tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858848.post114861679548576819..comments2023-10-26T09:36:21.645-04:00Comments on Sniffing Out The Higher Truth: 9/11: the impossible, the improbable, the implausibleBoris Epsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08194890014852776515noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858848.post-17712986093990662302007-08-28T15:48:00.000-04:002007-08-28T15:48:00.000-04:00OK, Boris, I’m going to tackle your first “impossi...OK, Boris, I’m going to tackle your first “impossible,” specifically as it applies to the twin towers, with a smidge more detail than your “Jim Hoffman” link provides. The collapses initiated at the point of impact, with several floors above. Once the structure gave way, the floors above the collapse moved as one, accelerating unimpeded until they impacted with the floor just below. The question, then, became whether or not the floor below was able to withstand the force of the combined floors above moving towards it. (Yes, the single floor. It is important to remember is that this is not a monolithic structure. I hope you can understand how this is relevant.) The floor below was really only designed to hold up a set static load of its own weight plus an allowance for equipment, and a minimal kinetic load (people on a daily basis, an occasional tenant moving in or out). Therefore, its connection to the overall structure was geared primarily towards a static load, and it had a limited tolerance to kinetic loads. The floors above accelerating towards the floor below far exceed any the kinetic load that the floor below was able to withstand. Thus, shortly after impact, the floor below failed. So great was the mass above and the momentum it had acquired (f=m*a, after all) and so small by comparison was the floor below’s ability to withstand that force that the impact did not rob the kinetic floors of all of their momentum. Some, but not all – this is crucial. So, with a starting speed greater than zero and one more floor of mass and even more momentum, the kinetic floors continued to accelerate towards the next static floor, which had roughly the same static/kinetic load tolerances as the floor above. This repeated until the mass and force of the kinetic floors surpassed a certain threshold. Once that happened, the force of the kinetic floors so greatly exceeded the ability of the floors below to resist impact that they collapsed through them with only a negligible loss of momentum and speed. I think you and Jim Hoffman are either gravely underestimating the mass, and, therefore, the force, that the collapsing floors applied to the floors below, or you are overestimating the force the floors below could withstand without collapse, or you are failing to understand that the floors above acted as one, and the floors below did not.mbatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15921800789335798731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858848.post-7413176363405485822007-08-26T14:15:00.000-04:002007-08-26T14:15:00.000-04:00Steve,Regardless of whether or not the structural ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Regardless of whether or not the structural failure was possible (in general - yes, that certainly is a possibility to strike a building with something and then burn it hot enough to finish it off; the question is, whether the means employed on 9/11 were adequate for the task) - so, regardless of whether the failure was to be expected, the sort of failure (a sudden, rapid, symmetrical and complete collapse proceeding with almost the same acceleration as one would have when a ball was to be dropped from the roof of the building) is not consistent with the notion of a sequential process but instead requires simaltenour failure throughout the whole structure. That sort of failure is normally achieved through controlled demolition. In fact, aside from the 3 buildings that failed on 9/11, no other steel structure ever failed in this way for any reason other than controlled demolition.Boris Epsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08194890014852776515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858848.post-57631193848630565352007-08-25T12:37:00.000-04:002007-08-25T12:37:00.000-04:00A structural failure from fire and impact is not '...A structural failure from fire and impact is not 'clearly impossible' and you have not demonstrated why you believe that it is. Saying so, does not make it the case and references to research would have to be quite authoritative to arrive at your level of certainty.Steve Horganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13689714700049747836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858848.post-3055368722582186302007-08-24T15:15:00.000-04:002007-08-24T15:15:00.000-04:00Steve,This is not a "wave of the hand" but a refer...Steve,<BR/><BR/>This is not a "wave of the hand" but a reference to relevant research. The law of the momentum conservation when applied to this collapse scenario makes it clearly impossible for the events to have been a result of the progressive collapse. A number of other possibilities exist, however, one being the controlled demolition (the most likely scenario in my opinion).<BR/><BR/>As for your analogy, a better one would be that the body mysteriously disappeared while many fully qualified medical professionals doubt the official autopsy results. To see what I mean check out Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and other professionals' groups disputing the official story.<BR/><BR/>And no, I do not have to generate a theory to disprove one. Why would I be under such an obligation - especially without the means to collect sufficient data (thanks in no small part to the government who did all they could to destroy mounds of valuable evidence).Boris Epsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08194890014852776515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858848.post-76771273790707111982007-08-24T14:16:00.000-04:002007-08-24T14:16:00.000-04:00You do need to demonstrate why the building could ...You do need to demonstrate why the building could not have failed from impact and fire as suggested. Belief and a wave of the hand at conservation of momentum is not nearly enough. To use your analogy, the body has been autopsied by an expert pathologist who has produced unequivocal results that have been accepted by the community of pathologists and only queried by a small group of people, most of whom have no medical training whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>As for alternative theories, any such must be presented with the same rigour as your disproof of the impact/fire/collapse scenario, both in terms of the physical processes of the collapse and the circumstances in which it occurs.<BR/><BR/>If you cannot do those two things then your 'belief' is irrational.Steve Horganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13689714700049747836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858848.post-19110647306431778012007-08-24T13:06:00.000-04:002007-08-24T13:06:00.000-04:00I think you need to recreate the attacks and colla...I think you need to recreate the attacks and collapses using chickenwire and some kerosene.Jay McHuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01708225059286944653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858848.post-8505570812003097202007-08-23T16:21:00.000-04:002007-08-23T16:21:00.000-04:00Hi Steve, Actually, I do not have to state my own ...Hi Steve, <BR/><BR/>Actually, I do not have to state my own theory to disprove a theory. Case in point: you are a pathologist, and they bring you a body without a head with a note stating that they believe this person died of a heart attack. You open the body up, find that the heart is just fine, and then state that no, their theory is not valid. You could then theorize that decapitation is a more likely scenario - but you don't have to if all you are trying to do is prove them wrong.<BR/><BR/>Getting back to the matter at hand - yes, I believe the sequential collapse of any kind of any building would take considerably longer than the free-fall time for said building, aircraft strike or not. The reason is the law of the conservation of momentum. Intact floors will offer resistance as their have the inertial momentum which will have to be overcome.<BR/><BR/>Now, like I said, I do not have to come up with a theory of my own as to how the WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed. Yet I could come up with a number of theories as to how that was accomplished. They would all be different from the official theory, and none of them would be in tension with the laws of physics.Boris Epsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08194890014852776515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858848.post-26762184186720462032007-08-23T15:07:00.000-04:002007-08-23T15:07:00.000-04:00You cannot defy the laws of physics unless you do ...You cannot defy the laws of physics unless you do magic. The buildings did what the buildings did. What there isn't, however, is a library of similar experiences of large, fast aircraft hitting extremely tall skyscrapers that make anything obvious about what happens next. So, if you think the way they fell is indicative of anything then in particular then please demonstrate. If your point is that you think they should have taken longer to collapse unless...well, you have to tell us what the unless is. Just saying that something defies the laws of physics is not just nonsense in itself and is meaningless in any wider context.Steve Horganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13689714700049747836noreply@blogger.com