Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Seymour Butz]

You appear to be answering a reply here that I made to another poster who made a simple statement about jet fuel burning temperature in open air without any argument or evidence. I said that the steel was reported molten weeks after 9/11, I did not claim that it was a "fact" that steel was molten.

So why are you asking others to explain the molten steel when YOU already know that it can't be substantiated?

 

[Furcifer]

That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, it's propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

Oh my, you're so smart. Thanks for the lesson. I suppose you can tell us all what the terminal velocity is for an 11 story building?

(crickets)

 

[alienentity]

AndrewIlluminatus - please eschew obfuscation. I particularly loved the 'Anyway, in short, when anybody starts saying that they are spouting "facts" about anything I tend to suspect that they have minds untrained to think philosophically about any extrinsic phenomena whatsoever.'

How's this for a simple fact, Andrew? WTC7 did NOT collapse in 6.5 seconds, as you stated. That's a fact. It is not up for debate.
As for the towers, you can view video evidence which shows them still collapsing after 13 seconds....hmmm. That's a fact as well. That's 2 for truth, 0 for you.
If you can't deal in facts, you have no business debating them. Stick to philosophy if you wish.

 

[alienentity]

No, floors and columns in part A are not falling. They are static Like the ground.

Only part C is falling incl. its columns and floors, if you believe the OTC. But if part C with 14 floors or so drops on part A only one C floor will contact part A. Guess which one!

Right! The one that A damages first.

BTW - that is the C floor that is supposed to crush down WTC 1.

etc..

Yes, we see that you don't understand the physics of the collapse. I think you've made that point about 1000x. Each time you repeat it, you refuse to learn from other, wiser people. Your loss, not mine.

You lose, Heiwa, you have failed.

 

[bill smith]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

 

[alienentity]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

Did you use your Ouija board or your crystal ball to gain those insights? LOL

 

[Seymour Butz]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

Really?

You were sure that the columns had to meet, but Heiwa showed you to be wrong.

Then you were sure that it takes magic to make the upper block to fit inside the lower block if it tilts, and then Heiwa shows you to wrong AND uneducated on this issue.

So that's 2 things that you were wrong about...... TODAY!!!

How can you know anything when it's been shown IN ONE DAY that even these simple concepts escape you?

 

[tsig]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

If you're calling people liars you had better be prepared to prove it.

 

[GlennB]

OK so when you conducted your experiments what temperature did you reach with jet fuel and did the temperature melt steel and keep it molten for weeks, as was reported at the WTC terrorist event?

How does this relate to your earlier - erroneous - claim about the maximum temperatures reached by hydrocarbon fires?

As a matter of interest - if you were correct we would not have progressed as far as the iron age. Our distant ancestors managed to smelt iron using hydrocarbon fires easily exceeding your "In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons, like jet-fuel, burning in air is 825°C (1520°F)"

House and office fires routinely reach 1000°C. You were wrong. No shame there unless you are determined to deny it.

 

[ozeco41]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

I cannot speak for others bill but as both civil and military engineer and able to follow a chain of logic I can readily observe an overall happening in this sase in structural failure. I can work down from that overall feature to separate it into major components and down to the minor.

Then I can see which bits will fit together and which bits won't.

If you have been following my posts you will have notices several clear indicators of that. When posting to Tony I gave an outline of the broad issues and reasons BUT numerous times indicated or hinted as to where I was simplifying. Ditto in posts for you and for Heiwa.

I am prepared at any time to walk through all my detailed reasoning with any one person and pace their understanding with my explanations.

In some posts I have made the bold assertion that there is only one place in the collapse where the use of thermate could fit the known evidence. I have acknowledged openly that it is the only place where my explanation relies on an "improbability" argument rather that explicit evidence of fact.

So you cannot be more open that that I suggest.

My explanation is "out there, open to correction" - not yet and may never end up fully documented on this forum but could if there was a serious offer of debate and the persistent climate of ad hom attacks and derailing ridicule could be held a little in abeyance.

Conversely I have never seen a coherent overall explanation of demolition from anyone on the "truther side"

On another forum I met one person prepared to test his explanation of how demolition could have been achieved - we discussed for weeks or longer. Eventually we were down to that one last issue where I rely on probability. He claimed victory and departed.

Now as anyone knows "you cannot prove it so GawdDidIt" is the classic creationists false dilemma...

So if anyone here wants to put there explanation of how demolition could have been achieved let him now speak or, else, henceforth forever hold his peace*

So it is not "....you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend..."

The situation is asymmetric. Quite a few on "our" side can fully justify the total explanation to the required standard of proof. I am one of those. And a lot more ride on the coattails of that few.

From "your" side I am not aware of a single truther who can explain how demolition could have been employed. Look at the "is it thermate" debate. Has anyone tried to suggest how thermate could have been used? In a mechanism which caused the collapse which actually happened?

I do not know evert 9/11 protagonist so there may be some out there. If so produce the link and I will see what I think.

Meanwhile decide whether you will play "The King Has no clothes" - I think he is naked.



*Cranmer, Archbishop. 1662 - in a slightly different context

 

[WildCat]

This was posted earlier but Heiwa seems to have missed it...

Heiwa? Care to explain how this could happen?

Maybe Bill could take a shot at it?

 

[FineWine]

Although the exact time of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 cannot be determined with precision because of the growing dust cloud, each collapse took approximately 10-12 seconds. NIST NCSTAR "Within 12s, the collapse of WTC1 had left nothing but rubble." Only 2 seconds slower than the time for a reasonably dense object that was not overly influenced by air buoyancy at 1.2kg/cubic metre (and air drag), to fall from the WTC roof to the plaza. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the former height of WTC1 or 2 (time would be about 9.2 seconds in a vacuum). That 12s represents extraordinarily insufficient resistance within the intact tower structure to have permitted the kind of impacts imagined to produce sequential kinetic energy impacts and kinetic energy explosions in a ripple down manner. The energy from gravity has to be used up and it cannot be expected to do two jobs at once. Either all the energy from gravity is used up to create imagined tonnes of TNT kinetic energy explosiveness in sequential one-off explosive ripple-down events or it is used up to get an already explosively disassembled (by other means) building to the ground in that sort of time frame.

Additionally it is clear from video of the WTC2 event that the top load tipped over to the East, so did not apply a symmetrical weight load to the tower below yet within about 2 seconds of the explosive collapse initiation, the top load was explosively disassembled in mid-air upwards. Moreover for the initial symmetrical explosive collapse process below the tipped over top, during the first few seconds the ripple down, explosive blow outs shot down the tower faster than the explosively ejected building material from the top could keep up. This means that in the initial stage of the "WTC2 collapse process" the symmetrical-ripple-down-explosiveness, purportedly from a top load exerting an asymmetrical weight load, since it had tipped over before it was explosively disassembled upwards, was faster than the time for a reasonably dense object to fall through air.

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Actually that is probably slightly too short a time period for the collapse to have been possible in air.

Considerable energy was used up in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejection of material (sometimes upwards) and much of the glass and concrete was pulverised and the ductile (not brittle) steelwork was shattered, twisted and mangled. The energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire towers had to give when converted to kinetic energy, via gravity as the energy input. So while gravity is strong enough to cause reasonably dense objects to fall that far, through air, that fast, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both simultaneously.

Why Did the WTC Towers fall, "fire and gravity" or something else?
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons, like jet-fuel, burning in air is 825°C (1520°F) but these perfect conditions were not reached in the burning towers before collapse. There is absolutely no reason in the Bush-Cheney-PNAC-FEMA "truss theory" why there should have been any kind of fire in the basements at all to account for the molten steel found there. Thermal hotspots of around 1100°C (2000°F) were found in the basements on September 16th 2001. A thermite reaction (and explosives) generate extraordinarily high temperatures, greater than 2500°C (4550°F), and it provides a potentially credible explanation for the thermal hot spots and the molten steel around the basement level steel foundations. Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 1535°C (2800°F). Something other than gravity and fires melted the steel in the basements of the WTC complex.

The "Bush-Cheney razor blades and Saudi hijacker conspiracy theory" does not deal with the fact that we need to account for the molten steel in the basements through a hypothetical truss theory. A theory that implausibly speculates that fire high up in the building caused a "final straw" failure of a single truss support and gravity did the rest. Please remember that there is zero empirical evidence for this "truss theory" and it remains just a theoretical hypothesis.

Since buildings 1 and 2 survived the impact of the aircraft without collapsing (or signs of undue stress) and fire and gravity are claimed to have caused their collapse instead, then the aircraft are irrelevant as a mechanism for collapse except that they obviously caused some initial damage. In WTC7 aircraft are totally irrelevant to the mechanism of collapse since no aircraft ever hit the building. As the aircraft are irrelevant as the final mechanism of collapse, they are therefore simply a military deception "magician style visual pretext" for a collapse and not an ultimate cause of the collapse. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing and hearing explosions!

Turning to the video of where the collapse starts in all three buildings the timing sequence for the demolition appears to start around the area of the fires high up in buildings 1 and 2. However in the case of building 7, this building appears to have been demolished in a more conventional manner from the bottom, below the rather small fires that were in that building. Explosives used in the controlled demolition of buildings have to be detonated in precisely the correct order to achieve the desired collapse effect. When you carefully view the video of the collapse of buildings 1 and 2, (and 7) you will see "squibs" (or puffs of smoke shooting out sideways from the building). These squibs were several floors below the falling dust cloud and these slightly early detonations are an indication that explosives were used in the demolition of the buildings, not gravity alone.

The observed near free-fall times of the Twin Towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. US (war criminal) regime measured times are around 10 to 12 seconds for WTC 1 & 2 and 6.6 seconds for the shorter WTC 7, which is close to calculated free-fall time in air, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air because the buildings had already lost all structural integrity. The collapse of WTC 7 in 6.6 seconds is just 0.6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground so where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. How do the upper floors fall so quickly and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The implausible theory put forth by "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed in WTC 1 & 2, it was the "floor assemblies", bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, that did fail. The floor joist attachment bolts were weakened by heat and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial truss and then initial floor to "instantly unzip" itself all the way round the building and collapse onto the floor below. The remaining floors then "pancaked" all the way down at a speed of around 10 floors per second. Never mind that floor joist cross members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included at all in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA/NIST calculations and presentations nor was a collapse mechanism for the very robust inner core of columns explained at all. Building WTC 7 has been totally ignored in the TV propaganda "expert documentary explanations" provided for the plebeian masses purporting to reassure us all that Saudis (mainly) and razorblades caused 9/11.

But consider the following; if the "pancaking" effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses? Stutter should have been very apparent, especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse had not accelerated for long. The first "unzipped" floor would only have fallen around 12 feet before hitting the next floor below. The exterior of the building should have been sliding down around the inner core, which should have remained largely sticking up in the air after the collapse. Consider also that apologists for the official Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the "pyroclastic" cloud of debris. That is, in the "official" analysis, this pulverising energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to turn the concrete and asbestos into fine powder essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g. Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) = (1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t. Now the observed time t = 10 seconds, a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8m/sec/sec. For the dust cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds, but on page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Clearly, there are serious flaws in the "official" explanation/conspiracy theory. The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational forces involved in the WTC tower collapses. In any event "common-sense" should tell us that gravity causing all the damage and providing the energy could not possibly propel steel beams out of the building sideways and even upwards towards space and away from the planet generating the gravity. In conclusion, the buildings could not possibly, following the laws of physics, have collapsed like that without explosives and/or the use of something like a thermite reaction. Nineteen disaffected Muslims (nine reportedly still strangely alive) armed with razorblades could not possibly have been involved in preparing WTC 1, 2 and 7 for demolition by those means and so perhaps we still need to catch and bring to justice the real terrorists of 9/11.

It's 2009 and you still think some of the hijackers didn't die? When did Bush and Cheney give the details of their "theory"?

 

[beachnut]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

I can’t speak for other but since your first evidence free post to this off topic evidence free post you have a perfect record of no evidence. You also have a failed sig you can’t live up to.

19 terrorists killed 8 pilots and flew 3 planes into building. The perps are dead despite your apologizing for them with delusions, hearsay, and lies.

Heiwa and his pizza box engineering is pathetic and you have fallen for another fraud on 911. You could clearify what Heiwa means for me since I am not up to your level of stupid ideas yet.

Nineteen disaffected Muslims (nine reportedly still strangely alive) armed with razorblades could not possibly have been involved in preparing WTC 1, 2 and 7 for demolition by those means and so perhaps we still need to catch and bring to justice the real terrorists of 9/11.

At least you have the smartest help to uncover more delusion like AndrewIlluminatus has on 911. Where do you guys come from? Is there a special school to make sure you fall for dumbed-down Internet twaddle so stupid it hurts? Physics challenged 911Truth fails to produce evidence, just a few people who believe the dumbest ideas possible on 911.

Once again the simple plot of killing pilots and flying planes into buildings is much too complex for 911Truth delusion seekers.
Bill, help Andrew with the topic, you have the most evidence of all 911Truth; I mean you have just as much evidence as all of 911Truth; you can help Heiwa double his evidence. 2x0=0 … Got math?

 

[FineWine]

No, I just explained what happens at a bounce or 100% damping/arrest of C by A.

Anyway, bounce, jolt, entanglement - part C can never crush down part A. Topic is Why a one way Crush down is not possible. I just explain why!

It is nothing new. A one-way Crush down has never taken place on Earth. Ever.

I have asked you a few times what stops the collapsing floors when they hit the ceiling of the next floor. You never answer. The collapse is gathering weight and speed. What stops it?

 

[FineWine]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

The perps were the hijackers. It is very obvious that there was no inside job. Why do you deny something that all the facts point to?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Conversely I have never seen a coherent overall explanation of demolition from anyone on the "truther side"

On another forum I met one person prepared to test his explanation of how demolition could have been achieved - we discussed for weeks or longer. Eventually we were down to that one last issue where I rely on probability. He claimed victory and departed.

Now as anyone knows "you cannot prove it so GawdDidIt" is the classic creationists false dilemma...

So if anyone here wants to put there explanation of how demolition could have been achieved let him now speak or, else, henceforth forever hold his peace*

From "your" side I am not aware of a single truther who can explain how demolition could have been employed. Look at the "is it thermate" debate. Has anyone tried to suggest how thermate could have been used? In a mechanism which caused the collapse which actually happened?

I do not know evert 9/11 protagonist so there may be some out there. If so produce the link and I will see what I think.

Gordon Ross articulated a fairly well thought out probable demolition sequence quite a while ago. He maintains that the outer core columns and the corners of the perimeter columns were taken out to effect the demolitions of the twin towers. I agree with him that this is highly probable and answers a number of questions.

You can google "How the towers were demolished" to find his website, where he discusses it in detail.

 

[alienentity]

Gordon Ross articulated a fairly well thought out probable demolition sequence quite a while ago. He maintains that the outer core columns and the corners of the perimeter columns were taken out to effect the demolitions of the twin towers. I agree with him that this is highly probable and answers a number of questions.

You can google "How the towers were demolished" to find his website, where he discusses it in detail.

Except that it doesn't fit with the actual observed collapses, it's a fine idea. For a fictional book perhaps.....

The external perimeter columns of the towers clearly were NOT cut with explosives. That theory was dead before Ross articulated it. You guys just don't realize it for some odd reason.

Tony, that theory is already disproven. Time to move on. It's 2009.

 

[alienentity]

This is a question for Tony Szamboti. Tony, you've spent a lot more time than I have studying the WTC collapses, I'm sure.
Can you tell us, as precisely as possible, how many seconds the collapses for each tower took?
Also, can you tell us WHERE in each tower the collapse was initiated?

Thanks in advance.

ps are you aware of the views of the original SE of the towers regarding collapse?

 

[bill smith]

Gordon Ross articulated a fairly well thought out probable demolition sequence quite a while ago. He maintains that the outer core columns and the corners of the perimeter columns were taken out to effect the demolitions of the twin towers. I agree with him that this is highly probable and answers a number of questions.

You can google "How the towers were demolished" to find his website, where he discusses it in detail.

This is not exactly an integrated collapse theory but it contains some components that could fill in a few blanks.


We were arguing here a week or two back about the fireproofing upgrade in WTC1- apparently only on the floors where the plane went in or ones that showed excessive amounts of fire. I call this 'extra fireproofing' rather than a 'fireproofing upgrade'.


You see I think some of the core columns had nano-thermite sprayed INSIDE them....drill a hole, charge the column and spray on however many layers you like. Fill it up even. The extra fireproofing may have been to stop the jet fuel igniting the thermite prematurely as nano-thermite ignites at only 430 degrees C. The extra-thick fireproofing may also have acted as 'lightproofing' against the characteristic bright glare of the ignited thermite.


This might have ocurred in an entire column from bottom to top- all 1300 feet draining the molten steel down into the basements. If this happened with many selected columns there might be hundreds or even thousands of tons of molten steel in the basements which could explain why it stayed molten for months and why there was so little steel on the ground outside after the
collapse.

The steel that poured out of WTC2 might point to a similar process going on there.. Also this would explain the hundreds of tons of thermite that would have been needed to provide such an even distibution of unreacted thermite chips in the WTC dust.

 

[dudalb]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

I think we have reached a new level of delusion in the Truth Movement, folks.