Quote from mookie427 :

that IS piss-poor mechanics. How someone can do an experiment with few desk tidies stacked on top of one another and say they've disproved the 9/11 stories is laughable. You obviously know very little about what you're trying to talk about. Just reading some of the comments posted on that 'experiment' should be enough to convince you that it's a load of rubbish!

Better experiment: get hold of soft drink cans. Nail/glue 4 to the ground in a square, and glue lots more on top building a tower. Drop something heavy on top. What will happen? My money is on the tower collapsing straight down....

If you think that's piss poor but you'll take a computer generated animation as FACT then I'm sorry, I can't continue to converse with you...

Quote from mookie427 :

you're wrong. The Marriott Hotel making up part of the WTC complex was all but wiped out by the debris falling from the sky. That wasn't a small building by any means, small compared to the twin towers yes but at 22 or 23 storeys it wasn't tiny! Get your facts straight

Eh, I think you may be wrong yourself, actually I know you're wrong because I just covered that in this thread. The bottom 4 or 5 floors still remained intact. People survived in there, firefighters and citizens. So ehmm, you get your facts straight...

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue 16 Sep 2008, 15:28.

Quote from wsinda :

You were misreading my post. Your remarks are still about point [1], i.e. why the standard theory is supposedly wrong. At point [2] and [3], you prove that it was possible to smuggle large quantities of explosives into the building and place them carefully on the crucial points in the structure, all without raising suspicion.
Not precisely. The simplest theory becomes the default. You can overturn it, but you need to have a good case.

Ok, what about the power downs the weekend before 9/11 happened? Have you heard about them? Google Scott Forbes.

Also, do you think it's possible that, during the fixing of the trade towers after the first bombing, that devices could have been planted? I understand this is speculation but, so is the story of hijackers hijacking planes, all we have is some phones calls and a statement from one of the pilots, wrongly transmitted to the air traffic controllers. Where are all the security videos of them boarding the planes or even checking in? Show me them and then I will believe that part of the theory.

Quote :

For example, I could claim that the towers fell because they were shot down by an invisible Martian UFO. (Or by the hand of God/Allah. ) It would be a perfect explanation -- except that it goes against Occam's razor.
Bin Laden, or any other terrorist would do as an explanation of the facts. They are a much fit than the Bush administration.

In you eyes maybe Bin Laden fits better, not in the FBI's eyes though. He's not even wanted by them over 9/11.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

...can you explain how all the buildings from the WTC complex, numbers 3, 4, 5 (maybe not exact same numbers), how they survived the direct fall from the WTC 1 and 2 debris? They sustained significant damage but NOT ONE collapsed, NOT ONE...

You make a good point there Boris.

How come the top section of the tower had the strength to crush the remaining floors but when it hit the other WTC buildings it failed to crush them? I'm sure the towers were alot stronger than any other building in Manhatton, never mind other buidlings in the WTC complex. And I'm also sure, judging by Juls' calculations, that the amount of energy was far, far greater than the energy at the beginning of the collapse, but the other building had the strength to withstand the towers falling on them. Not just one tower, both towers debrit!

Quote from tristancliffe :

I am qualified, thank you very much. Now that we've established that, I can happy say you don't know what you're talking about. At all.

Yeah, it's been established in your mind alright, you expect me to believe you? Just take your word for it? Pfff....

Quote :

Is that experiement being carried out with desk tidies? And you said my coke can experiement was weak (which also shows you haven't got the faintest clue about either approximations or load paths)! If I made one out of lego it would probably survive me throwing a bicycle at it, but that doesn't mean you could throw an aircraft carrier at the real ones without them falling over.

Aircraft carrier? Wha? Ok, lets look at these experiments.

Your coke can... First of all, the can was never designed to take the weight of a person, that's only possible because of how it's designed, it was never planned that way. You weigh alot more that the structure below you, also, if you didn't realise, you are made from different materials. As I said, make a model of the towers yourself and I guarantee you will not get the same results as what happened that day. Also, the difference in weight of the can and you is quite the opposite of the tower, the structure below was considerably stronger and heavier than the section falling onto it. So your coke can "experiment" is laughable in comparrison to the towers. Now a way you could use a can is if you build a tower of an exterior wall and an interior "core" wall of cans stacked on top of each other and secured, then smash a big section out near the top, set it on fire and wait to see what happens. I can, without any doubt in my mind, say that this structure will not be left as a crumpled pile of coke cans. (EDIT: you could add some floors if you like but that'll only make it stronger.)

Now the office desk tidies... Ok, each one represented 10 floors so we have a somewhat accurate representation of what the towers looked like. Unfortunately it has less exterior walls and no core columns so this should be a cake walk, it should just crumble when he drops the top few sections onto the remaining ones. But no, even when he add weight to the top section, it still wont fall. What happens? It follows the path of least resistance and falls OFF the desk tidy tower. How do you explain that? Do you agree that any physical objects, if thrown, dropped, whatever, will always follow the path of least resistance? Then why on this day did they take the path of MOST resistance and nobody bats an eyelid?

Quote :

The model was also, size for size, lighter, and was more slender (as in the ratio of height to cross sectional area).

The lower section was the same strength as the upper section, although (considering it as a classical cantilever) the bending, shear and torsional loads would of course vary with height.

But the model showed perfectly how an UNSECURE structure could withstand 1/5 to 1/4 of itself falling on it. I'm telling you that any structure in that proportion will never get the results that happened on 9/11.

The lower section was the same strength as the upper section? And you consider it as a classic cantilever? Only supported on one side? Amazing... And of course bending, shear and torsional loads would vary but do these things happen in a instant?

Quote :

The opinion of 'professionals' (whatever that means) and physics experiements are very much open to debate and discussion, as are their motives and what they are trying to say (as opposed to what they do say, and how eejits comprehend that with no relevent background knowledge at all).

Again taking pop shots at me personally. Anyway, I'll continue. You could say exactly the same about your own knowledge, it is open for debate and discussion. Not, I know it all and have the right to judge you because you are not qualified, what bs.

I seriously don't know why I'm taking the time to discuss this with you but I just feel it has to be done, just like Boris there. He sees inconsistancies but yet you, with your qualifications, think that's the way it's supposed to happen?

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue 16 Sep 2008, 14:59.

Lmao, what a response. You are not qualified to judge me because you are not qualified, are you? My grasp of mechanics is piss poor. What a piss poor arguement, they're just words mate, prove me wrong. (EDIT: Actually it's not ME you have to prove wrong, you do your own experiment and use whatever materials you like and reproduce what happened in the towers.)

Did you not see the video? Well it used weaker and alot less material and it still could not produce a collapse anywhere near what happened the towers. So a stronger, more structurally rigid building, fell alot easier?

Here's the link, again... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related You can't say that this is piss poor mechanics. This is a physical test, better than anything NIST or the Commission report could come up with.

Quote :

Also, do you think the structure below this falling 15-20 floors of the tower was stronger of weaker?

Quote :

Stonger or weaker than what?

Do you think the top section(15-20 floors) of the tower falling was stronger or weaker than the lower section(85-90 floors)?


EDIT: Once again Tristan you ignore my questions and try to put me down without stating any facts. I have never once made a derogatory term about anyone here or any of their views. Arogant people like you are the worse type of people to have a converstaion with because you think you know it all, atleast I admit when I don't know something and you put me down for that? Saying my grasp of mechanics is piss poor, please give examples because the only mechanics I have shown is either from professionals or actual physical tests which cannot be disputed. So, lets have a good converstaion about the subject and not about any of our own thoughts or ideas about how certain things work.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue 16 Sep 2008, 13:52.

Listen Tristan, I have a fair idea of what can physically happen and what cannot physically happen. And I'm almost certain you are not qualified to judge me on this. That video I linked to PROVED that 1/5 of a structure, no matter how it's built, will find it a difficult task to crush the other 4/5's of the structure if it's dropped from a height, 8-10feet or to scale of that height. You don't need to be an engineer or scientist to know what can or cannot happen to a falling piece of a building.

Tell me, do you think if they built a scale model, say 20ft high, that it will react exactly like the towers did?

Also, do you think the structure below this falling 15-20 floors of the tower was stronger of weaker?


EDIT:@Juls: I've been reading up on what energy is needed to produce certain amounts of joules. So since you can work these things out better than I can, can you figure out how many joules or watts of energy was created by the planes hitting the towers? Or the fuel burning off in one big fireball, how many joules was involved there?

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue 16 Sep 2008, 13:15.

Quote from Juls :

Before the collapse begins, as soon as the upper floors fell 50 cms before they reach the first lower floor...there is 10 times enough energy to crush that floor...enough energy to crush it, burn everything, and throw some parts dozens of yards away. And contrary to demolitions where the entire building is falling almost at the same speed, here there was a collision between moving upper part and steady lower part. Like a collision between two trucks, one moving faster and faster...

After 50 cms fall, that is to say 0.31s the upper floors (80 000 tons) has acquired 400 million joules of kinetic energy....it means the fall is providing at the very beginning 1.29 billion watts of crushing power. And this power increases as the upper parts continues falling. This is what you call no energy?

Oh man, like 2 trucks you say? So... lets say 1 truck is on the highway cruising at 90kmph and it hit a truck which is stationary at the side of the road. You are telling me that the stationary truck will be crushed to pieces!?

Again only picking up on things that you can argue with, listen, look at that experiment with the office equipment and then come back with your thoughts please. Here's a link so you don't have to search for it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related

EDIT: Where are you grabbing these figures from? 400mil joules? 1.29billion watts? I hope it's not from that paper by Mr. Greening because I couldn't trust his conclusions if he calculates it wrong. Dividing by only 110 and not 116, so the total mass would be alot larger therefore the total energy would be a wrong calculation. Ok, I understand you obviously have a better knowledge of these things than me but how come the experiment I linked to didn't work? There's no way in hell that top few floors could crush the rest of the building, to the ground! No way. Even a scaled down model should act exactly like the towers, if of course what they say is true, if not then it'll act like the experiment I linked to.

EDIT2: "This is what you call no energy?" I still stick with what I said, "there wasn't enough energy produced at the beginning of the collapse to make parts fly off and dust/debrit clouds to start coming from the building." I'm making that statement based on videos and accounts I have read of heavy things falling, you prove to me I'm wrong? Spitting out numbers and figures is all well and good but what if your calculations are wrong, just like Mr. Greenings? Show me evidence of this energy, or something with this amount of potential energy, something releasing a force of 400mil joules or 1.29billion watts.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue 16 Sep 2008, 11:39.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Unless you've been living in a hole then you'll know that I do fulfil some of those critera.
I would like to know how much engineering education and experience U4IK has.

Ha...nice. Why do I need an education in such fields when many, many more people, alot more educated than you or I, can do proper research and get results from experiments, which I see and agree with. But then you come along with "some" engineering experience and think you should be bowed down to? Get real my friend. And I rarely give my personal views on this so whatever eduction I do have doesn't come into it. I am either asking educated people like yourself questions about their conclusions OR repeating what people with a higher knowledge base than I say.

Listen, you choose to pick at certain things I say and leave out others. What's the deal there? Comment on the experiment with the office "equipment" and tell me the top section of the tower was able to crush the bottom part which it held there for a coniderable time while damaged.

Quote from Jakg :

The video was released with the frame showing the actual "plane" removed.

The camera from on top of the hotel was never released.

I linked to the videos in a later post, replying to mookie. Here it is - http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=924792#post924792 - I'm not sure which video you describe with the frame actually showing the plane being removed but these videos show no plane because they are so far away and not at the right angle to see anything other than a puff of smoke. Maybe you talk about the first official released images, the frame wasn't removed it was never there to start with becase it's a time lapse camera.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue 16 Sep 2008, 10:50.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

And why not say ANYTHING to the public? Why oh why wouldn't they say "we collapsed WTC7 on purpose in order not to injure our workers if it colapse by itself" or something like that, instead, their official reason was "fire"?? ....

Exactly, they would have said something if they later decided to take it down, I've seen footage of people talking about taking building six down. Also, there are firefighters and other witnesses who knew that WTC7 was going to fall, they heard it over the radios. How come they are not all over the news saying this?

Read this -
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080829205835711
"the collapse baffled FEMA who lamely concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

And this -
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html
"The [Commission]Report fails to mention the total collapse of 47-story st ... med skyscraper Building 7 at 5:20 on the day of the attack."

Then say everything is fine and dandy, nothing to see here...

Quote from mookie427 :

Quote from durbster :

And here's a couple of building collapse simulations that might interest those who think it's impossible for a damaged building to fall as the WTC towers did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H-mz...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PSt2AOfejc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpBUiZfnEu4&NR=1 this is better

I just had the chance to look at these and they are very fine pieces of animation and alot of work must have been put in, but the pieces that are used to put this together are not secured very well. The towers were rigid, not able to shake as much as those animations show. I'm also sure that if each floor of those "buildings" was an actual floor it would be a total different collapse.

Also, I know it's a slowmo and not to scale of the towers, atleast I don't think it is, did you see how long it took? See, friction/materials prevent free fall, so obviously something was done to the tower so that the falling section was on the ground in ~10seconds, near free fall speed. The remaining tower was a solid structure, a mesh of steel and concrete floors, 40+ interior columns that got thicker as the got nearer the bottom.

Both explinations I heard today for what happened the top section of each tower seem wrong to me. One is it fell apart as it got to the closer to the bottom but still kept its strength, enough to crush the rest of the tower and two is it stayed intact, crushed the rest of the tower and then collapsed itself once reaching the ground. Both contradict each other and both seem to be impossible. A bunch of debrit falling and not just falling straight down, some getting thrown outwards, still has the strength and force to crush columns which are standing straight up and rigid, it's not right.

And then the other, it stays together... unreal. How can it stay together and crush an object made of the same materials but 4 or 5 times the size of it? I understand it's falling but shit doesn't just disintegrate on impact allowing it to continue falling close to free fall. I know atoms aren't actually solid objects but this is taking the biscuit, 1/4 or 1/5 of a structure can go through the other 3/4's or 4/5's and nearly free fall speed and through the path of MOST resistance... amazing how anyone can believe that. I could totally understand if it was the other way round, 4/5's crushing 1/5, but this is incomprehensible.



EDIT: Ok, I just found this video on youtube. It tries to duplicate what happened. Not totally the specs of the towers and not a strong as the towers were, but it is a more accurate experiment than any computer generated animation I have seen yet. It goes with what I was saying, 1/5 of any structure would find it very hard to totally crush the other 4/5's of the structure by falling the distance the tops of the towers fell, or to scale of that distance. And as one of the comments said, why can't they just build a scaled down replica of the towers and see how it falls with the affects of fire and gravity?

If you still feel that the way the towers fell was not influenced by any other force except fire and gravity after watching this, then I don't think you will ever understand this even if it is common knowledge. Here's the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue 16 Sep 2008, 01:00.

Of course you would, the top section would lean and then fall after a couple of seconds, not just fall straight through the structure that's already holding it up.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 23:21.

Quote from mookie427 :

I totally fail to see your logic in this. The building collapsed in on itself from the top downwards. Pieces of the steel/concrete/glass outer 'shell' (for want of a better word) were pushed outwards by the force of the collapsing building. Building collapses by their very nature are unpredictable, and even more so if the building in question has had a 757 flown into it

I'm sorry but gravity collapses at their beginning, do not have alot of energy(edit: I should have said "do not release alot of energy"), not matter how much weight is invloved. Gradually signs will begin to show that something is going to happen. Not bang, girders, debrit and huge sections of the towers going away from the building, not just falling off it, getting flung 100's of meters away. Not the characteristics of a gravity collapse.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 23:22.

Quote from danthebangerboy :

This is true, but the buildings did exactly what they were designed to do. When hit in the side by a heavy, fast moving object, such as a plane, to not tip over or collapse. They did fall, for whatever reason but both towers took the initial hit without falling or collapsing.

As for not taking into account the heat caused by burning avaition fuel, how can you take that into account? Everything has a melting point, however high. Steel has to be able to be melted in order to construct girders and supports to the desired shape and size for the application they are produced for. If such a material that wouldnt melt under that intense heat could be found then it must be impossible to use it as there is no way of converting it from its raw state into anything usable.

I don't care for how long, hours, days, burning jet fuel, in the conditions that were in the tower, will never melt steel because it can never reach those temps. If you think it will then you need to do more research.

Quote from mookie427 :

when the buildings were originally constructed they were designed to take a hit from the biggest plane flying at the time. Not a modern 757 which was much much larger than anything the designers had thought about

Not a 757, no, but a 707. It's not that much smaller actually. 707 and 757.The 757 has the same diameter fuselage as the 707. Also, the 757 could carry approx 11,500 gallons of fuel compared to the 707 which could carry 23,000 gallons.

Quote :

"Boeing quickly developed the larger 707-320 Intercontinental series with a longer fuselage, bigger wing and higher-powered engines. With these improvements, which allowed increased fuel capacity from 15,000 gallons to more than 23,000 gallons, the 707 had truly intercontinental range of over 4,000 miles in a 141-seat (mixed class) seating configuration.

Early in the 1960s, the Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofan engines were fitted to provide lower fuel consumption, reduce noise and further increase range to about 6,000 miles."

- http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/index.html

I'm not saying they had full fuel tanks, just pointing out that the 707 was capable of carry twice the amount of fuel the 757 could, so I think they had the fuel part covered in the towers design.

Quote from wsinda :

I don't have to prove anything.

The default explanation is simply this: a plane flew into the tower - there was an explosion and a fire - a bit later, the tower collapsed. No complicated math, no report from no commission, just a basic chain of causes & effects. It's the simplest explanation.

You seriously think it's that easy? Ha... ok.

Quote :

Anyone who claims that there is another cause underlying the events, such as controlled demolition, is going against Occam's razor. And because of that, the burden of proof is on him. He will have to come up with a decent underpinning of his hypothesis. Not only must he show that [1] the default cause is not sufficient, he must also prove that [2] the alternative cause was present (there were explosives), and [3] it was sufficient to cause the effects (lots of explosives, well-placed). The conspirationalists have only concentrated on [1] afaik.

Ok, for [2] there wasn't enough energy produced at the beginning of the collapse to make parts fly off and dust/debrit clouds to start coming from the building. See the falling building video I linked to. What could cause that?
EDIT: Well obviously there was enough energy produced because that's what happened but it wasn't caused by floors falling on each other I can assure you.

And [3] If you look at the towers and honestly believe that all that debrit and sections of the building were propelled by a gravity colapse then I think we should stop right now. I'm trying to look at this with an open mind, if it doesn't look right and I do research to back up what I believe then that's all I need. If you choose to follow the official story you now need to back it up. You need to prove it, you are coming up with the original theory not me.

So Occam's razor is what your going by? The theory with the least amount of assumptions is being selected yes? Well I feel the official story has alot more assumptions and also leaves out a hell of alot more of the facts than the conspiracy theory does. Why did the Commission leave out so many witness reports?

Quote :

And they have the same burden when it comes to human actions and motives. The default explanation (a known enemy of the USA) is so much simpler than the alternative (a government suddenly killing thousands of its own citizens). That makes 2 mountains to climb.

I can't understand this, just because a theory is simpler it automatically gets the vote of everyone? That's crazy. So bin Laden is an enemy of the US? Do you think he is responsible for 9/11? The organising and funding of the operation?

Quote :

BTW, it's odd that they embraced the "controlled demolition" story. They could have made it easier on themselves by accepting that it was the planes that brought the WTC down, and only claiming that Bush allowed Bin Laden to do his dirty work.

But why, because that's not true? The whole idea behind this is to find the truth, not to come up wit the simplist theory so it fits into Occar's razor. When people who work in the field of controlled demolition look at a vid of WTC7 and say that's controlled demo, what is any intelligent being supposed to think, he's a lier? Listen to this man - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 22:26.

Quote from mookie427 :

If WTC 7 didn't collapse due to the fires and damage sustained by it it almost certainly was a controlled demolition. It collapsed several hours after the towers fell, plenty of time to wrap explosives around the base and bring it down. The site was going to be bulldozed anyway so they were simply saving themselves a job later

So all they had to do was strap bombs to the columns at the bottom and it would be fine? It would fall into a neat pile? No chance! Watch the building kink in the centre and then collapse, that means getting timing right to within a fraction of a second. It means planning. Also, there would have to be devices planted throughout the building to get it to fold up, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa6z41EOt4o this is what happens when only the lower explosives go off. And there would be alot of energy there so how it didn't fall to pieces has me amazed.

Quote :

as far as I was aware the fuel station video hadn't been released, but if it has I stand corrected. I am one of the people of the opinion that it wasn't what was reprted as hitting it, no way did a 757 do that little damage to the Pentagon

Here's the fuel station vid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z32xH3skes This is what we get, more blurred censored video of the Pentagon. It's hard to believe that this is what they gave us, wrong dates, blurred images. It's insane. Why not just prove it to us and show the other footage they have?

Here's the Doubletree hotel vid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wUXXgfN2fM This one is clear enough but miles away and not facing the part we need to see.

I've been glancing through Mr. F. Greenings paper and found somthing interesting in relation to what you lads have been saying about how the top section did what it did. Go to page 4 and read - http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf - it says there were 2 stages of collapse, the top section crushed the bottom section, then when that hit the ground it collapse on itself. Interesting... because how could this top section stay intact all the way down? Where is his calculations for that? Have you got any? I doubt it since you say it got damaged as it crushed the floors below. And people say I believe in a crazy theory? This contradicts what you lads have been saying, come back with something good, please.

Quote from mookie427 :

WTC 7 has to be a conspiracy favourite. The so called 'conspiracy' theories behind why it was demolished are laughable. The building was sat at the base of the twin towers when they collapsed. The building suffered massive structural damage after having 2 towers collapse basically on top of it, and was then gutted in parts by fire. It had to be demolished in a controlled way later on, no question. Yes, it held lots of papers and stuff about criminals but how that makes it a conspiracy I do not know

The Pentagon, yes, now that is interesting. If the US government wanted to put all these conspiracy theories to bed, all they need to do is release the tapes which the FBI confiscated from the fuel station down the road from the Pentagon which would have filmed the 'plane' hitting it

Well ok, show me some images of the damage to WTC7, the fires in there, anything that you have said there, do back it up. Are you also stating that it was a controlled demolition? Do you know how long it takes to set one up? Listen to this fella, well read the translations, and see what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA

The video from the fuel station has been released, along with video footage from the Doubletree hotel under the freedom of information act I believe. But none of them are clear. A video from either the hotel facing the Pentagon, can't remember it's name, or a video from the highway cameras will show, without doubt, what hit the Pentagon.

Quote from Juls :

Of course NIST and others wrote about energy. The energy calculation show that the towers were doomed as soon as one floor collapsed. This is broadly admitted, and usually they focus their report on the most interesting part: why did one floor collapse?
Many people just do not want to read or listen. Their way of thinking is closer from faith than anything else.

Just 5 seconds with Google, and there is an article issued a few days after 9/11 about this: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Reading the first few paragraphs it is already sounding like some propoganda paper. It says the buildings were designed to take a plane hit, but they fell? When they designed the towers did they fail to take into account how long the fuel would burn and how much of it there would be?

Quote :

And how the energy was dispersed? excepted sound and ground vibration which allow energy to travel, all the energy was dispersed locally...and ended as heat. Heat is the ultimate state of energy...energy used mechanically to crush floors ends as heat too.

Is metal a good heat conductor? All that steel connected to each other didn't disperse the heat? It all stayed local? Ok, at what point was all this energy at its greatest?

I can't see this happening. I can't see enough heat to melt/weaken anything at the beginning of the collapse. The structure below would also be so strong it wouldn't be crushed by the top ~20% of the building(14 floors for the second tower to fall and 28 for the first). I got them figures from that article you gave me.

Quote :

Another good article talking about WTC collapse energy. In this article they precisely consider fall time and tower mass. And they find energy released by fall at least 10 times bigger than my quick-and-dirty estimation.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Reading some of it, it does actual sound credible but as I've no clue the workings of these equations and calculations I can't actually fully agree or disagree with them. I've read up abit about Mr. Greening since reading this and because I have no clue about these equations I obviously missed this - http://www.freerepublic.com/fo ... /1678935/posts?page=25#25 (post #25)

Quote :

I have emailed F.R. Greening because of a silly mistake in his paper about the energy of the collapse. He divides the total mass of the building by 110, the above ground floors, and proceeds with his calculations as though that is the correct mass for each floor. But the building had six sub-basements and it had to be bottom heavy so his calculation would shift mass upwards implying greater potential energy than there was.
A pretty dumb mistake for a PhD criticizing stupid conspiracy theorists.
More details are here:
http://booksliterature.com/sho ... hp?p=2382&postcount=5
psikeyhackr
PS - He hasn’t responded to the email in 2 weeks.

Well I'm still not sure even about what this person says but it's not looking good for his equations if his calculation of total mass is wrong.

Quote from Juls :

You are trying to tell us that all gravity collapses should look the same?? There are as many different ways of gravity collapsing as there are different types of structures. Think about cards towers, matches structures....etc.

And you compare again a concrete building with the WTC. It's like comparing the fall of a cooked egg with the fall of a raw egg. Different structures...one is full of concrete walls, the other is almost empty excepted a strong shell.

No, I never said ALL gravity collapses should look the same, that would be a rediculous statement. What I did say is "I believe the top sections of both towers, but more so the first to collapse, should have acted exactly the way this did if what you are saying is true." The first tower to collapse, at first, acted the way this building did, but then it lost all resistance front below and came straight down, how/why? 4inch thick floors don't just get turned into dust from floors falling on top of each other. Right from the get go, the towers were spitting out dust, debrit and large chunks of the building, where did all that energy come from? Watch that building fall over, the only time you see clouds of dust is after it falls apart when it hits the ground, not as it's falling over/down. And I'm sure they found large sections of concrete still fully intact.

Yes, so the tower would be stronger, no? Concrete can break up easier than steel. The tower should have stood and the top floors burnt out, because the fires never burned long enough to heat the metal up to high enough temps where it would fail.

Quote from Boris :

Yes i also can't believe they continue with that while no one can give me a clear answer to WTC 7 and Pentagon...

I will talk about it all but none of the official story tellers want to say anything about it. They never seem to respond to your questions. I wonder why?

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 21:09.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

...

@U4IK, gravity pulls downwards. If the building stays mainly upright it'll collapse downwards. If it's at an angle, like in your video, it'll fall sideways. Common sense of physics, really.

So if it stays uprgiht, where all it's strength is, it'll collapse downwards just by gravity?

So how could the top of the first tower to fall not fall off instead on down? It began to tip but then went straight down.

Quote from SamH :

Or else what? You're going to continue to believe stupid things? Go ahead, punk, make my dinner.

Sheesh, what an intelligent convo this is....

Quote :

I'm not your physics teacher for crying out loud. Why don't you just go ahead and demonstrate exactly the mentality that makes the whole 9/11 truth completely irretrievable. History will thank you, I'm sure.

I would rather demonstrate how I think the towers should have reacted to planes flying in and only gravity to do the rest. See my video linked to in my response to Tristan. No planes involved but compare the damaged foundation to where the tower was damaged.

Quote :

Put the spliff out and step away from the bong. You don't have any proof whatsoever for the things you state as facts.

Facts like?

Quote :

And Elvis is alive and living in my basement, and until you come up with some proof that he isn't, that's just an unquestionable fact you're going to have to live with. What a twisted logic you have going on there. Got any messages for Elvis?

Twisted logic? What the hell...

Quote from S14 Drift :

Sorry for quick posts, but this video seems good, watching it now ;o

Well, it does a good job of showing the damage caused by the planes flying into the towers, but once again as soon as the collapse begins, what happens? It is worth the look but don't say it's evidence to prove the collapse of the towers when it doesn't even speak about it nor show simulations of it. Free fall is hard to simulate with all the material in the way.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Why isn't it possible. Got any numbers?

How do you know it doesn't? Prove it.

Simply unscrewing a rusty screw can heat the screw to above 100°C. One bolt. Now imagine the forces involved in a collapsing building - many factors higher, so accordingly the temperatures reached could be factors higher. Comprende?

It is an approximation of a general structure, and is totally valid as an approximation. Admittedly I believe the WTCs were endoskeleton rather than exoskelton, but that's merely a detail in such an approximation.

As I said, gravity driven collapses DO NOT have massive amounts of energy and at its least powerfull is at the beginning. So throwing large sections 100's of meters away from the tower is impossible in the kind of collapse you suggest. And as I said before, the top of the first tower should have fallen off the tower, not straight down through it, the path of MOST resistance btw. And your example of a can is totally unrealistic. For one the person is in no comparison to the top section of the tower. If you were to scale it and use the top third of the can and try make that crush the rest of the can you will find it's impossible.

Ok, here's a gravity collapse on tape. I believe the top sections of both towers, but more so the first to collapse, should have acted exactly the way this did if what you are saying is true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... 3U1So&feature=related @Sam - this is what I am trying to explain, it's on tape. A gravity collapse, now try compare this to the towers. There was a huge amount of explosive energy at the beginning of it's collapse but nothing here, slow and gradual. The force of gravity on something altering it's CoG isn't a quick occurance, it happens slowly.

Quote :

Yes. Take 10 tonnes of steel billet and put it on your head. Hurts, doesn't it? Now take 10 tonnes of steel swarf and put it on your head. Still hurts, doesn't it? Same mass, same momentum, same forces (albeit slightly modified in how the forces are distributed.

Of course 10tonnes of anything on my head would hurt, but 10 tonnes on top of a 50 tonne structure wouldn't do much damage.

Quote :

The building may have been symmetrical, but it certainly wasn't uniform. It has empty space and hard bits and soft bits and tought bits and brittle bits... That is not uniform. As hard bits and soft bits didn't necessarily line up perfectly during failure the forces aren't going to all be in the same direction.

Well, being hard or soft wouldn't really matter when the weight of the object falling far outweighs the objects being crushed, occording to Juls shit just gets crushed in split seconds, everything! Obviously nothing is particularly strong if this is the case, so it wouldn't massively affect its direction or speed.

Quote :

The laws of physics didn't change, but your understanding of them in a real world situation are seriously lacking. You are using classical physics with the assumptions of zero friction and smooth, uniform bodies. Buildings don't behave like that.

I'm the one thinking of zero friction? You are the one saying 2! 110+ storey towers, each floor 4inch thick concrete and massive core columns "collapsed" in 10seconds! What? That is near free fall, i.e. No friction, not even air! So come back with something better than try make me look like the fool.

Quote :

The closed system is you and the scales. Standing still should, therefore, give the same reading as moving. But it doesn't, because internal forces do change the reading. Sit in a car and bounce around - the car bounces too, despite your movement acting purely on the car and not on the surroundings. Internal forces creating external movement....

Why should it give the same reading? It's obvious that it should change. Internal forces create external movement, sounds good but what internal movement happened in the tower? Once the tower started to collapse it was 2 seperate pieces, falling piece and piece getting crushed. What internal force changed the direction of the falling section of the first tower to collapse?

It seems to me you aren't actually putting the right knowledge into how these towers fell. Some of what you say makes sense to me but it doesn't fit what happened in the towers.

Quote from lerts :

id like to know the answer for the black box evaporating and the passport appearing intact?

is this true?

Actually, I read a long time ago that they actually did survive and with the help of the firefighters they found 3 of these boxes but nothing was ever said to the families or the commission report about them.

Here, I just googed this - http://www.rinf.com/columnists ... -by-ntsb-concealed-by-fbi

Quote from SamH :

The impact zone was the crime scene. Do you have any proof that no examination was performed on the core columns or even any areas that in fact ARE relevent to the crime?

Iron burns, by the way. That's just a scientific fact. Friction causes heat, and iron heats up and sometimes catches fire when exposed to oxygen. Do you have any proof that there was anything suspicious about iron melting etc, and behaving exactly as it would after a building collapse? No?

Sorry but YOU are going to have to prove to ME how all this could happen. I'm not here making statements, only asking questions. If I have evidence that I have seen relating to what we talk about I will gladly show you. You coming making a statement like "Friction causes heat, and iron heats up and sometimes catches fire when exposed to oxygen." means nothing unless it is accompanied with the temperatures need to do this. Now, you go find out how hot that iron would have to be. Then find out, probably off Juls, how much energy it would take to generate that amount of heat. I agree with the statement and have heard witnesses saying exactly that but, how can iron banging of itself create this much heat to make it catch fire, so it would have to be red hot, when it's exposed to oxygen?

Quote :

If you were asking legitimate questions, but I don't think you are. People are hearing facts about physics, and having their conspiracy theory completely proven groundless, and then saying "okay but what about.." and spitting out their next conspiracy theory. It's now at the point where reasonable and knowledgeable people aren't bothering to answer the questions, leaving the conspiracists standing proud, thinking they're right when they're not. It's long past the beginning of the end of all hope, thanks to the stupid conspiracy mutts.

Show me some physics facts about 9/11 that I don't agree with? Conservation of momentum and follow the path of least resistance are two things that can't be changed, yet they didn't happen on 9/11.

Quote :

Stop perpetuating previously-debunked conspiracy theories. There is as much if not more information on the web to counter each and every WTC conspiracy theory so far touted. Be responsible (and not so groan-worthy) and please only perpetuate a theory that hasn't been debunked a thousand times or more.

You just said every theory has been debunked, obvioulsy it will be hard to find one that isn't. The same can be said for the official report, there's sites that debunk every part of that but they still spit out the same crap. Planes+fire brought the towers down and damage+fire brought WTC7 down. I say impossible, what you say is what you can understand according to the knowledge you have. If you don't want to listen, that's fine, but don't say to me only say this or that when I haven't seen one fact from you, so should you only bring up things that haven't been debunked?

Quote from SamH :

I haven't given any story, least of all the "official" one. I have my own ideas about 9/11, about who "did" it, who benefitted from it, whether they were part of the scheme to make it happen or whether they took the initiative and exploited it. I have a lot of thoughts and ideas about it, and very little of what I believe tallies with the "official", "government" version.. but absolutely nobody benefits at all, except the "bad guys" when absolutely ludicrous theories are being pushed way out in front of genuine questions that need asking and answering.

Well I apologize for putting you in that group, it just seemed like that's the way you were feeling/thinking.

Quote :

This revisionism that you're perpetuating, like the "no phorensic examination of the crime scene" shit, is sickening. The steel WAS examined, while it was at ground zero, and for weeks afterwards at Staten Island. Phorensics went on well into the summer of 2002. I'd be surprised if it's finished yet, in some capacity.

I agree SOME steel was examined but the majority of the pieces were only from the impact zone. What about the core columns, that could be seen in some photos, cut near the basement? Where are the tests on them? The pieces of molten metal at the ends of them, where is NIST report on them? Any report on them for that matter.

Quote :

You and your co-theorists twist the truth that IS available and try to wring out your conspiracies, but don't expect everyone to fall in line with it. Some of it smells like bullshit because it IS bullshit.. but you guys are getting in the way of anyone finding out the truth because EVERYONE is going to be left rolling their eyes, sick to the back teeth with all the STUPID conspiracies until EVERYONE is conspiracy-deaf and NONE of the REAL truth will ever get out.

Show me where I've twisted the truth? Some of it does smell like bullshit and more times than not it is what it is. I also agree that poeple are turning away as soon as anyone mentions this because it's been talked about so much. But there's no other way to find out, is there? If I am asking legitimate questions, why should I stop because of a few crack pots? Nothing will ever be found out.

Quote from SamH :

Seems pretty clear to me

Clear? Did you see the question marks? I never stated for anyone not to come here, I asked if you don't think there's answers, why come here? Not, well if you think like that, don't come here! There is a difference and I know you're not stupid enough to miss that. Actually when you think of it, I would be the dissenter, you are the one giving me the story, the official one, to ask questions about. It's obvious you, and everyone esle who agrees with the official story, will always be here, no matter what I or anyone else will say because you think you are on the right side of the arguement, you believe you have the facts. Facts we both agree on, but then the official story turns into a theory. Paper surviving an inferno and the most indestructable parts of the planes never being found? The flight recorders? They also have evidence they wont show, why not? Video footage of the Pentagon.

Quote :

You're actually serious, aren't you? LOL

What is so funny? You think it was all analysed? That's funny.

Quote from SamH :

Yeah, that's going to get you answers isn't it? Silence the dissenters? How silly!

FES=flat earth society. For people who actually believe the earth is flat and that NASA is involved in a conspiracy to conceal that "fact". Yeah, stupid I know, and now you understand why some of us look at the theories being proposed here and can barely contain our mockery.

I never said silence anyone. If you don't think there's answers here why come here and discuss it? Because you think you have the answers when actually it's another theory. If it wasn't a theory but fact, there would be much harder evidence for it being the act of terrorists. Like footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon when a number of cameras caught it on tape but we can't see them. Like getting the chance to analyse all the steel from the towers? Once the gold was found under the towers it was no longer a rescue but a clean up. Why clean up a crime scene when every piece hadn't been analysed?

People did actually believe that at one stage, it was the "norm" and people who actually knew the truth were dismissed as crazy, now it's the opposite. Also, people thought Vietnam was a just war because of the Gulf of Tonkin attack, but that has now been declassified and it never even happened. Alot of things that people think are true are in fact propoganda, so how is it so hard to believe that 9/11 was another act to get America into a war? A war which was never declared by congress btw.