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

[Pardalis]

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

Read this please.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1857649&postcount=83

ETA: is it me, or has your English dramatically improved since your last post, Einsteen?

 

[Stellafane]

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense...What is true is you folks are a bunch of lying, manipulating clowns.

Still trying to get yourself banned, I see. Trouble is, this isn't the LC forum, where you can get banned for telling JDX or TheQuest that their clothes don't match all that well today. Listen, why don't we do as has been suggested and just lock this thread? That way you can declare your little victory and be done with it. In the interim, I will follow others and exit this thread. It's devolved way past funny, now it's just disturbing.

Oh, but before I go, I did want to point out the one thing you said that is 100% totally true:

...Not one of my solid inquiries has been answered.

Agreed...because, Chris my man, you somehow managed to post some 660+ times without actually making any "solid inquiries."

 

[einsteen]

Read this please.


ETA: is it me, or has your English dramatically improved since your last post, Einsteen?

It's still me check my IP address and my wife can only say yes and no and is sleeping now, did you confuse with someone else's text maybe ?

 

[Pardalis]

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.

You realise this doesn't make any sense.

no single person can read and understand everything, it will take a few human lives.

Are you saying reading the official reports is a life threatening activity?

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.

Forget about my comment on your English improving, I don't understand anything here.

The problem with the real collapse time is that you have to make assumptions and the starting situation can only be estimated.

So is the "end situation". There is no precise way to time the collapse sequence all the way down. Besides, it is irrelevant to the NIST report.

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.

This is a fallacy Post hoc, ergo propter, I think. http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

The build team did a post completion analysis, based solely upon the plane's impact (fuel burning, and subsequent materials native to the tower burning were not modelable, and therefore not included) and was made under the assumption it would be slower, and less fuel laden than the 767's turned out to be. Max takeoff weight of a 707 is 333,600 lb (151,320 kg), and of a 767 is 395,000 lb (179,170 kg); the potential weight of the 767 is 118% of the 707. The 767 also had the capability of holding ~1000 more gallons of fuel than the 707.

 

[einsteen]

@Arkan - Ok, in other words then, it would probably then also not withstand a 707 attack.
@Pardalis - I mean reading 10,000s of papers and verifying is not doable.
@Pardalis - They had their lucky day then, ok ?

 

[Pardalis]

@Pardalis - I mean reading 10,000s of papers and verifying is not doable.

I know, I was just joking around.

@Pardalis - They had their lucky day then, ok ?

They wanted to inflict as much damage as they could, they unfortunately did very well.

 

[einsteen]

oh btw someone mentioned Gravy's guide, is that the loosechangeguide, I've read it, still have some points of course but will re-read it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

@Arkan - Ok, in other words then, it would probably then also not withstand a 707 attack.
@Pardalis - I mean reading 10,000s of papers and verifying is not doable.
@Pardalis - They had their lucky day then, ok ?

It would be better to say that; given the tools available at the time and that they were not specifically designed to withstand an impact; the engineers thought that they would survive. However, to my knowledge, no one has reevaluated those calculations since more powerful computers have become available to model things such as the fuel fire after the impact.

It is not unlike weather forecasting 40 years ago vs weather forecasting today.

 

[Belz...]

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.

 

[T.A.M.]

I agree. I think that in the initial calculations for the 707 impact (which I believe were done with the existing design specs, as an afterthought. I don't think they modified any of the original plans to accomidate such an impact) they figured that if a 707 hit the tower, it would survive, and remain standing, but as was said, teh variables they could not, or did not take into account were...

1. Impact Location (which floor)
2. Subsequent fires of 8-10 floors with temps 1000-1200C
3. Plane Reaching Inner Core

TAM

 

[Belz...]

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.

I still don't see it. Who cares how far SPACESHIPS have gone through space ? You design a building to stand, not to go to mars. Completely different design calculations that have little or nothing to do with one another anyway.

Why would you build a skyscraper to resist a terrorist attack back in the 60s ? All you need is to withstand an impact by a plane lost in the fog, in which case it isn't going to fly at full speed.

By the way, you're still wrong even if you ignore my above comments. The WTC construction began in 1966.

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.

Speculation.

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.

They didn't have sophisticated computers in the early 60s. They couldn't model the effect of the fire.

Please convince me.

Uh-oh.

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.

Now that's idiotic. Obviously, lots of people can understand it, and just because you can't doesn't mean that the report is suspicious.

But then if should become widely accepted and general knowledge to the public, it should be reproducable in one way or another.

As soon as Gravy, Delphi and the others provide the materials I've asked and Mack finds those design schematics, we can start building that life-sized, mock WTC for our test-demolition.

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.

Although assumptions are often bad, they're necessary when you simply don't have the data.

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.

So, in your opinion, these are simple calculations and couch potatoes on the internet are better qualified than experts to analyse the situation ?

It's unlikely impossible also that they are all part of a hidden agenda.

Here, I fixed that for you.

All this scientifical work has been done afterwards, how did the terrorists know where to hit a floor

That one's easy: aim the plane in the center of the building and throttle up.

and how did they succeed with their plastic knives,

Now you're beign dishonest and that kinda sets me off. Have you EVER used a utility knife ? They're scary, to say the least.

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,

Arabs or not they have sufficient mental acumen, like most humans, to think that one through for five minutes. I can see it now:

"Osama, should we hit the 110th floor ?"

"No, you idiot, hit them as low as you can. What are you, retarded ?"

 

[Belz...]

@Arkan - Ok, in other words then, it would probably then also not withstand a 707 attack.

Not at those speeds, probably.

@Pardalis - I mean reading 10,000s of papers and verifying is not doable.

Of course it is.

@Pardalis - They had their lucky day then, ok ?

No. Not okay.

 

[einsteen]

I watched a part of that 911eyewitness video, because someone showed a picture from it, although to debunk something... and after the collapse you can see those cores falling like mikado later, it's amazing. I still don't understand what those explosions are they show before the big crunch.
What I like about this is that it just silently shows the whole event. I'm still becoming cold if I see it..

What I've watched so far is the InPlane site movies (haven't seen Michael Moore because that's obviously propaganda, I got it from a friend but still have to watch it) Confronting The Evidence, painful deceptions. A lot of Jones, also the discovery channel or BBC movie about how could they collapsed some other smaller movies and of course Loose change 2nd, but that was the last one. Everyone mentions that thing but I think it is the worst movie because it's a kind of one-direction-traffic. I think a good movie should only show individual events, no rubbish like a tower that looks like two, and discuss with people who agree and disagree. For the first time in my home country they are going to show alternative views on tv, just watched a discussion program, but they discussed both views and also mentioned the debunking sites.

 

[Pardalis]

Is anything that we are saying sinking in so far Einsteen?

 

[Christophera]

OMG! Whatdumbsh#ts

Out to lunch???????????????????????????

Yeah, right, the structure could support the immense mass and velocity of the falling top section...

Uh, ................ I ask for accountability and I get the above. Reason not available, hmm, ........... must be OUT TO LUNCH! The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.


Try some emotional reasoning.


Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures. A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures. Your lack of acceptance will cause your mis decision and demise for those you love in all ways in your failure to use truth.

Mankind did not find its way down the better path it has walked at times and in ways by using your gifts of communication that you use in the ways you are now using them.

Knowledge and power serve love, because love protects life.







Dumbsh#ts.

Whattsa' matta w'dat? Are your children going to complain?

 

[einsteen]

@Belz,

Did you read all papers from A-Z ?

So, in your opinion, these are simple calculations and couch potatoes on the internet are better qualified than experts to analyse the situation

Answer: No, but let me explain what I mean

If you have a point mass for example and it follows a track to the ground, you can use a complex way of calculating the velocity as a function of time v(t) or distance, x(t), finally when it hits the ground or is at height x1 at time t1, then you have a speed of v(t1), alternatively you can use the kinetic energy formula to find the speed at height x1. They should be the same.

 

[Gravy]

oh btw someone mentioned Gravy's guide, is that the loosechangeguide, I've read it, still have some points of course but will re-read it.

Thanks for reading it. There will be a new version out in a few days with twice as much information.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Uh, ................ I ask for accountability and I get the above. Reason not available, hmm, ........... must be OUT TO LUNCH! The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.


Try some emotional reasoning.


Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures. A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures. Your lack of acceptance will cause your mis decision and demise for those you love in all ways in your failure to use truth.

Mankind did not find its way down the better path it has walked at times and in ways by using your gifts of communication that you use in the ways you are now using them.

Knowledge and power serve love, because love protects life.







Dumbsh#ts.

Whattsa' matta w'dat? Are your children going to complain?

(when the bong hits wear off, this is going to sound really stupid when you read it back to yourself)

 

[Architect]

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.

1. What made you think that they analytically planned to collapse it they way they did? Do not confuse happy (for them) chance with a deliberate plan.

2. They weren't plastic knives, Einsteen, and well you know it. The reports just said knives, American security sources said "boxcutters", however "boxcutters" are better known to the rest of the world as Stanley knives and have a whole track record in serious attacks in my country.