, but I know enough about biologists that I don't believe they are all under some kind of delusion, or conspiring to keep knowledge from me. What I do know, however, is that I really don't know much about biology, so I don't go running around playing "stump the biologist" with questions that are too oversimplified as to admit a simple answer.

Yes, when confronted with the fact that the geometry of such objects is actually quite complex, throw up some videos showing catastrophic failure of buildings with completely different structures and materials.

"PS: Anyway, sorry to hit with that. But, seriously, I don't want to get sucked into a side conversation (even that I wind up winning...)"

(emphasis added)
This is where you go wrong. Science isn't about 'winning', it's about coming up with hypotheses that can stand on their own. By introducing irrelevant counter-examples as above - irrelevant because these buildings are so different from the ones in New York - all you do is obscure matters further.

Your OP asked a reasonable question: could geometry help us model the WTC tower collapse, especially the initial path of the part of the building above the plane impact. The answer is yes, but you have to take in structural considerations as well as the force of gravity. This isn't what you were hoping for, so now you direct us to videos of buildings with completely different structures.

and in fact WTC were the FIRST and ONLY EVER IN HISTORY that were felled from "fire", it would require a computer model to calculate.

Demolition without charges:
http://www.idph.state.ia.us/

Demo with charges:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

"Demolition without charges:
http://www.idph.state.ia.us /"

Iowa Department of public health?

that was for another post.

http://www.snotr.com/video/2928

Hilarious though that video is, it doesn't look like a steel framed building to me. It looks like concrete with rebar, which isn't the same thing at all.

It says STEEL FRAMED. Compare it to the one with charges. WHERE the steel is wouldn't make that difference.

If you're going to misrepresent what I post, don't waste my time.

It says steel framed, but you're going to rely on the title of the video instead of actually looking at the content? The building is obviously made of concrete. If you have any experience of working with concrete, you would know that it is strengthened with things like rebar, and how completely different this is from the steel frame construction of something like the WTC. This is why you can see pieces of rebar sticking out of the concrete when the structure comes to rest, upside down.

But hey, perhaps you don't have any experience of building with concrete, and it's not obvious. OK! Let's see if we can find some other source of information besides visual observation. Here is an original news report about the demolition of this building: http://www.trt.net.tr/haber/HaberDetay.aspx?HaberKodu=3b45c655-a6ba-4ce2-b01d-d82eb51f8a42

Unfortunately, it's in Turkish. So we'll use google translate... http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.trt.net.tr/haber/HaberDetay.aspx%3FHaberKodu%3D3b45c655-a6ba-4ce2-b01d-d82eb51f8a42&sl=tr&tl=en&history_state0=

It's kinda mangled, but you'll notice the word 'concrete' features in both the headline and the opening paragraph.

The good news is that this incident, which took place in early August, was widely reported, for example: http://www2.nbc13.com/vtm/news/local/article/video_building_demo_goes_wrong_and_causes_building_to_flip_instead_of_crumb/85938/

So now you have enough detail to research it yourself. Please find me some documentation of this building being steel-framed rather than made out of concrete.

The WTC weren't solid steel either. I was married to a lather so I know something about framing.

I will find nothing for you.

you are not prepared to supply any evidence to back up your assertion that it was steel framed. Well, looks like you've been had, then. Unless, of course, we are to believe that the Turkish media are part of a conspiracy and their description of the building as being made out of concrete are lies.

do you think you are talking to? Your mother? Your demands means nothing to me! Please find you some .. Hell no.

You haven't *proved* it was concrete. I owe you nothing. What gall.

:dunce:

Nobody claimed you owed me anything. I just asked you for some evidence for your assertion that the building in this video is steel framed. I've already provided some evidence that it's a concrete building, even though though this looks glaringly obvious to my eyes.

See, unlike you, when I make a claim I am prepared to back it up. So until you change your mind, I think we can take it as settled that this is in fact a concrete building, not a steel-framed one, and that it's behavior basically offers no insight whatsoever into the geometry of any collapsing WTC towers by reason of it having entirely different structural properties.

you want to use, I can't help you.

It can clearly be seen by comparing the photos that the one that fell straight down had charges going off around the side, just like we saw in TWC. The one that toppled over (labeled "steel frame building") did not have those charges. You assert that is because a Turkish website mentions something or other about "concrete" (you aren't sure). And you rest your case.

Then you expect anyone to buy into your slimy little trick of suggesting that I am somehow derelict in my duty to prove something to you.

Take it or leave it. I don't care. When someone (you) resorts to ad hominem, the debate is over. You are at that point running on ego. By yourself.

The building is in Turkey. This is not in dispute.

From that, it seems reasonable to think that the Turkish report might be the most detailed, since it's local.

Actually, I am sure it mentions concrete. Because I checked the individual words in the headline. I supplied a link in English in case you were dissatisfied or confused with the one in Google Translate and wished to perform further research.

You say in message #42 that you don't see any rebar, and that the label on the video says 'steel framed'. But the label on a video doesn't really provide any evidence of anything. You don't even know who uploaded it to that site.

You invite comparison between this and the building in Sioux falls, which fell straight down, but so what? Bonobo's point was that buildings with imperfect detonation would maintain their structural integrity as the top part fell downwards, but both buildings in these videos are made from concrete, and thus using them to draw conclusions about the failure of a steel-framed building is not useful.

You do realize the one in the second video is concrete as well, right? I could give you more data on that, if you like. The irony with that one is that it wasn't supposed to fall straight down, it was meant to fall over sideways. Oh well, bang goes another theory!

The turkish report on the trade center towers would mention concrete as well.
Thats because it had concrete in it too. So you pick a word you know out of some turkish report and that proves something?
Its a good thing the turkish word you know isn't desk because then you would claim the building was made out of desk and not steel. LOL!

ie 'concrete building' you can reasonably infer the building is made out of concrete. But hey, ignore the fact that you can see pieces of rebar sticking out of it and that it's obviously a solid shell rather than a frame with attached panels.

And, call me repetitive, but did you also notice that the building South Dakota (the second video) is concrete too? And indeed, reading up on the failure to demolish it successfully shows its concrete construction to be an important factor in its failure to come apart as desired.

Basically, this whole thread has turned into a referendum on the geometry (or more accurately the physics) of falling building segments, but some posters here seem curiously hostile to the idea that concrete buildings might behave differently from steel-framed ones, and for that reason they might not make very good examples for comparison.

I don't always follow their wild goose links. It reveals the building was a FACTORY which made CONCRETE!!! Un-friggin believable.

There will be no building constructed in exactly the same manner at the WTC, with exactly the same components arranged in exactly the same way.

Apparently, since that is so, the (censored) will not accept ANY comparisons. Fait accompli.

NBC originally posted the more complete video:
http://www2.nbc13.com/vtm/news/local/article/video_building_demo_goes_wrong_and_causes_building_to_flip_instead_of_crumb/85938

the original argument. Since it is IN Turkey, we go with the Turkish article. You lose.

The Turkish article is badly translated (google) and still mentions a flour mill.

And either way it fails to address what the building was made of. If it mentioned a concrete factory it would not rule out said factory being made of concrete. You will need some positive evidence that it was in fact steel framed.

let's assume it was a concrete building. I don't believe it, but let's assume. Now you may FIRST provide some documentation to suggest that a "steel framed" building collapses differently than a "concrete" one. Right now, you've been taking that as de-facto. No evidence to suggest it is so.

So here are some examples

First, two examples of blowing up steel-framed sports arenas. These are nothing like the WTC of course, they're just illustrative of ideal cases and their unusual construction makes it easy to see the approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZkr0A9633Q&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwtbhqt9L84&feature=related

Now, what we're actually interested in are the failure modes of box-like steel framed buildings. The WTC buildings are unusual insofar as they're built around a central core so we can't get something exactly the same, but this video offers a good example of how steel-framed structures deform radically under stress, and might yield some insight into why the top of the tower disintegrated as it was falling rather than when it hit the ground: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsQSGZ__jAY&feature=related You'll want to advance to (or wait for) 0:55 to 1:13.

Enjoy!

in the "failure modes"?

Did you see someone jump out of a window in the example before the one you cite?

You haven't provided any evidence here regarding concrete falling differently than steel. The building's construct for these examples is not even provided.

:dunce:

See post 43 by jberryhill.
Frankly it is not the responsibility of anyone here to show you that two drastically different types of construction fail in different way. If your level of understanding is beneath that threshold you are going to need to get better educated on the subject before you can hold this type of conversation.

The fact that you do not understand why we would be talking about "failure modes" is further evidence of this.

It would be like someone trying to explain to me why you need to put a certain ending on verb in Japanese. I don't even know if they call them verbs. I am completely unequipped to understand the answer. I would need to learn a LOT more before I could intelligently discuss the question at all.

were photos and a video showing how a building WITH charges falls differently than a building WITHOUT charges. IF the argument against my conclusion is that concrete behaves differently than steel when being demolished, then YES, it is incumbent for that assertion to be verified. We can SEE from the photo evidence I posted that there IS a difference when explosives are used around the sides, as we saw in WTC compared to when they are not. That was my ONLY point, and it stands.

If I am guilty of anything, it is going OT. Calling MY education and/or qualifications regarding my ability to contribute to a conversation amounts to ad hominem, and thus ends my association with you on this matter. If you can't debate without insulting, then you are not worth my time.

EOM

There, that was pretty easy to understand, wasn't it?

You now know all that you need to know to begin learning Japanese verb conjugation.

hablo - I speak
habla - you speak

Not difficult to understand at all.

The reason you'd be interested in the failure modes is because this whole thread is about whether it's possible to model, using geometry (or other mathematical and simulation techniques) how the WTC fell apart. Bonobo asked a reasonable question about the extent to which you could calculate what was was going on, and said in #5: "But a tipping object, subject only to the downward force of gravity, would fall in a predictable arc. Isn't that correct?"

To which various people responded that it was a mistake to think of the top part of the WTC as a solid object, because the manner of its construction would cause it deform as it was falling over. Bonobo offered up two demolition videos, of the Turkish flour mill and the Zip Feed Elevator building in South Dakota, where a an improperly-demolished building did behave as a more or less solid object. This, too, is a reasonable question to pose, and the answer is that those buildings behaved quite differently because they're constructed out of concrete. We've already discussed the building in Turkey; regarding the building in South Dakota (the one that just falls downward a bit and then stops) here's a news article confirming its concrete construction, and exlaining how it was actually responsible for the demolition failure: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177611,00.html (this is a local report, so I think we can ignore the fact that it's from a Fox affiliate; I'm sure you can search for other non-Fox news reports using the details therein if you really want to).

Now in the video I just posted, I have indeed shown that a steel-framed construction behaves very differently indeed from a concrete one. Rather than maintaining its structural integrity and falling as a lump, it begins losing its box-like shape as it falls. If you pause at 1:09 you can see how much structural integrity has been lost part-way through the collapse. Simulating this would involve quite a bit more complexity than just treat the top part of the building as a solid object.

And this is the answer to Bonobo's original question: Yes, you can simulate the behavior mathematically, but it would be quite complex because a steel-framed building which has lost its structural integrity does not behave like a single solid object.

I will try again.

Even assuming the top of the building came apart (or didn't come apart, it doesn't matter), my point is that there must be at least a strong potential that within those pieces, there are some that can be tracked at least to the degree that calculations can be performed. But that isn't even the really funny thing about this thread.

The funny thing is that no one seems to be willing to agree, in principle, that such a thing is possible.

All I am saying and have been saying is that, in theory, one could use the manner in which debris came off the towers as a "data mine" for learning about the forces involved. If everything behaved as expected (no, not a model but an observation of the movement of actual visible debris and calculations based on it.)

Not a model, no and yes, I do understand complexities are involved, especially depending on what questions are asked specifically about what object. But to throw out the approach as impossible and then try to pass an offhand denial as the absolute end all of scientific opinion is weak...

You reveal yourself when instead of saying, "that sounds like an interesting angle. I wonder if work has been done on the subject.". You make a knee-jerk response that no possible data could be gained from "modelling" the fall. It was a strawman and a closed minded thing to do. Period. Full stop.

"All I am saying and have been saying is that, in theory, one could use the manner in which debris came off the towers as a "data mine" for learning about the forces involved. If everything behaved as expected (no, not a model but an observation of the movement of actual visible debris and calculations based on it.)

Not a model, no and yes, I do understand complexities are involved, especially depending on what questions are asked specifically about what object. But to throw out the approach as impossible and then try to pass an offhand denial as the absolute end all of scientific opinion is weak..."

Nobody has thrown out the approach as impossible. It's just been pointed out to you repeatedly that there is massive complexity involved. So massive, in fact, that I think modeling is a better approach.

"You reveal yourself when instead of saying, "that sounds like an interesting angle. I wonder if work has been done on the subject.". You make a knee-jerk response that no possible data could be gained from "modelling" the fall. It was a strawman and a closed minded thing to do. Period. Full stop."

I said no such thing. Anywhere. In fact, I think modeling such things is the best way of studying them, and will be far more fruitful than trying to reverse-engineer the path of individual bits of debris. Perhaps you are mixing me up with someone else, or you (badly) misunderstood something I said.

I am beginning to think you do not understand the difference between modeling and analysis.

and how far it was ejected then maybe some calcuations as to how much energy was expended in ejecting them could be calculated.

I found it recently. It tracks a large wall falling off the building that they say they identified on the ground 600 feet away from a specific section of the tower. The author claims the speed of the wall as it exits the tower can be determined and therefore the amount of force needed to propel it in that axis is calculable...

Before I present it here, I would like to get some reassurances that we can agree about the approach/methodology.

I am actually looking for reasonable people on the debunking side that I can talk with for mutual benefit but I am having a hard time discerning who would be a good partner in such an endeavor.

Most people here (yourself not necessarily included) seem more interested in one-penmanship, insults, and witty repartee. I am not interested.

I have a minimum standard for what is acceptable in a conversation between strangers and respect has a lot to do with it.

Acelleration due to gravity is a known constant. If the horizontal distance is known then all that would be needed is the weight of the section of "wall". The engergy expended in Joules can then be calculated. Then the question begs...what do you intend to do whit this information?

Couldn't you calculate how much energy would be required in projecting the walls outward and balancing that energy sink and other energy sinks against an estimate of total amount potential energy that existed in the building? An energy balance equation?

Yes. Practically? Not with any real accuracy. You would have to have omniscient knowlege of weights, velocities, distances throuought the collapse progression. In the best case it would be SWAGs and the accuracy of the data in results in the accuracy of the data out.

on how much force it took to break apart the sections etc.

Based on all evidence available to me, he correctly represented what you posted. Can we expect your apology?

Well well. What do we see here?

It was a CONCRETE FACTORY! IT MADE CONCRETE! ho ho har

Turkey's oldest concrete factory in the destruction of a hair disaster was overcome. Because the building during the demolition, the plan was not in the tumble.

Unbelievable.

at least at one point.

Furthermore showing that the building produced concrete would not in fact show it was NOT made of concrete.
The demo video on the English language site shows some aftermath pictures in which the building shows every appearance of being concrete.

As in the support structure. The only concrete in the WTC was in the floors and it was not load bearing.

computers,boxes of computer paper, office supplies weigh nothing and are actually being supported only by the steel trusses? No concrete floors?
Come on they are load bearing to some extent.

It refers to the structural load, ie the weight of the building itself. The weight of the building is usually vastly greater than the weight of its contents. Think of a regular chair, for example. The flat part of the seat takes a bit of weight, but the basic design of a chair depends on having a strong frame, the bit filling in the frame is flimsy by comparison.

the combination of floor pan, trusses and concrete, which was for stiffining, bore the load of what ever was placed on them...but that totally misses the point.

There was no structural concrete in the WTC. That was provide 100% by the steel core and perimeter columns.

Remember all the pulverized concrete dust that covered New York? I mean this seems like the dumbest kind of sematics.
Sure if you took the floors away you would still have a steel structure standing but it would be absolutely useless.

"structural concrete" is not a lay term that you get to debate the meaning of. It is a technical term with a specific meaning. You can not just say 'well there was some concrete and it was in the building so it was structural concrete' then declare victory.

That's why I mentioned I was married to a lather. Concrete doesn't stand up all by itself! Everything has a frame, other than concrete BLOCKS. Those buildings clearly are not made from concrete blocks!

This is just one more example of Official Conspiracy Theory believers telling us to deny our lying eyes; and refusing all common sense.

They are such a waste of time. Fortunately there are some sites that discuss these matters without the official TCs present.

A steel framedbuilding with concrete ? But isn't that what the original post claimed? That you official story people were disputing?

They've been arguing with me that a "concrete" building would fall differently than a "steel framed". While, YES, a concrete building has a frame!

Why would you think I'm an offiical conspiracy people?

I mean did we just not establish that?

Steel frame usually refers to a building technique with a "skeleton frame" of vertical steel columns and horizontal I-beams, constructed in a rectangular grid to support the floors, roof and walls of a building which are all attached to the frame. The development of this technique made the construction of the skyscraper possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_frame

You appear to be claiming that any building constructed with steel-reinforced concrete is a steel-framed building. Is this correct?

myself some acid reflux and put you on Ignore.

for the sake of lovepg, whose question has been incorrectly answered as best I can tell, here's a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_engineering#Structural_elements

The concrete floor pad in a building like the WTC is not a load-bearing structural element, in the engineering sense. Nor is a building made of out of reinforced concrete necessarily a steel-framed building. Steel reinforcement is not the same as a rigid frame, but is known as a matrix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete

...which should tell you something.

I posted that to someone who is calling Grassley to point out his own state has reform.


:dunce:

Since you won't respond to my extended comments above, let me ask you this.

You've admitted that you don't have the math or physics background to do such an analysis.

So, if someone does the analysis and tells you the result, on what basis are you going to believe it?

How on earth would you find an explanation that you can't understand satisfactory?

Do you mean to say that in order to "believe" an explanation, one must be able to follow every facet of the calculations involved?

Do you "believe" in Einstein's theory of relativity because you have worked out the equations yourself?

Do you "believe" that neurotransmitters work within the brain in complex ways because you have studied their structure under a scanning EM?

Or that a certain star is 6.2 billion light years from Earth because you have measured it?

Do you "believe" in Einstein's theory of relativity because you have worked out the equations yourself?


Yes I have. Every physics student has. That's how it's taught.


Or that a certain star is 6.2 billion light years from Earth because you have measured it?


Done that too. Measuring the distance to stars is simple.

On the neurotransmitter thing... not a clue here. I don't know jack about biology. Consequently, I consider myself incompetent to propose investigational methods for biologists. Even if I did, I wouldn't get pissy if I did, and biologists told me my idea was silly. However, I do know enough about studying molecular structure to tell you that you don't determine the structure of complex molecules with a scanning EM, and that it is a stupid idea.

You have already rejected the findings of teams of engineers and scientists who not only produced the NIST reports, but show their work.

And, again, on the neurotransmitter thing what I also don't do is to judge between competing theories on some question of neurochemistry or make pompous statements about such theories in internet forums.

Do I need to spell out the point again or do you still maintain that it is impossible to know something without having performed the mechanical calculations yourself?

Congrats.

Odd.

Why have you had so many posts that talked about my inability to understand an answer if now you are prepared to admit that one can be certain, through the well-established principle of peer review, that certain things are know to be facts that have been scientifically proven.

Why did you badger me with that tactic for so many posts if that is the case? To diminish me personally? Is this your hobby? I have posted OPs trying merely to reduce the level of straight on obnoxiousness so that we may proceed with a discussion because this is a discussion board about 9/11. Do you wish to discuss or is it merely your habit to put people down so that you can feel better about yourself?

If such is NOT the case, you might consider toning down your instinct to go for the throat just a bit.

The fact is, although I think you do not want to admit it, is that I am not your fucking enemy and there is nothing irrational about what I have proposed. You just want to make it seem that way because you like to argue or whatever, but are you capable of discussion and seeing any shades of grey? Can you go analog instead of digital?

For the purposes of this OP, there is no position that I have rejected, and I think your whole attitude in dealing with me is based on confrontation, denial and a tremendous lack of flexibility.

Your method of argument, for example, is very manipulative. You misinterpret people's positions, creating straw men that you can "defeat" or you change the subject entirely. Failing that, you attempt to paint me as too stupid to understand the answer. You mischaracterized and oversimplified the point of my OP. What I "propose" could be any number of a broad range of analyses that would involve things like trajectories of single or multiple objects that can be visibly observed to have fallen from any of the building, WT1, WT2, or WT7. That is a lot of potential data. Think of it for a moment before you frame your clever reply. THAT is called LISTENING before deciding. Yes, I know you want to "defeat" me, but I am not your enemy. Neither am I proposing a study that would be tilted in favoring any particular result, so please bear that in mind even as you read this and prepare your no-doubt scathing answer. But I digress... Let me try one more time to get you to see that such an approach is at least possible. Maybe you will open up and listen a little better after you just chill out.
OK...
PARAGRAPH 1: Certain "elements" of the building came apart or stayed together and descended from the building, right? Some of those pieces were from the top of the building, some from the middle, and some from lower. right? Still with me. Please let me know where I go astray, Science master... Now, if one could see a particular piece from an identifiable upper floor and could measure the trajectory, it should provide some good information. Right? I will pause here to see if you have any problems with the above paragraph. I will call it paragraph 1. If you think Paragraph 1 is ridiculous and could not be done, please tell me why. I will then respond.

Perhaps this approach will keep our eyes on the subject of the OP instead of making ad hominem comments about me, my intellect, my training, etc.

Interested parties might like to examine the work from Purdue university that has been done on simulating this stuff over the last few years, in pursuit of better building design:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
http://wiki.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/doku.php?id=projects:visualization_large-scale_simulations
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/index.html

It mainly employs finite element analysis and uses that as a basis for producing animations. The website is not very nicely laid out, but you'll find your way around.

Incidentally, if you're analyzing or simulating this stuff, forces acting along the vertical take place on the Y axis, while the horizontal plane is defined by the X and Z axes.

I admit unashamedly to being from a liberal arts background.

takes out more core columns than the plane that hit the north tower head on.
You would think that would be the one they would most like to model.

... has ever been contemplated by anyone other than yourself.

- Make7
 

No problem at all if that particular fact is actually in the NIST report...

- Make7
lovepg wrote: "Its NISTs imagination read the report. Oh no I am sounding like an official story person..Nt"

the whole right side of the plane is coming out the side of the building. If you want to have a stupid argument go to the stupid argument forum.
Oh yeah this is it.
When I was referring to what the NIST report said, I was talking about the computer simulation that has the South Tower having MORE core columns taken out by the plane than the North tower.
Since a great deal of the south tower planes explosion energy dissipates out the side and since only the left wing was in position to have hit the core columns. This would be appear to be quite a trick.

if you want to have a productive discussion, including a photograph or linking to a video or web page with detail of that claim is the way to go. I looked up a few photographs of the South Tower to refresh my memory and certainly saw the big fireball, but not 'half the plane' as you describe.



That doesn't mean you're wrong, but there's a limit to how much of my time I want to spend finding out whether you're right or not. Both to be taken seriously, and out of general politeness, if you're questioned abut a factual matter it's easier on everyone, including yourself, to back up your claim with evidence rather than snark.

I do think you're asking a legitimate question (how was the south tower core more damaged given that the plane's path would appear to have had less interaction with it), but bad temper means you're less likely to get a reply.

I tend to treat people as they treat me.

Presenting evidence for an assertion at the same time you make it saves everyone time, not least yourself.

to avoid answering questions. One of a long list I have found on this forum.
Next time hold the snark sandwich if you do not wish to eat it.

doesn't cover the configuration of plane impact. Their investigation begins with the moment AFTER impact until the BEGINNING of the fall. They disregard everything else! What a team!

What the heck is NCSTAR 1-2B all about then?

I'll look at it. I read all the FAQs and a couple of other sections. They explain their method in the FAQs.

It's at the NIST site: NCSTAR 1-2 Index
NCSTAR 1-2B is the relevant report.

as usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Which raises the question: Have you even actually READ the NIST Report? I'm betting you haven't, so I'll suggest that you start here (which just so happens to precisely cover the topic you swear NIST doesn't). Don't you guys get tired of being made to look foolish over and over? Does it ever occur to you fact-check these goofy claims before you make them?

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

Voodoo??

:eyes: You should take a look at the reports. I think the re-buffers here read it and use the same dismissive technique. I didn't realize that the thing didn't even get started until a law was passed in 2002. It took FIVE YEARS. They weren't in any hurry. They also claim there discovered no one that heard explosions! They didn't look very far.

would of had to have been taken out to create the collapse we are looking to prove?
Thats ass backwards science. Its a computer hypothetical nothing more. A very weak point in the official story.

no one hearing explosions. All the newscasters reported explosions that day. But the board couldn't find any?

Can you provide any reason one should consider your claim that ""half the plane goes out the side" plausible?

- Make7
 

Or maybe it hit some of that new exploding office furniture we all have heard so much about.

What I see when watching the impact videos is largely jet fuel exploding outside the building. Unless you believe that the fireballs evaporated half the plane, I don't see how the debris (most of which appears to be the building's aluminum cladding) that falls out of the tower towards the ground could possibly be half the plane.

I asked you if you could provide a reason why anyone should plausibly consider your claim - it appears that you cannot. This is probably due to the fact that the event you described did not actually occur.

Although I must admit I do find it interesting that someone would think half the plane went out of WTC2 after impact even though much less than half of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. But then again, people believe all sorts of weird things about 9/11...

- Make7
 

Gee I guess your totally wrong about the event not occuring. Oh and prove your wild assertion much less than HALF THE JET FUEL WAS CONSUMED IN THE FIREBALL OUTSIDE THE BUILDING??

 

You claimed that "half the plane goes out the side" of the building; that is the event that did not occur. (Unless you mistakenly insist that one engine is equal to half the plane.) You have offered nothing other than your opinion to backup your "half the plane" statement. Were you planning at some point to prove that wild assertion?



Its NISTs assertion read the report. Oh no I am sounding like you...

- Make7
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf#page=92

this Nistian assertion? Tell me where in the damn report it says it. Your should know After all "your the expert". Its your story.
Some official story people are hilarious hypocrites the first to demand EVIDENCE for any question but seemingly incapable of providing anything
but the "its in the report go look it up statement". I have provided EVIDENCE that the biggest single part of the right side of the plane was found on the street,
Actually landing gear and other assorted pieces of the plane were also found on the street below. Its very possible I am underestimating the amount of the plane blown
out the sides in the fireball. Where you so far have made assertions and provided nothing.
Sound like me? Don't flatter yourself.

I assume you understand why the right engine was more likely to make it through the building than, say, the right wing.

Is that the best you can do?

 

Notice how your choice of words makes that sound like a demand. In my previous responses I said that you should have no problem providing something from the NIST report if it was actually there as you claimed. Stating that you should be able to find and provide something from a source merely means that you could easily produce it should you be so inclined. (It does not mean I had any expectation that you would actually do so.) I also asked you if you were planning on proving the assertion about "half the plane" exiting WTC2. Based on your latest reply I have to assume that you have no intention of even trying to provide any basis for your assertion other than your own biased opinion.



Previously in this thread:



Surely you can see the similarities between those two quotes. (And honestly I doubt if anyone would think sounding like you would be the least bit flattering.)

If you would be willing to attempt to establish some actual basis for your statement about "half the plane" exiting WTC2, I would be willing to reciprocate by telling you where in the NIST report you can find the information I posted about. Of course you searching for something in the NIST report is a relatively simple task compared to me trying to figure out how on earth you could come up with some of the things I have seen in your posts.

- Make7
WTC1: (B)  6 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged; (A) 3 severed, 4 heavily damaged (pdf page 164, NCSTAR 1)
WTC2: (D) 10 core columns severed, 1 heavily damaged; (C) 5 severed, 4 heavily damaged (pdf page 165, NCSTAR 1)

It seems like they spend a couple of years working up each one - probably limited by the amount of grant money.
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/