Reply With Quote
THERMITE!
I guess this also means that they use thermite to announce the selection of a new pope (Eurotrip)....
THERMITE!
THERMITE!
I guess this also means that they use thermite to announce the selection of a new pope (Eurotrip)....
Maybe Silverstein is Catholic. We should check into this.
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.
The first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side. Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry. This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south.
If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree
The first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side. Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry. This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south.
If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree
Is it so hard to imagine that the instability began right above the impact zone and not below it?
Not that remarkable.Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry. This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south.
How much does 20 or 30 acres of office building weigh? How long did the fulcrum effect last? Was the resulting horizontal force greater than that of gravity on 20 or 30 acres of office building?
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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-23-2007 at 05:51 PM.
The fulcrum effect lasted for a VERY short period of time. The point of fulcrum was crumbling as it was falling.
Dan says that the building was being collapsed artificially fast because of explosives.
This means that the explosive/collapsing wave front should be moving as fast an an object in free fall would.
The top of that building started falling through the air at free fall acceleration, the portions that didn't should have falling through the "resistanceless" building (because of the explosives of course) just as fast.
Go back to the pictures and that section is VERY clearly falling faster.
Dan's argument misses some aspects of falling bodies as well.
Where is the energy coming from directing matter skywards?
A "gravity collapse" does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a siesmic e. It takes energy to project matter upwards and outwards.
I've already covered that, go back and reread what I posted on this.Dan's argument misses some aspects of falling bodies as well.
If I drop a bowling ball and a 1/2 inch ball bearing from 10 feet, which will hit the ground first?
Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
I don't see why you have to pretend that explosives were necessary to bring down the building after the upper section started coming down.
The entire 110 story structure weighed 500,000 tonnes and the plane hit between the 94th and 98th floors according to the FEMA report.
That's around 4545 tonnes per floor, if we take damage from the 90th floor upwards, that amounts to around 99090 tonnes traveling at 10m/s with an arrest in that velocity not long after, before a continuation of the collapse.
That's enough to pancake the building, however, it is not enough to create a "mushroom" effect, as the force is distributed over a wide area and what is being ejected is 30-700 micron particles of concrete. The gravitational energy, of a single tower, would be around 400,000 KWH, in excess of 1,400,000 KWH is required to produce particles of this magnitude.
That's 1,000,000 KWH of energy unaccounted for.
I have considered the "bicycle pump effect", where the collapsing matter compressed the interior atmosphere rapidly, causing it to super-heat and, thus, convert the 200,000+ gallons of water to steam and ejecting it out through the top, however, such an event would have blown out every window...it would be almost like a scene from the film "Independence Day". No such event occurs.
That tells us that compression from the top was not a factor. The ONLY thing that is left is a shockwave travelling from the bottom, to the top, in a HIGHLY directed fashion, with an estimated energy of around 1,000,000 KWH. This results in the "compression" of concrete to fine dust and the upwards thrust ejecting material 100m-200m into the air and pretty much in diameter also.
In addition to this, it was clearly reported on National TV, of the existance of not only a basement level explosion, but also, of secondary devices.
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.
Think of a pixie straw filled with debris at the top end and the mushroom cloud effect you see in the above pic.
No.Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
real source of white smoke to announce pope..
We have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained temperatures of 800oC in order to buckle (not melt) — at the same time. But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26) And then to reach the 800oC at the same time, well, no, this scenario is far too improbable.
So that approach was abandoned by FEMA in the next effort (FEMA, 2002). The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eager (Eager and Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Instead of having the columns fail simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But not so fast — what happens to the enormous core columns to which the floors were firmly attached? Why don’t these remain standing like a spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel core is founded on bedrock (Manhattan schist). FEMA does not totally ignore the core:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column splice connections and also collapsed.” (FEMA. 2002)
This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the 47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of requiring the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.
That didn’t work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board. They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse.
We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers?
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
1) Show your calculations for 400,000 KWH
2) Most of that dust wasn't concrete, it was wall board and insulation.
something had to happen to the concrete. It didn't pancake.Most of that dust wasn't concrete, it was wall board and insulation
Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
So, if I can find ONE instance where a noise that sounds like an explosion is not a bomb, that would mean that you are either ignorant or intentially lying about this.
Anybody care to look for explosive noises that aren't bombs on the internet?
Betcha if we all pooled our talent, we could find one if not more.
For whatever it's worth, here's the link that dan forgot in his failure to attribute his conclusions to their real source: Physics 911
Only about 10% of the concrete was really unaccounted for, if memory serves. Erg, can't remember where I saw it.
Physics 911 is a joke. My response YET AGAIN, because I am still waiting on dan to address anything in it:
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
