Split Thread NIST did not utilize the scientific method?

[david.watts]

Upper block does tilt. Once it begins falling though, any angulkar momentum must transfer to a rotation about its center of mass.

It never does move more than a few degrees and thus its center of mass was always over the lower block meaning most of its mass would have to impact the lower block.

There is never any acelleration vector moving the upper block to the side!

Thank you. Somebody finally gave me a reasonable answer.

 

[NoahFence]

Thank you. Somebody finally gave me a reasonable answer.

So now you're convinced there was no controlled demolition at the WTC site, the Pentagon and you're prepared to acknowledge Shanksville?


A simple yes or no please.

 

[david.watts]

Is it alright if I ask an honest, reasonable question even though we disagree on just about everything? A question that does not have an embedded nefarious motive other than simply wanting to be given an honest answer? Is that allowed? Or is it standard here that all truther questions are to be to be ridiculed?

Of course asking a question about whether or not I can ask a question might have questionable motives that you question.

 

[david.watts]

NoahFence: So now you're convinced there was no controlled demolition at the WTC site, the Pentagon and you're prepared to acknowledge Shanksville?
A simple yes or no please.


I have never beaten my wife but I did stop beating her the day after 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

Is it alright if I ask an honest, reasonable question even though we disagree on just about everything? A question that does not have an embedded nefarious motive other than simply wanting to be given an honest answer? Is that allowed? Or is it standard here that all truther questions are to be to be ridiculed?

Of course asking a question about whether or not I can ask a question might have questionable motives that you question.

You mean like the lie of CD, based on nothing but guesses and phony physics? What was the tilt angle, and rate of rotation? I see you used free-fall for the towers 5 years ago, does that stand?

What is next for the free-fall thread where you agree free-fall does not mean CD. You mentioned explosions, but never sourced the evidence you have, do you mean this kind of evidence?

16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

No luck with free fall, but is this your evidence for explosives?

 

[ozeco41]

...I am sure you can help me:

Yes I'm sure I can.

There are several ways of doing it. You prefer to ask questions - I would prefer to come from a base of common understanding. However let me try it your way.

...One particular thing I asked:

"As the top of the building should have continued tilting, the force vector downward would increase with the acceleration of the top of the building, but would it not also move off to the side and not point directly down through the building?"

1. Do you understand what I am basically asking?...

YES - I am clear as to your question. Can I restate it without the force vector references. What you want to know is "Why wasn't there more tilt or more sideways movement or even toppling of the top block over the side?" Let me know if you are comfortable with that meanwhile let me continue.

... All of what I was asking was since the very large mass was tilting, and was no longer 100% over the center of the building below, was not the force vector also off center? I would think that would have to be the case. Again, I am probably not saying it very well, but do you not understand what I am getting at?

I understand your question and the basis of your excursion into physics.
The main reason is that the situation was a "race" between downwards vectors and sideways vectors. The downwards ones won the race. Let me explain why.

The collapses of both Twin Towers involved two key stages:
1) The "initiation" stage which extended from impact through fire build up and accumulation of more damage till the damaged "impact and fire zone" could no longer support the Top Block. The Top Block started to fall; AND
2) The "progression" stage of rapid global collapse.

The later parts of the "initiation" stage is where "sideways" lost the race with "downwards". This is why:

"Initiation" was a "cascade" failure - somewhat similar to toppling a line of dominoes but in 3D and several grades more complicated. Still the principle is the same "one thing leads to another". As each column fails the load it was carrying has to go somewhere so it goes to other columns. Which then are overloaded and fail in their turn which transfers more load....you will get the process.

And it was the failure of the columns which caused BOTH "Tilt" and "Drop"

It causes "Tilt" because as the columns fail in sequence inevitably more will fail on one side and less on the other. So the Top Block tilts to the side with more failed columns.

It also causes "Drop" because it reaches the stage where there are not enough columns left to hold up the top block and that top block falls. Those columns that were still carrying load very quickly fail as the top block descends.

So your two vectors are caused by the same mechanism. Why does "Drop" win the race?

We need to think more about tilt. It occurs because more columns have failed on the "low" side. But for tilt to occur there has to be a pivot or fulcrum. The low side drops because the block tilts over those columns which are still holding it up.

For WTC almost certainly the "pivot" would be some central core columns after either perimeter columns OR outer core columns have failed. The failed columns drop that side of the block - the still holding columns provide the pivot.

Whilst ever the core columns are supporting the top block from falling they are also acting as pivot for tilt.

As soon as more columns fail allowing the top block to fall the pivot for tilting disappears.

The force vectors at that point are overwhelmingly vertical down. There is no significant force or momentum available to increase tilt. Therefore no more tilt or toppling.

Downwards motion accelerates rapidly and wins the race against any remnant toppling momentum.

Any bits you want further clarification - ask away.

And BTW all of that reasoning is neutral to whether or not there was CD.

 

[ozeco41]

NoahFence: So now you're convinced there was no controlled demolition at the WTC site, the Pentagon and you're prepared to acknowledge Shanksville?
A simple yes or no please.


I have never beaten my wife but I did stop beating her the day after 9/11.

 

[david.watts]

16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden


Why did you cite so few examples? There are so very many more of these absolutely ridiculous claims!!!

 

[david.watts]

ozeco, Another very reasonable reply. Thank you.

 

[ozeco41]

Upper block does tilt. Once it begins falling though, any angulkar momentum must transfer to a rotation about its center of mass.

It never does move more than a few degrees and thus its center of mass was always over the lower block meaning most of its mass would have to impact the lower block.

There is never any acelleration vector moving the upper block to the side!

Additionally the rotation would be limited by the fact that the upper block columns are immediately spearing down into the lower block floors and being eroded as it impacts the bottom of the upper block thus moving the center of mass upward.

Good summaries.

 

[ozeco41]

ozeco, Another very reasonable reply. Thank you.

No problem.

 

[beachnut]

16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden


Why did you cite so few examples? There are so very many more of these absolutely ridiculous claims!!!

Are those good examples of what you are talking about? Evidence for explosives? A simple answer, like yes, no.

 

[Robrob]

16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Why did you cite so few examples? There are so very many more of these absolutely ridiculous claims!!!

Two 110 story skyscrapers collapsed. And how would you have described what would have undoubtably been the loudest earth shaking noise you'd ever heard?

BTW, an M-80 firecracker? That's your idea of "evidence" for controlled demolitions!?

 

[david.watts]

This is an honest post. Honest replies only please.

I asked this question previously. Nobody attempted to give me an answer.

It is a genuinely honest and simply inquisitive question. I know this must have been discussed here previously but I was not a participant. I think that at the very least it is curious and suspicious. Is that unreasonable? Do you simply accept it as not unusual or do you agree that it deserves an explanation?

Is your answer simple and straight forward or is it more complicated? You know what my thinking is. Because it IS curious, at least to me, I am curious about how it can be explained. Is it ok to be curious?

My question:

What is the explanation for the very high temperatures at ground zero, including beneath WTC7, that lasted for a very long time?

I do not know how this has been dealt with previously here at JREF. I am simply curious.

Thank you.

 

[DGM]

By the way, I had been meaning to ask this question: How do you at JREF explain the very high temperatures at ground zero, including beneath WTC7, that lasted for a very long time? Can it be reasonably explained?

Lots of fuel and an adequate supply of oxygen. What do you think would cause it?

 

[beachnut]

This is an honest post. Honest replies only please.

I asked this question previously. Nobody attempted to give me an answer.

It is a genuinely honest and simply inquisitive question. I know this must have been discussed here previously but I was not a participant. I think that at the very least it is curious and suspicious. Is that unreasonable? Do you simply accept it as not unusual or do you agree that it deserves an explanation?

Is your answer simple and straight forward or is it more complicated? You know what my thinking is. Because it IS curious, at least to me, I am curious about how it can be explained. Is it ok to be curious?

My question:

What is the explanation for the very high temperatures at ground zero, including beneath WTC7, that lasted for a very long time?

I do not know how this has been dealt with previously here at JREF. I am simply curious.

Thank you.

220 acres of office space burning. aka fires.

Easy stuff. The temperatures were exactly what a fallen building would be, not hot enough to melt steel.

What temperature do you you have? Another number, darn, the math comes to ruin the fantasy of melted steel. Reality hits.

Now about the explosions heard; is that you evidence for explosives? Yes, no, can't answer because you are 911 truth, and you don't do answers?

The 16 people? Evidence for explosives, or what?

 

[david.watts]

Lots of fuel and an adequate supply of oxygen. What do you think would cause it?

The question regarded WTC7. Do you believe that there was in fact "lots of fuel" below where WTC7 stood?

 

[beachnut]

The question regarded WTC7. Do you believe that there was in fact "lots of fuel" below where WTC7 stood?

What are you talking about? 47 floors of office space collapsed, the fuel is paper, etc, which all has more heat energy than thermite which burns out in seconds or minutes, and more than explosives which burn out in parts of a second. Kind of makes 911 truth look silly.

Cars? Is there a car park under WTC 7? The building collapsed on fire, and until the stuff was cleaned up, fires would burn until the fuel was gone. Thermite last seconds and was not found, explosive burn up in less than a second and were not found. No evidence for explosives, thermite or nukes. Lots of evidence of office stuff. BINGO

How about the explosives evidence, can you use the 16 for your evidence of explosives? Yes, no, or you don't do answers? Just woo?http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html'

WTC 7 was below where 7 stood after it collapsed. What fires were below 7? Do you have photos? Diagrams? Stories?

 

[Robrob]

I could be wrong but I don't remember hearing anything about "fires under WTC7." Could you post a link?

 

[jaydeehess]

Lots of fuel, air supply that would be preheated as it passed through upper layers, and importantly, the insulation factor. An insulating fire can build up heat, and thus temperature, since it looses heat slower.