So still think the towers were brought down without bombs?

[xrayzebra]

Ironworker at WTC site cutting column with a blowtorch.

Nbadan is a pathological liar. We all know he will never give it up.

You got to remember, dan has a track
record, he said so himself. You might
say he is plough-horse on a race track
of knowledge.

[Phenomanul]

It's very important because of the explosive power necessary to transform all that concrete in fine particles of dust, which is likely what happened.

Likely what happened??
Likely what happened??????

Since you're so sure... now I really want to hear the basis for your concepts on concrete.

Do you even know what type of forces can make concrete friable? What type of forces can pulverize it?

[Phenomanul]

You know nothing about building demotion. Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.

Behold the power of thermite

Notice the color of the smoke? Ok....


Notice the smoke should be black if it is jetfuel (which would have burned quickly and extinguished itself from a lack of air supply and office furniture) this again is more consistant with the use of thermite.

Hundreds of different materials burn with white fumes/smoke. Why does your favorite answer - thermite - the only choice..... Oh I see... because it's the only one to suit your conspiracy needs.

[Extra Stout]

Likely what happened??
Likely what happened??????

Since you're so sure... now I really want to hear the basis for your concepts on concrete.

Do you even know what type of forces can make concrete friable? What type of forces can pulverize it?

Sorry, dan doesn't deal in facts or calculations. He's more the type who hopes to wear down opponents through persistent lying (a la Cheney).

[Phenomanul]

According to Phenominal, the whole internal-core collapsed first, but as this photo shows, NOT LIKELY.

No buddy, that's not what I said... I said "if" the core fell first there is no way of telling considering that the view was entirely masqueraded by a huge plume of smoke and dust. And that your sources have quite some talent because they claim to know exactly how the dynamics of the collapse occured - without the data - and just from viewing what 95% percent of Americans saw that day.

I guess your picture would be more impressive if it managed to show what the massive core columns would do if they were critically damaged while still trying to sustain the weight of 1/4 of the building above.

[Nbadan]

No buddy, that's not what I said... I said "if" the core fell first there is no way of telling considering that the view was entirely masqueraded by a huge plume of smoke and dust. And that your sources have quite some talent because they claim to know exactly how the dynamics of the collapse occured - without the data - and just from viewing what 95% percent of Americans saw that day.

I guess your picture would be more impressive if it managed to show what the massive core columns would do if they were critically damaged while still trying to sustain the weight of 1/4 of the building above.

It's simple physics, if you can't see that then there is really no hope for you. As I have shown and you have failed to disprove, the inner core was the strongest part of the building. Even if some of the trusses near the point of impact did collapse on the inner core, the building would collapse like a tree, not down on itself.

[Nbadan]

It's funny, for all the conspiracy theorists' wild ideas, they demonstrate a decided lack of imagination when it comes to visualizing the effects of a catastrophe of this scale. I showed a picture of the twisted mass and Dan can't even consider that it could be the result of really heavy falling on top of it -- nope, gotta be thermite. Fire burning for weeks? Can you imagine the amount of combustible material in the twin towers complex, above and below ground? , we had a pile of mulch burn for three months.

The Helotes fire wasn't buried under thousands of pounds of twisted wire and concrete, and it would not have burned nearly hot enough to melt steel.

[johnsmith]

Ok, this has to be a joke. Dan as clearly trolled all of us into a 15 page argument because he can't be serious with all this .

No one can honestly think this right? Well, except for Rosie.

[Nbadan]

Evidence of molten steel was found at the very base of the WTC towers, and is a matter of public record. Still the implications are clear: such a melting of a section of all the inner core box pillars is possible, using relatively simple technology. Such compounds could have been applied to the interior or the exterior of even the largest of these columns in a surrep ious manner, to accomplish the task of melting and collapse. The amount necessary for complete melting of a segment of even the largest box column was calculated, and found possible. Of course complete melting was not necessary to cause total truss failure: a lesser amount of a thermite-like compound could have been used to raise the temperature of the steel to a point where the columns would fail before melting, although some melting must have occurred to account for the steel pools.

[RandomGuy]

When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

Subs uting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one.

You didn't really answer the question.

The question was:

How much kinetic energy, relative to the mass, an object moving 10 mph has.
10mph works out to about 4.44 m/s
Subs ute that into the equation for kinetic energy and you get a kinetic energy=1/2*m*4.44*4.44=9.87m

Meaning that relative to the moving mass, the kinetic energy is about 9.87 times the mass.

Is this calculation correct?

[johnsmith]

You didn't really answer the question.

The question was:

How much kinetic energy, relative to the mass, an object moving 10 mph has.
10mph works out to about 4.44 m/s
Subs ute that into the equation for kinetic energy and you get a kinetic energy=1/2*m*4.44*4.44=9.87m

Meaning that relative to the moving mass, the kinetic energy is about 9.87 times the mass.

Is this calculation correct?

And RandomGuy jumps in with a mathematical slapping.

[RandomGuy]

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?

Affect it's structural integrity how? Can it create a 'kink point'? yes, Would it explain the complete collapse of both towers? No.

You did not answer my question.

Either a jet impacting a building at 400+ mph has an effect or not.

I will make it a bit easier for you.

Does a jet impacting a building:

1) Increase load bearing capacity of affected load-bearing structures
2) Decrease load bearing capacity of affected load-bearing structures
3) Have no effect on load bearing structures.

[RandomGuy]

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

[non-answer]

Once again:
Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

[RandomGuy]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

[non-answer]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

[RandomGuy]

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

[non-answer]

Sigh.

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

[ChumpDumper]

The Helotes fire wasn't buried under thousands of pounds of twisted wire and concrete, and it would not have burned nearly hot enough to melt steel.

The smoke was white, so of course it was thermite and therefore hot enough to melt steel. The bulldozer melted, there just isn't a picture of it. I read it on a web page somewhere.

[RandomGuy]

Iif the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?

It's resistance. The debris is not what matters, that's just a distraction by debunkers, the debris clearly starts falling well before the building core collapses and should fall first. What matters is the speed at which the central core of the building collapses because the trusses are bolted together and the law of conservation of motion states that this resistance would considerable slow the rate of decent. For those of you unlearned, this means that it would have been impossible for the buildings to fall at 10 seconds under any other condition than that presented by a artificial va e, like bombs.

So the building is collapsing slower than a free fall?

[Extra Stout]

Really, this thread is warming my heart.

Conservatives and liberals have banded together towards the common cause of demonstrating just how complete an idiot dan is.

[RandomGuy]

This is why I keep repeating that the pancake theory is bogus, this was posted by FWDT on page 5. So if the concrete didn't pancake, what happened to it?

The pancake theory actually depends on the floor/outer wall joints coming apart which is not what happened.

The actual collapse mechanism, especially at the beginning depends on the strength of those joints, as the sagging interior sections start pulling sections of the face inward.

This is very aptly demonstrated by pictures that show sections unaffected by the initial jet impact bowing inwards.

[Extra Stout]

The smoke was white, so of course it was thermite and therefore hot enough to melt steel. The bulldozer melted, there just isn't a picture of it. I read it on a web page somewhere.

This thermite is everywhere, I tell you.

[Phenomanul]

It's simple physics, if you can't see that then there is really no hope for you.

It's the most likely assumption, the most likely scenario..... but even that can't be proven - because of a huge dust plume that covered everyone's view. There is a difference. If you cant' understand that concept "then
there is really no hope for you."

As I have shown and you have failed to disprove, the inner core was the strongest part of the building.

What a stroke of genius dan.... Really? The central core was the strongest part of the building? You don't say....

How does this fact prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the tower's collapse occured the way you claim it did (even if it did). You can't prove it.

Even if some of the trusses near the point of impact did collapse on the inner core, the building would collapse like a tree, not down on itself.

That would require a force acting along a horizontal vector to overcome the vertical force of gravity. I didn't see it. Did you?

If the towers didn't fall on their side even after significant horizontal forces crashed into the towers - huge passenger planes if you recall - what makes you think that the towers would want to tip over minutes after said impacts occurred??? Gravity - again acting along a completely vertical vector - became the dominant force imposed on the towers. Gravity usually causes objects to fall down towards earth's center of gravity - they only tip over when the normal opposing force creates a fulcrum. If that fulcrum is not created, however, the object will continue to fall along a vertical path. Now if you've managed to grasp that concept, here's the kicker. When sufficient momentum is created fulcrums aren't normally formed. Why is that? Because the static coefficient of friction is lower once an object is in motion.

[RandomGuy]

This is why I keep repeating that the pancake theory is bogus, this was posted by FWDT on page 5. So if the concrete didn't pancake, what happened to it?

The dust of the crash was composed only of about 10% concrete particulate.

The vast majority was insulation and gypsum from wallboard.

[ChumpDumper]

It's simple physics, if you can't see that then there is really no hope for you. As I have shown and you have failed to disprove, the inner core was the strongest part of the building. Even if some of the trusses near the point of impact did collapse on the inner core, the building would collapse like a tree, not down on itself.

Certainly started that way. Then when the remaining side was stressed beyond it's breaking point, the building top started falling straight down. It's plain to see that's exactly what happened in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk

Simple physics.

[Phenomanul]

The dust of the crash was composed only of about 10% concrete particulate.

The vast majority was insulation and gypsum from wallboard.

and ceiling panels and crushed glass and sheetrock etc....

[Phenomanul]

Certainly started that way. Then when the remaining side was stressed beyond it's breaking point, the building top started falling straight down. It's plain to see that's exactly what heppened in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk

Simple physics.

Perfect illustration of the formation of the fulcrum... it occured at the beginning of the collapse because at that point the static coefficient of friction was higher than the kinetic coefficient of friction. Once the mass garnered speed (i.e. momentum) it was straight down from there....

edit: and more the likely the fulcrum was located around the area of the critically damaged core.