Fyziks 101

[Turbofan]

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop4.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop5.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/tower_fall.JPG

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally
from the demo wave?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_gravity1.jpg

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg

Bonus Question:

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?

How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?

[Mangoose]

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally from the demo wave?

1) Why would there at all be a "demo wave" in a building falling "by gravity"?

2) The debris were NOT shooting "up"; just watch any video to see how the pieces of falling debris were falling. For instance, you marked a falling core column as something moving upward (with an "up" arrow), which any video showing that column shows was definitely not the case.

[jhunter1163]

I see Turbofan's understanding of the physics of building collapses is on par with his understanding of the inner workings of flight data recorders. He clearly doesn't understand either, at all.

[beachnut]

This has been covered, and you are pre debunked and don't know it.

The towers are falling down, you are looking at still photos, big error! The mass is moving down with gravity, the only ejections are due to gravity. The energy released during the collapse is more than 100 1000 pound bombs! For each tower. If you took physics you would be cured of posting real dumb questions. You seem to have a broad ignorance on structures, fire, energy, KE, gravity, and more. You came to the right place.

The chief structural engineer has spoken about his towers. He designed them for impacts of jets equal to 187 pounds of TNT KE, that is 10 times more energy than the impact of the plane with the ESB. On 9/11 the impacts were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT impacts. 7 to 11 times greater than design. This is on an order of magnitude greater than design, this is significant. Like you being able to take one bullet and live, 9/11 was like being shot with 7 to 11 bullets, your chances of survival rival that of the Towers, not good.

Robertson agrees with the way the towers failed due to the impacts and fires, he disagrees with all the 9/11 truth nut case ideas imply explosives or thermite being used.

The squibs are air pressure you lack experience in falling objects, you need to stop and research a few years and save your fingers from over typing all the woo that is coming. Explosions are rapid, the decelerate, the air pressure builds and accelerates. Explosives have noise like RDX, not buildings falling and failing noises heard by everyone. Thermite leaves a distinctive pile of iron, RDX leaves traces of BLAST all over! No evidence of explosives/thermite were found. Dr Jones, fired (retired in lieu of) for being false information manufacturer on 9/11 topics, he made up thermite 4 years after 9/11 as some political bias campaign against the war, or Bush. He has kept his reasons a secret. He has no evidence.

Physics, it makes a mind understand. And look what a great physics guy thinks about what you are using...
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

I was going to post the LC photo, but why...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg
Why not. The best I can do is laugh with Turbo, I think he is having a young man crisis and explained well by Einstein.

[gumboot]

What you're witnessing is the collapse of the impact floors. Stop wasting our time.

[Turbofan]

I see nobody tried to answer any of the questions, so I'll post them again.

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop4.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop5.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/tower_fall.JPG

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally
from the demo wave?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_gravity1.jpg

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg

Bonus Question:

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?

How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?

1) Why would there at all be a "demo wave" in a building falling "by gravity"?

Because it was blown up. See photos. Answer the questions.

2) The debris were NOT shooting "up"; just watch any video to see how the pieces of falling debris were falling. For instance, you marked a falling core column as something moving upward (with an "up" arrow), which any video showing that column shows was definitely not the case.

That arrow is pointing to the ejection of dust shooting upward. Explain
how a gravity induced fall shoot material upward.

[Grizzly Bear]

Because it was blown up. See photos. Answer the questions.
That doesn't look like an explosion, it looks like fine cherry picking Turbo...
The building created a negative air pressure in the wake of the collapse which pulled some of the dust inwards and down. The debris however was falling down only



That arrow is pointing to the ejection of dust shooting upward. Explain
how a gravity induced fall shoot material upward.
Hmmm, doesn't seem words get to you... here's a video to help you out

btftaMMav4I

[Anti-sophist]

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before the decent of the support structure?


Because the area above the failure started moving before the area below the failure.


Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself from the top down, without the support structure moving?Nowhere is there evidence that it "ate itself from the top down". Every one of those images show very clearly that the area of "eating" is very clearly the same as the area of impact.

Where is the mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?
Please don't start a thread about physics and then start completely misusing the words of the field, ie 'pressure'. It makes it very difficult to understand what you are talking about.


In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?
They broke.


If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally from the demo wave?
I am unaware of any law of physics that state this is impossible.


Which object will win this battle in either scenario:
Not enough information is given. You have't stated what A and B are, nor how fast they are moving. Nor what your definition of "win" is.


How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?
How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?False dichotomy. Alot of the air did escape through the large opening opening spanning several floors. There's no rational reason to believe ALL of it could or did.

[bje]

That arrow is pointing to the ejection of dust shooting upward. Explain
how a gravity induced fall shoot material upward.

Turbo,

You know full well that is untrue. Which any video shows you. That was debunked easily in 2002 and you pretend to not know?

The dust is being sucked down behind the collapse front, not exploding upwards as you pretend.
Hmb6_YzHEJA

You're getting very desperate, Turbofan.

[e^n]

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?
They did not

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?
It did not, your analysis is incorrect.

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?
Many were destroyed, many lower section core columns initially survived the collapse. A complex series of failures took place meaning simple questions are not valid.

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally
from the demo wave?
Dust is not being shot up, in your image it is incorrectly labelled. The falling of the towers means that the air surrounding them will rush to take their place, this results in pulling the closest areas of dust downwards, creating the impression they had been shot up. Watch any video of the collapse and this should be evident. Lateral ejection is quite expected and is a result of the building's resistance to collapse.

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg
Neither.

Bonus Question:

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?
Some 'squibs' were simply dust being evacuated through the towers HVAC system. Others were windows breaking, the ones involved with window breaking only occur after the collapse has progressed past the aircraft impact zones. Besides the towers were a complex structure, air movement between floors was limited to a specific number of openings per floor. You cannot analyse this problem simply.

How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?
The upper section was dropping, essentially analogous to a cylinder reducing in height.

[ElMondoHummus]

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?


Nonsensical question. The impact/fire zones failed due to the damage from the jet and the resultant fires. When that failure occurred, the building fell.

And the mass you're talking about is the upper section, above the collapse initiation zone.


In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?


I'd imagine they're failing. The exact sequence is unclear because researchers have not modeled the collapse post initiation, since there's no need to by the time the collapse reaches the runaway point. Regardless, the best model that makes the most sense is that the momentum of the upper block is overwhelming the resistance of the floor below it, causing failures there, then adding the mass of the newly failed floor to the debris zone. Since the floor immediately beneath the collapse progression front did not provide enough resistance to significantly slow down the floor, gravitational acceleration continues, and the mass involved does to, due to the addition of the newly collapsed floor. The progression continues until it reaches the ground.

If you're asking what happened to the lower 30+ sections, I recommend reading Bazant et. al.'s paper "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis", as well as Greening's addendum "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE".


If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally from the demo wave?


Dust shooting in all directions due to the escaping of air would not be unusual. And as Grizzly Bear noted, what you're probably seeing is less dust shooting "up" than dust being pulled down in the wake of the building collapse.

Also, the image in question does not show any debris i.e. debris larger than dust "shooting UP and laterally". Debris larger than dust is not proven to have shot "up and laterally" at all; certainly this image is not supporting that assertion. Other images used to promote the mistaken idea that explosives were used - such as the famous images of WTC 1 exterior columns embedded in World Financial Center 3 - also prove no such thing; that the columns travelled some small horizontal distance relative to the height they are falling is simply not unusual.


Which object will win this battle in either scenario:


Depends. If you're talking solid blocks like, for example tree trunks, then the answer is neither. Regardless, I do not see the relevance. Neither scenario reflects what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The upper block was not overcoming the resistance of the lower block as a whole, but rather it was overwhelming the support structures immediately below it. It's a bit wrong to think of that segment as the floors themselves; it is more correct to think of it as being defined by where the connection points between the columns immediately below the collapse front were. Those can support stress up to their breaking point, and when they break, they no longer distribute stress to other columns. But if they break well before slowing the falling mass down - which is what happend on 9/11 - then they do little to nothing to slow the collapse.

It is incorrect to take the lower section as a whole; forces transmitted to the structures immediately below the collapse initiation zone. Then, when the collapse progressed, those forces overwhelmed the section immediately below the collapse zone, gathered the mass of the floor, did not significantly slow down, and moved on to the next floor. Repeat until the ground level is reached.


How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were large holes from the airplane entry/exit?


They never did. Plus, why would the air only escape up through all the internal structure of the tower and past the collapse debris front? Presuming that presumes an unhindered path to the impact hole; you'd need to establish that to make your argument work. At any rate, the reality is that some air would indeed escape up through that hole, some would escape through other paths, and some would be forced out laterally, blowing out windows.


How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?


Again, there were no squibs. Do not mistake pneumatic effects for those of explosives. I recommend reading the following sites for basic information regarding the squibs myth:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/squibs%3F2
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

Granted, the first link specifically discusses the squibs myth in relation to WTC 7, but the principles in the article still applies.

[Alareth]

I see nobody tried to answer any of the questions, so I'll post them again.


What is the point of trying to answer questions about events that didn't happen?

Your inability to grasp reality is unfortunately something we cannot help you with.

[steve s]

I see nobody tried to answer any of the questions, so I'll post them again.


Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"It doesn't. It equals four."

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"It doesn't. It equals four."

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"It doesn't. It equals four."

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"I've had enough of this nonsense. Go away."

Child:"Why are you refusing to answer my question?"

[Turbofan]

Turbo,

You know full well that is untrue. Which any video shows you. That was debunked easily in 2002 and you pretend to not know?

The dust is being sucked down behind the collapse front, not exploding upwards as you pretend.
Hmb6_YzHEJA

You're getting very desperate, Turbofan.

How can you have compression and vacuum at the same time? :boggled:

I thought the tower was compressing the air to create the squibs?

Nice try.

[steve s]

How can you have compression and vacuum at the same time? :boggled:


Move your hand quickly through the air. In front of your hand is compression. Behind your hand is vacuum.

Nice try.

Steve S.

[Grizzly Bear]

How can you have compression and vacuum at the same time? :boggled:

I thought the tower was compressing the air to create the squibs?

Nice try.

You didn't watch the video that he or I posted did you? :rolleyes:

[Turbofan]

Because the area above the failure started moving before the area below the failure.

Right...

So if you drop a brick on a stack of bricks, and the brick you drop breaks
apart ... what is left to break the rest of the stack?

Nowhere is there evidence that it "ate itself from the top down". Every one of those images show very clearly that the area of "eating" is very clearly the same as the area of impact.

No evidence? Did you not see the photos?

The area you are thinking is only abuot 5 floors in height. What about the
other sides that were not impacted and the approximate 300 feet of tower
that is missing before the support structure descends?


They broke.

Then were are they? There should be 47 * 1300 feet of core steel.

I am unaware of any law of physics that state this is impossible.

I have yet to find one that makes it possible.

Not enough information is given. You have't stated what A and B are, nor how fast they are moving. Nor what your definition of "win" is.

A and B are sections of the twin towers. "Win" would mean, which is able
to destruct the other if dropped?

False dichotomy. Alot of the air did escape through the large opening opening spanning several floors. There's no rational reason to believe ALL of it could or did.

The squibs appear almost instantly as the hole is present. How do you
create compression if you don't have a sealed volume?

[~enigma~]

So if you drop a brick on a stack of bricks, and the brick you drop breaks
apart ... what is left to break the rest of the stack?
Enough with the idiotic analogies. Was the WTC a solid object?

[steve s]

So if you drop a brick on a stack of bricks, and the brick you drop breaks
apart ... what is left to break the rest of the stack?

A house of cards would be a more apt analogy. Or maybe one built of toothpicks. The towers weren't solid masses. They were made up of thousands of individual parts with the joints between them being the weakest links.





The squibs appear almost instantly as the hole is present.

For the ten billionth time, squibs are what they use in movies to simulate bullet hits. The simple fact that you people can't even get this simple term right just shows how bankrupt your position is.

Steve S

[WildCat]

Turbofan, would you care to explain why you ran away from the FDR thread?

[WildCat]

Move your hand quickly through the air. In front of your hand is compression. Behind your hand is vacuum.

Nice try.

Steve S.
Astonishing this would have to be explained to someone.

But then again, Turbofan is special. He's a truther.

[Grizzly Bear]

Right...
So if you drop a brick on a stack of bricks, and the brick you drop breaks
apart ... what is left to break the rest of the stack?


Apples and oranges... can we compare apples and apples please?



Then were are they? There should be 47 * 1300 feet of core steel.
Earth's physics please... where do you get this assertion?

I hope you realize that these columns were assemblies of several story sections, welded together, and not one long continuous single piece.



I have yet to find one that makes it possible.
Because the dust is not shooting up and laterally.
It has been ejected laterally and is falling from the start, You ignored my post earlier as well as the video bje posted, as such you won't understand the concept at all.


The squibs appear almost instantly as the hole is present. How do you create compression if you don't have a sealed volume?

Force a sufficient volume of air into compression faster than it can escape the containment... simple concept

[ElMondoHummus]

Move your hand quickly through the air. In front of your hand is compression. Behind your hand is vacuum.

Nice try.

Steve S.

Well, it's not really correct to call the trailing segment a "vacuum". But it definitely is an area of lowered pressure, sort of like the area following a semi-tractor-trailer on a highway.

[steve s]

Well, it's not really correct to call the trailing segment a "vacuum". But it definitely is an area of lowered pressure, sort of like the area following a semi-tractor-trailer on a highway.

It doesn't need to be totally devoid of air to be considered a vacuum. When you use a straw to drink, you're creating a vacuum, but not a total vacuum.

vacuum
an enclosed space from which matter, esp. air, has been partially removed so that the matter or gas remaining in the space exerts less pressure than the atmosphere

Steve S.

[Turbofan]

The WTC wasn't solid? :eek:

I guess it's considered a gas, or fluid then?

Of course the steel and concerte as considered solid.

The analogy is fine. Both the sections above and below the impact zone
were created equal for the most part...except the lower sections were
stronger as you get closer to the ground level. This of course makes it
even more odd to completely collapse.

[ElMondoHummus]

It doesn't need to be totally devoid of air to be considered a vacuum. When you use a straw to drink, you're creating a vacuum, but not a total vacuum.



Steve S.

Sure, okay. That definition does fit the system being described. I can go with that.

Yes, I was considering vacuums to be entirely evacuated areas when I wrote that. But either way, we both agree about the area being lowered in pressure, and both obviously agree on Turbofan's fallacy.

[Grizzly Bear]

The WTC wasn't solid? :eek:
People need room to move around inside the building :rolleyes:
Your bricks would work fine if the trade centers were uniformly solid like trees, but that is not the case here.... nice hand wave...


Of course the steel and concerte as considered solid.

And you're using bricks as an analogy to tell me why a 110-story tower should not have collapsed... Where the structure is made up a tiny fraction of the interior surface area of the foot print.... this is Jone's cinder block experiment all over again

[steve s]

The WTC wasn't solid? :eek:

Skyscrapers are more than 90% empty space. It would be difficult to fit any furniture or people inside of them if they were solid.


The analogy is fine.

No, it's garbage.



except the lower sections were
stronger as you get closer to the ground level. This of course makes it
even more odd to completely collapse.

Totally ignoring the fact that the mass of the collapsing portion is steadily increasing, thus its momentum is steadily increasing. Kind of tough to stop something when its momentum is constantly getting greater.

Steve S.

[~enigma~]

The WTC wasn't solid? :eek:

I guess it's considered a gas, or fluid then?

Of course the steel and concerte as considered solid.

The analogy is fine. Both the sections above and below the impact zone
were created equal for the most part...except the lower sections were
stronger as you get closer to the ground level. This of course makes it
even more odd to completely collapse.
No it wasn't solid. The individual components were solid themselves but the complex wasn't solid. If you aren't stupid, why do you say so many majorly stupid things?

[Drudgewire]

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"It doesn't. It equals four."

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"It doesn't. It equals four."

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"It doesn't. It equals four."

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"I've had enough of this nonsense. Go away."

Child:"Why are you refusing to answer my question?"


Heehee, reminds me of the Lucky Louie opening:

WZ32BZT9pnk

Man why couldn't that show have lasted longer? WHY?????

[ElMondoHummus]

The WTC wasn't solid? :eek:

I guess it's considered a gas, or fluid then?

Of course the steel and concerte as considered solid.

The analogy is fine. Both the sections above and below the impact zone
were created equal for the most part...except the lower sections were
stronger as you get closer to the ground level. This of course makes it
even more odd to completely collapse.

That's sort of a false dilemna fallacy you're presenting. The Twin Towers were not solid in the same manner that a tree, for example, is. The towers were actually a large number of enclosed empty spaces.

Also, your analogy fails to consider the fact that the falling section never had to pit its momentum against the entire structure as a whole. It was facing single floors at a time, or to be more specific, single segments defined by where the columns were interconnected. It is a mistake to not consider the post-initiation system a series of floor-by-floor failures. That may be an oversimplification, but it is indeed in the right direction, whereas thinking of the lower section as a "whole" in the sense that a solid block is one, homogenous, continuous piece, is mistaken.

There are various imperfect analogies that can help understand the structure's difference from a solid object: House of cards, toothpick building, honeycomb, etc. (none really describing the towers properly, but getting the point of lack of solidity throughout the structure across), but the important thing is to remember that the Twin Towers are not solid like a tree trunk, or pillar, or some other object is that's solid all the way through. They are not.

[Stellafane]

In another thread, I suggested that it might be great if for just one time we completely ignored a Truther post and let it drop off the forum front page with nary a reply, just to show our impatience and disgust with posts that are obvious attempts to troll, consist of utter nonsense, make claims debunked years ago a million times, and were clearly written by people with no interest whatseover in actually engaging in meaningful discussion and learning anything.

In retrospect, this post (starting with its very title) would have made an excellent candidate for that.

[Drudgewire]

In another thread, I suggested that it might be great if for just one time we completely ignored a Truther post and let it drop off the forum front page with nary a reply, just to show our impatience and disgust with posts that are obvious attempts to troll, consist of utter nonsense, make claims debunked years ago a million times, and were clearly written by people with no interest whatseover in actually engaging in meaningful discussion and learning anything.

In retrospect, this post (starting with its very title) would have made an excellent candidate for that.


Honestly though, the alternative is this forum dropping to two threads a day. And as circular and pointless giving these trolls the time of day is, it certainly passes the time on boring office Thursdays. :o

[~enigma~]

Honestly though, the alternative is this forum dropping to two threads a day. And as circular and pointless giving these trolls the time of day is, it certainly passes the time on boring office Thursdays. :o
Uhmm...what calendar are you on? Today is Saturday....

[WildCat]

Uhmm...what calendar are you on? Today is Saturday....
No wonder no one else came to the office today! :jaw-dropp

[Drudgewire]

Uhmm...what calendar are you on? Today is Saturday....


Yeah but right now the 9/11 forum's activitiy level isn't as important. I can leave here and go look at porn if I want. :p

[Turbofan]

Skyscrapers are more than 90% empty space. It would be difficult to fit any furniture or people inside of them if they were solid.

It would be even tougher to create that space if the support structure
wasn't solid...wow...





Totally ignoring the fact that the mass of the collapsing portion is steadily increasing, thus its momentum is steadily increasing. Kind of tough to stop something when its momentum is constantly getting greater.

Steve S.

No, I'm not ignoring it! I'm questioning it. That's the problem, the collapsing
portion is accelerating! No resistance! Conservation of Momentum!

[~enigma~]

Yeah but right now the 9/11 forum's activitiy level isn't as important. I can leave here and go look at porn if I want. :p
At work?!?!?!

[Drudgewire]

At work?!?!?!


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif

[steve s]

It would be even tougher to create that space if the support structure
wasn't solid...wow...

Wow, what? Now it's obvious you're just trolling. Please go away.






That's the problem, the collapsing
portion is accelerating! No resistance!

What's your evidence that the collapsing portion is accelerating. Videos show that debris which falls away from the tower (debris which really is in freefall) accelerates away from the collapsing portion and leaves it far behind. The collapsing portion doesn't appear to be accelerating at all.



Steve s.

[~enigma~]

What's your evidence that the collapsing portion is accelerating. Videos show that debris which falls away from the tower (debris which really is in freefall) accelerates away from the collapsing portion and leaves it far behind. The collapsing portion doesn't appear to be accelerating at all.

Apparently the tower had rockets connected that powered the acceleration. TF has totally snapped and is unconnected to reality.

[R.Mackey]

Move your hand quickly through the air. In front of your hand is compression. Behind your hand is vacuum.

Well, it's not really correct to call the trailing segment a "vacuum". But it definitely is an area of lowered pressure, sort of like the area following a semi-tractor-trailer on a highway.

Right. For something that slow (slow means significantly less than the speed of sound), the static pressure doesn't change. What happens instead is the air is moving in one direction. This increases the dynamic pressure ahead of the air, and decreases the dynamic pressure behind the air. This is your "vacuum," and it can be quite strong, easily strong enough to entrain things like dust. Particularly if your "hand" is 64 meters across, and moving at speeds of up to 80 meters per second.

See the Bernoulli Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_theorem) for a numerical description.

The Towers did not "blow up." Anyone who ignores the extensive scientific reports to the contrary, ignores focused answers to her questions, but instead returns to the argumentum ad ignoratium that it "looked like it" -- as though all of us and the hordes of scientists who worked on the problem never actually saw a single picture of the phenomena in question -- is beneath notice.

[WildCat]

What's your evidence that the collapsing portion is accelerating. Videos show that debris which falls away from the tower (debris which really is in freefall) accelerates away from the collapsing portion and leaves it far behind. The collapsing portion doesn't appear to be accelerating at all.



Steve s.
It is likely accelerating. And there is resistance, but the resistance is not nearly enough to stop the collapse from continuing to accelerate, and certainly not enough to stop it. Think of a truck getting struck by a freight train.

[R.Mackey]

What's your evidence that the collapsing portion is accelerating. Videos show that debris which falls away from the tower (debris which really is in freefall) accelerates away from the collapsing portion and leaves it far behind. The collapsing portion doesn't appear to be accelerating at all.


The collapsing portion is accelerating. It starts from rest, and it moves, ergo it must accelerate. A precise estimate of its acceleration is difficult but an average can be deduced from the "crush down" timing.

To the other individual who claimed this was suspicious, of course it's accelerating, and this does not violate Conservation of Momentum. Momentum is only conserved (e.g. stays the same) if there are no external forces on the system in question.

There is an external force -- gravity. I would have thought that was obvious, but there it is.

I'm having "Net Force = Zero" flashbacks here.

To anyone reading, if you can't understand the above, you know nothing about physics, and should avail yourself of this opportunity to learn from those here who do.

[Anti-sophist]

So if you drop a brick on a stack of bricks, and the brick you drop breaks
apart ... what is left to break the rest of the stack?


You get left with a really ****** analogy?


The area you are thinking is only abuot 5 floors in height. What about the
other sides that were not impacted and the approximate 300 feet of tower
that is missing before the support structure descends?
I have no absolutely no idea what this means.


Then were are they? There should be 47 * 1300 feet of core steel.
In the piles of rubble.


I have yet to find one that makes it possible.
Newton's third law makes it possible. His second law too. In fact, -all- of the laws of physics make it possible by the very nature of the event being completely consistent with it. Feel free to name the law of physics that is violated.

Everyone else has responded to this point by pointing out that you were in fact wrong when you stated things went upward. I'm less interested in that particular argument because, quite simply, even if things went up, there's absolutely no violation, at all, with any laws of physics.


A and B are sections of the twin towers. "Win" would mean, which is able
to destruct the other if dropped?
Oh, in that case in both scenarios both pieces will destroy the other.


The squibs appear almost instantly as the hole is present. How do you
create compression if you don't have a sealed volume?You don't need a sealed volume to create compression. Your mental model of physics is equally as awful as your mental model of FDRs.

[~enigma~]

The collapsing portion is accelerating. It starts from rest, and it moves, ergo it must accelerate. A precise estimate of its acceleration is difficult but an average can be deduced from the "crush down" timing.

To the other individual who claimed this was suspicious, of course it's accelerating, and this does not violate Conservation of Momentum. Momentum is only conserved (e.g. stays the same) if there are no external forces on the system in question.

There is an external force -- gravity. I would have thought that was obvious, but there it is.

I'm having "Net Force = Zero" flashbacks here.

To anyone reading, if you can't understand the above, you know nothing about physics, and should avail yourself of this opportunity to learn from those here who do.
Since Steve mentioned the debris at freefall, I figured he was talking about the collapse NOT accelerating more than what would be natural.

[Mancman]

No, I'm not ignoring it! I'm questioning it. That's the problem, the collapsing
portion is accelerating! No resistance! Conservation of Momentum!

A collapsing mass of floors can accelerate over time whilst conserving momentum. This is very simple.

[steve s]

It is likely accelerating.

Point taken. Instead of saying that it wasn't accelerating at all, I've should have said not nearly as much as the troofer claim. They're always claiming "freefall collapse" and it obviously isn't. As I mentioned above, debris which accelerates away leaves the collapse far behind.

Someone (probably Gravy) did an analysis showing how far some debris falls compared to the collapsing portion.

I'm heading out for lunch. See ya.

Steve S.

[steve s]

It starts from rest, and it moves, ergo it must accelerate.

Obviously at the very beginning it had to accelerate from a dead stop. But see my post immediately above.

Steve S.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Making a claim like "the debris was ejected upwards" and basing it solely on still frames is, honestly, mindbogglingly retarded. Why would you even attempt to use still frames to determine motion, when video is readily available? Dumb, dumb, dumb...

How do you create compression if you don't have a sealed volume?


Take some flour and make a thin layer on your kitchen table. (Get permission from your mom, first!) Then, holding your high school physics book (hey, might as well get some use out of it) with the cover facing the table, drop it on the thin layer of flour.

What happens? What do you think caused it; thermite, demolition charges, or perhaps something else?

[johnny karate]

Turbofan: If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?

[roundhead]

[QUOTE=Cl1mh4224rd;3892886]Making a claim like "the debris was ejected upwards" and basing it solely on still frames is, honestly, mindbogglingly retarded. Why would you even attempt to use still frames to determine motion, when video is readily available? Dumb, dumb, dumb...




I read this and was initially struck by its ignorance, rereading it didnt change my initial assesment.

You really dont think sequenced frames dont help in determining what is going on in investigating a multitude of incidents?

Better tell that to the official and conspiracy camps regarding the Zapruder film, who cited specific frames to make the points they did, in some cases.


Man, give me a break, the idiocy seems rampant around here. People actually type this stuff as believable:D:boggled:

[R.Mackey]

Making a claim like "the debris was ejected upwards" and basing it solely on still frames is, honestly, mindbogglingly retarded. Why would you even attempt to use still frames to determine motion, when video is readily available? Dumb, dumb, dumb...

You really dont think sequenced frames dont help in determining what is going on in investigating a multitude of incidents?

This is a beautiful illustration of a strawman argument. Observers will note that the original statement only referred to determining motion from still frames, whereas the respondent expanded this to include any usage of still frames. The respondent therefore is attacking the previous poster for something he never said.

I provide this since many in the Truth Movement have trouble with the terminology, and use the strawman argument incorrectly. With practice, this can be avoided.

[robeeb]

Turbofan,

Why do you bother coming here, and asking these questions? You ask questions about a field of study which you have no knowledge of. People here can answer your questions over an over, but for you to understand the answers, you would need a certain degree of knowledge that, once again, you do not have. It's a dead end that always ends up the same way. Truthers have little or no knowledge of the fields in which they try to ask questions of, and so the default position for truthers is to simply assume that the people answering their questions are ignorant, when in fact, it's the truthers who are the ignorant ones. Add to that situation the fact that there is nothing anyone here can ever do, or say, to change the minds of truthers. So what's the point?

[A W Smith]

I see nobody tried to answer any of the questions, so I'll post them again.





Because it was blown up. See photos. Answer the questions.


That arrow is pointing to the ejection of dust shooting upward. Explain
how a gravity induced fall shoot material upward.

Read bazants paper, read gregory uriche's paper, will be back later with the link

[roundhead]

This is a beautiful illustration of a strawman argument. Observers will note that the original statement only referred to determining motion from still frames, whereas the respondent expanded this to include any usage of still frames. The respondent therefore is attacking the previous poster for something he never said.

I provide this since many in the Truth Movement have trouble with the terminology, and use the strawman argument incorrectly. With practice, this can be avoided.


Readers, what Mackey spouts is in fact a strawman. Nice spin, i gotta hand it to ya, your a smart guy.:D


Read this quote by the poster:

Why would you even attempt to use still frames to determine motion, when video is readily available? Dumb, dumb, dumb...



I think it makes my point. The Zapruder film was used to determine motion, frame by frame, and video was available. For all we know, the poster using the still frames may well have other forms of evidence to buttress his arguement. DUMB, DUBM, DUMB is this case squarely applies only to the guy who uttered this drivel.

[Evilgiraffe]

Turbofan,

Why do you bother coming here, and asking these questions? You ask questions about a field of study which you have no knowledge of. People here can answer your questions over an over, but for you to understand the answers, you would need a certain degree of knowledge that, once again, you do not have. It's a dead end that always ends up the same way. Truthers have little or no knowledge of the fields in which they try to ask questions of, and so the default position for truthers is to simply assume that the people answering their questions are ignorant, when in fact, it's the truthers who are the ignorant ones. Add to that situation the fact that there is nothing anyone here can ever do, or say, to change the minds of truthers. So what's the point?

Turbofan is a classic troll. No amount of patient explaining will ever get the point through to him. If he is shown to be wrong, he'll simply ignore the rebuttal and continue to claim that he's winning the argument.

It appears that his only purpose here is to bait arguments and "pwn" the JREF'ers.

[R.Mackey]

Readers, what Mackey spouts is in fact a strawman. Nice spin, i gotta hand it to ya, your a smart guy.:D

... and this is not a "strawman," but a simple mistake. The sarcasm is also not an argumentum ad hominem, since it is not used as an argument; rather it is only a disjoint comment.

[roundhead]

... and this is not a "strawman," but a simple mistake. The sarcasm is also not an argumentum ad hominem, since it is not used as an argument; rather it is only a disjoint comment.



Distinction noted:D

[~enigma~]

For all we know, the poster using the still frames may well have other forms of evidence to buttress his arguement. DUMB, DUBM, DUMB is this case squarely applies only to the guy who uttered this drivel.
He may but I would say he's lying and ask him (her or it) if he (she or it) knew that withholding evidence in a murder was illegal?

[beachnut]

Fyziks 101, this hilarious, making fun of physics? So you wouldn't be caught using physics? You have success, you won if that is your goal. Guess there was no room for physics in the truth movement, p4t hate to use it, and refuse to fix major errors, even with help from people here. Simple cut and paste could fix p4t web page of FailFyziks.

Looking to physics, I found the root cause of this thread. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

Stop murdering physics, and learn some.

[Quad4_72]

I'm having "Net Force = Zero" flashbacks here.


Those flashbacks still haunt me to this day. As do others, such as "Tray stacking man", "Clunkity clunk", and of course our recent "Box man". Now we get to add "Brick stacker" to the list. Congrats turbo!

[Newtons Bit]

Why is it that whenever a "Truther" makes a thread about physics they provide zero calculations?

[bje]

Read this quote by the poster:

Why would you even attempt to use still frames to determine motion, when video is readily available? Dumb, dumb, dumb...

I think it makes my point. The Zapruder film was used to determine motion, frame by frame, and video was available.

That can only mean you are far more gullible than I thought, roundhead. Turbofan depends on folks like you.

You'll note that Turbofan tried to use a still shot to claim "upward explosions" when the video showed downward motion. Unlike you, no one here fell for it.

[Turbofan]

It is likely accelerating. And there is resistance, but the resistance is not nearly enough to stop the collapse from continuing to accelerate, and certainly not enough to stop it. Think of a truck getting struck by a freight train.

You have that all backwards!

The top section was much smaller than the lower section (about 1/3).

Try instead...a truck hitting a frieght train.

Or better yet, one truck slowly bending into two stronger trucks.

You do realize not all columns were cut? It's not as if this upper section
just suddenly dropped when all of the other inner and outter columns decided
to leave town.

[stateofgrace]

Turbo do you understand that the floors braced the inner core to the external columns ?

Again,simply answer yes or no.

[ElMondoHummus]

You have that all backwards!

The top section was much smaller than the lower section (about 1/3).

Try instead...a truck hitting a frieght train.

Or better yet, one truck slowly bending into two stronger trucks.

You do realize not all columns were cut? It's not as if this upper section
just suddenly dropped when all of the other inner and outter columns decided
to leave town.

Think of 20 or 30 some floors hitting a single floor. That's the proper way to think about the collapse. Again, the upper section never had to challenge the entire lower section as a whole; it went by sections defined by either floors or the connection points on the columns providing vertical support. It overwhelmed each section. Your analogies are not properly reflecting what happened that day.

[WildCat]

You have that all backwards!

The top section was much smaller than the lower section (about 1/3).
Hey structural engineering and physics genius: the top section doesn't hit the entire lower part of the building all at once. It takes out one floor at a time. You may have noticed the progressive collapse in the videos? :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

You have that all backwards!

The top section was much smaller than the lower section (about 1/3).

Try instead...a truck hitting a frieght train.

Or better yet, one truck slowly bending into two stronger trucks.

You do realize not all columns were cut? It's not as if this upper section
just suddenly dropped when all of the other inner and outter columns decided
to leave town.
gravity

[Quad4_72]

Yes or no question turbo. Did the collapsing portion of the towers have to take out one floor at a time or all of them at the same time?

[~enigma~]

You have that all backwards!

The top section was much smaller than the lower section (about 1/3).

Try instead...a truck hitting a frieght train.

Or better yet, one truck slowly bending into two stronger trucks.

You do realize not all columns were cut? It's not as if this upper section
just suddenly dropped when all of the other inner and outter columns decided
to leave town.
Be the first person in history that can answer this...

After the first 0.5 seconds of slippage IN THE AREA OF IMPACT explain what power could have prevented collapse. Also explain why a 15 story chunk of office building would not and could not have caused an overload of the remaining heat weakened columns IN THE AREA OF IMPACT?

[fuelair]

I see nobody tried to answer any of the questions, so I'll post them again.





Because it was blown up. See photos. Answer the questions.


That arrow is pointing to the ejection of dust shooting upward. Explain
how a gravity induced fall shoot material upward.
They have all been answered multiple times (I mostly just read this occasionally to see if the CTers have gotten any stupider. I am never surprised. They have (especially if you consider re-asking things - with no new data to support whatever it is they think they are thinking/observing - that have already been thoroughly explained/debunked/proven not just wrong but incompetently wrong-to be really incredibly incompetant and stupid) never made me wrong!!:)

[fuelair]

Oh, by the by, think about air pressure. A weird thing we have because air is matter and has mass but is not normally really dense.

[Turbofan]

Also, your analogy fails to consider the fact that the falling section never had to pit its momentum against the entire structure as a whole. It was facing single floors at a time, or to be more specific, single segments defined by where the columns were interconnected. It is a mistake to not consider the post-initiation system a series of floor-by-floor failures. That may be an oversimplification, but it is indeed in the right direction, whereas thinking of the lower section as a "whole" in the sense that a solid block is one, homogenous, continuous piece, is mistaken.

You all don't seem to know the internal network of steel in the Twins apparently?

Remember the massive 47 steel core columns? That is not air...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_large.jpg
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/docs/p2/site1099c.jpg

What about the 200+ outter columns?
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/img/exterioroftowers7yr.jpg

On and... this is all gravity :rolleyes:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

[stateofgrace]

You all don't seem to know the internal network of steel in the Twins apparently?



Turbo do you understand that the floors braced the inner core to the external columns ?

Again,simply answer yes or no.

And you do?

Yes or no?

[Newtons Bit]

You all don't seem to know the internal network of steel in the Twins apparently?

Remember the massive 47 steel core columns? That is not air...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_large.jpg
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/docs/p2/site1099c.jpg

What about the 200+ outter columns?
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/img/exterioroftowers7yr.jpg

On and... this is all gravity :rolleyes:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

Is there even an argument in that post? I can't even figure out what your general point might be.

[Grizzly Bear]

Is there even an argument in that post? I can't even figure out what your general point might be.

I'm having as much trouble figuring him out as you... apparently he still doesn't understand that bricks and 110-story office buildings aren't the same...

[Hokulele]

On and... this is all gravity :rolleyes:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg


Pretty much, other than the smoke from the fires and other particulate matter light enough to be affected by wind and other turbulence. Did you ever think about why the image you linked here is titled cascade (as in, falling)?

[johnny karate]

Turbofan: If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?

Bump for Turbofan.

[eeyore1954]

The best thing about this thread is anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of physics can read TurboFans arguments here. After reading them I do not know how anyone could imagine Turbofan has the requisite knowledge to understand how a flight data recorder.

the brick analogy is something my 10 year old would not fall for.

Here is another interesting post by Turbofan
How can you have compression and vacuum at the same time?
I thought the tower was compressing the air to create the squibs?
This is an amazing statement for someone who is supposedly technical enough to quote and understand the manual for the FDR's.

[leftysergeant]

The plumes rise only in relation to themselves. They are being forced outward, thus must climb up and over the perimeter columns tp escape the arriving debris from above. But, because the perimeter columns are yielding to that oputward force and falling away from the structure, the entire mass is still moving, over-all, downward. What you should notice is the generally homogeneous nature of the plumes viewed from the top. There are no smaller objects being ejected out through the plumes. Thus, it has to be all gravity-driven, with no explosives present.

[ElMondoHummus]

You all don't seem to know the internal network of steel in the Twins apparently?

Remember the massive 47 steel core columns? That is not air...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_large.jpg
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/docs/p2/site1099c.jpg

What about the 200+ outter columns?
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/img/exterioroftowers7yr.jpg

On and... this is all gravity :rolleyes:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

Thank you. By invoking the columns, you make my point for me. As I said, the columns failed at the points they were joined at. That's why the upper segment never faced the lower segment as a whole, but rather by sections defined by where the columns joined. The columns absorbed the forces put upon them by the progressing failures in the fire zone until they reached the breaking point at those points they joined. That section would fail, and the whole upper segment plus the newly failed section would impact the section below. And so on, and so on, until the ground was reached.

That's why I said what I did in the post you're responding to: It is improper to think of the overall system as a smaller block impacting a bigger block. Ignoring the fact that those are completely solid all the way through, the fact is that the upper section is indeed larger than the floor immediately below the collapse initiation zone. And the upper section plus that floor is bigger still than the floor two down from the initiation zone. You draw an incorrect analogy when you draw a small block impacting a bigger block, or say things like "a truck hitting a freight train", or "one truck slowly bending into two stronger trucks". Both are incorrect modelings, neither properly model the Twin Towers on 9/11.

[jhunter1163]

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

Did anyone else notice that this link is from Christophera's site?

I think I now have a realistice explanation of why Turbo does not understand physics.

[Drs_Res]

I saw that.

It is also worthy to note that Turbo is also into Judy Wood territory.
Although Turbo does not say anything about Directed Energy Weapons, he uses the same logic of using still pictures to show upward and lateral ejections when the videos show no such thing.

The only difference between the two of them is that she uses the picture to prove "dustification" and Turbo is using it to prove explosions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017&q=dr+judy+wood+interview&ei=tFyMSL-LJJGg4ALft4SVDA

[Turbofan]

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

What difference does it make where I link the photos from? The funny thing
is, nobody really studies the photo.

Look at the remaining tower. Look above the remainin tower.

What do you see?

I see dust getting blown up and away (gravity :rolleyes:)

I see pyroclastic cloud formations

I don't see any large sections of building needed to push down and crush
the remaining tower

I don't see the 47 central core columns sticking up out of the dust cloud

Where is the large section of tower above the impact zone guys?

It is scientifically impossible for both sections to be breaking apart upon descent
simultaneously with a gravity induced collapse.

[Bananaman]

Turbo, just going outside the thread for a moment, I'm curious. What is your area of professional expertise? I'm only asking because every time you post you make an arse of yourself.

Bananaman (who knows all about make an arse of himself, which is why he's daunted by such nascent talent.)

[Evilgiraffe]

... I see pyroclastic cloud formations ...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Could you spell out for me the etymology of the word "pyroclast"? and explain how this relates to what is shown in the photograph.

[Grizzly Bear]

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

What difference does it make where I link the photos from?

In this case, none, really....


The funny thing
is, nobody really studies the photo.
"Funny thing is," this is such irony. Judging by this response you never bothered to look at the videos of the same scene whilst the collapse was in progress. Photo analysis isn't your strong suite either is it?


Look at the remaining tower. Look above the remainin tower.

and what? It never crossed your mind that dust is capable of blocking the view? Shame you don't take that into account.


What do you see?
I see a collapsing building :rolleyes:


I see dust getting blown up and away (gravity :rolleyes:)

Just a suggestion, get contacts ;)
and get off the video games! D:<


The dust is being sucked down behind the collapse front, not exploding upwards as you pretend.
Hmb6_YzHEJA



I see pyroclastic cloud formations
The abuse... of this word... is ridiculous... please stop... there is no volcano in Manhattan, the world trade centers were not volcanic



I don't see any large sections of building needed to push down and crush the remaining tower

Same as the third response from the top.


I don't see the 47 central core columns sticking up out of the dust cloud
LINK 1 (http://www.nulife.de/elfterseptember/imgs/Collapse_of_the_spire.jpg)
LINK 2 (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/48_spire.jpg)
North tower^^

South tower core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Say what now?



It is scientifically impossible for both sections to be breaking apart upon descent simultaneously with a gravity induced collapse.
Why is it? Since you seem to be quite the physicist could you explain to the uneducated folk who apparently do not have the knowledge you possess why this is impossible?

[Turbofan]

"Funny thing is," this is such irony. Judging by this response you never bothered to look at the videos of the same scene whilst the collapse was in progress. Photo analysis isn't your strong suite either is it?

Actually yes, something else you overlooked. There are still photos
(stop frame analysis) of the collapse linked in the original post.

Nice try.



and what? It never crossed your mind that dust is capable of blocking the view? Shame you don't take that into account.

And when the dust clears, there's nothing :rolleyes:

We shuold be seeing about 1000 feet of core column structure there at
that point in the collapse.


The abuse... of this word... is ridiculous... please stop... there is no volcano in Manhattan, the world trade centers were not volcanic

No volcano, but here are explosives.

Ask yourself why you don't see the pyroclastic flow as the building is
smoking....before collapse? Think about it.

LINK 1 (http://www.nulife.de/elfterseptember/imgs/Collapse_of_the_spire.jpg)
LINK 2 (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/48_spire.jpg)
North tower^^

South tower core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Say what now?

LMAO! That spire 'fell' straight down into itself LMFAO! How does that
happen?!


Why is it? Since you seem to be quite the physicist could you explain to the uneducated folk who apparently do not have the knowledge you possess why this is impossible?

Why don't you try it for yourself.

Grab four bricks. Stack three of them end to end.

Get your video camera rolling...

Take the fourth and throw it down onto the three stacked bricks.

Observe the damage, and notice the debris left over.

Also be aware that you are throwing the brick much faster than free fall,
so the impact force will be much greater.

[Alt+F4]

Grab four bricks.

Is anyone else laughing as hard as I am right now?

[Par]

["It is scientifically impossible for both sections [of the towers] to be breaking apart upon descent simultaneously with a gravity induced collapse."]

Why don't you try it for yourself. Grab four bricks. Stack three of them end to end. Get your video camera rolling... Take the fourth and throw it down onto the three stacked bricks. Observe the damage, and notice the debris left over. Also be aware that you are throwing the brick much faster than free fall, so the impact force will be much greater.


That's science, baby! Stundied (before anyone beats me to it!)

[Myriad]

Why don't you try it for yourself.

Grab four bricks. Stack three of them end to end.

Get your video camera rolling...

Take the fourth and throw it down onto the three stacked bricks.

Observe the damage, and notice the debris left over.

Also be aware that you are throwing the brick much faster than free fall,
so the impact force will be much greater.


What, other than the approximate shape, is similar between a WTC tower and a stack of three bricks?

Or are you claiming that similarity of shape is sufficient to guarantee similar collapse dynamics?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Par]

Is anyone else laughing as hard as I am right now?


I had a small giggle, I have to admit.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And when the dust clears, there's nothing :rolleyes:

We shuold be seeing about 1000 feet of core column structure there at that point in the collapse.


So, this is it, huh? This is your delusion? You actually believe that the core columns should have remained standing while the rest of the tower was shredding itself? What kind of magic would prevent the core columns from being affected, at all, by what's going on around them?

No volcano, but here are explosives.


That still makes the use of the word "pyroclastic" stupendously incorrect. WHy do you think explosives are the magic ingredient that makes mere dust a "pyroclastic flow"?

I think you're just engaging in more of that simple-minded it-is-what-it-looks-like nonsense, which is quite ironic coming from an individual who falls within a loose community that's well known for their "things are not what they seem" mantras.

Ask yourself why you don't see the pyroclastic flow as the building is
smoking....before collapse?


Because it wasn't a volcano before the collapse, either.

LMAO! That spire 'fell' straight down into itself LMFAO! How does that
happen?!


Actually, they shifted to one side before collapsing.

Why don't you try it for yourself.

Grab four bricks. Stack three of them end to end.

Get your video camera rolling...

Take the fourth and throw it down onto the three stacked bricks.

Observe the damage, and notice the debris left over.

Also be aware that you are throwing the brick much faster than free fall,
so the impact force will be much greater.


Can you next describe to us how smashing two Matchbox cars together proves that the debris field caused by the real-life collision of two similar vehicles is in fact a bald-faced lie by our government, and that it was all just a setup using explosives?

Vroom! Vroom! Kur-pow!

[Bananaman]

Yep, Alt, I'm laughing. Embarrassment isn't one of Turbo's failings.

Ask yourself why you don't see the pyroclastic flow as the building is
smoking....before collapse? Think about it.

Just one quibble about the comedian's unusual use of words. Will you give it up on the volcano analogies, Turbo? Please? They're not doing you any favours.

Bananaman.

[Porkpie Hat]

This thread has to be a joke!

Pyroclastic flow?

Smashing bricks?

Beams ejecting up?

This guy is obviously taking the good people of JREF for a ride...no one, and I mean NO ONE is this stupid!

Edit: My wife wants to know if you need help contacting your magic unicorn spirit?

She's concerned!

[GlennB]

Is anyone else laughing as hard as I am right now?

No. I shed a silent tear of desperation.

A long time ago here I posted about debating against another person's glands. I'd picked up the actual quote from elsewhere, but the gist was that when you engage in vigorous debate against strongly held - but totally erroneous - beliefs you are not facing your opponent's intellect, you're debating against their glands. Something very basic, reptilian almost. Something buried in the brain's most ancient and primitive structures. The need to survive, perhaps. The need to eat today, or the need to reproduce .. the need to fight off enemies ... something like that. In the face of such fundamental forces science and logic stand no chance.

These twoofer folks have virtually zero interest in science. Confront them with science and it merely strengthens their categorisation of you as the enemy. They are fighting off monsters that live only in their minds. Or something. I dunno for sure, but there are definitely glands involved.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[...] no one, and I mean NO ONE is this stupid!


I keep saying it, but if there's one thing that the Truth Movement consistently proves us wrong about... it's that.

[WildCat]

LMAO! That spire 'fell' straight down into itself LMFAO! How does that happen?!
Oh look, another truther who doesn't even know the core columns could not stand on their own!

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually yes, something else you overlooked. There are still photos
(stop frame analysis) of the collapse linked in the original post.

There is also video which has posted repeatedly to walk you through the behavior of the dust cloud. Do we have to take baby steps to help you understand such a very simple concept? Apparently you can't put two in two together, are you that desperate?


Nice try.
Yes, nice try, but attempting to convince people of the behavior of the dust cloud based on a single still photo is quite laughable. :D
I'm wondering if you'll ever look at them in sequence frame by frame...




We shuold be seeing about 1000 feet of core column structure there at
that point in the collapse.

The core columns were designed strictly for gravity loads, they were never intended to stand freely. You clearly have no sense of why they braced them laterally in the first place.

Here's an experiment for you, buy a box of legos and try to stack a single column as high as you can without bracing it. I can guarantee that after about a foot and and a half you'll have a fun time trying to add more without buckling that column.

This is the same principal that faced the towers. Of course, you're a 'legendary' physicist who claims to understand the physics involved. If you think I'm wrong, I'll give you some equations relevant to column design so you can do a representative comparison to see if you're right. While I may not be able to give exact values relevant to the towers themselves the equations I have will suffice more than enough to explain the general concept you continue to miss.



No volcano, but here are explosives.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Give us a reason to believe that your explosives are powerful and at the same time small enough to not only be hidden prior to the event but capable of hurling large sections of the towers upwards of 300 ft in any lateral direction.

Also show me an example of a controlled demolition where the demo charges generated the majority of the dust. You've set the bar... good luck

Ask yourself why you don't see the pyroclastic flow as the building is smoking....before collapse? Think about it.
Yes, why don't you apply some critical thinking skills to this? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the building at this point is not collapsing, perhaps because the towers aren't volcanic islands as your pyroclastic flow has been grossly applied to the wrong context.


LMAO! That spire 'fell' straight down into itself LMFAO! How does that happen?!

Remember that lego experiment I told you about? A layman should be capable of trying that experiment and understand the context in the most basic terms. Of course if you'd like I can give a representative equation with math included that will explain the concept to you better. Pick and choose, which would you prefer?


Why don't you try it for yourself.
Grab four bricks. Stack three of them end to end.
Get your video camera rolling...
Take the fourth and throw it down onto the three stacked bricks.

Observe the damage, and notice the debris left over.

Also be aware that you are throwing the brick much faster than free fall,
so the impact force will be much greater.

As Myriad so elegantly put it, aside from the resemblance in the approximate shape what is similar between your bricks and the twin towers? This is a perfect example of where your standard of physics has failed. Just like Richard Gage tried to represent the towers as empty cardboard boxes, and Jones tried to compare one acre floors of concrete 4-inches thick (concrete component) to a cinder block. There is an analogy I like to use to put these into perspective.

The Hercules Beatle can carry up to 800 times its own weight, imagine a 200-pound person attempting to carry 800 times his own weight. The person is clearly stronger than the beatle on the order of many magnitudes but the beatle is far stronger than the man in the in the area discussing the ratio of the weight it can carry compared to how much it itself weighs.

In your experiment the brick is the beatle, and the tower is the person.

[Turbofan]

As Myriad so elegantly put it, aside from the resemblance in the approximate shape what is similar between your bricks and the twin towers? This is a perfect example of where your standard of physics has failed. Just like Richard Gage tried to represent the towers as empty cardboard boxes, and Jones tried to compare one acre floors of concrete 4-inches thick (concrete component) to a cinder block. There is an analogy I like to use to put these into perspective.
.

What does it matter what shape the bricks are?

You guys are using cars and freight trains as anologies? You are all too
thick to even grasp the physics behind the analogy!

When one car crashes into three others, do all four cars fall to nuts and bolts
on the road?:rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm wasting my time trying to explain this stuff. Most of the
members here have double standards and just run around in circles.

[DavidJames]

Ladies, gentlemen and lurkers

TurboFan cannot be taught. He cannot be educated. You cannot present him with logical and rational arguments and expect him to understand them.

Why?

Simply because he believes he knows more then you. He doesn't have the education. He doesn't have the practical experience. Yet he believes his knowledge exceeds everyone who disagrees with him.

TF will never accept anything that challenges his beliefs.

[~enigma~]

I see dust getting blown up and away (gravity :rolleyes:)
Can you explain how air currents carry pollen, dust, rock particles, mineral crystals, etc. but it couldn't blow dust on 9/11/2001? You really need a ton of science lessons as do all your bretheren.I see pyroclastic cloud formationsYour going to start with that bs again? Ok, what are the pyroclasts and until you can answer that (and even after) you are a filthy liar.I don't see any large sections of building needed to push down and crushYou still didn't answer...After the first 0.5 seconds of slippage IN THE AREA OF IMPACT explain what power could have prevented collapse. Also explain why a 15 story chunk of office building would not and could not have caused an overload of the remaining heat weakened columns IN THE AREA OF IMPACT?

I don't see the 47 central core columns sticking up out of the dust cloudYou are blind then since the cores remained standing for upwards of 15 seconds AFTER the building collapse.
Where is the large section of tower above the impact zone guys?Where did everybody jump from? You really are getting quite disgusting. Are your parents ashamed?
It is scientifically impossible for both sections to be breaking apart upon descent
simultaneously with a gravity induced collapse.Why?

[~enigma~]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Could you spell out for me the etymology of the word "pyroclast"? and explain how this relates to what is shown in the photograph.
Wonder what this disgusting idiot thinks the pyroclasts were?

[GlennB]

When one car crashes into three others, do all four cars fall to nuts and bolts
on the road?:rolleyes:


When a cat jumps 4' down from a wall does it come to harm?

If an elephant "jumped" 4' down from a bank, would it come to harm?

This is the essence, Turbo. The question of scale.

[uk_dave]

To paraphrase homer....

"Truthers...is there nothing they're not expert in?"

[~enigma~]

LMAO! That spire 'fell' straight down into itself LMFAO! How does that happen?!
It fell on a 16 acre debris field so you sure have a twisted and moronic definition of straight down...

[Grizzly Bear]

What does it matter what shape the bricks are?
None at all... however, in regard to comparing why why the towers totally collapsed your entire analogy is a bunk :)

You guys are using cars and freight trains as anologies?
Point out where I used 'freight trains' and 'cars' as analogies. Or are you attempting to shift goal posts once again? I recall one personal who used such analogies, however he is a truther just like yourself, and I have criticized him just as much for the flawed physics involved.


You are all too thick to even grasp the physics behind the analogy!
We're too thick to grasp it? It seems you have it reversed. I certainly understand that when dealing with the differences in scale between bricks and buildings they're incomparable. Try again.


When one car crashes into three others, do all four cars fall to nuts and bolts on the road?:rolleyes:
Apples and oranges, do you have anything better to entertain me with?


I can't believe I'm wasting my time trying to explain this stuff.
That's my line... exactly why I continue to try and correct your fallacies is an utter mystery. The world may never know why...

Most of the members here have double standards and just run around in circles.
Are you looking for an excuse to dodge the question? I offered to provide some math which would help you grasp some of the concepts which you are faithfully mistaken on. Is this a yes or a no? Do you want me to help you or not? Or are you going to run off with ears shut?

[Newtons Bit]

What does it matter what shape the bricks are?

You guys are using cars and freight trains as anologies? You are all too
thick to even grasp the physics behind the analogy!

When one car crashes into three others, do all four cars fall to nuts and bolts
on the road?:rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm wasting my time trying to explain this stuff. Most of the
members here have double standards and just run around in circles.

Math please. Let's see a real analysis. If what you say is true, you should be able to do some simple Newtonian and solid body physics to show this.

[~enigma~]

Ladies, gentlemen and lurkers

TurboFan cannot be taught. He cannot be educated. You cannot present him with logical and rational arguments and expect him to understand them.

Why?

Simply because he believes he knows more then you. He doesn't have the education. He doesn't have the practical experience. Yet he believes his knowledge exceeds everyone who disagrees with him.

TF will never accept anything that challenges his beliefs.
And I get called unreasonable for saying all these fruitcakes deserve is ridicule and derision...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Point out where I used 'freight trains' and 'cars' as analogies. Or are you attempting to shift goal posts once again? I recall one personal who used such analogies, however he is a truther just like yourself, and I have criticized him just as much for the flawed physics involved.


He's probably referring to my comment:

Can you next describe to us how smashing two Matchbox cars together proves that the debris field caused by the real-life collision of two similar vehicles is in fact a bald-faced lie by our government, and that it was all just a setup using explosives?

Vroom! Vroom! Kur-pow!

[Grizzly Bear]

He's probably referring to my comment:

He still misfired in his response as you were not comparing a collapse to the impact of two cars, you were comparing scale just as I was... (IE would the impact of two matchbox cars result in the same kind of debris field as in the crash of two full scale cars?)

The incident I am talking about is in a separate thread, which the poster was attempting to compare impact train cars to the collapse of the towers, pretty much the same as what turbo tried to do in his post.

He is claiming that based on the fact that the bricks are not crushed, the same result should have been expected in a steel tower at a massively different scale, material construction, and proportion... That was my general point....

[Myriad]

I can't believe I'm wasting my time trying to explain this stuff. Most of the members here have double standards and just run around in circles.


Well, Turbo, I decided to be open-minded so I tried your bricks experiment. And guess what?

The brick tower collapsed completely leaving only dust and small (brick-sided) pieces of debris. 75% of the debris overlapped the original tower's footprint, while 25% of it was some distance away, despite the collapse being entirely gravitationally driven. (Note that I did not throw the brick down as you advised, but simply dropped it).

So, the result of the experiment you yourself suggested was to reproduce the complete collapse of the towers, including the horizontal ejection of some debris and the creation of dust, with no explosives required.

This result is entirely consistent with 9/11 not being an inside job.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Turbofan]

Ladies, and gents.

Notice many of you (all but one) have not even attempted to answer the
original questions.

Notice that many of you can use cars, trains, or whatever else to simulate
the collapse, but bricks are not allowed here.

[johnny karate]

Turbofan: If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?

Hey, Turbofan! Any particular reason you keep avoiding this question?

It's fairly obvious that you will not accept anything anyone tells you that contradicts your beliefs. You seem utterly convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

If that's the case, then why are your stunning and easily discernible revelations beings ignored the world over by the MSM, law enforcement agencies, and other investigative bodies?

[~enigma~]

Ladies, and gents.

Notice many of you (all but one) have not even attempted to answer the
original questions.

Notice that many of you can use cars, trains, or whatever else to simulate
the collapse, but bricks are not allowed here.
Are you afraid to answer this...After the first 0.5 seconds of slippage IN THE AREA OF IMPACT explain what power could have prevented collapse. Also explain why a 15 story chunk of office building would not and could not have caused an overload of the remaining heat weakened columns IN THE AREA OF IMPACT?

[~enigma~]

why are your stunning and easily discernible revelations beings ignored the world over by the MSM, law enforcement agencies, and other investigative bodies?
Because they reside in that dark and lonely space between his ears.

[Bananaman]

Turbo:
Notice many of you (all but one) have not even attempted to answer the
original questions.

Notice you've avoided answering anything at all. All you do when cornered is say "that's irrelevant", not that your arbitration of what's relevant or irrelevant matters a damn to anyone over the age of twelve, but it's frustrating to see you squirm out so off-handedly.

Try standing up straight and answering some of the more pertinent questions in this thread, or otherwise retreat to your present position as a twerp.

Bananaman.

[Jonnyclueless]

How can anybody possibly be stupid enough to think that the dust is moving upwards? SERIOUSLY. No one can possibly be that stupid.

[beachnut]

OP author, earns an F in physics.

Balsamo would add, "thread close" (no truth for you)




Come on Turbofan, present some calculations, show you have not earned the grade of F, actually a gift!

Come on Turbofan, present some calculations to prove you are not as challenge in physics as your cars and trains simulation rant makes you appear. If you use Jones on 9/11 issues, he has no rational ideas on 9/11, and will lead you to a lower grade. Jones can explain terms in Cold Fusion, but clearly is crackers on momentum when it comes mixed with gravity and structural failure. Jones, a theoretic researcher, cold fusion, with no practical real world experience, or understanding; proven by his rant on 9/11.

Try to answer some questions and stop using the standard spam of stupid questions.

[bje]

Ladies, and gents.

Notice many of you (all but one) have not even attempted to answer the
original questions.

All have been answered and you were shown to be wrong again.

Now, just WHEN are you going to answer MY question, Turbofan?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

He still misfired in his response as you were not comparing a collapse to the impact of two cars, you were comparing scale just as I was... (IE would the impact of two matchbox cars result in the same kind of debris field as in the crash of two full scale cars?)


Oh, I know, but hey... it's Turbofan. I kind of figured he didn't grasp the point at all, which is why I assumed he was referring to me and offered up my previous comment. In fact...

Notice that many of you can use cars, trains, or whatever else to simulate the collapse, but bricks are not allowed here.


He seems to be genuinely confused about the conversation in general.

Once again, Turbofan: The car analogy was to make a point about scale. In the same way that crashing two Matchbox cars together is not an accurate representation of what happens in a real-world car crash, dropping bricks onto each other is not an accurate representation of a real-world building collapse.

What is it about this point that you find difficult to understand or accept?

[Turbofan]

Oh, I know, but hey... it's Turbofan. I kind of figured he didn't grasp the point at all, which is why I assumed he was referring to me and offered up my previous comment. In fact...




He seems to be genuinely confused about the conversation in general.

Once again, Turbofan: The car analogy was to make a point about scale. In the same way that crashing two Matchbox cars together is not an accurate representation of what happens in a real-world car crash, dropping bricks onto each other is not an accurate representation of a real-world building collapse.

What is it about this point that you find difficult to understand or accept?


The problem is, you guys have it all backwards and can't see it.

Scale?

Which portion of the building was bigger? The section above the impact
zone, or below the impact zone?

I keep reading this crap about a freigh train hitting a car.

As a matter of fact, it's about 1/4 to a 1/3 of the tower in scale!

The top section is not only blowing apart and ejecting itself away from the
tower, there's nothing left to push down.

Are you not watching the videos, or still frame shots?! Unreal. Kids.

[johnny karate]

Turbofan: If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?

Psst... Turbofan?

You rather conspicuously continue to avoid this question.

Why is that?

[WildCat]

The top section is not only blowing apart and ejecting itself away from the tower, there's nothing left to push down.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're claiming that there was a progressive series of bombs planted on each floor, each one powerful enough to blast every single bit of the floor outside the building footprint? And these bombs were silent, and didn't send any material upwards?

There's not enough laughing dogs in the world, so I'll just settle for five...

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[Lennart Hyland]

Which portion of the building was bigger? The section above the impact
zone, or below the impact zone?


Lets take it slow. There is not "small piece" of the tower destroyer a "large piece" of the tower.

I've got it explained for me a couple of times now and I think I got it right. The top 30 floors came down and destroyed one floor - then 31 floors destroys next floor -then 32 floors destroys the next floor - etc etc

So the example of one truck hitting two other trucks is false and very misleading.

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you not watching the videos, or still frame shots?! Unreal. Kids.

This is my line [yet again]. You are the one peddling a single still shot to peddle your nonsense about debris shoot 'up and out', when videos directly prove you wrong. What the hell are you relying on? Make up your mind... XD


Do you still want me to give you a sample calculation on the difference between load capacity of a 1,000 ft tall column braced every 12 ft vs a 1,000 ft column unbraced for the entire height? You still haven't given me a yes or no answer to that... http://209.85.62.24/32/121/0/e110574//e110574.gif

[A W Smith]

Turbofan, Yours is an argument from incredulity, You provide no math for your assertions, You bring hyperbole (pyroclastic flow (http://library.thinkquest.org/17457/volcanoes/hazards.flow.php)) to a math argument,


Can you examine this and make some calculations of your own?
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/FalaciousCdArguments2_14.pdf

http://www.bautforum.com/815712-post70.html

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2236462&postcount=631

page of links
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/seismicreports,controlleddemo,1993,skysc

[R.Mackey]

The problem is, you guys have it all backwards and can't see it.

Scale?

Which portion of the building was bigger? The section above the impact
zone, or below the impact zone?

I keep reading this crap about a freigh train hitting a car.

As a matter of fact, it's about 1/4 to a 1/3 of the tower in scale!

Scale is only part of it. The other part is that the collapse was vertical.

Had the building been sideways, and somehow 1/4 mashed into the remainder (it's actually more like 7% in the case of WTC 1, but no matter), then it wouldn't have been totally crushed at all. But there are two important factors:

First, all the "destroyed" stuff still contributes to the collapse!
Second, with each floor that gets crushed, you lose energy due to breaking stuff. But you also gain energy from gravity. Another reason why the car ramming into a truck thing is totally irrelevant. Try it again where the car accelerates at 1 g as it works its way through the truck. You get a totally different answer.


The top section is not only blowing apart and ejecting itself away from the
tower, there's nothing left to push down.

No. Look, you started a thread called "Fyziks 101," evidently with the intent of teaching us your superior understanding of physics. Yet you quickly reveal that you don't even understand conservation of momentum. Here you reveal that you don't understand conservation of mass, either.

So what physics do you know? I can't help if I don't know where to start.

[~enigma~]

So what physics do you know? I can't help if I don't know where to start.
He is an expert in fyziks...

[ElMondoHummus]

The problem is, you guys have it all backwards and can't see it.

Scale?

Which portion of the building was bigger? The section above the impact
zone, or below the impact zone?

I keep reading this crap about a freigh train hitting a car.

As a matter of fact, it's about 1/4 to a 1/3 of the tower in scale!

The top section is not only blowing apart and ejecting itself away from the
tower, there's nothing left to push down.

Are you not watching the videos, or still frame shots?! Unreal. Kids.

No. You are the one who has it backwards. As I said before:
It is improper to think of the overall system as a smaller block impacting a bigger block. Ignoring the fact that those are completely solid all the way through, the fact is that the upper section is indeed larger than the floor immediately below the collapse initiation zone. And the upper section plus that floor is bigger still than the floor two down from the initiation zone. You draw an incorrect analogy when you draw a small block impacting a bigger block, or say things like "a truck hitting a freight train", or "one truck slowly bending into two stronger trucks". Both are incorrect modelings, neither properly model the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Your continual attempts to characterize the collapse as a "a small portion hitting a big portion" demonstrates that you have no comprehension of the collapse mechanism. It was a big portion (the part of the Twin Towers above the impact/fire/collapse initiation zones) hitting a very small portion (the floor immediately below the impact/fire/collapse initiation zone), gaining that mass, not slowing down enough to counteract gravitational acceleration, then hitting the next floor, then the next, then the next, and so on. That's the model.

Until you provide some proof that you comprehend the actual mechanism of the collapse, or address any of the elements of that mechanism, there's nothing to debate. Your models, and therefore the argument you're trying to make, are simply incorrect. There's no other way to put it.

[pomeroo]

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop4.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop5.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/tower_fall.JPG

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally
from the demo wave?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_gravity1.jpg

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg

Bonus Question:

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?

How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?


I am writing this response having just decided to wade through this thread. I fearlessly predict that you will recycle every ancient, thoroughly discredited canard that gets trotted out by every loon.

Let the games begin!

[pomeroo]

How can you have compression and vacuum at the same time? :boggled:

I thought the tower was compressing the air to create the squibs?

Nice try.


Don't you just love it when ignorant agenda-driven fools condescend to physicists and engineers?

[pomeroo]

In another thread, I suggested that it might be great if for just one time we completely ignored a Truther post and let it drop off the forum front page with nary a reply, just to show our impatience and disgust with posts that are obvious attempts to troll, consist of utter nonsense, make claims debunked years ago a million times, and were clearly written by people with no interest whatseover in actually engaging in meaningful discussion and learning anything.

In retrospect, this post (starting with its very title) would have made an excellent candidate for that.


Stellafane, your point is a good one. While shooting fish in a barrel is easy, debunking the same nonsense over and over gives the impression that we have nothing better to do. I am still on page one as I work my way through this thread, but I predict that we will end up refuting the same nonsense that Heiwa, realcddeal, and other jackasses have bored us with in the past.

It's 2008 and the dunce is babbling about "squibs"!

[pomeroo]

This thread has to be a joke!

Pyroclastic flow?

Smashing bricks?

Beams ejecting up?

This guy is obviously taking the good people of JREF for a ride...no one, and I mean NO ONE is this stupid!

Edit: My wife wants to know if you need help contacting your magic unicorn spirit?

She's concerned!


I'd be cautious about concluding that no one can be that stupid. My experience here has taught me that any sentence beginning with, "Nobody is dumb enough to...," is wrong. Somebody is just that dumb. The adjective "kirkmanic" was coined as a tribute to a poster who called himself "Malcolm Kirkman." You would think that any human making hundreds of comments over a hundred-page thread would accidentally get a few things right. You'd be mistaken. The fabulous idiot Heiwa was a truly kirkmanic dunce. Turbofan falls short of that twoofer ideal, as none of his spectacularly stupid pronouncements are his own inventions.

He merely stands on the shoulders of cretins.

[~enigma~]

Don't you just love it when ignorant agenda-driven fools condescend to physicists and engineers?
Didn't Dylan Avery prove that it's possible to blow and suck at the same time? Wonder why TF has a problem with it?

[pomeroo]

What does it matter what shape the bricks are?

You guys are using cars and freight trains as anologies? You are all too
thick to even grasp the physics behind the analogy!

When one car crashes into three others, do all four cars fall to nuts and bolts
on the road?:rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm wasting my time trying to explain this stuff. Most of the
members here have double standards and just run around in circles.


Psst. I don't want anyone else to hear me so I'll whisper.

The reason your analogy using bricks is being laughed at is that bricks are solid and the Towers weren't. Yes, I realize that you don't understand.

[pomeroo]

Ladies, and gents.

Notice many of you (all but one) have not even attempted to answer the
original questions.

Notice that many of you can use cars, trains, or whatever else to simulate
the collapse, but bricks are not allowed here.



That's strange. The rest of us noticed that the original questions were ancient twoofer nonsense that has been demolished repeatedly in this forum.

Notice that you will be stopped cold every time you try to palm off solid objects as analogous to structures consisting mostly of air.

[stateofgrace]

This thread has to be a joke!

Pyroclastic flow?

Smashing bricks?

Beams ejecting up?

This guy is obviously taking the good people of JREF for a ride...no one, and I mean NO ONE is this stupid!

Edit: My wife wants to know if you need help contacting your magic unicorn spirit?

She's concerned!

I doubt it, oh wait................

<snip>

No volcano, but here are explosives.

<snip>

Ask yourself why you don't see the pyroclastic flow as the building is
smoking....before collapse? Think about it.

<snip>

Why don't you try it for yourself.

Grab four bricks. Stack three of them end to end.

Get your video camera rolling...

Take the fourth and throw it down onto the three stacked bricks.

Observe the damage, and notice the debris left over.

Also be aware that you are throwing the brick much faster than free fall,
so the impact force will be much greater.

Turbo, please stop, just stop.

[~enigma~]

TF has failed in this thread about as hard as this display...

[Magenta]

Is anyone else laughing as hard as I am right now?

It induced a groan of despair. This made me laugh:

[...] no one, and I mean NO ONE is this stupid!I keep saying it, but if there's one thing that the Truth Movement consistently proves us wrong about... it's that.

:D


ETA: Perhaps this thread should be moved to Humour so the folks who don't usually read the CT forum don't miss out.

[Tweeter]

Im sure most of you have heard this question before, but ive never seen it answered. Why dont cd crews just go to the 11th floor of a 15 story building and blow the supports and let gravity take over? By debunkers explanations of why WTCs fell , gravity should be used in all demolitions.
I`m thinking they dont because stuff like this would happen.
uAdoAHsNyvE

[pomeroo]

Im sure most of you have heard this question before, but ive never seen it answered. Why dont cd crews just go to the 11th floor of a 15 story building and blow the supports and let gravity take over? By your explanation of why they fell , gravity should be used in all demolitions.


Yes, you've seen the question asked many times. The answer will be the same: blowing supports close to the base allows the demolition team to control the collapse of the structure. No, you still don't get it.

[twinstead]

Im sure most of you have heard this question before, but ive never seen it answered. Why dont cd crews just go to the 11th floor of a 15 story building and blow the supports and let gravity take over? By your explanation of why they fell , gravity should be used in all demolitions.

Indeed. And if collateral damage or safety in general wasn't an issue, perhaps you'd have a point.

So. Let's just blow those babies, let gravity take its course and let the chips fall where they may. Sounds like a good idea for standard CDs huh?

[A W Smith]

Im sure most of you have heard this question before, but ive never seen it answered. Why dont cd crews just go to the 11th floor of a 15 story building and blow the supports and let gravity take over? By your explanation of why they fell , gravity should be used in all demolitions.
I`m thinking they dont because stuff like this would happen.
v=uAdoAHsNyvE


what? a white out?
:dl:

[ElMondoHummus]

Tweeter, not all buildings are the same. Something that would result in the collapse of a building built like the Twin Towers would not necessarily achieve the same result in a tower constructed differently, like the Chrysler Building, or the Empire State. I'll leave the details of the differences to someone like Architect, who could expound on that topic with authority, but the point is that the event that resulted in the WTC collapse wouldn't necessarily result in collapse in other buildings.

[Porkpie Hat]

<...snip> gravity should be used in all demolitions.
It just keeps getting dumber...

[A W Smith]

tweedle dumb,

You fixed your link and inserted a straw man

that's a reinforced concrete grain elevator. There are no sixty foot clear spans within that structure.

[ElMondoHummus]

<...snip> gravity should be used in all demolitions.

It just keeps getting dumber...

I just realized what was written there. Tweeter, I think that point could stand a rewrite. All explosives demolitions rely on gravity.

I think what you're trying to say (or rather ask) is: Why do companies not just rig a single upper floor and let that upper segment crash through the lower floors? If it is, then the answer goes back to several previous posts, including mine about differently built buildings behaving differently, as well as previous threads where people have noted that demolitions companies want to control where the debris lands. As seen by the damage to neighboring buildings, most notably WTC 7, the World Financial Center, the Verizon building, etc., collapse like what happened at the Twin Towers does not lend itself to controlling where the debris lands.

[Porkpie Hat]

I'd be cautious about concluding that no one can be that stupid. My experience here has taught me that any sentence beginning with, "Nobody is dumb enough to...," is wrong. Somebody is just that dumb. The adjective "kirkmanic" was coined as a tribute to a poster who called himself "Malcolm Kirkman." You would think that any human making hundreds of comments over a hundred-page thread would accidentally get a few things right. You'd be mistaken. The fabulous idiot Heiwa was a truly kirkmanic dunce. Turbofan falls short of that twoofer ideal, as none of his spectacularly stupid pronouncements are his own inventions.

He merely stands on the shoulders of cretins.

You're right and I stand corrected!

[A W Smith]

I just realized what was written there. Tweeter, I think that point could stand a rewrite. All explosives demolitions rely on gravity.

I think what you're trying to say (or rather ask) is: Why do companies not just rig a single upper floor and let that upper segment crash through the lower floors? If it is, then the answer goes back to several previous posts, including mine about differently built buildings behaving differently, as well as previous threads where people have noted that demolitions companies want to control where the debris lands. As seen by the damage to neighboring buildings, most notably WTC 7, the World Financial Center, the Verizon building, etc., collapse like what happened at the Twin Towers does not lend itself to controlling where the debris lands.

We could say that even the ability to walk depends on gravity. But some troofer would just post and say.. "Lul whut? space walks too?"

[Tweeter]

I just realized what was written there. Tweeter, I think that point could stand a rewrite. All explosives demolitions rely on gravity.

I think what you're trying to say (or rather ask) is: Why do companies not just rig a single upper floor and let that upper segment crash through the lower floors? If it is, then the answer goes back to several previous posts, including mine about differently built buildings behaving differently, as well as previous threads where people have noted that demolitions companies want to control where the debris lands. As seen by the damage to neighboring buildings, most notably WTC 7, the World Financial Center, the Verizon building, etc., collapse like what happened at the Twin Towers does not lend itself to controlling where the debris lands.

That gets me to thinking what if you would of used a conventional controlled demolition. Wonder what the debris field would of been.
If it were truly in its own footprint they would of had a 30 story pile or more, no? Lucky it fell the way it did.

[SezMe]

That gets me to thinking what if you would of used a conventional controlled demolition.
"...would have..." Tweeter, I know you'll never get Physics 001 right so maybe you could work on English 002?

[Tweeter]

"...would have..." Tweeter, I know you'll never the Physics 001 right so maybe you could work on English 002?

I know you`ll never the physics??

[AZCat]

That gets me to thinking what if you would of used a conventional controlled demolition. Wonder what the debris field would of been.
If it were truly in its own footprint they would of had a 30 story pile or more, no? Lucky it fell the way it did.

I'm not sure if the authorities would have allowed the towers to be demolished with explosives. It's an interesting question, what the result would have been. Remember that a lot of the dust-causing elements would be removed prior to demolition, so the spread of that would be considerably smaller than when the towers collapsed on September 11th.

[SezMe]

I know you`ll never the physics??
Fixed, thanks.

[jaydeehess]

Big bricks and little bricks,, trucks and trains....... Forgive me if I do not read this entire thread.

When the building was in pristine working condition the floor spans carried the mass of only one floor. They transmitted the force of the mass of ONE floor to the core and perimeter columns and thus the column systems bore the mass of the entire structure.

now note that at initial collapse the columns supporting the mass above the level of initial collapse must bend. They can do so only so far before being broken. Obviously as they bend the upper portion of those columns do not line up with the lower portion in a straight line, the upper portion is offset from the lower portion. Thus when the mass of the upper block of floors reaches the next intact floor where is its mass going to be borne? Certainly not directly by the vertical columns.

Instead we now have the vast bulk of the mass of the upper block coming down upon the floorspace of the next intact floor and this is a large multiple of the mass that any single floor could ever be expected to carry let alone absorb the kinetic energy of that mass as it fell. Thus the connections of the floor spans to the columns fail all but immediatly. The ability of those connections to resist being severed would tiny compared to the energy of the impact.

The visible effect would be the very quick loss of lateral support to the perimeter columns. So now you have perimeter column 'trees' that are unsupported but they also have a vast amount of debris to one side of them. Therefore the most common direction for these column trees to fall will be to the outside of the building.

The not readily visible effect will be all that is occuring beyond the perimeter. Only those few poor souls that happened to still be in the structures would be in a position to breifly glimpse what occured within the building before they were crushed and torn apart. However we know that the floor spans also would be separated from their connection to the core columns and that the intercore connections would also have debris tearing at them. This leaves the core with no lateral support either. No lateral support and debris buffeting them as well. . The core columns then also would fail to be able to stand. This is illustrated quite well by the so called 'spire' a remanant of a few core columns that stood for a few seconds after the rest of one tower had collapsed to the ground.

This is in some fashion the well known 'pancaking' of floors in that the upper block causes the next floor to pancake down onto the floor below. However this is only relatively accurate for a few floors. Note that the upper block is also being broken up by the fall. Thus after a few floors we have a looser collection of debris impacting the next floors with the still intact portion of the upper block of floors above it and that in short order all that remains is an enormous collection of loose falling debris. However that looser collection is also moving faster. Physics 101 tells us that if an object accellerates then as time passes its velocity is increasing and that as velocity increases so too does momentum. Thus even if the amount of debris ejected as each floor became involved with the collapse was equal to the mass of one floor the momentum transfer would remain the same. It matters not that the columns at lower levels were larger since it is the floor span to collumn connections that will be called upon to bear the falling mass and they vary little from floor to floor as each one is only designed to bear the mass of ONE floor.

The least dense materials in that collection of falling debris will be more prone to being ejected to the outside of the building. It simply takes less force to change its direction of travel than it does for say a core column section of steel. Thus the most dense material becomes more prevalent in the debris falling through the building. Few, if any, core columns were found outside the footprint of the original structure.

TF, I had some respect for you in the FDR thread. In this one, not so much.

[jaydeehess]

"...would have..." Tweeter, I know you'll never get Physics 001 right so maybe you could work on English 002?

In a tangentially related way I have to admit that I like being told by a CT that they "could care less" about things I have to say. After all it is a statement that they actually do care about what I have to state on the given subject. The English phrase they are torturing being "I could not care less".

[Tweeter]

I'm not sure if the authorities would have allowed the towers to be demolished with explosives. It's an interesting question, what the result would have been. Remember that a lot of the dust-causing elements would be removed prior to demolition, so the spread of that would be considerably smaller than when the towers collapsed on September 11th.

Hmm..Imagine the cost to take those buildings down manually.Heh, i think i might be on to something. lol.

[jaydeehess]

Hmm..Imagine the cost to take those buildings down manually.Heh, i think i might be on to something. lol.

Are you neglecting the cost of cleaning up the surrounding area and repairing the damage to nearby structures. After all, you break it, you fix it.

Let's see when the towers came down they caused the complete destruction of how many neighbouring structures?
(both immediatly and in the months following)

[Bananaman]

Hmm..Imagine the cost to take those buildings down manually.Heh, i think i might be on to something. lol.

As opposed to the cost of what actually happened?

Classic.

Bananaman.

[Tweeter]

Ok.. pay hundreds of millions and years to dismantle or get insurance to build a new tower.

[A W Smith]

Ok.. pay hundreds of millions and years to dismantle or get insurance to build a new tower.


You are aware there was an insurance payout? correct? Even for the dismantling of the deutsche bank building?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=134701
Deutsche Bank called the building a total loss. Its insurers, Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company and AXA Corporate Solutions Insurance Company, said it could be cleaned and reoccupied. Under a settlement this year, the development corporation acquired the property for $90 million. It is to pay up to $45 million for cleanup and dismantling, with the insurers meeting costs above that. The Gilbane Building Company will oversee the project.

It now seems likely that the price tag for demolition will exceed $45 million. But Ms. Peterson said: "Cost is not a consideration. The extra cost will go to the insurers. What's a consideration for us is doing it safely."

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Ok.. pay hundreds of millions and years to dismantle or get insurance to build a new tower.


I thought we were talking about non-covert use of your revolutionary demolition method. You don't understand how insurance works, do you?

[Corsair 115]

Just to repeat a pertinent request from earlier in this thread...

Math please. Let's see a real analysis. If what you say is true, you should be able to do some simple Newtonian and solid body physics to show this.


Anyone want to offer the over/under on the length of time it'll be before TF attempts an answer to the question?

[Stupid]

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?

The lower structure was the stronger of the two parts because it was it was still upright and plumb. The upper section was falling on to it, while leaning, so it's lowest corner (leading edge) became the weakest area.
Buildings are built to be strongest whilst upright, not tilted.

Try dropping a wood box so it lands "squarely" (flat) on one side--minimal damage.
If you drop that box onto it's corner--greater damage.

=S=

[Shrinker]

Turbofan, I have a question. How did the top 2/3 storeys of this tower destroy the other 15?

Yx_XMV6Etgo

(Sorry you'll have to turn your head on its side. Careful nothing falls out.)

[Evilgiraffe]

Turbofan, I have a question. How did the top 2/3 storeys of this tower destroy the other 15?

Yx_XMV6Etgo

(Sorry you'll have to turn your head on its side. Careful nothing falls out.)



This is an appalling analogy for the collapse of WTC1/2. There were at least 4 impacts on the stack of cards before they collapsed. The twin towers were only hit once each before they collapsed... and the house of cards wasn't on fire!

Therefore I'm cleverer than all of you and I win!



;)

Seriously, nice find Shrinker. I hate to think how long it took to build that thing.

[Confuseling]

I can't help thinking about bullets in these asinine 'small things can't hurt big things' threads.

Don't try fysiks at home, kids.

[GlennB]

Just to repeat a pertinent request from earlier in this thread...

Anyone want to offer the over/under on the length of time it'll be before TF attempts an answer to the question?

Could do, but we'd all be dead before the "overs" got paid out.

eta: just realised my mistake. In fact we'd be waiting till the Sun turned to a small lump of charcoal and we still wouldn't have seen the maths.

[Turbofan]

This is an appalling analogy for the collapse of WTC1/2. There were at least 4 impacts on the stack of cards before they collapsed. The twin towers were only hit once each before they collapsed... and the house of cards wasn't on fire!

Therefore I'm cleverer than all of you and I win!



;)

Seriously, nice find Shrinker. I hate to think how long it took to build that thing.

Seriously, nice find Shrinker! :rolleyes:

These are the people I'm debating. Poeple that think a tower of cards is
at all constructed like the Twin Towers.

I wonder how well that card structure would have stood if the kid used glue,
or tape to hold the cards in place.

I'm sure the Towers would have been better off without welds and bolts.
The engineers should have just stacked up all the steel instead of paying
all of those contractors to bolt and weld the assemblies.

But...yeah... thanks for that awesome find Shrinker. YOu have debunked
AE911 and all of their engineers.

Still waiting for that NIST report. I wonder if they'll have a card tower for
their experiment? LMAO

[~enigma~]

But...yeah... thanks for that awesome find Shrinker. YOu have debunked
AE911 and all of their engineers.
You mean Mike Rotch?

[Turbofan]

Psst... Turbofan?

You rather conspicuously continue to avoid this question.

Why is that?

Did it ever occur to you , that I'm ignoring you and your repetitive useless
questions? Same goes for some of the other members.

"We've" already tried to show this on MSM. One case in particular was
Steven Jones

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ayYXNo0i_Cs

You see, they (MSNBC) didn't have the balls to show the video!

You may also recall the original MSM news broadcasts from 9/11 (which
are archived) were pulled from public view!

So keep asking your dumb questions about why we don't go to MSM!

[~enigma~]

You see, they (MSNBC) didn't have the balls to show the video!

No other possible reason? And you morons claim we are in denial!!!!

[Confuseling]

Turbofan: If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?

Psst... Turbofan?

You rather conspicuously continue to avoid this question.

Why is that?

Emphasis emphasised.

Really. Honestly. Don't think Iran or China would be interested? :boggled:

[nicepants]

I'm having as much trouble figuring him out as you... apparently he still doesn't understand that bricks and 110-story office buildings aren't the same...

Hmm...if the WTC towers behave just like bricks (As Turbofan asserts), then the plane should have disintegrated at impact, no? I'm not aware of any plane that could penetrate a 108ft thick brick wall......are you a no-planer, Turbo? Or do you admit that a stack of bricks is not a valid comparison to an office building?

[defaultdotxbe]

You see, they (MSNBC) didn't have the balls to show the video!
did it ever occur to you that maybe there is another reason they dont show it?

[Shrinker]

Seriously, nice find Shrinker! :rolleyes:

These are the people I'm debating. Poeple that think a tower of cards is
at all constructed like the Twin Towers.

I wonder how well that card structure would have stood if the kid used glue,
or tape to hold the cards in place.

I'm sure the Towers would have been better off without welds and bolts.
The engineers should have just stacked up all the steel instead of paying
all of those contractors to bolt and weld the assemblies.

But...yeah... thanks for that awesome find Shrinker. YOu have debunked
AE911 and all of their engineers.

Still waiting for that NIST report. I wonder if they'll have a card tower for
their experiment? LMAO

I didn't ask you to compare and contrast. I didn't make any comparisons myself. I asked how did the top 15% of the tower destroyed all the rest. Perhaps you could try answering.

[Grizzly Bear]

Seriously, nice find Shrinker! :rolleyes:

These are the people I'm debating. Poeple that think a tower of cards is
at all constructed like the Twin Towers.

Jesus.... did anybody get a whiff of that irony? The same guy arguing bricks would be a valid comparison is arguing that a tower of cards isn't a valid analogy.


I wonder how well that card structure would have stood if the kid used glue, or tape to hold the cards in place.

Remember the hercules beatle versus the human trying to lift 800 times their own weight? You're not putting too much thought into that are you?


LMAO
Keep "LOL'ing" So far that's about the only coherent thing you've done in this thread ;)


Hmm...if the WTC towers behave just like bricks (As Turbofan asserts), then the plane should have disintegrated at impact, no? I'm not aware of any plane that could penetrate a 108ft thick brick wall......are you a no-planer, Turbo? Or do you admit that a stack of bricks is not a valid comparison to an office building?

I gather that anything is possible with him... the irony of his latest response is utterly stifling in the air...


BTW turbo, you still haven't answered yes or no. Do you want me to teach you the difference between braced and unbraced columns? I asked you a while ago... if you don't know the difference don't be afraid to ask... ;)

[Turbofan]

Jesus.... did anybody get a whiff of that irony? The same guy arguing bricks would be a valid comparison is arguing that a tower of cards isn't a valid analogy.

As many of the others in this thread, you lack the ability to see the parallel
of the PHYSICS in the brick analogy and link it to the construction of the
twin towers.

[Grizzly Bear]

As many of the others in this thread, you lack the ability to see the parallel of the PHYSICS in the brick analogy and link it to the construction of the twin towers.

Says the one who believes there should have been 1,000 ft of columns standing after the collapse...

Comparing the towers to bricks... you do realize that by that logic the walls of the twin towers would have been 100 ft thick?

The towers were not simply 'four bricks', they were an assembly of thousands of smaller pieces that worked as a system to provide the rigidity they had. You still can't grasp that one lone concept... Explain to me what you are trying to prove here... I'm looking at every possible angle but none gives me anything to accurately 'model' the way the towers should have collapsed under your logic

[WildCat]

As many of the others in this thread, you lack the ability to see the parallel of the PHYSICS in the brick analogy and link it to the construction of the twin towers.
You fail to see why your brick analogy is fatally flawed.

btw:
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're claiming that there was a progressive series of bombs planted on each floor, each one powerful enough to blast every single bit of the floor outside the building footprint? And these bombs were silent, and didn't send any material upwards?
This is what you think happened, yes?

[Turbofan]

You fail to see why your brick analogy is fatally flawed.

btw:

This is what you think happened, yes?

You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.

And please don't tell me it's compressing of the air...the top of the building
is gone! :rolleyes:

[Shrinker]

You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.

And please don't tell me it's compressing of the air...the top of the building
is gone! :rolleyes:

You too scared to answer my question about the video? Can you not explain how 2 storeys destroyed 15 similar storeys?

Is it because you believe...

It is scientifically impossible for both sections to be breaking apart upon descent simultaneously with a gravity induced collapse.

[Turbofan]

Says the one who believes there should have been 1,000 ft of columns standing after the collapse...

Where did those core columns go then? Just like the original posts asked?

Did the bend and buckle inward? Did the telescope down into themselves?
:rolleyes:



Comparing the towers to bricks... you do realize that by that logic the walls of the twin towers would have been 100 ft thick?

The towers were not simply 'four bricks', they were an assembly of thousands of smaller pieces that worked as a system to provide the rigidity they had. You still can't grasp that one lone concept... Explain to me what you are trying to prove here... I'm looking at every possible angle but none gives me anything to accurately 'model' the way the towers should have collapsed under your logic

Just give it up. You will never understand.

You see, everyone here assumes the inner core columns and outer perimeter
columns magically disappeared, and the top section had several feet to
drop onto the lower structure.

NOPE!

There were only certain columns damaged, or broken.

Normally, in the real world...when an object is in motion and strikes another
object you expect to see at least one remain. If nothing else, the top
section of the tower should have stayed intact to crush the lower section.

It did not.

It blew apart first.

It has been shown in the videos and photo sequence.

That is something you cannot deny.

[Shrinker]

Where did those core columns go then? Just like the original posts asked?

Did the bend and buckle inward? Did the telescope down into themselves?
:rolleyes:





Just give it up. You will never understand.

You see, everyone here assumes the inner core columns and outer perimeter
columns magically disappeared, and the top section had several feet to
drop onto the lower structure.

NOPE!

There were only certain columns damaged, or broken.

Normally, in the real world...when an object is in motion and strikes another
object you expect to see at least one remain. If nothing else, the top
section of the tower should have stayed intact to crush the lower section.

It did not.

It blew apart first.

It has been shown in the videos and photo sequence.

That is something you cannot deny.

Can you explain why, in a simple experiment a child could have conducted, a tower made of cards behaved exactly the way you are saying is impossible?

[~enigma~]

Where did those core columns go then? Just like the original posts asked?
Fresh Kills in Staten Island was one place they went. After 7 years are you seriously that ill informed on 9/11?
Did the telescope down into themselves?
:rolleyes:Yes...they telescoped into 30 foot sections for easy transport away from ground zero....don't you know anything?
You see, everyone here assumes the inner core columns and outer perimeter
columns magically disappeared, and the top section had several feet to
drop onto the lower structure.
They do??????? Apparently this is one reason you ran away from answering this question...After the first 0.5 seconds of slippage IN THE AREA OF IMPACT explain what power could have prevented collapse. Also explain why a 15 story chunk of office building would not and could not have caused an overload of the remaining heat weakened columns IN THE AREA OF IMPACT?

[Turbofan]

Can you explain why, in a simply experiment a child could have conducted, a tower made of cards behaved exactly the way you are saying is impossible?

Did the card tower have 47 inner core columns extending from the base
to the top?

No.

So Shrinker, what did the Twin Towers do with those 47 steel columns?

Surely you have an explanation for this?

[eeyore1954]

Big bricks and little bricks,, trucks and trains....... Forgive me if I do not read this entire thread.


TF, I had some respect for you in the FDR thread. In this one, not so much.

For me this is the thread in a nutshel. In the FDR thread to a person ,such as myself, who does not really understand the subject matter Turbofan appeared to have some grasp of the subject. But after readinfg his arguments here I am completed convinced of what I suspected before (he was only parroting what he was told or read on the Pilots for 'Truth" site). No one with even a modicum of understanding of physics can believe the drop 3 bricks on 10 bricks analogy can be used for a validi comparison to the WTC collapse.


That brings up another subject. How can Richard Gage use the two boxes analogy with a clear conscience. Is it because he knows that the Turbofans of the world can be duped by that kind of argument and doesn't care at all about the truth or is it because he has become so convinced of his 9/11 beliefs that he can no longer think straight. Turbofan may have the excuse of ignorance of the subject but can Mr Gage claim that.

[Shrinker]

Did the card tower have 47 inner core columns extending from the base
to the top?

No.

So Shrinker, what did the Twin Towers do with those 47 steel columns?

Surely you have an explanation for this?

I'm not talking about steel columns, and neither were you. This thread appears to be about physics. My questions are general. You said..

Normally, in the real world...when an object is in motion and strikes another
object you expect to see at least one remain.

You also said...

It is scientifically impossible for both sections to be breaking apart upon descent simultaneously with a gravity induced collapse.

And I simply ask what is your explanation for the video I showed. How did 2 storeys destroy 15 storeys? How did the top section collapse simultaneously with the bottom? It is not rhetorical, I'd like to see an explanation from you.

[Jonnyclueless]

"Just give it up. You will never understand."


:dl: :dl: :dl:

[Jonnyclueless]

Did it ever occur to you , that I'm ignoring you and your repetitive useless
questions? Same goes for some of the other members.

"We've" already tried to show this on MSM. One case in particular was
Steven Jones

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ayYXNo0i_Cs

You see, they (MSNBC) didn't have the balls to show the video!

You may also recall the original MSM news broadcasts from 9/11 (which
are archived) were pulled from public view!

So keep asking your dumb questions about why we don't go to MSM!

What? No one takes you guys seriously? Gosh what a surprise! The world media body must all be in on it too! Oh noes!!!!

[roundhead]

Did the card tower have 47 inner core columns extending from the base
to the top?

No.

So Shrinker, what did the Twin Towers do with those 47 steel columns?

Surely you have an explanation for this?


Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.

[ElMondoHummus]

Did the card tower have 47 inner core columns extending from the base
to the top?

No.

So Shrinker, what did the Twin Towers do with those 47 steel columns?

Surely you have an explanation for this?

Do the bricks have a similar ratio of wall thickness to interior space that the towers have? Do the bricks also model the column connectivity of the towers? No. That's why the analogy is a failure. A tower of cards does not model the Twin Towers accurately either, but the problem with the brick model is that it is a far more robust, and far more solid structure than the actual towers are. In that regard, the "house of cards" does indeed come closer to reflecting reality.

[~enigma~]

Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.
hmm...was the 9/11 commision suppsed to be a scientific investigation into the construction of the towers or was that something N.I.S.T dealt with?

[Newtons Bit]

That brings up another subject. How can Richard Gage use the two boxes analogy with a clear conscience. Is it because he knows that the Turbofans of the world can be duped by that kind of argument and doesn't care at all about the truth or is it because he has become so convinced of his 9/11 beliefs that he can no longer think straight.

Yes.

[Jonnyclueless]

Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, a commission who has nothing to do with how WTC 7 collapsed did not cover something outside of their scope and therefore are liars. They also didn't cover NASCAR that year which shows they lied even more there.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

Where do they find these people? If these kids don't even understand what agency is responsible for what, how can they even manage to tie their shoes? And then they wonder why no one takes them seriously. Oh it's just so sad...

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.

That's a red herring. Expecting a political report to deal with the engineering aspects of 9/11 is a ridiculous complaint. People serious about studying the subject understand that it's the NIST report, not the 9/11 Commision report, that speaks definitively and authoritatively about the towers. Complaining that the 9/11 Commision Report doesn't adequately describe the towers is just as benighted as complaining that the NCSTAR reports made no mention of Atta or Bin Laden.

[funk de fino]

Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.

Take your foot out of your mouth before your nexxt post please. This one is too funny.

[roundhead]

hmm...was the 9/11 commision suppsed to be a scientific investigation into the construction of the towers or was that something N.I.S.T dealt with?



So, your saying that the final report wasnt proofed, and those spewing the official Govt lie didnt notice the bald faced lie, and bring it up so it would be corrected, and not left as the lie it is. Surely Robertson has read the report and would have noticed it?

So, the Commision should not be trusted with anything they state, they are all politicians who had zero qualifications to deal with Norad, tower construction, etc.

All those reading this take note of the fact the Commision had nobody qualified in they're camp to find out how the towers were constructed. They instead made some bald faced lie up. Got cha;)

[Turbofan]

And I simply ask what is your explanation for the video I showed. How did 2 storeys destroy 15 storeys? How did the top section collapse simultaneously with the bottom? It is not rhetorical, I'd like to see an explanation from you.

Your questions make no sense.

What two storeys are you referring to?

What top section? Simultaneous?

Here are some still shots of that stupid video. Clarify your questions please.

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower1.JPG
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower2.JPG
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower3.JPG
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower4.JPG
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower5.JPG

[~enigma~]

So, your saying that the final report wasnt proofed, and those spewing the official Govt lie didnt notice the bald faced lie, and bring it up so it would be corrected, and not left as the lie it is. Surely Robertson has read the report and would have noticed it?

So, the Commision should not be trusted with anything they state, they are all politicians who had zero qualifications to deal with Norad, tower construction, etc.

All those reading this take note of the fact the Commision had nobody qualified in they're camp to find out how the towers were constructed. They instead made some bald faced lie up. Got cha;)
You know what? You just showed what a trollish piece of crap you are....enjoy the rest of your hopefully short stay at JREF on ignore.

[Shrinker]

Your questions make no sense.

What two storeys are you referring to?

What top section? Simultaneous?

Here are some still shots of that stupid video. Clarify your questions please.

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower1.JPG
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower2.JPG
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower3.JPG
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower4.JPG
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/911_card_tower5.JPG

The question is simple. How did the top 2 storeys in the video I posted destroy the remaining 15 or so storeys below them?

This is a physics thread. Please show us your grasp of physics by producing an explanation for this global, gravity-driven collapse.

If you wish we can come to the simultaneity later.

[WildCat]

You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.
Your "squibs" (will truthers ever learn what that word really means?) occur well away from the area collapsing, and clearly aren't blowing entire floors outside the building footprint. And how is it none of the videos showing the collapses have the sound of these extremely powerful bombs you are proposing? How were the bombs able to send all (and you do state that every bit of mass was ejected) material flying to just outside the footprint but no further, regardless of the great differences in mass of the debris?

And please don't tell me it's compressing of the air...the top of the building is gone! :rolleyes:
It's obviously compressing air, in fact all your "squibs" are apparently in mechanical floors and located where vents open to the outside... :rolleyes:

[phunk]

If the debris was all outside the footprints why were the tallest areas of the rubble pile directly above the footprints of the towers?

[Turbofan]

Your "squibs" (will truthers ever learn what that word really means?) occur well away from the area collapsing, and clearly aren't blowing entire floors outside the building footprint. And how is it none of the videos showing the collapses have the sound of these extremely powerful bombs you are proposing?

I guess you don't study much, or watch the videos of first responders,
or testimony where people are stating they heard and felt bombs.

Here are a few to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39SuzYsK-9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFV0T_HLRuc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64

material flying to just outside the footprint but no further, regardless of the great differences in mass of the debris?

The debris that flew 350+ feet into WTC7 and cut through massive steel
support columns? Does that count too? Must have been some pretty strong
gravity to fly a football field away and THEN cut steel beams :rolleyes:

It's obviously compressing air, in fact all your "squibs" are apparently in mechanical floors and located where vents open to the outside... :rolleyes:

I didn't know you could have compression without a sealed environment,
and some sort of reduction in volume while maintaining the seal?

Awesome how you're all throwing out new theories to cope with the new
material. Keep on guessing, it really looks good on you.

[Stupid]

They instead made some bald faced lie up. Got cha

Lying means... the person(s) doing so, actually know the truth, but choose to deceive.

Who do you think is lying ?
Is it a big list ?
How big ?

[Turbofan]

The question is simple. How did the top 2 storeys in the video I posted destroy the remaining 15 or so storeys below them?

This is a physics thread. Please show us your grasp of physics by producing an explanation for this global, gravity-driven collapse.

If you wish we can come to the simultaneity later.

What storeys? It's a frigging card tower about 5 feet tall.

None of the cards were secure...they're just laying against each other.

The cards themselves are just fine.

If you can show me an entire section of cards (as a whole) crushing through
the remaining card structure, we'll talk.

The point is, you can't provide a moment in time when a section/assembly
of cards stays in tact and drives through the supporting card structure.

This is a funny argument Shrinker. I'm only replying because it makes your
defense look dumb.

[~enigma~]

I didn't know you could have compression without a sealed environment,
and some sort of reduction in volume while maintaining the seal?

Awesome how you're all throwing out new theories to cope with the new
material. Keep on guessing, it really looks good on you.
Oh this is great..TF has been reduced to a babbling idiot who has nothing better to do than play semantical games.

[phunk]

I didn't know you could have compression without a sealed environment

I bet you think the space shuttle is heated on reentry by friction. It's not, the air in front of it is heated by compression, and that's just a flat surface moving through the air, no sealed container required.

[Grizzly Bear]

"Just give it up. You will never understand."


:dl: :dl: :dl:
Just when you think he wouldn't rub in the irony... he posts that... jesus, I've seen more stundies here in one morning than ever from turbo...

[WildCat]

I guess you don't study much, or watch the videos of first responders,
or testimony where people are stating they heard and felt bombs.

Here are a few to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39SuzYsK-9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFV0T_HLRuc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64
youtube seems to be having issues right now, but is this the same old crap of people using similies? The one where truthers edit a bomb scare at the high school to make it sound like they're talking about the WTC? Do any of these people think there were bombs?

Did any of these reports of bombs refer to the collapse, or the time prior to collapse? Because you're claiming bombs during collapse.

Actual demo charges, btw, are extremely loud. Loud enough to be heard from miles away, so why aren't any audible in the many recordings?

The debris that flew 350+ feet into WTC7 and cut through massive steel support columns? Does that count too? Must have been some pretty strong gravity to fly a football field away and THEN cut steel beams :rolleyes:
Now all you have to do is use your world-class fyziks knowwledge to calculate the size of the bomb (use TNT equivalent) needed to send that material so far. Oh, and since real CDs don't use bombs anywhere near that powerful (for obvious reasons) explain why the NWO decided to use such incredibly powerful bombs to do what real CDs do with much, much less powerful explosives.

And why don't they make any sounds again? :rolleyes:

I didn't know you could have compression without a sealed environment, and some sort of reduction in volume while maintaining the seal?
There are, apprently, many things you don't know. Not my problem.

Awesome how you're all throwing out new theories to cope with the new material. Keep on guessing, it really looks good on you.
What new material? What new theory? This is the same recycled crap the truth movement has been peddling since its inception.

[Turbofan]

I bet you think the space shuttle is heated on reentry by friction. It's not, the air in front of it is heated by compression, and that's just a flat surface moving through the air, no sealed container required.

And?

The Space Shuttle produces squibs?

The Twins were built outside of the Earth's atmosphere? :boggled:

Are we done with the dumb comparisons yet?

[defaultdotxbe]

And?

The Space Shuttle produces squibs?

The Twins were built outside of the Earth's atmosphere? :boggled:

Are we done with the dumb comparisons yet?
i dont think it was a comparison, just pointing out your lack of understanding of, well, anything

in this case, compression

[~enigma~]

And?

The Space Shuttle produces squibs?

The Twins were built outside of the Earth's atmosphere? :boggled:

Are we done with the dumb comparisons yet?
Now we got one really good comparison...

you and a rock

[GlennB]

I didn't know you could have compression without a sealed environment,
and some sort of reduction in volume while maintaining the seal?



If I clap my hands or swat a fly I get "compression". Nothing is sealed in either case.

How ignorant is it possible to get?

[Turbofan]

[B]

[Shrinker]

What storeys? It's a frigging card tower about 5 feet tall.

None of the cards were secure...they're just laying against each other.

The cards themselves are just fine.



Jeez Turbo, you're nearly there but I'll have to come back tomorrow since you obviously need time to focus on the actual question. The cards were secure enough to hold the structure upright, stable, and resistant to air currents and impacts. So how did the top two/three storeys of the tower destroy all fifteen storeys below?

How can a light object completely destroy a heavier one?


If you can show me an entire section of cards (as a whole) crushing through
the remaining card structure, we'll talk.


I have no idea why there's this new precondition.

[Turbofan]

If I clap my hands or swat a fly I get "compression". Nothing is sealed in either case.

How ignorant is it possible to get?

You get compression? Wow. Do you get squibs too?

[Shrinker]

You get compression? Wow. Do you get squibs too?

With a big enough fly.

[Turbofan]

Jeez Turbo, you're nearly there but I'll have to come back tomorrow since you obviously need time to focus on the actual question. The cards were secure enough to hold the structure upright, stable, and resistant to air currents and impacts. So how did the top two/three storeys of the tower destroy all fifteen storeys below?

How can a light object completely destroy a heavier one?



I have no idea why there's this new precondition.

Still, you have no clue.

The cards or "STOREY" you speak of does not exist.

The video does NOT show an entire section falling at once.

The cards are falling individually like dominos.

The cards themselves are fine. In other words, one card falling on the
other did not cause the other card to break!

Just like dominos falling over, they don't break apart from tipping into
the other.

The towers were an assembly welded and bolted together.

The cards were not bolted/welded/taped/glued/etc. together.

[Grizzly Bear]

With a big enough fly.

Or a big enough cockroach ;)


Hi Phunk,

You might like this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4865

Kodak moment! turbo finally got something right... now if only he could apply the same critical thinking skills to the collapse of the towers

[Newtons Bit]

With a big enough fly.

Apt. But... ew.

[Newtons Bit]

Still, you have no clue.

The cards or "STOREY" you speak of does not exist.

The video does NOT show an entire section falling at once.

The cards are falling individually like dominos.

The cards themselves are fine. In other words, one card falling on the
other did not cause the other card to break!

Just like dominos falling over, they don't break apart from tipping into
the other.

The towers were an assembly welded and bolted together.

The cards were not bolted/welded/taped/glued/etc. together.


The individual elements of the towers failed at the connections (for the most part). This is because the connections have a capacity much less than individual elements. Most of the elements in structures are designed for stiffness, i.e. they need to not deflect under the design load over a certain amount. People, generally speaking, get very concerned when their office vibrates or the bridge they're walking over deflects noticeably for example. The exterior columns were designed to be stiff to prevent the tower from swaying too much in the wind. The connections of these exterior columns were only designed for the force that the wind exerted, which was about 1/3rd the capacity of the column itself (and a non-ductile capacity as well). The interior column connections were designed for much much less.

These connections are not as weak as the house of cards analogy, but they're really not as strong as you'd like to believe them to be. If you want to keep up with your silly statements of "physics" and "scientifically impossible" etc etc, I recommend you back up your statements with math and engineering. Because right now it just looks like your blowing smoke out your rear end. It's embarrasing, and honestly rather disgusting.

[Travis]

So, your saying that the final report wasnt proofed, and those spewing the official Govt lie didnt notice the bald faced lie, and bring it up so it would be corrected, and not left as the lie it is. Surely Robertson has read the report and would have noticed it?

So, the Commision should not be trusted with anything they state, they are all politicians who had zero qualifications to deal with Norad, tower construction, etc.

All those reading this take note of the fact the Commision had nobody qualified in they're camp to find out how the towers were constructed. They instead made some bald faced lie up. Got cha;)

For the last bloody time the 9/11 Commission was tasked with one thing and one thing only; to find policy errors surrounding the attacks. They were not conducting an engineering or criminal investigation. There were other government bodies to handle those.

[Travis]

All this talk of 15 floors vs 95 floors needs to stop because it is just out right wrong. It wasn't 15 vs 95, it was 15 floors vs 1 floor, the floor that was being impacted into by the above floors. Of course in 15 vs 1 the 15 win and the 1 is crushed and now it is 16 floors vs 1 floor and again the 1 floor will lose and it will be 17 vs 1 and so on.

Continuing to pretend the floors below the floor being crushed contribute in any way to the structural integrity of the floor being crushed is either just outright stupid or disingenuous.

[Turbofan]

The individual elements of the towers failed at the connections (for the most part). This is because the connections have a capacity much less than individual elements. Most of the elements in structures are designed for stiffness, i.e. they need to not deflect under the design load over a certain amount. People, generally speaking, get very concerned when their office vibrates or the bridge they're walking over deflects noticeably for example. The exterior columns were designed to be stiff to prevent the tower from swaying too much in the wind. The connections of these exterior columns were only designed for the force that the wind exerted, which was about 1/3rd the capacity of the column itself (and a non-ductile capacity as well). The interior column connections were designed for much much less.

These connections are not as weak as the house of cards analogy, but they're really not as strong as you'd like to believe them to be. If you want to keep up with your silly statements of "physics" and "scientifically impossible" etc etc, I recommend you back up your statements with math and engineering. Because right now it just looks like your blowing smoke out your rear end. It's embarrasing, and honestly rather disgusting.


This coming from a guy who believes a 47 storey building can fall symmetrically
in 6.5 seconds.

[Newtons Bit]

This coming from a guy who believes a 47 storey building can fall symmetrically
in 6.5 seconds.

Hey, if you don't have the ability to refute what I say you could at least admit it instead of trying to change the subject with another lie.

[~enigma~]

This coming from a guy who believes a 47 storey building can fall symmetrically
in 6.5 seconds.
WTC 7 fell symmetrically? Then how did the north wall lay atop the debris pile which had the south wall underneath? Last time I checked, that doesn't denote symmetry so do you want to throw out anything more to prove you are full of hot air?

[Minadin]

I am writing this response having just decided to wade through this thread. I fearlessly predict that you will recycle every ancient, thoroughly discredited canard that gets trotted out by every loon.

Let the games begin!


We're getting close, not quite there yet, but hey, it's only page 6:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12532488e03cfdcba2.gif

[roundhead]

For the last bloody time the 9/11 Commission was tasked with one thing and one thing only; to find policy errors surrounding the attacks. They were not conducting an engineering or criminal investigation. There were other government bodies to handle those.



Yes, they actually cite both the Port Authority and Fema as sources in the note of Chapter 9 which deals with this.

[Turbofan]

WTC 7 fell symmetrically? Then how did the north wall lay atop the debris pile which had the south wall underneath? Last time I checked, that doesn't denote symmetry so do you want to throw out anything more to prove you are full of hot air?

Last time I checked you had no clue...oops, too bad...this time is the same.

This is symmetry at its finest:

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.4.jpg

[~enigma~]

Last time I checked you had no clue...oops, too bad...this time is the same.

This is symmetry at its finest:

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.4.jpg
Either i lied about the north wall being atop the debris or you are lying about the symmetry...which is it?

[Turbofan]

All this talk of 15 floors vs 95 floors needs to stop because it is just out right wrong. It wasn't 15 vs 95, it was 15 floors vs 1 floor, the floor that was being impacted into by the above floors. Of course in 15 vs 1 the 15 win and the 1 is crushed and now it is 16 floors vs 1 floor and again the 1 floor will lose and it will be 17 vs 1 and so on.

Continuing to pretend the floors below the floor being crushed contribute in any way to the structural integrity of the floor being crushed is either just outright stupid or disingenuous.

Those floors seem to be missing 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS!!!

Stop ignoring parts of the equation!

What happened to these:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1099.jpg

[~enigma~]

Those floors seem to be missing 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS!!!

Stop ignoring parts of the equation!

What happened to these:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1099.jpg (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1099.jpg)
You gonna answer or are you gonna run like you did from my other question?

[Turbofan]

Either i lied about the north wall being atop the debris or you are lying about the symmetry...which is it?

Either that, or you are blind?

Did yuo watch the video and notice the walls on either side of the building?

What does it matter how it ended up on the ground. It all got there at nearly
the same time!

You can verify that with the still shots. Notice the pretty red line going
across the roof of the building?

[phunk]

And?

The Space Shuttle produces squibs?

The Twins were built outside of the Earth's atmosphere? :boggled:

Are we done with the dumb comparisons yet?

How dense are you? It's an example of compression in an unsealed environment, which you just said you didn't know was possible. It's a flat surface pushing through the air, it's the least sealed and most extreme compression that came to mind.

[phunk]

Hi Phunk,

You might like this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4865


Why did you edit away that comment? Did you google further and realize you were wrong?

[lapman]

This coming from a guy who believes a 47 storey building can fall symmetrically
in 6.5 seconds.
And this is coming from a guy that actually believes that it collapsed in 6.5 seconds. Hint: The collapse really begins with the collapse of the East penthouse.

[defaultdotxbe]

Those floors seem to be missing 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS!!!

Stop ignoring parts of the equation!

What happened to these:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1099.jpg
if you scale the towers down to 6 feet tall would the columns still be massive? would they still be steel? do you understand physics of scale at all?

[~enigma~]

Either that, or you are blind?Yes...I am lying and so are all the photos of the debris pile. You are a really twisted excuse for a human. Does your mother know what you do with your days?
Did yuo watch the video and notice the walls on either side of the building?And?????
What does it matter how it ended up on the ground. It all got there at nearly
the same time!Nearly.....that isn't symmetric but by saying it doesn't matter...you just put yourself in the same catagory as Bermass when he said the people are really secondary. I suggest you rethink your idiotic position.
You can verify that with the still shots. Notice the pretty red line going
across the roof of the building?As you can verify by viewing the debris pile with the north wall atop the pile. You'll have plenty of time to do so because your disgusting remark just earned you a spot on ignore.

[lapman]

Last time I checked you had no clue...oops, too bad...this time is the same.

This is symmetry at its finest:

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.1.jpg
Where is the east penthouse in your picture?
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7CNNonfire.jpg/WTC7CNNonfire-full.jpg

[Turbofan]

Where is the east penthouse in your picture?
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7CNNonfire.jpg/WTC7CNNonfire-full.jpg

What does the penthouse have to do with the outer walls, and other columns
that fell symmetrically?

if the Penthouse and supports fell first, why didn't everything else get pulled
with it?

Those beams must have disconnected themselves huh?

Your argument is BS.

[defaultdotxbe]

What does the penthouse have to do with the outer walls, and other columns
that fell symmetrically?

if the Penthouse and supports fell first, why didn't everything else get pulled
with it?

Those beams must have disconnected themselves huh?

Your argument is BS.
"it fell symetrically except for the parts that didnt!"

[WildCat]

if the Penthouse and supports fell first,
You are disputing that the penthouse fell first?

[Turbofan]

How dense are you? It's an example of compression in an unsealed environment, which you just said you didn't know was possible. It's a flat surface pushing through the air, it's the least sealed and most extreme compression that came to mind.

Compression and squibs are two different things.

YOu are trying to relate an object moving through a gas at rediculous speeds,
through much lower densities to a building?!

The air may be compressing around the shuttle, but it's not discharging
through a smaller opening.

The compression caused by the collapse of the Twins would not cause
enough heat, or anything you're trying to relate?

I don't know what you're talking about? I linked that article for you to read
how all of these points I just stated are a poor analogy.

I even tried to bold it for you, but it seems you, or someone with mod access
removed my post? How do you have a copy of it, and mine is missing?!

Here's another that will probably get erased :rolleyes:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2006/orionheatshield.html

11 Kms per second vs. 9.8 m/s :boggled:

[Jonnyclueless]

Gotta love those 18 second long controlled demolitions. They'll get ya every time!

[Turbofan]

You are disputing that the penthouse fell first?

No! Why are you quoting only part of the question? SPIN and TWIST

You follow me around to every post. You don't offer anything useful to the
debate and you simply take my words out of context and waste my time.

if the Penthouse and supports fell first, why didn't everything else get pulled
with it?

Answer that without running and hiding!

[R.Mackey]

11 Kms per second vs. 9.8 m/s :boggled:

Actually about 50 m/s, and the BLGB paper predicts airflows of up to about 300 m/s as air is "Squeezed" out of the lowest floors. There is some support for this but it's difficult to prove.

9.8 m/s must be in reference to gravity, but gravity provides acceleration, not velocity -- at sea level, roughly equal to 9.8 m/s2.

This is a telling error. At this point, I heartily recommend you enroll in remedial physics as soon as possible. There appears to be no subject in physics with which you have even the slightest expertise.

[Turbofan]

"it fell symetrically except for the parts that didnt!"

"duh..da video and da pickchurz shows da biwlding fell semetricklee, but duh...I chewz two egnowr dat infourmayshun"