Real 9-11 Research

[cant w8 4 2012]

I ain't lookin 2 you 4 answers,but i respect you're opinion.peace

[RandomGuy]

I ain't lookin 2 you 4 answers,but i respect you're opinion.peace

I'm an accountant, you shouldn't look to me for answers on things other than economics, finance, and general business advice.

I do this in my spare time, and gave the whole "grand evil conspiracy" bit a fair shake years ago.

I took what the "conspiracy" guys said and asked, and subjected it to a coldly rational look, and used what I knew of science, and what other experts knew, and found the whole "9-11 was an inside job" bit to be almost without exception to be absolute garbage.

None of it stood up to any reasonable degree, some of it was outright made up, and it was always based on bad science.

The more I have looked into it over the years, the more I see how illogical, dishonest, and deluded it is.

If there really is a big evil govenment conspiracy, then they will try to discredit the people who talk about that conspiracy by putting out stuff that is really obviously stupid and easily debunked.

Soooo.... even if the conspiracy guys are right, then some of them are either too stupid to see the obviously fake planted evidence/theories or some of them are PART of the evil conspiracy, and spreading stupid in the first place.

If there is no grand evil conspiracy then the conspiracy guys can't be evil and part of it, but they can certainly be stupid, and from everything I have seen, a lot of them definitely fit the bill.

[xrayzebra]

I'm an accountant, you shouldn't look to me for answers on things other than economics, finance, and general business advice.

I do this in my spare time, and gave the whole "grand evil conspiracy" bit a fair shake years ago.

I took what the "conspiracy" guys said and asked, and subjected it to a coldly rational look, and used what I knew of science, and what other experts knew, and found the whole "9-11 was an inside job" bit to be almost without exception to be absolute garbage.

None of it stood up to any reasonable degree, some of it was outright made up, and it was always based on bad science.

The more I have looked into it over the years, the more I see how illogical, dishonest, and deluded it is.

If there really is a big evil govenment conspiracy, then they will try to discredit the people who talk about that conspiracy by putting out stuff that is really obviously stupid and easily debunked.

Soooo.... even if the conspiracy guys are right, then some of them are either too stupid to see the obviously fake planted evidence/theories or some of them are PART of the evil conspiracy, and spreading stupid in the first place.

If there is no grand evil conspiracy then the conspiracy guys can't be evil and part of it, but they can certainly be stupid, and from everything I have seen, a lot of them definitely fit the bill.

Damit RG, you know the ray guns did the deed. I have it from a good source. It was posted on the forum. I think I was that posted it. So there!

[RandomGuy]

Damit RG, you know the ray guns did the deed. I have it from a good source. It was posted on the forum. I think I was that posted it. So there!

It's not real unless there is a youtube video...

[cant w8 4 2012]

It's not real unless there is a youtube video...

or unless an accountant said it

[xrayzebra]

It's not real unless there is a youtube video...

Damn I forgot that. Back to youtube and more research.

[RandomGuy]

or unless an accountant said it

You don't have to be anything other than aware of the basic rules of logic and skepticism. That and intellectually honest.


All of which is really obviously lacking in most conspiragarbage websites.

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Cause it has reared its ugly head again.

[Nbadan]

I'm an accountant, you shouldn't look to me for answers on things other than economics, finance, and general business advice.

RG needs to follow his own advice...

[RandomGuy]

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.

ooooh, some integral calculus for Dan...

[Nbadan]

ooooh, some integral calculus for Dan...

That's not integral cal.....go back to business school...

[ChumpDumper]

So is there an actual problem with his calculations or not?

[RandomGuy]

That's not integral cal.....go back to business school...

So... it's actually simpler?

Then it should be very easy for you to double check my math.

, I might even throw in an occasional purposeful mistake, just to see if you are paying attention.

[johnsmith]

RG owns all 9/11 threads. Cracks me up that no one can argue back with him because he actually throws in evidence, statistics, and math to back up his .



Dan, you're a ing bag.

[RandomGuy]

Quite frankly the other starting assumption used by your outdated bit also was raised:

The collapse did not go from the top of the building height to ground level.

Both collapses started (gasp) where the planes and fires were, about 20-30 stories down the building, and the rubble pile was eventually about 4 stories above street level.

This means that the collapse of the building only really took 76-86 stories, not the full 110.

Shorter distance of collapse means less time for "free fall" than what is commonly put forth by the phsyics-challenged "twoofers".

If you actually go out to a calculator here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html
You can get the free fall speed of an object dropped from, say, 86 stories or about 320 meters.
That ending velocity is about 79 m/s.
Stick that into the equation v= (g)(t) and you can easily solve, just as the professor did, for t.
79 = 9.8t
t = 7.95

So, the time that should be used for "free fall" is about 8 seconds, not 9.2.

This makes for an even bigger difference in the observed collapse times of 14 and 22+ seconds than 9 seconds.

Oops that must imply some resistance, because it took almost 2 and 3 times longer than "free fall".

Since the explosives theory DEPENDS on little to no resistance, and a large amount of resistance was observed, you MUST conclude that explosives were not used.

, I might even throw in a link so you can use a calculator to double check my math.

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting for the guy with the math degree to double check my math.

Dan?

[Mr. Peabody]

Still waiting for the guy with the math degree to double check my math.

Dan?

Sorry man, I got a degree in Philosophy. I can't even prove that you exist.

[Nbadan]

So... it's actually simpler?

Then it should be very easy for you to double check my math.

, I might even throw in an occasional purposeful mistake, just to see if you are paying attention.

How can I logically argue with someone who doesn't even know the difference between integral calculus and physics..

[ChumpDumper]

How can we logically argue with someone who says the buildings next to WTC 7 were not damaged?

[RandomGuy]

How can I logically argue with someone who doesn't even know the difference between integral calculus and physics..

How can I logically argue with a liar?

I noticed you still didn't bother double-checking my calculations, math-boy.

Prove the shill made a mistake.

Go on...

[Nbadan]

How can we logically argue with someone who says the buildings next to WTC 7 were not damaged?

Did any of the building next to WTC7 sustain damage that compromised the structural integrity of the building beyond mere facade damage? No.

See, that's why you can't argue or present alternative theories to Chumpy because he will completely ignore the strong points of your theory and center his attacks, not logical rebuttals, into parsing your words....

[Nbadan]

How can I logically argue with a liar?

I noticed you still didn't bother double-checking my calculations, math-boy.

Prove the shill made a mistake.

Go on...

I'll leave that to the junior physicists...when you present a mathematical computation worth examining maybe I'll give you an hour of my valuable time...I get paid 25/hour...

[RandomGuy]

Let’s do a quickie, common sense thought experiment to help understand what the “controlled demolition” theory is trying to say.

The controlled demolition theory rests on the following assumption: “the building was too strong to have collapsed from simple gravity”

Put another way “the building could easily absorb the energy of the falling section and not fully collapse”

Does this pass the common sense muster?

Let’s take an average guy off the street. He can hold a 100 pound bag over his head for a few minutes. Say he is balancing it on his head to make things simple. In terms of physics this means he is providing a force equal to gravity in order to hold this bag motionless.

This is what the lower 80 stories did for the upper 30 stories for 30 years before 9-11.

Now, one story is about 12.32 feet. The thirty floors started falling through the damaged sections, and at least one damaged, weakened floor gave way.

Take that bag away from our average guy and hold it 12.32 feet over his head. Now drop it on his head. What happens?

Ouch is right.

Let’s see how many pounds of force will be applied by that bag to the guy’s head.

KE is measured in joules. KE= ½* mass * velocity *velocity
First let’s convert to metric for ease of calculation.
Mass=45.36 kg http://manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm
H = 12.32 feet = 3.65 meters http://www.saudia-online.com/conversion%20Table.htm
Ending velocity of bag= 8.45 meters/s http://tutor4physics.com/calculators.htm

KE= ½(45.36)(8.45)(8.45) = 1619 joules
Convert 1619 Joules back to food/pounds force a.k.a. weight = 598 http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm

For the controlled demolition theory to be correct the guy’s head must be able to apply almost 598 foot/pounds of force to stop the bag after such a fall.

Is this reasonable? I think we can safely, and without the possibility of jail time for seriously injuring some poor test subject, conclude that it is not.

Maybe “Galileo” would like to put this theory’s primary assumption to the test with a 100 bag of bull ?

The original Galileo was actually instrumental in noting that the rate of falling objects is not dependant on mass http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smass.htm . Perhaps our modern, more re ed, version of the real scientist can contribute something to science and prove that his head can hold, even for a split second, an eleven hundred pound object.

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along…

Here's some more math. Still waiting...

[RandomGuy]

Did any of the building next to WTC7 sustain damage that compromised the structural integrity of the building beyond mere facade damage? No.

See, that's why you can't argue or present alternative theories to Chumpy because he will completely ignore the strong points of your theory and center his attacks, not logical rebuttals, into parsing your words....