Reply With Quote
I trust the actual experts on the subject with 10s of thousands of ac ulated years of knowledge over ST'ers.
But seriously, what do you think really happened on 9/11?
I can't believe someone actually said that.
I trust the actual experts on the subject with 10s of thousands of ac ulated years of knowledge over ST'ers.
But seriously, what do you think really happened on 9/11?
That most relevant question not only wasn't ignored, it was very obviously addressed. Directly. In the NIST report.
I worked it out myself.
As could you, if you wanted.
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.jod911.com/
PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m
Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.
SOOOO
The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.
Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.
They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.
Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.
Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:
v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second
Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m
This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.
Think about this for a moment.
The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.
Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.
STILL FURTHER
Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.
IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.
Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)
What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?
Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
They said they didn't feel it relevant, because it was really obvious. They concentrated their efforts at understanding the point of failure that started the initial collapse.
I already replied you ing shill.
But seriously, what do you think really happened on 9/11?
And drop the shtick. Not going through question after question.
Nailed it.Are you a structural engineer? High-rise building background?
Can you even understand what the symbols mean on any of these "charts"?
My theory is that 10-20 acres of office building weigh a lot, and that gravity is a thing.
Be sure to order the CD and the book.
Sucker.
Your overly simple theory requires some questions be asked.I already replied you ing shill.
And drop the shtick. Not going through question after question.
The collapses of WTC 1 and 2 have no resemblance to any controlled demolition. If you can't explain how it was demolished, your theory is worthless.
As an engineer, this should be a piece of cake for you.
Is that some idiotic piece of thing written by a 3rd grader? People eat this up?
That isn't anything. It doesn't describe how the stories fell. You would need a structural modeling system with the right loads to simulate the stories falling. Minimum.
Not some handkerchief doodle.
Great. Has ae911truth done that? I've only seen this model from them:Is that some idiotic piece of thing written by a 3rd grader? People eat this up?
That isn't anything. It doesn't describe how the stories fell. You would need a structural modeling system with the right loads to simulate the stories falling. Minimum.
Not some handkerchief doodle.
More derision and smilies. Reads like intellectual cowardice.
Are you agreeing that random got is wrong then?Great. Has ae911truth done that? I've only seen this model from them:
Not at all.Are you agreeing that random got is wrong then?
I'm asking you about your heroes there.
Have they done the modeling you spoke of? This is the only model I have seen from them.
Yeah you did.Not at all.
I'm asking you about your heroes there.
Have they done the modeling you spoke of? This is the only model I have seen from them.
When ya get yalls heads out of each other's asses, let me know.
I like schooling "supposed" "know-it-alls".
Nope. I'm talking to you.Yeah you did.
Has ae911truth done any of the modeling you spoke of? This is the only model I have seen from them:
School us on how you say the collapse was initiated in WTC 1 and 2.When ya get yalls heads out of each other's asses, let me know.
I like schooling "supposed" "know-it-alls".
Getting shook.
EngineeringGetting shook.
This sub-forum is below par tbh. No real thinking in here.
This sub-forum is below par tbh. No real thinking in here.
Show us dem engineering skills. Tell us how the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 initiated.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of do ents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, I need to stick to upstairs.
Actually the thickness of the columns is addressed in multiple places of the NIST report for a variety of reasons.Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings.
It is a tad beyond credible to suggest that the thickness of the columns was not considered even IF the exact dimensions were never given in the official report.
Lol "read between the lines"
What a pussy move
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
