Reply With Quote
And don't forget steel frame Buildings that collapse have fires of molten metal weeks later!
It's amazing what a large projectile followed by fire can do to a structure.
And don't forget steel frame Buildings that collapse have fires of molten metal weeks later!
What is even more amazing is how a collapse building can just shear off it's steel beams at a perfect 45 degree angle.
Let's face it! the only projectiles around here are the bull turds coming out of some of your misguided fools mouths.
It's amazing how rescue workers cut beams at an angle.What is even more amazing is how a collapse building can just shear off it's steel beams at a perfect 45 degree angle.
And they are pretty good with a jack hammer also.
That was a plane.
It's official Chump has run out of lame excuses. Next you will say JFK died from whiplash.
Seriously, we've been over this several times. Do you really need to see the other beams that were cut identically?
He died when Lee Harvey Oswald shot him in the head.Next you will say JFK died from whiplash.
What is even more amazing is how a collapse building can just shear off it's steel beams at a perfect 45 degree angle.
Let's face it! the only projectiles around here are the bull turds coming out of some of your misguided fools mouths.
Mouse, just stick with one profile, it makes it sooooo much easier.
Re-hash all the old crap where it belongs. Somewhere in the 70+ pages of this thread all of those tired old bits have been debunked.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65131
Concrete turned to powder: didn't really happen
no office material survived: yes, it did
"motel metal" weeks after: yes, there was, but it wasn't structural steel, it was probably aluminum.
How to make a 9-11 controlled demolition thread:
Lie, spin, repeat
Here's some more math. Still waiting...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…
By the way, the reasont that Dan never points out the mistake that I deliberately made here is that the bag applies a force equal to 1200 pounds, not 600. For him to point this out would be to admit to himself that the buildings didn't need actual demolitions to collapse.
By the by, those pictures showed stuffed animals, papers, figurines, framed artwork, and other things that were recovered from the debris pile.
They may not have been desks, chairs, and computers, exactly as you asked for, but they are exactly the kinds of objects you seem to imply don't exist, because they would have been supposedly destroyed in the "demolition".
Since the massive columns of the WTC buildings needed these massive explosions to have been cut, do the CTers have any pictures of widespread glass breakage from the buildings surrounding ground zero?
Thousands of cutting charges set off all at once surely would have shattered a lot of windows within a few blocks, yes?
Oddly enough we also don't have reports of debris being hurtled outwards at thousands of feet per second from those demolition charges either.
1400 feet per second, a debris speed on the low end resulting from actual explosives would have thrown debris and glass 7000+ feet from the building, given the explosives started at about the 80th floor and would have had about five to seven seconds to fall.
This is another thing that the real "Galileo" taught us. The picture below is from Galileo's own hand, describing one of his most important experiments.
Here we see objects propelled outwards horizontally at different speeds, all falling to the ground from the same height at the same rate. The faster the horizontal speed, the farther the distance from the point of origin.
Do we have any reports of people injured from falling glass who where over a mile away from the collapse?
If we do not, that indicates that the debris from the towers was not propelled outwards at thousands of feet per second. Since ANY explosives powerful enough to cut steel beams would create debris moving at thousands of feet per second outwards, then we can assume there were no explosives.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-13-2008 at 02:41 PM.
I am finally convinced RandomGuy is the son of Larry Silverstein.
Dayum, you go RG.
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.
This is hilarious....stick to accounting....probably for a brokerage...
For the tin foil hat crowd, this is what a controlled demolition SOUNDS like
..probably because 'the reasont Dan' is having trouble distinguishing between the mistake you deliberately made and the mistakes you unintentionally made...By the way, the reasont that Dan never points out the mistake that I deliberately made here is that the bag applies a force equal to 1200 pounds, not 600. For him to point this out would be to admit to himself that the buildings didn't need actual demolitions to collapse.
For the Bush lovers this is what a cover up sounds like.
I.e., foot-pound-force is a measure of work (i.e., energy), not of force. RG, you were calculating the change in kinetic energy over the fall, not the force at the point of impact. Also, since gravity is conservative, you could have just calculated that change as the change in potential mgh = 1620 J.
If you want the magnitude of the force, it's F = m a = m dv/dt, where dv/dt is roughly the change in velocity from the final speed it gets just before hitting (~ dv) divided by the impact time (~ dt).
Impact time is approx. 200 ms or so for a collision like this, and in that 200 milliseconds the velocity of the bag goes from what it was at to zero.
Call the final speed just before impact vf:
vf = g*tf where tf is the time it takes to drop (since it was dropped with zero speed)
Call the height it was dropped h
h = 1/2 g tf^2
Then, tf = sqrt(2 h/g) = sqrt(2*3.65m/(9.8m/s^2))
==> tf = 0.86 seconds to fall the distance h = 3.65 meters
vf = g*tf = 9.8 m/s^2 * 0.86 s = 8.43 m/s
therefore, dv ~ 8.43 m/s - 0 = 8.43 m/s
dt ~ 0.2 s (the impact time)
I technically shouldn't write dv/dt, as differentials aren't numbers, so if you want to be anal dv should be read delta-v and not differential-v (and the same for dt).
F = m dv/dt = 45.36 kg * (8.43 m/s / (0.2 s)) = 1900 Newton
1 Newton = 0.225 lb
Therefore, F = 1900 N * 0.225 lb/N = 430 lb
The guy's only feeling 4.3x the weight of the bag on his head, not 12x
Last edited by baseline bum; 12-12-2008 at 08:01 PM.
Then what mistakes did I unintentionally make Dan?
Will you let me drop a 100 pound bag on your head from 12 feet then?
Name the time and place.
And his neck isn't made of steel. I think the comparison is still valid.
How much force would you have to apply to the bag to hold it stationary against gravity?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
