Reply With Quote
Galileo Galilei vs. Isaac Newton Freestyle BattleHere's a video of Galileo, explaining his theory
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
Here's a video of Galileo, explaining his theory
Galileo Galilei vs. Isaac Newton Freestyle BattleHere's a video of Galileo, explaining his theory
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
The studio where they faked the moon landing was in WTC 7.
hmmm...very interesting that some of the flight attendants were found with bound hands because some attendants were making air-phone calls from the hijacked planes.....
...nice thread everyone.....
1) The NIST said they didn't have a budget to look into it, but eventually got it done after they go the first report finished, and with much fewer resources. It is in their FAQ.
2) No human being died from the collapse of WTC 7.
Why would they fake a moon landing, if they haven't faked a Mars landing?
The Mars studio is part of the new WTC plan. Please keep up.Why would they fake a moon landing, if they haven't faked a Mars landing?
The NIST report on WTC 7 has been delayed several times, and they have not cited financial reasons for the delay.
I'm aware that no one died in WTC 7, although there are reports which I have not confirmed that John O'Neil died there. Barry Jennings also reported dead bodies in the WTC 7 lobby. These people would have died from the morning explosions in WTC 7, not its collapse later.
Bush should be tried for mass murder, along with Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Funny.
I watched a very basic, 4 floor structure get demolished from about a block away.
The explosions were deafening.
If enough explosives went off to demolish a 110 story building, how could people less than a block away not hear it?
For that matter, why did the explosions not carry sharp sounds for miles?
For that matter, since explosives impart debris velocities of thousands of feet per second, why was the debris field not miles across?
Assume it takes roughly 7 seconds to fall at free fall from the height of the impact zones, where the collapse started, and an object from the "explosives" was propelled at 1000 feet per second (a VERY LOW estimate) that would mean that bit would travel almost 2 miles before hitting the ground.
This would mean that if explosives were really used, the debris field of minor debris would have been MILES across.
Unless of course it is magic quiet explosives that magically don't propel objects at thousand of feet per second...
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new do ents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
One would reasonably have expected that some portions of the massive central steel core would have remained standing in these cir stances. It didn't. All 44 columns were brought to the ground in - relatively speaking - small lengths.
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.
OMG!!! SOME!!!
If you read what you actually post, you'd see that NIST still has no idea why WTC 7 fell. They may very well change everything and conclude it what is obvious to most people; a controlled demolition.
The area where they say failure occurred seems correct. The cause of that failure is explosives, as witnesses in that area have described them. I doubt the NIST political manangers have allowed the NIST scientists to talk to these witnesses (Barry Jennings & Mike Hess).
NIST hints at all this with their reference to 'hypotheitcal blast events'.
As you may know, hypothetical events do not effect buildings, only actual events do, and there are witnesses to actual blast events in WTC 7.
NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7
New witness confirms Scholars previous findings
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?...=113&Itemid=67
NIST has made no attempt to explain the evidence ususally cited as proof of controlled demolition; the scientific characterisitcs of controlled demolition seen in the videos.
The same government that can't "out" a CIA agent without getting busted can pull off the mother of all conspiracies.
Riiiight.
By the way, John O'Neil did not die at WTC 7.
What are you trying to argue, that huge explosions weren't heard when WTC 1 fell?
Is not multi-ton steel chunks being thrown 500 feet not evidence enough for you of powerful explosions?
Your math is bad.
Force = mass x acceleration
a very small chunk might start at 1000 feet/second, but a small chunk would be slowed by air resistance.
a multi-ton chunk will not be going 1000 feet/second.
9/11 wasn't a conspiracy as I've stated many times here in this forum. It was a clean, legal, false-flag military operation.The same government that can't "out" a CIA agent without getting busted can pull off the mother of all conspiracies.
Riiiight.
By the way, John O'Neil did not die at WTC 7.
hmmm....much experience in Physics RG?
— J. McMichael : Link1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?
2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?
3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?
Question 1:
In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.
It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.
Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.
Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.
Question 2:
The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.
The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.
Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).
For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.
Question 3:
Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.
Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.
These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.
A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park (http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm).
Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."
Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: "Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively."
Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel.
Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical):
Full scale fire tests Maximum measured steel temperature
Country Beam Column
UK 275 C (527 F) 360 C (680 F)
Japan 245 C (473 F) 242 C (467 F)
USA 226 C (438 F) -
Australia 340 C (644 F) 320 C (608 F)
A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC.
To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).
Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation.
I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers.
1. This has nothing to do with WTC 7
2. You state nothing that contradicts the controlled demoliton hypothesis.
3. Your math is horrid, and contradicts even what NIST has stated in their reports.
Explosions, yes.
ExplosiVES, no.
Find any chunk of debris from the collapse heavier than a piece of paper that was found farther than 1000 feet away.
You're the one who says that massive amounts of explosives were used.
You must show that the observed phenomena fit that theory.
For that to be true the debris field would have to have been much larger.
This is where your ed theory starts contradicting itself.
"The building was too strong for it NOT to have been brought down by anything other than explosives"
Is irreconciliable with:
"The explosives weren't powerful enough to throw chunks of debris for miles."
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
1. I don't really give a rat's ass about WTC 7.
2. I have stated plenty that does.
3. Provide proof and a link to anything in my calculations that contradict the NIST report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As do ented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
I actually found that in the FAQ, after I did my calculations.
It is simple ing algebra, but since it doesn't fit your theory, you wave your hand and dismiss elementary physics as "irrelevant".
I mean that scienc-y stuff is for total shills.
Real truth seekers know that Bush is controlling the phsyics textbook manufacturers..
For our resident "moonbats"
Dr. S. Shyam Sunder of NIST dispells "troofer" theories
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html
EDIT> What he is saying is pretty much in agreement with what RandomGuy has been trying to explain to Galileo.
You speak double-talk.
First you say the towers can fall without any explosives at all. Then you assert the explosives must blow heavy debris 1000 feet.
The explosives just weren't as strong as you assert, they did blow heavy debris up to 700 feet.
Here is the difference between "static" loads and dynamic loads for you if the math is too ing hard.
Hold a 50 pound bag of cement over your head. You should be able to do so with ease. (static)
Now, drop that SAME bag from 35 feet (3 stories).(dynamic)
Can you catch it?
Or
Better yet:
You can do a push up, so you can support your body at rest. (static)
Assuming you can run about 18 miles an hour full out, hold your arms out and run as fast as you can into a brick wall. (dynamic)
Will it hurt?
Simple ing common sense. I didn't even need math.
That is why, once you get a chunk of the building moving, it is VERY hard to stop it.
That is what the NIST said happened, and all it takes is either knowledge of basic physics or common sense to grasp it.
That you can't demonstrates you have neither.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
