911 WTC collapse (only!)

Regarding the collapse time, my simplified energy argument shows why times sub-20 seconds or so are expected no matter what.

Dr. Greening's original whitepaper explains the timing in more detail and predicts the collapse times to high accuracy.

Dr. Bazant et. al. have a new paper, submitted for peer review (the real kind), that calculates several features of the collapse.

If you want to understand what NIST really said, you can go straight to the source: NIST Final Report At a minimum you should read the overview NIST NCSTAR1 report, which should take you no more than a few evenings. The statement you seem to have heard describing the NIST report from your original post is wildly incorrect.
 
JJM 777 said:
This is an excellent example of what I was looking for by starting this thread: "they" say that a domino collapse would have taken considerably more time than what happened, "you" say that the timing was perfectly natural for a gravity collapse.

I am looking for facts:
- how many seconds did the collapse take ("they" say that it was free falling speed -- true or false)?
- how many seconds would a typical domino collapse take?
- how many seconds would a typical controlled demolition take?
- what happens to the steel core of the building - the vertical steel pillars?


Several people have been quoted describing "pops" and "blasts" and "explosions". I would ignore these details at this point, and focus on the physical nature of the collapse only.


I am (still) trying to keep CIA and AQ out of this thread, but please consider the validity of your statement: Al Qaeda is not allowed to operate in USA either. It is waste of time to mention any names here, it leads nowhere.
Click to expand...
Yes the best way is for you to figure it out. I am telling you the 9/11 truth movement, the entire movement has no facts or evidence to support the crazy stuff you posted. I am telling you have to figure it out yourself. I did the math, what you saw on 9/11 was how long it took. There were no explosives in the WTC because there were no explosions of explosives. Yes there were people hitting the ground making pops, there were things that made loud noises, the floor hitting each other at 100 to 200 mph would make a loud bang. But no explosives were set by anyone to bring down the WTC.

The physics, energy, and math I did gave me about 20 percent more time than if it fell in a vacuum from 1300 feet. If you do not understand collision you will not understand it. But when top fell on the lower section as parts failed they essential instantaneously were at the new speed base on lost energy to cause failure and the new mass all based on momentum. It is hard but since the mass above was moving and cause the lower section to fail, that failure can be treated as instantaneously, or modeling, and the velocity of the fall continues to accelerate based on momentum minus the energy used to cause collapse. I find that the WTC fell as it should with no help from idiot ideas of explosives. If you can not figure it out go to a physics teacher and get some education.

This paper explains what I am trying to say, http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf , and there are many independent papers that support reality.


CIA not, UBL yes. Next. If you do not want to talk about CIA or UBL, do not metion it.
 
JJM 777 said:
<snip>
Several people have been quoted describing "pops" and "blasts" and "explosions". I would ignore these details at this point, and focus on the physical nature of the collapse only.
<snip>
Click to expand...
Excellent choice to do so, as it is poor evidence:
Explosives, explosions, and loud noises: A Rant

Executive Summary
The use of "explosive" and "explosion" interchangeably in discussion is erroneous; and the use of "explosions" as evidence of "explosives" is fundamentally flawed.

Loud Noises (aka bangs, booms, cracks, explosions (heard but not seen) etc)
Q. What are loud noises?
A. Within the context of this post I will be defining loud noises as "Sound or a sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/noise (def. #1)

Explosions
Q. What are explosions?
A. Wikipedia defines ExplosionsWP as "a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in a violent manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion causes pressure waves in the local medium in which it occurs. Explosions are categorized as deflagrations if these waves are subsonic and detonations if they are supersonic (shock waves)."

Q. What are causes of explosions?
A. The Wikipedia article on ExplosionsWP lists a number of causes of explosions:
  • Chemical explosions
  • Nuclear explosions
  • Steam boiler explosions
  • Electrical explosions
  • Volcanic explosions
  • Astronomical event explosions and
  • Exploding animals
Explosives
Q. What are explosives?
A. Wikipedia defines ExplosivesWP as "a material that either is chemically or otherwise energetically unstable or produces a sudden expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion."

The Logic
Argument 1
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: An explosive is detonated;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true by definition of what an explosive does and is included in the definition of things that can cause explosions.
This is known as affirming the antecedent and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 2
P1: If there is an explosion, then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, it was heard as a loud noise.

This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true as, by definition, explosions create shock-waves. The shock-waves are heard and meet the criteria of being a loud noise.
This is known as affirming the antecedent and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 3
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Therefore, we would have to be able to say:
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: Only explosions can cause loud noises;
P3: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is clearly an untenable argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 4
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.

This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

This requirement means that for proponent of CD in the WTC to claim that witness reports of explosions are evidence of the use of explosives the following must be true:
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: Only explosives can cause explosions;
P3: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.

This clearly runs counter to the definition of what an explosion is, and is shown to not be true by the examples cited for causes of explosions that do not fall in to the category of explosives. Therefore, this is also an untenable argument.

What does this mean for discussion?
It means that...
  • ... if a witness reported hearing a loud noise and called it an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosion
  • ... if a witness reported seeing an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosive
  • ... the term "explosion" and "explosive" can not be used interchangeably
 
JJM 777 said:
Several people have been quoted describing "pops" and "blasts" and "explosions".
Click to expand...

In NIST's own experiments in which floor trusses were exposed to fires, they list numerous "reports", some of which described as "very loud". Most of these reports were determined to be concrete "exploding" from the extreme heat it encountered during the fires.
 
From the 9/11 Commission Report, page 306:

"When the South Tower collapsed, firefighters on upper floors of the North Tower heard a violent roar, and many were knocked off their feet......
(of) those firefighters not standing near windows facing south... many surmised that a bomb had exploded..."
 
Apollo20 said:
From the 9/11 Commission Report, page 306:

"When the South Tower collapsed, firefighters on upper floors of the North Tower heard a violent roar, and many were knocked off their feet......
(of) those firefighters not standing near windows facing south... many surmised that a bomb had exploded..."
Click to expand...


This is beneath you.


EDIT: Or, maybe it isn't.
 
Apollo20 said:
From the 9/11 Commission Report, page 306:

"When the South Tower collapsed, firefighters on upper floors of the North Tower heard a violent roar, and many were knocked off their feet......
(of) those firefighters not standing near windows facing south... many surmised that a bomb had exploded..."
Click to expand...

Excellent, and very relivent quote. I would SPECULATE, that the vast majority of witnesses, to audible "Explosions", were in fact witnessing, audibly, the collapse of the south tower, or the cumbustion of other, non "Explosive" materials.

TAM:)
 
David Wong said:
This is beneath you.


EDIT: Or, maybe it isn't.
Click to expand...
I believe you may have misinterpreted Apollo20 here. I read it as demonstrating that the collapse would have seemed like an explosion to someone not seeing it occur. I don't believe he's trying to say the collapse was caused by an explosion.

Am I correct?
 
JimBenArm:

Yes indeed!

After all, what I posted is a quote from The 9/11 Commission Report.

Ironically, to an "OCT" it is a perfectly ok thing to say,

but to a "Truther" it is proof that what the firefighters heard WAS a bomb!

Go figure....
 
Sorry, I can't keep track of which days Dr. Greening is being honest, and which days he's playing devil's advocate by accusing innocent people of mass murder.

I'll mark my calendar.
 
JJM 777 said:
This is an excellent example of what I was looking for by starting this thread. . .
Click to expand...

Big-ass red flag...

Another red flag is asking us to give the technical details of the collapse, rather than the various experts who were directly involved with the investigation (or at least reading the NIST report).

JJM's not interested in facts; he's just here to bait people.
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
JimBenArm:

Yes indeed!

After all, what I posted is a quote from The 9/11 Commission Report.

Ironically, to an "OCT" it is a perfectly ok thing to say,

but to a "Truther" it is proof that what the firefighters heard WAS a bomb!

Go figure....
Click to expand...

The difference is that supporters of the "OC" (sorry I think it's got enough legs to be beyond a theory) understand the meaning of simile and metaphore so when someone says "it sounded like a bomb", or "it was like a massive train rushing past" we don't instantly think that it was a bomb or a massive train.

Also as a friend on a different board is so keen on saying:

Conspiracy Theorists have already made up their minds what they want to believe. That means that they aren't looking for evidence, they are looking ammunition.

This if there is even the sniff of a "bomb", "explosion", "denotation" of anything else they can shoehorn into their theory, they jump on it and use it as if it was the smoking gun that will validate all their theories and turn them into the hero of the resistance

Because they want the gun so badly, they don't stop to evaluate the evidence in case it evapourates, and they refuse to let it go when it is shown to be dross because without it they have nothing. Unfortunately in the end they just end up deluding themselves.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
JJM's not interested in facts; he's just here to bait people.
Click to expand...

It's a strong possibility. It'd be in line with the Twoofers' MO. Post an innocuous OP, claiming not to know the subject very well, and ask a few relevant questions...

...then go on to show how belligerent and ignorant you are by showing your true twoof colours.

Act II coming soon ? We'll see.
 
Oh that you guys are soo skeptical today.

Facts never hurt, do they?
 
JJM 777 said:
Oh that you guys are soo skeptical today.

Facts never hurt, do they?
Click to expand...
No, they don't. Not that you've given us any.

From the way you duck facts when we give them to you, I'd have to assume you've got a really bad fact allergy.
 
The mark is growing stronger...wait for it...wait for it...lol

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom