It's called religion!
Loose Change - Part IV
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
- Status
It's called religion!
MarkyX
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,157
Mancman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
One at a time? What on earth are you on about. Fire doesn't discriminate.
Fires, why not take a look at this NIST fire map, showing where fire was observed between impact and collapse in WTC1:
That looks tremendous to me. Floors 98,97 and 96 in particular appear fully engulfed.
I don't see that in the videos. For example, this one: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=south+tower
You can see the eastern wall is already bowing inward. Some small pieces of debris fall, and then the wall buckles inward, leading to the global failure. No signs of anything explosive occuring before that event.
They explain it with physics. Quick physics recap: when an object begins to fall, it's potential energy becomes kinetic energy. A dynamic load exerts many times more force than a static one. Once the tops of those towers began to move, nothing could stop them.
Gaping holes:
The foundation of the building is irrelevant.
Last edited:
I've always wondered how many of the victims' family members believe in the inside job BS. I have heard many figures thrown around, ranging from some, a lot, to nearly all.
I think I remember Dylan saying that thousands of victims' family members are crying out of 9/11 truth on an update on the LC site. Does anyone know how many family members believe it was an inside job?
I posted this in another thread, but here is some stuff from UL about the tests too:
http://www.ul.com/regulators/WTC.pdf
From what I know of people on the LC site I would get a firm definition of family member. They're likely to count 3rd cousins twice removed.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
What, exactly, is your definitiion of a "tremendous fire?"
An office fire can't buckle huge, steel, fire-protected columns and beams? This is WTC 5, not hit by plane, office materials fire only. Note that this is on floor 8 out of 9: it doesn't have 100-200 million pounds of weight above it, as the damaged portions of the towers did.
Ahem. The buildings did not stand for many years with severe strucrual damage to several floors. Please present your math that shows that the damaged towers should have withstood the live loads they were subjected to on 9/11.
I'm no profesional, but the strength and compression of the top portion of the towers are hardly relevant once they're set in motion. The sudden dynamic loading caused by their millions of pounds of mass is.
Wrong. The damage to the buildings was dissimilar, as evidenced by where they were hit, how fast they were hit, and the inverse order in which they collapsed. The reasons for their collapses may have been dissimilar. Read the NIST report.
Wrong. While I don't know of any clear photos of the huge damage to the center of the south face, because the volume of smoke blots most of that face out, there are photos of severe structural damage to the southwest corner, and damage below the center of the south parapet. There are also photos of ejected debris in front of, and behind, WTC 7 from the collapse of the towers. These give a sense of the force of the impact WTC 7 was subjected to.
Directly in front of WTC 7
Behind WTC 7 (it's at left), about 600 feet from WTC 1
South face damage
Southwest corner damage
Behind WTC 7 (it's at left), about 600 feet from WTC 1
South face damage
Southwest corner damage
And please see my post today which refutes a claim that demo charges were used on WTC 7 perimeter columns. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1858713&postcount=125
Awesome, nonexistent, steel, concrete, gypsum, glass, aluminum.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
You know, I love this. I get a good chuckle every time I see it. It just shows how little these "truthers" actually care about truth, as known of them have stopped for 5 minutes to think about the relevent physics or consider, well, the basics of structures.
They seem to be under the impression that the taller/larger a building is, the stronger it is. You know, the WTC was soooo tall and big, it would be hard to crush.
Well, reality bites 'em in the a$$. The taller a building is, the weaker it is. It's hard to make tall buildings, and make them so they'll keep standing up. There's a reason that skyscrapers are huge undertakings, and more expensive than (for example) a group of smaller buildings with an identical floor space.
That "top part of the building" only had to have the energy to take out one floor. More floors below that don't make it harder to go trhough, because one floor does not support the next. If the top section had enough energy to break the core colums, then the floors don't matter. Take out the core columns and all of it fails. And when it hits that first floor, that floor isn't getting help from other floors. That single floor has to hold up the entire weight of the section impacting it, as a live load. That's about 20 to 100 times the max load it was designed to withstand. The extra floors below this don't add any strength...the core columns have to support this weight as well.
The placement, position, and motion of weight makes a huge difference. Find a 2x4. Set it up across a couple cinder blocks. Carefully lay across the 2x4. Chances are, it'll hold you up. Know, instead of laying on it, still, with your weight spread out, jump on the center of it. It'll break. But the weight weas the same...the same weight it was supporting a minute before, right?
It's just a simple, ignorant idea, somthing I'd expect my 4 year old to come up with.
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
causality and the CT'er
Ah, yes
"Thunder. Lightning. Isn't it amazing how they always seem to be together?"
Smoke and Fire. Debris and collapse.
sigh. Do we surrender to insolent ignorance now, or fight on?
Ah, yes
"Thunder. Lightning. Isn't it amazing how they always seem to be together?"
Smoke and Fire. Debris and collapse.
sigh. Do we surrender to insolent ignorance now, or fight on?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Submersible,
I think I understand some of your confusion. You are interpreting the raw data incorrectly. The moment that the floors "explode" is well after collapse has started. Note the "explosion" (as you call it) occurs at the first intact floor below impact.
Before this happened, all of the impacted floors had to collapse. You had a section - 4 or 5 floors, or whatever, with catastrophic damage. In photos you can see the floors sagging significantly. Remember in WTC the floor trusses were what kept the building rigid - lose the floors, and you're in trouble.
The face of the building gets pulled in across the entire impact area. Like stretching a rubberband, eventually the face will reach a critical point where it is no longer capable of maintaining the forces acting on it.
At that point the entire wall of the impact zone will fail at once. Bear in mind the exterior columns carried much of the weight. According to the NYPD Aviaiton Units, the core columns in the impact zone were "glowing red hot" 20 minutes before collapse.
As soon as those outer walls gave way, the entire top section would free-fall through the 4 or 5 or so destroyed floors with virtually no resistance.
Bear in mind, from video footage, it is hard to detect this stage of the collapse. It is only after the top section has smashed through the collapsing impact zone and comes into contact with the first INTACT floor that the "explosion" occur.
Consider... how much PE does the top floors of the building have? I am sure you can do the simple math to calculate what speed this section was at after having fallen through the collapsed floors offering no resistence.
From this you can calculate the amount of force acting on the first intact floor.
But for the sake of simplicity, I'll tell you now (because I've seen the calculations) the force was absolutely massive. The force was much higher than the first intact floor could handle. It, also, collapsed. The next floor down had to deal with MORE mass travelling FASTER. That means MORE force. If the first intact floor could not hold, there was no way the second could.
And then to the third, and so on. As the mass descended down, it grew in weight and grew in velocity, making it more difficult for each floor to resist than the ones before it.
-Andrew
I think I understand some of your confusion. You are interpreting the raw data incorrectly. The moment that the floors "explode" is well after collapse has started. Note the "explosion" (as you call it) occurs at the first intact floor below impact.
Before this happened, all of the impacted floors had to collapse. You had a section - 4 or 5 floors, or whatever, with catastrophic damage. In photos you can see the floors sagging significantly. Remember in WTC the floor trusses were what kept the building rigid - lose the floors, and you're in trouble.
The face of the building gets pulled in across the entire impact area. Like stretching a rubberband, eventually the face will reach a critical point where it is no longer capable of maintaining the forces acting on it.
At that point the entire wall of the impact zone will fail at once. Bear in mind the exterior columns carried much of the weight. According to the NYPD Aviaiton Units, the core columns in the impact zone were "glowing red hot" 20 minutes before collapse.
As soon as those outer walls gave way, the entire top section would free-fall through the 4 or 5 or so destroyed floors with virtually no resistance.
Bear in mind, from video footage, it is hard to detect this stage of the collapse. It is only after the top section has smashed through the collapsing impact zone and comes into contact with the first INTACT floor that the "explosion" occur.
Consider... how much PE does the top floors of the building have? I am sure you can do the simple math to calculate what speed this section was at after having fallen through the collapsed floors offering no resistence.
From this you can calculate the amount of force acting on the first intact floor.
But for the sake of simplicity, I'll tell you now (because I've seen the calculations) the force was absolutely massive. The force was much higher than the first intact floor could handle. It, also, collapsed. The next floor down had to deal with MORE mass travelling FASTER. That means MORE force. If the first intact floor could not hold, there was no way the second could.
And then to the third, and so on. As the mass descended down, it grew in weight and grew in velocity, making it more difficult for each floor to resist than the ones before it.
-Andrew
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
The 9/11 Deniers are Marxists.
Groucho Marx, in one of his movies: "Why, a four year-old child could understand this report! (Aside to his assistant) Run out and find me a four year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it!"
Some of the design criteria used for the World Trade Center is in the NIST report. All of the design criteria can be obtained from the building code in affect at the time as the WTC met all those codes (exceeded them in many cases.)
The biggest dead load + live load (they do design for some live load. the live load is people moving about) I could find was for WTC 7 on the substation floor 1. It was designed for 525 pounds per sq. ft. All the others are considerably less, in the neighborhood of 250 pounds per sq. ft.
It's pretty easy to keep something still. It's pretty hard to stop it once it starts moving. (and now every structural engineer in the world is going to be banging on my door for belittling their speciality....)
Excellent post.
One other interesting thing I would like to add is from this photo.
Note the detached perimeter columns sticking out
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_0.html
That upper gash pic also travels down at least 17 floors.
If you download wtc_plusrubble.mov here: http://thewebfairy.com/911/7/
If you watch carefully you can see some of it.
One other interesting thing I would like to add is from this photo.
Note the detached perimeter columns sticking out
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_0.html
That upper gash pic also travels down at least 17 floors.
If you download wtc_plusrubble.mov here: http://thewebfairy.com/911/7/
If you watch carefully you can see some of it.
Last edited:
SRW
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 2,903
One thing that kills me about compareing wt7 to a controlled demolition is the "squibs" when ever you see a controlled demo you hear the cutting charges going off, popping sounds that sound like firecracker's, then you see cutting charges on the exterior of the building, and finally during the collapse you see compressed air and stuff fly out the windows. WT-7 you hear nothing and see nothing until the building starts to fall then you see the same compression blowing out the windows. And the druthers yell see squips!!! Were all druthers standing under the buildings while bricks where falling?
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&q=landmarkhttp://video.google.nl/videoplay?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958
Amd don't forget the nice clean pile it left, not touching the other nearby buildings.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10104
Last edited:
C'est la vie
SRW
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 2,903
So do you have a better understanding how little you can tell from a film especially if you do not have the proper back ground to do the Analise's>?
- Status