Loose Change

[NobbyNobbs]

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?

First explain how it could be any other way. But before you do, read up on Newton's 1st Law. Then read up on "torque". Then get back to us.

As a reminder: Newton's 1st basically says that objects keep whatever motion they have unless acted upon by an outside, unbalanced force. In other words, the upper portion of the building, having been tipped, would stay tipped as it fell unless a giant crane/jumbo jet/hand of God reached out and set it upright.

"Torque" can best be described as rotational force, that is, force require to make something (say, the top half of a building) tip over (or back again). Notice again, the use of the word "force". Can you suggest one that would have set the WTC upright again? No? Then there's no reason for it to right itself.

 

[aggle-rithm]

First explain how it could be any other way. But before you do, read up on Newton's 1st Law. Then read up on "torque". Then get back to us.

As a reminder: Newton's 1st basically says that objects keep whatever motion they have unless acted upon by an outside, unbalanced force. In other words, the upper portion of the building, having been tipped, would stay tipped as it fell unless a giant crane/jumbo jet/hand of God reached out and set it upright.

"Torque" can best be described as rotational force, that is, force require to make something (say, the top half of a building) tip over (or back again). Notice again, the use of the word "force". Can you suggest one that would have set the WTC upright again? No? Then there's no reason for it to right itself.

He's going to counter that resistance from the lower part of the building should have pushed it back upright as it fell into it. This would be true only if the resistance (the "stiffness" of the still-intact part of the building) were greater than the force of the falling upper section. In order for him to demonstrate this, he would have to use actual math, and show his work. I don't think we will be seeing any of that.

I'm sure the top section DID correct itself to some small degree, but it was apparently a negligible effect.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here's something for geggy to consider: If the tower was BUILT with the top section tilted, would the original supports be sufficient to hold it in place?

Another thing: If the top section is tilted, then all of its weight when it hits the lower section is concentrated in a smaller area. This would pulverize the concrete slab that forms the floor and keeps the supports rigid, thus compromising the supports and the floor at the same time.

 

[geggy]

Oh yes, and what is wrong with this perfectly clear and comprehensible explanation of the exact machanics of the collapse of both towers?

I cant trust the source you've posted as most of it is wildy inaccurate. The towers did not collapsed in 30 seconds. Yes, its common sense that the towers would sway back and forth as the planes struck. Under normal circumstance on a highly windy days, it would sway back and forth. But in several videos of the plane impacts that I've seen, the swaying of the towers werent as excessive as most survivors claimed to be as if it felt like it was to them during the impacts. That day was sunny and clear with very little to no wind.

Compare...

This was controlled demolition, inc's project. The top portion was deliberately brought down with explosives. The bottom portion were cut by workers with charges in order to weaken the structure fdor the top portion to act as a hammer.

This was the beginning of south tower collapse. The dust ring surrounding the towers were excessively high in volumes.

As many of you have already seen the explosive charges shooting out in a timely pttern in the bottom portion of the building, it was in order to weaken the columns to allow the top part to act as a hammer.

Here is the funny thing, I've noticed in many public press newspapers and the websites that supports the official theory of the collapsing of the twin tower would post a picture of this with the right side cropped out...
here's one from 911myth.com

Here is the full picture at the nearly exact time frame of the collapse...

The debris were forced out at a high acceletrating speed and explosives that has the capability to produce a energentic sonic boom would only force out the debris in a high speed...

 

[geggy]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

click and play the computer animation of the detonation and observe.

Go to any website and find a video of WTC7 collapsing...

Watch the penthouse on the top of the building going down first before everything else came down...

Relatively easy to understand that WTC7 was brought down with explosives, but hard to swallow...

 

[Shrinker]

The debris were forced out at a high acceletrating speed and explosives that has the capability to produce a energentic sonic boom would only force out the debris in a high speed...

I'm interested in reading how you've calculated the acceleration of these objects based on a single still image.

 

[Shrinker]

And by the way, the "cropped" photo isn't the same picture as the "full" one. It was taken from a different vantage point, so you haven't proved that anyone is cropping out part of the image. If you were trying to imply dishonesty, then its time to imply an apology.

 

[Curnir]

I'm interested in reading how you've calculated the acceleration of these objects based on a single still image.

I suspect that one (or several) of the following highly scientific methods were used.

"It stands to reason that"
"Common sense shows that"
"Obviously..."
"No one can convince me that it didn't..."
"That's the only explanation..."

 

[delphi_ote]

I'm interested in reading how you've calculated the acceleration of these objects based on a single still image.

I think he used the following equation to derive this result:

a=v=x

Where a is acceleration, v is velocity, and x is position. Newton was such an idiot to add all those square terms and time variables.

 

[Rolfe]

I cant trust the source you've posted as most of it is wildy inaccurate. The towers did not collapsed in 30 seconds....

"Most of it"? Like what?

It took just 30 seconds for the tower to collapse entirely.

That seems to be the only part you're questioning, and we need to know exactly what is meant by "entirely" here. Earlier discussion on this thread has concentrated on the time for the top of the tower to hit the ground (or equivalent, presumably the top of a pile of debris, which come to think of it makes the calculations come out with a rather slower collapse rate than those which assume the entire height of the tower). However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it took more like 30 seconds before everything had stopped falling, falling over, collapsing in on itself and so on.

So we don't know that this statement as it stands is inaccurate at all.

And the rest of the "wildly inaccurate" contents? Come on, I'm waiting....

Especially for your reasons why the explanation regarding the behaviour of the steel trusses and the pancaking can't be correct.

Rolfe.

 

[Timothy]

I contend that geggy placed the charges that brought down the WTC towers. There's absolutely no reason to think he didn't. He clearly knows far too much about what happened and how it occurred. How could he possibly know so much without having a hand in it? I look at the evidence, and I come to that conclusion.

C'mon, geggy. Why did you do it?

Show us the evidence that you weren't involved.

You can't, can you?

(Phhhhttthhhththhbbbttt!)

 

[delphi_ote]

However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it took more like 30 seconds before everything had stopped falling, falling over, collapsing in on itself and so on.

For that matter, think of how long all that dust was in the air. The amount of time it took to bring the towers down entirely was probably weeks.

I bring this up just to point out that the collapse was not a discrete event by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Dragon]

I suspect that one (or several) of the following highly scientific methods were used.

"It stands to reason that"
"Common sense shows that"
"Obviously..."
"No one can convince me that it didn't..."
"That's the only explanation..."

Do you think that geggy and Sgt Colon of the Ankh-Morpork Watch are by any chance related?

Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands To Reason, and was now a post-graduate student of the University of What Some Bloke In The Pub Told Me.

from "Jingo" by Terry Pratchett

 

[Belz...]

I cant trust the source you've posted as most of it is wildy inaccurate. The towers did not collapsed in 30 seconds.

If I remember correctly it did take several seconds. That wasn't freefall, by the way.

Yes, its common sense that the towers would sway back and forth as the planes struck.

Not common sense. Physics.

But in several videos of the plane impacts that I've seen, the swaying of the towers werent as excessive as most survivors claimed to be as if it felt like it was to them during the impacts.

So ? Their perception was exaggerated because they were in a stressful situation, or because, from inside the building, it would appear to sway more than it actually did. But it DID sway back and forth, and the point was that THIS was the time at which it could have toppled, but didn't.

This was controlled demolition, inc's project. The top portion was deliberately brought down with explosives. The bottom portion were cut by workers with charges in order to weaken the structure fdor the top portion to act as a hammer.

As many of you have already seen the explosive charges shooting out in a timely pttern in the bottom portion of the building, it was in order to weaken the columns to allow the top part to act as a hammer.

You've forgotten a very important element. The WTC WAS NOT stripped down in the lower floors. I thought you said it wouldn't have collapsed otherwise. What's your position, here, exactly ? Are you just overloading us with "suspicious" tidbits, or do you have a coherent hypothesis ?

This was the beginning of south tower collapse. The dust ring surrounding the towers were excessively high in volumes.

Why don't we, instead, compare with buildings that fell down but were not demolished in a controlled manner. Huh ? Why don't we do that ?

The debris were forced out at a high acceletrating speed and explosives that has the capability to produce a energentic sonic boom would only force out the debris in a high speed...

Let's work with kiddie diagrams, shall we ?

Floor X+1 ------------------
Office space
Floor X ------------------

Do you agree that in "office space" we have air ?

What happens when X+1 collapses onto X ? Like so:

Floor X+1 ------------------
Floor X ------------------

Where does "Office space" go ? Does air compress and wind up in the rubble ? NO! It's shot OUTwards and carries dust and debris along with it. Get it ?

 

[Belz...]

I think he used the following equation to derive this result:

a=v=x

Where a is acceleration, v is velocity, and x is position. Newton was such an idiot to add all those square terms and time variables.

Well, of course he wasn't, master. It was just a coverup made in that century by the globalists, already planning the WTC event...

Uh oh... I've said to much again, haven't I, master ?

Number 1 out.

 

[CurtC]

The towers did not collapsed in 30 seconds.

And you base that on what? Did you see how long it took for the steel columns at the lower levels to finish falling?

But in several videos of the plane impacts that I've seen, the swaying of the towers werent as excessive as most survivors claimed to be as if it felt like it was to them during the impacts.

You expect to see the towers swaying in videos taken from outside? Why? The swaying would be only inches, impossible to see in a video.

Compare...
[qimg]http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/building-implosion-9.gif[/qimg]
This was controlled demolition, inc's project. The top portion was deliberately brought down with explosives. The bottom portion were cut by workers with charges in order to weaken the structure fdor the top portion to act as a hammer.

That's a good comparison. The middle section of that building was weakened, then the top portion collapsed down, destroying the whole thing. That cloud of dust coming out was not caused by explosives, by the way. The explosive charges create very little of the dust in an implosion. It's caused by the energy of the heavy building crashing down onto lower sections, which is orders of magnitude greater than the energy in the explosions themselves. Why would you say that the dust around the towers was excessive? How much would you expect, and what are you saying was the cause of the excessive dust?

 

[chipmunk stew]

For that matter, think of how long all that dust was in the air. The amount of time it took to bring the towers down entirely was probably weeks.

I bring this up just to point out that the collapse was not a discrete event by any stretch of the imagination.

And yet I have a guy claiming that "...the video shows the effects of physics not the effects of structural engineering. It's a physics problem more than a structural problem..." and "...This is elementary physics..."

 

[Blackwell]

As many of you have already seen the explosive charges shooting out in a timely pttern in the bottom portion of the building, it was in order to weaken the columns to allow the top part to act as a hammer.

Geggy,
Please take a look at this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616&q=implosion&pl=true

Notice the number of timed charges needed to bring this building down. Now, let's put aside the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the puffs you see in the videos of the WTC towers collapsing are caused by explosions, and answer this question - what makes you think that 3 or 4 randomly placed charges would cause those towers to collapse?

 

[geggy]

If I remember correctly it did take several seconds. That wasn't freefall, by the way.

YES IT WAS

So ? Their perception was exaggerated because they were in a stressful situation, or because, from inside the building, it would appear to sway more than it actually did. But it DID sway back and forth, and the point was that THIS was the time at which it could have toppled, but didn't.

EXACTLY MY POINT

You've forgotten a very important element. The WTC WAS NOT stripped down in the lower floors. I thought you said it wouldn't have collapsed otherwise. What's your position, here, exactly ? Are you just overloading us with "suspicious" tidbits, or do you have a coherent hypothesis ?

EXPLOSIVE CHARGES WERE USED, NOT CUTTER CHARGES

Why don't we, instead, compare with buildings that fell down but were not demolished in a controlled manner. Huh ? Why don't we do that ?



Let's work with kiddie diagrams, shall we ?

Floor X+1 ------------------
Office space
Floor X ------------------

Do you agree that in "office space" we have air ?

What happens when X+1 collapses onto X ? Like so:

Floor X+1 ------------------
Floor X ------------------

Where does "Office space" go ? Does air compress and wind up in the rubble ? NO! It's shot OUTwards and carries dust and debris along with it. Get it ?

YOU LEFT OUT THE CENTRAL STEEL CORE.

It's funny when people say the top portion is heavy and thick with concrete and steel yet the bottom portion of the building is 95 percent air.

 

[geggy]

I know many of you have said that the buildings are stripped and furnitures, office supplies are removed before they set off the explosives. One of the reasons for that is to reduce the volume of dust while the building is being imploded.

Demolition crew would wrap chain links and mats around the concrete core to reduce flying concretes as they are blasted.