HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jesters » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:21 PM
Number of posts: 108

Journal Archives

Yes, really.

1) We are talking about the smooth motion of the upper block in its initial collapse stages. No visible decelerations as it meets the stronger, intact lower block. Indeed, it destroys itself. Where does the core structure go?

2) We are talking about a force that needs to destroy all the connections of 80 - 90 intact steel-framed stories, while pulverizing all contents at the same time, at the average rate of 0.17 seconds per floor. The upper portion of building does not have this energy through gravity. How could it? It did not free fall during collapse initiation. It did not free fall at any time. Right there, it does not have the energy to complete collapse, and it only loses energy through each successive floor gravitationally, as it must. On top of this, you are requiring it to pulverize all the building contents at the same time. This is never going to happen gravitationally. Further, the top portion has destroyed itself in the first three seconds of collapse. Where is the model for a debris-driven, top-down, total destruction of a steel-framed super highrise?

Please include in your reply an answer to the last question.

"The lower block only slowed down the acceleration of the upper block's mass....

"...The force after the upper block's mass fell a dozen feet between the floors is far greater than the resisting force of the intact section of the lower block."

First of all, the upper portion was never in free fall. (In fact, haven't 9/11 "debunkers" spent ten years arguing this very point??) So that is a deliberate miscalculation right off the bat. Secondly, and this apparently needs to be repeated across the internet: For the upper portion to EXERT THAT FORCE would REQUIRE IT TO DECELERATE. IF IT'S NOT DECELERATING, IT'S NOT EXERTING A FORCE. Because there's nothing to exert it against.

"So it must accelerate all the way down, especially after the debris between the blocks increases during the collapse which provides more mass to accelerate the collapse."

You're just repeating Bazant's cartoon model which has largely been discarded by both sides of the debate now. No, it would not accelerate all the way down. There's no model that has been put forward anywhere that can explain a debris-driven, top-down destruction (and pulverization) of an intact steel-framed skyscraper. If you know otherwise, please refer us to it.

general reply:

One need only view the videos of the tower's descent to understand the absence of the necessary deceleration. Mapping it out on a graph is basically just spelling it out in crayon for those who can't see that an under-15-second plummet to the ground with massive expulsion of matter all the way down is not possible gravitationally for a steel-framed, highrise superstructure.

The other point being entirely missed here is that in order for the upper portion of building to exert the kind of force that can destroy as well as completely pulverize the much taller, heavier and intact lower structure it would need to decelerate (to use the lay term). Visibly. You can't have that kind of force exerted without visible decelerations. This would be multiple punctuations in the building's descent, most likely resulting in collapse arrest before the ground is reached.

This isn't difficult, folks.
Go to Page: 1