So still think the towers were brought down without bombs?

[ChumpDumper]

Fine, do a arc analysis of your own pic, tell me, do things fall upward? because they are there.Could you rewrite that in English?

Is the building falling upward so it got behind the debris? Is that what you are saying?

[ChumpDumper]

No, free-fall would mean that there was catastrophic truss failure at all levels, a statistical impossibility.So the buildings didn't fall at a free-fall rate. Thanks for the admission.

[Nbadan]

No, when the building collapses the lowest point should be equal to the arc of the falling trusses, since that is the strongest part of any building, in any 911 video, you can see piles of debris that are expanding upward from what science says should be the lowest arc of collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, I can see you no longer wish to discuss this rationally.I can see you never wished to discussed this rationally at all. You could never admit to something as painfully obvious as the fires on the north side of 7 WTC. Remember when we were talking about 7 WTC before you changed the subject yet again?

[Nbadan]

So the buildings didn't fall at a free-fall rate. Thanks for the admission.

No, techincally it fell faster, thus the need for a vacume effect like that produced by detonated charges.

[Nbadan]

I can see you never wished to discussed this rationally at all. You could never admit to something as painfully obvious as the fires on the north side of 7 WTC. Remember when we were talking about 7 WTC before you changed the subject yet again?

I did bring up the fires again. The fact there was little or no visible fires on the critical 6 and 5th floors where FEMA and the preliminary NIST report said there was that cased a 'conspiratorial like' chain of reactions that consequently led to the collapse of WTC7.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol How did the buildings fall faster than free fall when the debris fell faster than the buildings. You really have to explain why the debris fell faster than "faster than free fall" before you can switch subjects again.

[Nbadan]

:lol How did the buildings fall faster than free fall when the debris fell faster than the buildings. You really have to explain why the debris fell faster than "faster than free fall" before you can switch subjects again.

Look, it you throw a rock tied to wire and a rock not tied to wire off a building simultaneously, which one will fall faster?

[Nbadan]

* that should be rocks of equal density and weight

[ChumpDumper]

I did bring up the fires again. The fact there was little or no visible fires on the critical 6 and 5th floors where FEMA and the preliminary NIST report said there was that cased a 'conspiratorial like' chain of reactions that consequently led to the collapse of WTC7.Dan, maybe you are taking some kind of medication that makes you forget things. Here is what you said.
Now get this: the fire burnt for about 7 hours. During this seven hours, the fire never managed to reach the northern side of the building.

Here's a link in case you need proof.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1562512&postcount=110

Now after all the pictures that have been posted of the north side of 7 WTC on fire, I ask you this:

Did fire reach the north side of 7WTC?

[ChumpDumper]

Look, it you throw a rock tied to wire and a rock not tied to wire off a building simultaneously, which one will fall faster?If debris falls off a building that is falling faster than free-fall into a vacuum, which one will fall faster?

[Nbadan]

Dan, maybe you are taking some kind of medication that makes you forget things. Here is what you said.

Here's a link in case you need proof.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1562512&postcount=110

Now after all the pictures that have been posted of the north side of 7 WTC on fire, I ask you this:

Did fire reach the north side of 7WTC?

So what's your point Chump? Fixation a problem for you?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, your outright refusal to acknowledge a simple fact in the face of overwhelming evidence has indeed become a fixation for me. It's fascinating that you can't bring yourself to say "yes, there were fires in the north part of 7 WTC." It's that important to you to never concede even the smallest point, isn't it?

[Nbadan]

There was a fire visible through a window on the North side of the Tower, hardly a fire on the north side of the building, but if it will suffice your fixation then yes, there appears to have been a insignificant fire on the North side of WTC7. There feel better now?

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for correcting your own inaccurate statement.

[smeagol]

I'll let you in a little secret.

I'm the mastermind behind 9/11. I planned the attack and hired my two most trusted friends, mookie and Dan. They planted explosives inside WTC 1 and 2. They also put some in WTC 7, for the hell of it.

It was me who pulled the trigger, though.

Now I live in Argentina, so catch me if you can.

(yes, this is how stupid tou two guys sound)

[Nbadan]

There's a lot you don't know about 911. Read.

[ChumpDumper]

If he's read these threads he knows about all he needs to know.

[Nbadan]

Well then, we should send this thread to NIST and the Smithsonian because we've solved a complex puzzle that some of the greatest academic minds in the world have been unable to form a consensus on, even 6 years later

[ChumpDumper]

Which great academic minds are pushing the controlled demolition angle again?

Charlie Sheen?

Rosie O'Donnel?

[Extra Stout]

* that should be rocks of equal density and weight


I flunked physics.

[ChumpDumper]

Grades don't matter while super vacuums exist outside of controlled demolitions.

[Phenomanul]

* that should be rocks of equal density and weight


I flunked physics.



In physics terms....

nbadan has a flawed misunderstanding behind the concept of mass. Moreover, this mental hinderance prevents him from understanding the fundamentals behind the conversion of a mass's potential energy to kinetic energy through the momentum provided by gravitational acceleration.

In laymen's terms....

nbadan needs to brush up on his physics.

[mookie2001]

like Dr. Steven E. Jones?

[Nbadan]

In physics terms....

nbadan has a flawed misunderstanding behind the concept of mass. Moreover, this mental hinderance prevents him from understanding the fundamentals behind the conversion of a mass's potential energy to kinetic energy through the momentum provided by gravitational acceleration.

In laymen's terms....

nbadan needs to brush up on his physics.

:lmao

Your a moran. Why don't you try and answer my questions if you think you have such a masterful understanding of physics. I added those qualifiers just so anyone who attempted the question would assume that the rocks were of equal surface area.

[Nbadan]

Anyway, back to the original point, in March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower. The set of drawings does not include plans for the other six buildings in the World Trade Center complex. However, since the Twin Towers were of almost identical construction, it is safe to assume that the structural details that the drawings shown for the North Tower are also largely applicable to the South Tower.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/AA105_1.png

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

[Nbadan]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/low_core.jpg
This 66th floor core pic shows that most of the core columns retained their full outside dimensions well above the midpoints of the Towers. Of the sixteen columns bounding the long faces of the core, thirteen have outside dimensions of approximately 54 by 22 inches in this 66th floor section

[Nbadan]

Further...


http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/280307construction.jpg


These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell.

The buildings more or less fell into their own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished and there are only a few companies on the planet that can do it.

Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.

Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:
"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."

That is the one question I would like Phenomanal to answer.

:hat

[ChumpDumper]

What is meant by "significantly impeded"? How long does one expect each floor to hold up while twenty or thirty acres worth of building fall on top of it?

And I'd still like for you to answer why debris fell faster than the faster-than-free-fall building.

[Gerryatrics]

Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded

As opposed to naturally exploded?

[FromWayDowntown]

That is the one question I would like Phenomanal to answer.

Somehow, I don't think the now famous "nbadan dodge" is going to fly with dan on this one. I think he's serious about wanting an answer. Luckily for him, nobody who's asked him any questions about his theories in this thread was serious about wanting answers.

Clearly, those who were inquiring were simply blinded by their subjective biases and not seeking an objective discussion, which can only come with accepting as true dan's still unspoken theory about what happened to those towers.

Good luck, Phenomanal. Dan has called you out -- and unlike the rest of us, dan's serious. Really, really, really serious.

[Clandestino]

:lmao

Your a moran. Why don't you try and answer my questions if you think you have such a masterful understanding of physics. I added those qualifiers just so anyone who attempted the question would assume that the rocks were of equal surface area.

MORAN? or MORON? :lmao

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

mookie,


its about that nobody knows what the fuck happened, and the investigation, especially publicaly, was a complete joke, no rational person can be satisfied with the 911 commission report

A building (WTC7) is missing the bottom 17 rows of one corner after the main collapse, and you're wondering why it fell in that direction?

Find an axe and go cut down a tree, dumbass.

[mookie2001]

the 911 Commission Report was a complete joke
the investigation was a sham

[ChumpDumper]

Where is the outcry for the truth about St. Nicholas' Church or the Marriott hotel? They weren't ivnestigated by th 9/11 commission either!

[Die Thread Die!!!]

hi guys!

[Nbadan]

MORAN? or MORON? :lmao

A Moran is a republican moron...

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg

Try and keep up.

:hat

[gtownspur]

A Moran is a republican moron...

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg

Try and keep up.

:hat


Did you jiust admit to stupid(ity)?

[gtownspur]

Choad Bloatation, aggie marriot, conservative Ohio st. Linebackers, Rawfl rawfl.

[Phenomanul]

Further...


http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/280307construction.jpg



That is the one question I would like Phenomanal to answer.

:hat


I suppose Stevens had a way of analyzing the entire collapse with data obtained from?????

Yeah, what exactly do you think that the National Institute of Standards has been up to???... :rolleyes

All we could see was the shell of the building fall... The internal core was more than likely falling ahead of its outside framework. But I suppose Stevens was able to see the building's internal collapse dynamics amidst the smoke... That's quite some talent... How much longer did he wish each floor to delay the collapse?

Please nbadan... do yourself a favor and don't enter arguments you have no clue about... as in the underlying concepts required to participate.

If you wish to be duped by the conspiracy gang, be my guest... but at least provide a motive. You haven't really answered that one, have you.

[Extra Stout]

If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."
The professor is wrong. Video evidence shows that the central support columns collapsed about 15 seconds after the rest of the building.

[IceColdBrewski]

There was definitely a conspiracy to destory the WTC, Pentagon, Capitol/White House.

It included 19 Islamic men, mostly Saudi Nationals, who hijacked U.S. airliners and flew them into said buildings as part of their religious holy war against America.

Hope this has been helpfull.

[efrem1]

I guess those French lured those Moors deep into Europe as an excuse to launch attacks against them at Tours.

[Extra Stout]

Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413)

North tower collapse starts at 19:40. Core clearly visible starting around 19:50. Core can be seen collapsing around 20:05.

[Nbadan]

Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413)

North tower collapse starts at 19:40. Core clearly visible starting around 19:50. Core can be seen collapsing around 20:05.

That's the lower part of the trusses, and why it collapsed at all is a bigger mystery, but the top trusses collapsed with little to no resistance.

[ChumpDumper]

Great view of debris flying out towards 7WTC. Thanks.

[Nbadan]

...but yet the buildings immediately around WTC7 survived...

[ChumpDumper]

...because they weren't hit like 7WTC, weren't constructed like 7WTC and didn't burn uncontrolled for seven hours....

[Extra Stout]

...but yet the buildings immediately around WTC7 survived...
The Marriott didn't.

[Nbadan]

Scott Forbes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhauHfDJ4b4)

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you arguing that in two threads? Put that in the other one.

[Nbadan]

they have mixed....close one.

[ChumpDumper]

They only mixed because you mixed them with the same lame tidbit that had absolutely nothing to do with what was being talked about before. Congratulations.

[Extra Stout]

That's the lower part of the trusses, and why it collapsed at all is a bigger mystery, but the top trusses collapsed with little to no resistance.
The top trusses on the north tower were compromised by having a 747 fly into them.

On the south tower, the trusses were not so compromised; only one corner was taken out. And, as you would expect, the top of the south tower began collapsing at an angle. It fell first because 1) it was hit lower down, requiring the damaged supports to hold up a greater load, and 2) being hit at an angle the way it was introduced a greater moment of inertia than the north tower had (i.e., tendency to topple).

These buildings are designed to hold up static loads. They can handle some wind shear, and depending on where they are built, some seismic events. They are overdesigned so that a fraction of the supports can hold up the load if need be. But once failure occurs and they start in motion, the ballgame is over.

And, no, the collapse of the lower core is not a mystery. Their bases had a insane amount of heavy debris land right around them all at once at near-free fall speed.

[Nbadan]

And, no, the collapse of the lower core is not a mystery. Their bases had a insane amount of heavy debris land right around them all at once at near-free fall speed.

Not according to the official pancake theory, but we all know that's bogus.

[ChumpDumper]

Please give me your working theory that incorporates all of the theorlets that you have posted in the past five years.

Lets hear it.

[Nbadan]

The top trusses on the north tower were compromised by having a 747 fly into them.

So then it collapsed like a tree...wait a minute...

[Extra Stout]

Not according to the official pancake theory, but we all know that's bogus.
I don't know how exactly the pancake theory refutes the idea that the World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 fell in a matter of seconds, but anyway, it is not official, since NIST rejects the pancake theory.

I am getting rather frustrated with your offering up of little snippets of misinformation devoid of common sense. I think you basically don't care what the facts say, and simply will take it on faith that 9/11 is an inside job, because it fits your ideology and worldview.

[Extra Stout]

So then it collapsed like a tree...wait a minute...


I have zero understanding of any high-school science concepts, yet I think I am smarter than all of you.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, well, I'm getting tired of explaining how the official story to the towers collapse defied the laws of physics, yet all anyone offers me is answers that defy the laws of physics.

[nacho]

One more time for the slow learner's...........


A: Thermite charges place on beams.
B: Thermite residue of melted steel
C: white aluminum oxide. gas caused by Thermite



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg




Five months after the collapses molten steel was being pulled from the World Trade Center wreckage.

Conventional fires cannot explain the above, but thermite can.

A thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures (>2500° C) and provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_heat4.jpg





http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm




http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/therm2.jpg


EVIDENCE OF THERMITE

Photographic evidence strongly suggests that the secure computer rooms in both towers contained forms of Thermite, which had been pre-placed to destroy evidence and facilitate the collapse of the immense steel-frame towers while creating a deadly pyrotechnic spectacle.

After examining the photographic and physical evidence, Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University has concluded that the yellow and white glowing metal pouring from the east corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower was, most likely, molten iron created by a Thermite reaction.

[ChumpDumper]

One more time for the slow learners...........


A: Beam cut by torch at angle, standard practice.
B: Residue from cutting torch
C: Smoke from fires still burning under debris pile.



http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg




Rescue workers made extensive use of high-tech wizardry called "lights" they used to be able to see in the dark!

A thermite reaction generating extraordinarily high temperatures (>2500° C) would be melting their faces off of their skulls.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_heat4.jpg





http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm




http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/therm2.jpg


EVIDENCE OF ALUMINUM

Photographic evidence strongly suggests that the impact zones in both towers contained forms of aluminum, which had been pre-placed by terrorists in the form of Boeing 757s to melt from the fires caused by jet fuel while creating a deadly pyrotechnic spectacle.

After examining the photographic and physical evidence, every sane person has concluded that the yellow and white glowing metal pouring from the east corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower was, most likely, molten aluminum created by a fire. Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University has concluded that there is archeological evidence that Jesus Christ visited ancient America.

[FromWayDowntown]

:lol

[Phenomanul]

Classic Chump....

[Steve Perry]

Leave it to Chump to make a joke about 9/11 very sad,

[ChumpDumper]

The joke is the "truth" movement that can't even string together a workable alternate theory after five and a half years.

[Steve Perry]

Can't wait to hear your new jokes about the 32 dead collage students.


Do you even know how old that pic is that shows the melted Beams? And do you know what day it was when they actually brought torches to ground zero?

What do you know, besides tasteless jokes about a day where many died?

[ChumpDumper]

The joke I made was about you and it was in perfecty good taste. You are alive and well and subject to ridicule for making ridiculous posts.
Do you even know how old that pic is that shows the melted Beams? And do you know what day it was they actually brought torches to ground zero?Give me proof of the days those pistures were taken.

[smeagol]

The joke chump made has nothing to do with 9/11 and all to do with you and dan, mouse.

Man up and answer the question of who is behind 9/11 instead of trying to explain to us what happened that tragic day.

[Nbadan]

The joke chump made has nothing to do with 9/11 and all to do with you and dan, mouse.

Man up and answer the question of who is behind 9/11 instead of trying to explain to us what happened that tragic day.

You don't disprove a theory, and that's all we have about 911 6 years later, by trying to prove a alternative theory. You see if you can duplicate the theory under scientific conditions and you must adhere to set laws of physics, which as I have shown, the pancake theory does not.

[Nbadan]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

Yeah, the rescuers climbed over steaming hot debris and just happened to cut that beam in the same angle as a thermite charge. What an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't disprove a theory, and that's all we have about 911 6 years later, by trying to prove a alternative theory. You see if you can duplicate the theory under scientific conditions and you must adhere to set laws of physics, which as I have shown, the pancake theory does not.You haven't shown much of anything, and pancaking isn't a theory of a cause of collapse anymore, so that's a straw man argument these days.

We weren't asking you to prove anything. Just to state your working theory about what you think really happened on 9/11. Why is it so difficult to even speculate when you aren't even asked to prove your theory?

[Gerryatrics]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

Yeah, the rescuers climbed over steaming hot debris and just happened to cut that beam in the same angle as a thermite charge. What an idiot.

Do you even know what a thermite reaction is? Show me a "thermite charge" that cuts through steel columns at an angle like that. While you're at it, feel free to explain how anyone could attach these magic thermite charges to enough columns to collapse two 110 story skyscrapers without alerting any of the thousands of people that worked in the buildings.

[jochhejaam]

credo quia absurdum est

Understood

[johnsmith]

In response to the title of this thread:

YES.

[Extra Stout]

You don't disprove a theory, and that's all we have about 911 6 years later, by trying to prove a alternative theory. You see if you can duplicate the theory under scientific conditions and you must adhere to set laws of physics, which as I have shown, the pancake theory does not.
Which doesn't matter, because the pancake theory is not upheld by the official report.


Yeah, the rescuers climbed over steaming hot debris and just happened to cut that beam in the same angle as a thermite charge. What an idiot.
As shown previously:

1) You don't know whether those are rescuers.
2) That isn't steam.
3) Firemen work in hot conditions as part of their job. They even have clothing for it.
4) Thermite cannot cut at an angle. It cuts vertically.

You don't really have anything new to offer at this point. All you are doing is repeating arguments previously disproven and debunked. It has nothing to do with "the laws of physics" which you don't even understand anyway. You just want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

There is nothing left for this thread. It is time to close it.

[jochhejaam]

http://www.shingleberrysigns.com/design_icon/mandatory%2012%20keep%20locked.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Even if I was still a mod I wouldn't lock the thread. I think it's important to meet these fables and fabrications head-on. I don't think that anyone who still tries to perpetuate these stories that have been thorougly and repeatedly debunked is particularly interested in the truth, and the posts of the "truthers" in these threads when confronted with the facts or even a request for a coherent alternate theory support my claim constantly and consistently.

The sooner Americans let go of their thermite-coated fantasies of 9/11, the sooner they can deal with the real problems this country faces that caused and resulted from 9/11. If I can help that along in a limited way here, I'm glad to do it. These fantasies aren't difficult to dispell at any rate. Just a couple of mouse clicks.

[whottt]

Would you STFU? You sound like you're accepting an Oscar or something.

[jochhejaam]

You sound like you're accepting an Oscar or something.
Not unlike CD, I'd also like to thank everybody and anybody who ever had anything at all to do with the making of this thread. And I especially want to thank Kori for allowing me to become a member of this forum, thereby giving me the opportunity to possibly help others by presenting my humble opinions to this international audience.

Thank you.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm guessing whottt's comment was directed at me. Having him on ignore is a treat. I just wanted to explain why I have given so much attention to the "truthers" and their speculations. I'll put it in terms he might be able to understand. They piss me off.

[ChumpDumper]

Now, back to the topic:

Look at all the thermite cuts!

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24928919.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24929053.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24929050.jpg

Look at this one! The government had the audacity to write "save" on these beams like they were going to examine them. But everyone knows diagonal cuts on steel beams can be attributed only to thermite. The evidence is right in front of you sheeple! Wake up!

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912219.jpg

[mookie2001]

good pictures of those beams

that proves it

[ChumpDumper]

You can do anything with thermite.

Look -- Silverstein left his calling card on one of the beams using thermite!

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24928811.jpg

Of course he ordered the crosses to be cut later to cover it up and make it look like someone was making memorials, but it's obvious he did it for the insurance money. And of course the insurance industry paid him without even questioning his involvement. It's worldwide, sheeple!

[RandomGuy]

Here are some simple questions for anybody who thinks the buildings were brought down by demolition:


Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, Random Guy is back for a spell.

The questions above are simple questions, but I expect them to be met with evasive answers on the part of the "truthers", because CTers generally aren't really interested in truth so much as they are in sensationalism that sells t-shirts on their websites.

I would love to be proven wrong about that, really I would. All you have to do is give honest answers to these starting questions, and we can go from there on to more advanced ones.

Regards,
RG

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Great questions RandomGuy. And you're right, they'll be ducked, or rationalized away.

I can't believe this thread has gone on 13 pages, but I can't blame ChumpDumper for his continued posting. He's owning all the conspiracy dumbasses.

[RandomGuy]

Great questions RandomGuy. And you're right, they'll be ducked, or rationalized away.

I can't believe this thread has gone on 13 pages, but I can't blame ChumpDumper for his continued posting. He's owning all the conspiracy dumbasses.

They are very simple questions, and you would be surprised at how hard they are for CTers to answer.

This is the pattern of responses I have gotten in other forums:

RG: Are rubber ducks yellow?
(notice a simple, easy to answer, yes or no format)

CT: The giant conspiracy hates ducks and here are the links with pictures of ducks being sacrificed on satanic altars.
(notice that nowhere here is the question actually answered)

They have a disturbing habit that mirrors a politician in a news interview: instead of answering a straight, honest question, they go off and talk about what they want to talk about. :bang

Remember these questions are just starting points. I am perfectly willing to follow them where they go, and even give a few points to CTers. They just won't even be halfway honest and try. Hopefully I will get some intellectual honesty here, but I doubt it.

[RandomGuy]

Here are some simple questions for anybody who thinks the buildings were brought down by demolition:


Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?

Just so we can see this at the top of the next page.

[RandomGuy]

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)


I'll even give you another hint.

Remember to put miles per hour into either feet per second, or meters per second. RG likes metric, so I will do any converstion needed, if you want.

[mookie2001]

yes
yes
yes
yes
what do you mean brought down at free fall?
?
?
damage






all that still cant explain what a pisspoor excuse for an investigation the 911 commission report was

it was a joke
there is no explaination for building 7, the investigation was a sham, and all the evidence was destroyed

[mookie2001]

how many news stories have you seen in last couple of years about september 11th?, not about the firemens wifes, the heroes of ladder 4765, charlie sheen questioning september 11th, rudy gulianis leadership on sep 11th, the 911 commission report (gospel)

actual stories about the planes hitting, the structure, the collapse, the hijackers, the hijackers history, the fires

zero to 1?



would not the liberal media give us a theory?


I still think that part of the reason that there's little reporting on WTC 7 is that most of the world doesn't honestly care about why WTC 7 failed


What level of news coverage do you expect for an event that happened over five years ago?

[RandomGuy]

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?
----------yes
Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?
-----------yes
Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
------------yes
Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?
------------yes
If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?
------------what do you mean brought down at free fall?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)
----------?

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)
--------?

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?
----------damage


yay. Some honest answers.

We know a plane affects a buildings ability to bear weight now.

Does it increase its ability to bear weight, not affect it, or reduce it?

[Nbadan]

4) Thermite cannot cut at an angle. It cuts vertically.

You know nothing about building demotion. Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.

Behold the power of thermite (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585)

Notice the color of the smoke? Ok....

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2006/240406thermite2.jpg
Notice the smoke should be black if it is jetfuel (which would have burned quickly and extinguished itself from a lack of air supply and office furniture) this again is more consistant with the use of thermite.

[Nbadan]

As shown previously:

1) You don't know whether those are rescuers.
2) That isn't steam.
3) Firemen work in hot conditions as part of their job. They even have clothing for it.
4) Thermite cannot cut at an angle. It cuts vertically.

You don't really have anything new to offer at this point. All you are doing is repeating arguments previously disproven and debunked. It has nothing to do with "the laws of physics" which you don't even understand anyway. You just want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

There is nothing left for this thread. It is time to close it.

So your going with the firemen-rescuers-heros, what ever you want to call them, bringing a arc-welder, likely running off a big gas tank, to a raging fire? Idiot.

[Nbadan]

Would you STFU? You sound like you're accepting an Oscar or something.

For once I agree with Whott. Chumpy knows that his argument, much like the original FEMA and NIST reports of the WTC7 tower collapse, don't add up under the scrutiny of the scientific method. So it's much safer to label anyone who questions the sheeple story as a CT loon and declare premature ideological victory.

[Gerryatrics]

You know nothing about building demotion. Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.

Behold the power of thermite (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585)

Notice the color of the smoke? Ok....

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2006/240406thermite2.jpg
Notice the smoke should be black if it is jetfuel (which would have burned quickly and extinguished itself from a lack of air supply and office furniture) this again is more consistant with the use of thermite.

I'm still waiting for you to show us an example, any example, of "thermite charges" used to slice through steel columns. Heck, just give me an example of a thermite reaction being used in building demolition at all.

[Nbadan]

What Chumpy's not telling you is that the devil is in the details...look at one of the pics that he keeps posting again...

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24928919.jpg

Look closely....

Now look at the pic I posted again...

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

Notice the difference at the cut points? the pic I posted shows evidence of a chemical reaction consistant with thermite hot enough to melt steel, the pics he posted do not.

[sabar]

These conspiracy threads are so old. And predictable.

a) Here I'll make something up to advance my view point, knowing nothing about the exact mechanics of metalworking, but I did check google and wikipedia.
b) And here I make some random comment that ties to point A.
c) Despite the fact that this grey colored assumed gas could be 38,267 different substances, I'll single one out as definative proof of my view.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

Either way, in 13 pages, nothing has been proven except trash-talking and question-dodging skills.

[Nbadan]

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one.

[Nbadan]

These conspiracy threads are so old. And predictable.

a) Here I'll make something up to advance my view point, knowing nothing about the exact mechanics of metalworking, but I did check google and wikipedia.
b) And here I make some random comment that ties to point A.
c) Despite the fact that this grey colored assumed gas could be 38,267 different substances, I'll single one out as definative proof of my view.


Either way, in 13 pages, nothing has been proven except trash-talking and question-dodging skills.

Once again, applying the scientific method to the official explaination has nothing to do with presenting or proving alternative theories and everything to do with being able to duplicate a theory, or hypothesis, in a controlled situation. Alternative theories, like the use of thermite, only serve to muddy up what is already a very convoluted discussion, but I've tried to show that all the evidence it there for this type of reaction. Can I safely assume that thermite was used on 911? No, just that the scientific evidence is there and cannot be completely discounted as Chumpy so eagarly wants to do.

[Nbadan]

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?

Affect it's structural integrity how? Can it create a 'kink point'? yes, Would it explain the complete collapse of both towers? No.

[Nbadan]

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

Only at temps much higher than that generated by burning jet fuel. In fact, the jet fuel would have burned off very quickly, leaving only office furniture as the sole source of the fire. Not nearly hot enough.

[Nbadan]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

I'm not really sure what you are asking here. Random explosions would not go off in a sequential manner as there is evidence on some 911 tapes, there would be one or two big explosions.

[Nbadan]

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

Depends on the size of the explosions used. Shape charges would. This would also explain why some debris was thrown much greater distance than the debris pile of both towers. The explosions would have expelled the debris vertically. I can show you evidence that this is exactly what happened.

[Nbadan]

If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?

It's resistance. The debris is not what matters, that's just a distraction by debunkers, the debris clearly starts falling well before the building core collapses and should fall first. What matters is the speed at which the central core of the building collapses because the trusses are bolted together and the law of conservation of motion states that this resistance would considerable slow the rate of decent. For those of you unlearned, this means that it would have been impossible for the buildings to fall at 10 seconds under any other condition than that presented by a artificial vacume, like bombs.

[Nbadan]

When the frame couldn't hold the upper floors in place any longer, those floors began to collapse downward, one on top of the next. The reaction was more like a zipper being undone, which readily explains why the sides of the building appeared to peel away as its inner structure fell straight downward.

This is why I keep repeating that the pancake theory is bogus, this was posted by FWDT on page 5. So if the concrete didn't pancake, what happened to it?

[Nbadan]

The facade of the building could have fallen appreciably faster than the internal support columns and were that the case we wouldn't be able to confirm that theory from the available video takes of the collapse. After all, we can only see what occured to outside of the building. The flip side is that the support columns could have crumbled before the shell of the building followed suit. Again, no existing video clips of the collapse can confirm or debunk either theory because internal footage of the collapse, the 'smoking gun' element in this argument, does not exist...

According to Chumpy, it was the weight of the top collapsing on the bottom floors that caused the whole building to crumble, but not pancake, although we still don't know what happened to the concrete from all those floors, but the fascade would have fallen at free fall speed with no resistance.

I question your theory on the internal core collapsing first. There is just no way that would be possible since the core would have been the strongest part of the building.

[Nbadan]

http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/280307construction.jpg

According to Phenominal, the whole internal-core collapsed first, but as this photo shows, NOT LIKELY.

[Obstructed_View]

Exhibit B:

Here is one of the pics we are talking about, for those of you who haven't seen it:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns_small.jpg

Notice the beam directly behind the rescurer is cut at an angle. seemingly, some contend, by what is known by demolition experts as a thermite charge used to bring the building down at a known angle.

So how exactly would putting a charge on a column that is less than 50 feet from the ground make a building collapse from a thousand feet higher? Both buildings failed from the top, not from the bottom. There's plenty of video evidence of that.

Ask any demolition expert and they'll tell you that once you get the chain reaction started at the top that there's no stopping it and, with a building that large, no redirecting it.

I also find it incredibly puzzling that one portion of the conspiracy community says that the building was brought down from explosives because of the large amount of dust, but another portion questions what happened to all the concrete. :lol

[Obstructed_View]

Only at temps much higher than that generated by burning jet fuel. In fact, the jet fuel would have burned off very quickly, leaving only office furniture as the sole source of the fire. Not nearly hot enough.
That isn't remotely true. Steel loses half its strength at the same temperatures that jet fuel burns at out in the open, and this fire was in a building that was burning like a cigarette, so the temperatures were...

Wait a second, what am I doing? You aren't debating an issue based upon facts, you are pushing a political agenda by repeating things that you hear from others with the same agenda and you don't care how much you have to lie or cheat as long as the information is out there to discredit your enemies. Funny, that's what you constantly accuse other people of doing. Too bad you aren't as enlightened or intellectual as you like to let on.

[ChumpDumper]

Can I safely assume that thermite was used on 911? No, just that the scientific evidence is there and cannot be completely discounted as Chumpy so eagarly wants to do.However, everything you say points to thermite can much more easily point to something else.

Much, much more easily.

At any rate, I have a whole working theory about what happened on 9/11.

Do you?

[ChumpDumper]

What Chumpy's not telling you is that the devil is in the details...look at one of the pics that he keeps posting again...

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24928919.jpg

Look closely....

Now look at the pic I posted again...

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

Notice the difference at the cut points? the pic I posted shows evidence of a chemical reaction consistant with thermite hot enough to melt steel, the pics he posted do not.The pic you posted shows evidence that something was hot.

If you can tell me how every beam was cut during the rescue, recovery and cleanup phases of the WTC disaster - I'll give you a cookie.

[ChumpDumper]

According to Chumpy, it was the weight of the top collapsing on the bottom floors that caused the whole building to crumble, but not pancake, although we still don't know what happened to the concrete from all those floors, but the fascade would have fallen at free fall speed with no resistance.Well, you're reading part of my posts anyway. I said pancaking was a result of the initial upper-floor collapse -- not the initial cause of the collapse in itself. This is evidence enough to make me comfortable to use the word "pancaking" to describe what happened to the lower floors.

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912510.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912507.jpg

Whatever parts of the building that were freed of the structure indeed fell at near free-fall speeds.

Because they were free falling.

Faster than the rate of collapse of the entire building.

It's been shown numerous times and I frankly can't understand why anyone would try to say the building is collapsing faster than the debris which is free-falling.

Look at this one more time tell me the building is collapsing faster than this debris is falling.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/635459.jpg

[Nbadan]

I also find it incredibly puzzling that one portion of the conspiracy community says that the building was brought down from explosives because of the large amount of dust, but another portion questions what happened to all the concrete

It's very important because of the explosive power necessary to transform all that concrete in fine particles of dust, which is likely what happened.

[ChumpDumper]

Concrete dust can only be made by explosions?

[Nbadan]

The pic you posted shows evidence that something was hot.

If you can tell me how every beam was cut during the rescue, recovery and cleanup phases of the WTC disaster - I'll give you a cookie.

hot as in, chemical reaction hot....yes. The picture by itself is inconclusive, but when you add it up with other possible evidence of thermite use, like the molten together boulder of steel and concrete you just posted (what generated that heat?), white smoke coming from both towers at the base and at the point of impact, fires burning for weeks after the towers collapse, yada, yada, yada...and then the reports from NIST and FEMA turn out to be completely bogus, according to architectural designs recently leaked by a whistle-blower, you gotta start wondering...

[Nbadan]

Concrete dust can only be made by explosions?

Again, we are talking explosive power here. In order for that much concrete to turn to dust there had to be more explosive power than just the PE and KE generated by the collapse.

[Nbadan]

Wait a second, what am I doing? You aren't debating an issue based upon facts, you are pushing a political agenda by repeating things that you hear from others with the same agenda and you don't care how much you have to lie or cheat as long as the information is out there to discredit your enemies. Funny, that's what you constantly accuse other people of doing. Too bad you aren't as enlightened or intellectual as you like to let on.

What facts are those? and why is it that those who use no new facts always say they are basing their argument on facts?

[Nbadan]

That isn't remotely true. Steel loses half its strength at the same temperatures that jet fuel burns at out in the open, and this fire was in a building that was burning like a cigarette, so the temperatures were..

Hey mr. facts, what is the combustion temp and burn rate of jet fuel?

[ChumpDumper]

hot as in, chemical reaction hot....yes. The picture by itself is inconclusive, but when you add it up with other possible evidence of thermite use, like the molten together boulder of steel and concrete you just posted (what generated that heat?):lol I thought you might try to attribute that to heat. Here's a closeup of one of the "molten" objects:

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912511.jpg

Now I suppose you could tell me what kind of paper can survive a thermite reaction, couldn't you?


white smoke coming from both towers at the base and at the point of impact, fires burning for weeks after the towers collapse, yada, yada, yada...It's funny, for all the conspiracy theorists' wild ideas, they demonstrate a decided lack of imagination when it comes to visualizing the effects of a catastrophe of this scale. I showed a picture of the twisted mass and Dan can't even consider that it could be the result of really heavy shit falling on top of it -- nope, gotta be thermite. Fire burning for weeks? Can you imagine the amount of combustible material in the twin towers complex, above and below ground? Shit, we had a pile of mulch burn for three months.


http://www.centralmediaserver.com/woai/compostfire01-08-07.jpg
THERMITE IN HELOTES!



and then the reports from NIST and FEMA turn out to be completely bogus, according to architectural designs recently leaked by a whistle-blower, you gotta start wondering...Architectual designs <> working construction blueprints.

When the word "thermite" is used to describe everything that happened on 9/11, you gotta start wondering.

[Gerryatrics]

hot as in, chemical reaction hot....yes. The picture by itself is inconclusive, but when you add it up with other possible evidence of thermite use, like the molten together boulder of steel and concrete you just posted (what generated that heat?), white smoke coming from both towers at the base and at the point of impact, fires burning for weeks after the towers collapse, yada, yada, yada...and then the reports from NIST and FEMA turn out to be completely bogus, according to architectural designs recently leaked by a whistle-blower, you gotta start wondering...

Still waiting for you to explain these "thermite charges", or how thermite can be used to cut through vertical steel columns in a controlled manner. Take your time though, don't want to rush you.

[Extra Stout]

Idiot.
Liar.

[Extra Stout]

Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.
Lie.

[Extra Stout]

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg
Ironworker at WTC site cutting column with a blowtorch.

Nbadan is a pathological liar. We all know he will never give it up.

[xrayzebra]

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg
Ironworker at WTC site cutting column with a blowtorch.

Nbadan is a pathological liar. We all know he will never give it up.

You got to remember, dan has a track
record, he said so himself. You might
say he is plough-horse on a race track
of knowledge.

[Phenomanul]

It's very important because of the explosive power necessary to transform all that concrete in fine particles of dust, which is likely what happened.

Likely what happened??
Likely what happened??????

Since you're so sure... now I really want to hear the basis for your concepts on concrete.

Do you even know what type of forces can make concrete friable? What type of forces can pulverize it?

[Phenomanul]

You know nothing about building demotion. Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.

Behold the power of thermite (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585)

Notice the color of the smoke? Ok....

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2006/240406thermite2.jpg
Notice the smoke should be black if it is jetfuel (which would have burned quickly and extinguished itself from a lack of air supply and office furniture) this again is more consistant with the use of thermite.

Hundreds of different materials burn with white fumes/smoke. Why does your favorite answer - thermite - the only choice..... Oh I see... because it's the only one to suit your conspiracy needs.

[Extra Stout]

Likely what happened??
Likely what happened??????

Since you're so sure... now I really want to hear the basis for your concepts on concrete.

Do you even know what type of forces can make concrete friable? What type of forces can pulverize it?
Sorry, dan doesn't deal in facts or calculations. He's more the type who hopes to wear down opponents through persistent lying (a la Dick Cheney).

[Phenomanul]

http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/280307construction.jpg

According to Phenominal, the whole internal-core collapsed first, but as this photo shows, NOT LIKELY.

No buddy, that's not what I said... I said "if" the core fell first there is no way of telling considering that the view was entirely masqueraded by a huge plume of smoke and dust. And that your sources have quite some talent because they claim to know exactly how the dynamics of the collapse occured - without the data - and just from viewing what 95% percent of Americans saw that day.

I guess your picture would be more impressive if it managed to show what the massive core columns would do if they were critically damaged while still trying to sustain the weight of 1/4 of the building above.

[Nbadan]

No buddy, that's not what I said... I said "if" the core fell first there is no way of telling considering that the view was entirely masqueraded by a huge plume of smoke and dust. And that your sources have quite some talent because they claim to know exactly how the dynamics of the collapse occured - without the data - and just from viewing what 95% percent of Americans saw that day.

I guess your picture would be more impressive if it managed to show what the massive core columns would do if they were critically damaged while still trying to sustain the weight of 1/4 of the building above.

It's simple physics, if you can't see that then there is really no hope for you. As I have shown and you have failed to disprove, the inner core was the strongest part of the building. Even if some of the trusses near the point of impact did collapse on the inner core, the building would collapse like a tree, not down on itself.

[Nbadan]

It's funny, for all the conspiracy theorists' wild ideas, they demonstrate a decided lack of imagination when it comes to visualizing the effects of a catastrophe of this scale. I showed a picture of the twisted mass and Dan can't even consider that it could be the result of really heavy shit falling on top of it -- nope, gotta be thermite. Fire burning for weeks? Can you imagine the amount of combustible material in the twin towers complex, above and below ground? Shit, we had a pile of mulch burn for three months.

The Helotes fire wasn't buried under thousands of pounds of twisted wire and concrete, and it would not have burned nearly hot enough to melt steel.

[johnsmith]

Ok, this has to be a joke. Dan as clearly trolled all of us into a 15 page argument because he can't be serious with all this shit.

No one can honestly think this right? Well, except for Rosie.

[Nbadan]

Evidence of molten steel was found at the very base of the WTC towers, and is a matter of public record. Still the implications are clear: such a melting of a section of all the inner core box pillars is possible, using relatively simple technology. Such compounds could have been applied to the interior or the exterior of even the largest of these columns in a surreptitious manner, to accomplish the task of melting and collapse. The amount necessary for complete melting of a segment of even the largest box column was calculated, and found possible. Of course complete melting was not necessary to cause total truss failure: a lesser amount of a thermite-like compound could have been used to raise the temperature of the steel to a point where the columns would fail before melting, although some melting must have occurred to account for the steel pools.

[RandomGuy]

When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one.

You didn't really answer the question.

The question was:

How much kinetic energy, relative to the mass, an object moving 10 mph has.
10mph works out to about 4.44 m/s
Substitute that into the equation for kinetic energy and you get a kinetic energy=1/2*m*4.44*4.44=9.87m

Meaning that relative to the moving mass, the kinetic energy is about 9.87 times the mass.

Is this calculation correct?

[johnsmith]

You didn't really answer the question.

The question was:

How much kinetic energy, relative to the mass, an object moving 10 mph has.
10mph works out to about 4.44 m/s
Substitute that into the equation for kinetic energy and you get a kinetic energy=1/2*m*4.44*4.44=9.87m

Meaning that relative to the moving mass, the kinetic energy is about 9.87 times the mass.

Is this calculation correct?


And RandomGuy jumps in with a mathematical bitch slapping.

[RandomGuy]

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?


Affect it's structural integrity how? Can it create a 'kink point'? yes, Would it explain the complete collapse of both towers? No.

You did not answer my question.

Either a jet impacting a building at 400+ mph has an effect or not.

I will make it a bit easier for you.

Does a jet impacting a building:

1) Increase load bearing capacity of affected load-bearing structures
2) Decrease load bearing capacity of affected load-bearing structures
3) Have no effect on load bearing structures.

[RandomGuy]

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?


[non-answer]

Once again:
Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

[RandomGuy]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?


[non-answer]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

[RandomGuy]

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?


[non-answer]

Sigh.

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

[ChumpDumper]

The Helotes fire wasn't buried under thousands of pounds of twisted wire and concrete, and it would not have burned nearly hot enough to melt steel.The smoke was white, so of course it was thermite and therefore hot enough to melt steel. The bulldozer melted, there just isn't a picture of it. I read it on a web page somewhere.

[RandomGuy]

Iif the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?


It's resistance. The debris is not what matters, that's just a distraction by debunkers, the debris clearly starts falling well before the building core collapses and should fall first. What matters is the speed at which the central core of the building collapses because the trusses are bolted together and the law of conservation of motion states that this resistance would considerable slow the rate of decent. For those of you unlearned, this means that it would have been impossible for the buildings to fall at 10 seconds under any other condition than that presented by a artificial vacume, like bombs.

So the building is collapsing slower than a free fall?

[Extra Stout]

Really, this thread is warming my heart.

Conservatives and liberals have banded together towards the common cause of demonstrating just how complete an idiot dan is.

[RandomGuy]

This is why I keep repeating that the pancake theory is bogus, this was posted by FWDT on page 5. So if the concrete didn't pancake, what happened to it?

The pancake theory actually depends on the floor/outer wall joints coming apart which is not what happened.

The actual collapse mechanism, especially at the beginning depends on the strength of those joints, as the sagging interior sections start pulling sections of the face inward.

This is very aptly demonstrated by pictures that show sections unaffected by the initial jet impact bowing inwards.

[Extra Stout]

The smoke was white, so of course it was thermite and therefore hot enough to melt steel. The bulldozer melted, there just isn't a picture of it. I read it on a web page somewhere.
This thermite is everywhere, I tell you.

[Phenomanul]

It's simple physics, if you can't see that then there is really no hope for you.

It's the most likely assumption, the most likely scenario..... but even that can't be proven - because of a huge dust plume that covered everyone's view. There is a difference. If you cant' understand that concept "then
there is really no hope for you."


As I have shown and you have failed to disprove, the inner core was the strongest part of the building.

What a stroke of genius dan.... Really? The central core was the strongest part of the building? You don't say....

How does this fact prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the tower's collapse occured the way you claim it did (even if it did). You can't prove it.


Even if some of the trusses near the point of impact did collapse on the inner core, the building would collapse like a tree, not down on itself.

That would require a force acting along a horizontal vector to overcome the vertical force of gravity. I didn't see it. Did you?

If the towers didn't fall on their side even after significant horizontal forces crashed into the towers - huge passenger planes if you recall - what makes you think that the towers would want to tip over minutes after said impacts occurred??? Gravity - again acting along a completely vertical vector - became the dominant force imposed on the towers. Gravity usually causes objects to fall down towards earth's center of gravity - they only tip over when the normal opposing force creates a fulcrum. If that fulcrum is not created, however, the object will continue to fall along a vertical path. Now if you've managed to grasp that concept, here's the kicker. When sufficient momentum is created fulcrums aren't normally formed. Why is that? Because the static coefficient of friction is lower once an object is in motion.

[RandomGuy]

This is why I keep repeating that the pancake theory is bogus, this was posted by FWDT on page 5. So if the concrete didn't pancake, what happened to it?

The dust of the crash was composed only of about 10% concrete particulate.

The vast majority was insulation and gypsum from wallboard.

[ChumpDumper]

It's simple physics, if you can't see that then there is really no hope for you. As I have shown and you have failed to disprove, the inner core was the strongest part of the building. Even if some of the trusses near the point of impact did collapse on the inner core, the building would collapse like a tree, not down on itself.http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/635008.jpg

Certainly started that way. Then when the remaining side was stressed beyond it's breaking point, the building top started falling straight down. It's plain to see that's exactly what happened in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk

Simple physics.

[Phenomanul]

The dust of the crash was composed only of about 10% concrete particulate.

The vast majority was insulation and gypsum from wallboard.

and ceiling panels and crushed glass and sheetrock etc....

[Phenomanul]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/635008.jpg

Certainly started that way. Then when the remaining side was stressed beyond it's breaking point, the building top started falling straight down. It's plain to see that's exactly what heppened in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk

Simple physics.


Perfect illustration of the formation of the fulcrum... it occured at the beginning of the collapse because at that point the static coefficient of friction was higher than the kinetic coefficient of friction. Once the mass garnered speed (i.e. momentum) it was straight down from there....

edit: and more the likely the fulcrum was located around the area of the critically damaged core.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.perfectduluthday.com/popeSmoke.jpg
THERMITE!

[Phenomanul]

http://www.perfectduluthday.com/popeSmoke.jpg
THERMITE!


I guess this also means that they use thermite to announce the selection of a new pope (Eurotrip)....

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe Silverstein is Catholic. We should check into this.

[Nbadan]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/635008.jpg

Certainly started that way. Then when the remaining side was stressed beyond it's breaking point, the building top started falling straight down. It's plain to see that's exactly what heppened in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk

Simple physics.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/northtowerpath.jpghttp://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/southtowerpath.jpg

The first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side. Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry. This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south.

If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree

[Phenomanul]

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/northtowerpath.jpghttp://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/southtowerpath.jpg

The first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side. Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry. This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south.

If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree


Is it so hard to imagine that the instability began right above the impact zone and not below it?

[ChumpDumper]

Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry. This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south.Not that remarkable.

How much does 20 or 30 acres of office building weigh? How long did the fulcrum effect last? Was the resulting horizontal force greater than that of gravity on 20 or 30 acres of office building?

[RandomGuy]

Again, we are talking explosive power here. In order for that much concrete to turn to dust there had to be more explosive power than just the PE and KE generated by the collapse.

PE = m x g x h

Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.

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

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 foot 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. :rolleyes

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.

[RandomGuy]

Not that remarkable.

How much does 20 or 30 acres of office building weigh? How long did the fulcrum effect last? Was the resulting horizontal force greater than that of gravity on 20 or 30 acres of office building?

The fulcrum effect lasted for a VERY short period of time. The point of fulcrum was crumbling as it was falling.

Dan says that the building was being collapsed artificially fast because of explosives.

This means that the explosive/collapsing wave front should be moving as fast an an object in free fall would.

The top of that building started falling through the air at free fall acceleration, the portions that didn't should have falling through the "resistanceless" building (because of the explosives of course) just as fast.

Go back to the pictures and that section is VERY clearly falling faster.

Dan's argument misses some aspects of falling bodies as well.

[Nbadan]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?


http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/sor11.jpg

Where is the energy coming from directing matter skywards?

A "gravity collapse" does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a siesmic spike. It takes energy to project matter upwards and outwards.

[Nbadan]

Dan's argument misses some aspects of falling bodies as well.

I've already covered that, go back and reread what I posted on this.

[RandomGuy]

I've already covered that, go back and reread what I posted on this.

If I drop a bowling ball and a 1/2 inch ball bearing from 10 feet, which will hit the ground first?

[RandomGuy]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?


[non-answer #1]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?


[non-answer #2]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

[ChumpDumper]

A "gravity collapse" does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a siesmic spike. It takes energy to project matter upwards and outwards.I don't see why you have to pretend that explosives were necessary to bring down the building after the upper section started coming down.

[Nbadan]

The entire 110 story structure weighed 500,000 tonnes and the plane hit between the 94th and 98th floors according to the FEMA report.

That's around 4545 tonnes per floor, if we take damage from the 90th floor upwards, that amounts to around 99090 tonnes traveling at 10m/s with an arrest in that velocity not long after, before a continuation of the collapse.

That's enough to pancake the building, however, it is not enough to create a "mushroom" effect, as the force is distributed over a wide area and what is being ejected is 30-700 micron particles of concrete. The gravitational energy, of a single tower, would be around 400,000 KWH, in excess of 1,400,000 KWH is required to produce particles of this magnitude.

That's 1,000,000 KWH of energy unaccounted for.

I have considered the "bicycle pump effect", where the collapsing matter compressed the interior atmosphere rapidly, causing it to super-heat and, thus, convert the 200,000+ gallons of water to steam and ejecting it out through the top, however, such an event would have blown out every window...it would be almost like a scene from the film "Independence Day". No such event occurs.

That tells us that compression from the top was not a factor. The ONLY thing that is left is a shockwave travelling from the bottom, to the top, in a HIGHLY directed fashion, with an estimated energy of around 1,000,000 KWH. This results in the "compression" of concrete to fine dust and the upwards thrust ejecting material 100m-200m into the air and pretty much in diameter also.

In addition to this, it was clearly reported on National TV, of the existance of not only a basement level explosion, but also, of secondary devices.

[RandomGuy]

The entire 110 story structure weighed 500,000 tonnes and the plane hit between the 94th and 98th floors according to the FEMA report.

That's around 4545 tonnes per floor, if we take damage from the 90th floor upwards, that amounts to around 99090 tonnes traveling at 10m/s with an arrest in that velocity not long after, before a continuation of the collapse.

That's enough to pancake the building, however, it is not enough to create a "mushroom" effect, as the force is distributed over a wide area and what is being ejected is 30-700 micron particles of concrete. The gravitational energy, of a single tower, would be around 400,000 KWH, in excess of 1,400,000 KWH is required to produce particles of this magnitude.

That's 1,000,000 KWH of energy unaccounted for.

I have considered the "bicycle pump effect", where the collapsing matter compressed the interior atmosphere rapidly, causing it to super-heat and, thus, convert the 200,000+ gallons of water to steam and ejecting it out through the top, however, such an event would have blown out every window...it would be almost like a scene from the film "Independence Day". No such event occurs.

That tells us that compression from the top was not a factor. The ONLY thing that is left is a shockwave travelling from the bottom, to the top, in a HIGHLY directed fashion, with an estimated energy of around 1,000,000 KWH. This results in the "compression" of concrete to fine dust and the upwards thrust ejecting material 100m-200m into the air and pretty much in diameter also.

In addition to this, it was clearly reported on National TV, of the existance of not only a basement level explosion, but also, of secondary devices.


PE = m x g x h

Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.

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

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 foot 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. :rolleyes

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.

[Nbadan]

Think of a pixie straw filled with debris at the top end and the mushroom cloud effect you see in the above pic.

[Nbadan]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

No.

[Nbadan]

real source of white smoke to announce pope..


http://www.waynebesen.com/uploaded_images/benedict_xvi-775685.jpg

[Nbadan]

I don't see why you have to pretend that explosives were necessary to bring down the building after the upper section started coming down.

We have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained temperatures of 800oC in order to buckle (not melt) — at the same time. But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26) And then to reach the 800oC at the same time, well, no, this scenario is far too improbable.

So that approach was abandoned by FEMA in the next effort (FEMA, 2002). The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eager (Eager and Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Instead of having the columns fail simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But not so fast — what happens to the enormous core columns to which the floors were firmly attached? Why don’t these remain standing like a spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel core is founded on bedrock (Manhattan schist). FEMA does not totally ignore the core:

As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column splice connections and also collapsed.” (FEMA. 2002)

This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the 47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of requiring the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.

That didn’t work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board. They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse.

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers?

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

[RandomGuy]

The entire 110 story structure weighed 500,000 tonnes and the plane hit between the 94th and 98th floors according to the FEMA report.

That's around 4545 tonnes per floor, if we take damage from the 90th floor upwards, that amounts to around 99090 tonnes traveling at 10m/s with an arrest in that velocity not long after, before a continuation of the collapse.

That's enough to pancake the building, however, it is not enough to create a "mushroom" effect, as the force is distributed over a wide area and what is being ejected is 30-700 micron particles of concrete. The gravitational energy, of a single tower, would be around 400,000 KWH, in excess of 1,400,000 KWH is required to produce particles of this magnitude.

That's 1,000,000 KWH of energy unaccounted for.

I have considered the "bicycle pump effect", where the collapsing matter compressed the interior atmosphere rapidly, causing it to super-heat and, thus, convert the 200,000+ gallons of water to steam and ejecting it out through the top, however, such an event would have blown out every window...it would be almost like a scene from the film "Independence Day". No such event occurs.

That tells us that compression from the top was not a factor. The ONLY thing that is left is a shockwave travelling from the bottom, to the top, in a HIGHLY directed fashion, with an estimated energy of around 1,000,000 KWH. This results in the "compression" of concrete to fine dust and the upwards thrust ejecting material 100m-200m into the air and pretty much in diameter also.

In addition to this, it was clearly reported on National TV, of the existance of not only a basement level explosion, but also, of secondary devices.

1) Show your calculations for 400,000 KWH

2) Most of that dust wasn't concrete, it was wall board and insulation.

[Nbadan]

Most of that dust wasn't concrete, it was wall board and insulation

something had to happen to the concrete. It didn't pancake.

[RandomGuy]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?


No.

:rolleyes

So, if I can find ONE instance where a noise that sounds like an explosion is not a bomb, that would mean that you are either ignorant or intentially lying about this.

Anybody care to look for explosive noises that aren't bombs on the internet?

Betcha if we all pooled our talent, we could find one if not more. ;)

[FromWayDowntown]

For whatever it's worth, here's the link that dan forgot in his failure to attribute his conclusions to their real source: Physics 911 (http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones)

[RandomGuy]

something had to happen to the concrete. It didn't pancake.

Only about 10% of the concrete was really unaccounted for, if memory serves. Erg, can't remember where I saw it.

[RandomGuy]

For whatever it's worth, here's the link that dan forgot in his failure to attribute his conclusions to their real source: Physics 911 (http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones)

Physics 911 is a joke. My response YET AGAIN, because I am still waiting on dan to address anything in it:
PE = m x g x h

Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.

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

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 foot 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. :rolleyes

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.

[xrayzebra]

^^you lost dan after your first sentence. He has problems
dressing himself, much less addressing anything with more than
two words in the sentence. He just learned how to cut and paste
a few years ago. And how to google.

[ChumpDumper]

namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses.Dan, don't you remember posting that 40 floors worth of central column was left standing for a time after the initial collapse?

Is it difficult to keep track of which conspiracy contradicts the other?

[RandomGuy]

If I drop a bowling ball and a 1/2 inch ball bearing from 10 feet, which will hit the ground first?

Dan probably won't address this either, so let's examine THIS too.

They hit the ground at the same time.

Now, imagine you superglue that ball bearing to the WTC roof, and at the same time, suspend the bowling ball from a helicopter on a rope so that the bowling ball it at the EXACT same level as the ball bearing.

Start the collapse.

The ballbearing/top section tilts over and falls through the air, just as in the picture.

At the same time you drop the bowling ball.

The ball bearing will hit the ground slightly after the bowling ball, because the first instant or two had some resistance as it was toppling over, but within a minute fraction of a second, in other words, effectively at the same time.

Try the experiment again.

This time, drop the ball THROUGH the building at the same time the ball bearing starts to move.

IF dan's thesis is correct, the bowling ball will hit the ground AT THE SAME TIME, because he says that the building is being collapsed at a simulated free fall speed because of explosions.

SO at everypoint in that fall, the bowling ball, falling and following the collapsing wavefront, should be at the same level.

The wavefront of the collapse and the FIRST part of the falling section should be at the same level AT ALL TIMES.

Is this what the pictures show?

[RandomGuy]

At this point, it is worth noting that I am an accountant with a liberal arts background. I have had only two semesters of physics in the last 20 years.

THAT is how little expertise it takes to see through the "911 Physics" bullshit.

[ChumpDumper]

http://concretecore.741.com/images/southcorestands.gif

So where exactly were the core charges placed?

[ChumpDumper]

And why would they cause the top of the building to come down at an angle initially?

[Nbadan]

Only about 10% of the concrete was really unaccounted for, if memory serves. Erg, can't remember where I saw it.

So what happened to the concrete?

[Nbadan]

For whatever it's worth, here's the link that dan forgot in his failure to attribute his conclusions to their real source: Physics 911 (http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones)

One of many sources, but you forgot that part.

[Nbadan]

Physics 911 is a joke. My response YET AGAIN, because I am still waiting on dan to address anything in it:
PE = m x g x h

Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.

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

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 foot 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. :rolleyes

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.


Your assuming that the top of the building came down in one huge load-bearing piece, which every video of the collapse shows not to be the case. The top part of the building crumbles into millions of little pieces many of which fall off the side as it hits the lower part of the towers that are still standing, other which are unexplainably shot hundreds of feet away from the footprints of both towers. This all requires huge amounts of energy, neither of which your calculations have accounted for, RG.

[RandomGuy]

300C is all it takes for steel to lose 20% of its loadbearing capacity.

1100C melts steel.

Does a steel column have to be melted to sag from load?

No.

If a good chunk of the damaged sections columns were taken out, say 12 out of 47, then the remaining bits would have to take up the extra load.

Keep things simple here, and take one divided by 47 is .0212, meaning each column bears 2.12 percent of the total undamaged load that the columns were designed for.

Now take out 12 of those columns. one divided by 35 is .0285, or 2.85% of the load they were designed for.

Doesn't sound like much of a difference does it?

BUT

Divide 2.85 by 2.12 and you get 1.34

Taking out 25% of the columns (12/47) means that the remaining columns must bear 34% more weight EACH.

So if all it takes is 300C heat to cause a 20% loss, and each column is bearing around 34% more weight, let's see how that works out when you plug some numbers into it.

Assume the column is designed to hold, say 140 pounds, and only holds 100.

Now sap 20% of the strength out of the column. 140-28= 112.
Now add 34% of the load to the column, or another 34 pounds.

The column is holding 134 pounds, but it can only hold 112 because it has lost load bearing capacity.

These are arbitrary numbers, but you see the principle.

If you put a greater load on something and at the same time start reducing that thing's ability to bear loads, it doesn't take much for the load to overwhelm the resistance.

In the above example, the column would have to be designed to bear 168% of the load it currently does to not collapse.

IN ADDITION

Before the collapse, the steel will become somewhat plastic, meaning it will start to sag, you will see this when the steel starts getting close to the point at which the loads it bears exceeds its capacity.

This is exactly what we started to see in the WTC. The inner columns started to sag, and this started to bow the floor inwards, as the floor bows inwards, it pulled on the outer face of the building that wasn't damaged by the plane impacts. The floor/wall connections here serve to help the building hold up a bit longer as the load is transferred to the outer skin somewhat.

[RandomGuy]

Your assuming that the top of the building came down in one huge load-bearing piece, which every video of the collapse shows not to be the case. The top part of the building crumbles into millions of little pieces many of which fall off the side as it hits the lower part of the towers that are still standing, other which are unexplainably shot hundreds of feet away from the footprints of both towers. This all requires huge amounts of energy, neither of which your calculations have accounted for, RG.

Ok then.

Let's assume it came down in 100 peices.

Does that alter the amount of kinetic energy?

[ChumpDumper]

This all requires huge amounts of energy, neither of which your calculations have accounted for, RG.

the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would.Maybe it's me, but that seems like alot of energy.

[Nbadan]

300C is all it takes for steel to lose 20% of its loadbearing capacity.

1100C melts steel.

Does a steel column have to be melted to sag from load?

No.

If a good chunk of the damaged sections columns were taken out, say 12 out of 47, then the remaining bits would have to take up the extra load.

Keep things simple here, and take one divided by 47 is .0212, meaning each column bears 2.12 percent of the total undamaged load that the columns were designed for.

Now take out 12 of those columns. one divided by 35 is .0285, or 2.85% of the load they were designed for.

Doesn't sound like much of a difference does it?

BUT

Divide 2.85 by 2.12 and you get 1.34

Taking out 25% of the columns (12/47) means that the remaining columns must bear 34% more weight EACH.

So if all it takes is 300C heat to cause a 20% loss, and each column is bearing around 34% more weight, let's see how that works out when you plug some numbers into it.

Assume the column is designed to hold, say 140 pounds, and only holds 100.

Now sap 20% of the strength out of the column. 140-28= 112.
Now add 34% of the load to the column, or another 34 pounds.

The column is holding 134 pounds, but it can only hold 112 because it has lost load bearing capacity.

These are arbitrary numbers, but you see the principle.

If you put a greater load on something and at the same time start reducing that thing's ability to bear loads, it doesn't take much for the load to overwhelm the resistance.

In the above example, the column would have to be designed to bear 168% of the load it currently does to not collapse.

IN ADDITION

Before the collapse, the steel will become somewhat plastic, meaning it will start to sag, you will see this when the steel starts getting close to the point at which the loads it bears exceeds its capacity.

This is exactly what we started to see in the WTC. The inner columns started to sag, and this started to bow the floor inwards, as the floor bows inwards, it pulled on the outer face of the building that wasn't damaged by the plane impacts. The floor/wall connections here serve to help the building hold up a bit longer as the load is transferred to the outer skin somewhat.


So tell me RG, how did each floor of all three towers meet the necessary temperature for simulaneous truss collapse? Otherwise, explain to me how the buildings all fell at free fall speed again?

[ChumpDumper]

Otherwise, explain to me how the buildings all fell at free fall speed again?They didn't.

[RandomGuy]

Your assuming that the top of the building came down in one huge load-bearing piece, which every video of the collapse shows not to be the case. The top part of the building crumbles into millions of little pieces many of which fall off the side as it hits the lower part of the towers that are still standing, other which are unexplainably shot hundreds of feet away from the footprints of both towers. This all requires huge amounts of energy, neither of which your calculations have accounted for, RG.

Further, let's assume that half the mass falls off to the side.

Half of 75 is what? 37.5

This means that the half that did impact hit with the force of only 37.5 times the mass of the stationary whole.

37 is still a abit more than 1

Hell, let's go for it and assume that 90% of the mass fell off to the side.

75*.1=7.5

Last I checked, 7.5 still is bigger than 1.2.

Now let's examine that "shot hundreds of feet" bit.

Let's assume hundreds of feet =300 feet.

Lets assume no "gliding" or air resistance.

Let's use your figure of 10 seconds for the collapse.

300/10=30 feet per second. (assuming no additional acceleration after initial force)

That is 20 miles per hour.

Hmmm. That doesn't meet my definition of "shot".

[RandomGuy]

So tell me RG, how did each floor of all three towers meet the necessary temperature for simulaneous truss collapse? Otherwise, explain to me how the buildings all fell at free fall speed again?

The buildings didn't fall at free fall speeds, the pictures clearly show they didn't.



If I drop a bowling ball and a 1/2 inch ball bearing from 10 feet, which will hit the ground first?

Dan probably won't address this either, so let's examine THIS too.

They hit the ground at the same time.

Now, imagine you superglue that ball bearing to the WTC roof, and at the same time, suspend the bowling ball from a helicopter on a rope so that the bowling ball it at the EXACT same level as the ball bearing.

Start the collapse.

The ballbearing/top section tilts over and falls through the air, just as in the picture.

At the same time you drop the bowling ball.

The ball bearing will hit the ground slightly after the bowling ball, because the first instant or two had some resistance as it was toppling over, but within a minute fraction of a second, in other words, effectively at the same time.

Try the experiment again.

This time, drop the ball THROUGH the building at the same time the ball bearing starts to move.

IF dan's thesis is correct, the bowling ball will hit the ground AT THE SAME TIME, because he says that the building is being collapsed at a simulated free fall speed because of explosions.

SO at everypoint in that fall, the bowling ball, falling and following the collapsing wavefront, should be at the same level.

The wavefront of the collapse and the FIRST part of the falling section should be at the same level AT ALL TIMES.

Is this what the pictures show?

[RandomGuy]

For whatever it's worth, here's the link that dan forgot in his failure to attribute his conclusions to their real source: Physics 911


One of many sources, but you forgot that part.

That's the problem with shitty 9-11 conspiracy websites.

ONE bit gets picked up and posted as fact in every one of them as gospel.

The fact that 100 people say the sky is green, does not prove the sky is green.

That is a logical fallacy, by the way.

[RandomGuy]

So tell me RG, how did each floor of all three towers meet the necessary temperature for simulaneous truss collapse? Otherwise, explain to me how the buildings all fell at free fall speed again?

Why did the second building to be hit collapse first?

[RandomGuy]

Your assuming that the top of the building came down in one huge load-bearing piece, which every video of the collapse shows not to be the case. The top part of the building crumbles into millions of little pieces many of which fall off the side as it hits the lower part of the towers that are still standing, other which are unexplainably shot hundreds of feet away from the footprints of both towers. This all requires huge amounts of energy, neither of which your calculations have accounted for, RG.


One building collapsed in essence as one piece, and the other had some central failure.

Either method of collapse will still give enough mass to collapse the building.

Remember that kinetic energy increases at a SQUARED function of velocity. A little bit of velocity equals a LOT of kinetic energy.

[RandomGuy]

This is why I keep repeating that the pancake theory is bogus, this was posted by FWDT on page 5. So if the concrete didn't pancake, what happened to it?

The pancake theory actually depends on the floor/outer wall joints coming apart which is not what happened.

The actual collapse mechanism, especially at the beginning depends on the strength of those joints, as the sagging interior sections start pulling sections of the face inward.

This is very aptly demonstrated by pictures that show sections unaffected by the initial jet impact bowing inwards.

[RandomGuy]

Evidence of molten steel was found at the very base of the WTC towers, and is a matter of public record. Still the implications are clear: such a melting of a section of all the inner core box pillars is possible, using relatively simple technology. Such compounds could have been applied to the interior or the exterior of even the largest of these columns in a surreptitious manner, to accomplish the task of melting and collapse. The amount necessary for complete melting of a segment of even the largest box column was calculated, and found possible. Of course complete melting was not necessary to cause total truss failure: a lesser amount of a thermite-like compound could have been used to raise the temperature of the steel to a point where the columns would fail before melting, although some melting must have occurred to account for the steel pools.

That evidence was taken of a picture of molten metal that was presumed by 9-11 conspiracy theorists to be molten steel.

Were there other metals in the towers, other than steel?

Yes.

IF this is the case, can one logically conclude that any molten metal at the site was steel?

No.

There are even eyewitness accounts of people saying they saw "molten steel".

Did they see molten steel or molten metal?

It is a huge speculative leap to think that any molten metal is steel without actually running it through a sprectrograph.

Don't pull the "my guess is an absolute fact" bullshit with me.

[Nbadan]

The NIST report completely fails to deal with the important dynamic aspects of the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 since the Final Report only deals with tipping as a problem of STATICS. NIST's "global collapse ensued" mantra is a total cop-out, whereby the problem of the collapse is abandoned before it has begun!

To make matters worse, NIST give TWO descriptions of the pre-collapse events: one where the upper section tilts BEFORE collapse, and the other where the upper section TILTS AND FALLS at the same time. I guess NIST had too many authors.

Even Bazant and Zhou (B&Z) do a better job than NIST on this problem since they at least consider the ANGULAR VELOCITY, d(theta)/dt, of the upper section of the South Tower. Their formula shows that, for a given angle of tilt the angular velocity depends on SQRT {3g/h)} where h is the height of the upper section. Hence the rate of tipping is fixed by the dimensions of the upper section. B& Z's formula is ok but it uses an approximation for the moment of inertia, I, of the upper block that ignores the WIDTH of the Tower. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to correct this using I = 1/3 M{h^2 + 1/4w^2} where w is the width of the Tower. If this improved formula is used, reliable values of d(theta)/dt may be calculated for any tilt angle. Integration of the equations also allows the time to reach a particular tilt angle to be derived.

TROUBLE IS, THESE THEORETICAL TIMES ARE MUCH LONGER THAN THE OBSERVED TIMES (which may be measured quite accurately from any of a number of available videos)

So, the bottom line is this:

The top section of WTC 2 tipped at a FASTER angular velocity than is physically possible for a body freely rotating about a pivot at its base!

Now add in some resistance to the tipping from column loading and the problem only gets worse!

I would therefore ask all of you sheeple story fans out there to put away those finite element calculations for a while and check this out..... then please explain how the top of WTC 2 tipped so fast.

[RandomGuy]

Well, gotta jet.

Here is my prediction for all to see:

Dan or some other CTer will come up and say my calculations don't take into account one thing or another, and try to think of some way that they can explain away the very basic physics I have brought up.

Not ONCE will they ever admit that they have not applied the same scrutiny to the "9-11 Physics" calculations.

In the end, because my calculations are inconvenient, they will be called "meaningless".

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=167050

The one guy who seemed to have some good topic knowledge seemed to think I was on the right track.

So "truth" movement will simply prove that it is not interested in the truth, but rather with whatever will reinforce their existing beliefs.

If they encounter something outside of that, or worse yet, something that directly proves something in their worldview to be provably wrong, they do what any religious zealot does.

"BAH! Your "science" is meaningless."

This shit is a RELIGION to them, and I commit the worst form of blasphemy for questioning it.

In the end, I will simly remind y'all that it took me VERY little research into physics tutorials to get to my calculations. ANY of you can do the same, and there are a LOT of websites that provide excellent tutorials.

Later gaters.

[Nbadan]

he buildings didn't fall at free fall speeds, the pictures clearly show they didn't.

:rolleyes

Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI)

Experiment shows that WTC Bldg. 7 fell at free fall speed (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rtqbaQWIr_Q)

[RIP CITY.]

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/sor11.jpg

Where is the energy coming from directing matter skywards?

A "gravity collapse" does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a siesmic spike. It takes energy to project matter upwards and outwards.


Not only that, But some of the heavy steel beams were found sticking out the windows in other buildings further away and could only have traveled that far due to explosives. I wonder what cum dunker has to say now?

[RandomGuy]

The NIST report completely fails to deal with the important dynamic aspects of the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 since the Final Report only deals with tipping as a problem of STATICS. NIST's "global collapse ensued" mantra is a total cop-out, whereby the problem of the collapse is abandoned before it has begun!

To make matters worse, NIST give TWO descriptions of the pre-collapse events: one where the upper section tilts BEFORE collapse, and the other where the upper section TILTS AND FALLS at the same time. I guess NIST had too many authors.

Even Bazant and Zhou (B&Z) do a better job than NIST on this problem since they at least consider the ANGULAR VELOCITY, d(theta)/dt, of the upper section of the South Tower. Their formula shows that, for a given angle of tilt the angular velocity depends on SQRT {3g/h)} where h is the height of the upper section. Hence the rate of tipping is fixed by the dimensions of the upper section. B& Z's formula is ok but it uses an approximation for the moment of inertia, I, of the upper block that ignores the WIDTH of the Tower. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to correct this using I = 1/3 M{h^2 + 1/4w^2} where w is the width of the Tower. If this improved formula is used, reliable values of d(theta)/dt may be calculated for any tilt angle. Integration of the equations also allows the time to reach a particular tilt angle to be derived.

TROUBLE IS, THESE THEORETICAL TIMES ARE MUCH LONGER THAN THE OBSERVED TIMES (which may be measured quite accurately from any of a number of available videos)

So, the bottom line is this:

The top section of WTC 2 tipped at a FASTER angular velocity than is physically possible for a body freely rotating about a pivot at its base!

Now add in some resistance to the tipping from column loading and the problem only gets worse!

I would therefore ask all of you sheeple story fans out there to put away those finite element calculations for a while and check this out..... then please explain how the top of WTC 2 tipped so fast.
PE = m x g x h

Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.

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

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 foot 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. :rolleyes

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------

YOU'RE the one reading these bullshit websites without doing any critical thinking, and *I* am "sheeple"?

I really don't have the time to look into those calculations, but I will guess that they go something like this:

The real pivot point is not really on the side they suppose.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X ................. Z
X ..................Z


Remove Z and where is your pivot point? X

All those happy fun calculations probably assume that when you remove Z the pivot point is at Z.

Go back and look at the assumptions used in that website dan, and tell me I am wrong.

[RandomGuy]

Not only that, But some of the heavy steel beams were found sticking out the windows in other buildings further away and could only have traveled that far due to explosives. I wonder what cum dunker has to say now?

Now let's examine that "shot hundreds of feet" bit.

Let's assume hundreds of feet =300 feet.

Lets assume no "gliding" or air resistance.

Let's use your figure of 10 seconds for the collapse.

300/10=30 feet per second. (assuming no additional acceleration after initial force)

That is 20 miles per hour.

Hmmm. That doesn't meet my definition of "shot".

Don't explosions tend to make stuff go faster than 20 mph?

[RIP CITY.]

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912510.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912507.jpg


Whatever parts of the building that were freed of the structure indeed fell at near free-fall speeds.

Because they were free falling.

Faster than the rate of collapse of the entire building.

That makes no sense at all parts fell faster tan free fall? The only way you can defy science and gravity is with outside source explosives etc..

I'm glad you posted those pics, that's the way steel looks after other buildings have been demolished due to high explosive impact, thank you for proving our points!


http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/635459.jpg

[RIP CITY.]

Now let's examine that "shot hundreds of feet" bit.

Let's assume hundreds of feet =300 feet.

Lets assume no "gliding" or air resistance.

Let's use your figure of 10 seconds for the collapse.

300/10=30 feet per second. (assuming no additional acceleration after initial force)

That is 20 miles per hour.

Hmmm. That doesn't meet my definition of "shot".

Don't explosions tend to make stuff go faster than 20 mph?

I hate to be the one to uncork your head from your ass but the beams that were located were found high up on the other buildings and the angle they were lodged shows they came from an upward motion not from a falling motion. I suppose the human remains they found 1/4 mile away on TOP of another building was from a falling motion? were did you get your education?

[The Power Hour]

You would think with all the time RandomGuy and Chump have surfing the www they could maybe answer two questions on why won't the Gov. show the video of the Pentagon so we can see it was really a plane, and why did they get rid of all the steel from the WTC before anyone could test it for explosives.

[RandomGuy]

You would think with all the time RandomGuy and Chump have surfing the www they could maybe answer two questions on why won't the Gov. show the video of the Pentagon so we can see it was really a plane, and why did they get rid of all the steel from the WTC before anyone could test it for explosives.

Not until you answer my questions first.

[RandomGuy]

I hate to be the one to uncork your head from your ass but the beams that were located were found high up on the other buildings and the angle they were lodged shows they came from an upward motion not from a falling motion. I suppose the human remains they found 1/4 mile away on TOP of another building was from a falling motion? were did you get your education?

Those pictures don't show that they came from an upward motion.

There was the slight thing of a jet slamming into the buildings at 400 mph.

Do 400 mph collisions tend to scatter human remains over large areas?

[RandomGuy]

That makes no sense at all parts fell faster tan free fall? The only way you can defy science and gravity is with outside source explosives etc..

I'm glad you posted those pics, that's the way steel looks after other buildings have been demolished due to high explosive impact, thank you for proving our points!

Ok, one more time, physics genius:



If I drop a bowling ball and a 1/2 inch ball bearing from 10 feet, which will hit the ground first?

Dan probably won't address this either, so let's examine THIS too.

They hit the ground at the same time.

Now, imagine you superglue that ball bearing to the WTC roof, and at the same time, suspend the bowling ball from a helicopter on a rope so that the bowling ball it at the EXACT same level as the ball bearing.

Start the collapse.

The ballbearing/top section tilts over and falls through the air, just as in the picture.

At the same time you drop the bowling ball.

The ball bearing will hit the ground slightly after the bowling ball, because the first instant or two had some resistance as it was toppling over, but within a minute fraction of a second, in other words, effectively at the same time.

Try the experiment again.

This time, drop the ball THROUGH the building at the same time the ball bearing starts to move.

IF dan's thesis is correct, the bowling ball will hit the ground AT THE SAME TIME, because he says that the building is being collapsed at a simulated free fall speed because of explosions.

SO at everypoint in that fall, the bowling ball, falling and following the collapsing wavefront, should be at the same level.

The wavefront of the collapse and the FIRST part of the falling section should be at the same level AT ALL TIMES.

Is this what the pictures show?

[The Power Hour]

Those pictures don't show that they came from an upward motion.

There was the slight thing of a jet slamming into the buildings at 400 mph.

Do 400 mph collisions tend to scatter human remains or large areas?

The DNA showed the remains belonged to a person who was on the cell phone after the plane hit the tower and the person's office was way below where their bones were later found. on top of the roof of another building many blocks away.
Thus it was not the plane, and it was not from gravity.

Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.

[RandomGuy]

The DNA showed the remains belonged to a person who was on the cell phone after the plane hit the tower and the person's office was way below where their bones were later found. ontop of another building many blocks away.
Thus it was not the plane, and it was not from gravity.

Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.

Great. Now we get into another common bit of 9-11 "truthers".

They all do "research" and the sheeple don't.

Fine.

Link?

[RandomGuy]

The DNA showed the remains belonged to a person who was on the cell phone after the plane hit the tower and the person's office was way below where their bones were later found. on top of the roof of another building many blocks away.
Thus it was not the plane, and it was not from gravity.

Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.

Why don't you do some research and find me some answers to these questions:

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?

[The Power Hour]

Ok, one more time, physics genius:




Dan probably won't address this either, so let's examine THIS too.

They hit the ground at the same time.

Now, imagine you superglue that ball bearing to the WTC roof, and at the same time, suspend the bowling ball from a helicopter on a rope so that the bowling ball it at the EXACT same level as the ball bearing.

Start the collapse.

The ballbearing/top section tilts over and falls through the air, just as in the picture.

At the same time you drop the bowling ball.

The ball bearing will hit the ground slightly after the bowling ball, because the first instant or two had some resistance as it was toppling over, but within a minute fraction of a second, in other words, effectively at the same time.

Try the experiment again.

This time, drop the ball THROUGH the building at the same time the ball bearing starts to move.

IF dan's thesis is correct, the bowling ball will hit the ground AT THE SAME TIME, because he says that the building is being collapsed at a simulated free fall speed because of explosions.

SO at everypoint in that fall, the bowling ball, falling and following the collapsing wavefront, should be at the same level.

The wavefront of the collapse and the FIRST part of the falling section should be at the same level AT ALL TIMES.

Is this what the pictures show?


Did you fall off the crib in your trailer when you was reaching for that 1/2 empty can of Bush beer your pappy left after falling asleep while watching re runs of Dukes of Hazard? Are you acting stupid to get a rise from folks?

They already dropped objects off the WTC long ago as part of a science experiment and it took the objects 16 seconds to hit the ground, The WTC took 9 seconds to hit the ground what part of collapse buildings vs demolished buildings do you not understand?

[ChumpDumper]

:rolleyes

Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI)Jowenko?

So do you agree with Jawenko when he says Towers 1 and 2 were definitely NOT controlled demolitions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

Of course at the end of your video, he simply says he can't explain it after he is told the building was on fire for seven hours and no one had time to set any charges or wires. Could it possibly be that's because he was only shown Loose Change edits of the collapse?

Of course.

[RandomGuy]

Random guys asks:

6 or 7 easy questions.


[a complete evasion of all the questions I asked]


Exactly what I predicted would happen.

I am sorry I have insulted your religion with my silly science and logic, but would you please humor me and try answering any of them?

[The Power Hour]

Why don't you do some research and find me some answers to these questions:

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?


Sure a plane hitting a building will effect it's stability but the bottom floors will not fall like a deck of cards not if they are made from steel and why would the steel beams be cut? How does collapsing make angle cuts? Wouldn't it just be a huge 4 story pile of bent steel? And ask your MENSA Buddies when you golf with them this weekend what other building made from STEEL has ever collapsed?

I hope your still around when one of the Engineers or Demolition workers admits they had part in placing the charges. Shit like that can't stay a secret forever.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I hate to be the one to uncork your head from your ass but the beams that were located were found high up on the other buildings and the angle they were lodged shows they came from an upward motion not from a falling motion. I suppose the human remains they found 1/4 mile away on TOP of another building was from a falling motion? were did you get your education?


The DNA showed the remains belonged to a person who was on the cell phone after the plane hit the tower and the person's office was way below where their bones were later found. on top of the roof of another building many blocks away.
Thus it was not the plane, and it was not from gravity.

Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.


Either provide a link or maybe you're the one who needs some help with that cork, mouse

[thispego]

loose change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Not only that, But some of the heavy steel beams were found sticking out the windows in other buildings further away and could only have traveled that far due to explosives.:lol Could you please give me your full theory about 9/11 that accounts for thermite and high explosives and Silverstien and the CIA and invisible helicopters and cruise missiles.

Heavy things fall from great heights. Hit other things. Bounce around. Hit other buildings. It's right there in front of your eyes.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I hope your still around when one of the Engineers or Demolition workers admits they had part in placing the charges. Shit like that can't stay a secret forever.

Right, someone in that position would definitely not spill the beans to hollywood or CNN or whoever for some ridiculous amount of money :rolleyes

Come on mouse, you're better than this.

[RandomGuy]

Ok, one more time, physics genius:




Dan probably won't address this either, so let's examine THIS too.

They hit the ground at the same time.

Now, imagine you superglue that ball bearing to the WTC roof, and at the same time, suspend the bowling ball from a helicopter on a rope so that the bowling ball it at the EXACT same level as the ball bearing.

Start the collapse.

The ballbearing/top section tilts over and falls through the air, just as in the picture.

At the same time you drop the bowling ball.

The ball bearing will hit the ground slightly after the bowling ball, because the first instant or two had some resistance as it was toppling over, but within a minute fraction of a second, in other words, effectively at the same time.

Try the experiment again.

This time, drop the ball THROUGH the building at the same time the ball bearing starts to move.

IF dan's thesis is correct, the bowling ball will hit the ground AT THE SAME TIME, because he says that the building is being collapsed at a simulated free fall speed because of explosions.

SO at everypoint in that fall, the bowling ball, falling and following the collapsing wavefront, should be at the same level.

The wavefront of the collapse and the FIRST part of the falling section should be at the same level AT ALL TIMES.

Is this what the pictures show?




[Insult]
[Evade and ignore]


I'm sorry, I didn't see anything in your post that addressed what I said.

[ChumpDumper]

I hope your still around when one of the Engineers or Demolition workers admits they had part in placing the charges. Shit like that can't stay a secret forever.Apparently, the hundreds or thousands of people involved have for six years. I guess they are all Skull and Bones.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It's very important because of the explosive power necessary to transform all that concrete in fine particles of dust, which is likely what happened.

Man you're a stupid son of a bitch. You can take a sledgehammer to concrete and turn it to dust. Not that much of a reach for someone with a brain (hence, difficult for you) to grasp the weight of a thousand feet of skyscraper coming down on a slab of concrete to turn it to dust.

Plus, there's other shit in that building too - people, books, paper, desks, office supplies, insulation, ceiling tiles, carpet, etc. What do you think all that shit does when it has a couple hundred thousand tons land on it?

[ChumpDumper]

Man you're a stupid son of a bitch. You can take a sledgehammer to concrete and turn it to dust. Not that much of a reach for someone with a brain (hence, difficult for you) to grasp the weight of a thousand feet of skyscraper coming down on a slab of concrete to turn it to dust.

Plus, there's other shit in that building too - people, books, paper, desks, office supplies, insulation, ceiling tiles, carpet, etc. What do you think all that shit does when it has a couple hundred thousand tons land on it?C'mon AHF, the towers are merely ths size of a postage stamp on their monitors.

Those other buildings were miles away. You'd have to use a tactical nuclear weapon for debris to hit 7WTC!

http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7fromNTC.jpg

See?

[RandomGuy]

Man you're a stupid son of a bitch. You can take a sledgehammer to concrete and turn it to dust. Not that much of a reach for someone with a brain (hence, difficult for you) to grasp the weight of a thousand feet of skyscraper coming down on a slab of concrete to turn it to dust.

Plus, there's other shit in that building too - people, books, paper, desks, office supplies, insulation, ceiling tiles, carpet, etc. What do you think all that shit does when it has a couple hundred thousand tons land on it?

The most credible analysis I have seen puts about 65%+ of the dust as mostly insulation and wallboard. Can't remember the exact figures, but that pretty much f***s the "concrete dust" thing anyways.

[RandomGuy]

Sure a plane hitting a building will effect it's stability but the bottom floors will not fall like a deck of cards not if they are made from steel and why would the steel beams be cut? How does collapsing make angle cuts? Wouldn't it just be a huge 4 story pile of bent steel? And ask your MENSA Buddies when you golf with them this weekend what other building made from STEEL has ever collapsed?

I hope your still around when one of the Engineers or Demolition workers admits they had part in placing the charges. Shit like that can't stay a secret forever.


By the way this is TWICE you have not bothered to do any research and answer my questions.

Why don't you do some research and find me some answers to these questions:

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Random Guy, you're wasting your time asking for some answers. It's mouse, he's just here to troll.

[RandomGuy]

Random Guy, you're wasting your time asking for some answers. It's mouse, he's just here to troll.

This shit has been done to death anyways.

Here is all the "research" one really needs to do.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

[RandomGuy]

July 11, 2006
The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans beleive 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
By Terry J. Allen


Americans love a conspiracy. According to a May 17 Zogby poll, 42 percent believe the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are covering up what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

There is something comforting about a world where someone is in charge—either for good (think gods) or evil (think Bush insiders plotting 9/11). Many people prefer to believe a Procrustean conspiracy rather than accept the alternative: Life can be random, viciously unjust and meaningless; tragedy and joy alike flow from complex combinations of good and bad intentions, careful plotting, random happenstance and bumbling incompetence.

Conspiracy hypotheses often consist of a vast pile of circumstantial evidence shaped into a seemingly coherent whole with the strong glue of faith. Debunk one or even many allegations and the pile still stands, impressive in its bulk and ideological coherence. If size were all, it would convince Pyrrho himself.

Scientific theories, on the other hand, depend on interlocking chains of evidence: The integrity of the whole relies on the soundness of each link. Break any one and the theory founders.

The 9/11 conspiracy is a classic example of a faith-based pile hypothesis. Its proponents cite a mountain of evidence to conclude that the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks for its own traitorous ends, chiefly staging “a new Pearl Harbor” to rally support for an invasion of Iraq.

I spent months as a researcher conducting a fact-by-fact dissection of a few key aspects of this hypothesis. I approached the project knowing that U.S. cabals had previously concocted casus belli to drive public support for war: the Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam, incubator babies for the first Gulf War. And clearly from its early days, the Bush administration had lusted for war with Iraq.

But the hypothesis that it planned and executed the 9/11 attacks is just not supported by a chain of evidence, nor do the facts support the conspiracists’ key charge that World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by pre-positioned explosives.

Structural engineers found the destruction consistent with fires caused by the jet liner strike; that temperatures need not actually melt the steel but that expansion and other fire-related stresses would account for compromised architectural integrity.

When David Ray Griffin, a theologian by trade, said it was “physically impossible by laws of physics” for the planes alone to have brought down the towers, I asked what engineers had confirmed that. “I haven’t talked to any because they would be too afraid to tell the truth,” he said. “How would you be able to protect your family if you were to accuse the government?” he asked, accusing the government.

Many conspiracists offer the collapse of WTC Building 7 as the strongest evidence for the kind of controlled demolition that would prove a plot. Although not hit by planes, it was damaged by debris, and suffered fires eventually fueled by up to 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored near ground level. Griffin cited as evidence of government complicity that the building’s sprinkler system should have, but didn’t, put out the fires. But the theologian did not know and had not considered that the collapse of the towers had broken the area’s water main.

Another conspiracist, Alex Jones, writes on his Web site, “Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted … that he and the NYFD decided to ‘pull’ WTC 7.” (Leave aside how unlikely it would be for the government to include Silverstein in a treasonous conspiracy, or that the NYFD was in on it, too.)

Silverstein’s actual quote: “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

Jones continues: “The word ‘pull’ is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.” In fact, a Lexis Nexis search for a three-year period fails to find one American reference to “pull a building” without the preposition “down” when referring to intentional destruction. An alternative explanation would be that given the lack of water and the number of injured and missing firefighters, the NYFD decided to pull workers from Building 7 to concentrate on search and rescue at the fallen towers.

In the end, this kind of undermining of individual “facts,” although relatively easy, is irrelevant for those who base their beliefs on piles rather than chains of evidence.

But the work should be done. Pile conspiracies can be dangerous. Those who deny that HIV is responsible for AIDS, for example, have contributed to unnecessary infections and deaths.

And the 9/11 conspiracy hypotheses distract from the growing chain of evidence documenting how the Bush administration actually manipulated this country to war on a train of lies riding tracks of fear—cynically using the bodies of the 9/11 victims as fuel.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2702/

[RandomGuy]

I think we can all guess what kind of stuff makes up the "pile" of evidence given by CTers...

[RandomGuy]

To be sure, there are discrepancies and omissions in The 9/11 Commission Report, and the Pentagon and FAA appear to have not been fully truthful and forthcoming about what happened that day. Not every riddle that Griffin and other conspiracists pose has a ready answer. But almost all of their major assertions are baseless. And their own theories have such gigantic holes and require such monumental leaps of logic that they discredit themselves.

At bottom, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are profoundly irrational and unscientific. It is more than passing strange that progressives, who so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming, are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a cul-de-sac. They lead nowhere. And they aren't necessary to prove the venality of the Bush Administration. There's plenty of that proof lying around. We don't need to make it up.

http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/?page=6

[=RTM=]

Hey RandomGuy have you seen a movie called Why the towers fell? I would like you to watch it so we can have a debate on it since you seem to be good at debating the 911 issues.

Let me know if you watch it I would like your input.

[ChumpDumper]

Ah yes, here's where mouse tries to stall by throwing ten hours of the same repackaged news footage at you.

[=RTM=]

:lol Could you please give me your full theory about 9/11 that accounts for thermite and high explosives and Silverstien and the CIA and invisible helicopters and cruise missiles.

Heavy things fall from great heights. Hit other things. Bounce around. Hit other buildings. It's right there in front of your eyes.

I could give you my views, Then I could give you the scientific evidence, and I can give you what others have found. But it will be of no use since AggieHoops says I am here just to Troll. So maybe another day when he's not around to delete my shit.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol again.

He's not a mod anymore, remember? The wicked witch is dead, right? That excuse is no longer valid.

[RIP CITY.]

Can I give my input also?

[RandomGuy]

Hey RandomGuy have you seen a movie called Why the towers fell? I would like you to watch it so we can have a debate on it since you seem to be good at debating the 911 issues.

Let me know if you watch it I would like your input.

Oddly enough there are tons of "movies" by that title for some reason. :rolleyes

You will have to specify which one.

Then, I will see if I really want to watch it, in this case probably NOT watch it if it is another conpiracy demolition theory heap of shit.

I have spent quite enough of my time reading and watching about the "theory", I just want honest answers to my questions about it. Ihave yet to see ANY conspiracy theorist be able to honestly answer the bit about the amount of kinetic energy and force that I have posted in this thread.

I have spent enough of my personal time to realize how flawed the logic and science is behind virtually all of the 9-11 conspiracy stuff, if you ask me to waste more of my time watching any more of this crap, you can pay me $20 an hour for my time, just like my bookkeeping clients do.

I have come to two conclusions from watching all that the CTers have to offer:

1) It is a religion for them.

2) For the most cynical among them it is an excuse to sell t-shirts and pump up their own egos.

If there is a big evil conspiracy out there, and these ass-clowns actually discovered it, it would be like someone with Downs Syndrome discovering Unified Field Theory.

[nacho]

:lol again.

He's not a mod anymore, remember? The wicked witch is dead, right? That excuse is no longer valid.


Who wants some pissed off Ex Mod insulting their every post?

[ChumpDumper]

Can I give my input also?You already did. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1597466&postcount=455)

[RandomGuy]

Can I give my input also?

I'm still waiting for your input. You have yet to post any non-evasive honest answers to these questions. They will not go away no matter how much you wish them to.

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?

[ChumpDumper]

Who wants some pissed off Ex Mod insulting their every post?Mouse is scurred.

[nacho]

.....

This one is not about bashing Bush, They don't talk about who knew what, They don't wear tin foil caps. It's just a documentary on steel frame buildings and how they react to fire and Passenger plans.


They point out the fact that the pancake theory does not make sense since the elevator shaft should have been standing still. It was all welded steel that should have maybe bent or leaned to one side but should not have dissinigrated

Very good documentary,

[RandomGuy]

Here is the point at which I lost all respect for NBAdan, a guy who I used to think of as semi-rational:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1596957&postcount=418

This honestly made me very sad.

As one of the progressive bloggers pointed out:

Bush and company have proven so venal and evil in so many other ways, why make shit up?

[mouse.]

Who wants some pissed off Ex Mod insulting their every post?




Viewing this topic:
nacho, FromWayDowntown, RandomGuy, Aggie Hoopsfan

he can't stay up forever.

[RandomGuy]

This one is not about bashing Bush, They don't talk about who knew what, They don't wear tin foil caps. It's just a documentary on steel frame buildings and how they react to fire and Passenger plans.

They point out the fact that the pancake theory does not make sense since the elevator shaft should have been standing still. It was all welded steel that should have maybe bent or leaned to one side but should not have dissinigrated

Very good documentary,

I would simply point back to the amount of kinetic energy involved.

REMEMBER THIS IS JUST THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY/FORCE IN THE FIRST 11 METERS OF THE 400+ METER COLLAPSE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PE = m x g x h

Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.

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

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 foot 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. :rolleyes

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.

[Buddy Holly.]

Mouse don't answer any questions until those brain washed Bush lovers answer these!







You would think with all the time RandomGuy and Chump have surfing the www they could maybe answer two questions on why won't the Gov. show the video of the Pentagon so we can see it was really a plane, and why did they get rid of all the steel from the WTC before anyone could test it for explosives.

[ChumpDumper]

Neither mouse nor his aliases will answer any questions ever.

[Buddy Holly.]

I would simply point back to the amount of kinetic energy involved.

REMEMBER THIS IS JUST THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY/FORCE IN THE FIRST 11 METERS OF THE 400+ METER COLLAPSE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PE = m x g x h

Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.

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

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 foot 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. :rolleyes

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.

What does all that Popular Mechanics math have to do with a steel framed Building? Since no other Steel Framed Building has collapsed how do you know your shit is not just a theory?

Your just talking out your ass. Put away the slide ruler and talk facts Brah!

[RandomGuy]

Mouse don't answer any questions until those brain washed Bush lovers answer these!


1) I don't know.

2) I don't know.

Now will someone PLEASE answer my simple, yes or no questions?

They are just starting points anyways. Have to have some agreed on facts to draw logical conclusions.

[Buddy Holly.]

If you go to the middle of this topic you will see Mouse already answered all your shit,
in fact Chump had to sign off he was so embarrassed.

[RandomGuy]

What does all that Popular Mechanics math have to do with a steel framed Building? Since no other Stee Framed Building has collapsed how do you know your shit is not just a theory?

Your just talking out your ass.

*whacks Buddy Holly with his "your/you're" stick*

Ok, "brah" :rolleyes let's play a little game, called "true or false".

A moving object with mass has kinetic energy. True or False?