Speed of collapse

[furrod]

I’m sure this has been discussed, ad nauseam, but recently I thought of an angle that I haven’t read before and I was hoping someone could expand upon it and/or point me toward a discussion I my have missed.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that the WTC towers collapsed within a time period only slightly faster than an object in free fall. The argument being that the individual floors would have provided some resistance and slowed the whole collapse down.

In an effort to avoid complicated equations and analysis, I’ve been looking for an easier explanation. Here is my thinking.

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?

According to http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm they do, but it is entirely due to explosives on the lowest floors, initiating the collapse, and then gravity takes over for the remainder of the building. Any explosives used in the upper part of the structure are primarily used to direct its fall.

The problem with this is that the upper explosive could be helping to speed up the collapse.

My question: Is there an example of a building being demolished using controlled demolition where the only explosives used were the ones on the ground floor, and did that building collapse at near free fall speed?

If so then I would think it is game over for those who cling to the idea that near free fall speed equals controlled demolition. An example of this sort would easily illustrate to even the densest conspiracy theorist that the floors that were not blown also did not provide any significant resistance to the speed at which the building fell.

Anyways, that’s my thinking. I hope it goes somewhere…

[GlennB]

[quote=furrod;2850971]

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?
[quote]

My bolding. Start here.
Where do you get this idea?
What are the figures and how are they arrived at?

[CHF]

Gravity was more than enough to caused the top masses to smash through the WCT towers.

South tower - 120,000 tons

North tower - 50,000 tons

Truthers think that what these masses fall 12 feet onto the floor below that it will somehow be stopped or significantly slowed down.

God knows why.

[Revolutionary91]

[quote=furrod;2850971]

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?
[quote]

My bolding. Start here.
Where do you get this idea?
What are the figures and how are they arrived at?

Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass

[CHF]

Hey everyone, wanna see a cool magic trick? I'm gonna make Rev91 disappear!

Hey Rev, why did the trusses pull in on the outer columns?

*poof* he's gone!

[e^n]

Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1

NIST qualifies that statement as you can see mentioning the relatively low amount of resistance. This is taken from Bazant + Greening who calculated the energy available to fail a floor as having an 8 fold excess. You can read their paper which also includes collapse time analysis here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

[T.A.M.]

and could we please refrain from incorrectly referring to it as "FREE FALL SPEED". Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, moves at FREE FALL SPEED, as that silly thing called gravity causes all objects falling to ACCELERATE. The acception to this occurs once TERMINAL VELOCITY has been reached.

pet peeve

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

Hey everyone, wanna see a cool magic trick? I'm gonna make Rev91 disappear!

Hey Rev, why did the trusses pull in on the outer columns?

*poof* he's gone!


They sagged. Don't you even know that?

[Revolutionary91]

NIST qualifies that statement as you can see mentioning the relatively low amount of resistance. This is taken from Bazant + Greening who calculated the energy available to fail a floor as having an 8 fold excess. You can read their paper which also includes collapse time analysis here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

Did they mean essentially in freefall? Yes or no?

[CHF]

They sagged. Don't you even know that?

What caused them to sag? Heat? Bombs?

[Revolutionary91]

What caused them to sag? Heat? Bombs?

I thought you were going to disappear me?

Heat.

[beachnut]

Momentum. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf)

Greening does some stuff.

You can look up numbers from other work, and do your own study.

I think of the impact of the first part breaking the section below. The velocity is not stopped, it is only changed by the new mass and a small amount of energy lost. The entire process of collision is accelerating due to gravity. Each section of resistance is not stopping the fall, only taking away some energy. If you subtract that small amount of energy and calculate the new velocities and acceleration, you get close to what you see on 9/11. I come up with numbers close to Greening, he got -
WTC 1: tc = 13.48 s ; WTC 2: tc = 12.07 s

[Pardalis]

:popcorn1

[CHF]

I thought you were going to disappear me?

Heat.

Heat from....what?

[stateofgrace]

The measurements have indicated that tower one collapsed in ABOUT eleven seconds and tower two in ABOUT nine seconds and the argument goes that this is essentially the rate at which freefall would happen BUT the building is 70% air in volume and all of the columns are not solid steel they are steel boxes in which the steel varies in thickness from about a quarter of an inch on the top to ABOUT three quarters of an inch to an inch and a half at the bottom, so they are not by any means solid structural components. But they are properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions and the weight of the occupants and the furniture in the buildings. Those are all things that these structures can withstand very well but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of, let’s say a 20 floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion the magnitude of the energy released is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied and it essentially came down in freefall.



Shyam Sunder, NIST

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

So why does the speed of the collapse matter?

[Revolutionary91]

Heat from....what?

Didn't you notice the fires started by the jet fuel? You need to be more observant.

[Revolutionary91]

Shyam Sunder, NIST

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

So why does the speed of the collapse matter?

So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time?

[beachnut]

[quote=GlennB;2851037][quote=furrod;2850971]

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?


Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1


Wrong. Any kid can calculate the speed, even Dr Greening does a good job. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf)

You could get help from a physics teacher or do it on a spread sheet. The CD part is humorous, but quite illogical and not very good as an intellectual judgment on the topic. Failure to present empirical data as why CD is required is your downfall. Failure to do the math and physics to show gravity collapse times as seen on 9/11 is quite childish. Oh, you are a child; sorry. Do you need help on this? I can get you help, and you do need it.

[Unsecured Coins]

so.... no thermite?

[T.A.M.]

NOT SPEED!!!!!!!!!!!

Time of Free Fall is in seconds.

Speed is in m/s

Speed changes as gravity forces acceleration of said object...

sorry....pet peeve

TAM:)

[Unsecured Coins]

So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time?


we do not. Essentially freefall is not the same as freefall. That's like saying you have boiling 211 degree water.

close, but not quite

[Par]

7190118531505989658

How fast, do we think?

[CHF]

Didn't you notice the fires started by the jet fuel? You need to be more observant.

So...fires caused the trusses to bend which pulled in on the columns.

Doesn't sound like a demolition so far.

Go on....

[Revolutionary91]

Stateofgrace why did you say this?

If you believe the Towers fell at freefall speed then you believe in magic.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2409754&highlight=freefall#post2409754

[T.A.M.]

I have done the calculations repeatedly, and it never came down near freefall.

If you account for the center of gravity of the top section for the Second Tower to fall, the height was 394m.

t*t=2*d/g = 9.0s

even at the full height of 417m,

t*t=2d/g = 9.2s

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10761455202155aceb.jpg


how is 12 seconds, or even 11 seconds "Near" this? that is a 15-25% difference from free fall time.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

we do not. Essentially freefall is not the same as freefall. That's like saying you have boiling 211 degree water.

close, but not quite

OMG, the post you responded to said essentially.

I wuill repeat. Do we agree that they came down essentially in freefall?

[beachnut]

So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time?
Free fall is 9.1 seconds. Darn, neither tower fell in 9.1 seconds. Wrong again. Physics is good. Your physics is absent. The towers fell exactly how a gravity collapse would look and the time of collapse matches models grade school kids could do. The 9/11 truth movement is not able to do the numbers because it would destroy their movement. You have chosen sides poorly. Go ask a physics teacher how to calculate the WTC towers fall, and stop making up the CD stuff, it is a broken record debunked over 5 years ago.

Explain why the cores were still standing for 10 to 20 seconds longer; looks like the silent CD was not in the core. Silent CD, Apollo hoax, what is next, I bet JFK is one of you CTs too, sorry but do you have some numbers to back up your lies about CD?

[stateofgrace]

So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time?

Maybe you missed this bit


If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion the magnitude of the energy released is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied and it essentially came down in freefall.

[Revolutionary91]

Maybe you missed this bit

No I caught that bit. Maybe its my eyes, but that quote still seems to say that they fell essentially in freefall.

[CHF]

Rev91. You got as far as the trusses pulling in on the columns due to the fire's heat.

What happened next?

Good lord, this really has to be beaten out of you.

[T.A.M.]

To me, it is like trying to argue with traffic cop over a ticket....

Officer: sir, did you know you were going 70 in a 55 zone.
Me: Well I was essentially going 55

TAM:)

[defaultdotxbe]

Stateofgrace why did you say this?


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2409754&highlight=freefall#post2409754



because even if you believe in a controlled demolition hypothesis for the towers to have fallen in the exact time it would take to freefall from the top the collapse would have had to have started at the bottom and progressed upwards like a typical demolition

this didnt happen, so for freefall speeds you would either need magic or some way to adjust the gravitational field of the earth

[Par]

OMG, the post you responded to said essentially.

I wuill repeat. Do we agree that they came down essentially in freefall?



In a thread devoted entirely to the speeds of the collapses, why be unnecessarily vague?

[Unsecured Coins]

and what is "essentially in free fall" supposed to prove?

[Pardalis]

Rev91. You got as far as the trusses pulling in on the columns due to the fire's heat.

What happened next?

Good lord, this really has to be beaten out of you.

Pathetic isn't it?

[beachnut]

No I caught that bit. Maybe its my eyes, but that quote still seems to say that they fell essentially in freefall.
This is so simple. Please list the times it took the towers to collapse. Please state the time it would take the towers to fall if they fell by gravity due to failure as seen on 9/11. Darn, we do have a problem with this. There was no CD, but please show us your numbers and calculations. I agree with Greening numbers, because they match what I got. (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf)

So tell us what the numbers were, should be, and why.

[CHF]

Pathetic isn't it?

Sure is.

I think the problem is that he realizes that each step brings him further and further away from a demolition theory that makes any sense at all.

[e^n]

No I caught that bit. Maybe its my eyes, but that quote still seems to say that they fell essentially in freefall.
(Bolding mine)

Yes, here is a definition
1 : of, relating to, or constituting essence : INHERENT

The towers fell essentially in freefall, there was some resistance from floor sections but this was relatively minor.

"The towers fell in freefall" implies no resistance
"The towers fell essentially in freefall" implies a caveat or additional information. It's just English (and I SUCK at it).

[Pardalis]

Sure is.

I think the problem is that he realizes that each step brings him further and further away from a demolition theory that makes any sense at all.

The problem is that he realizes that each step brings him closer and closer to the truth. ;)

Quite the truth seeker.

[Par]

The problem is that he realizes that each step brings him closer and closer to the truth. ;)



Kicking and screaming; red-faced and shaking.

[stateofgrace]

Stateofgrace why did you say this?


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2409754&highlight=freefall#post2409754




Em because the towers didn't fall at freefall speed, maybe because they came down very fast, essentially the floors could not offer any resistance to the massive dynamic weight that fell on them, essentially the MASSIVE weight fell through them, but hey the cores survived, so the BUILDING did not fall at free fall speed.

Or would you like to put a different spin on it?

But please Rev 911 don't cherry pick my pervious posts feel free to address the entire post.


If you believe that squads of explosives experts could secretly pre rig three buildings prior to 911 without anybody noticing, then you believe in magic.
If you believe that these explosives were so powerful that they ejected massive steel beams 600 feet without making a sound, then you believe in magic.
If you believe they pulverized all the thousands of tons of concrete inside the towers without making a sound, then you believe in magic.
If you believe they snapped the central core and the external columns without making a sound then you believe in magic.
If you believe these explosives survived the plane crashes and fires to start the collapse at the exact place the planes crashed, then you believe in magic.
If you believe that only explosives could cause molten metal weeks after they had gone off, then you believe in magic.
If you believe the Towers fell at freefall speed then you believe in magic.
If you believe the floors that braced the external columns to the internal core could survive the massive dynamic weight that fell on them then you believe in magic.
If you believe the planes were holograms you believe in magic.
If you believe faces were drawn in the fireballs and smoke you believe in magic.
If you believe black smoke is a sign of oxygen-starved fires then you believe in magic.
If you believe that the sounds of things exploding inside burning buildings are only caused by explosives, then you believe in magic.
If you believe that a plane can be piloted manually or remotely at high speed towards the Pentagon then pulled up and flown over it without anybody noticing then you believe in magic.
If you believe that somebody pre rigged lampposts beforehand to make it look like a plane hit them,then you believe in magic.
If you believe somebody planted passenger body parts and DNA inside the Pentagon then you believe in magic.
If you believe somebody planted plane parts inside the Pentagon to make it look like a plane crashed there then you believe in magic.
If you believe that somebody planted the black boxes from Flight 77 inside the Pentagon then you believe in magic.
If you believe somebody fired a missile at the Pentagon, in broad daylight and nobody noticed, then you believe in magic.
If you believe that fighter pilots fired missiles over New York at Flight 175, missed it and hit WTC 7, then you believe in magic.
If you believe NORAD stood down and everybody involved in the stand down have kept quiet for five years then you believe in magic.
If you believe Flight 93 did not crash but a fake crash site was set up before hand to make it look like it crashed, then you believe in magic.
If you believe somebody was able to voice morph passengers desperate calls to the loved ones and fooled them completely then you believe in magic.
If you believe Al Qaeda is just a bunch of backward cavemen then you believe in magic.
If you believe Israel parachute Commandos armed with guns and silencers hijacked the planes and then parachuted to safety before they crashed then you believe in magic.
If you believe by watching a youtube video you are suddenly a structural engineer, an aircraft crash investigator and an explosives expert, then you believe in magic.
If you believe the truth movement has achieved anything over the last five years then you believe in magic.
If you believe there is a single fact in LC then you believe in magic.
If you believe Bush and co are capable of completely fooling the entire engineering and scientific community for the last five years then you really do believe in magic.

And on and on and on..Do you really believe in magic?


Well? Do you believe in magic?

[Brainster]

I have pointed out in the past that if you time the Southwark Towers demolition, you'll quickly see that those buildings did not come down in free-fall. Indeed, if you use the same "common sense" that the Deniers ask us to use with the Towers, you'll see that the free fall argument is silly. Say the demolition team blows out the first two floors of a building to collapse it. When the third floor hits the ground, shouldn't we expect it, and the subsequent floors, to resist the collapse, slowing it down? Shouldn't we expect the building to topple over, since that is (according to the Deniers) the path of least resistance?

[TellyKNeasuss]

Don't let those NWO shills fool you. Everyone knows that gravity works more strongly on buildings that are brought down by controlled demolition, so buildings that are brought down by controlled demolition fall faster than buildings collapsing due to other causes. Therefore, collapsing at near free-fall speeds is unequivocal proof of controlled demolition.

Finally, the NWO programming seems to be wearing off. I'm becoming a CT'er!

[jhunter1163]

The "essentially" is the key word. I can say "My wife essentially looks like Salma Hayek". And she does, in the sense that both have dark hair, brown eyes and two breasts. The devil, however, is in that "essentially".

Now if you'll excuse me, I have serious kissing up to do.

Honey, of COURSE you're more beautiful than Salma Hayek! It was an analogy....

[PhantomWolf]

Well when I have timed the collapses with a stopwatch using mutliple sources, I have gotten times between 16 and 18 seconds for Tower 2, and 18 and 20 seconds for Tower 1. The main problem with an exact time is that the dust cloud coming up obscures the collapse zone so you can't see the exact end of the collapse in any video.

Since Freefall would be about 9 seconds for Tower 2 and 10 seconds for Tower 1, I don't personally consider 16 essentially 9 or 18 to be essentially 10. We're talking 70-100% longer than freefall. I believe that the quiote passage from NIST was actually talking about the Top block falling onto the bottom section of the tower at essentially freefall speeds at the point of the collapse, not the actual global collapse being at freefall speeds, which it wasn't. NIST also point out that the first exterior panels hit the ground in 9 and 10 seconds for the two towers, and the video evidence shows highly conclusively that the collapse front is still nearly halfway up the building at that point.

[beachnut]

and what is "essentially in free fall" supposed to prove?
Truth movement? If a trip takes 9.1 hours and you take 13.5 hours or 12.1 hours, that is not essentially 9.1 hours. Why are people who believe anything 9/11 truth, unable to realize 9.1 seconds is not 13 or 12?

The difference is significant, and is due ot momentum and energy. And the collapse times are more complicated than that. The partial cores fell later.

The sad part is he never resolves an issue, he moves on, he must have the old LCF manifesto of how to woo your way out of debate without resorting to facts or logic.

[Pardalis]

Kicking and screaming; red-faced and shaking.

All distinct symptoms of cognitive dissonance.

[T.A.M.]

The "essentially" is the key word. I can say "My wife essentially looks like Salma Hayek". And she does, in the sense that both have dark hair, brown eyes and two breasts. The devil, however, is in that "essentially".

Now if you'll excuse me, I have serious kissing up to do.

Honey, of COURSE you're more beautiful than Salma Hayek! It was an analogy....

Like I said, try to tell the traffic cop, that your speed of 70mph was "essentially" the speed limit of 55mph.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

So are NIST wrong when they say essentially freefall, yes or no?

[PhantomWolf]

The "essentially" is the key word. I can say "My wife essentially looks like Salma Hayek". And she does, in the sense that both have dark hair, brown eyes and two breasts. The devil, however, is in that "essentially".

Now if you'll excuse me, I have serious kissing up to do.

Honey, of COURSE you're more beautiful than Salma Hayek! It was an analogy....

You know you could have avoided that by saying that Salma Hayek essentially looks like your wife. ;)

[jhunter1163]

Like I said, try to tell the traffic cop, that your speed of 70mph was "essentially" the speed limit of 55mph.

TAM:)

Or tell the phone company that your paying $80 of your $100 bill is essentially the whole bill.

[PhantomWolf]

So are NIST wrong when they say essentially freefall, yes or no?

No. They just aren't talking about what you want to think they are. They say that the top block came down in essenitally freefal. That is the upper section of the tower fell onto the lower section in essentially freefall, not that the entire collapse was at essentially freefall.

[CHF]

So are NIST wrong when they say essentially freefall, yes or no?

No.

So what happened after the columns were bent inwards, Rev? Do go on.

If you need time to think about it just say so. I understand you're in quite a jam with this one.

[AZCat]

So are NIST wrong when they say essentially freefall, yes or no?

I doubt they anticipated the degree to which their statements would be parsed by various parties.

Fortunately, we don't have to quibble over language. We can use actual numbers, although they will be ranges because of the uncertainty of the measurement. We can determine the duration of free fall from that height, and compare it to the range of collapse times. There is no need for descriptors such as "essentially".

[Revolutionary91]

No.

So what happened after the columns were bent inwards, Rev? Do go on.

If you need time to think about it just say so. I understand you're in quite a jam with this one.

A jam? How so? After the columns bent the towers were demolished.

[beachnut]

So are NIST wrong when they say essentially freefall, yes or no?
OMG, does this mean you are using NIST as a source? All of it? Yes or no?

Come up with some numbers and calculations, quick.

Your time is up! You have failed to supply numbers or logic to the fall of the WTC. You have lost again. Please try to be disrespectful with careless claims again.

[Par]

So are NIST wrong when they say essentially freefall, yes or no?



It’s an appropriate term when neutrally making passing reference to the collapse times in an engineering paper, but it’s not an appropriate term for this thread.

[Hokulele]

Revolutionary91, you are misreading this section. The NIST report does not state that the building came down at essentially free fall speed, but that the top section of each building was essentially in free fall until it hit the lower portion of the building. To repeat the key phrase in that quote:

... the building section above came down essentially in free fall ...


So, to answer your question, no, the NIST report does not state that the buildings came down at essentially free fall speeds.


ETA: PhantomWolf is on it as well. Oh well, better late than never.

[stateofgrace]

Stateofgrace why did you say this?


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2409754&highlight=freefall#post2409754



Actually upon reflection, I'm not sure whether I am honoured or somewhat disturbed you would go to all the trouble to read through every body’s previous post on this forum, what made you do that REV 911?

I catch an old hour a day here, sometimes longer but for somebody to go to the trouble you clearly have, to try and catch people out, is actually quite disturbing. Never the less, I look forward to you addressing all the points in my previous post, when did I post it REV 911? Oh wait five months ago.

Are you sure you are not taking this obsessive behaviour somewhat far? After all it is not you guys that dismiss this forum and everybody here?

[nicepants]

Didn't you notice the fires started by the jet fuel? You need to be more observant.

So heat from the jet fuel fires caused the floor slabs to sag, pulling in on the outer columns. What would happen, then, if this floor slab broke free from one or more walls of exterior columns?

[PhantomWolf]

So heat from the jet fuel fires caused the floor slabs to sag, pulling in on the outer columns. What would happen, then, if this floor slab broke free from one or more walls of exterior columns?

This is starting to head down the wrong track, as that isn't what happened. The question you should be asking is what happened when one or more of the exterior columns bowed so far that they could no longer support the load on them?

[CHF]

A jam? How so? After the columns bent the towers were demolished.

So the plan was for the fires to warp the trusses and cause the columns to bend and fail, thereby initiating the collapse. And then the towers were blown up???

Or maybe you're saying that the perps knew the fires would cause the bending, thus producing a perfect cover for the demolition?

This is getting funnier by the minute.

[Revolutionary91]

So the plan was for the fires to warp the trusses and cause the columns to bend and fail, thereby initiating the collapse. And then the towers were blown up???

Or maybe you're saying that the perps knew the fires would cause the bending, thus producing a perfect cover for the demolition?

This is getting funnier by the minute.

Who said the column bending was planned? Im sure they would bend with or without demolition.

Interesting that you will accept coincidences in the offical theory but not in a conspiracy theory.

[RedIbis]

This is starting to head down the wrong track, as that isn't what happened. The question you should be asking is what happened when one or more of the exterior columns bowed so far that they could no longer support the load on them?

I suppose you think that once these limited perimeter columns failed this meant that core columns would simply fail, globally, comprehensively and spontaneously.

Not just in one tower but in both towers. I just want to make sure we have this "phenomena" in order.

[RedIbis]

Who said the column bending was planned? Im sure they would bend with or without demolition.

Interesting that you will accept coincidences in the offical theory but not in a conspiracy theory.

9/11 was the magic day of coincidence, phenomenon, and suspension of immutable laws of physics.

I've seen compilations of long lists of "coincidences." Not on Gravy's links, mind you, but very substanial lists of these magic occurances.

[Par]

I suppose you think that once these limited perimeter columns failed this meant that core columns would simply fail, globally, comprehensively and spontaneously.

Not just in one tower but in both towers. I just want to make sure we have this "phenomena" in order.



I’m not sure that anyone claims that that’s what happened, do they?

[AZCat]

I suppose you think that once these limited perimeter columns failed this meant that core columns would simply fail, globally, comprehensively and spontaneously.

Not just in one tower but in both towers. I just want to make sure we have this "phenomena" in order.

It's pretty conclusive that the core columns did not fail like that. Video shows parts of the core standing for several seconds after the perimeter columns and floors have fallen.

[Par]

9/11 was the magic day of coincidence, phenomenon, and suspension of immutable laws of physics.



Are you able to going into detail about the ways in which these laws of physics need to be suspending in order for prosaic explanations for the collapses to hold?

[Revolutionary91]

9/11 was the magic day of coincidence, phenomenon, and suspension of immutable laws of physics.

I've seen compilations of long lists of "coincidences." Not on Gravy's links, mind you, but very substanial lists of these magic occurances.

They are all just coincidences, go back to sleep.

I also love how every witness that goes against their dogma is "mistaken"

[RedIbis]

It's pretty conclusive that the core columns did not fail like that. Video shows parts of the core standing for several seconds after the perimeter columns and floors have fallen.

A whole several seconds, wow. You mean after they'd been obliterated? You can time your collapse until that last part of the core fails, but it doesn't matter because even this calculation is much shorter than what a pancaking, gravity driven collapse would produce. These collapse times fly in the face of the Law of Conservation of Momentum. There is something called resistance that you guys conveniently overlook.

[AZCat]

These collapse times fly in the face of the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

Perhaps you could explain to me how you determined this?

[RedIbis]

They are all just coincidences, go back to sleep.

I also love how every witness that goes against their dogma is "mistaken"

Not only are they mistaken, they don't really understand what they saw. They have to be told what they saw.

It wasn't an explosion which burnt Rodriguez' friend, it was a magic fireball. Ohhhh, ok...

[RedIbis]

Are you able to going into detail about the ways in which these laws of physics need to be suspending in order for prosaic explanations for the collapses to hold?

I don't mind engaging in a civil discussion, but you're going to have to clarify your question.

[e^n]

A whole several seconds, wow. You mean after they'd been obliterated? You can time your collapse until that last part of the core fails, but it doesn't matter because even this calculation is much shorter than what a pancaking, gravity driven collapse would produce. These collapse times fly in the face of the Law of Conservation of Momentum. There is something called resistance that you guys conveniently overlook.

Care to back that up with calculations? Lets start with conservation of momentum. Assuming an impossible situation of 110 flat plates suspended in the air at 14ft intervals. The first steel plate will fall in freefall for 14ft, impact the second etc. Substituting into v2 = u2 + 2as we get v2 = 19.62 * 4.3, v2 = 84.4, v=9.19m/s.

So in our 14 foot drop the plate has increased it's velocity to 9.19m/s, as it strikes the second plate it transfers momentum, as p=mv and the mass has now doubled, the velocity must half so the next iteration starts off with v2 = 9.192 + 84.4 and at the next floor junction it will lose only 1/3rd its speed.

So how exactly does this fail to support the official conspiracy theory? I see a very rapid collapse impeded only very slightly by the momentum it must transfer.

[pomeroo]

9/11 was the magic day of coincidence, phenomenon, and suspension of immutable laws of physics.

I've seen compilations of long lists of "coincidences." Not on Gravy's links, mind you, but very substanial lists of these magic occurances.



This repeated refrain has always puzzled me. Why do people who know absolutely nothing about physics pretend that the laws of physics were suspended? The laws of physics, as you helpfully observe, are immutable: they can't be suspended. What part of the rationalist explanation presumes that they were?

What are the unexplained coincidences? Are you sure you're not just parroting stuff you read on a fantasist site?

[furrod]

Wow, these threads tend to take off!

I was sort of hoping for an example of a controlled demolition, where the upper floors were not detonated, coming down in nearly the same time as an object under the influence of gravity alone would. For simplicity’s sake, I would consider the term “free fall speed” to be shorthand for this, however inaccurate.

Once the argument delves into the realm of equations and such, the shorter sound bite tends to wins.

[pomeroo]

A whole several seconds, wow. You mean after they'd been obliterated? You can time your collapse until that last part of the core fails, but it doesn't matter because even this calculation is much shorter than what a pancaking, gravity driven collapse would produce. These collapse times fly in the face of the Law of Conservation of Momentum. There is something called resistance that you guys conveniently overlook.


I'm curious about something. NIST employed over two hundred researchers-- structural engineers, physicists, architects. The agency also consulted with another eight hundred independent researchers.
You're saying that none of these people have heard of the Law of Conservation of Momentum? Are they all making an error so fundamental that a high school physics student could show it to them? What is the probability that your claim is possible? Not plausible--possible.

[beachnut]

They are all just coincidences, go back to sleep.

I also love how every witness that goes against their dogma is "mistaken"
Still no collapse times? What is wrong? You are switching the subject, and yes we know about Dylan's debate guide for fools without facts. So bring in some facts. The only dogma is the believe in bring facts to support your ideas on 9/11, what dogma do you want. Oh, the truth dogma of we find idiots who say what we want to hear and then repeat it forever despite everyone else not saying the same thing.

Speed of collapse is the subject not dogma. What is your numbers and how or who is your source.

[PhantomWolf]

I suppose you think that once these limited perimeter columns failed this meant that core columns would simply fail, globally, comprehensively and spontaneously.

Not just in one tower but in both towers. I just want to make sure we have this "phenomena" in order.

No, there are a number of steps between the the first columns failing, and the core at that point failing. Just because they happened withion a few fractions of a second, doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

A whole several seconds, wow. You mean after they'd been obliterated? You can time your collapse until that last part of the core fails, but it doesn't matter because even this calculation is much shorter than what a pancaking, gravity driven collapse would produce. These collapse times fly in the face of the Law of Conservation of Momentum. There is something called resistance that you guys conveniently overlook.

Why do you think that the core should have lasted more then a few seconds without support? It wasn't designed to handle lateral forces, or to stand up by itself. During construction the core was never more than a few floors higher than the exterior presisely for this reason.

As to the collapse time. Prove that each floor should have resisted the forces being applied to therm for more than a fraction of a second. At a tenth of a second each, the delay over free fall would have been 8 seconds and 9 seconds respectively. The buildings fell in 16-18 seconds and in 18-20 seconds respectively, that's around 8 and 9 seconds above freefall. The idea that the collapse should have paused at each foor for any period of time is as dumb as saying that a sledge hammer should pause before shattering a pane of glass. Tens of thosands of tons of steel, concrete and other things was dropped at speed onto an acre of floor trusses that where never designed to withstand that sort of liveload. The forces hitting the truses was an order of magnitude above what was required to destroy it and add its mass into the rubble that was about to hit the next floor.

Not only are they mistaken, they don't really understand what they saw. They have to be told what they saw.

It wasn't an explosion which burnt Rodriguez' friend, it was a magic fireball. Ohhhh, ok...

Demolition Charges don't cause burns, they cause compression fractures and blunt force truma. Jet fuel explosions cause fires and burns.

[Revolutionary91]

I'm curious about something. NIST employed over two hundred researchers-- structural engineers, physicists, architects. The agency also consulted with another eight hundred independent researchers.
You're saying that none of these people have heard of the Law of Conservation of Momentum? Are they all making an error so fundamental that a high school physics student could show it to them? What is the probability that your claim is possible? Not plausible--possible.

NIST didn't study the collapse after initiation so why would they bother about momentum?

[beachnut]

Wow, these threads tend to take off!

I was sort of hoping for an example of a controlled demolition, where the upper floors were not detonated, coming down in nearly the same time as an object under the influence of gravity alone would. For simplicity’s sake, I would consider the term “free fall speed” to be shorthand for this, however inaccurate.

Once the argument delves into the realm of equations and such, the shorter sound bite tends to wins.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) try this paper for why the collapse could take 12 to 13 seconds. A simple model you can even do if you want. You can see by the video on 9/11 all the buildings collapse in a chaotic mess. Pieces of core are still standing as most the building was on the ground. If you drop a bowling ball from 1300 feet about 9.1 seconds you hit the ground. The towers fell as they destroyed themselves releasing the energy of 200 tons of TNT, that is what did all the work.

Do not tell the truthers that CD uses gravity to do all the real work of demolition, they will not understand.

[PhantomWolf]

This repeated refrain has always puzzled me. Why do people who know absolutely nothing about physics pretend that the laws of physics were suspended? The laws of physics, as you helpfully observe, are immutable: they can't be suspended. What part of the rationalist explanation presumes that they were?

What are the unexplained coincidences? Are you sure you're not just parroting stuff you read on a fantasist site?

This is a major point, even IF the buildings had been destroyed intentionally, they still would have had to obey the laws of physics.

The CT's walk a strange line between having to have so much explosive in the buildings that every foot of every floor would have had to have been rigged so that there was "no resistance" and "all the concrete was pulverised" (though of course both claims are untrue) and "just a few" explosives that no one would see or hear outside the building.

[beachnut]

NIST didn't study the collapse after initiation so why would they bother about momentum?
Collapse time kid. Today if possible?

[pomeroo]

This is a major point, even IF the buildings had been destroyed intentionally, they still would have had to obey the laws of physics.

The CT's walk a strange line between having to have so much explosive in the buildings that every foot of every floor would have had to have been rigged so that there was "no resistance" and "all the concrete was pulverised" (though of course both claims are untrue) and "just a few" explosives that no one would see or hear outside the building.



I leave myself open to the reflexive retort that I'm appealing to authority. But, isn't that the point? Could all of these professionals, scientists and engineers, close their eyes to gross errors in basic science? Did they produce ten thousand pages of graphs, diagrams, tables, illustrations, calculations, simulations, etc., to advance a thesis that laymen could disprove at a glance?
Don't the fantasists have any sense of perspective? We won't even mention humility (although I just did).

[Revolutionary91]

I leave myself open to the reflexive retort that I'm appealing to authority. But, isn't that the point? Could all of these professionals, scientists and engineers, close their eyes to gross errors in basic science? Did they produce ten thousand pages of graphs, diagrams, tables, illustrations, calculations, simulations, etc., to advance a thesis that laymen could disprove at a glance?
Don't the fantasists have any sense of perspective? We won't even mention humility (although I just did).

NIST dont study collapse after initiation.

[e^n]

NIST dont study collapse after initiation.

I provided a simple momentum transfer example, where did I go wrong and if I didn't why is the total velocity lost a maximum of 0.5 the velocity it gets from falling one floor? (then 0.33, 0.25 etc)

[RedIbis]

I'm curious about something. NIST employed over two hundred researchers-- structural engineers, physicists, architects. The agency also consulted with another eight hundred independent researchers.
You're saying that none of these people have heard of the Law of Conservation of Momentum? Are they all making an error so fundamental that a high school physics student could show it to them? What is the probability that your claim is possible? Not plausible--possible.

Don't put words in my mouth and try to frame rhetorical questions based on things I didn't say.

I'm not here to speculate on why scientists concluded what they did. I'm here to discuss the official explanations for the events of 9/11 and hold them up to scrutiny.

I'll let this picture illustrate my point why the theory that mass was slamming the floors so quickly it caused global collapse is implausible. In this picture there is no mass slamming down on the right hand side because the top is falling off to the opposite side. Strangely, the concrete and columns are exploding outward, yet there is no mass compressing upon it.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/pancaketheory.gif

[e^n]

I'll let this picture illustrate my point why the theory that mass was slamming the floors so quickly it caused global collapse is implausible. In this picture there is no mass slamming down on the right hand side because the top is falling off to the opposite side. Strangely, the concrete and columns are exploding outward, yet there is no mass compressing upon it.

Firstly, there's no evidence in that picture of columns exploding outwards, simply dust with the rough colour of concrete. Secondly, can you not think of plausible reasons why given the tilt of the top section dust and debris would be forced out the opposing corner of the tower? I mean think about it, use my analogy of flat plates. Where is the air going to escape?

[LashL]

I believe that the quiote passage from NIST was actually talking about the Top block falling onto the bottom section of the tower at essentially freefall speeds at the point of the collapse, not the actual global collapse being at freefall speeds, which it wasn't. NIST also point out that the first exterior panels hit the ground in 9 and 10 seconds for the two towers, and the video evidence shows highly conclusively that the collapse front is still nearly halfway up the building at that point.

Indeed. This is something that twoofers avoid like the plague. Those times are only referring to a portion of each building that falls in a portion of the time of the collapse - not either of the entire buildings collapsing or the entire time it takes for either of the collapses.

Edit: Oops, I didn't realize that I was on page one when I hit 'reply' and that this has been further discussed above, on page two.

[stateofgrace]

NIST dont study collapse after initiation.

And?

[beachnut]

I'm not here to speculate on why scientists concluded what they did. I'm here to discuss the official explanations for the events of 9/11 and hold them up to scrutiny.

I'll let this picture illustrate my point why the theory that mass was slamming the floors so quickly it caused global collapse is implausible. In this picture there is no mass slamming down on the right hand side because the top is falling off to the opposite side. Strangely, the concrete and columns are exploding outward, yet there is no mass compressing upon it.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/pancaketheory.gif
Yes you are here to speculate. This post is speculation. You say the building is not crushing itself, it is. You are wrong and you have no idea what you are trying to say. The collapsing building is destroying itself, it is releasing energy and each tower had over 200 tons of TNT energy to release as they fell due to gravity. Explosives would blast the building and kill the fireman who survived in the stairwells.

The building is being destroyed by the building falling, it is what you see on 9/11. A CD would not do what you saw. Explosive would be loud and have blast effects, there are no blast effects; only gravity was acting on the buildings as it failed. Sorry but you have zero facts, you just say look there is the building falling and it is??? What? You need to have numbers and figures. There are many reports that can help you understand why the building fails when 20 floors fail and fall onto the lower section. Have you read all of them and debunked them? Have you done any work more than looking at still pictures some idiot tells you show explosives? Why are is the truth movement so anti-intellectual and anti-engineering, anti everything?

Energy is the key, and you have not done your homework RedIbis.

[beachnut]

NIST dont study collapse after initiation.
Collapse time kid. Today if possible?

[T.A.M.]

ok I'm bring out my Big Mac Analogy...lol

TAM:)

[LashL]

I'll let this picture illustrate my point why the theory that mass was slamming the floors so quickly it caused global collapse is implausible. In this picture there is no mass slamming down on the right hand side because the top is falling off to the opposite side. Strangely, the concrete and columns are exploding outward, yet there is no mass compressing upon it.

That is not an accurate statement. The top is falling down (albeit on an angle at that second in time); it is not falling off, and thus there most certainly is a huge weight impacting upon the columns on the right hand side as well as the left.

[Revolutionary91]

And?

I was responding to pomeroos point that all the NIST scientists wouldn't overlook momentum. They didn;t need to look at it. Problem?

[RedIbis]

I still haven't been told the derivation of "stundie" so I'm wondering if this is what you mean?

Beachnut: "The building is being destroyed by the building falling, it is what you see on 9/11."

I'm kinda curious. Thanks.

[stateofgrace]

Don't put words in my mouth and try to frame rhetorical questions based on things I didn't say.

I'm not here to speculate on why scientists concluded what they did. I'm here to discuss the official explanations for the events of 9/11 and hold them up to scrutiny.

I'll let this picture illustrate my point why the theory that mass was slamming the floors so quickly it caused global collapse is implausible. In this picture there is no mass slamming down on the right hand side because the top is falling off to the opposite side. Strangely, the concrete and columns are exploding outward, yet there is no mass compressing upon it.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/pancaketheory.gif

And you assume that the upper mass is monolithic, you assume that everything in the upper mass is held in place, it does not drop. You assume by looking at this snap shot of this event you can evaluate anything?

You know for certain that everything in the upper mass is not dropping on the floor trusses of the lower mass, you know for a fact that the is absolute no dynamic weight failing on the floors below that had broken away from the upper mass, right?

[Pardalis]

It's astonishing the capacity those twoofers have of seing things through dust clouds and seeing motion on a still image...

[stateofgrace]

I was responding to pomeroos point that all the NIST scientists wouldn't overlook momentum. They didn;t need to look at it. Problem?

Why is it a problem?

[PhantomWolf]

I leave myself open to the reflexive retort that I'm appealing to authority.

Appeal to Authority is not a falacy when the Authority is genuine, the Authority is speaking on a topic of which his (her) authority covers, and the Athority is in agreement with the vast majority of those that have the same Authority.

An Appeal to Authority falacy occurs only when:

The Authority is not genuine:

e.g. A cameraman claiming to be an expert on Apollo or a water tester claiming to be an expert on Structural collaspes.

The Authority is outside of his area of expertise:

e.g a studio photographer discussing photo analysis, a doctor of Philosophy discussing space based energy weapons.

The Authority is in disagreement with the majority of those in the field:

A oil rig designing structural engineer claiming that fire can't weaken steel.

I'm not here to speculate on why scientists concluded what they did. I'm here to discuss the official explanations for the events of 9/11 and hold them up to scrutiny.

Of course the problem I have is that you don't seem to be at all willing to put the Conspriacists explanations for the events under an equally huge microscope of scutiny, but rather accept them at face value and never question them there after.

I'll let this picture illustrate my point why the theory that mass was slamming the floors so quickly it caused global collapse is implausible. In this picture there is no mass slamming down on the right hand side because the top is falling off to the opposite side. Strangely, the concrete and columns are exploding outward, yet there is no mass compressing upon it.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/pancaketheory.gif

Are you going to try and tell us with a straight face, that there is not an equal amount of gravity acting on both sides of the top of the building? That somehow the right side of the building is hovering without any force being applied to the building below it?

[T.A.M.]

Here is one question I wish just a single truther could give a concise but complete answer for...

Provide a description of how, exactly, a controlled demolition of the WTCs would have been done. Where would the explosives and/or thermite cutter charges have been placed, at what time would they have been detonated, in what order, and how would this translate into the collapse AS WITNESSED by all of us that day in terms of where the collapse began, etc...

I am all ears...

TAM:)

[CHF]

Who said the column bending was planned? Im sure they would bend with or without demolition.

Interesting that you will accept coincidences in the offical theory but not in a conspiracy theory.

What's the coincidence, Rev? The bending was no coincidence; it was the event that triggered the collapses.

So lay out your demolition theory for me.

Fires caused trusses to bend, pulling in on columns and the collapse begins at that very place. We can agree on that much.

So what triggered the collapse in your mind? Bombs planted at the same locale as the bending?

And after the collapse started, it needed bombs in order to progress?

Try to show some numbers if you can.

[beachnut]

I still haven't been told the derivation of "stundie" so I'm wondering if this is what you mean?

Beachnut: "The building is being destroyed by the building falling, it is what you see on 9/11."

I'm kinda curious. Thanks.
I knew that on 9/11, I confirmed it with physics, and did not even think about it until Charlie Sheen proved he did not finish high school, but is a good baseball player.

There were no explosions damaging the WTC on 9/11 except for two aircraft shaped missiles weighing like 250,000 pounds going 470 to 590 mph and imparting 1300 to 2200 pounds of TNT to WTC towers. Wow, that was enough energy to cut every single steel column. Or was it? Sad thing about 9/11 truth is real people died from terrorist, and 9/11 truth is making up lies.

Fire is so destructive to steel, it destroys it and it fails faster than structural wood. I have seen many steel structures damaged and fallen by fire.

You know if the structural engineer for the WTC said something, and you had some facts about CD during 9/11, we would have solved this 5 years ago. Which we did. We did solve 9/11 on 9/11. Most of the world engineers understand what happen, that is why 0.00067 percent of engineer are in your truth movement of woo. The rest actually still have integrity and judgment not messed up due to some unknown bias. What is you excuse for making up stuff. I admit it helps to be a jet pilot with an ATP and an engineer with a masters and some practical experience. Oops, I also cheated, I am trained in aircraft accident investigation, I am old and over the hill, and I do not want to fall for lies from the truth movement idiots or the government idiots. As for the rest of us, I trust you with your life.

Why have you fallen for the woo from 9/11 truth. I do not fall for the lies of government. Why fall for lies from idiots in one camp instead of facts you can find from independent sources?

[EventHorizon]

I’m sure this has been discussed, ad nauseam, but recently I thought of an angle that I haven’t read before and I was hoping someone could expand upon it and/or point me toward a discussion I my have missed.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that the WTC towers collapsed within a time period only slightly faster than an object in free fall. The argument being that the individual floors would have provided some resistance and slowed the whole collapse down.

In an effort to avoid complicated equations and analysis, I’ve been looking for an easier explanation. Here is my thinking.

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?

According to http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm they do, but it is entirely due to explosives on the lowest floors, initiating the collapse, and then gravity takes over for the remainder of the building. Any explosives used in the upper part of the structure are primarily used to direct its fall.

The problem with this is that the upper explosive could be helping to speed up the collapse.

My question: Is there an example of a building being demolished using controlled demolition where the only explosives used were the ones on the ground floor, and did that building collapse at near free fall speed?

If so then I would think it is game over for those who cling to the idea that near free fall speed equals controlled demolition. An example of this sort would easily illustrate to even the densest conspiracy theorist that the floors that were not blown also did not provide any significant resistance to the speed at which the building fell.

Anyways, that’s my thinking. I hope it goes somewhere…

There's your first problem.

[Totovader]

Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass


If he did, then he clearly didn't read it well enough. Notice the part that you bolded? Not only does it state essentially in free fall, but it's talking about the upper section of the building- since there was actually very little resistance between the upper and lower sections at the point of failure.

Be honest, how much of the study have you read?

[Kage]

Having argued this point many times over, I shall endevor to do so again.

If the towers fell at "esstially freefall" throughout the entire collapse (instead of just the collapse of the first floor) then what terminology would you use to describe the tragectory of the debris that were ejected from the towers?

Have you worked out what the collapse time was and how that relates to what the collapse time would have been had the building collapsed in free fall? I have done such calculations on my own, finding that the collapse could be considered to have happened at near-freefall speeds had it happened on Mars, but not here where g = 9.8m/s^2. People might have different answers for this depending on what they consider to be the collapse time and where you measure the hight from etc. but there is no way to count up the numbers to find anything near free fall.

Kage

P.S. 28th Kingdom said that the NWO attached rockets to the debris. To this day one of the funnier things I have ever heard.

[furrod]

Unfortunately if you’re participating in a casual 9/11 discussion with your friends and one of them brings up the short time it took the towers to fall as “proof” that it was controlled demolition, Whipping out Greenings paper (regardless of how right it might be) is not going to adequately negate the simpler concept to imagine (even if it is wrong), namely that intact floors should have increased the collapse time to something significantly greater than free fall.

Under these circumstances, when the equations start flying, the argument is all but lost. The best you can do is appeal to the authority of all the structural engineers who apparently see nothing wrong with the collapse time – but that usually opens up yet another can of conspiracy theory worms, perpetuating the argument.

Being able to point to a previous building that collapsed at near free fall speed and did not have it’s upper floors prepped for controlled demolition would be a powerful visual and easy to understand deterrent to the collapse time argument. I’m sort of disappointed it hasn’t been pursued already.

[RedIbis]

[/COLOR]

Fire is so destructive to steel, it destroys it and it fails faster than structural wood. I have seen many steel structures damaged and fallen by fire.




Wow, now this is has to be what you guys mean by a "stundie."

Or maybe it's a "fundie."

Steel fails in fire faster than wood. And no one on the OCT side dares to correct this guy, not even once.

[JimBenArm]

Wow, now this is has to be what you guys mean by a "stundie."

Or maybe it's a "fundie."

Steel fails in fire faster than wood. And no one on the OCT side dares to correct this guy, not even once.
Because it's true. Try looking it up, smart guy. Might actually learn something.
Someone have that picture of the wooden beam with the steel I-beam melted across it handy?

[T.A.M.]

well why don't you correct him, rather then moan about how noone else has.

TAM:)

[FatesWebb]

I’m sure this has been discussed, ad nauseam, but recently I thought of an angle that I haven’t read before and I was hoping someone could expand upon it and/or point me toward a discussion I my have missed.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that the WTC towers collapsed within a time period only slightly faster than an object in free fall. The argument being that the individual floors would have provided some resistance and slowed the whole collapse down.

In an effort to avoid complicated equations and analysis, I’ve been looking for an easier explanation. Here is my thinking.

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?

According to http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm they do, but it is entirely due to explosives on the lowest floors, initiating the collapse, and then gravity takes over for the remainder of the building. Any explosives used in the upper part of the structure are primarily used to direct its fall.

The problem with this is that the upper explosive could be helping to speed up the collapse.

My question: Is there an example of a building being demolished using controlled demolition where the only explosives used were the ones on the ground floor, and did that building collapse at near free fall speed?

If so then I would think it is game over for those who cling to the idea that near free fall speed equals controlled demolition. An example of this sort would easily illustrate to even the densest conspiracy theorist that the floors that were not blown also did not provide any significant resistance to the speed at which the building fell.

Anyways, that’s my thinking. I hope it goes somewhere…

good luck man, these guys are not willing to open minded look at this. and to be honest with you I believe your point is valid, but good luck getting anyone else to admit that.

[FatesWebb]

Gravity was more than enough to caused the top masses to smash through the WCT towers.

South tower - 120,000 tons

North tower - 50,000 tons

Truthers think that what these masses fall 12 feet onto the floor below that it will somehow be stopped or significantly slowed down.

God knows why.

god does know why, god created the laws of physics, that say that the potential energy changes into kinetic energy, and when the floor crashes into the next floor the kinetic energy is transferred into work being done on that floor...

the floors were pulverized... when you hit a pool ball with another one, (no english or forward spin) the one ball stops and the energy is transferred to the other ball.

if it didnt happen this way then you would be producing energy out of nothing, thats called a perpetual motion machine.

[FatesWebb]

The acception to this occurs once TERMINAL VELOCITY has been reached.


the WHAT? occurs???

...pet peeve

[Anti-sophist]

god does know why, god created the laws of physics, that say that the potential energy changes into kinetic energy, and when the floor crashes into the next floor the kinetic energy is transferred into work being done on that floor...

Which is exactly why the building fell slower then freefall.


the floors were pulverized... when you hit a pool ball with another one, (no english or forward spin) the one ball stops and the energy is transferred to the other ball.
This is called an elastic collision. You seem to be implying that all collisions are elastic. This implication is completely wrong.


if it didnt happen this way then you would be producing energy out of nothing, thats called a perpetual motion machine.No energy was produced from nothing. The building fell at less then freefall speed showing that some of the potential energy was not converted to kinetic energy. Most of this remaining energy went towards breaking the building below.

The collapse, at this level, is fairly simple to understand.

[HyJinX]

Wow, now this is has to be what you guys mean by a "stundie."

Or maybe it's a "fundie."

Steel fails in fire faster than wood. And no one on the OCT side dares to correct this guy, not even once.

"Wood burns; steel doesn't"
The implication is that steel performs better under fire conditions, which is totally wrong. By the time fire reaches structural members, most of the integrity of a building is already gone. Furthermore, steel yields (begins to soften) at about 1600( F-well below the temperature in a structural fire. Wooden structural beams, on the other hand, are specified under the building codes to be sufficiently thick enough to survive fires without compromising their load-carrying capability. Ask any fire fighter about walking on a steel truss roof vs. a wooden one!

http://www.calforests.org/the_news_room-339-Fact_vs._Fiction_In_the_Environmental_and_Structur al_Claims_for_Steel.htm

[T.A.M.]

the WHAT? occurs???

...pet peeve

There is a difference in spelling/grammatical errors, and misusing a scientific term...however, I will try to be better at it just for you. Do you ACCEPT this? would you rather "comes to fruition" or "happens" instead of "occurs"?

Make sure you keep an eye on your own spelling and grammar.

TAM;)

[FatesWebb]

I have done the calculations repeatedly, and it never came down near freefall.

If you account for the center of gravity of the top section for the Second Tower to fall, the height was 394m.

t*t=2*d/g = 9.0s

even at the full height of 417m,

t*t=2d/g = 9.2s

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10761455202155aceb.jpg


how is 12 seconds, or even 11 seconds "Near" this? that is a 15-25% difference from free fall time.

TAM:)

The formula for distance and time is:

s=½at²

Where:

s = distance in feet
a = gravitational constant: 32 ft/sec²
t = time in seconds.

The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.

s = ½ * 32 * 8.5²
s = 1156 feet

However, WTC 1 (the north tower) had a roof height of 1,368 feet. WTC 2 (the south tower) was nearly as tall, with a roof height of 1,362 feet. Each floor was therefore approximately 12.5 feet.

It is therefore proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very close to free fall speed.

[T.A.M.]

god does know why, god created the laws of physics, that say that the potential energy changes into kinetic energy, and when the floor crashes into the next floor the kinetic energy is transferred into work being done on that floor...

the floors were pulverized... when you hit a pool ball with another one, (no english or forward spin) the one ball stops and the energy is transferred to the other ball.

if it didnt happen this way then you would be producing energy out of nothing, thats called a perpetual motion machine.

lol...don't try a rolling pool shot then...

You don't believe in momentum then?

Guys we got another Judy Wood here....

Kerchuk Kerchunk Kerchunk...

TAM:)

[FatesWebb]

Free fall is 9.1 seconds. Darn, neither tower fell in 9.1 seconds. Wrong again. Physics is good. Your physics is absent. The towers fell exactly how a gravity collapse would look and the time of collapse matches models grade school kids could do. The 9/11 truth movement is not able to do the numbers because it would destroy their movement. You have chosen sides poorly. Go ask a physics teacher how to calculate the WTC towers fall, and stop making up the CD stuff, it is a broken record debunked over 5 years ago.

Explain why the cores were still standing for 10 to 20 seconds longer; looks like the silent CD was not in the core. Silent CD, Apollo hoax, what is next, I bet JFK is one of you CTs too, sorry but do you have some numbers to back up your lies about CD?

what about wtc7 it is exactly freefall collapse, and even classic cd style...

[HyJinX]

what about wtc7 it is exactly freefall collapse, and even classic cd style...

Without the classic explosions and the sounds they make.

[Unsecured Coins]

what about wtc7 it is exactly freefall collapse, and even classic cd style...

I didn't know "new cd style" would make the penthouse collapse a good deal of time before the rest of the building. Why must you constantly leave that part out?

[T.A.M.]

The formula for distance and time is:

s=½at²

Where:

s = distance in feet
a = gravitational constant: 32 ft/sec²
t = time in seconds.

The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.

s = ½ * 32 * 8.5²
s = 1156 feet

However, WTC 1 (the north tower) had a roof height of 1,368 feet. WTC 2 (the south tower) was nearly as tall, with a roof height of 1,362 feet. Each floor was therefore approximately 12.5 feet.

It is therefore proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very close to free fall speed.


Yes,yes, yes, your formula is the same as mine. The seismic data is not accurate enough by itself to use here. Of course, if you use the seismic time of 8.5 seconds you will get almost free fall, but the seismic data may not have begun until a considerable ways into the collapse, depending on the sensitivity of the seismograph. Most quotes of observed collapse times place them at about 11 seconds, possibly 12...your 8.5 second collapse is ridiculous.

TAM:)

[Anti-sophist]

The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds...


This is laughably short.

Please show us the evidence that got you 8.4s for the top of the building to hit the ground.

Most conspiracy sites put the collapse at -well- over that amount. I'd love to see where you are getting this obviously incorrect number from.

[FatesWebb]

To me, it is like trying to argue with traffic cop over a ticket....

Officer: sir, did you know you were going 70 in a 55 zone.
Me: Well I was essentially going 55

TAM:)

then why do you keep arguing with him? when you are clearly wrong? the thing is your trying to hold onto the 2 seconds where the core settled... but what we havent even brought up was that the buildings collapsed 7 floors into the basement.. which even adds to the distance of the collapse. 7x 12 = 84 foot on top of your equations.

not to mention wtc7 DID collapse at freefall which your gonna have a hell of a time arguing that.

http://video.google.com/url?docid=3629874799752266741

WTC 7 Falls in under 7 seconds. The rate of free fall for the 47 story building is 6.8 seconds

I would like to see you explain that one. to the cops.

[FatesWebb]

Don't put words in my mouth and try to frame rhetorical questions based on things I didn't say.

I'm not here to speculate on why scientists concluded what they did. I'm here to discuss the official explanations for the events of 9/11 and hold them up to scrutiny.

I'll let this picture illustrate my point why the theory that mass was slamming the floors so quickly it caused global collapse is implausible. In this picture there is no mass slamming down on the right hand side because the top is falling off to the opposite side. Strangely, the concrete and columns are exploding outward, yet there is no mass compressing upon it.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/pancaketheory.gif

it must have been ALLAH slamming down onto the right side

[Unsecured Coins]

WTC 7 Falls in under 7 seconds.
if you leave out that pesky penthouse, or as Al Gore would call it, the Unconvieniant Truth

[T.A.M.]

we were talking about WTC1/2, not 7 here.

IF you include the collapse of the penthouse, the collapse of WTC7 was much longer that 6.8 seconds.

oh, and personally, if I get pulled over for speeding, I DONT argue with the cop...it is futile...which was my point.

TAM:)

[FatesWebb]

Firstly, there's no evidence in that picture of columns exploding outwards, simply dust with the rough colour of concrete. Secondly, can you not think of plausible reasons why given the tilt of the top section dust and debris would be forced out the opposing corner of the tower? I mean think about it, use my analogy of flat plates. Where is the air going to escape?

see those tiny splinters of debris they weigh like hundreds of tons... I am so sure that dust and air blew them out that far again it must have been ALLAH!!!

[Unsecured Coins]

see those tiny splinters of debris they weigh like hundreds of tons... I am so sure that dust and air blew them out that far again it must have been ALLAH!!!

You measured them? No? Well, you did get Stundie'd. SMILE!

[Par]

it must have been ALLAH slamming down onto the right side

see those tiny splinters of debris they weigh like hundreds of tons... I am so sure that dust and air blew them out that far again it must have been ALLAH!!!



Have you simply resorted to childishness now then? Do you no longer wish to discuss the speed of the collapse in an adult manner?

[Anti-sophist]

It's trivial to demonstrate that FatesWeb's estimation of 8.4 seconds is hilariously wrong. Feel free to check my work. It is indeed hard to estimate the exact time of the collapse, but it's painfully obvious that 8.4 seconds is completely and utterly too short.

From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4


http://aycu23.webshots.com/image/23062/2005740910540243125_rs.jpg

http://aycu20.webshots.com/image/24259/2005729355026914932_rs.jpg

[FatesWebb]

Here is one question I wish just a single truther could give a concise but complete answer for...

Provide a description of how, exactly, a controlled demolition of the WTCs would have been done. Where would the explosives and/or thermite cutter charges have been placed, at what time would they have been detonated, in what order, and how would this translate into the collapse AS WITNESSED by all of us that day in terms of where the collapse began, etc...

I am all ears...

TAM:)


why not let the president of controlled demolition inc the cleanup crew, answer that for you... which he also confirms that there was molten steel there as well........

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."

These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels," Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions,* told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be "a smoky smoldering pile."

Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat.

This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit.

The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.

Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots.

Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded.

This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.

The foundations of the twin towers were 70 feet deep. At that level, 47 huge box columns, connected to the bedrock, supported the entire gravity load of the structures. The steel walls of these lower box columns were four inches thick.

Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, "Everything went simultaneously."

"At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down," Hufschmid writes. "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"

Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, "That's the $64,000 question."

Loizeaux said, [b]"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."


[American Free Press]

[FatesWebb]

No energy was produced from nothing.

I rest my case

[Anti-sophist]

1) There is no evidence of molten steel.
2) If I was going to bring down the building, I'd put explosives in the basement, too. That's irrelevant to what actually happened.

That article is a red herring.

[FatesWebb]

lol...don't try a rolling pool shot then...

You don't believe in momentum then?

Guys we got another Judy Wood here....

Kerchuk Kerchunk Kerchunk...

TAM:)



hahah have you seen Judy Wood's credentials? Here are hers, now you post yours and we will compare them.

Dr. Judy D. Wood, Ph.D.

Judy D. Wood is a mechanical engineer with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.

Dr. Wood received her

* B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

* M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

* Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including

* Experimental Stress Analysis,

* Engineering Mechanics,

* Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)

* Strength of Materials Testing

From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11.

One of Dr. Wood’s research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

[FatesWebb]

I didn't know "new cd style" would make the penthouse collapse a good deal of time before the rest of the building. Why must you constantly leave that part out?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3629874799752266741

wow a considerable amount of time? really? a split second.

[HyJinX]

hahah have you seen Judy Wood's credentials? Here are hers, now you post yours and we will compare them.

Dr. Judy D. Wood, Ph.D.

Judy D. Wood is a mechanical engineer with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.

Dr. Wood received her

* B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

* M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

* Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including

* Experimental Stress Analysis,

* Engineering Mechanics,

* Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)

* Strength of Materials Testing

From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11.

One of Dr. Wood’s research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

So do you think space beams of energy brought down the towers?

[Par]

It's trivial to demonstrate that FatesWeb's estimation of 8.4 seconds is hilariously wrong. Feel free to check my work. It is indeed hard to estimate the exact time of the collapse, but it's painfully obvious that 8.4 seconds is completely and utterly too short.



FatesWebb has already admitted to a time of twelve seconds.

7190118531505989658
How long, do you think?
I would say about 12 seconds, of course that video is only 19 seconds I would say anything short of about 1 minute is impossible without something there (explosives) to remove the resistance..walk up to a 10 story building, then imagine it disappearing in 1 second.

[FatesWebb]

This is laughably short.

Please show us the evidence that got you 8.4s for the top of the building to hit the ground.

Most conspiracy sites put the collapse at -well- over that amount. I'd love to see where you are getting this obviously incorrect number from.

My collapse duration of 8 and 10 seconds, came FROM THE FEMA REPORT, AND THE 9/11 report.... and seismic data, proven in videos at http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...980438587461603 1:25:58, 1:04:56 1:13:30 and 1:38:11 or by checking the reports yourself.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf
Fema Report: Chapter 1 1-10 Table 1.1 Timeline of major events
TIMELINE OF MAJOR EVENTS:
Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 10 seconds: WTC2 Began collapsing after 56 minutes, 10 seconds.

Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 8 seconds: WTC1 Began collapsing after 102 minutes, 5 seconds.

then it does go on and say "based on seismic recordings made by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University."

http://img121.imagevenue.com/loc312/th_95055_FemaCollapseTimes_122_312lo.JPG (http://img121.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=95055_FemaCollapseTimes_122_312lo.JP G)
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report,
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf we are told, in the government's complete and final report of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself:

http://www.911blimp.net/videos/TooFast1stCollapse.mov
http://www.911blimp.net/videos/TooFast1stCollapse.rm

also you have the seismic data:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/graph2-lg.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/seismicEW.jpg

data from:http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Date Origin Time (UTC) Magnitude (Richter scale) Time (EDT) Dominant Period Signal Duration Remark
09/11/2001 13:59:04±1 2.1 09:59:04 0.8 sec 10 seconds first collapse
09/11/2001 14:28:31±1 2.3 10:28:31 0.9 sec 8 seconds second collapse

[JimBenArm]

I didn't know "new cd style" would make the penthouse collapse a good deal of time before the rest of the building. Why must you constantly leave that part out?
Is this anything like New Coke/Classic Coke?

[FatesWebb]

if you leave out that pesky penthouse, or as Al Gore would call it, the Unconvieniant Truth

nope that is WITH the penthouse. it only fell a split second earlier than the rest of the building

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3629874799752266741

[Anti-sophist]

I rest my case

Please do not try that sad little rhetorical nonsense.

Your argument is fundamentally wrong and I've demonstrated it fairly conclusively. You have completely ignored the relevant parts and instead chosen to take out a single sentence and pretend it proves your point. It doesn't. It proves you wrong.

If you don't wish to discuss the issue with me, that's fine. However, playing this sad little rhetorical game isn't necessary and shows an utter lack of respect.

No energy was created from nothing. Your assertion that this would be required for the 'official story' to be true is flat wrong. If you bothered to actually read and understand the other 5 sentences in my post, you'd have realized that.

[Par]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3629874799752266741

wow a considerable amount of time? really? a split second.



It was around seven or eight seconds.

[HyJinX]

Come on Fates...this was all discussed in another thread.

[FatesWebb]

we were talking about WTC1/2, not 7 here.

IF you include the collapse of the penthouse, the collapse of WTC7 was much longer that 6.8 seconds.

oh, and personally, if I get pulled over for speeding, I DONT argue with the cop...it is futile...which was my point.

TAM:)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3629874799752266741

but your arguing with the cop right now...

what are you scared of? don't want to discuss wtc7?

this time includes the penthouse, just watch the clip..

furthermore so what if it didn't. what does that prove? the rest of the building can fall at free fall pace, that is ok???

[T.A.M.]

I do not care where you got your data, IN MY OPINION, using the Seismic data ALONE, is not accurate enough to determine the collapse time. It does not account for the beginning of the collapse, which may not have had a strong enough signal to be picked up on the seismograph.

TAM:)

[Anti-sophist]

My collapse duration of 8 and 10 seconds, came FROM THE FEMA REPORT, AND THE 9/11 report.... and seismic data, proven in videos at

The duration of the seismic signal is not the duration of the collapse. I have already provided you visual evidence that your estimate of 8.5 seconds CANNOT be true and you have ignored it.

Instead you quote a number that does not measure the quantity in question.

Would you like for me to repost the pictures?

[FatesWebb]

It was around seven or eight seconds.

ok, so lets say it was, HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO YOUR ARGUMENT?

the rest of the building fell at freefall pace, the penthouse being at the top wasnt holding the building up, or the building would have fallen with it.

[Unsecured Coins]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3629874799752266741

wow a considerable amount of time? really? a split second.

wrong!!

OmL9F-TSIes

[Anti-sophist]

Why are you letting him change the subject to WTC7. God this forum is so frustrating.

Sigh.

[FatesWebb]

I do not care where you got your data, IN MY OPINION, using the Seismic data ALONE, is not accurate enough to determine the collapse time. It does not account for the beginning of the collapse, which may not have had a strong enough signal to be picked up on the seismograph.

TAM:)

seismic data alone? I provided 4 sources of data, not 1.

[Unsecured Coins]

Is this anything like New Coke/Classic Coke?


That's what I was going for, yes

[Alferd_Packer]

I'll let this picture illustrate my point why the theory that mass was slamming the floors so quickly it caused global collapse is implausible. In this picture there is no mass slamming down on the right hand side

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/pancaketheory.gif


So, are you saying that the columns should have been able to withstand the bending that is being applied to them and still be able to support their loads?

[HyJinX]

"New CD Style", or NCS, uses pixie dust and a gentle breeze to bring large buildings down. This technique was in its infancy on 9/11...but PNAC found it to be propitious to the new PH.

[Par]

this time includes the penthouse, just watch



This video carefully ignores the east mechanical penthouse. In fact, it cuts the video in half so that the penthouse cannot be seen.

[CHF]

So FatesWeb, you're a Judy Wood fan? Well that explains everything.

Just so you know, a good 95% of your "movement" thinks 'ol Judy is a disinfo agent. That laser beam stuff really did her in. Even truthers have standards.

As for "molten steel" would you care to explain how a demolition would account for it? If you say "thermite" then be sure to explain how much would be needed.

[FatesWebb]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/pancaketheory.gif


So, are you saying that the columns should have been able to withstand the bending that is being applied to them and still be able to support their loads?

http://www.reopen911.org/images/main_anim.jpg

watch this video it shows things being EXPLODED UPWARD, WHAT DID THAT?? GRAVITY???

http://reopen911.org/WTCExplosionLeftSide2.swf

simular to this.. underground nuclear explosion.

http://reopen911.org/images/nuke3.jpg

[kookbreaker]

why not let the president of controlled demolition inc the cleanup crew, answer that for you... which he also confirms that there was molten steel there as well........


What is too bad for you is that Loizeaux told a CTer (before we even called them troofers!) that he didn't actually see said molten steel

From here. (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/browse_thread/thread/f8dcffec3a701f9f/661ded4a84d27f7c?q=Molten+Steel+Loizeaux&)


I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was
reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was
encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower
when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep
into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still
photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators.
I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-XXX-XXXX
Fax: 1-410-XXX-XXXX
www.controlled-demolition.com


Now, I hate to break this to you, but there's not way you can 'dip' molten steel with an excavator. It will destroy the bucket. To date no photos or videos of this 'molten steel' have shown up.

We've gone over this before. Its old news. Loizeaux is playing a game of 'telephone'.

[Anti-sophist]

Your number of 8.5 seconds is flat-wrong and none of the data you provided shows it.

I have you shown you a direct counterexample to your claim and you have ignored it.

The collapse begins...

http://aycu23.webshots.com/image/23062/2005740910540243125_rs.jpg

9 seconds later...

http://aycu20.webshots.com/image/24259/2005729355026914932_rs.jpg

The building has not collapsed fully yet.


Please explain these pictures in light of your claim that it took 8.5 seconds.

[Par]

ok, so lets say it was, HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO YOUR ARGUMENT?

the rest of the building fell at freefall pace, the penthouse being at the top wasnt holding the building up, or the building would have fallen with it.



Well, one step at a time. So, do you now acknowledge that you were wrong when you said that the penthouse fell only a “split second” before the rest of the building? Do you now acknowledge that it was nearer seven or eight seconds?

[kookbreaker]

http://www.reopen911.org/images/main_anim.jpg

watch this video it shows things being EXPLODED UPWARD, WHAT DID THAT?? GRAVITY???


Wow, adding red arrows pointing at random areas really makes it clear. :rolleyes: . Oh and a few upward points are soooooooo close to a nuke :rolleyes:

At a certain point, some parts are bound to go up, there's millions of small elastic and inelastic collisions happening in that collapse. Go into your kitchen, pour some flour onto the floor, and step hard into it. Why does some of it go up? Nukes?

[Par]

Why are you letting him change the subject to WTC7. God this forum is so frustrating.

Sigh.



Sorry. What makes it worse is that I feel like making the exact post you just have about five times a day on here.

[FatesWebb]

So FatesWeb, you're a Judy Wood fan? Well that explains everything.

Just so you know, a good 95% of your "movement" thinks 'ol Judy is a disinfo agent. That laser beam stuff really did her in. Even truthers have standards.

As for "molten steel" would you care to explain how a demolition would account for it? If you say "thermite" then be sure to explain how much would be needed.

ok so the beam thing was a bit crazy, but hey if she sees an interest in discussing it, then that is her prerogative... you do know that many scientists took her seriously, at least to disprove the theory.

that doesn't make her credentials invalid... especially in this case... where she is simply bringing up the laws of physics and is quite accurate.

as for thermite rather thermate, it was found under a microscope from 2 seperate samples of wtc metal.

I wont speculate as to how much would be needed, or if the data center batteries were filled with it.... you are trying to attack the facts from the backside, which doesn't make them not facts. thats like the argument that if the media didn't report it it didn't happen. it is illogical.

[kookbreaker]

that doesn't make her credentials invalid... especially in this case... where she is simply bringing up the laws of physics and is quite accurate.

Oh right. The same woman who came up with 'Billiard Ball' and 'Keebler Elf Tree' hypothesis is 'accurate'. Don't make me laugh.


as for thermite rather thermate, it was found under a microscope from 2 seperate samples of wtc metal.


It was not a microscope, and what was found was not thermite. Wrong again.

[T.A.M.]

Fates:

With regards to upward moving debris during the downward collapse, I will present this simple put APPLICABLE analogy...

You and a friend stand up on opposites ends of your bed. Now you leap into the air, and then land on the bed. What direction does your friend go when you hit the bed?

Now this may not be the only way that debris was sent upward during a downward collapse, but I think it was one of the ways this can be explained.

TAM:)

[FatesWebb]

Wow, adding red arrows pointing at random areas really makes it clear. :rolleyes: . Oh and a few upward points are soooooooo close to a nuke :rolleyes:

At a certain point, some parts are bound to go up, there's millions of small elastic and inelastic collisions happening in that collapse. Go into your kitchen, pour some flour onto the floor, and step hard into it. Why does some of it go up? Nukes?

your great, kook, thats funny, so now your comparing flour to steel weighing hundreds of tons.... and your saying it was possible to send steel weighing hundreds of tons upward.

thats great, kook, you really are devoted to the official story!!

[CHF]

that doesn't make her credentials invalid... especially in this case... where she is simply bringing up the laws of physics and is quite accurate.

In her interview with Craig Jenkins ol' Judy showed that she was unable to understand the concept of depth in a photograph. She doesn't understand the concept of momentum. She doesn't understand how much energy her beam weapon would need. The woman is mentally ill! Why are you listening to a mentally ill woman when it comes to the WTC?

I wont speculate as to how much would be needed, or if the data center batteries were filled with it.... you are trying to attack the facts from the backside, which doesn't make them not facts.

Of course you won't speculate. Neither will Steven Jones. Why? Because the amount of thermite/mate needed for what you claim happened is absurd.

[FatesWebb]

Oh right. The same woman who came up with 'Billiard Ball' and 'Keebler Elf Tree' hypothesis is 'accurate'. Don't make me laugh.



It was not a microscope, and what was found was not thermite. Wrong again.

It was an electron microscope, and it was thermate, which is thermite with sulphate added for quicker cutting.

[FatesWebb]

Fates:

With regards to upward moving debris during the downward collapse, I will present this simple put APPLICABLE analogy...

You and a friend stand up on opposites ends of your bed. Now you leap into the air, and then land on the bed. What direction does your friend go when you hit the bed?

Now this may not be the only way that debris was sent upward during a downward collapse, but I think it was one of the ways this can be explained.

TAM:)

I might would buy that theory if this was an isolated event but it happens the whole way down on both sides of the towers on both towers.

[Anti-sophist]

Still ignoring the provably false nature of your claim that the collapses happened in under 9 seconds, I see.

Oh well.

[FatesWebb]

In her interview with Craig Jenkins ol' Judy showed that she was unable to understand the concept of depth in a photograph. She doesn't understand the concept of momentum. She doesn't understand how much energy her beam weapon would need. The woman is mentally ill! Why are you listening to a mentally ill woman when it comes to the WTC?



Of course you won't speculate. Neither will Steven Jones. Why? Because the amount of thermite/mate needed for what you claim happened is absurd.

I didn't bring up judy wood, you or someone else did... I even admitted that her beam weapon thing was crazy... even if it might be possible as you say it would have to have tons of energy, and would have been noticed...

I think someone threatened her to do that or die, there is no way that someone with her credentials would do that... she was stepped on... in my opinion.

anyways she is way off topic...

[T.A.M.]

but why not? For the entire collapse there was debris falling on the remainder of the standing building, so you could expect such to happen the whole way down.

TAM:)

[Par]

7190118531505989658
How long, do you think?
I would say about 12 seconds, of course that video is only 19 seconds I would say anything short of about 1 minute is impossible without something there (explosives) to remove the resistance..walk up to a 10 story building, then imagine it disappearing in 1 second.
My collapse duration of 8 and 10 seconds,...



Out of interest, why, after having acknowledged that the south tower came down in around twelve seconds, have you now reverted to advocating durations of eight and ten seconds?

[JimBenArm]

I might would buy that theory if this was an isolated event but it happens the whole way down on both sides of the towers on both towers.
Because it happens on how many floors?

[T.A.M.]

I brought up Judy Wood due to the "billiard ball" or "pool ball" analogy you used.

TAM:)

[FatesWebb]

Still ignoring the provably false nature of your claim that the collapses happened in under 9 seconds, I see.

Oh well.

well, actually it is proving fema and the 9/11 commission reports false.. and it is 9 and 12 seconds. there were 2 towers, so when you play the video of the 12 second collapse... that is what I said... 12 seconds.

you can try to prove it wrong all you want, I am using official numbers to show it. So you are only proving wrong the official account of events. Which is my intent as well.

[kookbreaker]

It was an electron microscope, and it was thermate, which is thermite with sulphate added for quicker cutting.

It was not thermate that was found. Jones found, in his own words:

we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese -

Four common elements and he concludes that there was thermate. That is an absurd leap in logic.

Meanwhile, the elements you'd expect to appear in abundance after a thermate reaction are nowhere to be found.

[Kage]

If the buildings came down in as short a time as 8.5 seconds (which is hilariously wrong), then how long did it take the debris that fell outside the building to hit the ground? Hint: You can tell that the building fell slower than in freefall by comparing its fall to the debris which are actually in freefall.

Seismic data doesn't cut it when you have video showing how wrong you are. There are countless threads and papers showing exactly how you and your ilk are wrong, and you are merely frustrating those of us who have seen these petty and pathetic arguments time after time. Your avoiding the arguments that completely demolish your claims and your incessant changing of the subject to other equally stupid arguments is sad, no matter how typical and expected it is. You have been shown how the buildings did not fall at freefall, nearly freefall or faster than freefall many times and in many ways. Face the arguments instead of changing the subject.

Kage

[HyJinX]

Because it happens on how many floors?

Apparently every-other floor, up to a maximum of 10 floors and only allowed in one of the two towers....dealers choice.

[FatesWebb]

I brought up Judy Wood due to the "billiard ball" or "pool ball" analogy you used.

TAM:)

well yeah she had a similar analogy, but the thing is this is proven correct every time a pool game occurs. it is physical science.

[T.A.M.]

It is my belief that the original FEMA numbers, later quoted by the commission are less accurate, than the later estimates of 10-12 seconds.

TAM:)

[CHF]

I didn't bring up judy wood, you or someone else did... I even admitted that her beam weapon thing was crazy... even if it might be possible as you say it would have to have tons of energy, and would have been noticed...

I think someone threatened her to do that or die, there is no way that someone with her credentials would do that... she was stepped on... in my opinion.

anyways she is way off topic...

So why were you pimping the credentials of someone who believes in beam weapons?

And no, her beam weapon theory was not the result of threats; it was the result of mental illness - the same mental illness that had her comparing the WTC towers to trees with elf dwellings in them.

[kookbreaker]

your great, kook, thats funny, so now your comparing flour to steel weighing hundreds of tons.... and your saying it was possible to send steel weighing hundreds of tons upward.


Are you saying that steel cannot participate in elastic and inelastic collisions?


thats great, kook, you really are devoted to the official story!!

You are not being very convincing. You material was debunked years ago.

[T.A.M.]

well yeah she had a similar analogy, but the thing is this is proven correct every time a pool game occurs. it is physical science.

you have never hit a ball into a pocket, only to have the cue ball follow it in, have you...lol

TAM:)

[FatesWebb]

If the buildings came down in as short a time as 8.5 seconds (which is hilariously wrong), then how long did it take the debris that fell outside the building to hit the ground? Hint: You can tell that the building fell slower than in freefall by comparing its fall to the debris which are actually in freefall.

Kage

this is a false way of looking at it. the reason why is if something falls from 1300 ft, and it gets to 600 foot, then something else next to it starts falling from 600 foot... the first item will surely be going faster but both are falling at freefall pace, this is because freefall pace/speed increases with distance. (until it reaches terminal velocity)

[CHF]

well yeah she had a similar analogy, but the thing is this is proven correct every time a pool game occurs. it is physical science.

So you think that when a 50,000 ton mass falls 12 feet...it should come to a complete stop and then fall another 12 feet, stopping again, and then falling, stopping, falling, stopping...all the way down for a collapse time of 96 seconds? :eek:

[Par]

well, actually it is proving fema and the 9/11 commission reports false..



The 9/11 Commission Report is not an engineering report. It doesn’t make exacting claims about collapse durations.

[kookbreaker]

well yeah she had a similar analogy, but the thing is this is proven correct every time a pool game occurs. it is physical science.


Pool table, maybe. But it has nothing to do with the tower's collapse.

It was very bad physics from someone you are trying to present as an expert.

[FatesWebb]

you have never hit a ball into a pocket, only to have the cue ball follow it in, have you...lol

TAM:)

only if you put a top spin on the ball.

[FatesWebb]

The 9/11 Commission Report is not an engineering report. It doesn’t make exacting claims about collapse durations.

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report,
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf we are told, in the government's complete and final report of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast

[Anti-sophist]

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report,
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf we are told, in the government's complete and final report of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast

So what? Who cares?

The evidence is conclusive. Your estimation of 8.5 seconds is categorically wrong. Wrong. The data you'd tried to provide doesn't say what you think it says or doesn't measure what you think it measures. You've been shown video after video proving, conclusively, your estimate is -far- too short.

What we should care about is what the evidence says. It says that you are wrong. Why do you keep ignoring the only thing that matters: evidence?

[kookbreaker]

this is a false way of looking at it. the reason why is if something falls from 1300 ft, and it gets to 600 foot, then something else next to it starts falling from 600 foot... the first item will surely be going faster but both are falling at freefall pace, this is because freefall pace/speed increases with distance. (until it reaches terminal velocity)

Wait a minute...? You consider the remainder of the towers to have started moving with no added momentum or energy from the initial 'block'?

Have you ever heard of transfer of momentum?

[Par]

this is a false way of looking at it. the reason why is if something falls from 1300 ft, and it gets to 600 foot, then something else next to it starts falling from 600 foot... the first item will surely be going faster but both are falling at freefall pace, this is because freefall pace/speed increases with distance. (until it reaches terminal velocity)



This is irrelevant. If the building took eight (or nine) seconds to collapse, the outermost debris, given that it hit the ground before the main mass of the building, must have fallen faster than eight (or nine) seconds.

[FatesWebb]

So you think that when a 50,000 ton mass falls 12 feet...it should come to a complete stop and then fall another 12 feet, stopping again, and then falling, stopping, falling, stopping...all the way down for a collapse time of 96 seconds? :eek:

well that is quite exaggerated, but since work was done, destroying the structure, then that proves that at least some of the energy was expended... which is exactly the point that it would have taken longer, otherwise the towers would not have been destroyed.

the weight of something does not affect its rate of descent.

let me ask you this, if the top of the building fell down, and destroyed the building below it, then we should be left with a giant 30 floor chunk... what destroyed the last chunks? the one that destroyed the rest of the building?

[FatesWebb]

This is irrelevant. If the building took eight (or nine) seconds to collapse, the outermost debris, given that it hit the ground before the main mass of the building, must have fallen faster than eight (or nine) seconds.

well, there you have it, you have proven fema incorrect.

[Anti-sophist]

well that is quite exaggerated, but since work was done, destroying the structure, then that proves that at least some of the energy was expended... which is exactly the point that it would have taken longer

It did take longer then freefall. This is easily provable using the evidence (the evidence you ignore).

You are completely right. It should take longer then freefall. It did. Problem solved.

You are literally proving yourself wrong.

[Par]

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report,
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf we are told, in the government's complete and final report of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast


The 9/11 Commission Report is not the government’s complete and final engineering report on the building collapses. It doesn’t make exacting claims about collapse durations.

[FatesWebb]

Wait a minute...? You consider the remainder of the towers to have started moving with no added momentum or energy from the initial 'block'?

Have you ever heard of transfer of momentum?

transfer of momentum is the EXACT THING that you are arguing against when you argue the pool balls...

you see you want it both ways, you want the momentum to be transferred, but also remain in the first piece..

perpetual motion machine.

[Par]

well, there you have it, you have proven fema incorrect.



Bothered.

[Anti-sophist]

well, there you have it, you have proven fema incorrect.

So what? The FEMA report was very preliminary. If it was perfect, we wouldn't have needed NIST.

The more telling part is we also proved _you_ wrong, but you seem to ignore that part.

[FatesWebb]

The 9/11 Commission Report is not the government’s complete and final engineering report on the building collapses. It doesn’t make exacting claims about collapse durations.

thats great, I give you the link, and the page number, and the quote, and you still say it didnt happen.

[Kage]

this is a false way of looking at it. the reason why is if something falls from 1300 ft, and it gets to 600 foot, then something else next to it starts falling from 600 foot... the first item will surely be going faster but both are falling at freefall pace, this is because freefall pace/speed increases with distance. (until it reaches terminal velocity)

Umm, have you looked at the video? The debris fall from the point of collapse, and fall faster than the point of collapse. This does imply that the building fell slower than freefall.

[Anti-sophist]

thats great, I give you the link, and the page number, and the quote, and you still say it didnt happen.

Your argument is a false precision fallacy. Nowhere inside the 9/11 commission report does it claim that it was 10 seconds, exactly.

As an estimate in a political document, 10 seconds is perfectly fine.

You are trying to use a politician's estimate in a scientific calculation. You are the one committing the fallacy.


---

More importantly, why are you still ignoring the evidence? Why do you insist on using politician estimates instead of using the evidence?

[Par]

transfer of momentum is the EXACT THING that you are arguing against when you argue the pool balls...

you see you want it both ways, you want the momentum to be transferred, but also remain in the first piece..

perpetual motion machine.



Again you seem to have forgotten about the distinction between elastic and inelastic collisions.

[FatesWebb]

So what? The FEMA report was very preliminary. If it was perfect, we wouldn't have needed NIST.

The more telling part is we also proved _you_ wrong, but you seem to ignore that part.

the nist report doesn't analyze the actual collapse. so explain how wtc7 falls in freefall as well

[Sabrina]

For the last time, Fates, the 9/11 Commission report is NOT a scientific analysis of the time the towers fell. They found an approximate estimate and stupidly presented it as an absolute, if you're reading the wording literally. It isn't an absolute definite determination on their part, although it may come across that way; regardless, pointing to the 9/11 Commission Report when discussing the physics of that day is like using a toothbrush instead of a paintbrush when painting a room. It's not what the report is meant to be used for.

[Anti-sophist]

the nist report doesn't analyze the actual collapse. so explain how wtc7 falls in freefall as well

Stop changing the subject. That sad little tactic isn't gonna fly with me.

I have reposted the evidence twice that shows conclusively your estimate of 8.5 seconds is wrong. You have ignored it. Twice.

Would you like me to post it a third time?

[Par]

thats great, I give you the link, and the page number, and the quote, and you still say it didnt happen.



Don’t start being silly with me. You know exactly what I said, and it wasn't that.

[CHF]

well that is quite exaggerated

No, it's Judy's theory. The woman you are choosing to listen to for some reason.

but since work was done, destroying the structure, then that proves that at least some of the energy was expended... which is exactly the point that it would have taken longer, otherwise the towers would not have been destroyed.

Indeed, energy was expended. Hense the less than free-fall speed of collapse.

What you fail to wrap your head around is the fact that the decending top chunks of the towers were so heavy that each floor it struck on the way down was easily overcome.

Judy operates on the assumption that each floor was strong enough to arrest the collapse. Complete idiocy!

let me ask you this, if the top of the building fell down, and destroyed the building below it, then we should be left with a giant 30 floor chunk... what destroyed the last chunks? the one that destroyed the rest of the building?

So you expect to see a 30 floor chunk just sitting there fully intact? That would make sense - if those 30 floors were a solid mass.

[FatesWebb]

Again you seem to have forgotten about the distinction between elastic and inelastic collisions.

so perpetual motion machines just depend on the materials you use to make them? you should patent that idea! you could make a million..

hell while your at it, since you can prove that there were no explosives used in the wtc, why not collect this other million dollars here..

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

when you collect your million dollars I will know you were right. hahaha too bad your incorrect.

[FatesWebb]

No, it's Judy's theory. The woman you are choosing to listen to for some reason.



Indeed, energy was expended. Hense the less than free-fall speed of collapse.

What you fail to wrap your head around is the fact that the decending top chunks of the towers were so heavy that each floor it struck on the way down was easily overcome.

Judy operates on the assumption that each floor was strong enough to arrest the collapse. Complete idiocy!



So you expect to see a 30 floor chunk just sitting there fully intact? That would make sense - if those 30 floors were a solid mass.

when have I listened to judy?

what happened to the last chunks? what destroyed them? sure ok you say they destroyed the rest of the building, but what destroyed them? and sure it might not be 30 floors large but really there were no large chunks left over, HOW??

[FatesWebb]

Don’t start being silly with me. You know exactly what I said, and it wasn't that.

The fact is the 9/11 commission report does state 10 seconds.

[Anti-sophist]

so perpetual motion machines just depend on the materials you use to make them?

There was no perpetual motion machine nor any violation of the conservation of energy.

Your claim that there was has been demolished for 3 pages now yet you keep repeating it? Why?

Oh, right, because you've ignored the numerous attempts to debunk this nonsense.

Let me repeat it for you: Nowhere was the law of conservation of energy violated in the official story of the collapse of the WTC.

[JimBenArm]

you have never hit a ball into a pocket, only to have the cue ball follow it in, have you...lol

TAM:)
How could that happen, if the balls go "clunkety-clunk"? Mine always do.
You're a doctor, does this mean I have a problem?

[Anti-sophist]

The fact is the 9/11 commission report does state 10 seconds.

I agree. It's fine for a political estimate. It's completely insufficient for a scientific one. You tried to use a political estimate in a scientific calculation. You've been shown the evidence and you've ignored it.

Why? Why are you ignoring the evidence? Why won't you answer this very simple question?

[FatesWebb]

For the last time, Fates, the 9/11 Commission report is NOT a scientific analysis of the time the towers fell. They found an approximate estimate and stupidly presented it as an absolute, if you're reading the wording literally. It isn't an absolute definite determination on their part, although it may come across that way; regardless, pointing to the 9/11 Commission Report when discussing the physics of that day is like using a toothbrush instead of a paintbrush when painting a room. It's not what the report is meant to be used for.

there is no official scientific report that analyzes that, well the fema report does, but you guys also reject it assertions as well.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf
Fema Report: Chapter 1 1-10 Table 1.1 Timeline of major events
TIMELINE OF MAJOR EVENTS:
Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 10 seconds: WTC2 Began collapsing after 56 minutes, 10 seconds.

Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 8 seconds: WTC1 Began collapsing after 102 minutes, 5 seconds.

http://img121.imagevenue.com/loc312/th_95055_FemaCollapseTimes_122_312lo.JPG (http://img121.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=95055_FemaCollapseTimes_122_312lo.JP G)


then it does go on and say "based on seismic recordings made by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University."



you guys love arguing against the official story.... and videos

[Par]

so perpetual motion machines just depend on the materials you use to make them? you should patent that idea! you could make a million..

hell while your at it, since you can prove that there were no explosives used in the wtc, why not collect this other million dollars here..

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

when you collect your million dollars I will know you were right. hahaha too bad your incorrect.



You might find this discussion a little more constructive if you stop being so childish and start acting like an adult.

[FatesWebb]

There was no perpetual motion machine nor any violation of the conservation of energy.

Your claim that there was has been demolished for 3 pages now yet you keep repeating it? Why?

Oh, right, because you've ignored the numerous attempts to debunk this nonsense.

Let me repeat it for you: Nowhere was the law of conservation of energy violated in the official story of the collapse of the WTC.

actually there is no official analysis of the collapse. so you would be correct. there is only analysis of collapse initiation, in the NIST report.

[Anti-sophist]

there is no official scientific report that analyzes that, well the fema report does, but you guys also reject it assertions as well.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf
Fema Report: Chapter 1 1-10 Table 1.1 Timeline of major events
TIMELINE OF MAJOR EVENTS:
Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 10 seconds: WTC2 Began collapsing after 56 minutes, 10 seconds.

Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 8 seconds: WTC1 Began collapsing after 102 minutes, 5 seconds.

[/URL][URL]http://img121.imagevenue.com/loc312/th_95055_FemaCollapseTimes_122_312lo.JPG (http://img121.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=95055_FemaCollapseTimes_122_312lo.JP G)


then it does go on and say "based on seismic recordings made by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University."



you guys love arguing against the official story.... and videos

Seismic data does not equal duration of collapse.

Why are you ignoring the conclusive evidence that has been provided for you?

[Anti-sophist]

actually there is no official analysis of the collapse. so you would be correct. there is only analysis of collapse initiation, in the NIST report.

A purely gravity driven collapse is completely and entirely in accordance with the conversation of energy. All of the evidence agrees with this.

You, however, have ignored this evidence. Why?

[FatesWebb]

You might find this discussion a little more constructive if you stop being so childish and start acting like an adult.
I find this quite funny, because I have been here like 3 days, and have been called names, and attacked etc the entire time. I have ignored it and not shot back, and I use a tad bit of sarcasm, and you try and call me out on it?

twoofer? how is using the word twoofer acting like an adult?

[CHF]

what happened to the last chunks? what destroyed them? sure ok you say they destroyed the rest of the building, but what destroyed them? and sure it might not be 30 floors large but really there were no large chunks left over, HOW??

When a largely hollow mass collapses 110 stories down it crumbles in on itself as it hits bottom.

I ask again: do you expect that 30 story chunk to remain intact after its decent down? Why?

[Par]

actually there is no official analysis of the collapse.



Well, if you truly believe as much, you have even fewer grounds on which to suggest that the 9/11 Commission Report does so.

[FatesWebb]

Seismic data does not equal duration of collapse.

Why are you ignoring the conclusive evidence that has been provided for you?

why not? if you can stand across the Hudson river and HEAR the entire collapse duration, why cant seismologist reports also hear it??

[Newtons Bit]

transfer of momentum is the EXACT THING that you are arguing against when you argue the pool balls...

you see you want it both ways, you want the momentum to be transferred, but also remain in the first piece..

perpetual motion machine.

Pool balls are elastic collisions. Since they each have approximately the exact same mass m1v1 = m2v2 and the initial m1 has a v1 of 0. One object stops, the other continues. In an inelastic collision, m1v1 = (m1+m2)v2. The change in KE here "dustifies" the materials. However this inelastic collision is an over simplification as well. In many cases there won't be 100% transfer of momentum as the upper block penetrates through the lower slab. A way to think of this is a bullet striking an object and penetrating. 100% of momentum is not transfered. This collision won't be 100% inelastic either. Concrete is almost completely elastic until the point where it shatters. An inelastic collision assumes permanent deformation (which the steel would undergo).

This is such a complicated subject that you can't really just go "omg momentum transfer, lol!" and expect to have any idea what is actually going on.

Energy was consumed by the floors impacting each other. Kinetic Energy was lost when the floors impacted due to conservation, however this change in KE also destroys object. Dr. Greening calculated the energy needed to completely "dustifiy" an entire floor and it's no where near the change in Kinetic Energy.

[Par]

I find this quite funny, because I have been here like 3 days, and have been called names, and attacked etc the entire time. I have ignored it and not shot back, and I use a tad bit of sarcasm, and you try and call me out on it?

twoofer? how is using the word twoofer acting like an adult?



Two wrongs don’t make a right.

[Anti-sophist]

why not? if you can stand across the Hudson river and HEAR the entire collapse duration, why cant seismologist reports also hear it??

When you are trying to demonstrate the two quantities are the same... "why not" does not constitute a scientific answer.

The point remains the same. Measuring the seismic activity is not the same as measuring the collapse time. Until you can demonstrate conclusively that we are measuring the same thing, I see no reason to believe that they are.

The main reason "why not" is because the seismic data does not agree with the actual evidence of the collapse time. You know... that evidence you keep ignoring. The evidence that shows beyond doubt that your 8.5seconds estimate cannot possibly be true. That evidence.

[CHF]

FatesWebb,

You're aware that the folks at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory think that their readings in no way back up demoltion theories, right?

[Pardalis]

193 posts in three days?

Someone needs to get a life.

[T.A.M.]

do this....

take 11 empty milk cartons. Pile them atop each other. Now bring your fist down atop them, and tell me that there is a serial chain of collapse, where the first milk carton stops completely, and then the next carton is collapsed, then that one stops and the next one collapses, etc...

Are you really, HONESTLY, trying to argue that each floor should have halted the fall, even if only for an instant, before it would continue to the next. Tell me you are not arguing in favor of "Clunkety Clunk"?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Fates;

its not a perpetual motion mechanism or machine example, thanks to the enormously massive EARTH at the bottom of the collapse...jeeesh

TAM:)

[AlanGreenspan]

"Speed" of collapse? That makes no sense, you could ask for the velocity of a specific object falling during the collapse but talking about the "speed" of a collapse makes no sense. To me at least.

[RedIbis]

When a largely hollow mass collapses 110 stories down it crumbles in on itself as it hits bottom.




A largely hollow mass...

ohhh boy.

[HyJinX]

A largely hollow mass...

ohhh boy.

uh...yeah.

[beachnut]

A largely hollow mass...

ohhh boy.
Yes, 95 percent air, is 95 percent hollow. A largely hollow mass, and a posted photo to show for the thinking impaired.

[CHF]

A largely hollow mass...

ohhh boy.

Ever been in a skyscraper, RedIbis?

If so, how did you manage to go inside and move around?

[RedIbis]

So what's this then? A hollow core?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/WTC_Core_03s-1.jpg

[beachnut]

Wow, now this is has to be what you guys mean by a "stundie."

Or maybe it's a "fundie."

Steel fails in fire faster than wood. And no one on the OCT side dares to correct this guy, not even once.
Lack of experience, lack of knowledge, lack of the basic ability to do valid research, these are what makes a good 9/11 truth follower. Good job, you can join the cult of 9/11 truth and live up to the high ideals of junk science put forth by people like Dylan Avery, the fiction movie man whose movie is now the bible for some who are in the cult of 9/11 truth.

Ironic, a fiction work, is now the bible for you truth people.

Who needs facts, not RedIbis. Why are you the one who does not understand the problems of fire and steel? You can find real information on the web, but you need to have knowledge and judgment to pick out correct information. Experience helps too.

Quick lesson. When you think you know something, please get several sources to support you that are not in the 9/11 truth movement, or from La la land. Before you call someone on what you think is BS, get several sources to back yourself up, not from woo places.

[CHF]

RedIbis,

"largely hollow" doesn't mean there's nothing there at all. It means that the vast majority of the area within the building is made up of empty space.

What percentage of the WTC was solid in your opinion?

[HyJinX]

So what's this then? A hollow core?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/WTC_Core_03s-1.jpg

As a matter of fact, that's exactly what this is. Nice work!

[HyJinX]

Red,

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif

Look what is says at the lower right-hand side

[qarnos]

I hate these 50-page threads which spring up overnight.

So are NIST wrong when they say essentially freefall, yes or no?

NIST are guilty of poor wording. I'm sure if they realised their report would be cherry picked and misrepresented by the likes of you, they would have been more careful with their wording.

[Anti-sophist]

NIST are guilty of poor wording. I'm sure if they realised their report would be cherry picked and misrepresented by the likes of you, they would have been more careful with their wording.

If my recollection serves me, NIST is referring to the top sections of the towers falling into the bottom... this portion was at essentially free-fall. As the bottom begins to break, it begins to arrest the acceleration downward making the building fall measurably slower then freefall.

As usual, this CTer is just quote-mining and trying to tell you a quote says something it doesn't actually say. Nowhere does NIST claim the entire building collapsed at "essentially freefall".

Anyone who claims the buildings fell at freefall is quite simply ignorant. Even the most hardcore CT sites debunk this claim because of how innane it is. It requires almost no effort at all to debunk. Anyone can estimate how long a free-fall collapse would take and prove, within moments, it took longer then that, using youtube.

[RedIbis]

When a largely hollow mass collapses 110 stories down it crumbles in on itself as it hits bottom.

I ask again: do you expect that 30 story chunk to remain intact after its decent down? Why?

Red,

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif

Look what is says at the lower right-hand side

I'm aware of the tube within a tube design. But that's the point. The towers were not hollow tubes. There was a core within each building and that's exactly where the thickest and strongest steel columns were located. You can't just dismiss the presence of the core.

[Corsair 115]

The towers were not hollow tubes. There was a core within each building and that's exactly where the thickest and strongest steel columns were located. You can't just dismiss the presence of the core.No one was. The "hollow" point came up as follows:

You said...

what happened to the last chunks? what destroyed them? sure ok you say they destroyed the rest of the building, but what destroyed them? and sure it might not be 30 floors large but really there were no large chunks left over, HOW??


The reply you got was...

When a largely hollow mass collapses 110 stories down it crumbles in on itself as it hits bottom.

I ask again: do you expect that 30 story chunk to remain intact after its decent down? Why?


You apparently misinterpreted what hollow meant in terms of the point CHF was making.

[Revolutionary91]

If my recollection serves me, NIST is referring to the top sections of the towers falling into the bottom... this portion was at essentially free-fall. As the bottom begins to break, it begins to arrest the acceleration downward making the building fall measurably slower then freefall.

As usual, this CTer is just quote-mining and trying to tell you a quote says something it doesn't actually say. Nowhere does NIST claim the entire building collapsed at "essentially freefall".

Anyone who claims the buildings fell at freefall is quite simply ignorant. Even the most hardcore CT sites debunk this claim because of how innane it is. It requires almost no effort at all to debunk. Anyone can estimate how long a free-fall collapse would take and prove, within moments, it took longer then that, using youtube.

How incredibly dishonest. Read the quote again:

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fallStories. Plural.

Note the use of the word since and the comma. Why must you lie?

[RedIbis]

No one was. The "hollow" point came up as follows:

You said...




The reply you got was...




You apparently misinterpreted what hollow meant in terms of the point CHF was making.

You apparently misinterpreted the name RedIbis for FatesWebb. Do you want to give that another shot?

[Anti-sophist]

How incredibly dishonest. Read the quote again:
Stories. Plural.
Note the use of the word since and the comma. Why must you lie?

I have not lied, at all. You, as usual, lack reading comprehension. The quote does not say what you claim it says. I have read it again just to be sure, as you requested, and I contend I am still right and you are still wrong.

Nowhere doe NIST claim the building came down in "essentially freefall". It says, very clearly, only the upper stories did.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the evidence is conclusive that building came down measurably slower then freefall. This is an inconvenient fact that you keep ignoring. The evidence is so obscenely against you in this case that you are left quot(mining)ing the NIST report... there's an irony.

I can quote 10 -conspiracy- websites that will agree with me on this point. That's how absurdly wrong you are.

------


People I now have permanently on ignore: Undesired Walrus, TAM, funk de fino, Pardalis, Anti-sophist, Sword_Of_Truth, Totovader, Enigma


You can go back to pretending to ignore me now.

[beachnut]

I'm aware of the tube within a tube design. But that's the point. The towers were not hollow tubes. There was a core within each building and that's exactly where the thickest and strongest steel columns were located. You can't just dismiss the presence of the core.
You are right, the hollow tubes had 5 percent material, 95 percent air, they were 5 percent from being totally hollow. That 5 percent was floors, and columns, and stuff. Not hollow at all, but gee 5 percent solid stuff in the shell, floors, and the core. Like a printed page, 5 percent ink, 95 percent blank.

So? They are 95 percent hollow so people could work in them, go in elevators in that "solid" core, go down the stairs in that "solid" core, go to the bathroom in the "solid" core, and store stuff in those closets in the "solid" core. You are right, 95 percent is not hollow, you need very small shell to have total hollow, like imaginary walls etc. So?

[beachnut]

I have not lied, at all. You, as usual, lack reading comprehension. The quote does not say what you claim it says. I have read it again just to be sure, as you requested, and I contend I am still right and you are still wrong.

Nowhere doe NIST claim the building came down in "essentially freefall". It says, very clearly, only the upper stories did.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the evidence is conclusive that building came down measurably slower then freefall. This is an inconvenient fact that you keep ignoring. The evidence is so obscenely against you in this case that you are left quot(mining)ing the NIST report... there's an irony.

I can quote 10 -conspiracy- websites that will agree with me on this point. That's how absurdly wrong you are.

------
You can go back to pretending to ignore me now.How did he see it if you are really on ignore?