simple question for the WTC collapse

[eots]

oh jesus...

You, takeastepback, and others think that the upper section of the tower could not shear/demolish the lower section of the tower with gravity alone. This is based on:



So i asked that you explain, based on takeastepback's explanation above, how the building in the verinage video i posted goes against takeastepback's "understanding" of the laws of physics.

in your video the top section is not blown into a dust cloud..the instant collapse initiation starts

you're full of shit.

Start at 1:10 of this next video. How come i can see the roof line descend until about 1:15?

I thought the upper section was "blown into dust the instant the collapse initiation starts"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2vcxdzwk4]nist foia: Wtc2 collapse (dean riviere) - youtube[/ame]

yes ,the roof is the last part to go within the collapse starts the mass above starts to turn to dust in 3-4 secs it gone completely there is no block of building left ,its a dust cloud pulverized long before it even reaches the ground with the bulk of it ejecteced outside of the perimeter of the building ,your mass crushing the floors beneath does not exsist

 

[eots]

You guys have no clue.

I suggest you look a femr2's video analysis. His work shows movement of WTC1 9 seconds prior to "release" AND shows that the acceleration was not smooth, indicating a non-freefall descent.

Is this the clown that makes the claim the towers slow by a millseconed each time it hits a floor so therefore its not smooth and not free -fall ?

 

[SFC Ollie]

New 911 Truth Video Can Not Be Debunked - YouTube

Not one new fact in the whole thing..... Still nothing there but opinion and still most of the videos they show do not include the collapse of the first penthouse.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

at 2:23 pm today someone farted in here.

 

[KissMy]

I know for a fact that a house fire can exceed 1600 degrees. My brothers house burnt a couple years ago. He had a large set of Blue Pyrex cookware in kitchen cabinets, shelves, on stove top & inside oven. The softening temperature of Pyrex cookware is 1510 degrees. All of his melted away, some ran down concrete foundation & out the stove. That means it went beyond the 1510 degree softening temp.

 

[eots]

I know for a fact that a house fire can exceed 1600 degrees. My brothers house burnt a couple years ago. He had a large set of Blue Pyrex cookware in kitchen cabinets, shelves, on stove top & inside oven. The softening temperature of Pyrex cookware is 1510 degrees. All of his melted away, some ran down concrete foundation & out the stove. That means it went beyond the 1510 degree softening temp.

what more evidence do we need ..fuck science ..we have your pyrex story..most house or office fire do not exceed 900-1000 degrees under ideal circumstances it might reach 1400 no way it will exceed 1500 ..but the fires in the towers and wtc 7 did not a normal office fire temperatures appear to be anything beyond

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c]Demolition Goes Wrong - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q]Building demolition goes wrong - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

someone should tell these guys all they need is to light few office fires

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkl6XzdlS5E]China appears to be in need of the 911 Controlled Demolition Contractors? - YouTube[/ame]

light a couple fires let it burn of a few hours as we all know temperatures will soon be over 1600 f..and down she goes presto ...these dummies the fight these skyscraper fires only to have to demo the building once the fires out..we all know if they just let the fires "rage uncontrolled"(even small ones) the building will completely collapse in a matter of secs...it worked three times in one day without a hitch on buildings larger than anything that has ever been attempted in history..this fire demo method seems to be the way to go with these giant skyscrapers

 

[SFC Ollie]

Gee demolitions can go wrong? Yet we are to believe that the three largest ever attempted were prepared in secret and went off without a hitch even after planes slammed into two of them....

Got it......

 

[numan]

...you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
I have no hypothesis I have facts
you have specious conjecture not a hypothesis or facts..
so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.

How quaint, Daws, that you should write that, considering that you are not troubled by the free-fall collapse of the towers -- a basic violation of the laws of Newtonian Mechanics, unless the resistance to movement of the lower stories had been eliminated !!

They were not free fall.

Show me a video of the complete collapse that happened in about 9 seconds.

I can do better than that. You get a stopwatch and a video of the collapse of either building, and then time it. The collapse is over in 15 seconds, tops.

If the lower portions of the building had been crunched and then accelerated in free fall, it should have taken 30 seconds to a minute.

Therefore, the Law of Conservation of Momentum was violated -- unless the resistance of the lower portions of the building had been removed by some means.
.

 

[eots]

Gee demolitions can go wrong? Yet we are to believe that the three largest ever attempted were prepared in secret and went off without a hitch even after planes slammed into two of them....

Got it......

but why did the dynamic load not crush the rest of the building ollie ?

 

[SFC Ollie]

haven't a clue, I'm not a demolitions expert, or those buildings would have dropped perfectly....I don't screw jobs up...

 

[daws101]

that requires measurements its not done with "vapors"

wrong the vapors can only be created at a certain speed .
the measuring( meaning math) is calculated (on video or film) by how fast an object moves past a given point.

give it up dude! you're wrong!

afraid not, I have Boeing and highly experienced pilots telling me these speeds are not possible at sea level..and "I am not giving that up" because some buffoon on the internet tells me vapor stories...lol

telling you? are you on line with them or are they having a few beers at your place?

 

[daws101]

...you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
I have no hypothesis I have facts
you have specious conjecture not a hypothesis or facts..
so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.

How quaint, Daws, that you should write that, considering that you are not troubled by the free-fall collapse of the towers -- a basic violation of the laws of Newtonian Mechanics, unless the resistance to movement of the lower stories had been eliminated !!

.

I'm not bothered as the towers did not free fall!
Did the Twin Towers fall at "free fall" speed as "conspiracy theorists" allege?

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.
Did the Twin Towers fall at "free fall" speed as "conspiracy theorists" allege? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[numan]

'
I know, Daws, that it is beneath the dignity of your god-like mind to use a stop-watch and actually time the collapse of the towers.

What room for obfuscation and red herrings would that give you? · ·

.

 

[daws101]

'
I know, Daws, that it is beneath the dignity of your god-like mind to use a stop-watch and actually time the collapse of the towers.

What room for obfuscation and red herrings would that give you? · ·

.

another false assumption...you can time the collapse by just watching the haNDY CLOCK PROVIDED ON EVERY VIDEO ON YOUTUBE..


[ame=http://youtu.be/qLShZOvxVe4]9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube[/ame]


NUFF SAID!

 

[eots]

'
I know, Daws, that it is beneath the dignity of your god-like mind to use a stop-watch and actually time the collapse of the towers.

What room for obfuscation and red herrings would that give you? · ·

.

another false assumption...you can time the collapse by just watching the haNDY CLOCK PROVIDED ON EVERY VIDEO ON YOUTUBE..


[ame=http://youtu.be/qLShZOvxVe4]9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube[/ame]


NUFF SAID!

but your gloriouse leader Shyam Sunder of NIST said it was 9 secs and 11 secs

 

[daws101]

'
I know, Daws, that it is beneath the dignity of your god-like mind to use a stop-watch and actually time the collapse of the towers.

What room for obfuscation and red herrings would that give you? · ·

.

another false assumption...you can time the collapse by just watching the haNDY CLOCK PROVIDED ON EVERY VIDEO ON YOUTUBE..


[ame=http://youtu.be/qLShZOvxVe4]9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube[/ame]


NUFF SAID!

but your gloriouse leader Shyam Sunder of NIST said it was 9 secs and 11 secs

as always you're misquoting to bolster your bullshit.
actual sunder quote:" The first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed North Tower struck the ground 11 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the South Tower after 9 seconds. The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed.

key phrases : The first fragments of the outer walls .

and parts of the South Tower after 9 seconds.
as always you're making ass noises and claiming they're facts!

 

[numan]

'

You keep beating about the bush, Daws, but you can't hide the fact that they collapsed too fast.

.