Reply With Quote
ChumpDumper is only one of three people who share the same cubicle for the Government.
But never the less he and the two others can have they're theories also.
All the answers are out there. You are being willfully ignorant and whining about it.
ChumpDumper is only one of three people who share the same cubicle for the Government.
But never the less he and the two others can have they're theories also.
So, what do you think really happened on 9/11?Nah, your lies can't help you anymore. You've just become a broken soul and little whiny . You and your ignorant troll bff's have been owned royally so hard now on a umber of issues it's actually quite sad and pathetic
sheeple
You don't have "questions", you have willful ignorance. All of the questions you have posed have been answered, repeatedly. The assertions they make have been debunked to anyone with any sense.
Doesn't it bother you that the assumed facts underlying these questions tend to be misleading or dishonest?
To RG every question that could be answered has been answered...
...nevermind the recently exposed connections between well-connected Saudi, flown out of the country and leaving everything behind after the attacks, and some of the terrorists....
Those don't fit into RG world...
Some Saudis may have supported al Qaeda?
Wow.
Your an idiot.
So they didn't support al Qaeda?
Wow.
You'll have to tell me how this fits in with all the rest of the stuff you post and pretend to believe.
Ahahaha
you're supposed to read all these non 9/11 commission report books and blogs and articles and peep these debunker videos and NTSB reports. How does anyone ever learn about anything right?
That isn't really a question. That is more like a badly disjointed, semi-lucid statement.
To RG every question that could be answered has been answered...
...nevermind the recently exposed connections between well-connected Saudi, flown out of the country and leaving everything behind after the attacks, and some of the terrorists....
Those don't fit into RG world...
You will have to spell it out in a bit more detail.
Here is what I think happened:
This guy fleshed out some of the calculations done waaaay back on about page 40 of the thread.
The 9/11 Truth Movement: The Top Conspiracy Theory, a Decade LaterHow could the buildings fall so quickly? It’s been explained very well in the technical literature by Northwestern’s Zdenek Bazant, PhD, and others (see, for example, Bazant 2008). I’ve developed a simpler physics model of the progressive collapses that agrees quite well with the main points of Bazant’s more rigorous results (Thomas 2010b). Here are some of my findings:
Each floor of the towers contained over two million kilograms of mass. The gravitational potential energy of a standing tower with twelve-foot floors extending upward 110 stories can be calculated straightforwardly; it comes to over 420 billion joules of energy, or the equivalent of 100 tons of TNT per tower. This energy, which was released completely during the collapses, is more than the energy of some of the smaller nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal, such as the W-48 (72 tons TNT) (Sublette 2006). This is where the energy required to break columns, pulverize concrete, and expel debris through windows came from. (Truthers often compare such expulsions of air and debris, visible several floors below the collapse fronts, to “squibs,” explosive devices often used in demolitions. However, they are readily explained by pressure changes as the towers, acting like a gigantic bicycle pump being compressed, collapsed.)
The Twin Towers used a “tube within a tube” architectural design, which provided considerable open office space in the interiors of the Towers. Much of the structural support was provided by a dense grouping of thick central core columns in the interior and the perimeter walls on the outside. When the towers began to collapse, large parts of the inner cores (called “the Spires” in 9/11 Truth circles) were actually left standing, briefly, before they, too, toppled over. The perimeter walls were largely forced to peel outward in large sections, producing the iconic images of Ground Zero with which we’re all familiar. Between the outer perimeter and the inner core, the weight of the upper sections plowed through one floor after another, breaking the floor connection brackets and support columns, pulverizing concrete decks, and gaining momentum and mass with each additional floor failure. Had the buildings been constructed differently (the Port Authority was allowed to cir vent some existing New York buildings requirements for the Towers), the collapses might not have even happened (Young 2007).
Even the 9/11 Truth movement’s most eminent physicists are confused about the basic principle of the difference between static and dynamic forces. A piece of paper, taped across a jar’s opening, will support a heavy coin such as a quarter indefinitely (static load). However, if the coin is dropped from just a few inches up, it will tear right through the paper (dynamic load). Given the information at hand—for example, the mass of the upper section of the north tower (fifty-eight million kilograms), the distance it fell (3.8 meters, about twelve feet), and the stiffness/rigidity of the lower structure itself, the dynamic force imparted on the lower section can be estimated as some thirty times the upper portion’s weight. This is many times the lower structure’s safety margin, which explains why it was quickly overwhelmed.
Once progressive collapse began, there were decreasing time intervals of free fall (between floors), punctuated by very brief, incredibly violent collisions—decelerations—of the upper mass, for each floor in turn. There was resistance at every step of the collapse, as the upper section collided with and incorporated each floor below. Conservation of momentum shows that the reductions in falling speed were slight as each floor was impacted, going as the ratio of floors before to floors after (e.g. 14/15, or about 94 percent, for the first impact). Accordingly, the upper section fell from rest to about 19 mph, was slowed down to 18 mph by the first impact, continued to fall until a speed of 26 mph was reached, was then slowed down to 24 mph by another impact, and so on. While the first plunge lasted about nine-tenths of a second, the upper section took only four-tenths of a second to fall through the next floor, three-tenths of a second for the next one, and so on until the bottom floors, which were crushed at a rate of just seven-hundredths of a second each, at speeds of over 100 mph. Yes, there was resistance at every step, as many tons of structural steel was demolished; yet the entire process, like an avalanche, lasted only fifteen to twenty seconds, about 50 to 100 percent longer than true “free fall” would have lasted.
Physics teacher David Chandler’s measurements of the first seconds of the collapse of the North Tower (WTC 1) showed that it fell with increasing speed but at only two-thirds of gravitational acceleration (g) (Chandler 2010). Chandler argues that this means the bottom section exerted a constant upward force of one-third of the upper section’s weight upon its mass, and he declares that this force should have been much larger, indicating that “some sort of controlled demolition was at work.”
Second, Chandler argues that being a Newtonian action/reaction pair, the impact force of the upper section on the lower section was only a third of the upper part’s weight. However, I’ve found that his estimate of the downward impact force was too low by a factor of one hundred. In addition, I found that the actual process—a series of twelve-foot free falls punctuated by violent and brief collisions with each floor—would have resulted in an average acceleration of precisely what Chandler measured for the start of the collapse of WTC 1, namely 2/3 g. (By the end of the collapse, my calculations indicate an average acceleration of only 1/3 g, but this can’t be measured in dust-obscured videos.)
I gave it 3 floors worth of acceleration, the guy above broke it down a lot more and fleshed it out pretty well, albeit in different units.Funny you should ask.
If you actually read the NIST website, on their FAQ, they say that they didn't consider explosives because they did some initial modeling of the collapse that proved that there was enough simple mechanical/kinetic energy to completely collapse the building.
Being a curious sort, I decided to try and figure out how they did that.
Care to guess what I found by doing my own research?
LOOK FAMILIAR?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
Subs ute 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.
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.
Yay physics.
Much clearer view of WTC7 collapse...squib lines?
Couple of questions.
1) Why bring down WTC 7 in the first place?
2) Why bring down WTC 7 about seven hours after it got hit by debris from the north tower collapse? Why not just play it off as immediate collateral damage once it got hit?
3) Why use squibs in the upper floors when conspiracy theorists tout the explosive loaders' contention that only the bottom third of the building need be wired for detonation?
Calm down RG... your no Zdenek P. Bazan...
Pretty ad hoiminish if you ask me.
Do bicycle pumps exist?
If so, please explain how they work.
Here is a picture of the alleged item:
It is relevant to understanding this subject.
Investigating the Saudi Government's 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disilliusionment - Sen. Graham
Here's the key quote:
Nothing to see here folks move along....I said move along...GRAHAM: There were 28 pages in the final report, out of over 800 total, which were totally censored from--that were one to the end of that chapter. That was the chapter that largely dealt with the financing of 9/11, who paid for these very complex and in many instances expensive activities that were the predicate for 9/11. I was stunned that the intelligence community would feel that it was a threat to national security for the American people to know who had made 9/11 financially possible. And I am sad to report that today, some 12 years after we submitted our report, that those 28 pages continue to be withheld from the public.
JAY: Now, it's fairly clear from your book what's in the 28 pages, I mean, in general terms. The L.A. Times did a report on those 28 pages. A journalist for The L.A. Times spoke with someone who'd actually seen the 28 pages--didn't reveal the name. But apparently it's the actual names of the people in the Saudi government and Saudi royal family that are in on financing 9/11 conspirators. And your book makes it pretty clear that that's what it's about.
First of all, who ordered the redaction, that you weren't allowed to say this?
GRAHAM: First, I'm going to have to withhold my comment on what you have just said. I am under the strictures of classification. I have--although it was written in 2002, I still have a reasonably good remembrance of what was in those 28 pages, but I'm frustrated because I can't talk about it.
9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For R
Source: International Business Times
9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For Release
http://www.ibtimes.com/911-link-saud...elease-1501202Since terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, victims’ loved ones, injured survivors, and members of the media have all tried without much success to discover the true nature of the relationship between the 19 hijackers – 15 of them Saudi nationals – and the Saudi Arabian government. Many news organizations reported that some of the terrorists were linked to the Saudi royals and that they even may have received financial support from them as well as from several mysterious, moneyed Saudi men living in San Diego.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly denied any connection, and neither President George W. Bush nor President Obama has been forthcoming on this issue.
But earlier this year, Reps. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., and Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., were given access to the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) of 9/11 issued in late 2002, which have been thought to hold some answers about the Saudi connection to the attack.
"I was absolutely shocked by what I read," Jones told International Business Times. "What was so surprising was that those whom we thought we could trust really disappointed me. I cannot go into it any more than that. I had to sign an oath that what I read had to remain confidential. But the information I read disappointed me greatly."...
Don't question authority. We have the official story. There is no need for further investigation. There is no need to re-hash what our elected officials have told us. They have our best interests in mind. They would not deceive us. Belief in any theory that varies from the official account is discouraged; the thinking has already been done for you. Just believe. Trust. Obey.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-won...fo-30-07-2003/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-won...fo-30-07-2003/Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.
Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.
The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi.
http://www.motleyrice.com/news/view/...ted-pages-1028President Obama assured the 9/11 Families shortly after taking office in 2009 that he would release the pages. To learn the truth and prevent future terrorist attacks, the group asks him to keep his promise.
“The transparency begins with the 28 pages, but it extends much further,” the letter states. “For example, we are closely monitoring a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in which plaintiffs are suing the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, regarding an investigation involving a Saudi family, former residents of Sarasota, FL, who may have provided aid or assistance to the 9/11 hijackers. We understand that plaintiffs in that case have also requested Part Four of the report of the Joint Inquiry.”
Former Senator Bob Graham, co-chair of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Investigation, has provided declarations that the investigation of the Sarasota family was not disclosed to him or his co-chair, Porter Goss. He also states that, when he learned of the investigation in 2011, he asked the same question of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, and they confirmed that they had not been aware of the FBI’s investigation either.
Bin Laden Reported to have Met with Saudi Intelligence Chief 2 Months Before 9/11
(Note Prince Turki al Faisal would later become Ambassador to the USA, replacing the former Ambassador known as "Bandar Bush")
Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities . . . . Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...stan.terrorism
Why would the Saudi government want to attack the US, dan?
Ask the 9/11 Commission....oh that's right, you can't.... because they didn't bother going there and then buried this evidence for decades under the 'cloak of national security"....still loving that report?
dan, I am asking you a direct question.
Please answer.
Why would the Saudi government want to attack the US, dan?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
