IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th October 2006, 11:37 AM   #281
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Huh? Walk me through this Mackey.
Glad to. Thank you for entering an actual discussion. This way, we can both learn something.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
First, free-fall time in a vacuum is 9.2 sec, but air resistance adds to that, in relation to the ratio of surface area to mass.
Air resistance adds very little to that. As I have noted here dozens of times, the tower is not falling in a free-stream of still air. The only air drag on falling objects is on the sides.

Even if it was, air drag creates a drag force proportional to the square of the falling object's velocity. Because this is a non-linear relationship, the drag will be a minor correction until the velocity becomes reasonably close to the terminal velocity of the object falling. A steel girder will have a terminal velocity in excess of 110 meters per second. Free-fall in vacuum for 9.2 seconds only gets you to 90 meters per second. So even at worst, air drag is minor.

But remember that we are concerned with an object that falls on itself and accelerates, not one that falls at "free-fall" speeds. If we assume the top of the tower hits ground in 15 seconds, and accelerates at a constant rate, then its speed at impact is only 56 meters per second. Again, even if it fell in a free stream of air which it didn't, this means the drag force is at most only a quarter that of gravity. And remember, this is for the very top which moves the fastest. The overwhelming majority of the tower never gets to those speeds. When we also take into account the fact that it didn't fall in a free-stream, we may safely neglect drag entirely.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
You have this backwards. If free-fall is 66% of actual fall time, then 33% is left for deformation, not 66%. If you adjust your free fall time to be 12 seconds (more reasonable considering air), then you have 3/15 or 1/5 or 20% of PE available.
No, I don't. You see, the fact that it slows down 33% means that 1 - (0.66)2 = 54% is left for deformation.

Likewise, slowing to 12 seconds (a 25% slow down), not supported by the video but let's do it anyway, leaves 1 - (0.75)2 = 43% available for deformation. Plenty.

Think of it this way. How long does it take you to stop your car when you're driving 50 kph? Now try it from 100 kph. Is the stopping distance the same, or longer? Why is this? (It's because energy scales with the square of velocity.)


Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
This is imagining that the entire PE of the building is going to be directed toward the work. Thus you are imagining an entire tower on top of the actual tower, the "trash compactor" model of LARED, debunked by Wood.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...&mesg_id=50155
Wood is severely out of her depth.

The "lost" energy is all going towards deformation. Where else can it go?

Last edited by R.Mackey; 29th October 2006 at 12:08 PM. Reason: Took on the "12 Second" hypothesis.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 11:54 AM   #282
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc View Post
Are you daft? It SUBTRACTS.

Falling rocks aren't slowed terribly by drag. By your logic, avalanches aren't dangerous.
Air resistance SUBTRACTS from fall time???????
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 01:49 PM   #283
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Glad to. Thank you for entering an actual discussion. This way, we can both learn something.


Air resistance adds very little to that. As I have noted here dozens of times, the tower is not falling in a free-stream of still air. The only air drag on falling objects is on the sides.

Even if it was, air drag creates a drag force proportional to the square of the falling object's velocity. Because this is a non-linear relationship, the drag will be a minor correction until the velocity becomes reasonably close to the terminal velocity of the object falling. A steel girder will have a terminal velocity in excess of 110 meters per second. Free-fall in vacuum for 9.2 seconds only gets you to 90 meters per second. So even at worst, air drag is minor.
forgiddaboudit, RM
These guys are convinced that velocity in air of a steel bar= velocity in air of pulverized concrete=velocity in air of a feather.
After all, didn't Gallelio prove....
sigh.
Quote:

But remember that we are concerned with an object that falls on itself and accelerates, not one that falls at "free-fall" speeds. If we assume the top of the tower hits ground in 15 seconds, and accelerates at a constant rate, then its speed at impact is only 56 meters per second. Again, even if it fell in a free stream of air which it didn't, this means the drag force is at most only a quarter that of gravity. And remember, this is for the very top which moves the fastest. The overwhelming majority of the tower never gets to those speeds. When we also take into account the fact that it didn't fall in a free-stream, we may safely neglect drag entirely.


No, I don't. You see, the fact that it slows down 33% means that 1 - (0.66)2 = 54% is left for deformation.

Likewise, slowing to 12 seconds (a 25% slow down), not supported by the video but let's do it anyway, leaves 1 - (0.75)2 = 43% available for deformation. Plenty.

Think of it this way. How long does it take you to stop your car when you're driving 50 kph? Now try it from 100 kph. Is the stopping distance the same, or longer? Why is this? (It's because energy scales with the square of velocity.)
but...but...but
you can't use that liitle ^2 there, can you? it is obvious via common sense that a semi and a motorcycle will stop in the same distance from the same speed, idn't it?
Quote:



Wood is severely out of her depth.

The "lost" energy is all going towards deformation. Where else can it go?
no kiddin'
sigh...
To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein --an individual who cannot deal with math is a best a sub-human beast who might possibly be trusted to learn not to soil himself...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 02:09 PM   #284
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Mackey -

Quote:
the fact that it slows down 33% means that 1 - (0.66)2 = 54% is left for deformation.
OK, so then with my numbers, 1 - (0.80)2 = .36 = 36% left for deformation.

Next we have to subtract the percentage of mass which landed outside the footprint. As mentioned, the "dust" which "puffed" out of the towers in all directions was very dense, falling nearly as rapidly as steel. Could we not estimate the density of this "dust" from its fall time? Could we not estimate its volume in comparison to the intact tower? Considering density and volume, could we not estimate the mass which landed outside the footprint?
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 02:26 PM   #285
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
OK, so then with my numbers, 1 - (0.80)2 = .36 = 36% left for deformation.
Fair enough, except your numbers imply a collapse time from the top of 11.5 seconds. I'm not sure that number is supported by the video.

Another thing to consider is that we're consider comparison vs. "free fall" from the top of the structure, not the middle where it was hit. And given the huge clouds of dust and smoke, it's quite difficult to estimate when the timer should be stopped.

My only point with this argument is to show that "near free fall" is a specious argument. Slowing down the collapse even by two or three seconds means that an enormous release of energy took place as it fell -- 35% to over 50% of the total collapse energy. Thus, any argument based on it happening "too fast" is bunk.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Next we have to subtract the percentage of mass which landed outside the footprint. As mentioned, the "dust" which "puffed" out of the towers in all directions was very dense, falling nearly as rapidly as steel. Could we not estimate the density of this "dust" from its fall time? Could we not estimate its volume in comparison to the intact tower? Considering density and volume, could we not estimate the mass which landed outside the footprint?
Much of that dust is going to be fine drywall, relatively light. Also the size of the cloud does not indicate how dense the cloud is. Given that the dust is opaque, I don't think you can make a valid estimate -- there are just too many variables.

Furthermore, we similarly have a hard time estimating just how much damage was caused during the collapse versus after the pieces hit the ground. We just don't have enough visibility into the collapse. Regardless, as my simple math shows, the amount of energy expended during collapse is huge -- greater than 3 x 1011 Joules per tower -- and thus the phenomenon seen is entirely credible.

Likewise, if this isn't enough energy, then you need to find an absolutely enormous source of energy other than gravity, and one that leaves no telltale signatures. Explosives would have been heard, shattered windows, killed people standing nearby and been so large as to have been utterly impractical in the first place. I can't think of any other candidates.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 06:07 PM   #286
Roger_Harris
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
The "lost" energy is all going towards deformation. Where else can it go?
Correct, I believe, and I think analyzing the collapse time vs. free-fall time in terms of "lost" energy is not the proper analysis. The thing that would slow the collapse is the transfer of momentum from the falling section to the next impacted floor (and somewhat to floors below that, through the columns): Since the original mass is increased by the mass of the impacted floor, the velocity must decrease in accordance with the momentum conservation law. But from the videos, that appears to be exactly what's happening in the early stages of the collapse, since it's clear that the debris falling outside the building is falling faster than the collapse is proceeding. What happens, though, is that more and more mass gets to moving faster and faster as the collapse proceeds, until the momentum that's being transferred is too small a percentage of the total momentum to slow the falling mass by any significant percentage -- "near" free-fall.
Roger_Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 08:37 PM   #287
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Fair enough, except your numbers imply a collapse time from the top of 11.5 seconds. I'm not sure that number is supported by the video.
I was using 15 second collapse time, and 12 seconds as free fall time with air resistance.

Quote:

Another thing to consider is that we're consider comparison vs. "free fall" from the top of the structure, not the middle where it was hit. And given the huge clouds of dust and smoke, it's quite difficult to estimate when the timer should be stopped.
As I said, some of the building didn't hit the ground for days.

Quote:

My only point with this argument is to show that "near free fall" is a specious argument. Slowing down the collapse even by two or three seconds means that an enormous release of energy took place as it fell -- 35% to over 50% of the total collapse energy. Thus, any argument based on it happening "too fast" is bunk.
No, that's not your only point.

Quote:
Much of that dust is going to be fine drywall, relatively light. Also the size of the cloud does not indicate how dense the cloud is. Given that the dust is opaque, I don't think you can make a valid estimate -- there are just too many variables.
I was suggesting an approach which you did not acknowledge. I suggested that we estimate the density of the clouds based upon how fast they fell. Then we could estimate the volume based on the size of the buildings. From that, we could get a handle on how much mass went outside the tower.


Quote:
Likewise, if this isn't enough energy, then you need to find an absolutely enormous source of energy other than gravity, and one that leaves no telltale signatures. Explosives would have been heard, shattered windows, killed people standing nearby and been so large as to have been utterly impractical in the first place. I can't think of any other candidates.
There were lots of broken windows on buildings which were not hit by rubble. There were windows blown out of firetrucks which were not hit by rubble.

Explosives heard? Plenty of them were heard at various times. The lack of a definitive "crack" at the beginning of the "collapse" may well be explained by high energy weapons, as suggested by Wood and Reynolds.

In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.

Last edited by TruthSeeker1234; 29th October 2006 at 08:39 PM.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 08:43 PM   #288
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
I was using 15 second collapse time, and 12 seconds as free fall time with air resistance.

As I said, some of the building didn't hit the ground for days.

No, that's not your only point.


I was suggesting an approach which you did not acknowledge. I suggested that we estimate the density of the clouds based upon how fast they fell. Then we could estimate the volume based on the size of the buildings. From that, we could get a handle on how much mass went outside the tower.




There were lots of broken windows on buildings which was not hit by rubble. There were windows blown out of firetrucks which were not hit by rubble.

Explosives heard? Plenty of them were heard at various times. The lack of a definitive "crack" at the beginning of the "collapse" may well be explained by high energy weapons, as suggested by Wood and Reynolds.

In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.
the beam weapon is pure nuts, with no proof these two people are just plain nuts.

I did not say beam weapons do not exist, in I think there has been a test of an air borne laser weapon

But the gravity collapse of the WTC has plenty of energy, you only have to ask an engineer (me) or a CD expert. You will have to find the CD guy since you do not trust me as a EE.

They debunk Dr Jones, Morgan believes no planes hit anything.

So you hitch your wagon to two idiots, one with no planes, the other who messes up basic momentum using balls.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 08:46 PM   #289
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
I was using 15 second collapse time, and 12 seconds as free fall time with air resistance.
Nope. Your figure was 80%, meaning the collapse was slowed by 20% from its theoretical maximum of 9.2 seconds, which works back to exactly 11.5 seconds.

You can't compute free-fall time with air resistance without making more specific and very important assumptions.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
As I said, some of the building didn't hit the ground for days.
Yes, there was quite a lot of dust created. Changes nothing... anything turned to dust has already participated in the crumbling, and has expended its energy. There is no significant loss.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
No, that's not your only point.
I didn't realize you were a mindreader as well! Please, elucidate.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
I was suggesting an approach which you did not acknowledge. I suggested that we estimate the density of the clouds based upon how fast they fell. Then we could estimate the volume based on the size of the buildings. From that, we could get a handle on how much mass went outside the tower.
I did acknowledge it. I also said it was foolish. I do not believe you can make a reasonable mass estimate of the cloud. We have dust samples and debris studies, but they were taken much later. We do not have a real-time estimate of the cloud composition, size, or density. Feel free to prove otherwise if you know of someone who thinks differently.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
There were lots of broken windows on buildings which was not hit by rubble. There were windows blown out of firetrucks which were not hit by rubble.
You'll have to prove that. But that's not the point. All windows within a klick or so would have been blown out, if an explosive releasing over 3 x 1011 Joules was employed. Believe me, we'd know.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Explosives heard? Plenty of them were heard at various times. The lack of a definitive "crack" at the beginning of the "collapse" may well be explained by high energy weapons, as suggested by Wood and Reynolds.

In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.
Beam weapons are fantasy. The only thing even close to deployment is the Boeing ABL (AirBorne Laser), which is a measly megawatt class weapon. It would require over 80 hours of continuous firing to generate the kinds of energies seen here.

Really, if you're going to retreat to your comic books, there's little point in this discussion.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 08:50 PM   #290
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.
Yes. Mainly it answers the question, "How can we tell a 9/11 crackpot from a garden-variety 9/11 denier."

TS, you never explained how you reconcile this statement
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
I am a skeptic in the tradition of the Amazing Randi. Randi became famous as a magician who explained how his tricks did not violate physics.

9/11 was a trick.
With this statement

Quote:
You are wrong. It is you who have been “taken,” not I…

I do not discuss conspiracy theories.

James Randi.
Have you revised your opinion of yourself since Mr. Randi took you behind the woodshed?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 08:55 PM   #291
Roger_Harris
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.
Hint: If you need imaginary technology to answer the questions, your answers are raising more questions than they are answering.

Of course, the reason that conspiracy hucksters like Wood and Reynolds are pushing imaginary technology like beam weapons and mini fusion bombs is that the traditional explosives and/or thermite hypothesis just won't withstand scrutiny. Those "answers" are absurd, but nobody can prove they don't exist.
Roger_Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 10:15 PM   #292
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Let's see. Multiplying 200 ft x 200 ft x 1300 ft i get 52,000,000 cu ft for the total volume of a tower. If the tower is 90% air, this is 5,200,000 cu ft of solid stuff.

During the "collapse", the dust outside the tower looks to be at least as big as the tower. So the volume of the dust is 52,000,000 cu ft. If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust. We see some steel left over at the end, so this can't be right. Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.

Perhaps the dust was only half the size of the whole tower, although it sure looks bigger. If the dust is half the size of the tower, and is has a density 16% that of steel, that would mean that 80% of the mass of the tower was converted to dust.

I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 10:32 PM   #293
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust.
id be surprised if it was as high at 1%

Quote:
Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.
what collapse were you watching? the dust took a heck of a lot longer to settle than the rest of the debris
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 10:33 PM   #294
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Let's see. Multiplying 200 ft x 200 ft x 1300 ft i get 52,000,000 cu ft for the total volume of a tower. If the tower is 90% air, this is 5,200,000 cu ft of solid stuff.
OK. 1.67 million cubic meters is the more accurate figure. Using your 90% hypothesis, that also gives you an average density of 3000 kg / m3 or 182 pounds per cubic foot of the solid stuff. Feels a tad high but pretty reasonable.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
During the "collapse", the dust outside the tower looks to be at least as big as the tower. So the volume of the dust is 52,000,000 cu ft. If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust. We see some steel left over at the end, so this can't be right. Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.
Problems here. I don't know how to eyeball the dust cloud. Saying it's comparable to the size of the intact tower is fair, but there's potential for at least a full order of magnitude of error here.

The dust on the ground is probably the same mass as the tower, or perhaps lighter, since it's made of the same stuff. The dust in air is going to be very hard to estimate.

I don't buy that the dust suspended in air is 10% as dense as steel, though. That would mean a dust density of 780 kg per cubic meter (assuming 10% of the density of A36 structural steel), which means each kilogram of air (density of air is about 1.27 kg / m3) would have to suspend 603 times its own weight in dust.

Not likely. I suggest you're definitely off by at least two full orders of magnitude, and probably three.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Perhaps the dust was only half the size of the whole tower, although it sure looks bigger. If the dust is half the size of the tower, and is has a density 16% that of steel, that would mean that 80% of the mass of the tower was converted to dust.
If I assume the dust cloud is the size of the tower, and use a more credible (but still high) estimate of 600 grams of dust for every kilogram of air in the cloud, that gives me almost exactly 1 million kilograms of dust. That's a mere 0.2% of the tower's mass.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.
No, it doesn't. I also question, as I have from the first day you arrived here, the source of your "observation." I believe much, much more than 20% of the mass of the towers fell to the ground. By the estimate above, I would say more than 99% survived.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 10:33 PM   #295
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Have you revised your opinion of yourself since Mr. Randi took you behind the woodshed?
unfortunately i think its more likely that he has revised his opinion of randi
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 11:09 PM   #296
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.
You and the six-foot-tall bunny? Good grief, TS, is none of this sinking in?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 05:07 AM   #297
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
If the tower is 90% air, this is 5,200,000 cu ft of solid stuff.
...

If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust. We see some steel left over at the end, so this can't be right.
...

If the dust is half the size of the tower, and is has a density 16% that of steel, that would mean that 80% of the mass of the tower was converted to dust.

I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.

And I think you've made your estimates with the answer you wanted to find in mind.

From this paper at Implosion World, they state (see page 5, discussion of Assertion #3) that typical human-inhabited buildings are about 30% structural elements and contents, so your 10% value is off by about a factor of 3.

Other people have discussed the density of the dust in the air. There are so many possible variables on this that there's no way, short of some serious reasearch in a lab perhaps, of getting a realistic estimate of this value. So once again, you're free to pull out any number you want to get the answer you're looking for.

So your calculation is basically worthless.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 07:25 AM   #298
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Have you revised your opinion of yourself since Mr. Randi took you behind the woodshed?

When, exactly, did this occur, and how old was TS?

M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 07:35 AM   #299
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Air resistance SUBTRACTS from fall time???????
I can't believe what a ninny you are. It subtracts from the acceleration.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 07:42 AM   #300
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
...so this can't be right.
Hey - BS1234 said something that's correct!

Quote:
Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.
It's clear now that you have no idea what "dense" means in relation to physics.

Quote:
I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.
I'm all for knowledgeable estimation when it makes sense. But in this case, you have cascaded multiple estimates, each with an error range of an order of magnitude or more. The final result you get from that process is meaningless. If you want to tighten up each of those estimates that build to the conclusion, that would be a good idea. You may want to start with figuring out exactly what you mean by "dense" when you're referring to a cloud of dust.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:10 AM   #301
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Christophera View Post
You are simply echoing what I say. The reason the 1993 bombing was conducted was to create an excuse for the remodel wherein thermite was applied to at least 15 vertical feet of any columns that were available. That was done because the thermite if applied in a narro strip would simply floe downwards without remaining on the vertical face of the columns long enough to sever them.

RDX was used in cutting charges in the upper floors and installed as a part of construction.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

However trying to do that when you can only get to one face in the basement levels will not work. Hence the reason for thermite.



You apprently have to overgeneralize to think. The tower was concrete and steel. The concrete was dealt with by encapsulated RDX and the steel was dealt with by thermite (except for custom high performance cutting charges in the floors in upper floors)



There was molten steel. That is why the fires continued for a month.



Where did you get that nonsense?

I have stated that vibration detectors could be used to initiate the basement blasts.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

Or proximal radio transmissions/receptions which would explain why Rodriguez states that the man he rescude emerged from a basement stiarway saying "explosions" just before impact. It is also shown that there were blasts on the opposite side of WTC 2 seconds before impact.



It appears as though you have just been debunked by evidence linked from your own words.
Do you want fries with that?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:18 AM   #302
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
During the "collapse", the dust outside the tower looks to be at least as big as the tower. So the volume of the dust is 52,000,000 cu ft. If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust. We see some steel left over at the end, so this can't be right. Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.
This thread has all the makings of an instant-headache generator.

Estimating turbulent heterogenous gas/solid mixtures acting as a liquid, and doing crude calculations like this... is a recipe for fun.

For a guy who doesn't really have a handle on Newton's three laws, I'm thinking this can't turn out well, Truthseeker.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:24 AM   #303
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
If the dust isn't significantly dense, then why does it fall so fast? I observe large quantities of dust that falls almost as rapidly as does steel. I repeat my challenge. Can we not get a handle on the density of the dust via its fall time? Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:26 AM   #304
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
If the dust isn't significantly dense, then why does it fall so fast? I observe mass quantities of dust that falls almost as rapidly as does steel. I repeat my challenge. Can we not get a handle on the density of the dust via its fall time? Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.

Oh, NOW you grasp that concept?

Piles of small particles, the size of pebbles or sand, fall almost as fast as larger stones and look like dust from a distance.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:30 AM   #305
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc View Post
Oh, NOW you grasp that concept?

Piles of small particles, the size of pebbles or sand, fall almost as fast as larger stones and look like dust from a distance.
Right. And a cubic meter of sand is around the same mass as a cubic meter of rock.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:30 AM   #306
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,237
Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc View Post
Oh, NOW you grasp that concept?

Piles of small particles, the size of pebbles or sand, fall almost as fast as larger stones and look like dust from a distance.
Didn't Galileo cover this awhile ago?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:33 AM   #307
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
Didn't Galileo cover this awhile ago?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Galileo was jailed because his observations conflicted with the official story.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:35 AM   #308
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
Didn't Galileo cover this awhile ago?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Yeah, but there's such a thing as drag.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:35 AM   #309
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,237
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Galileo was jailed because his observations conflicted with the official story.
So...You think he was wrong?
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:36 AM   #310
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Galileo was jailed because his observations conflicted with the official story.
The primary difference between you and Galileo is that Galileo was right. He had clearly demonstrable evidence. You have jack.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:36 AM   #311
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
If the dust isn't significantly dense, then why does it fall so fast? I observe large quantities of dust that falls almost as rapidly as does steel. I repeat my challenge. Can we not get a handle on the density of the dust via its fall time? Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.
Yes, you can calculate the terminal velocity of a small object (e.g. dust particle) using Stokes' Theorem.

If your "dust" fell "almost as fast as steel," then the dust should all be lying on the ground after about 15 seconds, right? Strange definition of dust you're using.

Anyway, my estimate, using air that contained 60% dust by mass, is quite high, and even I don't believe it. You postulated dust that was denser than rolls of chainlink fence, or comparable to solid oak. This is not "dust," TruthSeeker1234.

But thank you for adding some detail. This makes is much easier to determine where the fault in your reasoning process lies. Now all we have to do is get you to understand it, and we've made real progress.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:39 AM   #312
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by Anti-sophist View Post
Estimating turbulent heterogenous gas/solid mixtures acting as a liquid, and doing crude calculations like this... is a recipe for fun.
The "dust" indeed behaved as a seperate phase, did it not? Is this not a further indication of its high density?

The stuff is expanding, so its density is not constant, still, I think we should work towards an estimate of the density.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:40 AM   #313
einsteen
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
I was a little bit working on some calculations, last time I used that antenna of wtc1 to check the time it took to fall a distance of 3.8 meter.
It it is about 1.3 seconds. The story is that the block falls as a whole and then the collision on the next floor will domino the next floor and so on, I used that antenna because its very good visible in the beginning and no smoke and dust covers it. The strange thing is that if you look at the rest of the block you see absolutely no movement (virtualdub can be used for a frame per frame analysis). It almost looks like a kind of penthouse failure that wtc7 also has. That same movie also shows that about 10 seconds before the initial moment of movement of the antenna some debris falls away from the impacted floors, the camera that was fixed somewhere else also started shaking. There is no sound in the movie. I'm wondering if that fits with the thunder sounds in 911eyewitness, anyone noticed this ?
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:41 AM   #314
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.
Surface area to mass ratio ain't density. Please stop using that word.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:41 AM   #315
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
The "dust" indeed behaved as a seperate phase, did it not? Is this not a further indication of its high density?

The stuff is expanding, so its density is not constant, still, I think we should work towards an estimate of the density.
Have you accounted for air currents and subtracted them out, yet? Air resistance is calculated with a velocity relative to the air, not the ground. If the air is moving downwards, then the dust will 'go with it' with no resistance.

Have you estimated the airflow and subtracted it out, yet?


ETA: Btw, you get +40 points on the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) for comparing yourself to Galileo
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

Last edited by Anti-sophist; 30th October 2006 at 09:46 AM.
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:48 AM   #316
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Galileo was jailed because his observations conflicted with the official story.
That is why we started a free society. So real scientist would not be jailed by fools like those in the truth movement when real scientist publish the truth; the real story. I am sure the truth movement leaders would jail anyone, if the truth movement was in charge, who did not agree with their CT world.

But the truth movement is not in jail because we have a free society, and we like to have nut cases display their ideas in the open so we can spend more or less money on education.

We have decide to "pull it"; all future funding of your education. Further expenditures are futile in your case of the never ending CT story.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:59 AM   #317
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I am sure the truth movement leaders would jail anyone, if the truth movement was in charge, who did not agree with their CT world.
I have no doubt of that. Imagine a world where people can be accused of the worst possible crimes on hearsay, conjecture, and rumor.

Like many revolutions, the "hang 'em high!" crowd's cure will be worse than the sickness. Sort of like replacing the corrupt Tsars of Russia with what would become in a few short years the nightmare of Stalin.

I wonder if the scientists who support the 'old order' will be the first to go.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 10:04 AM   #318
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
If the dust isn't significantly dense, then why does it fall so fast? I observe large quantities of dust that falls almost as rapidly as does steel. I repeat my challenge. Can we not get a handle on the density of the dust via its fall time? Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.
Do you ever do any of your own work?

Have you ever had your handle on anything?

Just asking questions.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 10:15 AM   #319
einsteen
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
I think that TS1234 means:

- the collapse is of course less than an object in vacuum or air as we see because the debris is falling faster than the demolition wave

- this means that the debris that falls has a high terminal velocity, i.e. it is no dust that hangs in the air and is dense mass.

is that true TS1234?
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 11:08 AM   #320
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
- this means that the debris that falls has a high terminal velocity
Relative to what? Terminal velocity is relative to the air, not the ground. I'm still awaiting his calculations to determine how the frame of reference defined by the air converts to the frame of reference of the ground. In other words, I'm still waiting to see his calculations for the movement of the air.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.