applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
Deep44 - where'd you go? Give up? Give in? Another post and run.
WTC7 Revisited
- Thread starter GregoryUrich
- Start date
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Here, here..
well said.
We bash the CIT and pft for either not bothering to do the math or getting it wrong. Let's keep the political statements separate from the technical.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Getting back to GU's priginal air expulsion work, my contention is that there is a lot of exit area for the air, not only the lower floors of the south face where much of the glass is missing as well as some perimeter columns, but also the hole through the center of the building. At the very least there is a hole extending from the roof, approx at the center of the east penthouse, to the level of the original column failure(thought to be below the 13th floor and possibly at the 11th) or even down to the 5th or 7th (if indeed the mass falling through the column failure hole and from roof level broke through and smashed the braced trusses at 5 & 7).
Furthermore, a core failure that occured at the 5th or 7th floor would have the mass of 40 stories above the transfer beams over the Con-ed building, moving as one. This is observed to have occured the north face , west of the kink, is over the Con-ed building and does move all at he same time. So the PE of that mass is driving the air out of the lower floor volume. Yes this would offer some resistance but as an analogy, how much resistance, due to the pushing out of the air,do you feel when stepping on an empty plastic pop bottle with its top removed?
If the force (basically a friction force) exerted against the falling mass is than 10% of the gravitational force of the 40 storeys above the 7th floor and remained so for the entire time that the crush through the lower 7 floors occured then total force would be 90% of the gravitational mass above the 7th floor and thus so would be the acelleration be 0.9 g.
At 0.9 g acelleration the time it would take to crush through the first 7 floors would be 1.054 that of the time it would take without that upward, friction force.
A fall from 84 feet with no resistance would take 2.3 seconds. A fall at 90% 'g' would take 2.4 seconds. So it would be , to the naked eye, indistinquishable from free fall.
That is the initial fall of the north face if my senario is correct. At the time then that the 8th floor level reachs the ground it would already be travelling (being very conservative) 65 feet per second and the kinetic energy of the moving mass of the upper falling mass would be proportional to the square of that velocity. Furthermore the structure is severely weakened now, it has lost the support of the core and has fractured east of the center of its long axis. It is basically in three large pieces and each of those pieces is tilted off vertical one way or another (mostly towards the center of the structure). Again then, the available forces for destruction,is going to be comapritively much larger than the resistive ability of the connections between structural members. Again the difference in time of collapse and time of a free fall is going to be small.
How did the building stand then?
The intact building of course had all columns and structural systems intact and at full strength. The structure then lost these in a sequence of events over a period of several hours, each of which contributed to the end result of a structure with no ability to stay upright. The first of these events being the impact of WTC 1 debris
Furthermore, a core failure that occured at the 5th or 7th floor would have the mass of 40 stories above the transfer beams over the Con-ed building, moving as one. This is observed to have occured the north face , west of the kink, is over the Con-ed building and does move all at he same time. So the PE of that mass is driving the air out of the lower floor volume. Yes this would offer some resistance but as an analogy, how much resistance, due to the pushing out of the air,do you feel when stepping on an empty plastic pop bottle with its top removed?
If the force (basically a friction force) exerted against the falling mass is than 10% of the gravitational force of the 40 storeys above the 7th floor and remained so for the entire time that the crush through the lower 7 floors occured then total force would be 90% of the gravitational mass above the 7th floor and thus so would be the acelleration be 0.9 g.
At 0.9 g acelleration the time it would take to crush through the first 7 floors would be 1.054 that of the time it would take without that upward, friction force.
A fall from 84 feet with no resistance would take 2.3 seconds. A fall at 90% 'g' would take 2.4 seconds. So it would be , to the naked eye, indistinquishable from free fall.
That is the initial fall of the north face if my senario is correct. At the time then that the 8th floor level reachs the ground it would already be travelling (being very conservative) 65 feet per second and the kinetic energy of the moving mass of the upper falling mass would be proportional to the square of that velocity. Furthermore the structure is severely weakened now, it has lost the support of the core and has fractured east of the center of its long axis. It is basically in three large pieces and each of those pieces is tilted off vertical one way or another (mostly towards the center of the structure). Again then, the available forces for destruction,is going to be comapritively much larger than the resistive ability of the connections between structural members. Again the difference in time of collapse and time of a free fall is going to be small.
How did the building stand then?
The intact building of course had all columns and structural systems intact and at full strength. The structure then lost these in a sequence of events over a period of several hours, each of which contributed to the end result of a structure with no ability to stay upright. The first of these events being the impact of WTC 1 debris
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I just want to say that I'm interested in where his calculations are headed.
WTC 7 did in fact show by the physical evidence that there was very little "extra" energy.
Gregory; As I said before I am interested in discussing your calculations after you have a moment to recalculate for assumptions you said you did not consider.
I hope you will consider this to be a genuine offer considering that I don't believe I have ever attacked you on a personal level.
WTC 7 did in fact show by the physical evidence that there was very little "extra" energy.
Gregory; As I said before I am interested in discussing your calculations after you have a moment to recalculate for assumptions you said you did not consider.
I hope you will consider this to be a genuine offer considering that I don't believe I have ever attacked you on a personal level.
Last edited:
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Beachnut has stated on another that he was involved in the sorties to the extent that he saw the lists of targets. You should do some research on the Geneva Convention and on the targets if you don't think war crimes were committed during Desert Storm. Jail is what I had in mind.
No, I don't hate the everyone in the military. I don't even hate war criminals. Nonetheless, if they don't get what's coming to them they, and their kind will continue to perpetrate atrocities.
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Actually I did think that quote was attributed to Schwarzkopf. Apparently it wasn't his words. I still think it would be an appropriate middle name though because that's what we/they did. Most people aren't aware of the extent to which we hit basic life supporting infrastructure in Desert Storm.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I'll give you that but, I was not all that fond of the (as I see it) reactionary/inappropriate comment in your last post (#166).
Last edited:
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
UN numbers for deaths caused by Desert Storm + sanctions. Your apparent misunderstanding smacks of straw old man.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Gregory:
Why don't you just drop it and take the high ground in this peeing contest? Or are you going for who has the best penmanship?
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
I think you will find that most people are fully aware of the extend and most people are also aware of the crippling sanctions that were imposed on Iraq.
Please do not try to underestimate peoples abilities to grasp historical fact and please do not underestimate peoples ability to understand them
Gregory, my post to you was hostile, I admit, simply because you have politicised this issue. You have dragged into this debate the entire Iraq issue. You have accused members of this forum of being war criminals.
I would ask you again to reconsider what you are saying; retract your statements and apologise.Please do so.To me this simply smacks of you demonising individuals who do not agree with you and worse using the Iraq war to do so.
I have nothing further to say to you. Get your own thread back on topic and stop further fuelling the fire.
Last edited:
I screwed up, and read that petitions again; where Greg signed and blames Americans for 9/11. I find it ironic as Greg tries now to back in the "ample evidence" with this thread, when he already has "ample evidence". I never was a drone, I think WHY is important, and suspect Greg's on the job training by people like you with foil his WHY as he becomes educated by those who post here.
Knowledge is not served well by politics; I agree. This is why I have a problem with Greg veiling his political goals behind the guise of knowledge, when it looks like he is just searching for that "ample evidence" he already has.
I wish it made sense; but researching a person's goal and why they are doing something has always helped me find racist, liars, and people who try to spread doubt with false information. I am not surprised why Greg pursues certain issues while he lacks the engineering tools and time to do so.
I am optimistic, with your help and other intelligent posters here, Greg can learn enough to see how 19 terrorist used very simple means to kill Americans as promised by UBL a long time ago.
Bring on the numbers; an education is in the works.
Last edited:
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Most of the people on this thread disagree with me and I have not demonized them or even been sarcastic. If you have followed my posts at all, you know I dont just start running people down regardless of their beliefs or arguments.
I have accused one person of being a war criminal based on his own description of his responsiblities during Desert Storm. He has stated that he would rather be a war criminal than a truther and I take that as a tacit admission of guilt.
Look, I didn't start this ◊◊◊◊. Beachnut has been continually harassing me, falsely representing my work and accusing me of lying. Beachnut is calling me a truther = worse than war criminal. How much BS am I supposed to put up with?
My apologies to everyone for the derail.
Last edited:
Just put him on ignore. He is a distraction to science.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Amen to that.
Your apology accepted. Now get back to finding that "ample evidence"; never too late.
Back to WTC7 revisited…
Last edited:
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Your accusations are irrelevant and without foundation and are dismissed as such.
I say this in the spirit of friendship and hope you will take it as such but do yourself a favour do not pretend to lecture me or anybody else about the injustices on this planet. Don't start throwing figures about the death toll in the Middle East nor the effects of the economic sanctions and presume to think that I or anybody else is blissfully unaware. We are all aware; we all fully understand and do not need to be told by you.
I suggest you keep out of this arena in future, state your case, put forward your facts and calculations but do not ever kid yourself that the reason you are subject to "BS" is because grown adults are simply unable to see what is so blindingly obvious to you and you alone.
Your apology is accepted in the same spirit.Now get your thread back on topic.
Last edited: