Are you saying stuffed bunnies brought down WTC 7?
Are you saying stuffed bunnies brought down WTC 7?
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Probably...after all, it's more plausible than thermite or CD...
LightningTeg
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2011
- Messages
- 101
Well you have no evidence either achimspok for whatever your ultimate point is. Even if noone can explain your questions, it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Your whole argument is completely mute.
No, we were wondering about your consistent narrative to explain the fall of the building in the absence of these fires that you dispute. Motive, means, opportunity .... that kind of thing. If NIST's explanation is wrong then what would you replace it with?
Replace the conclusion based explanation with evidence based investigation.
Speculations about "motive, means, opportunity ..." or the absence of "motive, means, opportunity ..." leads always to conclusion based explanations.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Hey, everyone! Here's a whole bunch of pictures that show raging fires in WTC7...there's no way fires were the culprit!
Hey, everyone! Here's a whole bunch of pictures that show raging fires in WTC7...there's no way fires were the culprit!
[qimg]http://thegoodjokes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/funny-random-pics-71.jpg[/qimg]
Arabs did it!
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
So it shifted from the smoke to the fire?
Well judging from the pictures of the fires & pictures of twisted steel that I saw, fire caused it.
No "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it.
Of course, the typical Truther isn't a qualified firefighter or structural engineer.
Well judging from the pictures of the fires & pictures of twisted steel that I saw, fire caused it.
No "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it.
Of course, the typical Truther isn't a qualified firefighter or structural engineer.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Have you written to NIST regarding your various observations?
Funny. Some of these points where part of the critique during the X days for public comments. I'm not aware of any answer.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I'm sure the NIST will be delighted that some nobody with no relevant experience on an obscure internet forum thinks they're incompetent or cowards. I know I would be.
LightningTeg
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2011
- Messages
- 101
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
You think those things with doors on them are hallways?
Interesting. No wonder you haven't figured out 9/11. You cannot even figure out a simple, dumbed down blueprint.
Did you break the news to Dan Rather? Wow, you got the evidence, what is holding you back. Wow. Now you have the last laugh. Carpet in the hallway, and no clue what fire is. Fire did it, you have delusions of conspiracy theories, with zero evidence. Are you making money like Gage spewing lies, or what? Gage made 70k a year presenting lies and begging for money to spread lies; what do you do? Good luck, it takes minutes to figure out 911, hope 10 years will be the beginning of your epiphany. Good luck
No, NIST did not make beginners mistakes, you made up nonsense based on your paranoid demolition conspiracy theory. You failed, but keep on trying, even Edison failed, good luck again. Where is your evidence for your paranoid conspiracy theories? Does Al Gore have them, in his lock-box, or Bush? You have no clue UBL helped the terrorists on 911? He told us he was coming, did you fail to do simple research? UBL does not wish for your apologies for him, or his dead dolt buddies. You have no direction, no goal, no evidence. Good luck. All the best
Last edited:
From Debunking911:
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.
Below is from more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening. (Sorry but I can't post URL's yet.)
The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.
The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.
Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911
Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.
Below is from more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening. (Sorry but I can't post URL's yet.)
The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.
The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.
Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911
Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
Hey, new blood, this thread is about WTC7. Your calculation is about the towers.
And referring to the towers you did a nice little exercise but wrong in several regards.
Do you know that the "top" disintegrated during the first second?
Do you know that the top accelerated for just 4 second and later went down at constant speed?
Do you know that the collapse of WTC1 lasted longer than 20 seconds (without the collapse of the spire)?
Did you know that all your a tremendous amount of your kinetic energy hit the ground at free fall because of falling outside of the building?
Do you know that that part cause a 6 seconds earthquake?
But all that of course belongs to a different thread.
And referring to the towers you did a nice little exercise but wrong in several regards.
Do you know that the "top" disintegrated during the first second?
Do you know that the top accelerated for just 4 second and later went down at constant speed?
Do you know that the collapse of WTC1 lasted longer than 20 seconds (without the collapse of the spire)?
Did you know that all your a tremendous amount of your kinetic energy hit the ground at free fall because of falling outside of the building?
Do you know that that part cause a 6 seconds earthquake?
But all that of course belongs to a different thread.