towers collapse

[scholarsOrAcademics]

faster than free-fall in a vacuum. A solid object would fall that height in 9:22 sec. The second tower that collapsed was tower #1 in 8 seconds. The other tower collapsed slower than free-fall by 0.78 seconds. Learning the physics of nine-one-one.

[sabbat hunter]

1. your times are off

the first tower took about 15 seconds. the second one slightly longer.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html


Neither tower fell at or faster than free fall. In fact both fell far slower than free fall.

[wildbilln864]

2. they should not have fallen....

at all! :eyes:

[LARED]

3. Why not? nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. NIST disagrees with *your* times...

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Just sayin'.....

[leftofthedial]

14. don't expect all the OCT defenders to coordinate their "data"

it's propaganda, not reality.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. If it were propaganda, the data would be coordinated, wouldn't it? n/t

[wildbilln864]

16. that depends on the competence of the propagandists, wouldn't it? nt

:hi:

[leftofthedial]

17. not necessarily

the invisible left hand of the free market doesn't always know what the invisible right hand of the free market is doing

[scholarsOrAcademics]

18. the physics involved in the collapse

requires some use of kinetic equations,
and the free-fall of a solid object is the reference point. 9.22 seconds.
The physics requires some thought and using analysis of video is going to introduce some he says-she says, subjective differences in what is seen even with the most honorable of intentions.

[leftofthedial]

19. not to mention the least

honorable of intentions

[undeterred]

188. yes

:bounce:

[number6]

20. so they proven what ....?

"but dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse make this difficult.
Coming up with a final figure involves a degree of estimation"


"Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us
to claim proof of anything"

Nothing basically

what a lame website (911myths) myths all right. :eyes:

[wildbilln864]

21. Spot on!

Thanks number6! :hi:

[wildbilln864]

23. Your times are off!

According to this guy who was there! :hi:

[hack89]

24. Who is Ashley London and why should we care?

she's the one who says 8 seconds.

[Flatulo]

5. Semantics notwithstanding, anyone can see that some stuff was

falling faster than the collapse front. If you look at any collapse videos, you'll see ejected stuff falling faster than the global collapse happened. That ejected stuff fell at freefall speeds, the rest fell somewhat slower.

[freedom fighter jh]

7. The ejected stuff fell at free fall?

What's your basis for saying that?

How do you know that some of it was not ejected downward -- at least with a downward component? If it was, it would have fallen faster than free fall.

Or the stuff that you see passing the "collapse front" may have started falling before the main "collapse" started. In that case it would have had a head start.

What is your basis for ruling out both these possibilities?

[Flatulo]

8. Physics.. and the video evidence.

It could not have been ejected downward because the building was in the way. It could not have attained additional downward propulsion once it cleared the building unless little rocket motors were attached to the parts and pointed in the right direction.

Stuff that was ejected out had a horizontal component of velocity, which has very little effect on drop times.

If you fire a bullet horizontally out of a gun, and drop one from the same height at the same time, they will both hit the ground at more or less the same time (minor differences exist due to drag).

[freedom fighter jh]

9. Not straight downward, but with a downward component

If it was ejected with a downward component of 10 m/s, the downward component of its velolcity would have consistently been 10 m/s faster than freefall.

Or maybe it fell before the main collapse started, and thus would have had a head start and would have been traveling downward faster than debris that started from a lower height than it did.

You are assuming that neither of these things happened.

[Flatulo]

11. Well, yeah, because it is impossible.

For your first suggestion, you are theorizing that material that was falling faster than the building had been ejected with a downward component of velocity. But the application of an (additional) downward velocity component would not be possible until *after* the objects had been ejected and cleared the build area, because the slower moving stuff underneath would have gotten in the way. At this point, there are no forces acting on the debris besides their weight*gravity, plus air resistance.

As for your second suggestion, I agree this is possible - for some debris. But the videos show a continuous sream of ejected debris - always ejecting horizontally from the collapse front and then accelerating faster than the collapse front.

I suppose one could get a video and time sequence and plot the position vs time of the collapse front and compare it to the falling things and see which is accelerating closest to free fall trajectory.

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. Not assuming

Not witnessing the phenomena you are describing, because it didn't occur.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

6. data from Columbia U. seismology group

Information Based on Seismic Waves recorded at Palisades New York Seismology Group, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Event origin time (EDT)
(hours:minutes:seconds) Magnitude
(equivalent seismic) Duration
Impact 1 at North Tower 08:46:26±1 0.9 12 seconds
Impact 2 at South Tower 09:02:54±2 0.7 6 seconds
Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 2.1 10 seconds
Collapse 2, North Tower 10:28:31±1 2.3 8 seconds

It is going to take a lot of patience to learn the physics of this META-EVENT, the term used by Peter Dale Scott. I would add it certainly has all the marks of being a coup, surpassing even Bush's 1st election.

[petgoat]

10. Palisades was too close to provide meaningful data.

I forget the reason for this--S and P waves step on each other, I think.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

12. anyone in the field of seismology

have similar opinions? This is after all on the subject of the physics involved in this META-Event.

[wildbilln864]

22. In this article....

New York fire chief Richard Picciotto, while vising a local city here says that the North Tower fell in only eight seconds.
""The shaking was unbelievable, everything went black and the air started to compress," Picciotto says. "The wind was like a hurricane typhoon in there, and it was actually picking people up and throwing them around."

Each floor measured more than an acre, but it took only eight seconds for the tower to fall. In those few seconds, Picciotto says he felt super-humanly aware of his surroundings. "
article link :hi:

[Flatulo]

25. No Bill, Chief Picciotto did not make that claim. The writer of the

article did.

Please re-read your link and take note of where the quotes begin and end.

The eight-second claim is made by the writer, not the chief.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

26. complicity? threat of loss of government contracts?

from Judy Wood site

DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Relator,
vs.
Defendants.


APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA),
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.(SAIC),
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.,
WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. (WJE),
ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.(RJA),
COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC. (SGH),
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP (SOM),
GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP (GMS),
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. (HA),
ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.,
S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC. (GA),
TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC. (TA),
AJMAL ABBASI,
EDUARDO KAUSEL,
DAVID PARKS,
DAVID SHARP,
JOSEF VAN DYCK,
KASPAR WILLIAM,
DANIELE VENEZANO,
DATASOURCE, INC.,
GEOSTAATS, INC.,
NuSTATS,

EVIDENCE FOR DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS PUT FORWARD IN A DQA REQUEST FOR CORRECTION: PERSONS WITH SUPPORTING INFORMATION ARE ASKED TO COME FORWARD AND BE HEARD

[Sweet Pea]

27. I LOVE It!

When Judy Woods is brought into the discussion, you just KNOW you are about to embark on a fantasmagorical lecture of gargantuan intellectual importance!

*cough cough*

[scholarsOrAcademics]

28. audio. unsealed lawsuit - Fetzer

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr%20Judy%20Wood%20Jerry%20Leaphart%20-%20NIST%20Qui%20Tam%20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%20-%2011%20Oct%202007.mp3
from google; Judy Wood lawsuit

[Realityhack]

29. No they don't.

You can clearly see chunks of material in free-fall out pacing the building collapse.

The laws of physics where not suspended by aliens in cohorts with Bush co. on 9-11. There are just a bunch of extremely shoddy/intellectually dishonest 'calculations' off the time it took for the buildings to fall.

[wildbilln864]

30. "The laws of physics where not suspended by aliens in cohorts with Bush co. on 9-11."

obvious desperate strawman! Aliens!? :rofl:

"There are just a bunch of extremely shoddy/intellectually dishonest 'calculations' off the time it took for the buildings to fall." Yes there is and it's the No-Truthers that's catapulting that propaganda.

[Realityhack]

31. What is a 'no-truther'?

I can't recall where I saw aliens mentioned, I know it wasn't DU but its out there. There are plenty of 'theories' seriously espoused here that violate the laws of physics.

I stand by my statement regarding the 'calculations' of how long it took the towers to fall. I think when you come up with an answer that requires downward acceleration outside of gravity using a reference video that clearly shows items in free-fall out distancing the main collapse you need to re-evaluate the accuracy of your calculations rather than start looking for a mechanism of downward acceleration.

[wildbilln864]

32. so tell us...

which theories seriously espoused here also violate the laws of physics and how do the violate them? Please. :popcorn:

[Realityhack]

34. Fissled nukes...

that leave no radiation signature.

Objects falling fasener than free-fall with no other method of acceleration.

Planes should have crumpled upon impact.


Typing on my phone is a pain... go learn something and figure more out for yourself.

And no, I am not recreating a highschool physics textbook to explane 'how' those violate the laws of physics, just so you can play word games about it.

Put the popcorn away and admit that some of the 'theories' seriously advanced here are stupid and phisicaly impossible.

[wildbilln864]

35. hm...

Some theories are indeed too far out there for me also. But many are very valid and highly possible.
I'm sure I'm equally as adept at physics as you, and probably more so, so save your immature condescention.
And I like pocorn.

[SDuderstadt]

36. This is unintentional irony, right, Bill?

You're adept at physics?

[Realityhack]

37. Um.

If you understand that these things are nuts why ask me the question with a popcorn emoticon? Seemed like you where saying such has never happened and expecting to watch me go nuts trying to find an example when you know they exist.

As for who is more adept at physics I have no idea and I don't really care. I apologized if I hurt your feelings I was reacting to what I perceived as stated above.

[wildbilln864]

38. Thanks but my feelings weren't hurt...

Some things are nuts, some aren't.
I will say that no steel framed highrise has ever completely collapsed for any reason other than CD before 91101. Yet three did on that day. That's not nuts. It's a fact.

[Realityhack]

39. Yes it is interesting trivia

though a bit misleading. There where a number of partial collapses and I don't remember any buildings the size of the twin towers being hit by jetliners recently.

Most building fires do not include a separate massive weakening of the structure as seen on 9-11. Nor are their many examples of this size. Those examples their are tend to be of a different construction style. The towers where rather unique.

[wildbilln864]

42. Yes they were.

AIR, the architects designed the buildings to withstand an impact from a fully loaded passenger jet. They weren't fully loaded on 911.
It was designed to withstand 100 mph hurricane force winds also. Trivial ain't it. :eyes:
The building's construction manager said, "I believe that the building could withstand multiple impacts of jetliners..." 38 second video :hi:

[AZCat]

43. I guess that shows people pencil-whipped answers in the 1960's too.

So they were wrong. It happens.

[petgoat]

50. They overbuilt in the 1960s. Steel was cheaper than engineering, and very high quality. nt

[Realityhack]

51. Your assertaton demonstrates nothing.

Regardless of its accuracy your statement is irrelevant to the question of a specific impact scenario on a specific building.

[AZCat]

57. What a stupid fucking statement.

It's obvious you are ignorant of the entire history of engineering. Please stop making such an ass of yourself.

[petgoat]

60. There you go again. Huge attitude, teeny weeny weenie substance. nt

[Realityhack]

66. too be fair...

I think AZ is a bit fed up with spending time explaining details just to be ignored out of hand.

Do you have proof that that statement is
True?
Applies to this specific case?

[petgoat]

70. That's what AZ wants you to think. He just wants to sigh, and tut tut tut

and wear an expression of tolerant bemusement.

He posts nothing of substance. I call him Elmer FUD.

[Realityhack]

88. Bullshit

Regardless of whatever insults you want to throw I have seen AZ provide plenty of helpful information in his posts.

You on the other hand do not.

[AZCat]

77. There you go again. Wild, unsupported claims, woeful ignorance. n/t

[LARED]

92. It's amazing PG seems to be completely unaware of

just how ignorant she is regarding anything to do with engineering. How else can you explain a complete refusal to learn.

[petgoat]

96. Cheap steel and pencil based calculations produced a culture of overbuilding in the 60s

You dispute this fact?

If I remember right, you're the one who said there was no
such term as "overbuilt."

[LARED]

102. What does a culture of overbuilding mean to you?

....and how is this possibly relevant to anything?

[Realityhack]

105. How interesting. Now can you show relevence? n/t

[petgoat]

122. It responded to AZ's lazy, unsupported, wild claim in 43 that the WTC engineering was defective. nt

[AZCat]

123. Defective?! No, that's YOUR claim.

Where in the design requirements is the aircraft impact scenario listed?

[petgoat]

127. It's YOUR claim in post 43 that the designers "pencil whipped" a "wrong" answer

to aircraft crash resistance.

Both Leslie Robertson and John Skilling said the WTC was designed to
resist plane crashes, and Frank DeMartini said if would resist multiple
crashes.

Thank you for further validating my decision to ignore your lazy FUD,
Elmer.

[AZCat]

129. Your ignorance of the process of engineering buildings is not surprising.

When are you going to realize you need to learn something of these topics before opening your fucking mouth?

[petgoat]

132. Your two statements are inconsistent. Rather than explain, you attack me.

Thanks for giving further evidence of the poor value you bring to the
discussion. You guys are toast, admit it.

Column 79 is going to bring NIST down in total symmetrical collapse at
near free-fall speed into a tidy heap.

[AZCat]

136. Calling the towers defective because they didn't survive September 11th is fucking stupid. n/t

[petgoat]

138. You said (post 43) the engineering was "wrong," not I, Mr. FUD. nt

[AZCat]

143. Your reading comprehension is as poor as your engineering intuition. n/t

[dailykoff]

161. "Engineering intuition," that's priceless.

They could use you over at the NIST. Seems they're having a little trouble with their WTC7 report.

[AZCat]

170. I've thought about it...

but I'd rather work for http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/">these guys.

petgoat fails to realize that one cannot gain "engineering intuition" (if there is such a thing - I was using it sarcastically) without spending years doing engineering the hard way, using actual numbers and principles rather than "divining" the solution to problems by esoteric methods such as breaking old chairs.

[petgoat]

174. If you doubt there's such a thing as engineering intuition you ain't much of an engineer.

You need it so you can conceive of multiple solutions to problems, so you
don't waste a lot of time refining (or worse--building!) a less desirable
approach.

Your lack of intuition helps explain your exaggerated regard for your
(presumably hard-won) technical knowledge (assuming you actually have
any) and your belief that everything is so damned complicated it's not
even worth discussing.

[SDuderstadt]

176. Simple question, Petgoat....

how would you gain "engineering intuition" unless you had "engineering education"?


Or do you just say every stupid thing that comes to mind?

[petgoat]

179. You develop the concepts of tension, compression, and shear through experience

though you don't necessarily know their names until you read a
few books.

How did illiterate vikings build such great ships, and the Ojibway
build great canoes? How did illiterate druids raise the stones at
Stonehenge?

There were engineers long before there were textbooks.

[SDuderstadt]

Nice try at a diversion, Petgoat.....

do you now claim some degree of engineering expertise?

[SDuderstadt]

180. Dupe

[Realityhack]

191. Sorry but I don't think that cuts it.

1. Engineering education != textbooks. A viking would get an engineering education as an apprentice etc. This is unimportant but yet another display of your confusion of concepts.
2. Comparing viking ships and canoes to the complexity of some of the largest skyscrapers in the world? Not exactly apples and apples. When we start talking about calculations of wind sheer on a skyscraper we are talking about a whole other level of engineering.
3. Intuitive concepts of tension, compression, shear, etc. ... sorry but many of these intuitive concepts fail at the extremes which is exactly what we are talking about. 'intuitively' we would say that bolts don't stretch, but we know they do. When you reach proportions of the twin towers many of your 'intuitive' principles are bunk.

You have demonstrated over and over again that you don't know very much about engineering.
Regardless of your 'intuitive understanding' (or anyone else's for that matter) the numbers are what matters.

[vincent_vega_lives]

189. Yes this was a "priceless" post

WAAAAAMMMMO!!! :rofl:

[Realityhack]

44. So tell us Bill...

Exactly what mass and velocity of jet impacts where they designed to withstand?

How where those calculations done and are they accurate if you use more advanced current modeling techniques?

Did this take into account the affect of impact on the fireproofing material and assume a serious fire on impact?

[petgoat]

46. They were designed to resist 707s--four engine jets near as big as 767s`

John Skilling, the engineer, told the Seattle Times:

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Of course, maybe he was lying. It was after the '93 bombing, and maybe he was trying to create
the impression that flying a plane into the building was futile.

[Realityhack]

52. Or...

the original 707 anaylisis coudl be wrong (That happens to people sometimes without having to assign alterior motives.)
Or..
the diffrences between a 707 and a 767 could be significant (despite being 'nearly as big' their are a lot of factors to think about when you are talking about slamming one into a building)

You should also note that the 707 analysis was done before erecting the building not after the bombing.

[petgoat]

53. 4 engines do more harm than two, even if they're smaller. nt

[AZCat]

58. And this analysis is based on what?

Perhaps you could lead a discussion on bypass ratios and the history of the turbofan engine?

[petgoat]

59. Based on the intuitive belief that a direct hit from a jet engine

so outclasses a thin-wall upper story core column that
there is no meaningful difference between a 707 engine and
a 767 engine's destructive capability and a 707's engines
are thus twice as destructive as a 767's.

Your apparent belief that one must be an expert in the history
of aircraft engines is another indication of your lazy
know-nothing obfuscation.

[Realityhack]

64. This *may* be true.

However without details on the weight of the engines in question it remains unproven. It certainly is a strong possibility but a real analysis is needed to be sure.

Furthermore. The engines are far from the only part of the airplane to do damage. How does the rest of the airplane factor in? Wing construction and weight, etc.

How good was the original analysis.

I am not saying I know the answers. But I recognize some key facts that I do not believe have been adequately addressed.

1. The planes DO have differences that may well be significant. I have not seen a good analysis of how these differences would affect the calculations.

2. Our current modern analysis of the 767 seems to indicate an ability to destroy the building when coupled with other factors present that day. This can not be ignored unless specific flaws are found. This is the key issue. What was previously believed does not call into question current information unless it points out specific failings of the current model. That is how science progresses. Period.

3. The original analysis could simply be wrong. What are the details? Did it take any dislodged fireproofing into account. How advanced was it. Do we now see weaknesses in it.

I do not see these as issues that have been addressed. All I see is people saying 'well they said it could survive a jet impact. Therefore it could. Therefore something else must have been present.' That relies on several as yet unfounded assumptions.

If you or anyone else thinks this presents a serious problem than it is up to you to demonstrate how (see #2).

[AZCat]

72. We all know that your engineering intuition fucking sucks.

I'd like to see some numbers, please.

[petgoat]

74. Your free to provide them. I will stand by the axiom that a blow from a ten pound hammer

will kill me just as dead as a blow from a twenty pound hammer, and four
smaller jet engines will do more damage to the lightly built upper
core columns than two larger ones will.

[AZCat]

76. Again with your lazy attitude.

Is it a fear of math and science that prevents your explanation of various conclusions you've reached, or are you truly this lazy?

[petgoat]

79. I reach no conclusions. I need no math to challenge premature (and mathless) conclusions of others.

[AZCat]

81. Such outrageous misstatements are hilarious.

It was only a few posts ago where you stated

4 engines do more harm than two, even if they're smaller. nt

This is, of course, a conclusion. One unsupported by facts or calculations (based instead on your "intuitive belief"), but a conclusion nonetheless.

[petgoat]

82. Your inability to distinguish an axiom from a conclusion speaks volumes, cowboy. nt

[SDuderstadt]

84. An axiom????

You're kidding, right???

[Realityhack]

89. NO! Bad petgoat. AZ is correct.

You posted a conclusion. NOT an Axiom.

It was and remains unsupported by any actual analysis. You haven't even stated the sizes we are talking about.

You also failed to address any other design differences.

[petgoat]

97. Axioms by their nature are unsupported. I'm not going to prove to you that water is wet. nt

[AZCat]

124. Water isn't necessarily wet.

Like many substances, water can exist in several phases. Two of these - solid and gas - are not "wet".

Have you any more stupid statements you'd like to make?

[Realityhack]

162. Man how did I miss that!

Thanks AZCat.

[petgoat]

164. Ice is wet, and steam and fog are wet. You and your little friend are all wet, AZ nt

[SDuderstadt]

166. How is ice wet? n/t

[AZCat]

167. Nice showcase of ignorance.

Of course fog is wet - it's just an aerosolized form of liquid water. Ice and steam, however, are not wet. Any "wetness" is due to a phase change back to liquid.

[petgoat]

169. The phase change is inherent in the real world. Ice and steam are wet. nt

[AZCat]

171. Oh Jesus, that's stupid.

Here I thought you merely failed to grasp mechanics and thermodynamics, but apparently you can't understand psychrometrics and chemistry either.

[AZCat]

172. I think it's important to point out...

that rather than concede a rather ridiculous argument on his part, petgoat decides that admitting he's wrong is far worse than appearing absolutely clueless.

This should give everyone an idea of his priorities.

[petgoat]

173. Finally an issue AZ can sink his teeth into: "water is not wet"! nt

[SDuderstadt]

175. The legend of young Petgoat....

Mother: How did you get wet?
Petgoat: I fell into some ice.
Mother: Oy. Go to your room and quit telling obvious lies.

[petgoat]

177. Anyone who's experienced icy winters knows ice is wet. nt

[SDuderstadt]

178. Jesus, Petgoat....

not until it melts back into water or an intermediate stage. Ever heard of slush? Your stubbornness in this issue speaks volumes about why you spend so much time defending your really goofy claims.

[Realityhack]

185. No.

People experienced with icy winters know that ice is not wet. They know that if you pick it up with an insulated surface that is not heated it will not poor. Unless extreme pressure is applied it will remain solid and not wet the surface of the object.
Only when heat or extreme pressure are applied do you see the formation of liquid water that is wet.

You seriously should concede that your example is horribly flawed. You look like you failed 4th grade earth science.

You would look a lot smarter if you had just realized your mistake up front and admitted to it. Now you have dug yourself into a deep hole.

[Realityhack]

184. wrong again.

Ice is not wet. Only when it melts is it wet. In fact snow is used to dry pelts before they are destroyed by freezing watter.

Steam and Fog are liquid water. Actual water vapor is invisible.

[Realityhack]

62. Please show your calculations for that

More smaller lighter engines doing more or less damage is a fairly complex calculation that I do not feel qualified to do. If you have details please share.

[petgoat]

100. It's axiomatic that four six pound hammers do more damage than two nine pound hammers.

They have twice as much chance of hitting something.

[Realityhack]

106. Thats not Axiomatic.

You are calculating twice the chance of hitting someting, making a reasonable assumptiosn about destroying it reguardless of the ligher weight and comming to a conclusion.
Discounting of course the dimensions of said hammers, not to mention every other difference between the planes.

[Realityhack]

186. I notice you never responded to anything about the other diffrences between the planes. n/t

[Make7]

85. Which would do more harm? Two 10,000 lb engines, or four 5,000 lb ones? n/t

[Realityhack]

90. I don't know.

I also don't know what other differences in the planes might be important.

I also don't know how good the original calculations where.

I doubt Petgoat has any calculations to back up his conclusion.

[wildbilln864]

55. were not "where"! nt

:hi:

[Realityhack]

65. Thanks.

English is obviously not my strong point. However, I wonder if that was really a necessary post as it does not materially impact mine.

again with the little emoticon. Sorry but I must call into account wither you are just pointing something out to help me or making a passive aggressive ad-hominim attack.

I don't really care about a reply to this message. I am just pointing out how this makes you come across to me personally.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

190. videos show the madness of claiming fires

caused the collapse--Collapse is clearly a misnomer,just a flagging start for introducing this post.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

192. video at post 42

shows burning (smoke),then vaporization.
also NBC and ABC news videos.

[Realityhack]

193. No it shows Rick A. n/t

[Realityhack]

194. How so?

What videos contradict fires being part of the cause?

[scholarsOrAcademics]

195. Reality?

why the ID 'realityhack'? Is there an inference you have an inside track on reality? Maybe you do not know the term 'reality' has almost no status in hermaneutics, the science of meaning. This post TOWERS COLLAPSE was only for purposes of introducing the elementary subject of how gravity operates on this planet. If I were to repost I would probably use '911 Project' in the sense of Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. If you like scifi, You would enjoy James Blish.

[Realityhack]

196. And your OP was PROVEN wrong

The towers did NOT collapse faster than free fall. Period.
They didn't even collapse AT free fall speed.

Why babble about my user name?
Why not answer the direct question in the post you are responding to?

[scholarsOrAcademics]

197. wasting time reading Journal of 9/11 Studies

I have enough on my plate digging into the details. If you would like to send snail-mail explaining your position I can give you my cell phone number and go from there.
keep cool.
and it is not babble to note there exists a field, a discipline called Philosophy.




















do

[Realityhack]

198. I have no idea what in the fuck you are talking about

honestly did you post this drunk or something?

The point in your OP was proven wrong. What is left to discuss on the subject?

[Realityhack]

199. Also. WTF does this have to do with the 'Journal' of 9-11 'studies'?

The 'Journal of 9-11 studies' is closer to comic relief than it is to science.

[AZCat]

41. Well, it's not like planes get flown into buildings every fucking day. n/t

[wildbilln864]

33. If you don't want ...

an independant and thorough investigation of 911 then ou don't want the truth. A "no-truther".

[AZCat]

40. Bullshit.

Just because you don't like the results of the investigations so far doesn't mean you get to go whining for more, especially if the "truth movement" (and yes, I realize how disparate and disjointed it is) is incapable of describing either what was wrong with the first ones and then how to properly go about investigating it a second time.

[petgoat]

47. It's not the results that are the problem. It's the dishonest process. nt

[petgoat]

48. It's not the results that are the problem. It's the dishonest process.

Your inability to recognize the scientific shortcomings of the FEMA and NIST
investigations speaks ill of your competence and intelligence.

[AZCat]

56. Dishonest, like those who criticize a document they haven't even read?

I'll be happy to discuss the relevant shortcomings once you get a fucking clue.

[petgoat]

61. My fucking clue is that NIST never even provided calculations

supporting their claim that collapse initiation (local and
necessarily asymmetrical) results in total progressive
and completely symmetrical collapse.

Your arguments of personal indignance are really wearing thin.
Give it up, AZ. You're done. It's over. NIST is busted.

Have you heard about the leaks of 130 MB of WTC7 documents?
The whistles are going to start blowing!

[Realityhack]

68. question

what do you mean by 'completely symmetrical'?

[AZCat]

71. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

How would you know such a thing if you haven't read the fucking report, especially when you suck so bad at rephrasing the issue. How long are you going to beat this "symmetrical collapse" strawman before you get tired?

Why would I give a shit what comes from Prison Planet? That garbage hole is less trustworthy than Fox News.

[petgoat]

73. Don't be so hard on yourself. Stupid, stupid is sufficient.

How do you know Prison Planet is a garbage hole unless you read
every single page they ever wrote?

Asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fires can not make symmetrical
collapses. Symmetrical collapses only happen when all 287 columns
on a floor fail simultaneously. So says a structural engineer
friend of the family.

[AZCat]

75. Who says the collapses were symmetrical?

Certainly not the NIST. Maybe you should actually find out what they claim before tearing down your man of straw.

[petgoat]

86. Look at the videos. In what way were the collapses anything but symmerical?

If they hadn't been symmetrical, they wouldn't have been total.

[Realityhack]

91. what on earth are you talking about?

The upper section clearly rotates as it falls. we can hardly tell from the video what parts of which floors are being pulverized first after the dust begins to obscure the collapse. Are you claiming that every floor failed across it's entire surface all at once? what the hell are you basing that on?

[LARED]

94. So the tower that had a part of the top fall sideways was a

symmetrical event? Yes? Is that your claim?

[petgoat]

99. The top of the tower started to rotate. Then before it fell off the building,

as the law of the conservation of angular momentum says it should,
it came apart a thousand feet in the air. This was followed
by a symmetrical collapse.

[LARED]

101. Are you claiming the top of the tower should have fallen off,

rather than come apart?

[petgoat]

103. The top of WTC2 should have fallen off. Instead it exploded in mid air, nt

[LARED]

104. No it didn't. The support structure under the section lost its

integrity, initiating the collapse. Once that happened there was nothing to hold together the bottom of the top sections as it fell, hence it came apart as it fell into the lower section.

[petgoat]

121. The top of the tower had a lateral vector. In the absence of any force opposing this vector,

it should have continued its rotation.

You are telling me that the only possible resistance to
rotation (restraint by the suppoting columns) was removed.

The top should have fallen off the tower, probably crushing
several floors on one side as it did, and then it should
have landed on the ground.

[AZCat]

125. Why don't you draw a FBD of the top portion at various stages?

Then you might understand a little better what we are talking about.

[petgoat]

126. Why don't you? Why didn't NIST? Sheesh! nt

[AZCat]

130. The NIST and I don't have a problem doing this.

It's the process of drawing one that helps a person understand the forces involved. Since you seem to be struggling with that, I am suggesting it as a tool. I am not surprised you are reluctant to use it.

[petgoat]

133. Then do it! Why won't you do it! Your empty claims waste everyone's time! nt

[AZCat]

135. Struggling with the concepts? I figured as much.

It's okay to admit you don't know how to do it. Asking me for help is okay (if you do it nicely), but being a prick about it isn't going to goad me into doing your work for you.

[petgoat]

139. NIST doesn't do it. You don't do it. You attack me instead. nt

[AZCat]

141. Calling it an "attack" doesn't hide your refusal/inability to draw the fucking diagram. n/t

[petgoat]

142. But does highlight the fact that neither you nor NIST do it! nt

[AZCat]

144. Neither NIST nor I need to.

It is you who apparently is struggling with the analysis of the motion of the top section, not us. A FBD is a tool, nothing more. Your refusal to use it is once again indicative of your willful ignorance of science and engineering.

[petgoat]

146. Then why do I need to? AZ melts down. The bastards are on the run! nt

[AZCat]

148. It is quite obvious to me and others you don't understand the likely behavior of the top portion.

Drawing a FBD is a method that can help you work through the problem. Your refusal to do so is in no way a melt down on my part - it is instead just one more example of intractable behavior on yours.

[petgoat]

150. Licensed structural engineers say the top should fall off. You want to talk about me.

Why won't you draw the FBD yourself, Mr. FUD?

[AZCat]

152. Like I said, I don't give a shit about their license.

Without calculations, their claim is without merit.

Why are you so adamant in your refusal to draw a simple FBD? This is something any first-year engineering student knows how to do, and it is an essential analysis tool.

[petgoat]

154. If NIST doesn't draw a FBD, why should I? You don't give a shit about licenses. Don't have one?

"We don't need no steenking badges!" eh, Elmer?

[AZCat]

156. Their license is irrelevant.

Even when a licensed engineer submits plans to an AHJ, detailed calculations must accompany their plans that prove the engineer's ideas are workable. Why should conclusions drawn about the WTC towers require any less rigorous support materials? Since I'm not an AHJ I don't care about licensing, but I do care about calculations.

I'm pretty sure the NIST drew plenty of FBDs during the investigation and subsequent analyses, but they are not necessary if more sophisticated tools are used in lieu of the FBD. It is, however, a deceptively simple tool more than adequate for those, such as yourself, who do not have access to other tools.

[petgoat]

158. What sophisticated tool showed NIST that collapse initiation equals total progressive collapse?

Turtle shells in the fire?

[AZCat]

159. Hmmm.

I posted a response to this, but it went away.

The NIST, as you know, did not need sophisticated tools to determine the likelihood of progressive collapse after initiation. If you need a reference, try the NIST supplemental FAQ. The validity of their analysis is, of course, debatable.

[petgoat]

160. So in post 156 you say the FBD is obviated by NIST's "more sophisticated tools"

But now you say neither the FBD nor the sophisticated tools are necessary to
determine the liklihood of total progressive collapse.

So I guess you are validating my "turtle shells in the fire" hypothesis for
the source of their analysis.

Thanks, AZ, you make my points better than I ever could.
:hi: :hi:

[AZCat]

163. Your inability to understand my points is in no way support for your claims. n/t

[petgoat]

165. There you go again. No substance, not even in defending your self-contradicting FUD. nt

[AZCat]

168. Your lack of comprehension would be alarming if I weren't already used to it. n/t

[petgoat]

181. I comprehend your contradictions just fine. An architect covers his mistakes with ivy,

a physician covers his with sod, and a spamster covers his with more spam.

[SDuderstadt]

182. This is unintentional irony, right?

I mean, the part about a spamster covering his with more spam?

[petgoat]

183. You're asking me?

:rofl:

[Realityhack]

107. It should have fallen off?

as in completely fallen off and landed beside the base?

[SDuderstadt]

128. As stupid as that thought is...

some guy I know demanded to know why it didn't fall off and land in one piece on the ground (I am NOT making this up). Needless to say, if you're dealing with someone who believes part of a building would fall 100+ stories and stay in one piece, there's no way to reason with that person.

[petgoat]

134. Falling off and staying in one piece are two different propositions.

Licensed structural engineers are saying it would fall off.

Bazant claims that the top of WTC1 constituted a piledriver that
remained intact to hammer the rest of the tower down floor
by floor--until it reached the ground, when the reaction forces
finally took it apart.

Of course, if the cleanup crews had bothered to photograph and
mark the steel as they took the pile apart, we could answer these
questions.

[AZCat]

137. I don't give a shit if they're licensed.

I give a shit if they're able to provide calculations proving their claims - something you have consistently failed to do.

[petgoat]

140. NIST provides no calcs to support total progressive collapse, and considers conservation of momentum

principles only up to the moment of collapse initiation--ignoring
conservation of momentum principles after collapse initiation that
indicate that the rotating top should keep rotating and fall off
the building.

[AZCat]

145. Drawing a FBD would clear up your misunderstanding. n/t

[petgoat]

147. So do it! You prefer FUD to FBD. nt

[AZCat]

149. I'm not going to do your work for you.

It would be counterproductive, since the process of drawing the FBD is an important part of understanding the system.

[petgoat]

151. Licensed structural engineers say the top should fall off. Who cares about my FBD? nt

[AZCat]

153. You should care about it.

You wouldn't be drawing it for me - I'm perfectly capable of doing on my own, thank you. It would be of great help to you, if you'd only understand that. Why the fucking stubborn refusal to just try something that is a fairly common, simple engineering analysis tool?

[petgoat]

155. I care that NIST never did it. nt

[AZCat]

157. Please see post #156.

It is foolish to carry on this discussion in two different places. Can we truncate this sub-thread and continue on in the other?

[Realityhack]

187. Seems to me like you have two diffrent pieces of BS their

1. Who says the top stayed intact until it hit the ground? Where does that claim come from?
2. Have you attempted to calculate the center of rotation of the top section of the WTC and then determine how far it would travel in what time frame to determine if it would 'fall off' the building before smashing to pieces as it collided with lower floors?

Please show your work. If you are basing this on other peoples work please share their numbers.

[SDuderstadt]

78. "So says a structural engineer friend of the family"

You're kidding. You expect us to buy this? Can you cite any authority for your anecdotal claim other than an anonymous source? Your credibility is on the line here.

[petgoat]

80. I have no credibility with you anyway, Sid, and you give me no reason to care if I did. nt

[SDuderstadt]

83. You have no credibility with a lot of people...

and you don't help it with irresponsible claims like this.

[Grateful for Hope]

93. Who are these people?

Are they the resident debunkers here? How about the rest of us? Who do you speak for when you say "we" and "lots of people"?

You make these generalizations, and, yet, it is not obvious who you mean.

[Realityhack]

95. Oh. me ME!

He doesn't have a lot of credibility with me because he posts these kinds of assumptions without supporting evidence while others provide more supporting evidence.

He also refuses to explain what he means by terms like 'symmetrical collapse'.

[petgoat]

98. A "symmetrical collapse" is a collapse that is symmetrical. nt

[Realityhack]

108. How symentrical?

How symmetrical are we talking here? Every floor perfectly at once? No more than one floor apart at any measurement point?

What is your 'cutoff point' where you would consider the collapse asymmetrical.

[Grateful for Hope]

109. So, you are one person

this does not constitute "lots of people". Even if all the posters who defend the OCT in this forum are counted, it still does not constitute "lots of people" IMO.

[SDuderstadt]

111. Try posting it in GD and watch the numbers shoot up....

dramatically.

[Grateful for Hope]

112. Really?

The polls I have seen here on DU say the opposite.

Do you have some links that support your "facts"?

[SDuderstadt]

114. Posting a poll asking such a question in the 9/11 forum...

is like walking into McDonald's and asking, "Does anyone here like fast food?".

[Grateful for Hope]

116. I wasn't suggesting posting it in this forum. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

117. Here are a few polls that were started in GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=194175
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=173790
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=151702

Looks like DU'er's in general tend to lean toward either LIHOP or MIHOP? I wonder what the response would be if these same polls were posted on FR, for example. I suspect the results would be much, much different.

[SDuderstadt]

118. Umm, Hope....

being started in GD forum, then obviously getting moved here doesn't tell us about DUers in general, nor do polls in which the respondents are not a representative sample (as a poll in which people choose to respond rather than a legitimate poll). Why do you think people are always being solicited to "DU this poll at AOL" or "freep this poll at MSNBC"? They have little statistical significance. I thibk the majority of DUers probably regard what goes on here with mild amusement and I hardly believe that even a bare majority or large plurality believe in MIHOP or LIHOP. And, even if they do, that hardly matters as much as what Americans in general think. Sorry.

[Realityhack]

119. Personaly...

I find most of the topics in the dungeon laugh out loud funny. If I didn't I would have to find it quite depressing that people actually argue about some of this shit.

[Grateful for Hope]

120. Obviously

these are not statistical polls. However, they may actually be representative of what DU'er's think.

Imagine that.

[Realityhack]

115. thats a silly question.

No of course I don't count as 'lots of people' I just volunteered one opinion because I happened to see the post.

[SDuderstadt]

110. I mean rational people....

that, unfortunately, would leave out all the CT's.

[Grateful for Hope]

113. "Lots of people"

now means "rational people"?

Moving the goal post?

edited to correct syntax.

[wildbilln864]

131. I have seen no investigation....

only an incompetent coverup!

[Realityhack]

45. I don't think so.

I would like to see continued investigation as new information comes up and new techniques are available.

But I am not convinced anything would be gained by a ground up investigation at this point.

What specific questions would you like to see addressed?

[petgoat]

49. Specific Questions

What made the molten iron in the basements?

How did initiation of an asymmetrical local collapse lead
to total progressive and symmetrical collapse?

What pulverized the concrete? What smithereened the steel
floor pans and the carpets and vinyl flooring?

What caused massive steel structures to fly 500 feet across the
street and lodge in the 20th floor of WFC3?

Who decided not to test for explosive residues? Why?

Who decided not to examine the steel as it was removed,
logging the ID number and debris-field origin, and photographing
every piece as it came off the pile?

Who decided to recycle the steel before it could be examined
by experts?

What brought down Building 7, really? Don't expect me to
believe it was column 79.

If Giuliani had advance notice of the collapse, why didn't FDNY?

What made the iron rich microspheres?

Where were the squibs exactly, and what HVAC systems, if any, were
associated with them?

What caused the top "block" of WTC1 to come apart before the collapse
at the impact zone commenced?

What made the antenna drop before the collapse started. How could the
hat truss fail in an exactly symmetrical fashion to permit that?

Why won't the government release the 6000 photos and 6000 videos it
has of the WTC, so independent researchers can see them?

Why won't they release the blueprints?

Shyam Sunder came on board as head of the investigation two months
before the NIST report was released. Who was the head before and
why did he leave?

Why did NIST ignore William Rodriguez's story about basement explosions,
and the story about the 50-ton press?

Why were the reports of structural damage to WTC7 mutually contradictory?

Why were the FDNY oral histories suppressed?

[wildbilln864]

54. All great questions! nt

[Bassman66]

63. "If Giuliani had advance notice of the collapse, why didn't FDNY?"

A fantastic question.

Who told him they were coming down? On what basis was that call made?

[Realityhack]

67. Some thouhts / counter questions.

>What made the molten iron in the basements?
This is a very interesting question. I must admit ignorance to existing research (aside from unsupported CT conjecture and a few debunkings thereof)

>How did initiation of an asymmetrical local collapse lead
>to total progressive and symmetrical collapse?
I am not sure exactly what you mean by and asymmetrical local collapse vs. a symmetrical collapse.

>What pulverized the concrete? What smithereened the steel
>floor pans and the carpets and vinyl flooring?
Wouldn't that be caused by the enormous energy released by the gravitational effects?

>What caused massive steel structures to fly 500 feet across the
>street and lodge in the 20th floor of WFC3?
Not sure 'flew' is the right term. I think this was addressed in another thread. I have no idea of any 'official' answer. I must admit I do not find it particularly suprising that the debris spread out a lot during the collapse.

>Who decided not to test for explosive residues? Why?
Why would they? I imagine their are lots of things they didn't test for.

>What brought down Building 7, really? Don't expect me to
>believe it was column 79.
From what I have read on this column 79 is a good and well researched mechanism. What specific evidence/questions do you have that you think rule this out?

>Where were the squibs exactly, and what HVAC systems, if any, were
>associated with them?
I must admit ignorance to what you are talking about here. What 'squibs'?

>Why won't the government release the 6000 photos and 6000 videos it
>has of the WTC, so independent researchers can see them?
>Why won't they release the blueprints?
Are these won't or haven't?

>Why were the reports of structural damage to WTC7 mutually contradictory?
Which specific reports.

[Bassman66]

69. You missed the Guilani question nt.

[Realityhack]

87. I skiped several questions. n/t