The 9/11 Forum

OneWhiteEye wrote:Does it result in a quantifiable deficit for observed pulverization in the context of collapse?

Considering the utter lack of experimental confirmation to support the notion that such a structure could "collapse" as the towers did without the assistance of explosives, I'm left with no reason to even accept the premise of your question.

Then you and I have nothing more to discuss on the subject.

Right, hence the reason I didn't bother to respond to the rest of your previous post.

Funny, I don't see you hammering away at Tony Szamboti because he believes in (and believes his calculations agree with) a rigid upper block. I don't even believe in it, only assert that it is a valid approximation for some analysis, and possibly good enough for other analysis, yet you ride me all the time about it. Hm.

I sure could use your 'understanding of physics' to help me out with T_Szamboti where I am arguing against a rigid upper block in a situation where it does matter and greatly influences the outcome of a particular measurement. No, on second thought, the handwaving won't be compelling there, either. Never mind.

It's disappointing that you can't just be happy Tony takes the time to humor the utterly unsupported explosiveless "collapse" premise to debate the characteristics of such a scenario, and instead are compelled to rant at me for having no interest in doing the same. Besides, the only time I even used the term "rigid" on this forum is in the illustration I presented previously, so I'm left to wonder where you are getting your "you ride me all the time about it" complaint from. Perhaps you've confused me with someone else?

That said, it seems you never actually understood my point about calculating PE, so I'll try a different example, with two identical upper masses with identical center of mass heights, and the only difference being orientation:



Surely you can see that while the upper mass might pulverize the lower mass in scenario A, that doesn't necessarily mean the upper mass in B will inflict any damage at all?

Pavlovian Dogcatcher wrote:It's disappointing that you can't just be happy Tony takes the time to humor the utterly unsupported explosiveness "collapse" premise to debate the characteristics of such a scenario, and instead are compelled to rant at me for having no interest in doing the same.

Yeah, sure.

I meant "explosiveless" of course. Anyway, I suppose I'll take your non-response to the rest of my previous post as tacit agreement.

Don't confuse consummate annoyance with agreement.

Your diagram was missing something.

Pavlovian Dogcatcher, have you seen Enik's recent work?

Guess not.