Reply With Quote
Of course it is.When did I promise anything?For that matter it's not even the official explanation that you promised.
All the reports are readily available for your "research." There is no chance in you will read them.
Of course it is.When did I promise anything?For that matter it's not even the official explanation that you promised.
All the reports are readily available for your "research." There is no chance in you will read them.
You do understand that an aluminum plane traveling at more than 200MPH slamming into a brick and concrete buildings will sort of make the plane turn in to much smaller pieces, right?
There are hundreds of pictures of plane debris. Hundreds of witnesses that saw American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
That is one of the most thoroughly debunked things that people have said about this event.One of the most thorough analyses of conspiracy theories about 9/11 was by Popular Mechanics which debunked all claims which deviated from the 9/11 Commission findings.
To those who claimed that there was never any wreckage at the scene, they quoted blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer, who was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash.
Mr Kilsheimer, who is chief executive of KCE Structural Engineers PC in Washington, D.C. said: 'I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.
'I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?'
No, they don't, not really.
The towers are simple physics. Once the collapse starts, there is more than enough kinetic energy to collapse the entire structure, as the top 20-30 stories started crashing into the parts below. Feel free to check my math.
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.jod911.com/
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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-22-2017 at 12:16 PM.
Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.That you think 1200 ing degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science.
References to the tensile or compressive strength of steel relate either to the yield strength or ultimate strength. Figure A-5 shows the stress-strain curves for a structural steel (ASTM A36) at room temperature and elevated temperatures. As indicated in the figure, the yield and ultimate strength decrease with temperature as does the modulus of elasticity. Figure A-6 shows the variation of strength with temperature (ratio of strength at elevated temperature to that at room temperature) for hot rolled steel such as A36.
As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature.
The modulus of elasticity, E0, is about 210 x 103 MPa for a variety of common steels at room temperature. The variation of the modulus of elasticity with temperature for structural steels and steel reinforcing bars is presented in Figure A-7.
As in the case of strength, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the modulus of elasticity is reduced to approximately half of the value at ambient temperature.
Maybe you wan wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-22-2017 at 12:29 PM.
I do believe that gentleman is demonstrating the modulus of elasticity.
I have never seen any evidence showing there was any melted steel. Feel free to provide evidence of that claim.
This oughta be good.
Spurtacular reading that conspiracy script almost word for word
It's hilarious when truthers talk in that condescending tone.
It's copy/pasta at this point. Dogmatic blathering, devoid of facts, evidence, or logic.
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe this stupid at this point. This kid was probably still ting himself when the first time those phrases were uttered by the previous generation of mental defectives.
This crap again? Steel glows red at 900 degrees F and can be bent like spaghetti at that temperature. We do it all the time at work. Steel sucks in compression anyway conpared to concrete and wood. It naturally wants to flex.
No, it's not. By your logic, any plane crash into a skyscraper would create a high likelihood of collapse. But architects and engineers know this is typically bull , and the gov. came up with a more specific explanation than the gimp you presented. Funny, given how many posts you railed against me for allegedly not knowing, and then you present that gimp that's nowhere near the bull's eye.
What architects and engineers?
Name names
You do understand that an aluminum plane traveling at more than 200MPH slamming into a brick and concrete buildings will sort of make the plane turn in to much smaller pieces, right?
There are hundreds of pictures of plane debris. Hundreds of witnesses that saw American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
That is one of the most thoroughly debunked things that people have said about this event.
Bro, the towers were detonated. The geniuses didn't even have the wherewithal to send down the tower that was hit first. The geniuses just detonated building 7 because of what? Structural damage?
One mention of building 7 in the WTC report. If it's not obvious to you that is being covered up, then you're one big ing dupe.
This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. And we ing know building 7 was detonated for A FACT. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science?Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.
[/SIZE]
Maybe you wan wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.
This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. And we ing know building 7 was detonated for A FACT. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science?
So... you have smileys.
Got it.
Color me unimpressed.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-22-2017 at 03:44 PM.
More smileys. I have provided testable scientific evidence of how steel reacts to being heated.
Bro, the towers were detonated. The geniuses didn't even have the wherewithal to send down the tower that was hit first. The geniuses just detonated building 7 because of what? Structural damage?
You have "nuh-uh".
That says enough about how seriously to treat your lack of evidence. Keep ting yourself.
Of course it's the conventional theory.
Nope. There are several factors that make the WTC tower situation relatively unique. With 1 and 2, it was the fact that the internal structural steel was not reinforced with concrete. In addition to the unreinforced steel, 7 was built over a ConEd power substation, so loads were distributed in a way very different from most buildings of that type; some components were much more critical.By your logic, any plane crash into a skyscraper would create a high likelihood of collapse.
You knew none of this.
And you didn't read that either. The government and others did change some of the specifics of the collapse as the did the studies and research no one else has bothered to do, but the basics were always the same.But architects and engineers know this is typically bull , and the gov. came up with a more specific explanation than the gimp you presented.
It was simplistic, but accurate. I feel that anything more complex will just make you fly into another rage.Funny, given how many posts you railed against me for allegedly not knowing, and then you present that gimp that's nowhere near the bull's eye.
Exactly, and no valid evidence was presented in the 9/11 report about why tower 7 fell. Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence about tower 7 being detonated.
Yeah, if only the government had researched the 7 collapse for years and published a report and made it available to the public. That would've sure showed you.
Show us. No YouTubes.Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence about tower 7 being detonated.
please.
There is no evidence about tower 7 being detonated. Smiley's don't count as evidence, "bro".
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
