9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927:2293]

[Kat Dorman]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Anyone truly interested in the ivory tower mechanics of collapse may wish to consider:

- the differences between Bazant and Seffen
- the difference between continuous and discrete formulations
- the solution space of mixed crush direction
- analytical models in 2D (radial symmetry about the long axis)
- granular flow driven interior collapse through membranes

Personally, my last stop in investigating collapse mechanics was FOOD PROCESSING. That's right, rice crispy mechanics. Laugh all you like. It's a better discipline for approaching the problem than plastic deformation of solids.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Not just a moving shield, but a moving and constantly growing shield with each additional compacted layer.

Correct.

Still not the reality of what actually happened, but for the limiting case presented by Bazant, most definitely applicable and valid from a conceptual standpoint in my opinion.

Agreed. It's quite a work. While I say talking about Bazant is a "waste of time", take it in context: I prefer to spend my time there than getting too close to the real collapses. It's just that, for those who DO wish to talk about the real collapses, I think it's mostly a waste of time, especially given the manner in which it's discussed.

Really great description Kat, and thank you for taking the time to lay it all out.

You're welcome.

Hopefully others can take this to heart and truly understand it from what you've provided. I spent a lot of energy trying to convince someone of this very same thing and they simply refused to accept it because it didn't match with what really happened, and they seemed incapable of separating thought model from reality. Personally, I think it was just because they wanted to be right no matter what, and in the effort they intentionally, or subconsciously, confused, or inappropriately converged, the two when attempting to argue against it.

Everybody wants to be right and, by the time they have an opinion, they're right in their own mind. It doesn't help that Bazant's work is the "official story" for collapse progression (and to some extent initiation), and that he himself conflates the model with reality. When I say it's BS, it's BS in a certain context. People who do understand it well enough and are clear on model versus reality are left high and dry when it comes to explaining why these crucial details are the way they are.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

For those who couldn't be bothered to figure out from the graph just how skinny the rat's ass is, I don't blame you. For the North Tower, an additional 2cm of crush in the upper section would've been sufficient to ensure continued simultaneous crush up / crush down. That's around a half-percent of a nominal story height. An entirely different result based on that alone, "shield" and all. Tricky guy, Bazant.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

....Most people want to talk about official story, right or wrong, and do NOT wish to actually discuss the mechanics of collapse. Bazant is the de facto whipping boy, with some justification IMO. Problem is, it does little or nothing to elucidate actual mechanisms of collapse.

Kat knows this - not sure if I've told booNyzarC. When I first got started in 9/11 Internet discussion I found a mix of "discuss the technical stuff" AND "NIST was right/wrong". Intentional or not both sides - all four sides as it was in 2007 - would keep changing horses changing objectives. What happened technically 9/11 2001 is historic fact. nothing written by NIST years later can change that. So I resolved to discuss one topic OR the other but not the two mixed up. So for me at that time NIST or the "Official Story" was the whipping boy more than Bazant.

But whichever - the real issue of mechanism took a back seat.

[ I decided to not post and edited out a x00 word rant bout the history - it will keep]

....I do not believe the ongoing discussions have been served by overanalyzing Bazant. This is a textbook treatment. It's up to the reader to find the gold. I think it would be at least roughly applicable to the types of structures demolished by verinage. Potentially of great value. It's way off the mark for the towers. Ironically, the towers spurred development of the model. No one really cared before.

Fully agreed as you already knewKat.

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

@nooByzarC - First note that the 8th word is "complementary" - it is important to understand that and where Kat and I are coming from.

I do understand, and I thank you for making an effort toward clarity.

Simply stated I tend to focus on qualitative explanations of "real event 9/11" - Kat tends to go for full legitimacy in a broader context. At risk of 'verbaling' Kat my focus is on simplicity of explanation in WTC real event discussions. Kat prefers rigour of physics and argument in a more generic context. And, yes, we have a long history of discussing these matters from those complementary positions. And occasionally we are complimentary.

All good, all important, all valid.

Psikey's statements tend to be ambiguous[SUP]#[/SUP] - there are several misinterpretations in the claim that started this bit of discussion.

# That should rank as "Understatement of the Year" :roll:

Yes, well, I hate to agree to this given my previously stated hopes, but... I simply can't disagree. Yet I still hope that future actions can prove us all wrong and that Psikey can somehow manage to escape the event horizon that is threatening to pull him completely and irrevocably into 9/11 truth advocate insanity. Despite it all, he seems like a really intelligent guy to me, and he just may be holding onto this stuff simply due to stubbornness. Kind of like T Sz...

Only time will tell, and hopefully time will provide a happy ending.

Cheers.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Despite it all, he seems like a really intelligent guy to me, and he just may be holding onto this stuff simply due to stubbornness. Kind of like T Sz...

They are different but the most diplomatic way of putting it is "different areas of strengths and weaknesses" as I hinted at in my previous post.

Some people cannot process reasoned argument - either present it themselves or comprehend it when others spoon feed it.

Let's leave the topic for now but with this clue:

Follow either of the two and look for accusations that it is "all words" or similar. Often associated with a demand for "math" or "calculations" or "FEA"

THEN go back to see what they are denigrating as "only words'. If it is one of my posts I'll lay odds you will find a reasoned argument. And no maths, calcs or FEA.

"Only words" is code for "I don't engage in reasoned arguments" And after some years with certain people I have formed the opinion it is "cannot" not simply "will not".

I'll leave it there.

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

They are different but the most diplomatic way of putting it is "different areas of strengths and weaknesses" as I hinted at in my previous post.

Some people cannot process reasoned argument - either present it themselves or comprehend it when others spoon feed it.

Let's leave the topic for now but with this clue:

Follow either of the two and look for accusations that it is "all words" or similar. Often associated with a demand for "math" or "calculations" or "FEA"

THEN go back to see what they are denigrating as "only words'. If it is one of my posts I'll lay odds you will find a reasoned argument. And no maths, calcs or FEA.

"Only words" is code for "I don't engage in reasoned arguments" And after some years with certain people I have formed the opinion it is "cannot" not simply "will not".

I'll leave it there.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that it applies to many. It may very well even apply here, I don't really know. With your years of interaction, I can completely see how it may be a foregone conclusion from your point of view. In your shoes, I would likely reach the same assumption.

But sometimes it just takes an outside observer to turn the tide. Sometimes people are able to take a step back when someone they aren't familiar with takes notice of something. It's a fresh perspective, from an entirely different source, and maybe, just maybe, it can have an impact.

If it doesn't, so be it. Nobody can accuse me of not trying.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

...But sometimes it just takes an outside observer to turn the tide. Sometimes people are able to take a step back when someone they aren't familiar with takes notice of something. It's a fresh perspective, from an entirely different source, and maybe, just maybe, it can have an impact....

Yes - both see am name and the barriers go up before I say anything. I won't bore you with the details. :roll:

..If it doesn't, so be it. Nobody can accuse me of not trying.

Best of luck.

 

[Sunzi]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

... CONCLUSION:
The buildings obviously did not fall at near-free-fall speeds, and their actual collapse times were significantly longer. ...

Good conclusion.
Let us stop right now, and get on topic, one warning and one only? Okay.

The OP, Good conclusion. The early claims of faster than freefall by a fringe few who can't use a stopwatch. The zero research method used by 911 truth, for 911 truth followers called "real" research.

We have 911 truth "experts" who can't time an event. They make free-fall claims to go with their "all three towers were destroyed as the result of explosives" fantasy. What does it take to be a 911 truth expert? Make up silly lies.

The good old days...

Fetzer - "occurred at virtually free-fall speed"

David Ray Griffin - "occurred at virtually free-fall speed"

Morgan Reynolds - "unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center"

"Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed"

"everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed"

Easy to find the old free-fall claims associated with one of the dumbest movements in history. 911 Truth, an ironic name for a movement based on lies and fantasy, and zero truth. How does the wantabe engineer discussion relate to the OP? Can I recommend ... abandoning this tack, open a thread on amateur engineering, differential equations and "real" research? Free-fall is the topic...

Today, the association or cult of the only engineers and architects on earth who can't figure out 911, aka Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, still cling to the free-fall.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - "Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration."

Using "nearly", tone it down and introduce some silly science...
What is the path of greatest resistance? This idiotic junk makes followers invent the "law of least resistance", a Gish Gallop into the next 12 years of repeated failed 911 truth nonsense.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - "Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance"

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - "while maintaining a near free-fall acceleration as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist."

Was it free-fall, or near? Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth don't care, Gage pulls in 500k/yr, spreading "truth".

A bit of research and a stopwatch killed the free-fall nonsense.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

How does the wantabe engineer discussion relate to the OP? Can I recommend ... abandoning this tack, open a thread on amateur engineering, differential equations and "real" research?

So you wanna go, do you? I'll see YOU tomorrow.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Good conclusion.
Let us stop right now, and get on topic, one warning and one only? Okay.

The OP, Good conclusion. The early claims of faster than freefall by a fringe few who can't use a stopwatch. The zero research method used by 911 truth, for 911 truth followers called "real" research.

We have 911 truth "experts" who can't time an event. They make free-fall claims to go with their "all three towers were destroyed as the result of explosives" fantasy. What does it take to be a 911 truth expert? Make up silly lies.

The good old days...
Easy to find the old free-fall claims associated with one of the dumbest movements in history. 911 Truth, an ironic name for a movement based on lies and fantasy, and zero truth. How does the wantabe engineer discussion relate to the OP? Can I recommend ... abandoning this tack, open a thread on amateur engineering, differential equations and "real" research? Free-fall is the topic...

Today, the association or cult of the only engineers and architects on earth who can't figure out 911, aka Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, still cling to the free-fall.


Using "nearly", tone it down and introduce some silly science...
What is the path of greatest resistance? This idiotic junk makes followers invent the "law of least resistance", a Gish Gallop into the next 12 years of repeated failed 911 truth nonsense.



Was it free-fall, or near? Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth don't care, Gage pulls in 500k/yr, spreading "truth".

A bit of research and a stopwatch killed the free-fall nonsense.

A bit of research and a stopwatch killed the free-fall nonsense.

Only in your mind sir.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Good morning, Sunzi!

Good conclusion.
Let us stop right now, and get on topic, one warning and one only? Okay.

...

How does the wantabe engineer discussion relate to the OP? Can I recommend ... abandoning this tack, open a thread on amateur engineering, differential equations and "real" research? Free-fall is the topic...

Took your suggestion. Great idea. Please join me.

 

[Mark F]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

A bit of research and a stopwatch killed the free-fall nonsense.

Only in your mind sir.

Are you claiming then that you believe the Twin Towers achieved "free-fall"?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Are you claiming then that you believe the Twin Towers achieved "free-fall"?

I use the term "near free fall", even as Peter Jennings commented about.

 

[Mark F]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

I use the term "near free fall", even as Peter Jennings commented about.

Why? What is the significance of "near free fall"? Why is that even worth noting?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Why? What is the significance of "near free fall"? Why is that even worth noting?

Because perfect free fall means that the supporting structures, those that had been supporting for many years, suddenly acquired the resistance of air.

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

I use the term "near free fall", even as Peter Jennings commented about.

Exactly how "near" are we talking about? You did indeed read the OP, right? Do you refute the calculations in the OP? Do you have alternate math to provide us?

 

[Mark F]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Because perfect free fall means that the supporting structures, those that had been supporting for many years, suddenly acquired the resistance of air.

I didn't ask what the significance of "perfect free fall" is (you are wrong BTW). I asked what is significant about "near free fall". Indeed, how does one even define the term?

 

[ozeco41]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

I didn't ask what the significance of "perfect free fall" is (you are wrong BTW). I asked what is significant about "near free fall". Indeed, how does one even define the term?

True -neither "had been supporting for many years" nor "suddenly acquired" are characteristics defining free-fall OR necessary to it happening OR of any apparent assistance in defining the significance of "free fall" whether perfect or imperfect.

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

There will be no convincing this one of anything, no matter how many facts you spoon feed him or how much irrefutable logic you provide perfect explanations for. Trust me.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

There will be no convincing this one of anything, no matter how many facts you spoon feed him or how much irrefutable logic you provide perfect explanations for. Trust me.

Actually these "aviation spam" threads are structural different to the WTC collapse threads. Two aspects differ and they diverge in different directions:

1) The WTC threads are all derived from "there was CD", a legitimate claim. All as posted here depend on bare assertions and a commitment of the older hands who are pro truth (Gawd isn't "troll" briefer to write) -- a commitment to NEVER enter debate. So legit claim - won't debate.

2) The aviation threads the opposite. The only legit aviation topics AFAIK are "plane not in Pentagon" and "Should have been shot down". No one prepared to even put the legitimate questions up for debate ('cept me???) BUT lots of debating the details which could support the claim if ever the claim was made.... So no legit claim - willing to talk around in circles on irrelevancies.

All same BTW as "thermXte" discussion - there was no CD so thermXte on site is irrelevant.

The plane was in the Pentagon so any data or witness evidence which says it wasn't is wrong. Pretty basic stuff.

 

[SanderO]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Of course if people realized how empty any normal building is they would see that the almost free fall makes perfect sense when buildings are 95-96% air... and in the case of a these collapses.. the STEEL fell away and toppled over with the core surviving the floor collapse by up to 14 seconds I believe. And practically speaking the slabs and their connections to the steel frame were no match the mass punching through.

With 7wtc the collapse speed was a result of a progressive failure low down in the structure and so the upper DID fall with not resistance and experience crush up at the bottom. And this IS how CDs do it.. but there was no evidence of CD and there was for heat failing the structure over 7 hrs much like CD would do in an instant. But once capacity not there the top drops like a rock.

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Actually these "aviation spam" threads are structural different to the WTC collapse threads. Two aspects differ and they diverge in different directions:

1) The WTC threads are all derived from "there was CD", a legitimate claim. All as posted here depend on bare assertions and a commitment of the older hands who are pro truth (Gawd isn't "troll" briefer to write) -- a commitment to NEVER enter debate. So legit claim - won't debate.

2) The aviation threads the opposite. The only legit aviation topics AFAIK are "plane not in Pentagon" and "Should have been shot down". No one prepared to even put the legitimate questions up for debate ('cept me???) BUT lots of debating the details which could support the claim if ever the claim was made.... So no legit claim - willing to talk around in circles on irrelevancies.

All same BTW as "thermXte" discussion - there was no CD so thermXte on site is irrelevant.

The plane was in the Pentagon so any data or witness evidence which says it wasn't is wrong. Pretty basic stuff.

No, I don't think you understand. I'm saying that absolutely no argument, no facts, no logic, nothing at all, ever, will convince Henry David of anything outside of what he has already decided. Anything that contradicts him is fabrication, lies, twisting, incorrect, invalid, insubstantial, or something else. Everything, no matter how irrefutable it may be, does not apply. Why? Because the government lies, and that is all there is to it. Anything that is contentious with his version of events is a lie. Anything that proves him wrong is fabricated. Anything that suggests a different interpretation is twisted. Anything at all that defies his preferred version of events is invalid for some reason or another, and nothing anyone says or does will ever change that. Ever.

And he knows because he has been a flight instructor since 1969 with a mind bogglingly high number of 3000 flight hours. That's at least 85 entire hours per year since 1969. Incredible isn't it? How does someone attain such prestige and accomplishment anyway?

Cheers

Post Script: Hope the intent and core meaning of all that managed to come through... It's a lot, even if not seemingly at first glance...

 

[ozeco41]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

No, I don't think you understand. I'm saying that absolutely no argument, no facts, no logic, nothing at all, ever, will convince Henry David of anything outside of what he has already decided. Anything that contradicts him is fabrication, lies, twisting, incorrect, invalid, insubstantial, or something else. Everything, no matter how irrefutable it may be, does not apply. Why? Because the government lies, and that is all there is to it. Anything that is contentious with his version of events is a lie. Anything that proves him wrong is fabricated. Anything that suggests a different interpretation is twisted. Anything at all that defies his preferred version of events is invalid for some reason or another, and nothing anyone says or does will ever change that. Ever.

Yes - but - he seems to persist with Posting Optional Entertainment.

Within days of joining I awarded him MA(Hon) - Master of Ambiguity. He sometimes gets lazy and actually says something - like - explicitly. But when up to speed it is rare for him to say anything framed other than as loaded innuendo.

And he knows because he has been a flight instructor since 1969 with a mind bogglingly high number of 3000 flight hours. That's at least 85 entire hours per year since 1969. Incredible isn't it? How does someone attain such prestige and accomplishment anyway?

PLUS you don't need to play in an orchestra to know when a wrong note is played. Or be a chef to know that the milk is off. Or be a pilot to understand the simple 3D geometrical functions of all the alphabet soup technology. And when the plotted data from the technology shows a plane taking off from farmland some hundreds of metres off and parallel with the runway - I wouldn't be looking for tyre tracks in the fields.

Post Script: Hope the intent and core meaning of all that managed to come through... It's a lot, even if not seemingly at first glance...

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Yes - but - he seems to persist with Posting Optional Entertainment.

I really don't think Poe's law applies in this case, but if you're right, it would certainly be preferable in my opinion. I hope you're right, but something inside of me tells me otherwise.

Cheers.