Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sultanist said:
Thanks kookbreaker and chipmunk stew for the welcome.
And no, can't say I had any problem with the registration.

Don't know if this has already been posted to the thread, but here's an image link I would have also included.

023.jpg


The yellow dots seen in this photograph are the five light poles which were clipped by the airliner as it approached.
The blue dots are the undisturbed light poles.
I'm not aware they've invented a "missile" with a 125' wingspan?
Click to expand...
(edited to complete url)
 
Thanks folks for warming an old redneck's heart.
And thanks chipmunk for displaying that picture.

I've got to get to work, but before I go I'll leave you with this thought.
It's being said that as of now there are upwards of 600,000 pages on the Web devoted to the so-called 9-11 "Truth" Movement.
It's now even surpassed "Elvis is still alive".
 
Quoted by Sultanist:
1. Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.

2. Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.

3. These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.

4. A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon.

5. Back at the airport the (innocent) passengers from three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).

6. This plane takes off, flies toward Washington, and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.

7. Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.
Click to expand...
Huh? Lets take all the people off of the planes, destroy other planes, then put all the extra people onto one plane and blow it up over land, where the remains of bodies are to be found, then blow up the extra planes over the ocean at night, where the bodies won't be found.

It's tough to come up with a worse plan. It really is.
 
Sultanist said:
...It's being said that as of now there are upwards of 600,000 pages on the Web devoted to the so-called 9-11 "Truth" Movement...
Click to expand...
The old JFKers were growing weary from stamping their feet and whining "back and to the left." It was only a matter of time before they moved on.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!
 
delphi_ote said:
It's a small enough mass to be blown into a large cloud around the structure and float slowly down to the ground. I'd imagine the effect of losing that mass is negligible.
Click to expand...
We may have to agree to disagree, but this looks like a significant amount of material to me.

Shots of North Tower:
 

Attachments

  • ntcol_mont1s.jpg
    ntcol_mont1s.jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 46
delphi_ote said:
At least part of the "anvil" is assumed to fragile and absorbing energy, because each floor crushed becomes part of the "anvil." Once again, it's an inelastic collision.
Click to expand...
And now that I've reviewed elastic and inelastic collisions, I think I understand what you're saying, but it still seems unfathomable that the upper portion of the building is not being destroyed as fast or faster than the bottom, especially considering, or assuming, that the lower floors are engineered to withstand more weight than the upper floors.

These two videos show the North Tower collapse:
plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/close-up_north_tower.mpg
plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

For some reason the first one seems to have trouble playing when I paste in into my browser. It could just be my computer, but if one of you would be so kind as to repost these as links, others who might have the same problem could right-click and 'save as'.

Anyway, if you watch closely, you will see as the collapse progresses, much of the upper section disappears before the lower section (below the fire) is covered with smoke. The lower floors seem to be holding up quite well under the initial onslaught. This seems to support what I will now call my Mutual Assured Destruction Theory. :) That is, for every floor the anvil destroys, it must give up one of its own. This might lead one to suggest the I'm Bigger and Tougher than You Theory, as the lower 96 floor section might say to the 14 floor section. I'm just saying the upper section is sure going to get it right from the start, as these videos show.
 
bunker said:
Anyway, if you watch closely, you will see as the collapse progresses, much of the upper section disappears before the lower section (below the fire) is covered with smoke. The lower floors seem to be holding up quite well under the initial onslaught. This seems to support what I will now call my Mutual Assured Destruction Theory. :) That is, for every floor the anvil destroys, it must give up one of its own. This might lead one to suggest the I'm Bigger and Tougher than You Theory, as the lower 96 floor section might say to the 14 floor section. I'm just saying the upper section is sure going to get it right from the start, as these videos show.
Click to expand...
But the falling "anvil" is collecting the mass of each floor it crushes and still has the original mass of the top floors (less the concrete dust.) Even if the upper stories' structural integrity is lost, the mass calculation is still more or less the same.

Please re-read this:
delphi_ote said:
You could just as well assume half of a floor in the upper structure is crushed and half a floor in the lower structure is crushed. The mass falling is the same, the energy transfered into the structure is the same, and the time to fall is only slightly longer (because his simplified calculations assume that the "anvil" stories collapse at free fall. You could instead calculate how much of them isn't crushed during the fall and then calculate how long it takes that smaller structure to fall at free fall.)
Click to expand...
 
bunker said:
And now that I've reviewed elastic and inelastic collisions, I think I understand what you're saying, but it still seems unfathomable that the upper portion of the building is not being destroyed as fast or faster than the bottom, especially considering, or assuming, that the lower floors are engineered to withstand more weight than the upper floors.

These two videos show the North Tower collapse:
plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/close-up_north_tower.mpg
plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

For some reason the first one seems to have trouble playing when I paste in into my browser. It could just be my computer, but if one of you would be so kind as to repost these as links, others who might have the same problem could right-click and 'save as'.

Anyway, if you watch closely, you will see as the collapse progresses, much of the upper section disappears before the lower section (below the fire) is covered with smoke. The lower floors seem to be holding up quite well under the initial onslaught. This seems to support what I will now call my Mutual Assured Destruction Theory. :) That is, for every floor the anvil destroys, it must give up one of its own. This might lead one to suggest the I'm Bigger and Tougher than You Theory, as the lower 96 floor section might say to the 14 floor section. I'm just saying the upper section is sure going to get it right from the start, as these videos show.
Click to expand...


If I am reading http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm correctly, they are stating that the impact and fires weakened the core support. Given that, the floors below the impact sites would have been able to support less load than prior to the impact. In the last two sections of the report they indicate that the collapse was not a pure top down collapse, but rather the core support failed as a whole.
 
delphi_ote,

This has been gnawing at me for months, and I think I just realized the fundamental flaw of the non-explosive free fall theory. It assumes that each impacted floor and its 1-floor worth of supports are taking responsibility for each impact alone. But we know that the intact, or largely intact, floor's supports are feeling the impact through all supports all the way to the ground. The falling mass is literally impacting the entire support structure from floor 96 to the foundation.

What are your thoughts?
 
bunker said:
Certainly they are not suggesting the entire core support structure failed as a result of localized fire and structural damage near the top.

Are they?
Click to expand...

* Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

* Fire-induced core column shortening detected. Due to heating from fires following the aircraft impacts and subsequent buckling, there was a shortening of core columns seen in both towers on floors at or near the fire-affected impact sites. Shortening of the core columns caused the floor system to pull the perimeter columns inward—the observed inward bowing that was seen minutes prior to the collapse of each tower. Significant thermal sagging of the floor system exacerbated the inward pull on the perimeter columns in WTC 2. Vertical loads carried by shortened columns were redistributed to perimeter columns, putting additional strain on their load-bearing capabilities.
 
bunker said:
These two videos show the North Tower collapse:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/close-up_north_tower.mpg
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/Shaking before WTC-1 collapse.mpg
Click to expand...
I've clickablized these links for you.

This seems to support what I will now call my Mutual Assured Destruction Theory. :) That is, for every floor the anvil destroys, it must give up one of its own.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this. When the floors at the failure point smash together, they both get equally destroyed. The air is compressed out, and the floor below, and the floor above, impact with the other two floors' rubble compacted between them, and they both fail basically symetrically. Then they get compressed with the others, and the (n-2) and (n+2) floors go through the same process. You can see that happening in your video, so that by the time the top 14 floors have destroyed the 14 floors below the impact site, there is pretty much nothing intact left of the top floors, and then it's just a large mass of rubble falling through the lower floors and wiping them out. And I agree that this kind of process should be somewhat slower than exactly free-fall speed. But because of the large mass of all that rubble, it's not slowed down to a great extent. And in fact, you can see from the video that the building falls somewhat slower than free-fall speed by comparing it to the speed of the ejecta nearby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom