Seriously cannot get over this disturbing 9/11 issue?

[Modbert]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM]YouTube - ? ????? ???, ???? ?, ???????, ??????????? ?????[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

right..you prefer the experts from popular mechanics...lol

you prefer the experts from architects and engineers for 9/11 truth....

... like this guy?

User Profile

ROFLMAO

i think they banned him from their forums for making that claim

 

[eots]

big deal....nasa never landed on the moon and two of their space ships blew up ..... the dude is full of shit....

right..you prefer the experts from popular mechanics...lol

since they actually use facts and are available to be questioned, yes, since yours are never around

the experts from popular mechanics are not available for question why do you lie like that.?..the active leadership from architects for 9/11Truth are ..why do you lie further and claim they are never around ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0]YouTube - davin coburn from popular mechanics answers 9/11 questions 1[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0uVwS544Rg&feature=related]YouTube - Davin from Popular Mechanics owned![/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

ROFLMAO
yeah they can do stupid youtube videos

 

[elvis]

ROFLMAO
yeah they can do stupid youtube videos

was obama's birth certificate found in the rubble right next to Muhammed Atta's passport?

 

[Christophera]

No.. NIST needs to make a scale model light it on fire and watch it not collapse

Yes. And ignore the fact that it also got hit by an airplane, just like Alex Jones and the rest of the truther nuts do.

the problem with you Bush dupes THEORY on that is that the designers anticiapted that in the design of their towers when they built it.The construction engineer said in jan 2001 on modern marvels that it could take hit from MULTIPLE AIRLINERS and it would remain standing.I could post that video for you but you 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists only see what you WANT to see so i know you wont watch it so no sense in bothering to do so.

De martini, a port authority engineer gave a video interview in perhaps 1995 following the bombing and said the towers could take multiple plane impacts. He explained that the towers were like a window screen and the plane is like a pencil piercing the screen.

The perimeter wall didn't really resemble a window screen. But the rebar grid in the concrete core wall did.

 

[Gamolon]

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity



NIST theorizes that there was a decreased acceleration in the unseen portion of the collapse

I asked you to show me where I said that I disagree with that explanation. Since you post out of your ass most of the time, I'm calling your bluff.

You told me I don't believe NIST's explanation when it goes against what I believe. Show me where that has occurred.

I have no problem with the above. What I do have a problem with is you idiots trying to push the bullshit that WTC7 completely collapsed in 6 seconds.

 

[slackjawed]

The "free-fall" theory is a fallacy.
It is incorrectly based on a fall time that is wrong. Nobody, NOBODY!, can tell you how long it took the buildings to fall. Observations from the outside, and especially from existing videos cannot "see" inside the buildings where the collapse actually started to occur, well before anyone could see it, except of course the poor souls that were trapped inside. (and they are unable to tell us when it started, they died)
Despite it not coming from the twoofer's beloved alex jones, this site does offer a VALID explanation. Until you take the time to analyze the calculations, as well as the assumptions that this analysis was based on, your opinion that this analysis is biased is unfounded.
If you believe it to be in error, show me the calculations that are wrong, until you can, your opinion is just that, an unfounded opinion.
The complete analysis here:
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall
with approval from the site, here it is:
"

Home
Arabs and Osama
First Time in History
The Fires
The Twin Towers
World Trade Cener 7
The Free Fall Fallacy
Molten Steel Explained
Sounds of Explosions
The Firemans Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes
Peer Reviewed Paper
Professor Steven E Jones
Massive Conspriracy
The Real Conspiracy
Government Planning
The 911 Zogby Poll
Debunking 911 Links


The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.

Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That's almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.



One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.

The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

Pyroclastic flow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.

When I brought this up to one conspiracy theorist, he produced some photos showing burning cars and such. Yet I easily found photos which show their photo was being taken out of context.

Are the cars, papers and trees in this photo made of asbestos except for the ones on fire? If you think there was a pyroclastic flow and photos of fires at ground zero is your proof then that's exactly what you must think.

It's obvious that the collapse rained paper on fire and even hot steel which could easily explain the spotty fires. Unless the pyroclastic flow hopped from one place to another.

Critical thinking skills will tell the average person there was NO pyroclastic flow but since this was brought up by a "scholar," thinking seems to be optional.

What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust. (We are only talking about 10% of the total concrete in the building anyway. There was a massive amount of gypsum as well, which conspiracy theorists would like you to forget.) The argument is the pyroclastic flow (which there is no evidence of) was created by explosives. (Some have suggested an absurd amount of thermite) If the incredible amount of POTENTIAL ENERGY (Energy the building had just standing there due to the stored energy of lifting the steel into place.) which converted to Kinetic energy (as it collapsed) is not enough to create the dust cloud, then the assumption is explosives must have created it. How much? And why would they overload the building with powerful explosives? Why put more than would be needed to cut the steel? Why put enough to cut the steel AND create a pyro show? As you can see above, the collapse released enough energy to equal 272 TONS of TNT. Why wouldn't this amount of energy be enough to cut the steel connections AND create some dust as the floors impacted each other 110 times per building?

More on the pulverization of concrete

Another absurd straw man is that they say Greening is saying the collapse weakened the steel. Nowhere in Greening's paper does it say the collapse "weakened" the steel. The massive potential energy converted to kinetic energy in the collapse and was MORE than enough to destroy the connections. No "weakening" of steel needed. The only weakening was on the fire floors which had its fireproofing blown off. This has NOTHING to do with Greening's paper.

Reader contribution:

Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:


J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
ImplosionWorld.com

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
1 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip

Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.


Of course, the construction is different and the towers would need less explosives if they were the same height. However, the towers were much taller and had more columns to cut as a result. Even if they did have the same amount of columns it would still take over 72 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. That's just one building. Add the second tower and WTC7 and you see where this is going. It quickly becomes absurd. As if this absurdly complex plan was the ONLY way to scare Americans.

I'd like to thank Slugman from Political Myths blog for his contribution.

Political Myths Debunked

Home | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Free Fall | The Fire | The Twin Towers | Impacts | Fires and Fire Proofing | Columns and Trusses Towers Collapse | WTC 7 | WTC 7 South Side | WTC 7 Photos | Squelching "Squibs" | Rethinking Thermite | Explosions | Firemen Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes | Prof. Steven Jones | Massive Conspiracy | Zogby | Real Conspiracy | Government Planning | Molten Steel
Peer-reviewed Papers | Iron Burns!!! | Madrid/Windsor Tower | Conspiracy Theorist Hall of Fame | Fire Gallery 1 | Fire Gallery 2 | Fire Gallery 3
General Fires Gallery

Hey Slackass,debunking 9/11 myth links only debunk the official conspiracy theory that the fires caused the towers to collapse.None of that bullshit debunks that video either. also for the hundreth time,wiki can type in ANYTHING they want to at that place to fit their stories.they have been known many times before in the past to lie about countless numbers of subjects.

They are a LOUSY source for information along with 9/11 myth links. sorry kid,you lose,none of that stuff debunks my post and none of that crap debunks david ray griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,and answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory either.

That book debunks all your ranting and those bullshit links you provided.INTERNET links are HARDLY the way to win a debate.hahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

as usual,you ignored many facts that video shows that prove explosives brought the towers down and many facts and evidence i mentioned that proves your full of shit disinfo agent.nice try though.you need to read through that post of mine again cause none of your bullshit debunks that video.hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Thank you for your valuable information. You continue to address NOTHING when presented to you.
No longer will I take the time to read information and go through calculations to see if it is something that is credible.
You don't, you just continue to be a treasonous loon, issuing insults when your version of reality is threatened. You are the one that continually attacks others by saying that they won't present evidence, yet you are the one that continually refuses to address any evidence.
The information presented here is wrong because you say so? That doesn't work in the real world, maybe with mommy, but not here.

With your lunatic post, you have proven yourself to be worthy only of ridicule. I consider you to be here simply for my personal entertainment.

With the post that I continue to quote in my signature line, you have proven yourself to be treasonous.

here is a link to someone else that has acted in the same way you continue to act;
Pa. woman 'Jihad Jane' facing terror charges


Now, little guy, I thank you for your entertainment value, as that seems to be your only value in this world.


I am going to make a few assumptions based on your past threads;

Since you have attempted to insult myself and others for working, I assume you have never worked an honest job in your life, yet feel entitled to food shelter and medical care.

Since you have stated your a "VFW", yet display tendencies of treason, I assume you served you time doing as little as possible, and followed as few orders as possible. I also assume you achieved very little, or no promotion in rank in the military, and resented those that did. I am willing to bet you complained bitterly about it and continue to offer excuses blaming others for this and never accepting responsibility yourself. You refused to 're-up' based on the fact that your officers were always "out to get you", and that is why you never achieved rank. It had nothing to do with your lack of ability or ambition, it simply was because you were persecuted by your officers.
Based on the fact that your posts ALWAYS insult someone, I am assuming your an impotent little man who has very little control over your own life, no surprise for someone with no ambition to work. I am willing to bet that someone is always out to "get you", and that you have "valid" proof" of this happening throughout your life.

Based on your chronic behavior of insults, I assume that you have older siblings, and "mom always liked them best". Let me guess, you had to do more chores than all your siblings, and you were never treated "fairly".

There are three things I pretend to know about you, just like you pretend to know about the conspiracies you defend without evidence.


Until you address what I , and others, present to you with your own evidence instead of insults, you have proven you are only worthy of ridicule and pity. Since you choose the route of speaking out against your country, as quoted in my signature line, I have no pity for you, only contempt.

You are only here for my personal entertainment. You have NEVER offered anything credible.

 

[SFC Ollie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCg2DZiI8_g]YouTube - teena marie it must be magic[/ame]


Just gotta be Magic I Guess.......

 

[LA RAM FAN]

What I seriously cannot get over is the fact that the top floor in each building hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it.

Each building has many VERTICAL core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor. These core columns are fastened and welded together all the way up making them virtually one solid length of steel from bedrock to the top floor. They acted as if they did not even exist to provide hardly any resistance. Somehow the top floor in each building hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it even though it had to work its way all the way down through all these VERTICAL support columns.

NONE of the debunking propaganda addresses the VERTICAL core columns and actually mislead by focusing on the horizontal floor trusses.

The VERTICAL core columns are the many tree trunks of the steel structured buildings and the HORIZONTAL trusses the debunking propaganda focuses on are the tree branches of the steel structured buildings.

How did our country evolve to get debunking propaganda to sway votes against new investigations....instead of just having a new investigation?

Even a Physicist for NASA for almost 40yrs is well documented as stating there is no doubt in his mind explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings. He spoke of how everything but the steel was pulverized into fine dust before it even hit the ground and of massive structural steel members being hurled horizontally for great distance.

shsssh Creative,your making too much sense for the official conspiracy theory apologists here. remember,doesnt matter what the best scientists in the world or hundreds of architects and engineers or demolition experts say ,first responders and firemen say or that the laws of physics no longer apply anymore according to the 9/11 commissions theory,just what the corporate controlled media and the government say.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Yes. And ignore the fact that it also got hit by an airplane, just like Alex Jones and the rest of the truther nuts do.

the problem with you Bush dupes THEORY on that is that the designers anticiapted that in the design of their towers when they built it.The construction engineer said in jan 2001 on modern marvels that it could take hit from MULTIPLE AIRLINERS and it would remain standing.I could post that video for you but you 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists only see what you WANT to see so i know you wont watch it so no sense in bothering to do so.

De martini, a port authority engineer gave a video interview in perhaps 1995 following the bombing and said the towers could take multiple plane impacts. He explained that the towers were like a window screen and the plane is like a pencil piercing the screen.

The perimeter wall didn't really resemble a window screen. But the rebar grid in the concrete core wall did.

actually it was jan 2001 in a special on modern marvels on the history channel,sure wish editec would come back and reply,he is the only one here who has ever been open minded about things and willing to admit when he has been proven wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

the problem with you Bush dupes THEORY on that is that the designers anticiapted that in the design of their towers when they built it.The construction engineer said in jan 2001 on modern marvels that it could take hit from MULTIPLE AIRLINERS and it would remain standing.I could post that video for you but you 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists only see what you WANT to see so i know you wont watch it so no sense in bothering to do so.

De martini, a port authority engineer gave a video interview in perhaps 1995 following the bombing and said the towers could take multiple plane impacts. He explained that the towers were like a window screen and the plane is like a pencil piercing the screen.

The perimeter wall didn't really resemble a window screen. But the rebar grid in the concrete core wall did.

actually it was jan 2001,sure wish editec would come back and reply,he is the only one here who has ever been open minded about things and willing to admit when he has been proven wrong.

figures both of you would LIE
the building was designed to handle a SINGLE impact of a 707
a MUCH smaller plane

 

[slackjawed]

De martini, a port authority engineer gave a video interview in perhaps 1995 following the bombing and said the towers could take multiple plane impacts. He explained that the towers were like a window screen and the plane is like a pencil piercing the screen.

The perimeter wall didn't really resemble a window screen. But the rebar grid in the concrete core wall did.

actually it was jan 2001,sure wish editec would come back and reply,he is the only one here who has ever been open minded about things and willing to admit when he has been proven wrong.

figures both of you would LIE
the building was designed to handle a SINGLE impact of a 707
a MUCH smaller plane

shhhhhh! This is entertainment right here, better than uncle goddamn!
Just wait til they start arguing and call each other 'agents'!

 

[Fizz]

shsssh Creative,your making too much sense for the official conspiracy theory apologists here. remember,doesnt matter what the best scientists in the world or hundreds of architects and engineers or demolition experts say ,first responders and and firemen say or that the laws of physics no longer apply anymore according to the 9/11 commissions theory,just what the corporate controlled media and the government say.

you are delusional.

the worlds best scientists dont agree with with your wacky conspiracy theories. you've never shown one bit of evidence to any scientists to study!!

YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

your architects and engineers are less than one hundreth of one percent of all architects and engineers. its such a small percentage that it is laughable that you even bring it up.

then you need to take into account that some of them are neither architect nor engineers and are completely out of their mind. like this fucking moron that thinks its ok he didnt pay his child support because papers from 1876 are missing and he insists there was a concrete core without any evidence!!
User Profile

 

[LA RAM FAN]

you two trolls seriously need to give it up.For the hundreth time,Griffins book Debunking the 9/11 debunking debunks all your crap from those proven disinformation sites of those links you provided Slackass,you being the troll you are,you of course wont read that book since it doesnt go along with your version of events.Also,since your so much into INTERNET links,hahahahahahahaha,this is a TRUTHFUL link that debunks all that crap from those proven disinformation sites posted that leave out key evidence, facts and credible witness testimonys. Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

dont know why i wasted my time posting that for you since as we both know,you and fizz troll wont read that link and never have and have never read griffins book.you can post all the crap you want slackass form disinformation links but as we both know,it doest debunk that video or the information in my post.Like I said,it was a nice try though.

 

[SFC Ollie]

you two trolls seriously need to give it up.For the hundreth time,Griffins book Debunking the 9/11 debunking debunks all your crap from those proven disinformation sites of those links you provided Slackass,you being the troll you are,you of course wont read that book since it doesnt go along with your version of events.Also,since your so much into INTERNET links,hahahahahahahaha,this is a TRUTHFUL link that debunks all that crap from those proven disinformation sites posted that leave out key evidence, facts and credible witness testimonys. Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

dont know why i wasted my time posting that for you since as we both know,you and fizz troll wont read that link and never have and have never read griffins book.you can post all the crap you want slackass form disinformation links but as we both know,it doest debunk that video or the information in my post.Like I said,it was a nice try though.

And you still can't show any real explosions that would be apparent in a controlled demolition. And don't give me any of this Bullshit silent explosive Crap.

In fact you can't even provide a motive for a government conspiracy......

 

[candycorn]

The "free-fall" theory is a fallacy.
It is incorrectly based on a fall time that is wrong. Nobody, NOBODY!, can tell you how long it took the buildings to fall. Observations from the outside, and especially from existing videos cannot "see" inside the buildings where the collapse actually started to occur, well before anyone could see it, except of course the poor souls that were trapped inside. (and they are unable to tell us when it started, they died)
Despite it not coming from the twoofer's beloved alex jones, this site does offer a VALID explanation. Until you take the time to analyze the calculations, as well as the assumptions that this analysis was based on, your opinion that this analysis is biased is unfounded.
If you believe it to be in error, show me the calculations that are wrong, until you can, your opinion is just that, an unfounded opinion.
The complete analysis here:
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall
with approval from the site, here it is:
"

Home
Arabs and Osama
First Time in History
The Fires
The Twin Towers
World Trade Cener 7
The Free Fall Fallacy
Molten Steel Explained
Sounds of Explosions
The Firemans Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes
Peer Reviewed Paper
Professor Steven E Jones
Massive Conspriracy
The Real Conspiracy
Government Planning
The 911 Zogby Poll
Debunking 911 Links


The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.

Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That's almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.



One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.

The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

Pyroclastic flow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.

When I brought this up to one conspiracy theorist, he produced some photos showing burning cars and such. Yet I easily found photos which show their photo was being taken out of context.

Are the cars, papers and trees in this photo made of asbestos except for the ones on fire? If you think there was a pyroclastic flow and photos of fires at ground zero is your proof then that's exactly what you must think.

It's obvious that the collapse rained paper on fire and even hot steel which could easily explain the spotty fires. Unless the pyroclastic flow hopped from one place to another.

Critical thinking skills will tell the average person there was NO pyroclastic flow but since this was brought up by a "scholar," thinking seems to be optional.

What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust. (We are only talking about 10% of the total concrete in the building anyway. There was a massive amount of gypsum as well, which conspiracy theorists would like you to forget.) The argument is the pyroclastic flow (which there is no evidence of) was created by explosives. (Some have suggested an absurd amount of thermite) If the incredible amount of POTENTIAL ENERGY (Energy the building had just standing there due to the stored energy of lifting the steel into place.) which converted to Kinetic energy (as it collapsed) is not enough to create the dust cloud, then the assumption is explosives must have created it. How much? And why would they overload the building with powerful explosives? Why put more than would be needed to cut the steel? Why put enough to cut the steel AND create a pyro show? As you can see above, the collapse released enough energy to equal 272 TONS of TNT. Why wouldn't this amount of energy be enough to cut the steel connections AND create some dust as the floors impacted each other 110 times per building?

More on the pulverization of concrete

Another absurd straw man is that they say Greening is saying the collapse weakened the steel. Nowhere in Greening's paper does it say the collapse "weakened" the steel. The massive potential energy converted to kinetic energy in the collapse and was MORE than enough to destroy the connections. No "weakening" of steel needed. The only weakening was on the fire floors which had its fireproofing blown off. This has NOTHING to do with Greening's paper.

Reader contribution:

Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:


J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
ImplosionWorld.com

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
1 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip

Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.


Of course, the construction is different and the towers would need less explosives if they were the same height. However, the towers were much taller and had more columns to cut as a result. Even if they did have the same amount of columns it would still take over 72 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. That's just one building. Add the second tower and WTC7 and you see where this is going. It quickly becomes absurd. As if this absurdly complex plan was the ONLY way to scare Americans.

I'd like to thank Slugman from Political Myths blog for his contribution.

Political Myths Debunked

Home | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Free Fall | The Fire | The Twin Towers | Impacts | Fires and Fire Proofing | Columns and Trusses Towers Collapse | WTC 7 | WTC 7 South Side | WTC 7 Photos | Squelching "Squibs" | Rethinking Thermite | Explosions | Firemen Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes | Prof. Steven Jones | Massive Conspiracy | Zogby | Real Conspiracy | Government Planning | Molten Steel
Peer-reviewed Papers | Iron Burns!!! | Madrid/Windsor Tower | Conspiracy Theorist Hall of Fame | Fire Gallery 1 | Fire Gallery 2 | Fire Gallery 3
General Fires Gallery

Hey Slackass,debunking 9/11 myth links only debunk the official conspiracy theory that the fires caused the towers to collapse.None of that bullshit debunks that video either. also for the hundreth time,wiki can type in ANYTHING they want to at that place to fit their stories.they have been known many times before in the past to lie about countless numbers of subjects.

They are a LOUSY source for information along with 9/11 myth links. sorry kid,you lose,none of that stuff debunks my post and none of that crap debunks david ray griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,and answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory either.

That book debunks all your ranting and those bullshit links you provided.INTERNET links are HARDLY the way to win a debate.hahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

as usual,you ignored many facts that video shows that prove explosives brought the towers down and many facts and evidence i mentioned that proves your full of shit disinfo agent.nice try though.you need to read through that post of mine again cause none of your bullshit debunks that video.hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Thank you for your valuable information. You continue to address NOTHING when presented to you.
No longer will I take the time to read information and go through calculations to see if it is something that is credible.
You don't, you just continue to be a treasonous loon, issuing insults when your version of reality is threatened. You are the one that continually attacks others by saying that they won't present evidence, yet you are the one that continually refuses to address any evidence.
The information presented here is wrong because you say so? That doesn't work in the real world, maybe with mommy, but not here.

With your lunatic post, you have proven yourself to be worthy only of ridicule. I consider you to be here simply for my personal entertainment.

With the post that I continue to quote in my signature line, you have proven yourself to be treasonous.

here is a link to someone else that has acted in the same way you continue to act;
Pa. woman 'Jihad Jane' facing terror charges


Now, little guy, I thank you for your entertainment value, as that seems to be your only value in this world.


I am going to make a few assumptions based on your past threads;

Since you have attempted to insult myself and others for working, I assume you have never worked an honest job in your life, yet feel entitled to food shelter and medical care.

Since you have stated your a "VFW", yet display tendencies of treason, I assume you served you time doing as little as possible, and followed as few orders as possible. I also assume you achieved very little, or no promotion in rank in the military, and resented those that did. I am willing to bet you complained bitterly about it and continue to offer excuses blaming others for this and never accepting responsibility yourself. You refused to 're-up' based on the fact that your officers were always "out to get you", and that is why you never achieved rank. It had nothing to do with your lack of ability or ambition, it simply was because you were persecuted by your officers.
Based on the fact that your posts ALWAYS insult someone, I am assuming your an impotent little man who has very little control over your own life, no surprise for someone with no ambition to work. I am willing to bet that someone is always out to "get you", and that you have "valid" proof" of this happening throughout your life.

Based on your chronic behavior of insults, I assume that you have older siblings, and "mom always liked them best". Let me guess, you had to do more chores than all your siblings, and you were never treated "fairly".

There are three things I pretend to know about you, just like you pretend to know about the conspiracies you defend without evidence.


Until you address what I , and others, present to you with your own evidence instead of insults, you have proven you are only worthy of ridicule and pity. Since you choose the route of speaking out against your country, as quoted in my signature line, I have no pity for you, only contempt.

You are only here for my personal entertainment. You have NEVER offered anything credible.

What never ceases to amaze me about twoofers is thinking a controlled demolition was an option. The record is a building that was sub 500 feet. All three of the WTC complex buildings were 600 foot plus. So you and I are expected to believe that the conspirators would have chosen to undertake an attack profile that had never been done before. It would be much like someone planning for occupying a city after using nukes to wipe out resistance; nobody has ever done it before.

And on top of that, 9/11 Nutjob and Creative Schemes would have you and I believe that they would NOT use the dependable dynamite and conventional explosives with timers and relays and cables connecting all of it. They would shun that tried and true method in favor of unproven, untested, and never-before-used for controlled demolition thermite.

On top of that still, the two nutjobs would have you believe that the charges, timers, antenna (no cables) and cables--if they were used--all perfectly withstood the impact of a large commercial jet and the resulting fires.

And on top of that still, these two yahoos expect you to believe that the men at the highest levels of the US Government with their careers on the line would authorize the:

Never before done toppling of 500+ builidings; not one, not two, but three times
using
Never-before-used material like thermite
which was totally dependent upon these uber powerful men relying on...
Four hi-jackings going completely right and none of their paid shills getting cold feet

And they wonder why we call them nutjobs.

 

[DiveCon]

you two trolls seriously need to give it up.For the hundreth time,Griffins book Debunking the 9/11 debunking debunks all your crap from those proven disinformation sites of those links you provided Slackass,you being the troll you are,you of course wont read that book since it doesnt go along with your version of events.Also,since your so much into INTERNET links,hahahahahahahaha,this is a TRUTHFUL link that debunks all that crap from those proven disinformation sites posted that leave out key evidence, facts and credible witness testimonys. Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

dont know why i wasted my time posting that for you since as we both know,you and fizz troll wont read that link and never have and have never read griffins book.you can post all the crap you want slackass form disinformation links but as we both know,it doest debunk that video or the information in my post.Like I said,it was a nice try though.

i dont have to wallow in the mud with a pig to know it stinks
you can go roll in the shit if you want to, but i know you are FUCKING INSANE

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hey Ditzcon,Gomer Pyle Ollie and Candy Corn troll boy,what I just said to your fellow agents fizz and slackass applies to you as well.you all need to take lessons from Editec who unlike you all,has always demonstrated he is open minded,objective and doesnt go into seeing only what he WANTS to see and WANTS to hear.That was why I came on in the first place was to wait for a response from HIM because he is that way unlike you DOD agents.

 

[DiveCon]

Hey Ditzcon,Gomer Pyle Ollie and Candy Corn troll boy,what I just said to your fellow agents fizz and slackass applies to you as well.you all need to take lessons from Editec who unlike you all,has always demonstrated he is open minded,objective and doesnt go into seeing only what he WANTS to see and WANTS to hear.That was why I came on in the first place was to wait for a response from HIM because he is that way unlike you DOD agents.

editec doesnt believe you bullshitter's, rimjob