Reply With Quote
I ask yet again, for the 20th time a simple yes or no question.
ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?
We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.
AND accelerated?
The more mass was from the collapsing floors.
Nowhere did I say that the debris got more dense as it fell, rather it got more voluminous, as more floors collapsed and added to the falling avalanche of debris.
Either you lack the reading comprehension to understand what I wrote, or you are deliberately trying to distort it.
Which is it Dan? Stupid or lying?
I ask yet again, for the 20th time a simple yes or no question.
ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?
We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.
, I might as well skip ahead another couple of times, just because I doubt it will ever be answered by the lying sacks of in the "truth" movement.
I ask yet again, for the 21st time a simple yes or no question.
ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?
We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.
I ask yet again, for the 21st time a simple yes or no question.
ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?
We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.
I ask yet again, for the 22nd time a simple yes or no question.
ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?
We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.
Holy , almost a year after I first posted this, the guy with the math degree finally gets around to actually checking my math.
Unfortunately for your argument, 12.2 m/sec is actually worse than 12 m/sec.
I was being generous.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-14-2008 at 03:03 PM. Reason: civility
It would tend to decelerate it to some degree.
Unfortunately for you, gravity is constantly accelerating objects towards the center of the earth.
So for each momentary deceleration offered by any given floor, you then get another 3.4 meters of acceleration by gravity.
At least you are finally trying to wrap your brain around it.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-14-2008 at 03:03 PM. Reason: civility
Which is precisely about how long it took for the buildings to collapse.
Unfortunately for the "truth" movement, they don't have a monopoly on youtube videos.
As many as they can dig up to support their contradictory and illogical arguments, I can post pointing out the lies and pseudoscience.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-14-2008 at 03:05 PM. Reason: civility
1) One doesn't have to know the mass to find the proportional forces.
2) Gravitational acceleration is a constant.
3) Distance fallen is a constant.
So you have a relational term, m=mass, known distances, and known acceleration. This is more than enough to fill in terms in the basic equations of motion and acceleration.
What you can show is the relative reasonableness of the underlying assumptions.
The truther underlying assumption:
"the buildings were too strong to have collapsed without explosives"
Can be tested with rather basic physics, as I have demonstrated.
Either the overall resistance provided by the building approaches or exceeds the amount of force of the falling mass or it doesn't.
Using GENEROUS starting assumptions the overall resistance of the underlying structure is a TINY FRACTION of the force of the falling mass.
One would have to add in a LOT of variables to change this underlying truth, and lord knows the truthers have tried.
Eventually, they always give up, because they can't distort elementary physics the way they do everything else.
Science prevails.
I calculated, using generous assumptions that there was about 29 times the amount of force needed to collapse the building.
Given this, if 95% of the mass fell off to the side there would still have been enough force to collapse the buildng.
Oh great math guru, what is 1/29 in percentages?
Why are you coming after me?
I said I agree with the Truthers! You all are right.
So now what?
[vitriol deleted for the sake of civility by poster] You have done no such thing.
Why are you letting this thread make you into a liar?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-14-2008 at 12:21 PM. Reason: civility
PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m
Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.
SOOOO
The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.
Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.
They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.
Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.
Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:
v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second
Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m
This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.
Think about this for a moment.
The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.
Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.
STILL FURTHER
Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.
IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.
Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)
What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?
Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
The funny thing about this bit is that even if you only consider the first 3 meters instead of the first 12 meters, there is still more than enough force to collapse the building.
In response to this, Dan produced a video from a nice young man who also did some calculations, but forgot that gravity didn't stop accelerating mass once it got moving.
So the best the truther movement can come up with are obvious beginners mistakes in physics to support their "it was too strong to collapse without explosives" bit.
Take bad physics, the inability to answer a straight question when asked, taking quotes out of context, outright making up, and what do you think a real jury would make out of that, Dan?
More distortions.
I have repeatedly acknowledged the possibility of bombs in the WTC towers.
It is possible.
I gave this theory an honest shot, and it did not explain the observed phenomena better than the progressive gravity collapse.
The NIST report provides thousands of pages of supporting scientific data, which you have ignored.
IT IS THE HEIGHT OF DISHONESTY TO IGNORE THAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND SAY THAT NO ONE HAS PROVIDED ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE GRAVITY COLLAPSE.
Utimately, one has to look at evidence provided, ask honest questions, use critical thinking, and come to some sort of conclusion.
I have repeatedly asked ONE honest question of the truthers here, and elsewhere.
NOT ONCE have I EVER gotten an honest answer. For a movement dedicated to "truth" that smacks of rank hypocrisy.
But each floor of the building was ultimately designed to resist support the weight of the structure above it.
This weight would be equal, by definition to ONE mass regardless of whether that mass was one gram or a million tonnes. So the underlying structure can hold ONE mass plus a safety factor of some sort.
That safety factor can be thought of in terms of the mass of the building.
If you assume that safety factor is 200%, then ultimately if the building collapse begins at the 90th floor out of 110, the lower 90 floors could support a structure weighing twice what the upper 20 floors would weigh.
This is the relative forces involved.
The simple physics here shows that the collapse about 25-30 floors down applies a dynamic force to the floor below it of about 29+ times that of the stationary mass.
Meaning that if the truthers are to be believed, the 80 floors below the collapsing section could have easily supported a safety factor of 2900% of the stationary mass.
Follow this logically and apply that to the 30 floors, 30*29, and you get a building that could have conceivedly been almost a thousand stories tall.
Since I have yet to see, even 40 years after the initial construction of the WTC towers, a building that is two miles high, I think it is a safe assumption that the safety factor was much less than 2900%.
In my calculations I ALWAYS gave favorable assumptions to the truther movement, and there was still more than enough force to ultimately collapse the buildng.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-14-2008 at 12:24 PM.
Please provide a video showing where any portion of the building collapsed or started moving before being impacted by debris.
... and of course all of this happened without anyone seeing explosive devices, without glass flying in all directions because the magic explosives were strong enough to cut the massive lower floor columns, but not big enough to send glass flying in all directions at thousands of feet per second...
Nice find RG. What say you Galileo? Nbadan?
Also of interest, is the video of the collapse of WTC 1 wherein you can clearly see the collapse begins at the level of the fires and not lower in the building.
More of his videos
I'm going to watch them all...how 'bout you?
Dan, if you are so convinced of the truth in your position, tell me which of these websites you have read through?
A whole page of decent debunking links.
Let's see if the twoofers are really dedicated to "doing research"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
