tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
The direction of the wind and the smoke really convinces me of......?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Really?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
There's the rub. I have never seen a complete alternative theory from a truther.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
They're probably still laughing.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
So we can take it that you have no evidence and alternative theory?
Do you know how to make coherent sentences?
Stage one in establishing this claim is to calculate the actual time it took for the towers to fall, but dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse make this difficult.
Coming up with a final figure involves a degree of estimation, which is probably why the times you’ll find online range from 8.4 to 15 seconds..
The rate of free fall in a vacuum, at least, is easier to define. The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground.
Now we have a basis for comparison. If the towers really did fall completely in 8.4 seconds, then that would actually be faster than gravity, requiring some major additional force to push from above (or pull from below). We’ve seen it suggested that explosives created a “powerful vacuum”, for instance, but that’s not apparent from the collapse videos and images.
Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building? (And there may be rubble below that, and the building may be intact higher higher still). This suggests we should be looking at a collapse time greater than our 9.22 second freefall figure, not less.
How much greater? If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case, and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.
We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.
And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 12.5 seconds.
Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the 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. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable, in the case he describes? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate, significantly longer still.
Of course the main issue is still whether each tower fell faster than it should have done in air, not a vacuum.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Let's start with the MATH...
- 2.4 sec of immediate free fall acceleration of the perimeter wall = 93 ft of NO RESISTANCE at ALL support Columns.
- 2.5 sec of immediate free fall acceleration of the perimeter wall = 100 ft of NO RESISTANCE at ALL support Columns.
- How hot did each support Column get?
- How hot would each Column need for them ALL to lose structural integrity to the point where they didn't just bend, nor did the floors just buckle.... but 90 to 100 feet just vanished??
Then we can get to ALTERNATIVE THEORIES...
- Rich guys paid some greedy foreigners to lace the elevator shafts with some type of thermite. There's an RF trigger activated by the helicopters that fly overhead each of the THREE buildings, IMMEDIATELY before each of them fell, as seen in this video --> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4563604978641682920#
100 ft of ALL support columns failing, in a building that wasn't even hit, no less, to the point where NOTHING in that 100 ft offers ANY RESISTANCE whatsoever (i.e. - no bending ,no buckling, no gradual or even rapid loss of resistance... just columns not existing).
- 2.4 sec of immediate free fall acceleration of the perimeter wall = 93 ft of NO RESISTANCE at ALL support Columns.
- 2.5 sec of immediate free fall acceleration of the perimeter wall = 100 ft of NO RESISTANCE at ALL support Columns.
- How hot did each support Column get?
- How hot would each Column need for them ALL to lose structural integrity to the point where they didn't just bend, nor did the floors just buckle.... but 90 to 100 feet just vanished??
Then we can get to ALTERNATIVE THEORIES...
- Rich guys paid some greedy foreigners to lace the elevator shafts with some type of thermite. There's an RF trigger activated by the helicopters that fly overhead each of the THREE buildings, IMMEDIATELY before each of them fell, as seen in this video --> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4563604978641682920#
100 ft of ALL support columns failing, in a building that wasn't even hit, no less, to the point where NOTHING in that 100 ft offers ANY RESISTANCE whatsoever (i.e. - no bending ,no buckling, no gradual or even rapid loss of resistance... just columns not existing).
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Ok, I think I can answer that: Some of the columns probably were in the high 60s (°F), as that was, iirc, the ambient temperature on this sunny september day. Others may have reached higher temps during the fires, and may have cooled again.
How hot would each column need to be? Well, it doesn't matter in the slightest. Colums will buckle and break if overloaded many times over. Which happens if they are pushed laterally and subjected to the dynamic load of 35+ floors already falling. Because, you see, before all those columns buckled to allow for free fall, there were those 1.75 seconds during which the north wall already descended and accelerated. Now you do the math to figure out which load each column would have to hold up if it were to stop the momentum, and what load each column could have held up, and if, and when, a column would break under that dynamic load. Oh, and take into account those several seconds during which the core already failed, which invalidated the lateral bracing of the perimeter columns by the floor trusses!
Bring 'em on!
Hold on hold on hold on...
- WHo are the rich guys?
- How much did they pay?
- To whom?
- Which type of thermite?
- How much of it?
- Where was it placed?
- When?
- By whom?
- How do you know there's an RF trigger activated by the helicopters?
- And well, where is the evidence? (You do realize that any "booms" are doctored into the helicopter vids, and that this fake was already debunked years ago, right?)
Buddy, the building didn't go from stable to free fall in no time.
There WAS bending and buckling and a gradual loss of resistance leading up to that brief episode of free fall!
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
strawmen and incorrect assumptions abound.
there is a small paper out there which covers all of this in detail... it is only about 10000 pages long.
Just as soon as you get any peer reviewed article in any peer reviewed journal which states NIST is wrong, then we'll chat.
Feel free. You have 1400+ architectural and engineering "professionals." You should be easily able to get them working on it and get at least one peer reviewed engineering journal article... It doesn't take that long.
who? Name names.
How much? Source figures and provide citations to support this bs claim.
who? name names. Provide citations to support. Or retract.
Great... now prove that thermite was there and that it could have cut any of the core columns.
(bentham handwave coming in 5......4.....3......2....)
provide a citation. What RF trigger on what frequency? Provide a citaiton or retract.
(ps your ignorance of RF and RF detonators is realllllly bad, you might want to research what it takes to use an RF detonator, and why road construction crews make you turn off your cell phone when they are using them.)
blah blah blah...
when will your tame 1400+ architectural and engineering "professionals" manage to get this theory into a peer reviewed journal? Sometime this decade?
Theories are just that... I'm sure you could fill in the blanks just as easily as I could.
Who benefited? Who would have laced the elevator shaft? Who leaked info about there being passports in the rubble, yet, at the same time, told us the airplanes had disintegrated upon impact?
That's the START to the waterboard investigations.
And Zep... no, that one question you highlighted is not "math", but the difference of that answer and the answer to the next question *is* math.
And Oystein... do you honestly believe that ALL core columns "buckled", bended, or offered any resistance whatsoever, of any kind, during the 1,100 deg F sporatic fires??? You believe they did that, yet still allowed ~100 feet of free fall acceleration???
Who benefited? Who would have laced the elevator shaft? Who leaked info about there being passports in the rubble, yet, at the same time, told us the airplanes had disintegrated upon impact?
That's the START to the waterboard investigations.
And Zep... no, that one question you highlighted is not "math", but the difference of that answer and the answer to the next question *is* math.
And Oystein... do you honestly believe that ALL core columns "buckled", bended, or offered any resistance whatsoever, of any kind, during the 1,100 deg F sporatic fires??? You believe they did that, yet still allowed ~100 feet of free fall acceleration???
Frank McLaughlin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 254
Dick Cheney: "Hello, umm, do you guys do controlled demolitions?"
Demolition Guys: "Yes sir, we sure do."
Dick Cheney: "Great, I would like you to demolish the twin towers in NYC for me."
Demolition Guys: "Certainly, Dick, how about August sometime?”
Dick Cheney: "Uh..no, I’m thinking September 11. I have two airplanes full of passengers slamming into the buildings that day about 9:30 am. Can you collapse the buildings for me about 90 minutes later?”
Demolition Guys: "Ahhh...we'll get back to you on that one."
Dick Cheney: "You’ll need to plant some 10,000 separate detonation charges throughout each of three buildings while they are occupied with 27,000 tenants and security guards, none of whom can be permitted to notice you’re there over a ten month period.
“This means you will be bringing tens of thousands of pounds of explosives into the buildings and removing the dry wall in over a thousand places, and then putting it back in place after setting the charges.
But here’s the really great part: instead of using a conventional demolition explosive that everybody else has used for the past 50 years, we’re gonna use ‘nano-thermite,’ which has never been tried before. Pretty clever, I think, to try something never tested for demolition. You gotta think outside the box. Here's another example. We're doing this thing as a false flag op to start a war in Iraq, but we're gonna claim that the plane hijackers and planners are from Saudi Arabia, a country we DON'T want to go to war with. Is that brilliant or what?"
Demolition Guys: May I make a suggestion?
Dick Cheney: "Wait, there is one other requirement.”
“You must agree to put the owner of the buildings, Larry Silverstein with no demolition experience, in charge of the collapse. Here’s the really great part: Larry has consented to announce the explosion of WTC7 in front of NYFD officials into a open microphone by saying “pull it.” Later, of course, he can deny “pull it” means anything.
Demolition Guys: "Sir, if I may be so bold. Why not place a bomb in the buildings and walk away? Take ten minutes, and there would be less chance of, you know, getting caught.”
Dick Cheney: “Are you crazy? A controlled demolition is better because it allows the three buildings to come down cleanly and neatly. That’s important! After you slam large commercial jets into 110 story buildings at 450 mph, you certainly don’t want a mess in the surrounding area, and that’s why we need to control the demolition, do it carefully.”
Demolition Guys: "Sir, you have a great plan, but we see an unforeseen problem..."
Dick Cheney: “Oh?”
Demolition Guys: “It will be easy to fool the scientific and engineering communities. But what happens if two college kids sitting in a dorm room analyze old news footage, zoom in on grainy video stills and uncover our entire plot by reading unclassified government press releases?
"They might post a video on the Internet complete with spooky, mysterious music and call it ‘Loose Change.’ We could be uncovered."
Cheney: "My God! We didn’t plan for that."
Demolition Guys: "Yes sir, we sure do."
Dick Cheney: "Great, I would like you to demolish the twin towers in NYC for me."
Demolition Guys: "Certainly, Dick, how about August sometime?”
Dick Cheney: "Uh..no, I’m thinking September 11. I have two airplanes full of passengers slamming into the buildings that day about 9:30 am. Can you collapse the buildings for me about 90 minutes later?”
Demolition Guys: "Ahhh...we'll get back to you on that one."
Dick Cheney: "You’ll need to plant some 10,000 separate detonation charges throughout each of three buildings while they are occupied with 27,000 tenants and security guards, none of whom can be permitted to notice you’re there over a ten month period.
“This means you will be bringing tens of thousands of pounds of explosives into the buildings and removing the dry wall in over a thousand places, and then putting it back in place after setting the charges.
But here’s the really great part: instead of using a conventional demolition explosive that everybody else has used for the past 50 years, we’re gonna use ‘nano-thermite,’ which has never been tried before. Pretty clever, I think, to try something never tested for demolition. You gotta think outside the box. Here's another example. We're doing this thing as a false flag op to start a war in Iraq, but we're gonna claim that the plane hijackers and planners are from Saudi Arabia, a country we DON'T want to go to war with. Is that brilliant or what?"
Demolition Guys: May I make a suggestion?
Dick Cheney: "Wait, there is one other requirement.”
“You must agree to put the owner of the buildings, Larry Silverstein with no demolition experience, in charge of the collapse. Here’s the really great part: Larry has consented to announce the explosion of WTC7 in front of NYFD officials into a open microphone by saying “pull it.” Later, of course, he can deny “pull it” means anything.
Demolition Guys: "Sir, if I may be so bold. Why not place a bomb in the buildings and walk away? Take ten minutes, and there would be less chance of, you know, getting caught.”
Dick Cheney: “Are you crazy? A controlled demolition is better because it allows the three buildings to come down cleanly and neatly. That’s important! After you slam large commercial jets into 110 story buildings at 450 mph, you certainly don’t want a mess in the surrounding area, and that’s why we need to control the demolition, do it carefully.”
Demolition Guys: "Sir, you have a great plan, but we see an unforeseen problem..."
Dick Cheney: “Oh?”
Demolition Guys: “It will be easy to fool the scientific and engineering communities. But what happens if two college kids sitting in a dorm room analyze old news footage, zoom in on grainy video stills and uncover our entire plot by reading unclassified government press releases?
"They might post a video on the Internet complete with spooky, mysterious music and call it ‘Loose Change.’ We could be uncovered."
Cheney: "My God! We didn’t plan for that."
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Relevant for
only if you can provide hard evidence it. Which you cannot
A suicide note survived the PSA 1771 crash yet the plane disintegrated. Yes it happens, without Uncle Sam waving a magic wand. Prove that everytime this happens it's the Government and maybe you have a case. Other than that this is a 10 year old waste of time argument.
Totally another topic
I believe that neither you nor your information sources (AE911truth, 911blogger) have any structural engineering or architecture qualifications/competence. They haven't demonstrated a shred of detailed knowledge in their fields and refuse to do so when asked. Give me a reason to take their incompetence and your lack of qualifications serious consideration, then we'll talk.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Christ in a sidecar, this isn't freakin MadLibs. Just because you can "fill in the blank", it doesn't make it valid, it just makes truthers look like clowns.
But since you brought it up. Fill in the blank:
The WTC7 building collapsed primarily due to _____ .
Last edited:
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
...should not be even entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and have a plan! It doesn't happen. You're a kook!
- George Carlin
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
The WTC7 building collapsed primarily due to ___Silverstein pressing the "Blow Up My Building" red button instead of pressing the "Close My Bedroom Curtains" green button.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Sure.... if you consider wildly retarded scenarios that have no practical feasibility or evidence a plan, I suppose you could stretch Carlin's ol' saying as a satire.
Last edited: