So still think the towers were brought down without bombs?

[RandomGuy]

The NIST report completely fails to deal with the important dynamic aspects of the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 since the Final Report only deals with tipping as a problem of STATICS. NIST's "global collapse ensued" mantra is a total cop-out, whereby the problem of the collapse is abandoned before it has begun!

To make matters worse, NIST give TWO descriptions of the pre-collapse events: one where the upper section tilts BEFORE collapse, and the other where the upper section TILTS AND FALLS at the same time. I guess NIST had too many authors.

Even Bazant and Zhou (B&Z) do a better job than NIST on this problem since they at least consider the ANGULAR VELOCITY, d(theta)/dt, of the upper section of the South Tower. Their formula shows that, for a given angle of tilt the angular velocity depends on SQRT {3g/h)} where h is the height of the upper section. Hence the rate of tipping is fixed by the dimensions of the upper section. B& Z's formula is ok but it uses an approximation for the moment of inertia, I, of the upper block that ignores the WIDTH of the Tower. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to correct this using I = 1/3 M{h^2 + 1/4w^2} where w is the width of the Tower. If this improved formula is used, reliable values of d(theta)/dt may be calculated for any tilt angle. Integration of the equations also allows the time to reach a particular tilt angle to be derived.

TROUBLE IS, THESE THEORETICAL TIMES ARE MUCH LONGER THAN THE OBSERVED TIMES (which may be measured quite accurately from any of a number of available videos)

So, the bottom line is this:

The top section of WTC 2 tipped at a FASTER angular velocity than is physically possible for a body freely rotating about a pivot at its base!

Now add in some resistance to the tipping from column loading and the problem only gets worse!

I would therefore ask all of you sheeple story fans out there to put away those finite element calculations for a while and check this out..... then please explain how the top of WTC 2 tipped so fast.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------

YOU'RE the one reading these bull websites without doing any critical thinking, and *I* am "sheeple"?

I really don't have the time to look into those calculations, but I will guess that they go something like this:

The real pivot point is not really on the side they suppose.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X ................. Z
X ..................Z


Remove Z and where is your pivot point? X

All those happy fun calculations probably assume that when you remove Z the pivot point is at Z.

Go back and look at the assumptions used in that website dan, and tell me I am wrong.

[RandomGuy]

Not only that, But some of the heavy steel beams were found sticking out the windows in other buildings further away and could only have traveled that far due to explosives. I wonder what dunker has to say now?

Now let's examine that "shot hundreds of feet" bit.

Let's assume hundreds of feet =300 feet.

Lets assume no "gliding" or air resistance.

Let's use your figure of 10 seconds for the collapse.

300/10=30 feet per second. (assuming no additional acceleration after initial force)

That is 20 miles per hour.

Hmmm. That doesn't meet my definition of "shot".

Don't explosions tend to make stuff go faster than 20 mph?

[RIP CITY.]

Whatever parts of the building that were freed of the structure indeed fell at near free-fall speeds.

Because they were free falling.

Faster than the rate of collapse of the entire building.

That makes no sense at all parts fell faster tan free fall? The only way you can defy science and gravity is with outside source explosives etc..

I'm glad you posted those pics, that's the way steel looks after other buildings have been demolished due to high explosive impact, thank you for proving our points!

[RIP CITY.]

Now let's examine that "shot hundreds of feet" bit.

Let's assume hundreds of feet =300 feet.

Lets assume no "gliding" or air resistance.

Let's use your figure of 10 seconds for the collapse.

300/10=30 feet per second. (assuming no additional acceleration after initial force)

That is 20 miles per hour.

Hmmm. That doesn't meet my definition of "shot".

Don't explosions tend to make stuff go faster than 20 mph?

I hate to be the one to uncork your head from your ass but the beams that were located were found high up on the other buildings and the angle they were lodged shows they came from an upward motion not from a falling motion. I suppose the human remains they found 1/4 mile away on TOP of another building was from a falling motion? were did you get your education?

[The Power Hour]

You would think with all the time RandomGuy and Chump have surfing the www they could maybe answer two questions on why won't the Gov. show the video of the Pentagon so we can see it was really a plane, and why did they get rid of all the steel from the WTC before anyone could test it for explosives.

[RandomGuy]

You would think with all the time RandomGuy and Chump have surfing the www they could maybe answer two questions on why won't the Gov. show the video of the Pentagon so we can see it was really a plane, and why did they get rid of all the steel from the WTC before anyone could test it for explosives.

Not until you answer my questions first.

[RandomGuy]

I hate to be the one to uncork your head from your ass but the beams that were located were found high up on the other buildings and the angle they were lodged shows they came from an upward motion not from a falling motion. I suppose the human remains they found 1/4 mile away on TOP of another building was from a falling motion? were did you get your education?

Those pictures don't show that they came from an upward motion.

There was the slight thing of a jet slamming into the buildings at 400 mph.

Do 400 mph collisions tend to scatter human remains over large areas?

[RandomGuy]

That makes no sense at all parts fell faster tan free fall? The only way you can defy science and gravity is with outside source explosives etc..

I'm glad you posted those pics, that's the way steel looks after other buildings have been demolished due to high explosive impact, thank you for proving our points!

Ok, one more time, physics genius:

If I drop a bowling ball and a 1/2 inch ball bearing from 10 feet, which will hit the ground first?

Dan probably won't address this either, so let's examine THIS too.

They hit the ground at the same time.

Now, imagine you superglue that ball bearing to the WTC roof, and at the same time, suspend the bowling ball from a helicopter on a rope so that the bowling ball it at the EXACT same level as the ball bearing.

Start the collapse.

The ballbearing/top section tilts over and falls through the air, just as in the picture.

At the same time you drop the bowling ball.

The ball bearing will hit the ground slightly after the bowling ball, because the first instant or two had some resistance as it was toppling over, but within a minute fraction of a second, in other words, effectively at the same time.

Try the experiment again.

This time, drop the ball THROUGH the building at the same time the ball bearing starts to move.

IF dan's thesis is correct, the bowling ball will hit the ground AT THE SAME TIME, because he says that the building is being collapsed at a simulated free fall speed because of explosions.

SO at everypoint in that fall, the bowling ball, falling and following the collapsing wavefront, should be at the same level.

The wavefront of the collapse and the FIRST part of the falling section should be at the same level AT ALL TIMES.

Is this what the pictures show?

[The Power Hour]

Those pictures don't show that they came from an upward motion.

There was the slight thing of a jet slamming into the buildings at 400 mph.

Do 400 mph collisions tend to scatter human remains or large areas?

The DNA showed the remains belonged to a person who was on the cell phone after the plane hit the tower and the person's office was way below where their bones were later found. on top of the roof of another building many blocks away.
Thus it was not the plane, and it was not from gravity.

Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.

[RandomGuy]

The DNA showed the remains belonged to a person who was on the cell phone after the plane hit the tower and the person's office was way below where their bones were later found. ontop of another building many blocks away.
Thus it was not the plane, and it was not from gravity.

Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.

Great. Now we get into another common bit of 9-11 "truthers".

They all do "research" and the sheeple don't.

Fine.

Link?

[RandomGuy]

The DNA showed the remains belonged to a person who was on the cell phone after the plane hit the tower and the person's office was way below where their bones were later found. on top of the roof of another building many blocks away.
Thus it was not the plane, and it was not from gravity.

Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.

Why don't you do some research and find me some answers to these questions:

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

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

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

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

If 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?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?

[The Power Hour]

Ok, one more time, physics genius:




Dan probably won't address this either, so let's examine THIS too.

They hit the ground at the same time.

Now, imagine you superglue that ball bearing to the WTC roof, and at the same time, suspend the bowling ball from a helicopter on a rope so that the bowling ball it at the EXACT same level as the ball bearing.

Start the collapse.

The ballbearing/top section tilts over and falls through the air, just as in the picture.

At the same time you drop the bowling ball.

The ball bearing will hit the ground slightly after the bowling ball, because the first instant or two had some resistance as it was toppling over, but within a minute fraction of a second, in other words, effectively at the same time.

Try the experiment again.

This time, drop the ball THROUGH the building at the same time the ball bearing starts to move.

IF dan's thesis is correct, the bowling ball will hit the ground AT THE SAME TIME, because he says that the building is being collapsed at a simulated free fall speed because of explosions.

SO at everypoint in that fall, the bowling ball, falling and following the collapsing wavefront, should be at the same level.

The wavefront of the collapse and the FIRST part of the falling section should be at the same level AT ALL TIMES.

Is this what the pictures show?

Did you fall off the crib in your trailer when you was reaching for that 1/2 empty can of Bush beer your pappy left after falling asleep while watching re runs of Dukes of Hazard? Are you acting stupid to get a rise from folks?

They already dropped objects off the WTC long ago as part of a science experiment and it took the objects 16 seconds to hit the ground, The WTC took 9 seconds to hit the ground what part of collapse buildings vs demolished buildings do you not understand?

[ChumpDumper]

Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original sub les)

Jowenko?

So do you agree with Jawenko when he says Towers 1 and 2 were definitely NOT controlled demolitions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

Of course at the end of your video, he simply says he can't explain it after he is told the building was on fire for seven hours and no one had time to set any charges or wires. Could it possibly be that's because he was only shown Loose Change edits of the collapse?

Of course.

[RandomGuy]

Random guys asks:

6 or 7 easy questions.

[a complete evasion of all the questions I asked]

Exactly what I predicted would happen.

I am sorry I have insulted your religion with my silly science and logic, but would you please humor me and try answering any of them?

[The Power Hour]

Why don't you do some research and find me some answers to these questions:

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

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

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

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

If 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?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?

Sure a plane hitting a building will effect it's stability but the bottom floors will not fall like a deck of cards not if they are made from steel and why would the steel beams be cut? How does collapsing make angle cuts? Wouldn't it just be a huge 4 story pile of bent steel? And ask your MENSA Buddies when you golf with them this weekend what other building made from STEEL has ever collapsed?

I hope your still around when one of the Engineers or Demolition workers admits they had part in placing the charges. like that can't stay a secret forever.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I hate to be the one to uncork your head from your ass but the beams that were located were found high up on the other buildings and the angle they were lodged shows they came from an upward motion not from a falling motion. I suppose the human remains they found 1/4 mile away on TOP of another building was from a falling motion? were did you get your education?

The DNA showed the remains belonged to a person who was on the cell phone after the plane hit the tower and the person's office was way below where their bones were later found. on top of the roof of another building many blocks away.
Thus it was not the plane, and it was not from gravity.

Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.

Either provide a link or maybe you're the one who needs some help with that cork, mouse

[thispego]

loose change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Not only that, But some of the heavy steel beams were found sticking out the windows in other buildings further away and could only have traveled that far due to explosives.

Could you please give me your full theory about 9/11 that accounts for thermite and high explosives and Silverstien and the CIA and invisible helicopters and cruise missiles.

Heavy things fall from great heights. Hit other things. Bounce around. Hit other buildings. It's right there in front of your eyes.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I hope your still around when one of the Engineers or Demolition workers admits they had part in placing the charges. like that can't stay a secret forever.

Right, someone in that position would definitely not spill the beans to hollywood or CNN or whoever for some ridiculous amount of money

Come on mouse, you're better than this.

[RandomGuy]

Ok, one more time, physics genius:




Dan probably won't address this either, so let's examine THIS too.

They hit the ground at the same time.

Now, imagine you superglue that ball bearing to the WTC roof, and at the same time, suspend the bowling ball from a helicopter on a rope so that the bowling ball it at the EXACT same level as the ball bearing.

Start the collapse.

The ballbearing/top section tilts over and falls through the air, just as in the picture.

At the same time you drop the bowling ball.

The ball bearing will hit the ground slightly after the bowling ball, because the first instant or two had some resistance as it was toppling over, but within a minute fraction of a second, in other words, effectively at the same time.

Try the experiment again.

This time, drop the ball THROUGH the building at the same time the ball bearing starts to move.

IF dan's thesis is correct, the bowling ball will hit the ground AT THE SAME TIME, because he says that the building is being collapsed at a simulated free fall speed because of explosions.

SO at everypoint in that fall, the bowling ball, falling and following the collapsing wavefront, should be at the same level.

The wavefront of the collapse and the FIRST part of the falling section should be at the same level AT ALL TIMES.

Is this what the pictures show?

[Insult]
[Evade and ignore]

I'm sorry, I didn't see anything in your post that addressed what I said.

[ChumpDumper]

I hope your still around when one of the Engineers or Demolition workers admits they had part in placing the charges. like that can't stay a secret forever.

Apparently, the hundreds or thousands of people involved have for six years. I guess they are all Skull and Bones.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

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.

Man you're a stupid son of a . You can take a sledgehammer to concrete and turn it to dust. Not that much of a reach for someone with a brain (hence, difficult for you) to grasp the weight of a thousand feet of skyscraper coming down on a slab of concrete to turn it to dust.

Plus, there's other in that building too - people, books, paper, desks, office supplies, insulation, ceiling tiles, carpet, etc. What do you think all that does when it has a couple hundred thousand tons land on it?

[ChumpDumper]

Man you're a stupid son of a . You can take a sledgehammer to concrete and turn it to dust. Not that much of a reach for someone with a brain (hence, difficult for you) to grasp the weight of a thousand feet of skyscraper coming down on a slab of concrete to turn it to dust.

Plus, there's other in that building too - people, books, paper, desks, office supplies, insulation, ceiling tiles, carpet, etc. What do you think all that does when it has a couple hundred thousand tons land on it?

C'mon AHF, the towers are merely ths size of a postage stamp on their monitors.

Those other buildings were miles away. You'd have to use a tactical nuclear weapon for debris to hit 7WTC!



See?

[RandomGuy]

Man you're a stupid son of a . You can take a sledgehammer to concrete and turn it to dust. Not that much of a reach for someone with a brain (hence, difficult for you) to grasp the weight of a thousand feet of skyscraper coming down on a slab of concrete to turn it to dust.

Plus, there's other in that building too - people, books, paper, desks, office supplies, insulation, ceiling tiles, carpet, etc. What do you think all that does when it has a couple hundred thousand tons land on it?

The most credible analysis I have seen puts about 65%+ of the dust as mostly insulation and wallboard. Can't remember the exact figures, but that pretty much f***s the "concrete dust" thing anyways.

[RandomGuy]

Sure a plane hitting a building will effect it's stability but the bottom floors will not fall like a deck of cards not if they are made from steel and why would the steel beams be cut? How does collapsing make angle cuts? Wouldn't it just be a huge 4 story pile of bent steel? And ask your MENSA Buddies when you golf with them this weekend what other building made from STEEL has ever collapsed?

I hope your still around when one of the Engineers or Demolition workers admits they had part in placing the charges. like that can't stay a secret forever.

By the way this is TWICE you have not bothered to do any research and answer my questions.

Why don't you do some research and find me some answers to these questions:

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

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

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

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

If 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?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?