Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[NeilC]

The entire case for the conspiracy can be summed up by Chris's comment: "because that would never happen".

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It was that close?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.crash/

 

[delphi_ote]

Oh, by the way...

Name them.

And while he's at it, he could tell us how each one of those was involved and give some evidence to prove the accusation.

But I'm a dreamer. I predict his answering your question will be too much to hope for.

 

[Hellbound]

Just a side comment, here.

C-4 (at least, none of the C-4 I've seen) is not just "wrapped in cellophane". There is a cellophane inner wrapper (much thicker than what most people think of when they hear cellophane), which is surrounded by a vacuum-sealed wrapper (an airtight plastic). THis is then placed inside a heavy carboard container with a lid.

Now, perhaps the wrapping is different for civillian C-4? I dunno, but I suspect not that much.

Unless you're storing your C-4 in sunlight, or poking holes in your carboard box, plastic wrapper, and cellophane wrapper, you aren't letting any air make contact with your C-4. And under these conditions you only get 10 years.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Perhaps we can just get this thread locked. It is going nowhere. Christophera is not interested in actually discussing anything and I think we've presented most, if not all, easily found evidence debunking his hypothesis.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm done with this thread.

Chris has given me something new to fear...people like him walk amongst us. To me, that is much scarier than C4. At least I know C4 is chemically stable.

 

[Z]

Just a side comment, here.

C-4 (at least, none of the C-4 I've seen) is not just "wrapped in cellophane". There is a cellophane inner wrapper (much thicker than what most people think of when they hear cellophane), which is surrounded by a vacuum-sealed wrapper (an airtight plastic). THis is then placed inside a heavy carboard container with a lid.

Now, perhaps the wrapping is different for civillian C-4? I dunno, but I suspect not that much.

Unless you're storing your C-4 in sunlight, or poking holes in your carboard box, plastic wrapper, and cellophane wrapper, you aren't letting any air make contact with your C-4. And under these conditions you only get 10 years.

I wasn't even going to go there, but you're right.

C-4 is wrapped in an extremely airtight package, while concrete is certainly not airtight.

C-4 added in the construction process, I would guess, might last three-four years before becoming unstable - either turning into inert clay, or catching fire / exploding in some unpredictable fashion.

 

[Belz...]

I submit you should forget trying to anaylze anything here.

THINK, any atempt to demo from the the bottom threatens to cause toppling, how dangerous would that be by comparison to starting at the top with a building over 1/4 mile tall? OMG take his freakin' computer away.

I submit you're never seen a controlled demolition. If you have, you might have noticed that NONE of them is done from the top down.

 

[Belz...]

With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling.

Once more, how would you know this ? Common sense, again ?

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

You mean, noncommonsense.

Oh, and appeal to emotion, again.

Peabody never explained what was wrong with the wrong tower fell first statement. Somebody tried and failed to respond adequately to my rebuttals.

So, you're saying that a heavier load has no bearing on how long a damaged floor can hold said load ?

No one has even tried to make a common sense account of what the core of WTC 2 is if it's not concrete.

I have. Smoke. You can see it in other collapses, so even you could probably find it.

One hundred 3 inch bars in a line, waving around, caught in a pixelated photo proving their small size is completely misrepresented by a bogus analysis.

That one's just plain dishonest.

 

[einsteen]

I said before that English is not my first language, apologies, I will later install an English version of word with the check utility. Sometimes I have to be careful in my formulation, I'm a little bit too impulsive sometimes.
I used 911research only in relation with the NIST questions, if it's unreliable there must be a debunk site I assume ?
And I rejected a lot of things, I'm open minded and if something is wrong then it's wrong, simple for me.

@T.A.M.
This thread is about the collapses and I gave some other examples but I will concentrate on the collapse only in this thread from now on.
.
1) What does the 20% difference in mass between a 707 and 767 matter if the kinetic energy goes with the velocity squared, a 707 has
a higher cruise speed than a 767. Both towers should have survived then with the speed of impact.

3) I don't care about the amount of Gallons of fuel, 5000 is an impressive number but without emotions in physics that's only a constant
in your equations, Mg for example, don't forgot that the buildings where also extremely huge and strong, don't forgot that the plane
can carry 5 times more and this impact then is a high contradiction with 1) where the 707 impact is about the same as a 767, I even have
found calulations where they say it is even less, but let's take it about the same. The designers always take a huge margin, if you
consider a kind of bell-curve then there will be a small chance that a plane will take down a building. In Holland there are the Deltaworks,
it's constructed in a way that a failure of a sluice is 1/10,000 or something like that. In the years of the wtc design they already went to
the moon, it's extremely unlikely that a jet will bring down the building then. IMO near impossible,but I'm no Einstein

6) I think the way too fast argument needs to be worked out in more detail. We need numbers.

12) Please UFO's and Aliens are not relevant. But with this you admit that the whole science to be done is done under the assumption of
a a spontaneous autonome progressive collapse that just happend, nobody expected it, not the highly trained people around that died etc.
Wasn't it James Randi himself who said that scientists are trained to do science but not to play detective. To do science you have
to start with imput variables, assumptions etc.
The implosion world article: Well well well, of course it doesn't look like a classical controlled demolition from bottom to top, what else
would 'they' (this is no politics, I don't know who 'they' are) do if they want to blow up a building. Waiting 50 minutes, determine the exact
location of impact and then blow it up from bottom to top, OH YEAH! However the collapse of wt7 looks definitely like such a classical controlled demolotion, no doubt about it.

14) This report gives no conclusions. Please forgive me if I draw my own conclusions now. I have a product of chances in my head that are near zero.

 

[Architect]

1) What does the 20% difference in mass between a 707 and 767 matter if the kinetic energy goes with the velocity squared, a 707 has
a higher cruise speed than a 767. Both towers should have survived then with the speed of impact.

Right and wrong. The engineers assumed a slow moving 707 coming in from landing, not a larger high speed aircraft. Hence the problem.

3) I don't care about the amount of Gallons of fuel, 5000 is an impressive number but without emotions in physics that's only a constant
in your equations, Mg for example, don't forgot that the buildings where also extremely huge and strong,

Crunch some numbers and then come back to us. You'll find that you're wrong. And the point of the fuel is that it started a fire right across the floorplate, at much the same time, and fire protection measures weren't designed for that kind of load.

6) I think the way too fast argument needs to be worked out in more detail. We need numbers.

What, like the one by Frank Greening?

nobody expected it, not the highly trained people around that died etc.

Sorry mate, but in my office we loooked at the live pictures on line and one of us - can't remember who -said "that's going to come down". And know what? It did.

 

[Pardalis]

I used 911research only in relation with the NIST questions, if it's unreliable there must be a debunk site I assume ?

http://www.911myths.com/index.html is a good place to start. You could also read the NIST report itself.

And I rejected a lot of things, I'm open minded and if something is wrong then it's wrong, simple for me.

That's nice to hear, I respect that and hope you will stick to that motto.

Alot of CTists have come to this forum saying the very same things, but have shown to be real jackasses. I sincerely hope you are not yet another.

1) What does the 20% difference in mass between a 707 and 767 matter if the kinetic energy goes with the velocity squared, a 707 has
a higher cruise speed than a 767. Both towers should have survived then with the speed of impact.

And they did, they remained standing after the impacts. They didn't collapse because of the force of the impacts, but because of the structural damage they caused and the fires that compromised the strenght of the supporting structure.

3) I don't care about the amount of Gallons of fuel, 5000 is an impressive number but without emotions in physics that's only a constant
in your equations, Mg for example, don't forgot that the buildings where also extremely huge and strong, don't forgot that the plane
can carry 5 times more and this impact then is a high contradiction with 1) where the 707 impact is about the same as a 767, I even have
found calulations where they say it is even less, but let's take it about the same. The designers always take a huge margin, if you
consider a kind of bell-curve then there will be a small chance that a plane will take down a building. In Holland there are the Deltaworks,
it's constructed in a way that a failure of a sluice is 1/10,000 or something like that.

I'm not sure I understand. But you should care about the amount of fuel because the fire that it ignited is one of the two contributing causes of the collapse, which are the fire and the structural damage of the impacts.

In the years of the wtc design they already went to
the moon, it's extremely unlikely that a jet will bring down the building then. IMO near impossible,but I'm no Einstein

Why would the WTC collapse be related with the moon landing? These seem to be two completely unrelated technologies. I'm not sure what you meant by that...

6) I think the way too fast argument needs to be worked out in more detail. We need numbers.

You want numbers? Read the NIST report.

But with this you admit that the whole science to be done is done under the assumption of a a spontaneous autonome progressive collapse that just happend, nobody expected it, not the highly trained people around that died etc.

I'm having a hard time following you. Who died? The people who built the WTC? Even if they did, why would it matter? Structural engeneers of today are perfectly able to understand the WTC construction and make a valid study of the collapse.

Waiting 50 minutes, determine the exact
location of impact and then blow it up from bottom to top, OH YEAH!

What does that mean? Do you agree with that assessment? It think it's sounds completely stupid.

However the collapse of wt7 looks definitely like such a classic demolotion,
no doubt about it.

Can you tell what this animal is, what it is most closely related to?

14) This report gives no conclusions. Please forgive me if I draw my own conclusions now. I have a product of chances in my head that are near zero.

Again, I don't understand what you mean. What are your qualifications BTW?

 

[T.A.M.]

@T.A.M.
This thread is about the collapses and I gave some other examples but I will concentrate on the collapse only in this thread from now on.

Ok...fair enough. I am disappointed that afte rall I and everyone has show you, all logical, that you have garnished so little from it. I guess we really have our work cut out to convince you.

1) What does the 20% difference in mass between a 707 and 767 matter if the kinetic energy goes with the velocity squared, a 707 has
a higher cruise speed than a 767. Both towers should have survived then with the speed of impact.

They did survive the impact. Remember, I said to you, most experts were surprised that the towers stood up for so long AFTER THE IMPACT. When they designed the building, they didnt do calculations about "How long will it stand up after impact." THE TOWERS DID REMAIN STANDING AFTER THE IMPACTS...56 and 102 minutes respectively.

3) I don't care about the amount of Gallons of fuel, 5000 is an impressive number but without emotions in physics that's only a constant
in your equations, Mg for example, don't forgot that the buildings where also extremely huge and strong, don't forgot that the plane
can carry 5 times more...

I didn't put it there for exagerration, or to impress. It is actually only half of the fuel the jet was carrying (10,000Gallons). You notice that I said the fuel was merely an ignitor for the larger fires that encompassed 8-10 floors of each building.

and this impact then is a high contradiction with 1) where the 707 impact is about the same as a 767, I even have
found calulations where they say it is even less, but let's take it about the same. The designers always take a huge margin, if you
consider a kind of bell-curve then there will be a small chance that a plane will take down a building. In Holland there are the Deltaworks,
it's constructed in a way that a failure of a sluice is 1/10,000 or something like that. In the years of the wtc design they already went to
the moon, it's extremely unlikely that a jet will bring down the building then. IMO near impossible,but I'm no Einstein

A bit hard to understand this bit of post Einsteen...sorry, I will do my best. The buildings stood up after the impact, but the damage from the planes was severe. It cut through many of the vertical columns, particularly the weaker ones in the outer part of the building. This SUBSTANTIALLY weakened the ability of those floors, where things were severed, to hold up the static weight they were designed to uncut. Luckily there was enough redundancy in the column numbers, so the building didn't initially collapse. Almost instantly after the explosion, the Jet fuel sprayed through out the floors, 8-10 atop, and also likely drained down the elvator shafts. Fire balls coming out of the elevators at the bottom floors lends credence to this. It was the COMBINATION of the IMPACT DAMAGE, and the fires that led to the collapse.

All the design calculations in the world do not guarantee the buildings wouldn't collaspe...

6) I think the way too fast argument needs to be worked out in more detail. We need numbers.

NIST has, hundreds of pages. So have MIT Civil engineers. If you look, the calculations are done...many times.

See my links I posted earlier for you...and this...

MIT CIVIL ENGINEERS REVIEW OF WTC

12) Please UFO's and Aliens are not relevant. But with this you admit that the whole science to be done is done under the assumption of
a a spontaneous autonome progressive collapse that just happend, nobody expected it, not the highly trained people around that died etc.
Wasn't it James Randy himself who said that scientists are trained to do science but not to play detective. To do science you have
to start with imput variables, assumptions etc.

My point with the UFOs etc was to show you that there were numerous other REMOTE possibilities that were not looked at. Why...because the evidence at hand did not point to any of them.

James Randi is right. NIST had a lot more than just scientists. That is what the 9/11 Commission was for. NIST simply looked at the facts of the collapse, gathered the evidence, and came up with the "MOST LIKELY" Hypothesis.

The implosion world article: Well well well, of course it doesn't look like a classical controlled demolition from bottom to top, what else
would 'they' (this is no politics, I don't know who 'they' are) do if they want to blow up a building. Waiting 50 minutes, determine the exact
location of impact and then blow it up from bottom to top, OH YEAH! However the collapse of wt7 looks definitely like such a classic demolotion,
no doubt about it.

The number of things they would have to do differently, and hope it would work...since we no the WTC 1&2 didnt comedown looking like a classical demolition, lets look at what would be involved to create a demolition that would look like the WTC 1&2 Collapses...

1. Massive amounts of explosives, the equivalent of the amount you would plant on the bottom floor of a standard CD, would need to be placed on every floor, so that no matter what level the building was hit, they could detonate them at that level to "Initiate" the collapse. Now a standard demolition of a regular old 30 Storey building, like the landmark tower we showed earlier via youtube, would take, done properly 4 months with unlimited access to the building in question. What you are suggesting involves much more explosives, which would require more people, more time, harder to hide.

2. You would require a remote control device that could set off the detonation at any level, so that when the planes hit, henchman X could press the proper button to set the explosives at the "impact" floor.

3. You would then have to hope and pray that the building would come down as planned, despite this type of Demolition NEVER having been tried before.

4. You would still have to blow out all the other floors, and once that happened, the bottom would give way, and you should have seen a classical demolition anyway...we didn't.

So you see, to pull off the suggested "Atypical" Demolition that would corrispond with the falling of WTC1&2 is so far fetched, so "Outthere" so "Implausible" that we do not even entertain it here.

14) This report gives no conclusions. Please forgive me if I draw my own conclusions now. I have a product of chances in my head that are near zero.

I am really disappointed that you read that well written article by Demolition EXPERTS, that nobody asked them to write...they wrote it of their own accord, and from everything they said, all you can reply is that you feel there is nearly zero chance that they were right. So I guess Steven Jones Science is better...his explanation more reasonable? I think we are losing you to the Dark side...

TAM

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...THE TOWERS DID REMAIN STANDING AFTER THE IMPACTS...50 and 70 minutes approximately.

56 and 102, to be precise.

 

[T.A.M.]

noted...will edit

 

[Pardalis]

The number of things they would have to do differently, and hope it would work...since we no the WTC 1&2 didnt comedown looking like a classical demolition, lets look at what would be involved to create a demolition that would look like the WTC 1&2 Collapses...

1. Massive amounts of explosives, the equivalent of the amount you would plant on the bottom floor of a standard CD, would need to be placed on every floor, so that no matter what level the building was hit, they could detonate them at that level to "Initiate" the collapse. Now a standard demolition of a regular old 30 Storey building, like the landmark tower we showed earlier via youtube, would take, done properly 4 months with unlimited access to the building in question. What you are suggesting involves much more explosives, which would require more people, more time, harder to hide.

2. You would require a remote control device that could set off the detonation at any level, so that when the planes hit, henchman X could press the proper button to set the explosives at the "impact" floor.

3. You would then have to hope and pray that the building would come down as planned, despite this type of Demolition NEVER having been tried before.

4. You would still have to blow out all the other floors, and once that happened, the bottom would give way, and you should have seen a classical demolition anyway...we didn't.

So you see, to pull off the suggested "Atypical" Demolition that would corrispond with the falling of WTC1&2 is so far fetched, so "Outthere" so "Implausible" that we do not even entertain it here.

This is excellent, TAM.

 

[T.A.M.]

danke...

 

[Stellafane]

...[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/888644bed1fba333b.jpg[/qimg]
Can you tell what this animal is, what it is most closely related to?

Hyrax, most closely related to the elephant, right?

(Great visual -- shows that the untrained glance is no match for the educated investigation.)

 

[einsteen]

With the moon landing I only wanted to say that technology and science where quite far at that time. If a building should survive a 707 I assume that they also did statistical calculations. In science there are always error margins. If a building should survive a 707 that in fact means that the chance is near 1 that it should stand.

Ok TAM you are right that 'how long do they stand' is another question, may I then draw the conclusion is that the designers in fact said, the building can withstand the impact of a plane, but we don't know how long, maybe 1 second, maybe 1 minute. It doesn't make sense to me. If that isn't included it is the weakest link and surviving an impact has no scientifical meaning.

Please convince me.

Ok, the official reports, to me it looks like a kind of open source version of a software package like windows XP, no single person can read and understand everything, it will take a few human lives. We have to accept it then. But then if should become widely accepted and general knowledge to the public, it should be reproducable in one way or another.

I've spend an hour to read the F.R. Greening thing, I got lost and stopped after his energy dissipation etc. There are about 30 assumptions he mades, but he doesn't get the exact collapse time. I've seen other calculations on internet, one gives 14 seconds and another much more, they are anonym but they take the problem from a totally different point of view, this one is easy to understand and I cannot belive the experts are able to debunk that because it is basic classical mechanics.

The problem with the real collapse time is that you have to make assumptions and the starting situation can only be estimated. To me it looks like the real precise calculation cannot be solved analytically, then there are numerical methods of course. Ok, it would indeed be very arrogant to doubt that what a whole bunch of scientists did is wrong, I'm just an average individual that can be ignored. It's unlikely also that they are all part of a hidden agenda. Ok then, assuming they can calculate the exact time of collapse and that it is in agreement with what happened, then we get another painful question..

All this scientifical work has been done afterwards, how did the terrorists know where to hit a floor and how did they succeed with their plastic knives, if they hit it at the top the block would not fall because there was not enough mass and momentum to let the rest collapse, did those Arabs do all those complex calculations on a stone somewhere and though, we have to hit it there, at that time only knowing the scientifi fact that the WTC should survive a plane.

They really had their lucky day.

IMO wtc7 is still a different story, there is no convincing answer.

 

[Pardalis]

Please convince me.

Guys, this doesn't sound good...