there would only be a hesitation of perhaps a tenth of a second before the upper mass could move

It depends on the amount of the load. It depends on the initial direction of the load. it's in an unstable equilibrium. There is NO REASON that it would fall directly down given the different strengths of the supports. I agree that AT SOME POINT soon (very soon) after the initial fail the OTHER supports that did not initially fail would fail according to the direction of the critical load they experience, and that that direction would be mostly downward. You are saying "the initial load would have to be straight down." I am saying "There is no reason to suspect that, and I've given you numerous reasons to suspect otherwise that you refuse to address."

I am not assuming anything.

You are assuming there is no initial lateral load.

You have to grasp how fast this is happening.

That is not the issue I am having. The issue you are having is that you assume that is the issue I am having. There are almost certainly lateral loads INITIALLY. If there is any lateral load WHATSOEVER, the building will not fall into its footprint. That is why controlled demolitions do everything they can with their explosions to ensure there is no lateral load. ANY FAILURE causes a non direct collapse, as can be seen in numerous videos.

You keep ignoring what I'm saying. I'm not sure why but it's not really helping anyone.

that's because you are substituting cartoon imagination for thought and experience.

That's quite presumptive. The videos look like explosions because of the light. They look exactly like explosions in other building demolitions. Could that light be a reflection off the broken glass of the windows? Maybe, but it's not in the sun, and doesn't look like that at all. It looks exactly like light coming from inside.

I mean, you could do this all day with insults and plausibles, but it doesn't look that way to me based on my own experiences. It isn't that I want it to be a certain way. Why would I? I care only about the truth. You assume you know it. I assume I don't. But I won't concede based on insults and plausibles that go directly against what I see with my own eyes and compare directly to other events of the exact same type.

You really are a gifted gaslighter. It would help if you at least proposed a different explanation instead of using insults and plausibles as if they were "obvious truth." Either you don't understand what gaslighting is, or you understand exactly what it is and are doing it intentionally. If it is the latter, it suggests you are a glowie. I don't want to accuse anyone of that that is willing to engage honestly, but not addressing my actual points and gaslighting are not looking well for you.

there would only be a hesitation of perhaps a tenth of a second before the upper mass could move

It depends on the amount of the load. It depends on the initial direction of the load. it's in an unstable equilibrium. There is NO REASON that it would fall directly down given the different strengths of the supports. I agree that AT SOME POINT soon (very soon) after the initial fail the OTHER supports that did not initially fail would fail according to the direction of the critical load they experience, and that that direction would be mostly downward. You are saying "the initial load would have to be straight down." I am saying "There is no reason to suspect that, and I've given you numerous reasons to suspect otherwise that you refuse to address."

I am not assuming anything.

You are assuming there is no initial lateral load.

You have to grasp how fast this is happening.

That is not the issue I am having. The issue you are having is that you assume that is the issue I am having. There are almost certainly lateral loads INITIALLY. If there is any lateral load WHATSOEVER, the building will not fall into its footprint. That is why controlled demolitions do everything they can with their explosions to ensure there is no lateral load. ANY FAILURE causes a non direct collapse, as can be seen in numerous videos.

You keep ignoring what I'm saying. I'm not sure why but it's not really helping anyone.

that's because you are substituting cartoon imagination for thought and experience.

That's quite presumptive. The videos look like explosions because of the light. They look exactly like explosions in other building demolitions. Could that light be a reflection of the windows? Maybe, but it's not in the sun, and doesn't look like that at all. It looks exactly like light coming from inside.

I mean, you could do this all day with insults and plausibles, but it doesn't look that way to me based on my own experiences. It isn't that I want it to be a certain way. Why would I? I care only about the truth. You assume you know it. I assume I don't. But I won't concede based on insults and plausibles that go directly against what I see with my own eyes and compare directly to other events of the exact same type.

You really are a gifted gaslighter. It would help if you at least proposed a different explanation instead of using insults and plausibles as if they were "obvious truth." Either you don't understand what gaslighting is, or you understand exactly what it is and are doing it intentionally. If it is the latter, it suggests you are a glowie. I don't want to accuse anyone of that that is willing to engage honestly, but not addressing my actual points and gaslighting are not looking well for you.

there would only be a hesitation of perhaps a tenth of a second before the upper mass could move

It depends on the amount of the load. It depends on the initial direction of the load. it's in an unstable equilibrium. There is NO REASON that it would fall directly down given the different strengths of the supports. I agree that AT SOME POINT soon (very soon) after the initial fail the OTHER supports that did not initially fail would fail according to the direction of the critical load they experience, and that that direction would be mostly downward. You are saying "the initial load would have to be straight down." I am saying "There is no reason to suspect that, and I've given you numerous reasons to suspect otherwise that you refuse to address."

I am not assuming anything.

You are assuming there is no initial lateral load.

You have to grasp how fast this is happening.

That is not the issue I am having. The issue you are having is that you assume that is the issue I am having. There are almost certainly lateral loads INITIALLY. If there is any lateral load WHATSOEVER, the building will not fall into its footprint. That is why controlled demolitions do everything they can with their explosions to ensure there is no lateral load.

You keep ignoring what I'm saying. I'm not sure why but it's not really helping anyone.

that's because you are substituting cartoon imagination for thought and experience.

That's quite presumptive. The videos look like explosions because of the light. They look exactly like explosions in other building demolitions. Could that light be a reflection of the windows? Maybe, but it's not in the sun, and doesn't look like that at all. It looks exactly like light coming from inside.

I mean, you could do this all day with insults and plausibles, but it doesn't look that way to me based on my own experiences. It isn't that I want it to be a certain way. Why would I? I care only about the truth. You assume you know it. I assume I don't. But I won't concede based on insults and plausibles that go directly against what I see with my own eyes and compare directly to other events of the exact same type.

You really are a gifted gaslighter. It would help if you at least proposed a different explanation instead of using insults and plausibles as if they were "obvious truth." Either you don't understand what gaslighting is, or you understand exactly what it is and are doing it intentionally. If it is the latter, it suggests you are a glowie. I don't want to accuse anyone of that that is willing to engage honestly, but not addressing my actual points and gaslighting are not looking well for you.

there would only be a hesitation of perhaps a tenth of a second before the upper mass could move

It depends on the amount of the load. It depends on the initial direction of the load. it's in an unstable equilibrium. There is NO REASON that it would fall directly down given the different strengths of the supports. I agree that AT SOME POINT soon (very soon) after the initial fail the OTHER supports that did not initially fail would fail according to the direction of the critical load they experience, and that that direction would be mostly downward. You are saying "the initial load would have to be straight down." I am saying "There is no reason to suspect that, and I've given you numerous reasons to suspect otherwise that you refuse to address."

I am not assuming anything.

You are assuming there is no initial lateral load.

You have to grasp how fast this is happening.

That is not the issue I am having. The issue you are having is that you assume that is the issue I am having. There are almost certainly lateral loads INITIALLY. You again ignore that. If there is any lateral load WHATSOEVER, the building will not fall into its footprint. That is why controlled demolitions do everything they can with their explosions to ensure there is no lateral load.

You keep ignoring what I'm saying. I'm not sure why but it's not really helping anyone.

that's because you are substituting cartoon imagination for thought and experience.

That's quite presumptive. The videos look like explosions because of the light. They look exactly like explosions in other building demolitions. Could that light be a reflection of the windows? Maybe, but it's not in the sun, and doesn't look like that at all. It looks exactly like light coming from inside.

I mean, you could do this all day with insults and plausibles, but it doesn't look that way to me based on my own experiences. It isn't that I want it to be a certain way. Why would I? I care only about the truth. You assume you know it. I assume I don't. But I won't concede based on insults and plausibles that go directly against what I see with my own eyes and compare directly to other events of the exact same type.

You really are a gifted gaslighter. It would help if you at least proposed a different explanation instead of using insults and plausibles as if they were "obvious truth." Either you don't understand what gaslighting is, or you understand exactly what it is and are doing it intentionally. If it is the latter, it suggests you are a glowie. I don't want to accuse anyone of that that is willing to engage honestly, but not addressing my actual points and gaslighting are not looking well for you.

there would only be a hesitation of perhaps a tenth of a second before the upper mass could move

It depends on the amount of the load. It depends on the initial direction of the load. it's in an unstable equilibrium. There is NO REASON that it would fall directly down given the different strengths of the supports. I agree that AT SOME POINT soon (very soon) after the initial fail the OTHER supports that did not initially fail would fail according to the direction of the load they experience. You are saying "the initial load would have to be straight down." I am saying "There is no reason to suspect that, and I've given you numerous reasons to suspect otherwise that you refuse to address."

I am not assuming anything.

You are assuming there is no initial lateral load.

You have to grasp how fast this is happening.

That is not the issue I am having. The issue you are having is that you assume that is the issue I am having. There are almost certainly lateral loads INITIALLY. You again ignore that. If there is any lateral load WHATSOEVER, the building will not fall into its footprint. That is why controlled demolitions do everything they can with their explosions to ensure there is no lateral load.

You keep ignoring what I'm saying. I'm not sure why but it's not really helping anyone.

that's because you are substituting cartoon imagination for thought and experience.

That's quite presumptive. The videos look like explosions because of the light. They look exactly like explosions in other building demolitions. Could that light be a reflection of the windows? Maybe, but it's not in the sun, and doesn't look like that at all. It looks exactly like light coming from inside.

I mean, you could do this all day with insults and plausibles, but it doesn't look that way to me based on my own experiences. It isn't that I want it to be a certain way. Why would I? I care only about the truth. You assume you know it. I assume I don't. But I won't concede based on insults and plausibles that go directly against what I see with my own eyes and compare directly to other events of the exact same type.

You really are a gifted gaslighter. It would help if you at least proposed a different explanation instead of using insults and plausibles as if they were "obvious truth." Either you don't understand what gaslighting is, or you understand exactly what it is and are doing it intentionally. If it is the latter, it suggests you are a glowie. I don't want to accuse anyone of that that is willing to engage honestly, but not addressing my actual points and gaslighting are not looking well for you.