Gravity

[Mister Agenda]

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm more a frequenter of the religion forum. From an exchange of emails with a friend:

"This is a google image search for collapsed building rubble.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=collapsed+building&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=

Take your pick, but you can usually see floors piled up, or some large piece of the building left intact.

This is what the world trade center tower looked like before, during, and after its "collapse".

WTC Towers under construction
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html

Less than 1 hour before "collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtcfires6.html

During "Collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html

1 minute after "collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1dust14.html

Days after "Collapse"
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pictures/images/world_trade_center_large_debris_pile.jpg


Are you telling me gravity did this? That's a pretty incredible claim I think."

It doesn't seem like such an incredible claim to me, but my physics knowledge is strictly "high school/slightly intereste layman" level. What SHOULD be left of a 110-story tower that simply collapsed from the top down?

[UNLoVedRebel]

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/JREF.jpg
http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

[roundhead]

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm more a frequenter of the religion forum. From an exchange of emails with a friend:

"This is a google image search for collapsed building rubble.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=collapsed+building&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=

Take your pick, but you can usually see floors piled up, or some large piece of the building left intact.

This is what the world trade center tower looked like before, during, and after its "collapse".

WTC Towers under construction
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html

Less than 1 hour before "collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtcfires6.html

During "Collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html

1 minute after "collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1dust14.html

Days after "Collapse"
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pictures/images/world_trade_center_large_debris_pile.jpg


Are you telling me gravity did this? That's a pretty incredible claim I think."

It doesn't seem like such an incredible claim to me, but my physics knowledge is strictly "high school/slightly intereste layman" level. What SHOULD be left of a 110-story tower that simply collapsed from the top down?


Most all of it should left. You are correct to wonder why they ceased to exist in a pile of pulverized rubble, with miniscule bits of human remains laying on the tops of adjacent buildings.

[jaydeehess]

The simple answer is that its a matter of scale.
If the poster wants to make a point then he should try to find a CD of a comparable building. There is a reason he will be unable to do so.

There is a reason why ultra tall buildings are not brought down by explosive demolitions in the real world. The energy involved does no go up linearly.

This is easy to see in that kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity and the velocity will increase proportional to the height of the fall.

So the higher the building the more energy released to do damage.

[jaydeehess]

In effect the towers were 110 storey, high speed rock tumblers.

WTC 7 at just under 1/2 the height of the towers does have recognizable parts on top of the rubble but less so than many real CD's partially because it is much shorter than WTC 1&2 and taller than all real Cd's to date.

But RH cannot grasp that concept

[Hokulele]

It doesn't seem like such an incredible claim to me, but my physics knowledge is strictly "high school/slightly intereste layman" level. What SHOULD be left of a 110-story tower that simply collapsed from the top down?


Also note in the document UNLoVedRebel posted, there are 6 stories of underground structure that filled with rubble as well. Any photo showing only the above ground damage is misleading as to the true scope of the destruction.

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks, both the calculation and the underground levels address the question. I guess now I find out if my friend is merely mislead on the topic or committed to the conspiratorial explanation.

[psikeyhackr]

Gravity driven collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

Somewhat smaller scale but the stationary masses below stopped the mass falling from above.

The people who believe the complete gravity driven collapse is possible have to come up with rationalizations. This involves leaving out information like the distribution of steel and concrete in the entire building. We don't have the quantity and weights of the perimeter wall panels after SEVEN YEARS. Like why is that difficult? :D

psik

[beachnut]

Gravity driven collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

...
psik
A failed model.

... complete gravity driven collapse is possible ... The only part true in any of your posts on 911.

7 years and 911Truth can't get gravity, or structures right.

[psikeyhackr]

A failed model.
.
You expect people to BELIEVE what you say just because you say it.

So explain the failure. Demonstrate your brilliance.

psik

[Galileo]

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm more a frequenter of the religion forum. From an exchange of emails with a friend:

"This is a google image search for collapsed building rubble.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=collapsed+building&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=

Take your pick, but you can usually see floors piled up, or some large piece of the building left intact.

This is what the world trade center tower looked like before, during, and after its "collapse".

WTC Towers under construction
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html

Less than 1 hour before "collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtcfires6.html

During "Collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html

1 minute after "collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1dust14.html

Days after "Collapse"
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pictures/images/world_trade_center_large_debris_pile.jpg


Are you telling me gravity did this? That's a pretty incredible claim I think."

It doesn't seem like such an incredible claim to me, but my physics knowledge is strictly "high school/slightly intereste layman" level. What SHOULD be left of a 110-story tower that simply collapsed from the top down?

Mister Agenda;

Here is a peer reviewed scientific paper which proves that gravity alone did not destroy the towers:

PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGYAVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWINTOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

By Terry Morrone

Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University
In this communication I shall show that only explosives could have producedthe large amounts of molten steel found at the site of the World Trade Center (WTC)in the days following 9/11.

PLEASE READ THE REST:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

[T.A.M.]

.
You expect people to BELIEVE what you say just because you say it.

psik

Please remind every TRUTHER you see on this forum, of your words above...

TAM:)

[Furcifer]

Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University[/I]
In this communication I shall show that only explosives could have producedthe large amounts of molten steel found at the site of the World Trade Center (WTC)in the days following 9/11.


LMFAO, this would be great if there were large amounts of molten steel found.

1 dubious picture and some off hand comments of people. Not one single person out of hundreds have ever come forward to say "Yes, i found molten steel, it was crazy, it was everywhere."

(Seriously, is this a joke? Isn't Morrone italian for Moron?)

[GlennB]

By Terry Morrone, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

Dear Lord. I was writing better scientific reports than that when I was 15 years old. He's a Professor Emeritus of Physics ???
He isn't deluded, he's demented.
Or this is a joke.

[Galileo]

LMFAO, this would be great if there were large amounts of molten steel found.

1 dubious picture and some off hand comments of people. Not one single person out of hundreds have ever come forward to say "Yes, i found molten steel, it was crazy, it was everywhere."

(Seriously, is this a joke? Isn't Morrone italian for Moron?)

A lot of people found molten steel. Show me a peer reviewed paper that proves all the witnesses are wrong.

I just showed you a peer reviewed science paper that references the molten steel. You do not seem to have much respect for peer reviewed science.

[Furcifer]

A lot of people found molten steel. Show me a peer reviewed paper that proves all the witnesses are wrong.

I just showed you a peer reviewed science paper that references the molten steel. You do not seem to have much respect for peer reviewed science.

? I guess you missed the memo, no one found any molten steel. Even though you would expect there to be some molten metal of some sort. Of course the amount would have been dwarfed by the sheer quantity of material.

Yes, I have no (snicker) respect for (snicker) that particular scientific journal. I have more respect for publications with scantily clad women on page 3 ;)

(sorry, marrone in italian is "brown")

[Galileo]

? I guess you missed the memo, no one found any molten steel. Even though you would expect there to be some molten metal of some sort. Of course the amount would have been dwarfed by the sheer quantity of material.

Yes, I have no (snicker) respect for (snicker) that particular scientific journal. I have more respect for publications with scantily clad women on page 3 ;)

(sorry, marrone in italian is "brown")

This scientific paper is not a memo, it is peer reviewed, published in a scientific journal and read by the scientific community. You don't have a peer reviewed scientific paper, you can only cite blog comments on conspiracy websites.

[FineWine]

This scientific paper is not a memo, it is peer reviewed, published in a scientific journal and read by the scientific community. You don't have a peer reviewed scientific paper, you can only cite blog comments on conspiracy websites.


How can journal run by Jones and his cronies be peer-reviewed? Its purpose is to promote conspiracy theories. What does any of that have to do with science?

[Galileo]

How can journal run by Jones and his cronies be peer-reviewed? Its purpose is to promote conspiracy theories. What does any of that have to do with science?

are you serious?

The peers who review these papers have advanced degrees in many technical subjects.

One PhD writes a paper. Then another PhD who is his peer, reviews the paper and makes objections.

Then after the objections are worked out and the paper is deemed worthy it gets published. Often, the papers don't get published, because of peer objections.

[Furcifer]

This scientific paper is not a memo, it is peer reviewed, published in a scientific journal and read by the scientific community. You don't have a peer reviewed scientific paper, you can only cite blog comments on conspiracy websites.

This is a put on right? You're not being serious, right? Read by the scientific community??? I should point you in the direction of Gregory Urich for a comment on these "journals".

You need to re-evaluate your position on what is considered a scientific journal in these parts mister.

[boloboffin]

This is a put on right? You're not being serious, right? Read by the scientific community??? I should point you in the direction of Gregory Urich for a comment on these "journals".

You need to re-evaluate your position on what is considered a scientific journal in these parts mister.

Think of Galileo as a Truther AI program, like Alice. Suddenly everything becomes clear.

[Holler Hoojer]

I got a letter from Momma just today. Here, let me read it to you. She says, "Forrest (that's what she always calls me 'cause that's my name), Ever thing falls on account of gravity. That's all there is. That's what happened to Uncle Alvin when he got tight and fell off the porch roof. Gravity." That's what Momma said.

[psikeyhackr]

Please remind every TRUTHER you see on this forum, of your words above...

TAM:)
.
How many of the so called Truthers built physical models demonstrating what they say?

How many JREFers have? Mackey talks about a scaled model like something has to be proven to him. Let's see him prove the top 10% of some self-supporting structure can crush its bottom 85%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

Where is the table with the distribution of steel and concrete in the WTC? Where did the NIST specify the total amount of concrete in the WTC? The only wrote 10,000 pages. :D :D

psik

[FineWine]

.
How many of the so called Truthers built physical models demonstrating what they say?

How many JREFers have? Mackey talks about a scaled model like something has to be proven to him. Let's see him prove the top 10% of some self-supporting structure can crush its bottom 85%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

Where is the table with the distribution of steel and concrete in the WTC? Where did the NIST specify the total amount of concrete in the WTC? The only wrote 10,000 pages. :D :D

psik


How many times will you be asked about the significance of the distribution of steel and concrete? Tell us what the significance is.

[Furcifer]

.


Mackey talks about a scaled model like something has to be proven to him. Let's see him prove the top 10% of some self-supporting structure can crush its bottom 85%.

psik

I think that's exactly what he said. Prove something by documenting it and have it recognized by a legitimate source. The onus is on you.

(Hits on a youtube video or publications you can pay to publish in don't count as a legitimate source)

Good Luck!

[Grizzly Bear]

How many times will you be asked about the significance of the distribution of steel and concrete? Tell us what the significance is.

According to him it has to do with the weight and it's significance to the construction... Don't know why he's making such a fuss about not being able to find the specs on the materials though... Those are already in public domain and he can do very simple math to determine whatever he keeps complaining about...

[beachnut]

.
...
How many JREFers have? ...
Me

I modeled one tower. Collapse time 12.08 seconds. Millions of engineer can confirm that time as could you if you could do physics.

If you can physics you can understand 911.

[jaydeehess]

A lot of people found molten steel. Show me a peer reviewed paper that proves all the witnesses are wrong.

I just showed you a peer reviewed science paper that references the molten steel. You do not seem to have much respect for peer reviewed science.

Really, where is the evidence of molten "steel"?
(not to mention that in order to qualify, 'molten' must mean liquid state)

[Dave Rogers]

Here is a peer reviewed scientific paper which proves that gravity alone did not destroy the towers:

Note two important things about this paper:

(1) It's in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which is not a peer-reviewed journal in the conventional sense, but rather a propaganda organ of Steven Jones's truther views. Papers that disagree with those views are rejected without even reaching the review stage, and the only peer reviewers used are those who already agree with Jones's views.

(2) The paper is, to put it mildly, a dog's breakfast. It calculates whether the gravitational potential energy of a particular piece of steel could have produced enough energy to melt that same piece, something nobody has ever suggested happened. It then claims that molten steel, which it assumes purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence to have been present, could only have been produced by explosives, without suggesting a means by which this could have occurred. In effect, it's saying that, because an unverified event couldn't have happened by one impossible means, we must believe that it must have happened by another impossible means.

Sadly, this is typical of truther "papers".

Dave

[twinstead]

In effect, it's saying that, because an unverified event couldn't have happened by one impossible means, we must believe that it must have happened by another impossible means.


Yes. This illustrates a typical truther tactic, one that many of us are very familiar with--they attempt to cast doubt on one theory, and then use that doubt to seamlessly insert their own, even less plausible pet theory in its place.

This is conspiracist 101.

[ozeco41]

Yes. This illustrates a typical truther tactic, one that many of us are very familiar with--they attempt to cast doubt on one theory, and then use that doubt to seamlessly insert their own, even less plausible pet theory in its place.

This is conspiracist 101.

Actually it is Creationism 101 - the false dilemma of "You cannot prove it wasn't xyz THEREFORE GodDidIt.

...so not the requirement to prove a negative AND the reversal of "burden of proof"

[Mister Agenda]

I don't understand why some melted metal is a problem. Surely there were tons of aluminum some of which would have melted at those temperatures? How do we know the molten metal reported was steel?

[Dave Rogers]

I don't understand why some melted metal is a problem. Surely there were tons of aluminum some of which would have melted at those temperatures? How do we know the molten metal reported was steel?

Melted metal is a problem because truthers want it to be a problem. It's not a problem to those who start from the events that were observed to take place on 9/11, then attempt to assemble a coherent narrative to explain those events. Rather, it's highlighted as a problem by those who start from the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks were masterminded by a conspiracy within the US Government, then try to construct a line of reasoning from the observed events to support that conclusion. Since they can't so so (because there is no sane line of reasoning that does support the conclusion), they retreat to the position of anomaly-spotting, based on the two faces of their fundamental fallacy: that a single anomaly in the narrative necessitates a rejection of the entire understanding of the events of 9/11 as an attack on America by Islamic Jihadists, and that the only viable alternative is to replace that understanding with a vague and unspecified conjecture of an attack planned and executed from within. The fact that some observers saw what they believed to be molten steel has been seized upon as one of these anomalies, so, in the tortured logic of the conspiracy theorist, it simply has to be proof of an inside job, despite the complete absence of a rational line of argument from one to the other. The same is true of everything else presented by the 9/11 truth movement.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't understand why some melted metal is a problem. Surely there were tons of aluminum some of which would have melted at those temperatures? How do we know the molten metal reported was steel?

We don't. That's the crux of the issue. It's to conspiracy peddler's benefit to peddle the myth that molten steel was observed, but the fact of the matter is, that was never, ever proven.

A search for prior threads in this forum will show those discussions. Point is, the "proof" they provide for molten metal being steel is lacking in the extreme. The fact that they spend a lot of words to say so little shouldn't be taken as actually having "proof" of molten steel.

Further reading, if you're interested:
http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera (you'll need to scroll down to the "Fires in the pile/molten metal..." section)

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb

[jaydeehess]

Melted metal is a problem because truthers want it to be a problem. It's not a problem to those who start from the events that were observed to take place on 9/11, then attempt to assemble a coherent narrative to explain those events. Rather, it's highlighted as a problem by those who start from the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks were masterminded by a conspiracy within the US Government, then try to construct a line of reasoning from the observed events to support that conclusion. Since they can't so so (because there is no sane line of reasoning that does support the conclusion), they retreat to the position of anomaly-spotting, based on the two faces of their fundamental fallacy: that a single anomaly in the narrative necessitates a rejection of the entire understanding of the events of 9/11 as an attack on America by Islamic Jihadists, and that the only viable alternative is to replace that understanding with a vague and unspecified conjecture of an attack planned and executed from within. The fact that some observers saw what they believed to be molten steel has been seized upon as one of these anomalies, so, in the tortured logic of the conspiracy theorist, it simply has to be proof of an inside job, despite the complete absence of a rational line of argument from one to the other. The same is true of everything else presented by the 9/11 truth movement.

Dave

Since Mr.A. is now encountering the 911 TM I can give him another example of this tactic that he will, eventually, run into.

Refering to the perimeter column sections that hit and adamged WTC 7 the TM line of reasoning is that gravity alone cannot account for the energy required to send those coulmns 500-600 feet out from WTC 1 (an educated CT will also bring up those that hit the Winter Gardens and the damage to IIRC Banker's Trust which was damaged by WTC 2 perimeter columns).

The conclusion then is that only explosives could account for this.
When asked how explosives would be placed, what type of explosive would be used, or if there was any empirical evidence on those coulmns, or video/audio evidence, that indicated they were sent flying by explosives, they will usually not reply or the reply will be along the lines of (and this is a quote), "I refuse to play your game. Have your opinion, which is exactly what it is, and I'll have mine."

[Mister Agenda]

That is what I'm encountering. I'm hoping my friend is just sufferering from overexposure to one side of the argument, but he's not grasping the narrative view. Here's what I heard from him last, I'm italicizing my remarks he's responding to:

But I would like to continue our discussion on the pictures first:

The kinetic force of the top floors falling was equal to about a ton of TNT per floor,

Where did you get this number? Did you assume the floors fell unhindered by the steel columns?
AND the building was largely compressed into it's six sublevels.

Was it compressed or were the columns in the sublevels blown out by explosives?

Once the process gained momentum,

I challenge the assertion that the building could ever had "gained momentum" without all of the columns and floors being removed beforehand. This building was specifically designed to resist the downward force of gravity, and probably had a safety factor of at least 2 or 3 built into it. Steel framed buildings are not built so that they can simply crumple under their own weight.

Remember my car example? It is relevant because the building above was composed of the same stuff as the building below, just as one car is composed of the same stuff as the other.

You are asserting that one piece of building can crush another piece of building, and move right through it almost unhindered, without the upper part being equally crushed itself.
You are also asserting that one piece of building can move through another identical slice of building, and not decelerate significantly. I would challenge these two assertions.

What we should have seen was maybe the crumpling of the damaged section, perhaps some pieces falling off, and then the collapse should have arrested itself and not continued to accelerate downwards.

Show me one example of two solid materials of similar density that can collide, or be dropped on one another, and yet not decelerate. Conservation of momentum. Newton's third law, for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.
the steel beams were not strong enough to stop it, or even slow it down much.

Not true, they were at least twice as strong enough to hold up the weigh of the building, as all structures are designed to do.

The tower expanded due to pressure from above, EXACTLY as happens to anything else crushed by pressure from above. Try it on a beer can or molded jello.
Two problems with this example.

1. What happens when you drop 1 beer can on another beer can? Or one piece of jello on another piece of jello, that's what we are talking about here right? Not the magical foot of God stepping on the building or the beer can. The materials interacting have to have the same structure and density to be relevant.
2. The building was filled with a gas, not with a liquid or solid, those materials behave differently when pressurized.
Big plane crash into building/Building fall down. (someone else's comment he's responding to)

Before the Twin Towers were even built, a 10 ton B-25 crashed into the Empire State building and dumped its jet fuel into the building in a fire that burned for 40 minutes.

Plane crash into building, building no fall down.

So far I've only responded to the ESB claim (I know it is much sturdier than the WTC was) and the idea that any steel columns other than the central ones supported higher stories. I think if countering all of these is insufficient, there won't be much point in pursuing it further. Or maybe he'll convince me through anomaly saturation.

[beachnut]

...
So far I've only responded to the ESB claim (I know it is much sturdier than the WTC was) and the idea that any steel columns other than the central ones supported higher stories. I think if countering all of these is insufficient, there won't be much point in pursuing it further. Or maybe he'll convince me through anomaly saturation.

The ESB is not stronger. The impact of the B-25 was equal to 18 pounds of TNT kinetic energy. The fuel was not jet fuel but closer to avgas no big deal almost the same heat energy per pound as jet fuel. The dolt you are talking to messes up everything.

The WTC were designed to resist an impact at 187 pounds of TNT of kinetic energy; TEN TIMES the ESB impact.

The impacts on 911 were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT.

The ESB is not stronger, it is different.

The poor guy at the other forum is not able to do physics.

The momentum transfer is easy to do. If he can't produce the numbers to prove his point he is a fraud. He says there is deceleration as the weight below is added. He is correct but gravity quickly accelerates the new mass past the initial impact speed at each floor.

The top floors falling would decelerate at impact to 7.86 from 8.52 m/s due to momentum, with the floor failing instantly.

Initial impact velocity is 8.52, new velocity 7.86; next impact 11.60, new velocity 10.77; next impact 13.73 new v 12.81; next 15.39, new v 14.43; next 16.76, new v 15.77; next 17.92 new v 16.93; next 18.95, new 17.95; next 19.87, new 18.88... For 12.08 seconds. He needs to do the numbers and stop running his mouth at full delusion spewing speed.

[jaydeehess]

If you do a little searching you can find the max fuel load of a 757 and the density of jet fuel.

a 757 holds 43,400 litres of fuel max, which has a density of 0.83 Kg/L giving us 36,000 Kg of fuel load max. Converting this is 39 tons of jet fuel max. The B25 weighed 10 tons so the 757 was capable of holding a fuel load that was 4 times the entire weight of the B25. This gives us a very clear view of the relative sizes of these aircraft.

The max take off weight of a 757 is 136 tons, 12+ times that of the B25.
Kinetic energy is therefore easily 10 times that of the B25 by virtue of the mass alone

The velocity was approx 3.2 times that of the B25 , since energy is proportional to velocity squared this translates to 10 times more energy , but the mass of the 757 was also 10 times that of the B25(easily) so that also increses the energy by a factor of 10
10X10 = 100 times more kinetic energy. You can get to more precision but ball parking it like this is easier on the mathematically challenged

[jaydeehess]

the steel beams were not strong enough to stop it, or even slow it down much.

He completely missed this point. Beams are not columns. Beams run horizontally. Fact is that once the intial collapse began, the falling mass was not coming down on the vertical columns, it was coming down on the horizonbtal floors. The floor spaces/trusses/ and the truss seats that connect the trusses to the columns were designed to hold only the mass on ONE floorspace plus a safety margin. They were never designed to hold up the mass of not just ten floorspaces but also the mass of the columns for those ten levels.

In his car example ask him what occurs when the car's bumpers miss each other. I personally had a vehicle rear end my car. His sat higher and although mine was a full sized car that weighed approx the same as his pick up truck, and although he hit the brakes about 10 feet before slamming into me at 30 mph, my trunk ended up in my back seat fully 1/2 the distance between where the factory created it and the front of the vehicle. Now in that collision there was no external force (such as gravity) and he was applying the brakes as we hit (so not only was energy beiong transferred to my car but also to the friction of locked up rubber on the roadway). The analogy here is that had the bumpers lined up or the columns been lined up , then the forces would impinge on them. They were not lined up and therefore the forces hit other areas not designed to take them.

[Mister Agenda]

Very helpful, thanks! I had read that the ESB was stronger, but I'm only as good as my sources without the right background to evaluate that claim. Thanks for the education!

[UNLoVedRebel]

11 and 175 were 767's, not 757's

[jaydeehess]

11 and 175 were 767's, not 757's

Oops,

767 max fuel 90,770 litres
0.83 X 90,770 = 75339 Kg = 82 tons of fuel max for size comparison the max fuel load capacity of this aircraft (unless my arithmetic is incorrect, I didn't check) is 8 times the weight of the entire B25

max take off weight 395,000 pounds = 197.5 tons or 19.5 times the weight of a B25
So 19.5 X 10(because the velocity was 3.2 times) = 195 times the kinetic energy of the B25.

[Corsair 115]

The impacts on 911 were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT.


Just to follow up on this point, forum member X went through the kinetic energy calcuations of the 9/11 jet impacts on the WTC towers in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4346806&postcount=58).

He arrived at figures of 549.7 kg of TNT for the first impact and 764.8 kg of TNT for the second. That converts to 1,212 lbs and 1,686 lbs of TNT, respectively. Somewhat below beachnut's numbers, but nevertheless still significant. Especially when one considers that the U.S. Mk 84 GP 2,000 lb bomb has a warhead containing 945 lbs (429 kg) of high explosive.

In other words, each of the WTC towers was hit by the equivalent of a bomb more powerful than the Mk 84. For simplicity's sake, however, call each impact the equivalent of a 2,000 lb bomb hit.

[Mister Agenda]

Sadly, my friend has withdrawn from the debate, a little ironic since he scolded me for being cynical about the likelihood we would reach a conclusion both of us could agree on. He still hopes I will do the research on my own to find out explosives had to have been used. Not a waste though, it turns out the topic is more interesting than I first thought, even the engineering stuff (my initial interest was more concerning the psychology of the conflict). I plan to spend more time lurking in this part of the forum.

[Minadin]

Oops,

767 max fuel 90,770 litres
0.83 X 90,770 = 75339 Kg = 82 tons of fuel max for size comparison the max fuel load capacity of this aircraft (unless my arithmetic is incorrect, I didn't check) is 8 times the weight of the entire B25

max take off weight 395,000 pounds = 197.5 tons or 19.5 times the weight of a B25
So 19.5 X 10(because the velocity was 3.2 times) = 195 times the kinetic energy of the B25.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245ae6cf556e33.jpg

The planes probably were not at maximum weight at the time of impact.

[jaydeehess]

Ok, using that data
(9442X125)/3202X11 = 99 times as much k.e.
Oddy enough it seems I had the right answer from, incorrect data the first time when I said 100 times the k.e.