WTC7 proves nothing about the Twin Towers, and vice versa.
I got partway (12 pages) through the 27-page tract that you reference. What was interesting to me was that the top 12 floors did NOT free fall, but descended at an acceleration of about 0.71g---which means that the collapse process was providing a resistant force equivalent to 0.29 g. So, instead of a "hard landing" and a spike in the acceleration profile, the collapse was a process in which the "impact" was softened by compression and yielding. This is reminiscent of the design of modern automobile bumpers and structure: to provide a resistant acceleration rather than a hard impact. Obviously, the Twin Towers were not designed with this in mind, but it is a necessary implication of the lack of a hard impact. Another necessary implication is that the collapse was imposing a compressive load on the underlying structure about 29% higher than the static load of the upper and collapsing floors. This, of course, would be increasing in accordance with the mass accretion of the collapsing floors. An interesting point of the paper was that they measured the collapse dynamics from photo-interpretation, and determined that the constant-acceleration collapse process proceeded for 114 feet before they lost view of the reference points on the building. With a floor height of about 12 feet (as assumed), this would be 9.5 floors---which means that the upper floors collapsed at a constant acceleration entirely through the damaged floors and into the lower portion of the building. Clearly, the collapse process was the same throughout this event, as there was no anomalous acceleration spikes or changes. It turns out that their analysis ended at page 13, so I didn't miss any of the plot. Their whole effort was to disprove the existence of an impulsive impact in the collapse process. Bravo for them. They did not mention the obvious conclusions I mentioned above, so I think they were focused on a rhetorical target of their own, rather than trying to solve the problem. The constant acceleration with resistance would seem to accord more with the mechanism I propose.
As for high-speed aircraft, I don't quite understand your point. Are you trying to say that the 767s did not collide at 510 knots? At some lower speed? What would be that speed and how would you come to that determination? They obviously crashed at whatever speed they crashed. And equally obviously, they were piloted at that speed. So, allegations of "it was impossible" are usually trumped by the fact that something happened. As for airspeed, it is rather amusing for a civil engineer to assert expertise about airplane design when talking to an aeronautical engineer. If the 767s crashed at 510 knots, then it is a fact that they were able to fly at that speed. I pointed out that land speed record automobiles have a record speed of 760 mph (660 knots), supersonic "on the deck," quite able to steer to a track within a 200-foot width. Reno Air Race competitors have flown in "sea level" conditions at 530 mph (460 knots) with modified P-51 Mustangs (propeller-powered). I don't think the structural integrity of a modern airliner is inferior to that of an airplane designed in the 1940s. There are episodes where jet airliners have exceeded the speed of sound in mid-flight accidents and recovered (usually with damage). But the 9/11 airplanes collided with the Twin Towers, perhaps in a damaged state before the collision. You get to tell me at what speed and how you know it.
FFS…what I’m saying is whatever hit the tower wasn’t a commercial airliner flown by a guy who only trained on a single engine Cessna going 80 knots. A commercial airliner has completely different aerodynamics than a fighter plane, even one from the 1940s.
The manufacturers own specs show its airframe would fail at 420 knots at sea level. No chance in hell theyd get it to 510 AND be able to control it even if they did somehow. Commercial pilots with decades of experience said its not possible to get up to 510 knots at sea level especially without a dive maneuver. Wtf else do you need to see?
WTC7 is relevant bc if someone rigged it for demo they’d also be able to rig the towers.
Re the towers since they received asymmetrical damage the top parts are f anything should have fallen over to the side like a tree being chopped, not pile drive straight down through the path of greatest resistance. Anyone who passed basic high school physics would know this. I’m done wasting my time on someone who clearly has their head up their ass.
If your general judgement is as good as your judgment about me, I have no fear.
Don't drivel about the implausibility of events. Tell me what its collision speed was, if it wasn't 510 knots. It happened. Somebody was pilot. Get with reality. And how do they get at their flight altitude to collide with the Twin Towers if they are not diving?
WTC7 is not relevant unless you can prove the Twin Towers and WTC7 were part of such a plot. You can't assume such a plot in order to claim that both WTC7 and the Twin Towers were part of a plot.
As I pointed out, regardless of the symmetry of the initial damage, when the limit load is exceeded on the floor as a whole, the column collapse process chain reaction will execute in a matter of milliseconds and the whole floor will collapse within that time frame. The damage will be asymmetrical only through the lead-up. Once the collapse begins, the whole floor will go nearly simultaneously. There will be no time to tilt. Anyone who passed basic university level physics would know this. You are done because you cannot address the mechanism, and you have zero tolerance for polite discourse.
WTC7 proves nothing about the Twin Towers, and vice versa.
I got partway (12 pages) through the 27-page tract that you reference. What was interesting to me was that the top 12 floors did NOT free fall, but descended at an acceleration of about 0.71g---which means that the collapse process was providing a resistant force equivalent to 0.29 g. So, instead of a "hard landing" and a spike in the acceleration profile, the collapse was a process in which the "impact" was softened by compression and yielding. This is reminiscent of the design of modern automobile bumpers and structure: to provide a resistant acceleration rather than a hard impact. Obviously, the Twin Towers were not designed with this in mind, but it is a necessary implication of the lack of a hard impact. Another necessary implication is that the collapse was imposing a compressive load on the underlying structure about 29% higher than the static load of the upper and collapsing floors. This, of course, would be increasing in accordance with the mass accretion of the collapsing floors. An interesting point of the paper was that they measured the collapse dynamics from photo-interpretation, and determined that the constant-acceleration collapse process proceeded for 114 feet before they lost view of the reference points on the building. With a floor height of about 12 feet (as assumed), this would be 9.5 floors---which means that the upper floors collapsed at a constant acceleration entirely through the damaged floors and into the lower portion of the building. Clearly, the collapse process was the same throughout this event, as there was no anomalous acceleration spikes or changes. It turns out that their analysis ended at page 13, so I didn't miss any of the plot. Their whole effort was to disprove the existence of an impulsive impact in the collapse process. Bravo for them. They did not mention the obvious conclusions I mentioned above, so I think they were focused on a rhetorical target of their own, rather than trying to solve the problem. The constant acceleration with resistance would seem to accord more with the mechanism I propose.
As for high-speed aircraft, I don't quite understand your point. Are you trying to say that the 767s did not collide at 510 knots? At some lower speed? What would be that speed and how would you come to that determination? They obviously crashed at whatever speed they crashed. And equally obviously, they were piloted at that speed. So, allegations of "it was impossible" are usually trumped by the fact that something happened. As for airspeed, it is rather amusing for a civil engineer to assert expertise about airplane design when talking to an aeronautical engineer. If the 767s crashed at 510 knots, then it is a fact that they were able to fly at that speed. I pointed out that land speed record automobiles have a record speed of 760 mph (660 knots), supersonic "on the deck," quite able to steer to a track within a 200-foot width. Reno Air Race competitors have flown in "sea level" conditions at 530 mph (460 knots) with modified P-51 Mustangs (propeller-powered). I don't think the structural integrity of a modern airliner is inferior to that of an airplane designed in the 1940s. There are episodes where jet airliners have exceeded the speed of sound in mid-flight accidents and recovered (usually with damage). But the 9/11 airplanes collided with the Twin Towers, perhaps in a damaged state before the collision. You get to tell me at what speed and how you know it.
FFS…what I’m saying is whatever hit the tower wasn’t a commercial airliner flown by a guy who only trained on a single engine Cessna going 80 knots. A commercial airliner has completely different aerodynamics than a fighter plane, even one from the 1940s.
The manufacturers own specs show its airframe would fail at 420 knots at sea level. No chance in hell theyd get it to 510 AND be able to control it even if they did somehow. Commercial pilots with decades of experience said its not possible to get up to 510 knots at sea level especially without a dive maneuver. Wtf else do you need to see?
https://i.imgur.com/wMoFVbr.png
WTC7 is relevant bc if someone rigged it for demo they’d also be able to rig the towers.
Re the towers since they received asymmetrical damage the top parts are f anything should have fallen over to the side like a tree being chopped, not pile drive straight down through the path of greatest resistance. Anyone who passed basic high school physics would know this. I’m done wasting my time on someone who clearly has their head up their ass.
If your general judgement is as good as your judgment about me, I have no fear.
Don't drivel about the implausibility of events. Tell me what its collision speed was, if it wasn't 510 knots. It happened. Somebody was pilot. Get with reality. And how do they get at their flight altitude to collide with the Twin Towers if they are not diving?
WTC7 is not relevant unless you can prove the Twin Towers and WTC7 were part of such a plot. You can't assume such a plot in order to claim that both WTC7 and the Twin Towers were part of a plot.
As I pointed out, regardless of the symmetry of the initial damage, when the limit load is exceeded on the floor as a whole, the column collapse process chain reaction will execute in a matter of milliseconds and the whole floor will collapse within that time frame. The damage will be asymmetrical only through the lead-up. Once the collapse begins, the whole floor will go nearly simultaneously. There will be no time to tilt. Anyone who passed basic university level physics would know this. You are done because you cannot address the mechanism, and you have zero tolerance for polite discourse.