By Jove, he's ALMOST got it!
The following email was sent to me by Scholars for 9/11 Truth member Nila Sagadevan. Its a little long, but well worth the read, given that he's corresponding with the head of a state Republican Committee.
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
I received an email from a gentleman who’s the head of a Republican Committee in Louisiana. It included the following:
“One has only to look at the videos of the buildings falling to see through your lie. I have watched dozens of buildings being demolished. They fall down all at once as all of the support structure is blown up. The WTC buildings both fell one story at a time, with each floor remaining in place until it is crushed by the enormous weight of the floors above coming down on it. A ten-year-old child can see the difference when shown the videos.â€
My response (which you may decide to distribute widely):
Sir,
I see YOU’RE ALMOST THERE! You’ve almost proved it to yourself!
You said:
“The WTC buildings both fell one story at a time, with each floor remaining in place until it is crushed by the enormous weight of the floors above coming down on it.â€
Now, just THINK about what you said for a moment.
Let’s presume that as the floors fell “one storey at a timeâ€, each of the 110 floors momentarily resisted the floor falling upon it for just ONE SECOND.
After all, every one of these floors was supported by steel trusses, welds, rivets, bolts, etc., so let’s say EACH floor took at least ONE SECOND before it succumbed to the weight above it.
This would amount to a total of 110 seconds (I.e., 1 sec/floor), correct?
But let’s be outrageously charitable, and say each floor only resisted the floor falling upon it for HALF a second.
This would equal 55 seconds in sum, correct?
Now, roll your video.
Take out a STOPWATCH and time the collapse.
You’ll find that IT TOOK LESS THAN 10 SECONDS for the roof to strike the ground!
In fact, it took 9.4 seconds for the roof of the 110-storey North tower to hit the ground 1,350 feet below.
This would be IMPOSSIBLE if there was ANY KIND OF STRUCTURE resisting the falling mass!
Why?
Because 9.4 seconds is about how long it would take a BALL dropped from the roof of one of the towers — AND FALLING THROUGH AIR -- to strike the ground.
So how could the ROOF fall through 110 FLOORS and take the same amount of time to hit the ground as the BALL?
The ONLY way this could have happened would have been if every single vertical support beneath every falling floor was suddenly blown out of the way just before that floor impacted the one below it.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS IN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION -- Explosives are used to BLAST the supports “out of the way†of the falling floors, so that the only resistance the falling mass experiences is THIN AIR!
Bottom line:
A SIMPLE STOPWATCH TELLS THE WHOLE STORY:
9.4 SECONDS!
Can’t you see it is IMPOSSIBLE for the ROOF of the tower to crash through 110 FLOORS in the same amount of time as a ball dropped from the roof?
It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE — without explosives.
YOU’RE ALMOST THERE, MAN... THINK!
Look closely at the photo below. Do you see the myriad little tooth-pick-like objects shooting UPWARDS and outwards?
THOSE ARE HEAVY STEEL BEAMS! Many of these beams were found OVER 300 FEET AWAY from the towers!
Do you see entire multi-beam ASSEMBLIES, each weighing several TONS, being blown out?
What was the force that caused all this? [GW: Here Nila shows a photo of debris being ejected far out horizontally from one of the collapsing Twin Towers]
OPEN YOUR EYES... And THINK!
Kind regards,
Nila"
- Login to post comments
''In trying to paint a
''In trying to paint a backgroud of structural dynamics against which WTC seems anomalous, the conspiracists adopt the typical ignorant approach of random, inapplicable comparisons. The Foo Building toppled rather than dropping straight down, so WTC should have too. Or the Bar Tower suffered only a partial collapse, so WTC should have too. Or the Baz Building caught fire but didn't fall at all, so WTC should have stayed standing. None of that expresses any actual expertise. It just covers earlier question-begging with more question-begging.
To an engineer a pancaking of floors from top to bottom in one corner only of a building is equiavalent in many respects to the pancaking of WTC flooring. And horizontal progression is, in some cases, similar as well. To know how it's similar and how it's different you have to be an engineer because the explanation is exceedingly tedious otherwise.''
__________________
Since the term 'pancacking has never been used before by structural engineers, the writer is doing exactly what he accuses us of doing -inventing a theory to it a hpothesesis.
What other building have"pancaked' recently in Mew York City - or elsewhere?
"BTW, S. King popping in to
"BTW, S. King popping in to link to bautforum--where have I seen that before?"
It's frightening, isn't it? Imagine that I should spend time on a rational forum where your fanciful conspiracy theories are routinely debunked.
You dare not expose yourself to real 9/11 Truth on BAUT.
"BYU Physics Prof Finds
"BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples."
And you don't realize that is not proof of explosives.
Gosh.
"Also remember that the
"Also remember that the towers were not designed to fall like a chain of dominos or a house of cards. Quite the opposite. Any damage the buildings suffered would be contained by the rest of the structure carrying the load."
Buildings are never designed to fall.
Just plain common sense
Just plain common sense dictates that there is no possible way a 110 story building can fling large steel beams weighing tons out over 300-500' away from the building while collapsing at within a couple seconds of Freefall speed and turning 100s of tons of reinforced concrete into talcum powder, UNLESS it was by Controlled Demolition.
No steel structure building has ever collapsed before 9/11 due to fire, regardless how long or hot it burned, not even collapsed slowly, or even partial collapse, let alone at freefall speed and completely in its own footprint AND did it 3 freaking times in a few hours!!!
wake the hell up.
The Governments Conspiracy theory is literally IMPOSSIBLE.
Wayne: I think the WTC
Wayne: I think the WTC towers should have toppled and that it looks like the work of explosives. I was just posting another POV because I'm not sure.
Also the argument above about false comparisons seems dishonest to me. The fact is that no building has ever behaved like the Trade Centers behaved.
Since the term 'pancacking'
Since the term 'pancacking' has never been used before by structural engineers, the writer is doing exactly what he accuses us of doing -inventing a theory to it a hypothesis.
What other buildings have"pancaked' recently in New York City - or elsewhere?
Thanks GW for your constant
Thanks GW for your constant and unwavering concentration on the issue that, for me, remains central and utterly irrefutable: the controlled demolition of WTC1,2 and 7.
YouÂ’ll find that IT TOOK
YouÂ’ll find that IT TOOK LESS THAN 10 SECONDS for the roof to strike the ground!
not to mention; by the time it struck the ground there was no roof....
_______________
I've heard arguments that
I've heard arguments that the accumulated mass would account for the speed of the building's collapse. As each floor picked up the floor below the time required to crush the next floor would be reduced so that in the end the speed of collapse was nearly equal to freefall speed.
Anybody care to take that one on?
reduced? maybe, but not
reduced? maybe, but not enough to be freefall.......
or even nearly......
or even nearly......
I asked a online physics
I asked a online physics community to respond to this
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
and got this:
How do you know that the author is a structural engineer? The name given is "Jane Doe", and there's not even a claim on that page that the author has done structural engineering.
This is a silly model, though. If you notice, they are assuming that at every collapse of every floor, every floor comes to a complete stop. That's egregiously unrealistic, so they get an unrealistic time. They add onto the error in other ways, too. They start the collisions from the top of the tower. That's not where the collapse started!
Okay, let's do their "series of billiard balls" idea. Only this time, let's assume that the billiard balls stick together when they fall. (This inherently involves losing energy.)
Since they're projectiles, they obey conservation of momentum at each collision, so if n floors crash into the n+1'th floor, the n floors going with speed u and the total system then continuing on with speed v, the momentum equation is that:
n m u = (n+1) m v,
And here m is the mass per floor. It is obvious that, for this to be true:
v = n/n+1 u.
And that is how we'll get our new velocities from our old ones.
That is how the velocity changes during collisions.
Now, the collapse of WTC2, which took maybe 8 seconds to collapse, starts somewhere between its locus of impact: floor 77 and floor 85. Let's say it starts at floor 80. Assume each floor has the same mass.
The thirty balls at the top begin our collision model, lined up all in a row that they're stuck in. They fall twelve-ish feet, the height of one floor, and they meet another sticky ball. In between collisions, when the balls are freely falling, a velocity can be obtained with the work-energy theorem:
v2 - u2 = 2 g Δd
v = √u² + 2 g Δd
So that's how to update the velocity for falling.
Now, you can get the time lag in two different ways. You could either recognize that the average acceleration = Δv/Δt by definition, and in these circumstances it is a constant, g, arriving at the equation:
Δt = Δv/g
Or, you could go and get the exact same result by taking the falling equation and subjecting it to the Quadratic Formula:
Δd = g/2 (Δt)2 + u (Δt)
g/2 (Δt)2 + u (Δt) - Δd = 0
Δt = [ - u ± sqrt( u2 + 2 g Δd ) ] / g
Δt = [ -u ± v ] / g
Δt = [v - u]/g
Either way works by me.
Here is a Java program set to run this approximation:
public class TestWTC {
public static void main(String[] args){
double ft = 0.3048; // There are 0.3048 m in a ft.
double time = 0;
double g = 9.81;
double vel = 0;
double flr_ht = 1348*ft/110; //1348 ft tall sans roof, 110 floors.
for(int floors=30; floors
oops...here's the rest Here
oops...here's the rest
Here is a Java program set to run this approximation:
public class TestWTC {
public static void main(String[] args){
double ft = 0.3048; // There are 0.3048 m in a ft.
double time = 0;
double g = 9.81;
double vel = 0;
double flr_ht = 1348*ft/110; //1348 ft tall sans roof, 110 floors.
for(int floors=30; floors
Not sure what the trouble
Not sure what the trouble is; here is the concluding paragraph
If you run this program, you will get a value of 9.7 seconds, which is roughly the same order as the fall.
In conclusion, their model makes no sense even for a Billiard Ball model, which I think is already a bit simplistic. A proper ball model, which incorporates the fact that the floors stick together, gives an answer that is easily on the same order of magnitude as the actual collapse, and it's not 100 seconds -- it's just under 10 seconds.
Steven Jones revealed the
Steven Jones revealed the presence of thermate (used to cut through steel) in samples taken from WTC steel. Apparently he will soon release the evidence publicly. Can somebody please explain to me why so many people keep ignoring this major revelation?
"A proper ball model, which
"A proper ball model, which incorporates the fact that the floors stick together, gives an answer that is easily on the same order of magnitude as the actual collapse"
[b]...this calculation is completely ignoring resistance however.[/b]
I don't know about the
I don't know about the buildings falling in 10 seconds. I have calculated 14-15 seconds. I don't think we need to make the arguement that the buildings fell in 10 seconds, which is freefall. Even known controlled demo's sometimes fall at a slightly slower rate than freefall. We should keep the facts strait and consistant.
A proper ball model, which
A proper ball model, which incorporates the fact that the floors stick together
this was not observed in the collapse, there was no 'piledriver' top of the building, it all exploded outward, with no mass of conjoined floors providing a mass of downward force onto lower floors - which makes it all the more problematic.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/towerexplo.jpg
Next time you see a 10 story
Next time you see a 10 story building, imagine the entire thing collapsing in one second. Damned scary...
I remember watching a Discovery channel special about a Thai shopping center that collapsed due to shoddy construction (a 'progressive collapse', no less). The building was 5 stories tall, and took more than 20 seconds to collapse entirely. At a rate of 4 seconds per floor, the WTC would have taken 440 seconds - or around 7 friggin minutes!!
Can you recall the name of
Can you recall the name of the program or shopping center?
Physics professor Judy Wood,
Physics professor Judy Wood, Ph.D. has a good paper discussing why near free fall speed of the collapse of the towers is impossible due to the law of conservation of momentum, unless the support columns were timed perfectly. Her conclusion at the end is "the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible."
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Getting Rich From Phony
Getting Rich From Phony Terror
Joe Quinn
Signs of the Times
20/06/2006
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editor...PhonyTerror.php
QUOTE
Ever wondered how the Bush administration keeps the money flowing in?...
The Associate Press reports:
"Dozens of members of President Bush's security team assembled after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are now working for companies that sell security products and services to the government agencies they once helped manage.
The Times found that at least 90 former officials in the department and the White House Office of Homeland Security now work for companies that do billions of dollars worth of business in the homeland security industry."
Just to flesh this out a little, the following appears to be the Bush administraition's recipe for job and wealth creation:
Fabricate a threat to the nation by way of a staged terror attack (9/11)
Use it to justify the creation of entirely needless new security agencies and give top level jobs to your friends
Launch a war on the imaginary enemy and perpetrator of the staged terror op and invade several sovereign states of your chosing
Plunder the wealth of said states by having your military destroy the country's infrasructure and then offer no-bid contracts to your corporate cronies to rebuild what your military destroyed. Make it obvious to your corporate cronies that they don't really need to do any actual rebuilding, they just need to make it look like they are rebuilding. Do not question the outrageous price charged by your corporate cronies.
When the public has become bored with scaremongering security alerts and is looking the other way, scale back needless security agencies and the temporary jobs they provided
Transfer your friends to new jobs in companies owned by your corporate cronies whose coffers are bursting at the seams with ill-gotten gains
Repeat until you have robbed the world blind and killed most of its inhabitants through war or starvation.
I see you all are still
I see you all are still ignoring what structural engineers say in order to continue to try to make facts fit your pre-conceived conclusions. Imagine the mind that would take a known conspiracist's word (Nila), repeating wholly unscientific nonsense, over all the professionals in the world without question.
Don't believe me?
Just examine your own reaction to this in the privacy of your own home and ask yourself if you think you are being intellectually honest:
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=768194&postcount=66
Hey, watch those great
Hey, watch those great pictures!!!
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PictureTours/beams.html
Is this "JaneDoe" Physics professor Judy Wood, Ph.D. active in the mouvement? First time I've heard of her.
You linked to a long drawn
You linked to a long drawn out argument from authority. I don't like it when Fetzer argues from authority and I don't like it when so called structural engineers argue from authority.
Science is not the new religion.
"Science is not the new
"Science is not the new religion."
According to 911Bloggers, non-science is the holy grail.
Fetzer is a fraud and everyone smart enough to think knows it.
Douglas Lain So where do you
Douglas Lain
So where do you account for floor acceleration? No matter what the source force requires an acceleration time. Explosives do this rather rapidly, but without them youÂ’re full of shit that any building can collapse nearing the time of freefall. This happened both into and through still standing superstructure which happens to be the path of most resistance. Do you understand that moving things donÂ’t self accelerate through the path that most resists acceleration?
Take a good look at some
Take a good look at some high quality, high resolution, close-up video of the towers. They are erupting & exploding upwards, downwards, & sideways.
Also remember that the towers were not designed to fall like a chain of dominos or a house of cards. Quite the opposite. Any damage the buildings suffered would be contained by the rest of the structure carrying the load. What we saw was incendiaries & explosives melting & blowing the hell out of the entire structures.
S. King says Fetzer is a
S. King says Fetzer is a fraud? I know S. King is a fraud.
S King, for your reading
S King, for your reading pleasure:
BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606Thermate.htm
S. King, from your link: I
S. King, from your link:
I have decades of experience in how to build aircraft and specialized training in forensic engineering methods; if I don't have a PhD degree (even in an irrelevant field) then I am simply unworthy to comment on his ignorant armchair musings.
I think that about sums it up.
(BTW, S. King popping in to link to bautforum--where have I seen that before? Ahh, the memories of S. King's trolling here a month or two ago....)
The "billiard balls" model
The "billiard balls" model is wrong for at least 2 reasons:
1. The collapse(s) began around the 80th floor. So the top section could have collapsed in parallel to the lower sections, not adding signicantly to the time, and also increasing the mass of the initial falling section.
2. With greater mass and a faster moving body later in the fall, the lower floors should collapse faster than the top floors. So the figure in Case 3 should show a curve in the collapse initiations of each floor, not a straight line.
The second point is something often left out by people thinking about the collapse. It starts out falling slowly and increases its speed of descent exponentially as it goes. So you can't say "each floor fell in" x seconds. Although you could say the average time for a floor to collapse.
OTOH, the guy mentioned above who refuted the billiards ball model appeared to have completely ignored the resistance of the lower floors.
I'd love to see a model that took into account all of these factors.
Nunyabiz: Actually the best
Nunyabiz: Actually the best counter example to the WTC in Madrid actually did partially collapse due to fire.
The one in Madrid burned,
The one in Madrid burned, actually was almost fully consumed top to bottom for over 10 hours and 3X hotter with a huge crane perched on top.
and even then just a few floors slowly collapsed not the entire building.
There is not even a comparison between the two.
The WTC burned just 2-3 floors and was oxygen starved with a 482-800F fire for just an hour.
For this to have caused total collapse at freefall speed is 100% Impossible.
Nunyabiz - talking to shills
Nunyabiz - talking to shills like S. King - it's like talking to someone with learning difficulties.
"Since the term 'pancacking'
"Since the term 'pancacking' has never been used before by structural engineers, the writer is doing exactly what he accuses us of doing -inventing a theory to it a hypothesis."
Utter nonsense, Andrew. Don't you do any research at all?
"Pancake" is a common term used for years in earthquake engineering.
Examples of "pancaking" and the common use of the term.
"Just plain common sense
"Just plain common sense dictates that there is no possible way a 110 story building can fling large steel beams weighing tons out over 300-500' away from the building while collapsing at within a couple seconds of Freefall speed and turning 100s of tons of reinforced concrete into talcum powder, UNLESS it was by Controlled Demolition."
Then there was no need for any investigations into the collapses at all.
Fortunately, we do not take such utterances seriously but instead rely on the expertise of structural engineers. I note, as usual, you guys have not a stitch of evidence to back your claims up, much less an understanding of physics and structural engineering.
"Nunyabiz - talking to
"Nunyabiz - talking to shills like S. King - it's like talking to someone with learning difficulties."
I've noticed that in your posts, Andrew, you have been completely wrong about everything.
Mose Allison had a great tune to describe people like who display their ignorance proudly:
"Your Mind is on Vacation, and Your Mouth is Working Overtime."