Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

Originally posted by Akareyon
What is holding the mass of 10 Jenga blocks in my tower, when one floor alone couldn't?

Are you suggesting that the failed floors in your proposed building design are still somehow attached to the columns, and able to offer resistance? How would that work? Can you describe this in detail? Remember that the floors in your building are not made of paper and wont bend, at least not over the distance of 1 or more stories.

One floor, you say. E=m*g*h=500000000kg/110 * 9.81m/s² * 3.7m*2=329.972.727 J.

0,33 GJ, that's a close shave, in the most optimistic scenario. Drop two floors and boooom the tower's gone!

That's what I said. The conditions for arrest can never be met because each and every single floor is too weak for the stuff above and is only in an unstable equlibrium. So Fig. 4a, B/V'07 is valid for the whole structure: the weight (mass times acceleration) is well above the maxwell line of the structure.

So you calculate a scenario where collapse would arrest, and after that you claim there is no such scenario. Not sure how to respond to this.

Ummm... no? Energy is mass times speed squared (E=m*v²), and although the top may be heavier, it never picks up that much speed even when we assume a free fall (v = sqrt(2*g*s) = sqrt(2*9.81m/s² * 3.7m) = 8.5 m/s).

That is kinetic energy. You seem to be confusing kinetic and potential energy. The potential energy is the energy available for destruction. It is first transfered to kinetic energy, then does destruction, and then you are left with the left over kinetic energy. So of course it is not picking up that much speed as the energy is used for actual destruction.

The plane is not as heavy, but its velocity affords its greater kinetic energy. I've not made anything up here, I used official figures and well-known physical laws, I promise.

To which I replied with the metapsysical hypothesis that intelligence, knowledge, purpose and meticulous planning clearly are a form of energy, as a domino experiment will easily show.

I must have missed it, but what a bunch of nonsense. We are talking about energy in physics. Not about new age kind of "energy of the mind" and crap like that.

A vérinage releases no explosive energy at all, it just strategically removes the tensile energy. A traditional CD with explosives is no different from that when it cuts all the beams, starting at the bottom, thus smashing the bottom floor into the ground using the weight of the whole rest of the building.

Exactly what I am saying. Small energy input makes a whole building come down, releasing a lot more potential energy than the energy that was required to make it come down. That seems to be the exact thing you were wondering about with your "metastability" question:

Are all skyscrapers metastable systems, waiting to be triggered by a small input energy like a mouse trap?

Answer: Yes

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Akareyon
What is holding the mass of 10 Jenga blocks in my tower, when one floor alone couldn't?

Are you suggesting that the failed floors in your proposed building design are still somehow attached to the columns, and able to offer resistance? How would that work? Can you describe this in detail? Remember that the floors in your building are not made of paper and wont bend, at least not over the distance of 1 or more stories.

One floor, you say. E=m*g*h=500000000kg/110 * 9.81m/s² * 3.7m*2=329.972.727 J.

0,33 GJ, that's a close shave, in the most optimistic scenario. Drop two floors and boooom the tower's gone!

That's what I said. The conditions for arrest can never be met because each and every single floor is too weak for the stuff above and is only in an unstable equlibrium. So Fig. 4a, B/V'07 is valid for the whole structure: the weight (mass times acceleration) is well above the maxwell line of the structure.

So you calculate a scenario where collapse would arrest, and after that you claim there is no such scenario. Not sure how to respond to this.

Ummm... no? Energy is mass times speed squared (E=m*v²), and although the top may be heavier, it never picks up that much speed even when we assume a free fall (v = sqrt(2*g*s) = sqrt(2*9.81m/s² * 3.7m) = 8.5 m/s).

That is kinetic energy. You seem to be confusing kinetic and potential energy. The potential energy is the energy available for destruction. It is first transfered to kinetic energy, then does destruction, and then you are left with the left over kinetic energy. So of course it is not picking up that much speed at the energy is used for actual destruction.

The plane is not as heavy, but its velocity affords its greater kinetic energy. I've not made anything up here, I used official figures and well-known physical laws, I promise.

To which I replied with the metapsysical hypothesis that intelligence, knowledge, purpose and meticulous planning clearly are a form of energy, as a domino experiment will easily show.

I must have missed it, but what a bunch of nonsense. We are talking about energy in physics. Not about new age kind of "energy of the mind" and crap like that.

A vérinage releases no explosive energy at all, it just strategically removes the tensile energy. A traditional CD with explosives is no different from that when it cuts all the beams, starting at the bottom, thus smashing the bottom floor into the ground using the weight of the whole rest of the building.

Exactly what I am saying. Small energy input makes a whole building come down, releasing a lot more potential energy than was required to make it come down.

edit on 23-5-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I wish I had time to respond to this . And I might if I get done before akareyon. but I just want to say akareyon is going to destroy this post.

reply to post by Another_Nut


I really hate to say this but; I do not think you fully understood the question.
Either that or you are trying to sidestep the issue which I raised. This could be the reason so much does not seem clear to so many people.
Let me try again.
If you watch the video carefully. You may notice two areas "above " the floor which is seen to fold in collapse. These areas are where the plumbs of dust appear at the "same time" as the columns of the aforementioned floor begans their movement inward.
I would appreciate, if you reply, a reply directed toward this specific question.
Your right, I don't understand just how this could all happen. That's why I ask the question. This part of the collapse event is a long way above the ground so I fail to see how that part comes into play.

Oh! Don't you know it is impolite to use meds without sharing?

reply to post by Another_Nut


There was pancaking. The dust you saw was the tons of drywall and sheetrock that made up all of the partitions on the floors, and covering the core columns. Also, fireproofing. Some concrete was also crushed, but most was squished together. A lot of the debris was found at the base, and it was a few stories higher, and workers reported cutting into the debris, and having layered floors stacked up in the debris. You forget the floors had trusses and pans as well.

Originally posted by -PLB-

One floor, you say. E=m*g*h=500000000kg/110 * 9.81m/s² * 3.7m*2=329.972.727 J.

0,33 GJ, that's a close shave, in the most optimistic scenario. Drop two floors and boooom the tower's gone!

That's what I said. The conditions for arrest can never be met because each and every single floor is too weak for the stuff above and is only in an unstable equlibrium. So Fig. 4a, B/V'07 is valid for the whole structure: the weight (mass times acceleration) is well above the maxwell line of the structure.

So you calculate a scenario where collapse would arrest, and after that you claim there is no such scenario. Not sure how to respond to this.

Yes, you are right. There is a scenario where collapse would arrest. If the topmost floor would fall through the height of the second topmost floor that magically disappears, there is a slight chance in the most optimistic scenario that a collapse might be arrested.

That is kinetic energy. You seem to be confusing kinetic and potential energy.

You seem to confuse me with someone whom you can play silly games with. Energy is energy, and all the different forms of energy are convertable into one or a different form of energy. Potential energy is the energy that is potentially stored in something with mass. Potentially, our block has Terajoules of energy stored in it because it could drop all the way to the middle of planet earth. The kinetic energy of 58.000 tons after a drop through 3.7 meters still remains 2.1 GJ, if you like it or not.

To which I replied with the metapsysical hypothesis that intelligence, knowledge, purpose and meticulous planning clearly are a form of energy, as a domino experiment will easily show.

I must have missed it, but what a bunch of nonsense. We are talking about energy in physics. Not about new age kind of "energy of the mind" and crap like that.

Yeah, what a bunch of nonsense!!!

Are all skyscrapers metastable systems, waiting to be triggered by a small input energy like a mouse trap?

Answer: Yes

You are insulting the the professional work of controlled demolition experts who spend months in preparation for calculations and rigging the buildings when you say that they and their work are totally superfluous because all you need to bring down a skyscraper is a nudge at the right corner and the same thing happens. You are insulting the work of architects and engineers who erect these buildings by saying each of them would implode if you just look at them a little too angrily. You insult Newton, Galileo and Archimedes, and I'm out of this discussion.

Originally posted by Akareyon
Yes, you are right. There is a scenario where collapse would arrest. If the topmost floor would fall through the height of the second topmost floor that magically disappears, there is a slight chance in the most optimistic scenario that a collapse might be arrested.

So do you now understand that this is not the same as calculating total potential energy and comparing it to total resistance?

You seem to confuse me with someone whom you can play silly games with. Energy is energy, and all the different forms of energy are convertable into one or a different form of energy. Potential energy is the energy that is potentially stored in something with mass. Potentially, our block has Terajoules of energy stored in it because it could drop all the way to the middle of planet earth. The kinetic energy of 58.000 tons after a drop through 3.7 meters still remains 2.1 GJ, if you like it or not.

Yes but the top didn't fall 3.7m it fell more like 300m. Whether you like it or not. So when you look at total energy that was available for destruction as result of the top section falling, you end up with way more than your 2.1 GJ.

Yeah, what a bunch of nonsense!!!

So you are arguing that when someone puts a lot of energy in thinking of a plan to demolish a building, this energy can actually added to the (real) energy available for destroying a building.

Lets see how you quantify that. Say I have been thinking for 10 days about a plan. How much GJ of energy would that equal to? And can I demolish a building just by thought as long as I put enough days of thinking in it?

The terrorist attacks must have also cost a lot of energy in planning. So those buildings never had a chance. There was a massive excess of energy.

I hope you realize how silly this argument is.

You are insulting the the professional work of controlled demolition experts who spend months in preparation for calculations and rigging the buildings when you say that they and their work are totally superfluous because all you need to bring down a skyscraper is a nudge at the right corner and the same thing happens. You are insulting the work of architects and engineers who erect these buildings by saying each of them would implode if you just look at them a little too angrily. You insult Newton, Galileo and Archimedes, and I'm out of this discussion.

I am not insulting anyone. We were talking about (real) energy that can be quantified in Joule. You for some extremely weird reason try to equate (real) energy to (mental) energy that goes into planning and calculations. That is just complete silliness.

I am not going to continue this discussion. I see you have given up on your design, you can not explain how your floor is going to hold the mass of 6 floors + Boeing, and the subject of "planning and calculations is also energy" is beyond silly.

reply to post by Another_Nut


The basement floors were not built the same way as the Towers above the first floor. This is a reason why they would have stopped the collapse. They were built in a more conventional method.

The tub was damaged in the collapses. Not destroyed, but damaged and it feared it may fail. And if you look closely, the floors were stacked up inside the shell of the exterior floors at the base quite a few floors up.

Originally posted by GenRadek

There was pancaking.

Not according to the report you are trying defend there wasn't.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

www.nist.gov...

And no, pancake collapse is not a type of collapse initiation. So you don't think the NIST report is accurate either it seems, maybe you're on the wrong side of this debate eh?

Steel framed buildings do not pancake, or progressively collapse, because steel has a very high weight to strength ratio.

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by ANOK

 

I was just watching the short vid which you posted in this reply.
I began to notice what appears to be atleast three different lateral plumbs of dust coming from the top floors of the north tower at the same time. To me this would indicate the simultanious failure of more than one floor at the point of initiation of the collapes.

And what caused that failure, that is the question. It's not pancaking floors, that is obvious and why NIST doesn't support that.

These plumbs are not just from a single point, which may suggest some single "explosive detonation". They are almost all the way around the visible portion of the structure.
In your explainations, can it be justified that so much of the upper portion of the building would do such at the same time? I had not noticed this before and am at a lose to determine any mechanism of nature which could be the cause.

Not without help from other energy source, that has not been investigated by any official agency.

Did you not also notice the top floors were blowing out before the bottom floors start to blow in the North Tower?
The South tower was slightly different because of the massive tilt of the top section. In that video you can clearly see the lower floors blowing out, and causing the angular momentum to change. None of that would happen naturally.

reply to post by ANOK


I am really starting to wonder if you have selective reading capability or have zero reading comprehension. I thought I made this perfectly clear.

The entire "pancake collapse theory" was centered on FEMA's initial report. It was initially called the "floor truss failure" hypothesis. It had to do with the floor trusses snapping off the exterior columns, falling down, and pancaking down onto the floor below, which then failed and fell down. After that, the exterior columns were left freestanding, and then the building began to collapse. THIS is what became known as the "pancake collapse hypothesis" of collapse initiation.

Seriously ANOK, you cannot be serious, as your reading comprehension is severely lacking here. NIST said that was not the case and what DID initiate collapse was the failure of external columns after being bent inward by the floor trusses sagging and NOT disconnecting from them. They disproved this.

You did not read anything I posted earlier did you? Not even the 9/11 truther web link which also "gets it"? How can they get it, and you are still missing it? Your own quote even gives the answer when it states what INITIATED the collapse. The whole damn issue is that NIST used the simpleton phrase of "Pancake Theory" rather than the "floor truss failure theory" which would have cleared this whole mess up, but at that time, the "pancake theory" was wildly spoken and mentioned all over.

The WTC was not a traditional steel framed structure either ANOK. Are you starting to forget perhaps?

I'll repost my response to you from another thread, one that you for sure ignored:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The truss failure theory, a key ingredient of the better known floor pancake theory, was endorsed by FEMA in its 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It invites us to imagine the floors assemblies detaching from their connections to the columns of the core and perimeter walls, precipitating a chain reaction of floors falling on one another. Without the lateral support of the floors, the columns, FEMA tells us, buckled and precipitated total building collapse.

911research.wtc7.net...

Again ANOK, even a Truther website understand what is meant by "pancake collapse theory". Why is it taking you so long to figure it out? Maybe if I do this, you can finally figure it out!

"Truss failure theory" = "Pancake collapse theory"
Pancake collapse theory/truss failure theory as initiator dismissed by NIST
NIST states the INITIATOR of collapse was not the earlier theories, but the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.

Is that clearer for you ANOK? I mean, really? Can I put it any simpler? Maybe one more:

FEMA theory = floor truss failure collapse (AKA pancake theory)
NIST theory = failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.

That is why NIST felt it was necessary to add the "INITIATOR" wording into their FAQ so it makes it clearer as to what was the cause, or the start, or the initiator of collapse. They found that FEMA's (and NOVA's special) theory was wrong and that is not what was the initiator of collapse (if you bothered to read the FEMA report).

woooops!! Double post stupid technology!

Originally posted by -PLB-
So do you now understand that this is not the same as calculating total potential energy and comparing it to total resistance?

No, please elaborate using FIg. 4a-c of B/V'07. I did my best explaining that the towers were to heavy to sustain themselves. That the tower was too weak to keep its own mass up. That the gravitational force was stronger than the maxwell line of the structure. That 981 GJ and also 168 GJ are more than 55 GJ. That a pencil balanced on its tip will keep its potential energy only as long as no energy is added to the system, that is, no force is exerted. What other language do you want me to say this in?

Yes but the top didn't fall 3.7m it fell more like 300m. Whether you like it or not. So when you look at total energy that was available for destruction as result of the top section falling, you end up with way more than your 2.1 GJ.

So you think math magic is your way out of the conundrum?

168 GJ may be the potential energy if there was nothing in between. But it did not free-fall, it was decelerated, so the true acceleration was not 9.81s/m² because it was still a little counteracted by the friction forces of a little something. Let's say it took 12 seconds to the ground.

Since a = 2*h/t² = 2*300m*/12s² = 4.16 m/s² ( = g minus deceleration )

and E_kin = 58,000,000kg * 4,16 m/s² * 300 =72,384,000,000 J,

and 168 GJ - 72.4 GJ = 95.6 GJ,

the energy dissipated by that which was between the upper floors and ground level - be it a building, or a gas, or a liquid - and decelerated the fall at the rate of 5,65 m/s², was smaller than the potential energy.

But I'm afraid that there's a good explanation for this as well, like, all buildings do this or so. Hint: if you insert Bazants figures for h and t, you'll find out how he reverse engineered his 0.5 GJ dissipation per floor ;-)

So you are arguing that when someone puts a lot of energy in thinking of a plan to demolish a building, this energy can actually added to the (real) energy available for destroying a building.

Yes.

Lets see how you quantify that. Say I have been thinking for 10 days about a plan. How much GJ of energy would that equal to?

And can I demolish a building just by thought as long as I put enough days of thinking in it?

It surely depends on the quality of your thinking :-)

The terrorist attacks must have also cost a lot of energy in planning. So those buildings never had a chance. There was a massive excess of energy.

You're getting closer with each post.

I hope you realize how silly this argument is.

[...]

We were talking about (real) energy that can be quantified in Joule. You for some extremely weird reason try to equate (real) energy to (mental) energy that goes into planning and calculations. That is just complete silliness.

I show you the sun and you look at my finger.

The only thing silly here is your feeble attempt at ridiculing a pellucid concept that can be easily validated and understood by a 6-year old. I'll try to explain again - maybe others also did not quite get what I was trying to say.

You have 1000 dominos and a room with A square feet, I have 1000 dominos and a room with A square feet. You set your dominos up intelligently, I set mine up randomly. Yours now have potential energy of X Joules, mine have potential energy of X Joules. You make one of yours topple with input energy Y (with a quantified finger's flick according to international domino standards) - you set off a chain reaction and they all come down in a beautiful progressive collapse. I make one of mine topple with the very same input energy Y - lo and behold, only few come down before the chain of reactions breaks. Potential energy X converted to kinetic energy Z_PLB by input energy Y in your dominos now was greater than potential energy X converted to kinetic energy Z_Aka by input energy Y in my dominos. Metaphysical qualities like intelligence, knowledge, planning and order played an obvious and undisputable energetic role in the physical realm of a Cartesian/Newtonian universe. The energy difference (E_mental = Z_PLB - Z_Aka) is clearly quantifiable by counting the difference between your dominos still standing (0%) and my dominos still standing (80%).

If this still sounds silly to you, there is no way to explain that that building you mentioned earlier was not brought down by 88kg of explosives, but by placing 88kg of explosives intelligently, in order to bring the building down.

reply to post by GenRadek


The digital version of using crayons, how cute.

What do you expect to achieve by telling me what I already know?

So how do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns? And why did the connections not fail first?

Because according to the PFD that PLB supplied that doesn't happen. Explained right here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can keep proving that trusses can sag all say long, proving that doesn't prove they can pull in the columns.

Originally posted by Akareyon

Originally posted by -PLB-
So do you now understand that this is not the same as calculating total potential energy and comparing it to total resistance?

No, please elaborate using FIg. 4a-c of B/V'07. I did my best explaining that the towers were to heavy to sustain themselves. That the tower was too weak to keep its own mass up. That the gravitational force was stronger than the maxwell line of the structure. That 981 GJ and also 168 GJ are more than 55 GJ. That a pencil balanced on its tip will keep its potential energy only as long as no energy is added to the system, that is, no force is exerted. What other language do you want me to say this in?

Yes but the top didn't fall 3.7m it fell more like 300m. Whether you like it or not. So when you look at total energy that was available for destruction as result of the top section falling, you end up with way more than your 2.1 GJ.

So you think math magic is your way out of the conundrum?

168 GJ may be the potential energy if there was nothing in between. But it did not free-fall, it was decelerated, so the true acceleration was not 9.81s/m² because it was still a little counteracted by the friction forces of a little something. Let's say it took 12 seconds to the ground.

Since a = 2*h/t² = 2*300m*/12s² = 4.16 m/s² ( = g minus deceleration )

and E_kin = 58,000,000kg * 4,16 m/s² * 300 =72,384,000,000 J,

and 168 GJ - 72.4 GJ = 95.6 GJ,

the energy dissipated by that which was between the upper floors and ground level - be it a building, or a gas, or a liquid - and decelerated the fall at the rate of 5,65 m/s², was smaller than the potential energy.

But I'm afraid that there's a good explanation for this as well, like, all buildings do this or so. Hint: if you insert Bazants figures for h and t, you'll find out how he reverse engineered his 0.5 GJ dissipation per floor ;-)

So you are arguing that when someone puts a lot of energy in thinking of a plan to demolish a building, this energy can actually added to the (real) energy available for destroying a building.

Yes.

Lets see how you quantify that. Say I have been thinking for 10 days about a plan. How much GJ of energy would that equal to?

And can I demolish a building just by thought as long as I put enough days of thinking in it?

It surely depends on the quality of your thinking :-)

The terrorist attacks must have also cost a lot of energy in planning. So those buildings never had a chance. There was a massive excess of energy.

You're getting closer with each post.

I hope you realize how silly this argument is.

[...]

We were talking about (real) energy that can be quantified in Joule. You for some extremely weird reason try to equate (real) energy to (mental) energy that goes into planning and calculations. That is just complete silliness.

I show you the sun and you look at my finger.

The only thing silly here is your feeble attempt at ridiculing a pellucid concept that can be easily validated and understood by a 6-year old. I'll try to explain again - maybe others also did not quite get what I was trying to say.

You have 1000 dominos and a room with A square feet, I have 1000 dominos and a room with A square feet. You set your dominos up intelligently, I set mine up randomly. Yours now have potential energy of X Joules, mine have potential energy of X Joules. You make one of yours topple with input energy Y (with a quantified finger's flick according to international domino standards) - you set off a chain reaction and they all come down in a beautiful progressive collapse. I make one of mine topple with the very same input energy Y - lo and behold, only few come down before the chain of reactions breaks. Potential energy X converted to kinetic energy Z_PLB by input energy Y in your dominos now was greater than potential energy X converted to kinetic energy Z_Aka by input energy Y in my dominos. Metaphysical qualities like intelligence, knowledge, planning and order played an obvious and undisputable energetic role in the physical realm of a Cartesian/Newtonian universe. The energy difference (E_mental = Z_PLB - Z_Aka) is clearly quantifiable by counting the difference between your dominos still standing (0%) and my dominos still standing (80%).

If this still sounds silly to you, there is no way to explain that that building you mentioned earlier was not brought down by 88kg of explosives, but by placing 88kg of explosives intelligently, in order to bring the building down.

edit on 24-5-2013 by Akareyon because: (no reason given)

That was beautiful.

I was sad you had to put the edit In. .

I was/still am sure plb will have the ahhah moment many of us have.

eta

Now the question becomes who(what) has that kind of intelligence....

reply to post by ANOK


Well ANOK, if that is the level I need to get across a simple thought, then yes, I shall use it. Now if it sinks in, is a different story.

ANOK, you claim over and over how it cannot happen, and yet I have not seen one actual link of reasoning why, backed up with facts or something to that effect.

The PDF has all the answers and YOU keep ignoring the part PLB has mentioned every time in regards to one particular graphic about what happens to the beams after expansion has taken place. It is not my fault you have a reading block, and are unable to read on from there, just like how you block out the part in the NIST FAQ about the initiation of collapse. It is not his fault or my fault you keep blocking out and ignoring the parts that answer your demands and prove you are wrong.

How can trusses pull on the exterior columns and not fail first? Hmm maybe its because it is a whole set of trusses working together to pull on the exterior columns thereby reducing the amount of work they need to do? Geeze ANOK, I think a high school physics student could figure that out. Like how if you place a balloon on a nail it will pop, but if you place it on a bed of nails, it will not. It may have something to do with that. I thought someone with such knowledge of physics as you keep bragging about, would have known that.

If steel trusses cannot sag and collapse, then why are firefighters trained to avoid entering buildings with trussed roofs? You may want to do some reading here:
Fires and Steel trusses
www.cdc.gov...


Also, I would like for you to give an alternate explanation as to why the exterior columns were seen to bend inward.

Originally posted by Akareyon
No, please elaborate using FIg. 4a-c of B/V'07. I did my best explaining that the towers were to heavy to sustain themselves. That the tower was too weak to keep its own mass up. That the gravitational force was stronger than the maxwell line of the structure. That 981 GJ and also 168 GJ are more than 55 GJ. That a pencil balanced on its tip will keep its potential energy only as long as no energy is added to the system, that is, no force is exerted. What other language do you want me to say this in?

You are twisting the subject. You claimed that comparing total potential energy with total resistance is the same as comparing Wg with Wp. I explained why it is not. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that is noted.

168 GJ may be the potential energy if there was nothing in between. But it did not free-fall, it was decelerated, so the true acceleration was not 9.81s/m² because it was still a little counteracted by the friction forces of a little something.

168GJ was the potential energy, no matter what was in between it. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept potential energy.

Let's say it took 12 seconds to the ground.

Since a = 2*h/t² = 2*300m*/12s² = 4.16 m/s² ( = g minus deceleration )

and E_kin = 58,000,000kg * 4,16 m/s² * 300 =72,384,000,000 J,

and 168 GJ - 72.4 GJ = 95.6 GJ,

the energy dissipated by that which was between the upper floors and ground level - be it a building, or a gas, or a liquid - and decelerated the fall at the rate of 5,65 m/s², was smaller than the potential energy.

Exactly as I was already explaining. Did you actually read what I wrote? Let me repeat it:

The potential energy is the energy available for destruction. It is first transfered to kinetic energy, then does destruction, and then you are left with the left over kinetic energy. So of course it is not picking up that much speed as the energy is used for actual destruction.

That all doesn't mean that the potential energy wasn't available for destruction (as in, converted to kinetic energy), it just means, that is wasn't all used for destruction, and that there was still leftover kinetic energy when all the debris hit ground level.

Yes.

It surely depends on the quality of your thinking :-)

You're getting closer with each post.

I show you the sun and you look at my finger.

The only thing silly here is your feeble attempt at ridiculing a pellucid concept that can be easily validated and understood by a 6-year old. I'll try to explain again - maybe others also did not quite get what I was trying to say.

....

All this off-topic stuff you write has nothing to do with the energy it takes to plan or calculate our domino setup. I may have followed a plan from then Internet, without using any brainpower. You may have thought a year about it and just came up with a stupid idea.

But it seems to me your realized the silliness of your argument, as you didn't mention the "the energy it takes to plan and calculate". You now talk about energy conversion differences in the actual physical setup.

Originally posted by -PLB-


Answer: Yes

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I understand that I have a fundamental misunderstandig about life, the universe and everything; and to make up for how clueless I really am, I twist the subject.

Let me really, really, really twist it then so I don't have to repeat all the arguments you never adressed.

981 GJ of potential energy have been converted to kinetic energy by adding 2.1 GJ (planes + fires + fireproofing gone + slipshod architecture + truss failure + whatnot = sudden disappearance of one complete floor under 58,000 tons of structure) to the system.

Compare with aforementioned domino experiment. International domino standard finger flick triggers the 100% conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy. This is not random. This is no accident. This is proof of purpose, intelligence, planning, knowledge and order.

Compare with dish washer tablet experiment. One tablet takes down a structure with more than 40 times of its own mass. This is no accident either. It is a unique feat in almost 12 years of discussing the Twins' collapses, the first working model, maybe only the third structure in the history of architecture to exhibit this phenomenon and proof that without purpose, intelligence, planning, knowledge and order no such thing just happens to happen.

Especially not to a structure that is meant to contain all that potential energy, to prevent it from going kinetic under the constant pulling force of gravity, and is therefor designed with redundant amounts of tensile energy consisting of molecular and mechanical bonds and joints, forces to counteract the tendency of the mass to move towards the center of the earth -- and even more forces to make up for events in which the whole structure shakes and sways and is put under huge stresses and all these forces cancel each other out only towards one common goal: to keep all the mass from going kinetic on a global scale, to decelerate everything happening in it to 0 m/s² with as little energy converted to deformation as reasonably possible.

It is fair to argue that the structure was not meant to accomodate for a plane full of kerosene ramming itself into the tower at cruise speed, and maybe this forum would not even exist had the crash resulted in the collapse of three to ten floors. That is something you see everyday - two rigid structures colliding, getting deformed at the crush zone, dissipating the kinetic energy.

To argue that the floors above the impact hole had the potential energy of 168 GJ, most of which was converted to kinetic energy, while the rest was spent on the deformation of the whole structure, does not go without answering the question: what kept those 168 GJ from going kinetic for three decades? Because 58,000 tons of steel and concrete usually don't hover in the air for free. What kept it from falling, what kept it in its stable equilbrium? Was it hanging on a rope that got cut? It was the internal or elastic energy of the tower beneath, of course, the energy of the molecular bonds and mechanical joints of the rest of the structure that had to be overcome. This had be at least 168 GJ to keep the upper floors potential. So, when only a third of that energy is left to decelerate the descent, the next question must be answered: where are the other two thirds gone? It may also be formulated this way: what kind of energy accounts for the loss of at least two thirds of the elastic energy of the structure?

To argue that a global analysis is not appropriate, but that a iterative floor-by-floor calculation must be done, only fragments that calculation. The kinetic energy to crush the topmost floor of the structure underneath the imaginary 3.7m gap surely exceeds its tensile energy. It is however not valid to conclude that, since one story was crushed, the rest of the structure must inevitably go as well. That is only the case if the kinetic energy exceeds the elastic energy of each and every floor, and for that to happen, one must assume that only little of the input (gap) energy is dissipated - which leads to the conclusion that only little elastic energy is there in the first place and in this turn to the question what kept the towers upright for thirty years.

To argue that the towers were conceived to remain in an unstable energetic equilibrium that had only to be triggered by pulling a locking pin like a mechanical bomb is no different from the notion that some sinister forces were at work, it only shifts the blame from terrorists (from the Middle East, the White House or outer space) to architects and engineers who plan their buildings like Rube Goldberg machines.

To argue that many more, if not all large structures are build like this "because cube-square law" is the last way to elude the realization that the official conspiracy theory is even more insane than any tin foil hat could think of.

Originally posted by Akareyon
To argue that the floors above the impact hole had the potential energy of 168 GJ, most of which was converted to kinetic energy, while the rest was spent on the deformation of the whole structure, does not go without answering the question: what kept those 168 GJ from going kinetic for three decades?

The support columns.

Because 58,000 tons of steel and concrete usually don't hover in the air for free. What kept it from falling, what kept it in its stable equilbrium? Was it hanging on a rope that got cut? It was the internal or elastic energy of the tower beneath, of course, the energy of the molecular bonds and mechanical joints of the rest of the structure that had to be overcome. This had be at least 168 GJ to keep the upper floors potential. So, when only a third of that energy is left to decelerate the descent, the next question must be answered: where are the other two thirds gone? It may also be formulated this way: what kind of energy accounts for the loss of at least two thirds of the elastic energy of the structure?

You are looking at energy while it is the forces that are important. In a static load situation the forces are way lower than when you drop something. You can place a hammer on a glass plate without any problems, but drop it from 1 meter and its a different story. Its the same concept.

This holds true for almost any building too. The only variables that change between buildings is the height you drop your mass and the amount of mass. You can alter either these variable to come to a situation where the building will collapse globally.

Now whether this is possible with the buildings own mass is a different question. For that variables like building height is important. The higher the building, the easier it is to achieve. Still the verinage demolitions show it also holds for smaller buildings.

To argue that a global analysis is not appropriate, but that a iterative floor-by-floor calculation must be done, only fragments that calculation. The kinetic energy to crush the topmost floor of the structure underneath the imaginary 3.7m gap surely exceeds its tensile energy. It is however not valid to conclude that, since one story was crushed, the rest of the structure must inevitably go as well. That is only the case if the kinetic energy exceeds the elastic energy of each and every floor, and for that to happen, one must assume that only little of the input (gap) energy is dissipated - which leads to the conclusion that only little elastic energy is there in the first place and in this turn to the question what kept the towers upright for thirty years.

You are simply incorrect here. You can have a potential energy greater than total resistance and still have arrest when a certain part of the top falls a certain height. It all depends on the mass and height. Heck I showed you a situation for the WTC where this is the case, and you agreed to this.

Again, by altering the mass and height, this holds true for almost any building.

To argue that the towers were conceived to remain in an unstable energetic equilibrium that had only to be triggered by pulling a locking pin like a mechanical bomb is no different from the notion that some sinister forces were at work, it only shifts the blame from terrorists (from the Middle East, the White House or outer space) to architects and engineers who plan their buildings like Rube Goldberg machines.

You make a plane crash and the subsequent fires sound like its nothing. You make it sound like when someone would have been leaning against the WTC it would have collapsed.

How about this, pick any building, but let is be at least 40 stories, and calculate the total potential energy, and the total resistance. Then you have something to back up your indignation. And we can try to apply Bazant's model to it too see what we need to fill in for mass and height so that global collapse is ensured.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Akareyon
what kept those 168 GJ from going kinetic for three decades?

The support columns.

Which jumped out of the way during the collapse to offer as little resistance as possible? Surely, they were not bent, that would have cost too much kinetic energy.

You are looking at energy while it is the forces that are important.

Hear, hear. Let's see what Bazant says in conclusion to his "deep examination":

What matters is energy, not the strength, nor stiffness.

That is because force is energy per distance, nothing more. You just shift the perspective.

Still the verinage demolitions show it also holds for smaller buildings.

Vérinages show that you have to substract elastic energy from the structure to achieve a collision with the upper half and the lower half of the building so the kinetic energy is not fully dissipated before the collapse is complete.

You are simply incorrect here. You can have a potential energy greater than total resistance and still have arrest when a certain part of the top falls a certain height. It all depends on the mass and height. Heck I showed you a situation for the WTC where this is the case, and you agreed to this.

I hoped you would realize yourself how far-fetched Bazants argumentation is when I show you that the removal of the 109th floor and resulting freefall of the 110th floor would crush the 110th and 108th floor at most, while the removal of the 108th floor would result in the 110th and 109th floor crushing all floors between 107th and bath tub.

You make a plane crash and the subsequent fires sound like its nothing.

Surely not. Big boom for sure. But not that big really.

You make it sound like when someone would have been leaning against the WTC it would have collapsed.

It's more the other way round. I'm the one who insists the towers were built for plane crashes, subtropical hurricanes, earth quakes and cold war scenarios and argues against the assertion a plane crash and subsequent fires could do them infinitely more harm than a raging inferno, a bomb in the basement and decades of swaying in the wind. It is you who argues the whole building dissipated only one third of the potential energy gone kinetic by design and that's the way it should be when there is a 0,2% devation from the static scenario.

How about this, pick any building, but let is be at least 40 stories, and calculate the total potential energy, and the total resistance. Then you have something to back up your indignation.

How about this, I do this and you find another reason why I'm totally wrong? Wait, I already know where this road goes since I built my tower made of vinyl records and paper loops, based on psikeyhackrs model, and was told that paper is just not as brittle as steel.