Are you saying that WTC 1 and 2 were deisgned to hold 7500% of their mass?
No, I am not saying that.
You are confused.
A kinetic force from a fall lasts only a short duration.
A static force from a mass above lasts for a much longer duration.
WTC 1 and WTC 2 can withstand a short-term force that is 7500% of their weight, but not a continuous force of that magnitude.
Maybe there weren't fires. There is still the debris and impact. Maybe they were looters or police and fire instead? I haven't read any of these reports for almost 2 years. I do not have 100% recall. The lobby was damaged however.
That is a flat out lie. I have seen a photo showing damade.
No. This is a realistic plauseable explainations with the known facts. It is your conspiracy theories which are made up.
Where is your explosive evidence?
If you want 100% unrefutable facts, then I challenge you to stick with them as well.
No, I was providing a senario that would support you conspiracy theory, in which I questioned why would they be set off after the plane didn't hit. If it was interpreted otherwise, that wasn't my intent.
OK then, disprove Random...
That explains allot. As you know, there are several varieties of libertarians. I have yet to meet a liberatrian party official that wasn't a total whacho. You guys give us real liberatarians a bad name, like president Bush and senator McCain gives the republican party a bad name. That's why I normally refer to myself as a conservative. That's why I am registered as "not affiliated."
Bzzzzz...
wrong answer.
7500% is far to great of a number for kinetic energy unless that energy is 100% directed strait through the strongest angle of the structure. Any angular deviation, with the applied vector forces, wipe such a number out of consideration.
What you imply is the same physics that allow a paper straw to be put through a potato. If not done just right, the straw collapses, often not even making a mark on the potato.
How many floors do you count in this building?
...and I have a degree in german, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to show how my math was wrong.
Man braucht nicht Zaubertricks, nur etwas besonderes einfach, ob du ehrlich ein Matematiksdiplom hast.
I am a simple shill after all.
Ask him to name what kind of explosive can survive an 800 degree fire and/or an impact from a jetliner.
Then ask him how many people it took to wire the 220 stories of the WTC towers, and how they managed to conceal the cuts through the drywall and conduits required to place the explosives.
Then ask him if someone smart enough to wire such a building, knowing that the people who ordered the "demolition" were willing to kill tens of thousands of people, would really believe that they would not be "tidied up" as a loose end after it was all over.
There are a lot of questions that he won't answer.
Which is funny, because if he ever does get his trial they are precisely the kinds of questions that would be brought up in a courtroom.
"Gee, your honor, I don't really know what kind of explosives could withstand raging fires for a half hour, I don't really know how the explosives got there, and I can't really tell you who actually performed the work, but YOU KNOW THEY DID IT."
7500% is your number, not my number. You introduced it.
You also make my other point; if the top portion of the WTC were dropped several feet onto the lower portion, the top would not impact its entire force onto the lower, but deflect away and then fall to the ground.
Are you actually trying to make logical arguments? If not, what is your point, simply to waste people's time?
You have yet to tell me what force would cause that portion of the building to deflect away, just like that rock moving off to the side after hitting the tin can.
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.
Pffft... RG has his "calculations." How do we know Isaac Newton isn't part of the conspiracy? That "apple" story sounds awfully specious.
One thing that physics challenged conspiracy dorks miss about this is that the equation was for a body starting AT REST.
If the portion under the falling mass doesn't stop it instantly and collapses itself, you then have to figure the momentum for an object with a starting velocity, increased mass AND further accelerated downward by the force of gravity.
But the Bush family owns the companies that publish textbooks. They're in on it too...
v2 = v02 + 2a(x − x0)
x-x0 is the distance factor, v0 being the starting velocity, a=g= gravity acceleration
soooo
One floor is roughly 3 meters.
let's assume that the floor can fully absorb one 75th of the momentum/velocity, so
12 minus 1/75th of 12 equals... 11.84
11.84 squared is... 140
so subs ute that bit in there and you get
v2= 140+(2)9.8(3)=198.99, or , just to keep decimals out, we'll round v2 up to 199
The sqaure root of 199 is 14.1
The ending velocity of the moving mass is about 14.1 meters per second.
Oops. This is still faster than it was before it hit the first floor.
Now we can subs ute the new velocity back into the Kinetic energy (momentum) equation:
ke= 199*.5*m=ke=99m
Oops.
Here is the part that Gal will now have to contend with.
The remaining structure can still only stop about 1.2m
soooo
At 99m, you now have 82 times enough kenetic energy to crush the underlying structure, if the mass holds constant.
Let's be realistic and assume that some part of the mass DOES fall off to the side.
, let's assume that 95% of the falling mass now falls off to the side.
Factor that into the KE equation
99(m*.05)
Since math boy seems to be unable to do math, I will not bother asking him how much this equals and simply spell it out.
4.97m=ke.
That means that the mass that is left still has FIVE ING TIMES the force (dynamic)of the entire mass when that mass was held at zero velocity (static)
Meaning:
Even if 95% of the mass then falls away and is not available to crush the remaining building, you STILL have about 4 times enough energy to collapse the building.
Further still,
Consider the implications of that 4.97m=ke.
Let's say that the force was static and not dynamic.
That means that at the instant of contact, that 5% mass applied the same force as 4.97 times 31 (floors).
The means that it applied the same amount of force as a hundred and fifty story building held at rest at the point of impact.
To imply this wasn't enough force to collapse the building is to imply that the building could have easily been more than TWICE as tall.
Perhaps Gal knows about some 220 story buildings that I don't...
which building? The one on the right or the left?How many floors do you count in this building?
I already posted the photo of the exterior windows of the lobby of WTC 7 a few pages back. No photos showing these windows broken exist. You are stone cold liar.
people like you give conservatives a bad name. That's why I register Libertarian. Most conservatives I hear on the radio or this blog are total wackos.
I already told you that some of the explosives went off early. We have hundreds of reports of explosions from the towers. Are you really that stupid or do you just have a short memory?"Gee, your honor, I don't really know what kind of explosives could withstand raging fires for a half hour, I don't really know how the explosives got there, and I can't really tell you who actually performed the work, but YOU KNOW THEY DID IT."
I've already told you how the explosives got there. This was an inside job. That means and employee of the security company had the explosives brought in.
Please explain to me how bin Laden could sneak the explosives past security?
How did bin Laden turn off the alarm systems in WTC 7?
[QUOTE=RandomGuy]
Then ask him how many people it took to wire the 220 stories of the WTC towers, and how they managed to conceal the cuts through the drywall and conduits required to place the explosives.
[QUOTE]
Most of the explosives were placed next to the core columns next to the elevator shafts, rows 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the core. There isn't drywall there, so please explain to me why you are bringing up drywall besides the fact that you're an idiot?
Also, where do you get the idea that 220 stories must be wired to bring down the building? Are you now admitting that explosives are required to bring it down?
you're the racist who thinks all the Arabs and Muslims are in on it, and want them bombed back to the stone age.But the Bush family owns the companies that publish textbooks. They're in on it too...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
