you know what's astonishing?

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/...ex.html#point2

First, how does Blanchard really know that that cloud of dust outside of the bounds of the building represents 95% of the upper floor mass at the moment of those pictures? Determining that off of a picture is probably highly speculative, especially when you can't see into the cloud. And keep in mind that the building is not at a stand-still at the time of the picture; there is an ongoing kinetic energy transfer from one floor to the next as collapse continues, and it is difficult to determine the true state of the mass and the acting kinetic energy upon the lower structure at that time just by looking at the photograph.

I think a more scientific estimation of kinetic energy requirements relative to the remaining mass above the building as well as the transfer of that energy from one floor to the next is needed to make a good conclusion rather than to just say, "Gee, it looks like there is not enough mass remaining from the upper floors for the collapse to continue."

But if I don't assume that there was enough kinetic energy there to continue the collapse, then I'd have to assume that there were explosives charges all the way down the building and that someone was setting them off in sequence to create a continued "downward" disintegration of the building. Aside from that being a highly complicated operation with little to no evidence at this point, this is not even the technique that controlled demolitions would use. They typically set charges low on the structure and harness the power of gravity upon the vast majority of the building mass to bring the entire thing down.

As far as I know, most demolitions folks, structural engineers, and physicists also tend to see it this way, certainly the few that I have spoken with... so I'm not sure why I should trust the opinion of one software engineer (even if a smart one) over the collective input of experts in the field.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

path of least resistence, air or 80 floors of reinforced steel/concrete.

it's not rocket science here folks.

So I'll finally address you on this "path of least resistance" issue you keep bringing up.

Since you've studied physics so intently (I think I know the argument: the top of the building was tilted and should have fallen over instead of down into the building, right?), I'm sure you've also studied the law of Conservation of Linear Momentum. It's one of the most fundamental laws of nature.

Basically, the law of Conservation of Linear Momentum says that the total momentum of a closed system is constant. This means that the center of mass of any object will always continue in the same velocity (i.e., speed and direction) unless acted upon by an outside force.

The consequence of this is that if the mass of the upper floors initiated a strong enough downward momentum (i.e., mass x velocity) that the lower floors could not counteract, then the path of least resistance is not necessarily for the building to fall over; it is for it to continue its same downward velocity. It would need a massive input of force on the side of the building or sufficient resistance underneath it in order for it to tip over. The upper mass is following the path of least resistance - given its momentum and center of gravity. It is misleading to just say "air offers less resistance than the building itself; therefore it must tip over"...that is not necessarily what the path of least resistance means or what the law of conversation of momentum suggests.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

First, how does Blanchard really know that that cloud of dust outside of the bounds of the building represents 95% of the upper floor mass at the moment of those pictures?

in short? volume. they measure the size of the dust clouds to find their volume. also after the collapse, everyone can clearly see



most of the debris outside the footprint.

that according to Brent Blanchard, 95% of the towers' mass fell outside the buildings' footprints, while according to him, others' estimates vary between 80 and 97 percent.

but lets see how they came to those figures like you asked eh?

Researcher Jim Hoffman estimated in a January 2004 interview with Bonnie Faulkner that about 80 to 90 percent of the masses of the Towers ended up outside of their footprints.[2] Brent Blanchard of PROTEC authored a paper that appeared in August 2006 (arguing against demolition) suggesting that as much as 95% of the falling mass had landed outside of the Tower footprints.[3] How accurate are these figures?

We will consider a diagram from the “FEMA Report,” the WTC Building Performance Study, as well as an aerial photo of Ground Zero, and other photos, to get a rough idea as to how much mass was ejected outside of the Tower footprints during their destructions.
The FEMA Report on the WTC disaster gives us the following image

We will assume this FEMA representation is to scale (as it seems to be), and therefore real-life distances will be proportional to the image’s pixels. Examination of this graphic shows the basic inner (darker orange) circles surrounding WTC1 and WTC2 to be approximately 155 pixels in diameter each. The equation will give us the area of these circles, whereas r is the radius of each circle. The diameter of 155 will therefore be divided by 2 to get a radius of 77.5 pixels.
Therefore the total areas of the dark orange circles are 18,869.19 pixels each.

The space occupied by the building footprints themselves in the image is represented by squares of about 45 pixels, or 2025 pixels total area each.
Subtracting 2025 pixels from 18,869.19 pixels, we get 16,844.19 pixels for the total area of the dark orange circles around each building, excluding the areas of the buildings themselves, or the buildings’ footprint areas. Compared to these footprints, the rest of this dark orange circle, indicating only the heavy debris spread, has an area nearly nine times as large. Specifically, the building footprints compose only 10.73% of their total respective heavy debris areas represented by the dark orange circles. Notice that those circles denote only the area in which the majority of the support columns landed during the buildings’ destructions. Nearly 90% of this area (89.27% by the above figures) is outside of the footprints, according to FEMA.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/

Aside from that being a highly complicated operation with little to no evidence at this point, this is not even the technique that controlled demolitions would use. They typically set charges low on the structure and harness the power of gravity upon the vast majority of the building mass to bring the entire thing down.

thats funny you should mention that cause.....

Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.

He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.

All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?

NBC news knew about his story several years ago, even spending a full day at his house taping his comments. But when push came to shove, his story was never aired. Why?

His eyewitness account, backed up by at least 14 people at the scene with him, isn’t speculation or conjecture. It isn’t a story that takes a network out on a journalistic limb. It’s a story that can be backed up, a story that can be verified with hospital records and testimony from many others.

It’s a story about 14 people who felt and heard the same explosion and even saw Rodriguez, moments after the airplane hit, take David to safety, after he was burnt so bad from the basement explosion flesh was hanging from his face and both arms

The consequence of this is that if the mass of the upper floors initiated a strong enough downward momentum (i.e., mass x velocity) that the lower floors could not counteract, then the path of least resistance is not necessarily for the building to fall over; it is for it to continue its same downward velocity. It would need a massive input of force on the side of the building or sufficient resistance underneath it in order for it to tip over.

and somehow your thinking that the 80 floors of undamaged stronger built, always held the weight, would somehow NOT provide sufficient resistence?

but lets say they did not, in order for the tower to take a str8 down fall, the other columns on the undamaged side would have to give way AT THE SAME TIME as the bottom floors would of failed, otherwise the top would of stretched the support columns untill they snapped.

when you have half of the top leaning to one side, it puts strain on the other sides columns, when the side keeps leaning more and more, it keeps strectching the other columns, with the pull from the damaged side, the columns, when they did fail, would of snapped, sending the top over the edge, they would of not snappend and sent the building str8 down.

the force was acting on the upper half and was pushing it sideways(a force in motion tends to stay in motion).

the top would of kept leaning over, crushing the floors underneath it's side, untill the other side columns failed, sending it over the side.

this is pretty basic stuff here bro.

what the law of conversation of momentum suggests.

wow conservation of momentum eh? now your getting into the deep stuff bro, why dont you explain to us why the governments theory breaks the law of conservation of momentum?

you know, like how if conservation of momentum was followed, the collapse would of taken alot longer then it did(?unless all support below impact zones were pulled).

Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse."

If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once. If the potential energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can't also be used to accelerate the building downward. In order to have pancaking, a force is required to trigger the failure of the next floor. If the building above that floor has been pulverized, there can be no force pushing down. As observed in the pictures below, much of the material has been ejected upward and outward. Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can't contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor. With pulverization, the small particles have a much larger surface-area-to-mass ratio and air resistance becomes significant. As we can recall, the dust took many days to settle out of the air, not hours or minutes.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

but lets play your game miro.

the upper block falls, 100% onto the lower half and starts collapse.

now what happens to the upper block?

1. does it stay intact all the way to the bottom allowing for the complete collapse of the towers?

if so, what causes it to be pulverized at the bottom?

2. does it break up in mid collapse, and if so, what finishes the collapse?

care to find a picture of the upper block after 3 seconds into collapse?

and btw, have you seen this....

Note that the top "block" begins to disintegrate
before the damaged zone starts to move downward.

[toasty]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Out of curiosity, is there anyone in this thread that actually has an engineering/demolition background -- or even something physics-intensive -- or is everyone just repeating what others have said and/or talking out of their asses? I know there is much in the world that seems inconsistent/incomprehensible to laypeople, but that makes perfect sense to real scientists.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Are you saying people shouldn't talk about it unless they are scientists. If they where would it sway your opinion?

[toasty]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

No, I'm saying that people are throwing around some pretty technical terms, and I'm just wondering if anyone is actually speaking from their personal knowledge base, or just parroting what other web sites and experts have to say on the issue. It's a serious question, not a dig at anyone.

Personally, I can speak to things that I would consider common sense -- e.g., if Flight 77 didn't fly into the Pentagon, then where the hell did it go -- but I've made a conscious effort to avoid getting into the science and physics of it all, because I frankly don't know shit about it. If all we're doing is just regurgitating what others have said on these topics, it frankly seems like a bit of a waste of time because we've all seen all of that stuff, unless someone can actually add anything to it.

Someone may have made it clear that they do, in fact, know what they're talking about here and why, but I honestly haven't read all 32 pages and 470 posts in this thread.

[toasty]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

If they where would it sway your opinion?

and I don't know if it would necessarily sway my opinion, but it would certainly help me understand how much weight to give to some of these comments.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^just this that I'm aware of...

and by the way he was born and raised in Florida, if anyone cares to know.

My associate actually is a structural engineer and worked with Martin Marietta for 12 years (now lockheed). He now is the president of his own Structural Engineering Firm.

I'm actually sitting with him now discussing 9/11 and the buildings and the way they fell etc.

He's never heard any structural engineers that he knows (and he knows quiet a few), including his former employee who was a structural PHD from New York, that have agreed with any of the conspiracy theories.

Additionally he mentioned that "the heat retardant in the Towers to protect the steel was not adequate to withstand the heat."

I think it's important that anyone who believes in these allegations that the buildings were controlled demolitions and not caused by the planes hitting them to sit down for an hour with a reputable Structural Engineer and then come back to MS and post their findings.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

No, I'm saying that people are throwing around some pretty technical terms, and I'm just wondering if anyone is actually speaking from their personal knowledge base, or just parroting what other web sites and experts have to say on the issue. It's a serious question, not a dig at anyone.

and thats a fair question, let me provide a response.

do i have a degree? nope.

with that said, niether did my father when he became one of the lead network admins of oracle orlando.

you see, some people realize that the same books you get in college, you can also buy outside of college, so with a little brain power, you too can understand some of these technical terms.

did you know that if you read 20 books one one subject, like say physics, you would be in the top 10% of the physics field in the world?

if you read 100 books, you would be considered an expert, all without having a degree.

i think alot of the problem with the us today is the fact that no one knows shit unless...

a. it's the career i work in or
b. it's my hobby

however i dont do that myself, when physics question have come up in respect to 9-11, i have read both arguments and then done my own research.

now i have also done research in alot of other areas that would pertain to 9-11, maybe you have noticed my links to the cardington fire tests?

although they have nothing to do with 9-11 in any way, they DO prove how a steel framed composite building acts during a fire. notice florida oranges last post about his friend?

notice his friend works for defense contractors who build planes and shit, not 110 floor buildings?

cause if he did build tall buildings, he might of heard of the cardington fire tests and the results which stated that fire proofing is NOT NEEDED in buildings like that, and warping can help hold the building together.

he might of also known about the other fire in the wtc towers years ago, that burned for longer and alot hotter then the fires did on 9-11.

but if he knew that, it would of messed up his fire proofing was not good enough bs he was tring to spew.

now how i talked to alot of engineers about this issue?

all the time, some have joined ae911, some dont want to get involved(jobs,kids, and government contracts) plus most realize, that the lay person is too stupid to understand what it is they are saying though.

i mean just look at the people who think that nano thermite just happened because the plane was aluminum and the building was iron.......lmfao.

or maybe some one planted the nano thermite that jones got ahold of, or maybe jones himself planted it.

never mind that NANO thermite is TOTALLY different from thermite(yes i have seen those spiffie videos of people making thermite at home)

NANO thermite however is a very high grade explosive made in a lab, this shit dont come together when you throw a coke can into you iron trash can.

A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. A critical aspect of the production is the ability to produce particles of sizes in the tens of nanometer range, as well as with a limited distribution of particle sizes. In 2002, the production of nano-sized aluminum particles required considerable effort, and commercial sources for the material were limited.

I think it's important that anyone who believes in these allegations that the buildings were controlled demolitions and not caused by the planes hitting them to sit down for an hour with a reputable Structural Engineer and then come back to MS and post their findings.

not that i dont trust your buddys brain power, but lets look at some REAL experts eh?

SCIENTISTS

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:

"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."


The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was "very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers'] conceptual design parameters" (Richard F. Humenn), stated that "the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down."


Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:

"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].''

wow, holds masters in both physics and engineering, worlds leading fire researcher, 33 years at the top lab in the country.

yeah, these guys dont have a clue do they?

but a guy who buildsplanes knows that a fire lasting an hour would of done the towers in cause the fire proofing was not good enough.

ask him if the fireproofing was better in 1975 then on 9-11-01

This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

interesting, so your buddy claims the fireproofing was not good enough to stand a fire for an hour, but the same fire proofing lasted over 3 hours,WITH NO DAMAGE 16 years before?

my fathers best friend has worked for M.M. in orlando for 30 years, i would love to see what kind of work your buddy did while there, why not pm me his name so i can see what kind of engineering work he did there?

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

and I don't know if it would necessarily sway my opinion, but it would certainly help me understand how much weight to give to some of these comments.

no need to give them ANY weight, look up the stuff yourself, and give it your own weight.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

in short? volume. they measure the size of the dust clouds to find their volume. also after the collapse, everyone can clearly see

most of the debris outside the footprint.

but lets see how they came to those figures like you asked eh?

Obviously a lot of the debris fell outside the footprint...nothing surprising about that.

But the amount of debris that ended up outside of the footprints of the towers once they had completed their collapse is NOT the same thing as the amount of debris that was outside of the tower columns (as opposed to the amount that would be above it) at any point in time as it was collapsing.

The two are obviously very much related, but for the purposes of determining whether there was sufficient mass from the upper floors to continue the collapse, this information about the debris post-fall is not very useful. The debris is created and distributed throughout the fall and even after the initial collapse is complete by the impact wave that shot the debris cloud all around - there are many picture of people running from the cloud. That cloud basically shot out after the building had pretty much completed its collapse. How are you going to draw inferences from that debris cloud as to the state of the debris when the collapse was still 60 stories up?

It is still highly speculative and unscientific to make inferences about the inability of the upper mass to continue collapse based on photographs of the dust clouds as the building fell. You need a fairly detailed and advanced mathematical model, and they exist.

thats funny you should mention that cause.....

That's a nice story. Now tell me why we saw the towers collapse from the top down and not stay whole and collapse into the bottom as would be expected if the basement is where the explosions/destabilization occurred.

It would have looked like this:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A[/YOUTUBE]

That is not what happened at WTC 1 and 2:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybIKkHJzKgg[/YOUTUBE]

Do you see the difference?

In order to get the result you saw at WTC, you'd need a continuous set of demolitions explosives exploding from the top down - timed progressively. That would be a very complex operation. No demolitions expert in his/her right mind would do it that way.

The closest thing that resembled a classic demolition collapse at New York that day was WTC 7, which is why conspiracy theorists tend to focus the most on that one.

and somehow your thinking that the 80 floors of undamaged stronger built, always held the weight, would somehow NOT provide sufficient resistence?

Not necessarily at all. You can't just say "oh, it's 80 floors and above was less then half that; therefore, the 80 will beat the 30." That is not scientific thinking. Scientific thinking would tell you that it depends on the momentum (again, mass TIMES velocity) of those top floors. And the 30 floors do not have to crush all 80 floors at once, so you can't just reason that 80 > 30; therefore the tower would be ok. Again, a lot of math is needed (and it's out there on both sides).

but lets say they did not, in order for the tower to take a str8 down fall, the other columns on the undamaged side would have to give way AT THE SAME TIME as the bottom floors would of failed, otherwise the top would of stretched the support columns untill they snapped.

when you have half of the top leaning to one side, it puts strain on the other sides columns, when the side keeps leaning more and more, it keeps strectching the other columns, with the pull from the damaged side, the columns, when they did fail, would of snapped, sending the top over the edge, they would of not snappend and sent the building str8 down.

the force was acting on the upper half and was pushing it sideways(a force in motion tends to stay in motion).


the top would of kept leaning over, crushing the floors underneath it's side, untill the other side columns failed, sending it over the side.

this is pretty basic stuff here bro.

Guess what: when you deal with a situation with a large cascade of interdependent variables, many times what the average layperson thinks is "basic stuff" based on their own reasoned intuition is actually misleading and incorrect.

The collapse of the other side did not have to occur at EXACTLY the same instant; just near enough the same time, which is not so crazy considering that the building was already buckling for a long time before it fell. It's not like the steel on the other side was in healthy shape. Keep in mind that when the plane severed some of the core columns, the load of the top on the bottom is redistributed very strangely and affects the entire building, not just the side where the fire was most intense and collapse happened to begin a few moments earlier.

So when the one side started to go, it didn't take much for the entire structure to give way and for the momentum to build as the mass gained downward velocity. And once that momentum was large enough, the downward force outdid any ability for the tower to fall over.

What you're describing could happen under a different set of circumstances, such as if you were to have a healthy tower and just chisel out one side - the way you would if you were chopping down a tree. But that is not what happened here. You're using the wrong analogy and misinterpreting the situation.

But let's assume that the top of the tower couldn't penetrate the bottom part for some reason and that it was a demo job. Think about how complicated it would have been to achieve the result we saw with explosives: you'd have to be sitting there, waiting for the top of the building to sufficiently weaken and watch it buckle and then as the top is already leaning over, you'd have to hit the demolition button for the next set of explosives below to result in a downward collapse. That would be very hard to time - too early and you wouldn't see the lean; too late and the top really would have fallen over. The timing of the top down charges seems to render the whole idea to be rather ridiculous... It is far easier to just detonate the building at the bottom and have it collapse into itself, which is NOT what happened - go look at that second video again.

wow conservation of momentum eh? now your getting into the deep stuff bro, why dont you explain to us why the governments theory breaks the law of conservation of momentum?

you know, like how if conservation of momentum was followed, the collapse would of taken alot longer then it did(?unless all support below impact zones were pulled).

Not gonna defend the details of the NIST report, but I would say that the whole free fall speed thing has been fairly discredited by now. If the thing was falling "too fast" or at free fall speed, then why was the debris falling faster than the rest of the collapsing structure? This by itself tells you that you should be looking for a true fall time that is greater than free fall speed. I think Greening's study is probably the closest estimation that shows that no laws of physics were broken.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/WTC1_redLines.gif[/IMG]

[/quote]
Short answer is that the mass is pulverized on its way down during the progression of the fall. It doesn't occur in exactly the first instance, and it doesn't occur in exactly the last. It is a progressive process that can only be estimated - no one can tell you exactly for sure. If they claim they can, they are lying.

By the way...why am I not surprised that you find a crazy woman who seriously proposes that the WTC towers were felled by Star Wars laser beam rays from space to be credible?

That Judy Wood woman has already been laughed out of town a long time ago.

Watch this video if you want to know about falling debris and how much sense that woman makes. Rarely have I seen an educated person be this stupid.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWzZocY-sUQ[/YOUTUBE]

She thinks all the debris "fell up".

[toasty]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

did you know that if you read 20 books one one subject, like say physics, you would be in the top 10% of the physics field in the world?

if you read 100 books, you would be considered an expert, all without having a degree.

I'm sorry, but this is just preposterous. Considered an expert by whom? And what good is it to be in the top 10% of people in a subject that is only understood by a fraction of a percent of the population like physics? Doesn't mean you know it well enough to actually do anything, and probably gives you just enough information to be dangerous, IMO.

I mean, come on -- this is such a wild oversimplification, it was hard for me to focus on anything else you said after this. If you were to read up on a bunch of books about a historical topic, like the life of Abraham Lincoln, I'd have no problem considering you an authority on Abraham Lincoln. Then again, that's basically a task in rote memorization, so BFD. The same is not true of a field that includes a lot of applied reasoning. It does not follow that because you understand a few scientific concepts, you know how to think like a scientist. That seems so self-evident to me, I can't believe I'm even wasting key strokes to point it out.

Alas, however, I digress. The bigger point was that we're on page 32 of this thread, and I'm just wondering if anyone has offered an independent thought yet. There is no question that there are highly qualified experts on both sides of the issue that have chimed in in some respect or another. We all know that. If we're just going to belch out citations to opposing experts rather than offer up our own thoughts, though, can't we just submit it on the briefs and be done with it?

You know what's REALLY astonishing? The fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

and I don't know if it would necessarily sway my opinion, but it would certainly help me understand how much weight to give to some of these comments.

I make no claim to be a physics expert like yesme does. Some of what I state is from reading, some is from my recollection of physics classes a long time ago, and some is from speaking with friends and other individuals who are in PhD physics and science programs.

But I completely agree with you that a lot of these conspiracy notions are easy enough to refute with basic common sense - like Flight 77. I don't understand how people can pretend to be all scientific and evidence-based on one hand and then make claims about that plane being hidden somewhere with no evidence whatsoever.

For that matter, there are very many aspects of this supposed plot that sound dumber than a third grader's excuse for not doing his homework. I continue to see conspiracy theorists as quick to try to discredit the mainstream story but not very willing or capable to present a credible alternative scenario.

[Jenks]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I

You know what's REALLY astonishing? The fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has.

^this.

Every time i log on to MS and see this is the featured topic in the political section, i think that very thing.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

But the amount of debris that ended up outside of the footprints of the towers once they had completed their collapse is NOT the same thing as the amount of debris that was outside of the tower columns (as opposed to the amount that would be above it) at any point in time as it was collapsing.

correct, now i will wait for you to say all the debris slid of the mountin of debris in the footprint, and spread out over 500 feet...lol

It is still highly speculative and unscientific to make inferences about the inability of the upper mass to continue collapse based on photographs of the dust clouds as the building fell. You need a fairly detailed and advanced mathematical model, and they exist.

is this where you bust out the model of.......the upper block was heavy, it fell, collapse started and finished?

lets talk about details, cause your right, they are important.

like for example, the towers were built to withstand many times the static and dynamic load of the building(as are all tall buildings)

in order for us to begin to assume that the upper block could of caused the collapse, we would need to know exactly how much those floors weighed.

and not the generic while the building total weight was 500k tons so, divide the number of floors by 500k.

cause that what the government and supports like you and greening have done.

what i or anyone has yet to see(because we clearly realize the 10th floor is going to weigh ALOT more then the 109th floor) is how much each floor weighed.

110=
109=
108=
107=

so now that we both agree that a complete and truthful investigation can only be done with the proper data, why not find out what those numbers are for us, unless you just want to admit right now you stuck your foot so far in your mouth that your shoelace is hanging out your butt.

That's a nice story. Now tell me why we saw the towers collapse from the top down and not stay whole and collapse into the bottom as would be expected if the basement is where the explosions/destabilization occurred.

because it was not supposed to look like a cd in the first place.

i also bet you think if it was a cd, that the government put out a public bid for the job as well.

i know thinking outside the box has never sat well with you, but for a minute try to imagine what a cd might look like if it was not supposed to look like a cd and they did not have to worry where stuff fell or who died.

In order to get the result you saw at WTC, you'd need a continuous set of demolitions explosives exploding from the top down - timed progressively. That would be a very complex operation. No demolitions expert in his/her right mind would do it that way.

wow, so they reversed the order from bottom up to top down, and this is such a leap of imagination that you believe it could never be done eh?

The closest thing that resembled a classic demolition collapse

right, because if it was a cd, they would def go for the classic look.

Not necessarily at all. You can't just say "oh, it's 80 floors and above was less then half that; therefore, the 80 will beat the 30."

no

what i'm saying is that buildings like that are built bottom heavy, top light.(i.e. the 10th floor has to support itself plus the 100 floors above it, where the 110th floor only has to support itself)

you getting the picture now?

That is not scientific thinking. Scientific thinking would tell you that it depends on the momentum (again, mass TIMES velocity) of those top floors.

scientific thinking?

you mean like saying the upper block crushed the lower part of the building, but yet no one knows how much the "mass" weighed?

lmfao

yeah real scientific thinking there buddy.

Again, a lot of math is needed (and it's out there on both sides).

great, then please provide the weight of the 109th floor for both towers.

Guess what: when you deal with a situation with a large cascade of interdependent variables, many times what the average layperson thinks is "basic stuff" based on their own reasoned intuition is actually misleading and incorrect.

i can see that from your posts

The collapse of the other side did not have to occur at EXACTLY the same instant; just near enough the same time,

1. it did occur at the exact same time
2. it would of had to occur at the exact same time or else the collapse would not of been asymetrical.

basic stuff here folks, unless your trying to not sound like a layman.

What you're describing could happen under a different set of circumstances, such as if you were to have a healthy tower and just chisel out one side - the way you would if you were chopping down a tree. But that is not what happened here.

wtf??

so something was wrong with the tower before one side was chisled out?

or did you just throw out some mind numbing dumb stuff?

Not gonna defend the details of the NIST report, but I would say that the whole free fall speed thing has been fairly discredited by now. If the thing was falling "too fast" or at free fall speed, then why was the debris falling faster than the rest of the collapsing structure? This by itself tells you that you should be looking for a true fall time that is greater than free fall speed. I think Greening's study is probably the closest estimation that shows that no laws of physics were broken.

who said anything about free fall speeds?

strawman much?

i said that it should of taken much longer then it did.

hell i'll even accept whatever time you wanna quote as the collapse time.

and it still is not long enough, for a stronger built lower half to provide not even a half second of resistence per floor.

a half second would mean that as soon as the upper block hit the floor below, it gave way without pause and it still would take 40 seconds.

and again, that is assuming NO resistence(where there clearly was resistence,you cant have pulverized concrete without resistence).

so what collapse time do you wanna use today?

Short answer is that the mass is pulverized on its way down during the progression of the fall. It doesn't occur in exactly the first instance, and it doesn't occur in exactly the last. It is a progressive process that can only be estimated - no one can tell you exactly for sure. If they claim they can, they are lying.

hahaha

man your great.

listen physics guy, when a force is acting on something, then an equal and oppisite force is also acting.

in order for ANY floors to be pulverized, the floor above it must also be pulverized.

i.e. if the upper block was 20 floors, then after 20 floors of the lower block being pulverized, the upper 20 would also be pulverized.

(i love the fact you brought up conservation of momentum, even if you dont really understand it.)

At the point of collision where the two objects hit each other, there will be a transfer of momentum. In the case of the WTC towers the collision involves a failure on one or more floors which causes the upper part of the building to collide with the lower part. This is referred to as an inelastic or viscous collision because the two objects collide and stick together. The viscous behavior refers to the deformation the material undergoes during the collision. Energy is dissipated through molecular motion and heat generation by this deformation. So a considerable amount of momentum will be expended in breaking up the lower part of the building as well as the upper part. During the collision, the two objects exert equal and opposite forces on each other. The force of gravity pulling down the detached part of the building is equal to the force of the Earth pulling the detached building upward. However, due to safety factors the resisting force of the remaining building dwarfs the downward pushing gravitational force [4]. If there were not much stronger resisting force, no building would stay up because they are not counteracting the force of gravity. How could gravity pull the building down when there is a far stronger force resisting the gravitational force? The remaining part of the building is in the way. It is a much stronger force counteracting the weaker gravitational force. That is how buildings stay up so long. The remaining part of the building should at the very least slow the collapse considerably, not provide almost no resistance at all. Also, a huge portion of the building is pulverized into dust and ejected outwards somehow, detracting considerably from the falling mass[5].

By the way...why am I not surprised that you find a crazy woman who seriously proposes that the WTC towers were felled by Star Wars laser beam rays from space to be credible?

That Judy Wood woman has already been laughed out of town a long time ago.

Watch this video if you want to know about falling debris and how much sense that woman makes. Rarely have I seen an educated person be this stupid.

right,right.

but the part i quoted is truth, feel free to ask any non crazy physics professor.

I'm sorry, but this is just preposterous. Considered an expert by whom?

"Earl Nightingale said many years ago that one hour per day of study in your chosen field is all it takes. One hour per day of study will put you at the top of your field within three years. Within five years, you'll be a national authority. In seven years, you can be one of the best people in the world at what you do.

If you read one hour per day in your field, that will translate into about one book per week. One book per week translates into about 50 books per year, and 50 books per year will translate into about 500 books over the next 10 years.

If you read only one book per month, that will put you into the top 1 percent of income earners in our society. But if you read one book per week — 50 books per year — that will make you one of the best educated, smartest, most capable and highest-paid people in your field. Regular reading will transform your life completely."

i easily spend an hour a day for the last 8 years researching 9-11, including physics,fire study's,etc,etc.

The same is not true of a field that includes a lot of applied reasoning. It does not follow that because you understand a few scientific concepts, you know how to think like a scientist

ah, so a smart person can only think like a scientist if he spends 40k on his degree?

yeah, that makes sense.

it seems that some of the smartest people ever in this world, did not have a degree.

what is your excuse for that?

But I completely agree with you that a lot of these conspiracy notions are easy enough to refute with basic common sense - like Flight 77. I don't get how people can pretend to be all scientific and evidence-based and then make ridiculous claims about that plane being hidden somewhere with no evidence whatsoever.

and for 40 years you would of never believed the tuskagee experiments were going on either.

it's called brainwashed and not caring about anything but your small life, it's helped out by your busy schedule of your oh so important life and your carefree attitude that no matter what, your government cares about you because you vote and pay taxes.