Question about "Inward bowing"

The NIST report refutes the initial claim a "pancake collapse" while supporting that an "inward bowing" was the beginning of the collapse. This makes perfect sense but if the the pancake theory is not correct, then what brought all the other floors down below the impact zone? I think it must be a mixture of the two, I don't see how the pancake theory can be completely ruled out.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


The Core Columns Were Cut Proof:

Antennae Collapses before Tower(The Antennae is Directly Above the Core Columns)
Disable the Sound the Music is Graphic And has Swearing. WARNING



Watch the Entire video it clearly presents the Factoid Notion that the Antennae was sinking before the Tower Collapsed.



Second Video also shows the Antennae Dropping and/or collapsing into the Building before the Perimeter Walls Fail.

For a guy that spends 16 hours a day here, you dont seem to be pushing this thread up at all skeptical, is it because you cant fight it? Too bad...
Glad to see that you did not try to turn this into a namecalling thread as you do with all 9/11 threads.

As for the pancake theory, It can be ruled out, no "pancaked" floors at the pile...

The inward bowing only happened on initiation, not during the collapse. You could call the collapse itself a pancake collapse but you can better not use that term on a truther forum as that causes confusion. Initially the term was used to explain collapse initiation, where only one floor fell and started the collapse. This was later replaced by the explanation that the whole top section fell and started the collapse. But after that the collapse mechanism isn't that different. Because of gravity the only way a failed floor can fall is downwards, right on top of the floor below it. Some truthers claim the floors fell sideways but those people can never explain how that would work nor is there any evidence that this happened, so thats not a plausible claim.

reply to post by -PLB-


You're right gravity will cause the floors to drop on the lower floor. This scenario has been disused many many times, but you seems to get the discussions confused, just like you all confuse what the NIST report actually shows.

When an object (floor) falls on another object (another floor) there is an equal and opposite reaction. Both objects (floors) will each receive the same exact force acting on each other (equal reaction), both floors will want to maintain their momentum (equally).

Object 1 falls on object 2. The force on both objects will be the same upon impact. Object 1 wants to maintain its stationary position, object 2 wants to keep dropping, as they collide object 1 can not continue its momentum because of the resistance of object 2 wanting to maintain it's fixed position. So one object is going to be damaged, if both objects are of equal mass then the damage will be more or less the same (or no damage at all).

Now take into account that floors were being destroyed during the collapse, you have to agree this is true as the evidence shows this, and you apply the laws it becomes obvious that 15 floors could not completely crush 95 floors.

See even IF the fires melted steel, or weakened it, or planes severed columns, or trusses sagged, it still couldn't collapse without another energy source taking away the resistance. NONE of your arguments addresses the real physics involved in the actual collapse.

This is why NIST did not address the actual collapses, what they left out says a lot more than what they put in it.

Just to make it clear, the mass that destroyed the lower part of the building was not just the mass of the top section. It was the mass of the top section plus the mass of the floors that already failed minus the debris that ejected or fell to the sides. That is why the lower section had to endure more and failed first.

Now take into account that floors were being destroyed during the collapse, you have to agree this is true as the evidence shows this, and you apply the laws it becomes obvious that 15 floors could not completely crush 95 floors.

True but...
15 floors can collapse floor #16 and
16 floors can collapse floor #17 and
17 floors can collapse floor #18 . . . . .

Originally posted by -PLB-
Just to make it clear, the mass that destroyed the lower part of the building was not just the mass of the top section. It was the mass of the top section plus the mass of the floors that already failed minus the debris that ejected or fell to the sides. That is why the lower section had to endure more and failed first.

Huh the top section IS the floors that failed, no floors failed bellow the impact point. If you want lets call it 20 floors falling on 90, or 25 falling on 85, it doesn't make a difference. You would need at least 50% of the mass to even start to collapse the rest of the building. That's how Verinage collapse works, and I'm not even sure that works in a steel framed building without some prior weakening of the supports. Steel has a high weigh to strength ratio, in other words it can hold far more weight than it weighs itself. Light weight, high strength. That's why I laugh when OSers try to make lightweight floor trusses to mean they were not every strong. It just shows nothing but the ignorance of the poster.

Minus the mass that ejected? If you admit that then where is the mass to do any crushing? The majority of the mass was ejected as evidenced in post collapse pictures. More than 100% of the mass would have been needed in order to completely crush the lower floors,15 floors is only about 16% of the mass of 110 floors.

But you are still ignoring the physics, not once do you ever mention the equal opposite reaction laws, or the momentum conservation, and how they effect your hypothesis.

The bottom section could not have been completely crushed by the top section, even IF it included other failed floors, from somewhere (?), minus the ejected debris. The laws of motion still apply, and until you actually address them you're saying nothing that makes any scientific sense.

reply to post by ANOK


I have explained it so many time to you without any success I am not going to give it another attempt. If anyone else is wondering the same things I would be happy to explain it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

I have explained it so many time to you without any success I am not going to give it another attempt. If anyone else is wondering the same things I would be happy to explain it.

You haven't explained anything that I have not been able to show is incorrect, that is why you are unsuccessful. Explaining it over and over again is not going to make any difference. You're wrong, and you will always be wrong as long as you continue to try to make excuses for the OS while ignoring basic physics.

Where is your explanation that includes equal opposite reaction laws and momentum conservation principles? The only time you ever used those term is when you're tying to claim they don't matter. I have yet to see you even apply those laws to the problem of the collapses. According to you physics is just gravity and Ke.

Yes lol go explain it to someone else you find gullible enough to believe you.

reply to post by ANOK


Short summary:

There is no "conservation of momentum" in the tower itself. Conservation of momentum is only true for closed systems, which in this case would include the whole earth. If you just look at the towers, momentum of the falling top section/debris is increasing until it hits the ground, after which the momentum becomes 0. This is because our frame of reference is ground level. And as for "equal opposite reaction", the static load capacity offered by the floors is magnitudes lower than the dynamic load as result of the top section falling on a floor.

This has all been explained to you several times. You are either willingly ignoring it or refusing to understand it. Next time I will just direct you to this post.