|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 50)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance. |
link |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
The building didnt collapse though, until later in the day, and it went down in like 8 seconds. A steel frame building has never went down before of fires or even earthquakes, at worst the foundation remains. Remember the famous 2004 Madrid fires? Everyone thought that the building will collapse, but it didnt .... even though the fire was way more devastating.
While the building is going down, you can see pumes of smoke shooting out of the building ...
All signs of demolition ... and this whole crap talk of Silverstein's assistants trying to "clarify" his lingo is bullshiit ... I mean, come on, what is this:
""They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski " |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
You know why pancake theory is wrong? because the WTC North/South buildings had a solid huge inner core of like 40 columns- the inside wasnt hollow!!! So we should have had the columns remaining standing there!!! |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
The building didnt collapse though, until later in the day, and it went down in like 8 seconds. |
if anything that shows how random and unplanned the collapse of the buildings were. If someone had really wanted to blow up the buildings they would have done it at the same time that the planes hit the buildings, not much later in the day. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
if anything that shows how random and unplanned the collapse of the buildings were. If someone had really wanted to blow up the buildings they would have done it at the same time that the planes hit the buildings, not much later in the day. |
Is that why the buildings went down faster than the speed of gravity? I mean, if you dropped a penny from the rooftops of those buildings, it would hit the ground with the same time.
What about resistance of the collapsing floors? Why did the buildings ALL OF THEM STARTED COLLAPSING FROM THE TOP - THATS THE LIGHTEST PART OF THE BUILDING!!! If anything, the buildings should have started collapsing from the bottom!!!
Ugh, enough, this is such a pointless topic ... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
oh what- you think with tonnes of concrete and steel collapsing all over the place this wouldnt effect the inner steel columns? jesus, which engineering school did you go to?
youre making some layman's assumptions about something you know very little about.
oh, and how about attending to my post in the other 9/11 thread? im curious as to how youre going to ignore the firemen's quotes.
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
The building didnt collapse though, until later in the day, and it went down in like 8 seconds. A steel frame building has never went down before of fires or even earthquakes, at worst the foundation remains. Remember the famous 2004 Madrid fires? Everyone thought that the building will collapse, but it didnt .... even though the fire was way more devastating. |
oh, for sake :rolleyes:
when are you CTers gonna get a clue and stop spreading bull like this? the WTCs were unlike any building ever built. stop comparing it to other steel building fires. the comparisons are COMPLETELY irrelevant.
| quote: |
A challenge to conspiracy theorists:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you |
ok? so its not a fare comparison, and im sick to ing death of you people saying that it is. it just goes to prove how intellectually corrupt the entire 9/11 truth movement is. youve been proved wrong on so many levels yet you keep arguing the same old .
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
While the building is going down, you can see pumes of smoke shooting out of the building ...
All signs of demolition ... and this whole crap talk of Silverstein's assistants trying to "clarify" his lingo is bullshiit ... I mean, come on, what is this: |
more bull. do you have any idea of how explosives work? they EXPLODE, then things fall. they DO NOT GET BIGGER WITH TIME. there is a sudden explosion, there isnt an explosion that gets bigger the longer you wait after the time the explosion occured. what youre seeing arent explosive "squibs".
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
""They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski " |
whats your point? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
you sir, need to take a good hard look at the information you just rally behind. youre another 9/11 CTer that doesnt try to appreciate both sides of the argument.
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Is that why the buildings went down faster than the speed of gravity? I mean, if you dropped a penny from the rooftops of those buildings, it would hit the ground with the same time.
What about resistance of the collapsing floors? Why did the buildings ALL OF THEM STARTED COLLAPSING FROM THE TOP - THATS THE LIGHTEST PART OF THE BUILDING!!! If anything, the buildings should have started collapsing from the bottom!!!
Ugh, enough, this is such a pointless topic ... |
oh geez! more ing bull. do you critically analyse ANYTHING you swallow from your ty websites?
[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.
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
One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.
The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow
Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Is that why the buildings went down faster than the speed of gravity? I mean, if you dropped a penny from the rooftops of those buildings, it would hit the ground with the same time.
What about resistance of the collapsing floors? Why did the buildings ALL OF THEM STARTED COLLAPSING FROM THE TOP - THATS THE LIGHTEST PART OF THE BUILDING!!! If anything, the buildings should have started collapsing from the bottom!!!
Ugh, enough, this is such a pointless topic ... |
Well, not exactly. While in theory everything falls at the same speed, in an atmosphere there is heavy air resistance... You can drop a penny off of a building and it will reach its terminal velocity in a few seconds. Although that really doesnt have much to do with falling buildings.
As for the buildings collapsing near the top... thats where the planes hit no? There is also a change of materials used. Heavier, stronger materials are used towards the bottom than the top. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Well, not exactly. While in theory everything falls at the same speed, in an atmosphere there is heavy air resistance... You can drop a penny off of a building and it will reach its terminal velocity in a few seconds. Although that really doesnt have much to do with falling buildings.
As for the buildings collapsing near the top... thats where the planes hit no? There is also a change of materials used. Heavier, stronger materials are used towards the bottom than the top. |
Incorrect. One of the WTC buildings was hit in the lower half, and it didnt even hit the center, it hit the left side of the building!
So you think the lighter part of the building collapses first? Where do you think the most pressure is exerted on - the top or the bottom?? The bottom, of course! |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Incorrect. One of the WTC buildings was hit in the lower half, and it didnt even hit the center, it hit the left side of the building!
So you think the lighter part of the building collapses first? Where do you think the most pressure is exerted on - the top or the bottom?? The bottom, of course! |
lol... just read pkc's post. Im out of this thread :wtf: |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| I got a better idea. Just let this thread die and leave it with all of OGVH's and TX's CT threads. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| @ PKC: What were the main sources for your argument here (the entire thread)? I'm just asking so I can see it all for myself and evaluate it. |
|
|
|
|
