your article sucks.
First of all, its just a bunch of couldas, shouldas wouldas. it is not a scientific paper. Whoever wrote it should be stripped of all their credentials.
The first problem is that office fires don't burn hot enough to affect steel framed buildings.
Second, there is no explanation of how column # 79 failed.
Third, if column # 79 failed, the rest of the building would hold it up. You'd need to knock out 25 columns to make this building fall.
The paper does describe where to put explosives if you want to take it down.
Is this your WTC 8?You're the one who posted a video of it.
How many floors?
If some floors and vertical columns fail below that, it could certainly affect the building above.
How many floors in this picture of the building from your video?
hate to say it, but there is no WTC 8.
What does this have to do with WTC 7?
hey, I just figured out how this building fell down:
1) it had a unique contruction.
2) the other side may have suffered extreme damage from flying saucers.
3) a garbage can on the 25th floor caught fire. This fire spread to the kitchen. Then column # 13 failed, bad luck, and the building went down.
You posted a video of its demolition and claimed it was 64 floors high.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=573
I posted a picture of the same building before its demolition and I'm asking you how many floors this building has:
How many floors?
How many floors of WTC 7 had fires after 3 PM?
I have a policy where I don't discuss the technical aspects of WTC 7, until the Fort Worth Landmark Tower is resolved.You posted a video of its demolition and claimed it was 64 floors high.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=573
I posted a picture of the same building before its demolition and I'm asking you how many floors this building has:
How many floors?
Sorry.
:-(
you're quite the clever fellow. Now I know why you believe conspiracy theories.
So how many floors?
the same number as the Lakers longest winning streak.
Preposterous quote from Osama bin Laden:
"Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building"
This quotation from the Fatty bin Laden video is even more preposterous than the idea that Atta would bring his will with him on a airplane suicide mission!
It doesn't. It shows the inaccuracy of the 'truthers.'
There was structural damage too. Besides, the fires started well before 3 PM.
I replayed the CBS video and others I have saved. It does take about 6.6 seconds before WTC 7 appears collapse from the ground. However, the initial roof collapse isn't seen, and the 6.6 seconds is after it isn't visible any longer, behind other buildings. The CBS video from the helicopter best shows the collapse, clearly more than 7 seconds before no more is seen falling behind the other buildings and lost in the debris cloud. Besides, there are still at least 7 floors unseen in any of the videos.
No I didn't, it was a discussion between you and Random.
Oh wait... I get it... Your math skills are at such a low level that you don't know that "75 times" is the same as 7500%... Right?
Even though buildings are mostly hollow? Silly me. I thought in just took up some of that hollow space.
It took some time, but I found the south face damage. This same file gives a timeframe of some of the breaking windows. Source file is:
Appendix L:
The photo is after WTC-1 collapse and before WTC-7 collapse. Here is an aerial view showing the location for reference:
Notice first of all how you said WTC-6 was in the way of debris causing damage to the lower floors, yet I see a clear path from WTC-1 to WTC-7. See how short WTC-6 is compared to 1 & 7?
You continue to make incorrect statements.
Now this drawing is from the same PDF file. It shows how a single column can bring down other columns:
Here are a photo's showing the face of WTC-7 before 9/11 clearly showing the Promenade and Pedestrian Bridge:
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.
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.
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.
75 times the static force is completely sufficient to crush the ENTIRE building.
That "top" part of the building was only designed to resist 1.2 times the static force of the top part of the building you dipstick.
the acceleration of gravity is a contant and acts on EVERYTHING. It does not stop because an object is at rest, if it did you would simply float off into space, you physics-challenged mental midget.
Your facts are wrong, and not even the goverment scientists accept them.
NIST will not release their calculations similar to yours to the public because they indicate the building would not collapse.
There was no structural damage from debris near the east penthouse, nor near column # 79. This is all in the NIST report
The explosion around 9:30 AM was near column # 79 and is evidence of an inside job.
The fires before 3PM are not relevant. Steel conducts heat well, so a 500 degree F fire at 3PM will be cooled down to 200 or less a few hours later. NIST is aware of this if you read the report, instead of just making the same things up again.
How would a 9:30 AM explosion bring down a building after 5:20 PM?
It didn't.
How would a building collapse at 10:30 bring down a building after 5:20?
So explosions didn't bring down WTC7!
End of thread.
By discharging a sufficient mass of debris into the side of that building, weakening the structure to the point it suffered a catastrophic failure approximately 6 hours and 50 minutes later?
And starting the fires that burned uncontrolled.
I guess you believe an insult at one point in an interconnected structure, such as a skyscraper, cannot transmit kinetic energy to other parts of the same structure...possibly damaging portions of the structure in those distant locations?
Ever play croquet?
And that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
