[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Then why do you think the top portion wouldn't destroy itself against the remainder, which would also take on damage? Mind you this is only one reason the pile driver theory is not possible.

Say you had a column of bowling balls standing, say held up in some tube structure, and you dropped another bowling ball of the same composition down on the rest from a height. Do you think the bowling ball you dropped could crush through all the rest without itself being crushed? Of course not. It's going to crush itself and the first bowling ball it hits. It's not going to just go through crushing every other bowling ball and then crush itself at the bottom like Bazant would have you believe.

Man, I don't know, it actually sounds like a pretty complicated physics problem and I'm just not 100% convinced that your bowling ball model quite captures all the nuances present in a real life collapsing steel and concrete skyscaper. So, on the one hand we have your bowling bowl model, let's file that away for a second and review what the NIST people say. What do the so-called experts at NIST think happened? Did they have a bowling ball model too?

You have half a point but I would qualify it by saying no one cares what you believe unless you have some influence or power. Look what they did to Van Jones. He used to be a radical socialist. He had signed the A&E911Truth petition. After he was coopted and given opportunities to be prominent that signature came back to bite him in the ass. He was cancelled and had to rehabilitate himself. He was seen recently on TV crying over Biden's downfall.

And here's the difference between me and you. I would rather be under a bridge smoking crack through a chicken bone than be a man who cries over Joe Biden. I'd rather lose my material possessions than my mind.

Maybe there is an element of that. But I understand things through institutional analysis instead of some illusive and small group of elites. Oligarchs exist, but they can't just snap their fingers and make the world jump. They have to work through institutions. They have corrupted our institutions with their money. All we have to do is make that unprofitable for them o do so. They are probably going to kill us all (and themselves) with environmental collapse or nuclear war before we can achieve that. But maybe not.

How about the Windsor Tower?

Fire burned on the upper floors for like a whole day unfought and only the steel-framed part of the building completely collapsed. The concrete core remained.

Oh wait. Hmmm....

Yeah it seems complicated at first but you have to realize Newtonian physics scales up nicely. Down? Not so much maybe. Newton's 3rd law, the one about equal and opposite forces, definitely applies to buildings or parts of buildings or bowling balls.

Again, NIST didn't detail the the collapse mechanism. They opted for the hand wave. They have the bowling ball model in their heads, or something like it, and therefore knew better than to contradict it directly. If you Google NIST and "collapse ensued" you should get a lot of people griping about the lack of collapse mechanism from NIST. It was that single phrase, or something very close to that, which they substituted for an actual explanation.

I wouldn't worry yourself too much about that: that ship, much like the Titanic, has long sailed.

So, just to make sure, the issue you have is you are saying that the speed of collapse should have decreased with respect to time during the collapse if there were no external forces, and it did not. Is that correct?

you joke but there are titanic conspiracies that it sunk due to a coal fire rather than an iceberg, and/or it wasn't even the titanic at all. pretty interesting actually.... better supporting evidence for some of the theories than for 9/11

There are conspiracy theories around most any well known event. Ones that have no real motive behind them are not worth entertaining.

But it's always a conspiracy that starts wars.

Deuces, are you going to confirm this or not? I am not going down some rabbit hole to do a bunch of reading only to discover you meant something else altogether.

lets face it d2, you arent going to do any reading anyway

I never said anything about external forces.

What I'm saying is that the official story, the Bazant pile driver theory, is false and there is much more support for the demolition theory.

Under the pile driver theory the top portion which supposedly crushed through the remainder should have decelerated when it hit into the the remainder. There was no deceleration of the top portion observed. Personally I find this to be the most compelling evidence for demolition. It's impossible for a building to fall into a building and not decelerate.

Also, under the pile driver theory, the top portion should have crushed itself while it crushed the remainder- equal and opposite forces. Or if Newton is too much for you, say you think gravity is an occult force or something, just imagine two objects of the same composition colliding into each other and how that always plays out in your observed experience.

This explanation I just found makes perfect sense to me:

Can you point out where this explanation is wrong? Is it the last sentence?

I don't mind doing some cursory research. It's not really a topic I've looked into much before.

It doesn't really make sense you just find it comforting.

I explained to you, broadly speaking, what's wrong with the official story. I'm not going around cleaning up glitter bombs of wrong planted by some troll. You seem to think a portion of a building can slam into itself with enough force to crush through the remainder but evince no jolt of deceleration. I'm good with you saying that. That's where you disagree with me and with physics.

Cite the relevant physics, with equations rather than just some hand wavy bowling ball analogies, and I might find your side more persuasive. Don't worry, I think I can follow along with some Newtonian mechanics.

A toy version of the problem is fine. Something like some flat weights (representing the floors) with struts between them holding them up. We want to keep the ratios intact though, so introduce the failure at the correct % height of your tower and make sure that the floor weight to strut strength ratio is roughly correct per what has been documented for the supporting framework of the WTC towers. If you can show using physics that when this hypothetical idealised tower collapses, the rate of fall should decrease with time, it will certainly be a lot more persuasive than hand wavy declarations about how it should "just be obvious". This should not require more than high school physics, so I assume you are more than capable of these calculations.

this is actually a misnomer

i don't fault you for repeating it, as it's said by many

but there were many atlantic crossing ocean liners which were significantly faster than the titanic, so there was no pr gain by arriving there early - you weren't riding the titanic for speed

nobody is sure why he went at max speed of 22 knots per hour as it was recommended to go at about half that speed primarily due to the danger of icebergs

one can only speculate and the only real viable options are:

Option 1: poor judgement fueled by arrogance that it was unsinkable fueled a bad decision (indeed if they just rammed the iceberg dead on they wouldn't have sank, it basically suffered the exact sort of damage that it couldn't survive, a long gash running down the length of the boat)

Option 2: there was a coal fire onboard the vessel that they were unable to put out

so it was possible they wanted to both burn up the coal before the fire could spread and this meant max steam and max steam meant max speed, this also had the added benefit of getting to port as fast as possible where they'd be able to deal with onboard fire

and hard lol at "poor project management skills 100 years ago"

Deuces is describing Tony Szamboti's "missing jolt" theory here, if you want to know how to look up discussions of it online. Don't worry, Tony never provided any actual physics calculations for his theory either.

Deuces has reliably informed us that not only is his observation obvious, it requires only high school level physics to confirm, so I, for one, am sure that he is busy working on the calculations and will be posting them any time now.

What's the motive behind your conspiracy theory?

I think we've largely confirmed why physicists don't use written word blurbs as their primary tool. Stuff like "objects cannot fall faster than free fall without added inputs" might seem reasonable but fail under suitable rigor. I hate to keep picking on that one statement, but it's the only one clear enough to even bother evaluating. Armed with a bunch of folk theorems like that, it's not hard to show many things are impossible. The problem is they won't be.

All of this has been discussed at length by actual engineers.

Here are some long discussion threads that contain actual engineers trying to explain why Tony's ideas are wrong, if you want to go down the rabbit hole:

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo...
https://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo...

and I think this was the original discussion thread:
https://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo...

He wrote on paper on it. Maybe you should read it before getting emotional. This has been pointed out by many people. Here is a very simple explanation along with some supporting observations and calculations. For you authority whores, the person making the presentation has two masters degrees from Harvey Mudd College. But if you took college level physics at the lowest ranked community college in America and pass with a C- you can still easily follow along.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZl...

Deuces, how's that model coming along? ETA?