TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

Re: Re: Re: Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN how is the fact that one tower has a slightly different reading to another evidence of explosives?

The "slight difference" in reading is equivilant to a massive difference in potential energy (which is roughly equivilant to kinetic energy) as the seismic waves are on measured on a logrithmic scale. That implies a massive difference in the total energy of two virtually identical systems (almost double)! There shouldn't be any significant difference whatsoever if the pancake theory was the actual cause for collapse (almost a magnitude of 2 in this case). Explosions (resulting in added KE) could easily cause that.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN they put more tnt in one building than another? they wouldnt have wired the same exact towers in the same exact way?

That doesn't mean they all have to necessarily detonate, or that all of them will effectiely detonate. If you're planning on wiring a builiding with exposives and you can't take any risk of them going off without the desired result of a guaranteed collapse, wouldn't you wire it with far more than theoretically required to achieve that, or take your chances with the exact theoretical amount? And would you go throught the painstaking process of wiring each tower with exactly the same amount, somehow with a guarantee of all explosives effectily detonating? Even if all of them did effectively detonate, they won't all necessarily equally add on to the kinetic energy of the falling towers/debree. There doesn't need to be an even and equal distribution in additional KE from the explosives in the cases of both towers. For that to happen, there would need to be exactly the same number of explosives in each tower, in exactly the same spots, with and eactly equal collective total explosive power, every single one of them sucessfully going off at exactly the same moment in time-space in both collapses, and both towers collapsing in precisely the same manner down to the smallest bit of debree. Any variation of those factor could easily have a dramatic effect on the how much KE due to explosions would effectively be added to the KE of the collapsing tower, hence the total collective KE of the system, which would result in a proportional differnce in PE. It's next to impossible to control every one of those factors, nor is at all necessary to accomplish the desired goal of both towers collapsing.

EDIT: Another fact relevant to my argument, there was a huge chunk separate from the rest of the structure in the collapse for the second tower, which would result in different additional KE due to explosives added on to the KE of the collapse (a significant loss), in turn causing a noticable difference in PE, hence, the total system (as is evident by the seismic data).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN damned straight i have a very limited understanding of physics.

Yup, you do.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN of course this sounds rich coming from the guy that kept going on and on about the madrid fires

I never "went on and on" about the Madrid Fires, I mentioned it once (or a few times at most) and only as an example, perhaps the best, of a modern steel-framed high rise that burned for hours with severe fires engulfing large portions of the building, and it still didn't collapse. Neigther has any other prior to 9-11. But we're supposed to believe that far less severe fires burning for only a few minutes would generate enough heat to weaken the structure of a building far more structually sound, one specifically designed to be able to withstand at least one hit from a 707 will? It doesn't add up, it's an anomoly. If there were absoutely no supportive evidence for the controlled demolition theory, then it would make some sense to accept this anomoly as infact being having occured, and the only possibile explanation for the collapse. That is just isn't the case.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ive shot down plenty of your ideas before.

No you haven't, you've copy pasted material from websites on every single aspect of 9-11, material you have no way of validating or critically analyzing. You haven't presented a single idea or argument of your own, or even expressed it in your own words. That only indicates an inablity to argue it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and no, i cant explain the differences in seismic activity. however simply stating it was due to explosives certainly isnt enough.

There's tons of other evidence (that me and others have posted before) supportive of the controlled demolition theory. So the seismic data isn't being used in isolation as the sole evidence for an argument, but it's certainly very strong supporting evidence. That really has no explanation at all in the absense of an external energy source, which completely contradict the pancake thoery. Evidence contradicting theory? Hmmmm... in science that implies that the theory is bullshit! Evidence supporting theory on the other hand gives more validity to it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you still havent provided any argument of what explosive was used, which you would logically need to do. but so far not one explosive has been plausibly presented. not one. as mentioned before, thermite certianly wasnt it.

No, you don't. That's question's irrelevant to the fact that explosives were used (assuming a controled demolition is indeed the case, which IS consistent with the seismic data, unlike the pancake thoery). I don't need to tell you what I specifically ate in order for you to believe that I took a shit, all you need to know is that I ate. What I ate has no impact on the fact that I took a shit. If there such a glaring disconnect (more like interchange) of an antacedent and a consequent in your logical framework, you don't have a "logical" framework for analysis or critique to being with.

So it looks like not only do you need a lesson in elementary physics, but also elemetray logic. Here it is:

A - antacedant
B - consequent

A -> B (read as A implies B)

T - means the predicate is true.
F - means the predicate is false.

The first two columbs (left land side, seperated by a '|') are all possible combinations for truth values of A and B.

The third columb (right hand side) is the truth value of the implication given the values for A and B in that row.

the truth table is as follows;

A B | A -> B

F F | T
F T | T
T F | F
T T | T

Let 'A' mean: The WTC collapsed due to controlled demolitions.

Let 'B' mean: We know exactly which explosives were/would be used.

Therefore A -> B reads as: The WTC collapsed due to controlled demolitions implies we know exactly which explosives were/would be used.

Now look at the statement and the truth table.

As you can see, A -> B is not a logically sound statement and the truth value of 'B' has no impact on the truth value of 'A.'

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre still grasping at desperate straws that still dont give you the smoking gun.

So a difference of almost twice in total energy of two virtually identical system is a straw? Right.

Now I'm going to be really annoyed if you simply copy paste something that doesn't address anything I've said, having taken the time and effort to actually form my own arguments (basing it on undisputed facts/scientific theory easily intelligible to anyone) as opposed to complex analysis by certain "experts," whose analysis is only meanigfully intelligle to/critiquable by other experts, that I don't have much reason to trust in the first place for an array of reasons I won't get into rightnow.

Show me a convicing statiscal comparison of steel-framed high rises that collasped on themselves and and one's that didn't where controlled demolitions were not the case, suggesting a likely probability of occurance in the case of the WTC.

EDIT: Perhaps then I'll take the pancake theory more seriously.

Shaolin, i just started college physics couple months ago, and what you said does make sense. We'll be getting into that stuff later on ;-)

Good points on government fuck-ups and kinetic energy released by the two towers ;-)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics

its interesting you view your arrogant & condescending tone so very differently from my abusive posts

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The "slight difference" in reading is equivilant to a massive difference in potential energy (which is roughly equivilant to kinetic energy) as the seismic waves are on measured on a logrithmic scale. That implies a massive difference in the total energy of two virtually identical systems (almost double)! There shouldn't be any significant difference whatsoever if the pancake theory was the actual cause for collapse (almost a magnitude of 2 in this case). Explosions (resulting in added KE) could easily cause that.

i disagree. i dont think you can equate a seismic reading with a definitive calculation for energy. if two identical buildings fall in slightly different ways the seismic reading should be different. the same energy dispersed in a different manner. or at least thats my laymen's understanding of it. you cant state that a different seismic reading necessarily equates to a different level of energy. the collapses of thousands of tonnes of steel & concrete could have been different enough to give the different readings.

if this evidence was so clear-cut, then i doubt its revelations would be ignored by the world's engineers.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That doesn't mean they all have to necessarily detonate, or that all of them will effectiely detonate. If you're planning on wiring a builiding with exposives and you can't take any risk of them going off without the desired result of a guaranteed collapse, wouldn't you wire it with far more than theoretically required to achieve that, or take your chances with the exact theoretical amount? And would you go throught the painstaking process of wiring each tower with exactly the same amount, somehow with a guarantee of all explosives effectily detonating? Even if all of them did effectively detonate, they won't all necessarily equally add on to the kinetic energy of the falling towers/debree. There doesn't need to be an even and equal distribution in additional KE from the explosives in the cases of both towers. For that to happen, there would need to be exactly the same number of explosives in each tower, in exactly the same spots, with and eactly equal collective total explosive power, every single one of them sucessfully going off at exactly the same moment in time-space in both collapses, and both towers collapsing in precisely the same manner down to the smallest bit of debree. Any variation of those factor could easily have a dramatic effect on the how much KE due to explosions would effectively be added to the KE of the collapsing tower, hence the total collective KE of the system, which would result in a proportional differnce in PE. It's next to impossible to control every one of those factors, nor is at all necessary to accomplish the desired goal of both towers collapsing.

yeah, i agree. however, the significant difference in energy (according to you) makes it look like a significantly higher amount of explosives were discharged in one building when compared to the other, and if you were going to blow both towers im not sure you would get that anomaly. the explosive setups would be almost identical i would have thought, and carrying the detonations out would be also very similar.

either way, the different seismic readings still doesn't give you a helluva lot. you keep stating that the .2 difference is a lot, however in the sheer size of these buildings im not as convinced.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z EDIT: Another fact relevant to my argument, there was a huge chunk separate from the rest of the structure in the collapse for the second tower, which would result in different additional KE due to explosives added on to the KE of the collapse (a significant loss), in turn causing a noticable difference in PE, hence, the total system (as is evident by the seismic data).

but what would it mean if there werent explosives? wouldnt that chunk count for energy but not for seismic reading on the same scale??

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I never "went on and on" about the Madrid Fires, I mentioned it once (or a few times at most) and only as an example, perhaps the best, of a modern steel-framed high rise that burned for hours with severe fires engulfing large portions of the building, and it still didn't collapse. Neigther has any other prior to 9-11. But we're supposed to believe that far less severe fires burning for only a few minutes would generate enough heat to weaken the structure of a building far more structually sound, one specifically designed to be able to withstand at least one hit from a 707 will? It doesn't add up, it's an anomoly. If there were absoutely no supportive evidence for the controlled demolition theory, then it would make some sense to accept this anomoly as infact being having occured, and the only possibile explanation for the collapse. That is just isn't the case.

you mentioned it on several occasions from memory. and its a shitty comparison, as myself and colonel & occ showed you. you simply cant compare the two structures. its intellectually dishonest.

ive stated it before, the various factors that went into the collapses have never been seen before, so arguing that this was the first time isnt a real argument at all.

well, at the moment, this seismic anomaly is the only other supposed supporting evidence you have. and you havent answered my questions relating to whether slightly different collapses can result in slightly different seismic results? and im gonna keep saying "slightly" because given the size of the buidlings i still dont see it as a massive difference.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No you haven't, you've copy pasted material from websites on every single aspect of 9-11, material you have no way of validating or critically analyzing. You haven't presented a single idea or argument of your own, or even expressed it in your own words. That only indicates an inablity to argue it.

]

bullshit. i copy & pasted because im lazy & he has it all nicely laid out there and written much better than i could be bothered to do. and none of you ever responded to any of it. the only stuff im incapable of critically analysing would be the indepth scientific components, but this doesnt prevent me from understanding the principles. ie the structural design of the WTCs certainly cant be compared to the madrid building.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z There's tons of other evidence (that me and others have posted before) supportive of the controlled demolition theory. So the seismic data isn't being used in isolation as the sole evidence for an argument, but it's certainly very strong supporting evidence. That really has no explanation at all in the absense of an external energy source, which completely contradict the pancake thoery. Evidence contradicting theory? Hmmmm... in science that implies that the theory is bullshit! Evidence supporting theory on the other hand gives more validity to it.

what other evidence? you guys (and yes im gonna lump you all in the same category coz you use the same websites and make the same false claims) talked about supposed demolition squibs. of which there are none you talked about thermite, ignoring the sheer literage of thermite that would have been needed. show me some more evidence. coz ive read the same sites as you, and i havent been able to find it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No, you don't. That's question's irrelevant to the fact that explosives were used (assuming a controled demolition is indeed the case, which IS consistent with the seismic data, unlike the pancake thoery). I don't need to tell you what I specifically ate in order for you to believe that I took a shit, all you need to know is that I ate. What I ate has no impact on the fact that I took a shit. If there such a glaring disconnect (more like interchange) of an antacedent and a consequent in your logical framework, you don't have a "logical" framework for analysis or critique to being with.

no its not irrelvant. explosives arent explosives. the type of explosive is an inherently important fact due to their differences. both in effect and in power & how they are ignited. thus, if you are going to point at the supposed seismic anomaly as an example of demolition, you must therefore have an idea of what explosives were used. if you cant postulate a theory for type & volume of explosive, youre not very credible. and, as yet, i havent seen a single position put forward other than the thermite one, which is just total bullshit.

no, i dont need to have evidence of what you ate to believe you took a shit. but whether or not you took a shit isnt the point. its whether the shit you took happened naturally or was there an artificially-induced bowel movement. to determine which was the case, what you ate is indeed central to the discussion. we're not debating that the towers fell, we're debating what caused it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z So it looks like not only do you need a lesson in elementary physics, but also elemetray logic. Here it is:

i passed elementary logic when you were still in highschool you arrogant fuck, so you can suck my dick. would you like a refresher course in english?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Now look at the statement and the truth table. As you can see, A -> B is not a logically sound statement and the truth value of 'B' has no impact on the truth value of 'A.'

but thats not what i was saying i was arguing that IF you believe so strongly in demolition, AND you understand the different natures of explosives, THEN you should put forward an argument as to what the explosive in question was. there are many reasons why various explosives couldnt have been used. so im asking you, the believer, to think about the conditions of the buildings following the crashes, and give me a suggestion.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z So a difference of almost twice in total energy of two virtually identical system is a straw? Right.

again, youre making this link that i do not believe is valid. whilst the seismic data might suggest there was twice the amount of energy, it doesnt rule out that the different levels of "energy" occured due to slightly different collapses. and lets not forget this evidence comes straight from the tinfoil brigade, so forgive me if im not gonna take their word for what the .2 seismic difference means.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Now I'm going to be really annoyed if you simply copy paste something that doesn't address anything I've said, having taken the time and effort to actually form my own arguments (basing it on undisputed facts/scientific theory easily intelligible to anyone) as opposed to complex analysis by certain "experts," whose analysis is only meanigfully intelligle to/critiquable by other experts, that I don't have much reason to trust in the first place for an array of reasons I won't get into rightnow.

well i havent found anything specific on the seismic data to post yet but given how everything else you guys have raised has been nicely dealt with by the world's academia, this anomaly which you tied unproven assumptions to, is merely that- an anomaly.

well, if youre not going to trust the world's experts, from all kinds of schools and institutes, then i must wonder if youre just a little crazy im sorry, but theres no way the administration has gotten to all of them. thats just not plausible. anywayz, im sure i can continue this tomorrow at work.

well ill pm colonel crisp and see what his take is on the seismic stuff. coz im well out of my area of expertise

ooooh! magnetonium thinks it makes sense! more or less sense than diana's murder or roswell?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well ill pm colonel crisp and see what his take is on the seismic stuff. coz im well out of my area of expertise ooooh! magnetonium thinks it makes sense! more or less sense than diana's murder or roswell?

and another thing,,,, whats up with the orange text??
Need an extra boost in your presentation?

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX and another thing,,,, whats up with the orange text?? Need an extra boost in your presentation?

Maybe I just like my posts to stand out.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well ill pm colonel crisp and see what his take is on the seismic stuff. coz im well out of my area of expertise ooooh! magnetonium thinks it makes sense! more or less sense than diana's murder or roswell?

You idiot ... the amount of energy released should have been similar, or proportionate to the time and speed of the collapse, because the buildings were the same and fell at the same speed. The only difference (in a factor of almost 2, btw), is if there was an artificial energy exerted on the falling structure to produce such a force. If there was no such force, the buildings should have produced similar force on the surface.

If a vehicle/truck/car crashes into a tree at 100 km/hr, based on its mass it was exert a certain force (F=ma). If the same vehicle was laid with explosive material crashed into the tree, the force would spike the readings (Fw=coefficient times mass times acceleration). Same mass, its the external energy force.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Maybe I just like my posts to stand out. You idiot ...

Pssst... the one thing the guy from land down under is not,

much respect for pkcRAISTLIN, I have do I..

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium You idiot ... the amount of energy released should have been similar, or proportionate to the time and speed of the collapse, because the buildings were the same and fell at the same speed. The only difference (in a factor of almost 2, btw), is if there was an artificial energy exerted on the falling structure to produce such a force. If there was no such force, the buildings should have produced similar force on the surface.

but youre comparing different levels in a seismic reading, NOT different levels of energy. youre merely stating that the reading means there was twice the amount of energy in one building. i dont think you can make that assessment from seismic data alone. if you took each brick of a building and threw it down one by one, you wouldnt get anywhere near the same reading than if a building fell completely in one movement. according to that video shaolin posted, there was a 2 second difference in the times it took each tower to fall. if the same amount of energy is dissipated over a slightly longer period of time, then i would guess that the seismic reading would be different. again, its not my area of expertise but you guys havent answered my question.

the tower that exerted the 2.3 reading fell two seconds faster than the tower that gave the 2.1 reading.

oh, and im the idiot! UFO boy

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN also, you still havent argued why you believe you know better than the world's engineers.

You're very selective in which engineers you believe. There are 'experts' on both sides of the story here, but you're only believing the ones who you WANT to believe.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ You're very selective in which engineers you believe. There are 'experts' on both sides of the story here, but you're only believing the ones who you WANT to believe.

not true. im not sure the 911 movement has any structural engineers as part of their theories. you do have steven jones, but he's not qualified, and his paper has been torn to shreds by engineers world wide.

whereas i have pretty much the entire engineering community worldwide. the list is as long as my arm. good enough for me.

quote:

Their most famous member, and co-founder [of scholars for 911 truth], is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork... I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don't list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials. I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong. Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member? So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons! The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings. So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

LINK

to be fair, these members might not represent the entire 9/11 movement, but id suggest it would be a fair chunk. certainly many of the theories have been propogated or created by this particular arm of the movement. speaks volumes imo.

dont have much time today ladies but ill throw some info your way.....


while the whole kinetic vs potential energies theorys are very valid as it is the foundation of modern phisics..... your forgetting about one of my favorite newtonian laws...... impact and momentum.


facts frist, buildings collapsed from the top down...... therefore any explosives would have had to be detonated from the top down as well..... these would not have spiked a sisemograph (spelling) as the building resonance would have absorbed the shock wave energy well before hit hit ground level... structures resonate at harmonic frequencies with wind, load shifts etc, so a large blast wave would get absorbed by the structures frame.

now you want a real explanation for the sizemic spikes (sorry spelling bad today) according to newtons law of momentum and impulse the force generated by an impact is a function of homogenous mass and velocity. wehn the building started to collapse, its not hard to see that it turned to a big ball of dust rather quickly. meaning that the concrete was failing at an alarming rate. the first couple floors would have been the only ones to fall completely intact, meaning the most homogenus mass impacting at one time. by homogenus i mean that the floor slab was most likely in one piece still. here is an analogy. lets take a ford pinto ok and tie it to a long rope and swing it at a brick wall.... it will do alot more dammage than if we were to take the same car, cut it in half and swing both halves individually at the wall... While the entire mass of the building did fall, larger sections such as floor slabs would have caused alot more damages than fractured pieces of concrete etc.

without a time syncronized video of the colaps with the sismographic readouts, all i can do is make an educated guess. and my guess is that the first 2 or 3 floors collapsing caused the spike since most structures are harmonically ridgid on teh vertical axis. such an impact would have sent and impulse of energy right into the pile foundations which would create a significant sismographic reaction.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN its interesting you view your arrogant & condescending tone so very differently from my abusive posts

Show me a single occasion where I used language like that specifically to describe or mock you (and so obviously directed at you personally):

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i passed elementary logic when you were still in highschool you arrogant fuck, so you can suck my dick.

I was annoyed as hell, since you demonstrated a complete lack of understadning of elementary physics and went as far as to say that the fundamental laws of physics did not apply. Most people don't end up taking a single course in formal logic in their lives so it's wasn't unreasonable for me to conlude you'd be unfamiliar with that to, and even those that do, I've known many of them who haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about.

And you really haven't said a single thing here that would make any (big or small) holes in my argument. You're just stating "I don't believe that those are the implication of the different seismic readings." Well, that's too bad. Even your buddy colonelcrisp conceded to an unusual seismic reading difference and it's implications for total energy in both collapses, although he atleast tried to give an alternate explanation. Which I don't find convincing for such a huge difference (virtually double).

And your request for help only convinces me even further that you can't argue anything related to this subject on your own. Have fun copy pasting material or have someone else argue for you.

EDIT:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if this evidence was so clear-cut, then i doubt its revelations would be ignored by the world's engineers.

It's negligence of glaring anomolies like that (not just the scientific aspect of 9-11) that makes it extremely hard for me to take any pro-no-govermental-involvement arguments seriously at all. This certainly isn't the only example of it and I posted that just a couple pages ago. If you want to aruge a position, you have to consider all the evidence. The insant you do take it into considertaton, it esposes their argument for what it is, a house of cards.

EDIT2: Like ignoring these for example:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Prior knowledge of attacks? FACT Failure to take any action (let alone effective action or preventive measures)? FACT Unusual change in chain of command and interference with standard NORAD protocols resulting in attack on pentagon that would never have happened if standard procedures were allowed to take place? FACT Seismic data consistent with controlled demolition theory? FACT Expansion of excecutive branch and tyrannical bills/law butchering constituionaly guaranteed protection from state and abuse of power? FACT Clear abuse of power and convicted criminals appointed in key governmental positions? FACT Illegal and unwarranted domestic spying on grassroots organizations, peace groups, and political advesaries? FACT War based on blatant lies and deliberate manipulation of intelligence considered faulty by agencies in the first place and produced under pressure from executive branch? FACT Feel free to add to the list guys. EDIT: Some more additions to that list: Illegal destruction and removal of forensic evidence from crime scene? FACT Executive branch blocking independet investigation into 9-11 and 9-11 commission only being formed after families of victims pressuring the Government? FACT

Collectively, they're absolutely devastating to the arguments for no Goverment complicity. But I already expect you to ignore all that, just like you did my recent argument, which is why you don't have much credibility in my eyes.

EDIT3: Something else I forgot to address:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you mentioned it on several occasions from memory. and its a shitty comparison, as myself and colonel & occ showed you. you simply cant compare the two structures. its intellectually dishonest.

No it isn't. And I'll spell it out for you since your preconditioned mind seems incapable of comprehending it. Precendence shows that steel-frame high rises do not fall due to plane crashes or fire. The WTC was specifially designed to be able to withstand all that. So I would need a compelling reason to believe that it did fall for those reasons, and the pancake theory, even according to FEMAs reports, ONLY HAS A LOW PROBABILITY OF OCCURANCE!!! Now do you see why I brought it up and am incredibly reluctant to accept it as a plausible explanation? EDIT4: Especially given the incredibly short time span between being hit and prior to collapse (102 minutes for WTC1 and 56 minutes for WTC2, according to Wikipedia)? And according to NIST's final report, p. 33, WTC1 was "recuded to rubble" in approximately 12 seconds (and according to them, the time for total collapse convinietly ranged from 15 to 25 seconds, but this was "hard to determine" ). I'm going to work with WTC1 was 1,368 feet (417 m) high (source: World Trade Center, New York City. Emporis. Retrieved on 2006-04-13, ignoring the height of the antena, another 110 meters). An object in freefall would take 9.22 seconds to reach the ground from the top (ignoring air resistance).
[ (v^2=u^2 + 2ax) , (u=0 m/s), (a=g=9.8 m/s^2), (x=417 m), so (v = 90.41 m/s), and (x= 0.5*(v + u)*t), t = 9.23)] You expect me to believe that the resistance offered by 109 floors (discluding the top floor, 110) pancaking would cause WTC1 to collapse in only 2.77, 5.77, and 15.77 seconds more than freefall speed (asusuming each time interval of 12, 15, and 25 seconds)? That means it took 0.025, 0.052, and 0.143 seconds on average to get past each floor?!?! That's all the resistance offered by all floors combined and the air? Let's not forget that according to FEMA, the pancake theory had only "a low probability" of occurance in the first place. So somehow, something with an extremely low probablity occurs, and then sprectacularly in an incredibly short time period as well, with twice the amount of total energy in the first instance. Yeah, keeping everything in mind, that sounds incredibly believable to me .

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Pssst... the one thing the guy from land down under is not, much respect for pkcRAISTLIN, I have do I..

So you have "much respect" for people who post other people's material and analysis, and present them as their own arguments? And the moment they have trouble with something (quite simple IMO), they respond with empty rhetoric and get someone else to argue for them?

You also failed to respond to this:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Show me a convicing statiscal comparison of steel-framed high rises that collasped on themselves and and one's that didn't where controlled demolitions were not the case, suggesting a likely probability of occurance in the case of the WTC. EDIT: Perhaps then I'll take the pancake theory more seriously.

ok shaolin i just did some more reading on this topic, and i spoke with my geotechnical mechanics proff this afternoon as well. ok here it goes


both towers had an approximate mass of about 500 000 tons (metric)

i would like to point out that the TNT vs seismic response analogy is to quanitfy the energy capacity. its not a literal comparison to explosive force

seismic measurement and reading is not only a factor of energy but also of time. for instance 1 million joules of energy released or imparted to the ground over a micro second will cause a seismic response far greater than 1 million joules of energy released over 1 second.

a richter reading of 2.1 corresponds to aprox 8.91x10^14 Joules of energy where as a reading of 2.3 is aprox 1.77x10^15 hardly a factor of 10 difference ps energy calculation of richter readings is

Log(E) = 11.8 + 1.5M

where M is the magnitude and E is the energy released in Joules

now as the colapse of the tower that generated the richter of 2.1 was two seconds longer than the collapse of the tower that generated the richter reading of 2.3. I think its pretty clear that the seismic difference can be explained by impulse, which of course is the amount of energy transfered over a period of time.

^^ Thanks for the promt response and your effort, and for mainting a civil dialouge. I'll look into your response and reserach a little deeper to figure out any possible flaws/counter arguments, and the probability of occurance.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp i would like to point out that the TNT vs seismic response analogy is to quanitfy the energy capacity. its not a literal comparison to explosive force seismic measurement and reading is not only a factor of energy but also of time. for instance 1 million joules of energy released or imparted to the ground over a micro second will cause a seismic response far greater than 1 million joules of energy released over 1 second.

Fair enough, atleast for now I suppose. But there should still be a proportional relation between energy capcity and PE (and hence KE). It's still the best indicator for comparison (regarless of actual quantificied values, since we're considering a ratio).

And doesn't a million joules (10^6) pale in comparison to a minimum of the two values for energy capacity of the towers, (8.9*10^14) which is approximately equivilant to (10^15)? X*(10^6) joules of energy would be an additive variable as opposed to multiplicative (not sure if I used the proper terminology there, feel free to correct me). Even under the assumption of X*(10^6) joules per micro-second (10^-6 seconds) and a relatively uniform distribution of over the time period of a single second, that wouldn't be any greater than X*(10^12). As an additive variable to (10^15), it still shouldn't result in a significant change to that quantity, especially in the case of 1.77*(10^15).

I guess I should add that (10^6) joules is a fairly significat quantity of energy to be released in a micro-second, one I'm not so inclined to arbitrarily assign as a coefficient to energy release in joules per micro-second as it uniformly distributes to (10^6) times greater in magnitude uniformly spread over a second. So you are correct in asserting a far greater mangitude of force released or imparted to the ground with that assumption, but what I'm questioning is the probablity of such a large coefficient for energy dispursed in a micro-second. Even working with that assumption, it's an insignificant additive variable to (10^15).

Plus, the difference between 1.77*(10^15) joules and 8.9*(10^14) joules is 8.8*(10^14) joules, far greater than X*(10^12) joules.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp energy released or imparted to the ground

That should factor into KE for the collapsing towers, reinforcing the relationship between the seismic readings and total energy of the two systems, an even stonger indicator of an external energy source.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp a richter reading of 2.1 corresponds to aprox 8.91x10^14 Joules of energy where as a reading of 2.3 is aprox 1.77x10^15 hardly a factor of 10 difference ps energy calculation of richter readings is

So the ratio of energy for the north tower (WTC1) v.s. the south tower (WTC2) is 17.7 : 8.9 = 1.99 (rounded of to second decimal place, the third digit being 8) which is still approximately 2 (the closest possible value to 2 I might add). It's virtually twice the magnitude, which was my original claim (not a factor of 10, that was a reference to the logrithmic base).

So in conclusion, impulse still doesn't adaquetly account a such large variation in magnitude (2 times greater).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Show me a single occasion where I used language like that specifically to describe or mock you (and so obviously directed at you personally):

haha, the comment annoyed the hell out of me. i found it supremely arrogant & condescending. thus my response. alls fair in love n war as they say. respect shaolin, you know that

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z And you really haven't said a single thing here that would make any (big or small) holes in my argument. You're just stating "I don't believe that those are the implication of the different seismic readings." Well, that's too bad. Even your buddy colonelcrisp conceded to an unusual seismic reading difference and it's implications for total energy in both collapses, although he atleast tried to give an alternate explanation. Which I don't find convincing for such a huge difference (virtually double).

well, thats where you and i disagree. i was basically asking you to explain the correlation between the seismic data a little further. because i didnt believe it was that easily transferable, and whattya know!? it sounds as if i was right

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z And your request for help only convinces me even further that you can't argue anything related to this subject on your own. Have fun copy pasting material or have someone else argue for you.

im a political scientist mate, not a physicist. these particulars are well outside my areas of training. so of course i'll ask for help when i feel it is needed. you never go to a book to look something up? well books that can tpye are better still stop being so pompous. as if your collection of argument is always your own work 100%

and after consulting one of his professors, colonel came up with this

quote:

now as the colapse of the tower that generated the richter of 2.1 was two seconds longer than the collapse of the tower that generated the richter reading of 2.3. I think its pretty clear that the seismic difference can be explained by impulse, which of course is the amount of energy transfered over a period of time.

forgive me, but that sounds an awful like

quote:

according to that video shaolin posted, there was a 2 second difference in the times it took each tower to fall. if the same amount of energy is dissipated over a slightly longer period of time, then i would guess that the seismic reading would be different. again, its not my area of expertise but you guys havent answered my question. the tower that exerted the 2.3 reading fell two seconds faster than the tower that gave the 2.1 reading.

so i presented you with that hypothesis and you just ignored it. of course it doesnt seem like i can argue my own points if youre just gonna ignore everything i post

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's negligence of glaring anomolies like that (not just the scientific aspect of 9-11) that makes it extremely hard for me to take any pro-no-govermental-involvement arguments seriously at all. This certainly isn't the only example of it and I posted that just a couple pages ago. If you want to aruge a position, you have to consider all the evidence. The insant you do take it into considertaton, it esposes their argument for what it is, a house of cards.

well, is it still a glaring anomaly?

oh, but you're still happy to ignore my requests to put forward an hypothesis for explosives used. youre happy to use the phrase "explosive" to fill in every gap in evidence or explain certain anomalies as if explosives are the panacea for the entire 9/11 movement. but you wont stick your neck out and name a possible explosive will you. ive forgotten how many times ive asked you to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z EDIT2: Like ignoring these for example:

i didnt ignore them. though some of them are just plain silly. for instance, behaviour after the fact is not evidence of behaviour before the fact. no matter how much you want it to be true, its not evidence of anything at all.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Collectively, they're absolutely devastating to the arguments for no Goverment complicity. But I already expect you to ignore all that, just like you did my recent argument, which is why you don't have much credibility in my eyes.

but this just highlights your naivete in how governments actually work. you've tied together all these points in wonderful non sequiturs as if they combine to tell us a story. but they dont. or at least not the story you're reading. "this is what the government has done by using 9/11" DOES NOT EQUATE TO "the government was therefore behind 9/11". just not logical by any stretch of the imagination.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No it isn't. And I'll spell it out for you since your preconditioned mind seems incapable of comprehending it. Precendence shows that steel-frame high rises do not fall due to plane crashes or fire. The WTC was specifially designed to be able to withstand all that. So I would need a compelling reason to believe that it did fall for those reasons, and the pancake theory, even according to FEMAs reports, ONLY HAS A LOW PROBABILITY OF OCCURANCE!!! Now do you see why I brought it up and am incredibly reluctant to accept it as a plausible explanation?

find me a skyscraper, that was built in a "tube in a tube" design, that was hit by a big plane full of fuel, that caught fire, whose fire-protection was sheered off by the impact, that didnt collapse you keep asking these irrelevant questions that make no sense.

how the hell can you cry "precedence" when there hasnt been a precedent in the history of the world? youre beginning to sound ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z You also failed to respond to this: quote: Originally posted by shaolin_Z Show me a convicing statiscal comparison of steel-framed high rises that collasped on themselves and and one's that didn't where controlled demolitions were not the case, suggesting a likely probability of occurance in the case of the WTC. EDIT: Perhaps then I'll take the pancake theory more seriously. [QUOTE] see above (for the last time, ive posted on this many many times). [QUOTE]Originally posted by shaolin_Z So you have "much respect" for people who post other people's material and analysis, and present them as their own arguments? And the moment they have trouble with something (quite simple IMO), they respond with empty rhetoric and get someone else to argue for them?

blah blah blah. not ONCE have i ever seen you denounce ogv's or TX's posts that are long-winded quotes from other people. serious double standard from you. and at least i vet what i post, when its very clear ogv does not. not once have i seen you actually take anything ive quoted to task. whether the info is from me or someone else shouldnt really be relevant. the simple fact is you are ill-equipped to deal with it. because you've got nothing.

given this is well outside my areas of knowledge im more than happy with how i dealt with your seismic anomaly. but no, i dont like to get too indepth into things i'll readily admit i dont always understand. no shame in that.

having said that, not one of your CTs have dealt with a single matter ive sourced from elsewhere concerning the collapses. and you keep coming back with the madrid fires or so-called "precedent" when you should know that these points are not only irrelevant, but intellectually dishonest.

Now all of that was my own work. Here's a something I found, since you're so fond of copy pastes PKC:

quote:

Disproving the WTC "Pancake Theory" in 110 Easy Steps The official version of 9/11 in relation to the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers maintains that after the collapses of the buildings initiated, the structure above the collapse zone of each building (the "caps") fell on the floor below, easily destroying that floor's supports and connections, before moving down to the next, and so on in a chain reaction until each tower was destroyed down to the very pavement. This model includes the seemingly plausible contention that each failing floor added to the falling mass and with each failed floor the velocity of the collapse increased, and hence the kinetic energy grew ever larger and the buildings were doomed from the start; "if one floor failed, they would all have to fail". This hypothesis is affectionately referred to by 9/11 skeptics as the "Pancake Theory", and was first propagated by FEMA and vocal supporters of the official story such as Thomas Eagar[1]. Here, I shall attempt to disprove the Pancake Theory with simple maths and basic physics. The National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST)[2] was expected to either strengthen the Pancake Theory with their investigation and report on the collapses, or to produce an alternative explanation. After 4 years and USD$20,000,000 of research, to the surprise of everyone, skeptics and believers of the official story alike, they failed to do that completely. In fact, the institute openly stated that their report "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."[3] Notable 9/11 skeptics such as Professor Steven E. Jones[4], Jim Hoffman[5], Professor David ray Griffin[6], and others, maintain that the Pancake Theory is impossible as an explanation for the collapses wherein the roughly 15 second time of the collapses from start to finish seems to defy the Law of Conservation of Momentum. In his paper, Why Indeed Did The WTC buildings Collapse?[4], Jones states: Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum � one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors � and intact steel support columns � the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case � somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans. Taking a simple model of the towers, one can show that this is indeed the case, the Pancake Theory is impossible as an explanation for the collapses. Assume a model, in this case WTC1, where each floor was a flat slab simply floating in space, held up by a magical forcefield that turned off as soon as anything touched it. Hence, when each floor collided with the next one below, that floor gave way without any resistance at all. Assume the collisions are perfectly inelastic. In this model, the only thing slowing the collapse is the momentum imparted to each floor below by the ever-increasing falling mass. Conservation of momentum states that the momentum after each collision is the same as before it, and since momentum equals mass times velocity (p = mv), with momentum, mass, and acceleration due to gravity known, we can calculate the new velocity after each collision, the velocity after each 12 foot free fall (each floor of the tower was 12 foot high), and hence the total time for collapse in this simple model. To avoid calls of bias, I will use close to Thomas Eagar's figures for the mass of the building and cap mass of 500,000 tonnes and 45,000 tonnes respectively while assuming an increase in floor mass in increments across the four major sections of the building. Model Assumptions: 1. For distance purposes (except for the cap striking the ground), each floor is an infinitely thin slab with all of its mass concentrated into that slab. 2. Collapse initiates at the 98th floor, with the first collision being the cap striking the 97th floor. 3. Air resistance is zero. 4. Resistance from the structure is zero. As in, there are no vertical columns, and no assembly connections. 5. Collisions are "flush" and perfectly inelastic, meaning the falling mass of the cap "acquires" each floor it collides with. 6. None of the mass of the original cap is lost. 7. 30% of the mass of each lower floor is lost over the side of the building and removed from the crushing mass. (Note this only adds 1s to the total time, and 30% is quite conservative when you consider the 236 steel columns supporting 50% of the vertical load were on the skin of the building and thrown outwards, when you look at debris distribution in the satellite pics taken after the event, and when you consider I didn't subtract anything off the 45,000t cap) 8. When the cap strikes the ground, it collapses on itself in resistanceless free fall. Below is the collapse model depicted graphically: And here are the calculations: As you can see, the model produces a collapse time of just over 14 seconds. Remember, this model assumes zero air resistance, and zero resistance from the structure. Furthermore I have used figures of 45,000 tonnes for the cap and 500,000 tonnes for the entire structure, the cap thereby comprising about 10% of the weight. However the WTC towers, as all skyscrapers, were built progressively stronger and heavier towards the base. The cap would therefore be much lighter than 45,000 tonnes, and the 14 second figure would be adjusted up accordingly with more realistic figures. The collapse of WTC1 took approximately 15 seconds to complete. Add air resistance, the mechanical resistance of the structure, the kinetic energy dissipated in the process of pulverizing the concrete, office furniture, and industrial carpet to average <60 micron-sized dust, and the final expected figure from gravitational "pancake" collapse would be much greater than 15 seconds. Hence, the US Government's collapse theory would seem to be impossible as an explanation for the collapse of WTC1. This being the case, alternative explanations must therefore be considered and investigated. Furthermore, I have not addressed above, the issue of the cap being disintegrated into constituent parts as was observed, which meaning that the crushing mass would involve many non-fatal smaller impacts, causing decay in and eventual halt to the collapse. This concept was even openly admitted to by Bazant & Zhou in their paper, Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?�Simple Analysis: An important hypothesis implied in this analysis is that the impacting upper part, many floors in height, is so stiff that it does not bend nor shear on vertical planes, and that the distribution of column displacements across the tower is almost linear, like for a rigid body. If, however, the upper part spanned only a few floors (say, 3 to 6), then it could be so flexible that different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times, producing a series of small impacts that would not be fatal... Bazant & Zhou state an arbitrary figure of "say, 3 to 6" floors as being the upper limit for the structure to be flexible enough to disintegrate and cause smaller impacts. However, since the cap is constructed in exactly the same manner as the structure below, as it destroyed each floor of the structure below, it would also be equally destroyed. Therefore, with the cap of WTC1 being comprised of 12 floors, it would be completely disintegrated into constituent parts after destroying 12 floors below it. This contention is supported by video and photographic records of the collapse. Many non-fatal, smaller impacts would lead to a decay in, and an eventual halt in the collapse. References: [1] The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html [2] NIST and the World Trade Center http://wtc.nist.gov/ [3] Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft) http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf [4] Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html [5] 9-11 Research http://911research.wtc7.net/ [6] The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

>> Link <<

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual dishonesty is believing in a phenomenon that defies common sense and the laws of physics, or comes incredibly close to that. So please stop accusing me of it. I don't care what kind of explanation a selective group of "experts" offer if it isn't consistent with the laws of physics or comes very close to it. Plus, the scientific aspect is only one aspect to 9-11, you guys have failed to address everything else. And you've failed to address the scientific aspect in any meaningful way, or offer any believable alternative.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, thats where you and i disagree. i was basically asking you to explain the correlation between the seismic data a little further. because i didnt believe it was that easily transferable, and whattya know!? it sounds as if i was right .... and after consulting one of his professors, colonel came up with this .... forgive me, but that sounds an awful like

Did you miss my post preceding your's where I responded to colonelcrisp's?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Intellectual dishonesty is believing in a phenomenon that defies common sense and the laws of physics, or comes incredibly close to that. So please stop accusing me of it.

no, its intellectually dishonest to compare two completely different structures when its been illustrated time and time again that they are different and incomparable.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I don't care what kind of explanation a selective group of "experts" offer if it isn't consistent with the laws of physics or comes very close to it. Plus, the scientific aspect is only one aspect to 9-11, you guys have failed to address everything else. And you've failed to address the scientific aspect in any meaningful way, or offer any believable alternative.

"selective"?? the world's engineers are a selective group of experts? wow, id like to know what constitutes a substantial body of experts by your way of thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Did you miss my post preceding your's where I responded to colonelcrisp's?

no, but i am unqualified to debate that. ill leave that up to people like colonel.

quote:

Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy Jones: �How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum and energy in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of energy and momentum and the fall-times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).� To many people the apparent collapse of the buildings at �near free-fall-speed� is one of the most compelling arguments in favour of the CD theory. However it is also the most easily dealt with on scientific grounds. The fact is that the near free-fall-speed of collapse of buildings in controlled demolition is entirely due to gravity, and not to explosives. The question of course remains, how come that buildings, impeded by their intact lower floors, collapse so fast? (Though of course, this is not a question with any direct relevance to 9/11.) Put this way, the question conveys the essential fact of controlled demolition: that the only floors effectively �removed� from the building are the lowest. (Further charges are placed in the building if and only if it is necessary to guide its fall in a certain way, for example to collapse a building into its footprint.) In a 20-story building, for example, the bottom floor or floors is extensively rigged with explosive, to remove its load-bearing capability. The remaining 18-odd storeys pancake into the region of the destroyed floor, one at a time, raising exactly the same question as to how is it that this process can take place so quickly? The same question applies to conventional demolition, and to the Tower buildings. The difference is that the pancaking occurs high in the Twin Towers (�top-down pancaking�), and at the base of WTC 7 (�bottom-up pancaking�). In the usual bottom-up process each floor impedes the process of collapse through its structural rigidity, just as much as one would expect in the top-down processes in the Towers. Although no text-book account is available which might give a simple answer to the issue of the speed of gravitational collapse of buildings, one might draw on the analogy of a hydraulic press compressing, say, a car body shell. The car body shell may seem strong enough to withstand everyday loadings, but, when it takes the hit of a high-powered press, it collapses with astonishing speed. 18 storeys of a big building, moving even rather sedately as they would at the onset of collapse, probably outstrip the forces of even the biggest hydraulic press ever built. It seems that all the proponents of the CD theory state the case, like Jones above, along the lines: �The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.� This is simply unscientific; not corresponding to the reality of how controlled demolition is carried out. Returning to our example of the collapse of a 20-story building, there is simply no need to explode each floor, and such explosions are certainly not the explanation of why buildings fall so fast in controlled demolition. All the calculations produced by the CD theorists, designed to prove their theory, are based on the wrong premise, that explosions accelerate the descent. They don�t: it is purely gravity that does it. Jones: �We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then � and this I�m still puzzling over � this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?� Jones seems to believe that a 30-story section of the building was �turned mostly to powder in mid-air,� through the use of explosives. He ignores the fact that large sections of the building, such as this, did fall, and were responsible for destroying or partly destroying other WTC buildings. Although considerable disintegration of the 30-story block was inevitable as it impacted on the rest of the South Tower, the bulk of the pulverisation would have been on impact on the WTC complex. Here is a photo of a large chunk of WTC 2 falling onto WTC 3, which was almost totally destroyed by debris falling from the Towers. This fragment shows a different orientation to the section described by Jones, which suggests that angular momentum was conserved.

link

quote:

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground. Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns. Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high. Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

quote:

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor. Below are calculations from a physics blogger... When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see, d = 1/2at^2 so t = (2d/a)^1/2 a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.] d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source) so t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough, v = at v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates. Let's see: KE = 1/2mv^2 The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be 208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft 50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be 450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor so the total mass would be 4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was 90.4m/s so our KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J So, divide by 2 and we get 10,362,544,260J OK, now let's try a floor halfway up: t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's 110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value) = 1,139,879,868,600J OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J? 1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing. Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911 Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest. For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page. Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

link

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z So in conclusion, impulse still doesn't adaquetly account a such large variation in magnitude (2 times greater).

ok maybe this will help.

the manner in which richter values are calcualted are not infact energy based. it is scaled off of a nomograph with outer scales in amplitude and distance from epicenter.




now i can assure you i hate nomograms more than most as they have been the back bone from euler buckling load calculations and flexuarl pavement design systems for years. nothing more humbling that being resorted to using a ruler for "advanced" calculations after a 5 year tenure at university lol

the seismic readings were taken from about 21 miles from ground zero correct? using my lazy converter of 2 that makes aprox 42 Km from the epicenter. at this distance a very small change in amplitude correlates to a change in richter values to the magnitude of a couple of tenths.

what could have caused an amplitude difference in the degree of a tenth of a milimeter, impulse could explain it. if a large mass (such as the collapse of the building) were to at some stage during the collapse, strike the load bearing structure in a way that it ridgidly transmits the load directly to the ground, you could impart a significantly large pressure wave to send a seismometer off the charts...

the reason i dont buy the explosive theory for causing the spike in collapse energy is that a bomb detonated above ground level wouldnt even phase a seismometer especially from 21 miles away.

the origional WTC truck bombing didnt even register on the seismometers if i remember correctly.

so a bomb detonated 100 stories in the air wouldnt even make a twitch on a seismograph

from personal experience being a bit of a hick growing up as a kid. i used to use 1/4 sticks of TNT to get rid of big rocks in the field on my farm. mainly out of boredom beacuse any idiot can use a tractor to move them. even a 1/4 stick shoved under a rock in a field wont create a tremor in the ground, ya its loud as hell but you cant feel it in your feet. while a subterranean blast feels like an earth quake. i was at a quarry here in ottawa a couple weeks ago, i was 3 miles from the blast site (they were blasting the face so they had more rock to crush) that blast only had 6 bore holes and the face was only 3o feet tall and goddamn i almost fell over it shook the ground so hard.

before i get too ahead of myself i want to double check what scale the numbers 2.1 and 2.3 were quoted in, because richter and moment magnitude are two completely different scales

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, its intellectually dishonest to compare two completely different structures when its been illustrated time and time again that they are different and incomparable. "selective"?? the world's engineers are a selective group of experts? wow, id like to know what constitutes a substantial body of experts by your way of thinking. no, but i am unqualified to debate that. ill leave that up to people like colonel. link link

no offence but this guys calculations are about as trust worthy as an american fighter pilot flying over friendlys..... (ooohhh sorry about the burn, but im a proud canuk)

you cant use a 450 000 tons divide by two technique for kinetic energy generated by a collapsing building.

the only reasonable approximation that you can calculate would be by using an iterative incremental method. and since his analysis wasnt 123542334 pages long, i dont buy it. to be quite honest, his numbers are most likely far short of any real approximation. i dont think any of the estimates out there are close to the real thing because most people who have any sort of a life wouldnt have the time to model that building in matlab and then subdivide it into about 10 milion layers and then calculate the energy generated by the falling mass of each layer....... i had to do it for a monolithic 10m tall concrete cylander and it took me two hours to get the right answer. there are only a few people in teh academic community who could write an algorithm to accuratly calculate the total net energy of each collapse. and for that oyu would need a cluster array to calculate it.

More of "your" copy paste "arguments" and zero independent analysis. Wow, with your debating skills, you could blow anyone out of the water .

I think it's best if I ignore your posts regarding 9-11 from now on (unless it becomes unbearable). You're clearly incapabile of holding your own ground and have no interest making any effort on your own (short of the painstaking effort required to google and paste material). I'm sick of wasting my time, especially since you cuss me out when you have trouble googling for "your" response. Have fun pretending someone else's "infallible expert analysis" is your own .

I suppose I could easily do the same, but that wouldn't be my arguments, and neigther am I interested in sinking to your level of verbal abuse. If that's what your idea of a debate is, you could easily make your own thread (or you could do this here, doesn't really bother me one way or another), fill it up with copy paste material from eigther side, and mix it up with whatever amount foul language floats your boat. Don't forget to ask for help when you really piss yourself off .

EDIT: Post directed @ PKC, not colonelcrisp.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.