Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[beachnut]

...
Fire weakening steel: Kerosine fires in real world conditions or dirty burns such as 911 produce temperatures not exceeding 700F, no way near enough to weaken structural steel designed to resist 5 times their weight, especially when combined with the fact that steel has a high thermal conductivity and would draw heat away rapidly. Also the fact that the aluminium cladding was not even deformed proves the fires were not hot enough. ...

Office fires burn at 1400F so you are double wrong because steel looses strength when heated. Go get some education instead of spreading delusions.

You have delusions, next time bring some facts, you failed to get the temperature of an office fire correct. When is the last time you saw a building with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel set on fire on multiple floors? Never, you can't do the engineering so you let idiots do it for you and you spew moronic ideas on 911. The neat part, when you finally start thinking for yourself you will stop posting lies from other people who are doing your thinking for you now. You are like a cult member regurgitating the standard lies out of ignorance.

An ordinary office fire destroyed this building, after the fire this high-rise was not strong enough to remain in service! High-rise destroyed by fire and you have no clue!

...
Speed of collapse: The collapses themselves violate the law of conservation of momentum. There is no way that all the solid structural steel columns and supports, especially all the ones below the impacts unaffected by fire would offer no resistance to produce near freefall speed without demolition. The official pancaking story has been abandoned as it obviously attempts to treat the collapse as a floor by floor scenario when the load bearing distribution obviously involves the entire frame. The steel structures are built to withstand 5 times the load above them, the minimal kinetic energy acquired by a floor failing(of which there is no logical reason anyway) would not come close to approaching the load bearing limit. Any impact tremors from collapse are distributed throughout the frame and would be inconsequential. ...

Momentum? Looks like you failed your basic physics. The WTC towers came down exactly the speed momentum model predict! If you could do math and physics you would not make the dumbest insane statement like "violated the law of conservation of momentum". Dumbest statement proves you have no clue about physics or 911. You repeat the lies accepted by you due to your complete ignorance on physics and 911 issues. You are falling for the insane delusions of few fringe conspiracy theorist who make up lies about 911.

wrong, they don't reach those temperatures unless there's a powerful accelerant involved. No modern steel structured building has ever collapsed from fires. They never reach that temperature. Could you please provide details on the building in the photograph or links to provide proof?

Here is a modern structure burned in a fire and the steel structured part completely collapsed the section below the collapse was reachable by the firemen shooting water on the blaze. The WTC fires were massive and hot enough to weaken the WTC. This is why there is fire proofing, insulation on steel because it fails in fire! The top of this building only remains because the core was encased in concrete. The WTC had no concrete covering the steel.

The steel only section fell down where the fire was not fought, the entire building too weak to use, it was totaled by fire. The WTC towers and WTC7 fires were not fought, the buildings were steel structures.

You have made a mistake and forgot to find your own facts and evidence. You have zero evidence to support your delusions on 911 and lack the capability to understand the physics and structural engineering which you have mangled beyond recognition.

Stop believing what you google on 911 and try using knowledge, sound judgment, and logic.
When you say free-fall you prove you can't do physics.

 

[lapman]

aah yes, the old shill tactic appeal to authority. The physics are simple and equations are not needed if it can be expalined in layman's terms. If I saw a man decapitated in a train accident would I need a Medical degree to ascertain if he's dead? The evidence is very basic and intuitively obvious.

this is a typical twoofer tactic to divert from the fact that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Separating your head from your heart does not require a calculation to assertain that the heart well stop. Everyone is taught this. However, saying that a floor designed to hold a 5000 ton static load can withstand 25000 tons being dropped on it would require calculations since this is not taught to 100% of everyone in school. So, your calculations please.

 

[funk de fino]

Because it's a propaganda piece, and untrue. Also even IF (it didn't) but even IF the fire burned hot enough to weaken steel the initiated collapse of the top section would not be enough to smash through the intact, unweakened steel floors below built to withstand 5 times the static load above, certainly not at that speed.

You are lying. I have shown you that fires reach temps of around 1100 deg C. I have shown you a steel frame building that collapsed due to those type of fires. You ran away.

 

[WildCat]

The physics are simple and equations are not needed if it can be expalined in layman's terms.

This reminds me of Ranke's "My see-saw analogy makes the need for calculations moot".

 

[Crazytimes]

Saber, can you please try reading all of these posts ? You seem to be missing or ignoring some of the posts refuting your irrefutable facts.

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Is this your answer? Five times, it own weight? I take you do understand the differance between static and dynamic, right?

Maybe it is time for you to run away and do some more google investigations.

Yes I do, do you realise what the law of conservation of momentum is don't you? An object's gravitational potential is conserved in it's transformation into kinetic energy under the force of gravity, but upon meeting resistance in the form of the solid steel columns and supports of the rest of the building would transfer most or all of the kinetic energy back to gravitational potential and thus would be incapable of attaining the fast collapse speed, especially initially.

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Then you should have no problem providing a video of a CD that was done before or since 9/11 that backs your claim. In the one I posted, the first set of explosions were the cutter charges, The second set of explosions pushes the columns in the direction the engineers want them to go. Again, the onus on you is to prove that the sound of explosives would not be recorded by every audio recording device in the area.

not really, the onus is on you to refute the violation of the law of conservation of momentum and the symmetric collapse, especially with regard to WTC7

 

[beachnut]

... The physics are simple and equations are not needed if it can be expalined in layman's terms. ...

Then show us the calculations, the simple calculations to go with your failed moronic ideas on 911. Simple? Show me!

The only thing here that is simple to see is your complete ignorance and inability to think for yourself on 911. I just explained that in layperson terms. Prove me wrong, show us the simple calculations you have proving the WTC towers fell due to CD. You said they are simple, show us your work.

You will not show anything, no evidence, no calculations because you and the liars you got the lies from can't do it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

aah yes, the old shill tactic appeal to authority. The physics are simple and equations are not needed if it can be expalined in layman's terms. If I saw a man decapitated in a train accident would I need a Medical degree to ascertain if he's dead? The evidence is very basic and intuitively obvious.

You're claiming that it's intuitively obvious that the collapses violated the law of conservation of momentum, then. Please present your intuitively obvious reasoning that led you to this conclusion. Note that the collapses took significantly longer (in the range 12-16 seconds) than a freefall collapse (about 9 seconds), so we're looking for an intuitively obvious reason why the law of conservation of momentum predicts a 3-7 second slowing of the collapse times. I've yet to see one, but you may be the first.

Dave

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Can you see it ?

please elaborate

 

[dtugg]

Twoofer, it's up to you to prove, with math, that the law of conservation of momentum was violated. You, of course, cannot do this, even if you knew how to do the math, which you don't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes I do, do you realise what the law of conservation of momentum is don't you? An object's gravitational potential is conserved in it's transformation into kinetic energy under the force of gravity, but upon meeting resistance in the form of the solid steel columns and supports of the rest of the building would transfer most or all of the kinetic energy back to gravitational potential and thus would be incapable of attaining the fast collapse speed, especially initially.

How fast did it collapse, how fast should it have collapsed, and why are these speeds intuitively obvious?

Dave

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Saber, can you please try reading all of these posts ? You seem to be missing or ignoring some of the posts refuting your irrefutable facts.

easy tigers! I can only read and answer one at a time and I'm getting a barrage

 

[Dave Rogers]

not really, the onus is on you to refute the violation of the law of conservation of momentum and the symmetric collapse, especially with regard to WTC7

None of the collapses were symmetric, and your claim of violation of conservation of momentum is currently an example of the bare assertion fallacy. I repeat, I have personally calculated the momentum transfers in the collapse, and found that the law of conservation of momentum is not violated. Therefore, without evidence from you, I reject your unsupported assertion.

Dave

 

[Crazytimes]

easy tigers! I can only read and answer one at a time and I'm getting a barrage

Great, start with office fires being between 1100 and 1400 degrees and you keep ignoring that and talking about how hot kerosene burns. You must have missed the Natgeo special where jet fuel burned over 2000 degrees.

 

[Dave Rogers]

easy tigers! I can only read and answer one at a time and I'm getting a barrage

Then let me suggest you stop posting answers until you've read all the posts. Is that really too difficult?

Dave

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

this is a typical twoofer tactic to divert from the fact that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Separating your head from your heart does not require a calculation to assertain that the heart well stop. Everyone is taught this. However, saying that a floor designed to hold a 5000 ton static load can withstand 25000 tons being dropped on it would require calculations since this is not taught to 100% of everyone in school. So, your calculations please.

Number one 25000 tons is ridiculous, the kinetic energy was minimal as it collapsed from almost zero height or the height of a floor and would not multiply the building's mass by a factor of 25!!!! i.e. designed to hold 5 ton static load which is 5 times the load it actually supports, so it's 1000 tonnes times 25? That's wrong. Also the pancaking theory has been debunked, you cannot treat it floor by floor as the entire lower section has distributed load bearing

 

[beachnut]

Yes I do, do you realise what the law of conservation of momentum is don't you? An object's gravitational potential is conserved in it's transformation into kinetic energy under the force of gravity, but upon meeting resistance in the form of the solid steel columns and supports of the rest of the building would transfer most or all of the kinetic energy back to gravitational potential and thus would be incapable of attaining the fast collapse speed, especially initially.

Had to preserve this for a physics teacher to see; since you have never seen a physics teacher teach physics. Take this statement to your nearest physics teacher and tell her, or him, your ideas on 911. Too chicken?

Maybe I am wrong, show us your work. The equations you used. The numbers.

Why do you get 12.08 seconds if you do the momentum calculations for the collapse of the WTC using the top 12 floors? You failed to do the work. You failed to present but your own special physics, your own common sense approach that brings up the physics observation on your own failure.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. ...Einstein

This is the only relation you have with physics, being identified by Einstein.

 

[Myriad]

In all the vintage 2006-era discussions of the "speed of collapse violates conservation of momentum" issue, was it ever pointed out that demolition explosions would not affect the overall momentum of the system? So that, if a top-down collapse taking X number seconds were impossible without explosives, it would also be impossible with explosives?

The exception would be, if the explosives propelled a large mass of debris rapidly in the opposite direction -- which, to accelerate the downward collapse, would require propelling debris upward. But no significant mass being propelled rapidly upward was observed.

This shows, in layman's terms and with no calculations required, the intuitively obvious fact that conservation of momentum arguments cannot provide evidence for explosive demolition nor any other demolition device. The only logically consistent conclusions are then that either conservation of momentum was not actually violated, or that the collapses were impossible by any means whatsoever within the known laws of physics.

Pick one:

- The collapses did not violate conservation of momentum.
- The collapses happened as they did because of phenomena unknown to science, e.g. magic.
- The collapses did not happen.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[lapman]

not really, the onus is on you to refute the violation of the law of conservation of momentum and the symmetric collapse, especially with regard to WTC7

No, the onus is on you to prove that the collapse violates this. You are the one making the claim. You have to back it up. Oh, WTC 7 wasn't a symmetrical collapse. It went from the inside out starting with the collapse of the east pentouse 8 second before the peremeter walls collapsed. The asymmetrical location of the kink in the building also proves you wrong.