WTC Challenge

Originally posted by bsbray11
My point was that the fires had weakened before the collapses, and were cooler than they had been earlier. That is evident from the colors and volume of the smoke, but the smoke itself isn't the issue. Cooling fires = cooling steel. And of course you didn't even pretend to respond to any of the other points I brought up.

Weakening? Not really, they were just getting going. Look at the NIST presentation where they show the photos of the exterior walls starting to buckle inward right before the collapse.

The points I brought up, btw, directly contradict the NIST report, because the NIST report suggests that steel weakened from fire was indeed the reason the buildings fell.

Check this article out, for example:

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

National Institute of Standards and Technology: this is NIST!

The article continues, contradicting NIST's report in a very scientific and professional manner:

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

So, I guess you missed my post here and this post here where I pointed out how Mr. Ryan doesn’t even understand the basics of the ASTM standard he is referring to. The above is just a rehash of the same basic mistake.

Try again.

and BTW, google the terms "Flashover, fire, temperature"

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
You have assumed a parabolic trajectory where objects have a positive angle of trajectory at launch. If, as the government claims, the potential energy of the towers is the only active force in the system, then parabolic trajectory of debris would debunk the government's claims completely and could only be explained by additional forces, i.e. explosions.

Bull#, I've assumed (as I stated) a horizontal angle of trajectory of 0. How is zero positive? Please read before responding.

Originally posted by CatHerder
Well the answer is about 32.6 feet per second (which translates into about 22.2 mph).

According to your "handy graphic calculator" it is not 32.6 f/s but 32.6 m/s

This therefore throws out the rest of your assumptions by a factor of three.

Therefore you should be asking why was debris not found much further away than it actually was?

I guess therefore we are back to the controlled explosion theory since in one of these events great care is taken to limit the radius of debris.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by Lanotom

Originally posted by Umbrax
The first disinfo tactic is this threads challenge its self. It is the tactic known as Enigmas have no solution.

I hereby issue a challeng to those who believe that the collapse of WTC1, 2, and or 7 was the result of a controlled demolition.

The NIST has released it's draft report on the collapse.

I challenge those who disagree with this report to do so.

You are so right that Coward Roark avoids the questions of importance.

My conclusion of the NIST reports was as follows and posted in the start of the thread.

OK I read the report and it is very redundant in textual content and has a total of 13 blank pages.

Most of the content is graphics and insignificant illustrations.

Nowhere in the report did I read about sampling being performed for residue of fuel or other explosives.
Also I did not read anything about testing of two similar steel pieces for density comparison (bending) of pieces that were and weren't exposed to heat or of the properties of said similar pieces.

My opinion is that reading the report was a waste of my time and the investigation could have been better preformed by a pair of high school freshmen.

I wish HR would answer my one simple question...

The fireman pulls the red fire engine. I think I can.

Well, Lanotom, to start with, I’ll ignore your insult, since I consider an ad hominum attack such as that to be a sign that you are running out of arguments.


As for testing for fuel residue, Why? We know that there was jet fuel in the building.


What part of the rubble pile did you think that they should have tested for explosive residue?

As catherder pointed out, there were dogs all over the site. Over 200 according to one site I read.


I'm sure that they had explosive detection dogs there as well.

[edit on 5-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 5-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Well, Lanotom, to start with, I’ll ignore your insult, since I consider an [I]ad hominum[/I] attack such as that to be a sign that you are running out of arguments.

So your saying that when you attacked the user earlier in the thread (with F@#$-You A*#-Hole) when they stated you were a traitor you were actually just giving us a sign that you are running out of arguments.

Sorry, mine was a typo and not intended as an insult, I have plenty of fuel left.

Will you also continue to ignore my question of the firemen using the terminology of "pull it"?

Originally posted by CatHerder
Bull$hit, I've assumed (as I stated) a horizontal angle of trajectory of 0. How is zero positive?

There is no no need to swear (it shows when you hit the quote button). I am not your enemy. In fact, I'm getting de ja vu, because it was about the time that Muadibb used the exact same profanity that the ATSNN WTC thread turned ugly and was eventually closed. Let's try and keep it civil. I hold no animosity towards you. My animosity is toward the true perpetrators of this crime, and unles you're one of them I'm confident we can have a civil debate.

As for your figures, if you read my post again you'll see that I still used those which you provided in my later projections and further arguments against your case. If I misread your meaning, then I apologize.

Please read before responding.

Likewise.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Your initial system was not only using a deceptive trajectory assumption, but it also assumes a vacuum environment. Once you have completed the horizontal trajectory calculation, you must then factor in the air resistance of the ejected steel beams as a laterally vectored kinetic energy sink. In addition, the flat surfaces on the beams will make for much greater resistance than if they were curved, and will lessen their horizontal range by an amount that is significant.

You are seriously going to sit there and state that an 12 foot long, 880lb steel beam has enough air resistance to factor in greatly in a ballistic fall equation? We're talking something that is in excess of 100lb/sq ft. At what point does an 880lb steel beam begin to take on aerodynamic principals including lift? The amount of air resistance is almost negligible for such an object. It would give an error factor of +/-2-4% at best!

Even IF you choose to claim air resistance would have effected them greatly, well then there you go supporting the theory that "violent wind force from the collapse" was indeed enough to push steel beams outwards from the buildings. So which is it? You can't have it both ways, either the beams were "light" enough and had enough surface area to be "blown" away from the building by the wind generated in the collapse, or they weren't.

Air resistance/drag (D) is dependent on four basic elements:

• The density of the air. (p)
  
• The square of the velocity of the object. (v^2)
  
• The cross-sectional area of the object. (A)
  
• The drag co-efficient of the object. (C)

In a simplified system (ignoring factors such as wind direction and speed):

D = 0.5 x p x v^2 x A x C

Here are the dimensions of the beams, have fun:

external image

As I said, near negligible. Did you even bother to TRY your own equation before posting this? Doesn't look like it.

Your speed calculations of the 880lbs beams' initial fall of "three floors" (

I thought it was "pancaking a floor at a time") before they strike "concrete, chairs, desks, and people" and then are ejected out of the building at speeds of upwards of 10m/s (this according to your positive angle trajectory analysis) assumes the beams' fall is unobstructed, i.e. free fall. The debunkers and the government vehemently claim that the buildings did NOT fall in free fall. If you wish to adhere to your free fall analysis, then you have debunked the government claims. If not, then you support the explosives hypothesis.

Nonsense. Pure unmitigated atypical online bull#. 0 degrees is not a positive angle of trajectory. And if the beams didn't fall a couple floors, that's fine, it was ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF HOW A BEAM COULD HAVE GOTTEN ENERTIA in my post. How much force would be applied to an 880lb steel beam if 100tons of concrete falls against it and pushes it aside? I have no way of calculating exactly what happened on each floor, and neither do you.

Actually, go apply a -5.0 degree trajectory to the same equation and see what happens. Your results will be pretty close to 0 degree results.

Talking out my ass? Nope! Lets see with an example!

Given: 500 foot fall. Given: 10mph velocity (14.667 f/s)
Trajectory (equation) = distance away from bld object lands
0.0 degrees = 81.79501799463118 ft
-1.0 degrees = 81.6658973138823 ft
-5.0 degrees = 80.90494373360054 ft
-10.0 degrees = 79.41636277330076 ft
-20.0 degrees = 74.74198516959751 ft
-45.0 degrees = 54.589258523282204 ft

A negative 5 degree trajectory, of the same ojbect, from the same height as an object launched at a 0 degree trajectory would fall 0.89007 feet shorter/closer. Even a -20.0 degree trajectory travels 74.741985 feet, within 7.05 feet of a 0 degree trajectory. Heck a -45 degree trajectory still travels 54.5 feet! (Not sure how something would travel at a -45 degree trajectory though, that would imply it travelled though objects below it (the part of the building still standing).

Well golly gee gosh and all that. I guess you should have gone and tried to see how different the results would be hey? Now, tell me again how "you gave it a positive trajectory" has any bearing what-so-ever on the validity of my post other than to hear yourself talk about something you apparently have zero understanding of?

Once you have finished with the calculations, you must then calculate the amount of force required to accelerate an 880lbs (400Kg) steel beam in a virtual instant (a bounce is not a constant accelerative force) to whatever speed you come up with to justify the range of the trajectories. Somehow I think "bouncing off other steel beams below and off "other 'stuff' [i.e. concrete, chairs, desks, people, etc] being blown out of the building by wind force" will be insufficient. I'm sure you remember Newton's second law of motion, "The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object."

Or, simplified as F(net) = m x a. Let us know what you figure out.

Again, you're saying that the math is 100% too hard for you to do? You proved you already have a non-working knowledge of the topic with your response of positive trajectory. Don't feel too bad, for most people 12th grade algebra is complicated, for most people 12th grade physics is even more complicated. (seriously)

Wouldn't it have been wiser to come back with "where did the 880lb steel beam get xN from" then to spout something you're quoting from a webpage without (apparently) knowing how to apply it?

You mock others for "loving the ideas instead of the science", however your "bouncing beams", "stuff", and "wind force" ideas come across as just that.

I merely tried to image what would be occuring on each floor as the floors above pancaked down into that floor. And then I applied physics to it. What have you done? You've taken an equation from the calculator page and applied it incorrectly. I applaud your attempt, but surely you could have done more reading first and tried some calculations to see if you were correct?

But your theory's final death blow is the gargantuan energy sinks inherent in the pulverization of the "concrete, chairs, desks, people" and the snapping of the trusses, the beams, and the beam welds and bolts. Falling beams pulverizing the concrete into 10 micron dust (mean size) and snapping other beams would leave no energy for the rocketing of those same beams horizontally out of the building at 10+m/s.

The government claims that the elements in the towers were pulverized by the kinetic energy of the falling debris.

Well, gosh, please do inform me what else pulverized everything in the building.

If you wish to adhere to your "bouncing beams" theory, then you have debunked the government's claims. If not, then you support the explosives hypothesis.

In order for the pancake theory to hold up, the only active force is the potential energy in the top part of the tower and the resultant kinetic energy when it descends. IN FACT, the potential energy in an ENTIRE tower, not just counting the top collapsing section, is not enough to cause the pulverization of 90 000 lbs of concrete and to cause a dust cloud at such a rapid rate and huge volume of expansion:

Actually, yes it is. Your photograph is evidence of exactly that... until somebody PROVES otherwise, it's exactly what happened to the WTC towers. There is no evidence of a controlled demolition of the towers, there is no audio evidence (even from the film crew filming live in the lobby of one tower) of controlled demolition blast noises - I've been at a couple controlled demos, they're LOUD. boom boom bobobooom boom boom boom preceeds the building collapse audibly before the building begins to fall. You'd assume due to dopplar effect you'd see the building start to fall before you hear the booms right? We'll yeah you would if the building began to fall before all the detonations went off, or simultaneously to the detonations, but that's not how a demo works. Why didnt this happen at the towers? Where are all the boom boom booms?

Howcome nobody noticed the demo crews cutting thousands of support beams (with torches) and planting explosives for what would have had to take more than 6 months worth of prepwork by a fifty man crew to demo TWO buildings of this size? How did they manage to time the detonations to match the falling of the floors -- and who ran in and up 50 floors to fix the wiring on the demo charges when the second tower fell (remember how it paused at around the 70th floor for quite a while after the top had collapsed)?

The whole "demo of the WTC towers" thing just seems to be spawned from the "WTC7 was demoed" conspiracy and has turned into a run away freight train with no logic big enough to stop it for some people.

Originally posted by CatHerder
This will require some math, but I'll include a handy-dandy online calculator for you...
[...]
...I know how so many folks on ATS don't like facts and instead love the ideas instead of the science.

[...]
But wait! Lets not stop here!
[...]
Hope this didn't break anyones brain...

Baiting and mocking. Why do you debunkers always have to bait, mock and sneer? Does it make you feel good? Is it a valid debating tactic in your eyes? Do you get excitement or emotional satisfaction from it? Or are you hoping that a moderator will come in and intimidate us when we retort?

Sneering? Mocking? Wtf are you on about? It hurt my brain at 1AM to rehash math that I haven't used in years... Are all of you guys on ATS so bloody hostile? Have you lost that may arguments in life that everything to you is a confrontation? Good lord.

Please help me to understand. I would like to debate in a civil environment, and I would like to be able to admit that I may be wrong on a point without fear of derision, but setting such a combative, confrontational tone to the debate forces people to deal in absolutes of right or wrong. Perhaps that is the goal of this tactic. Remember, only the Sith deal in absolutes.

But, since you have set the snide tone here, for the meantime while we wait for your calculations to come back, I will attempt to remain civil and just say this...
[edit on 2005/7/5 by wecomeinpeace]

Snide tone? Debunker? lol I just tried to apply simple physics to the objects in the photos and have fun with it.

Why can't you or any of your conspiracy folk apply calculations? I already know why, because anything based in reality is always dangerous to your theories. You're too afraid to answer your own questions with information that would either disprove something you support or prove something you don't want.

For an 880lb ojbect, with VERY MINIMAL air resistance, to fall 300 feet away from the building it would have had to be moving 22mph vertically at the start of it's fall. If you wish to claim that is due to an explosion, then I'd love to see an explosion that travels at 22mph.

I couldn't care less on an ego level if I'm wrong or right about different theories, that's why I posted it on a public forum to see what the response was. However, you've failed to do anything other than knee jerk and respond with incorrect assertions. Surely there must be somebody here that finds physics fun that would love to tackle it?

[edit on 5-7-2005 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by BillHicksRules

Originally posted by CatHerder
Well the answer is about 32.6 feet per second (which translates into about 22.2 mph).

According to your "handy graphic calculator" it is not 32.6 f/s but 32.6 m/s

This therefore throws out the rest of your assumptions by a factor of three.

Therefore you should be asking why was debris not found much further away than it actually was?

I guess therefore we are back to the controlled explosion theory since in one of these events great care is taken to limit the radius of debris.

Cheers

BHR

Sorry, no you're mistaken. You must be confusing the m/s box with the f/s box. If it were 32 m/s it would travel 962feet (293.2m).

And even if that were the case, and I had mistakenly put f/s instead of m/s in my post, what it would imply is that the initial velocity of an object at 1350 feet high would be slower than 32f/s and therefore not require much speed to land 300 feet away.

Originally posted by Lanotom

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Well, Lanotom, to start with, I’ll ignore your insult, since I consider an [I]ad hominum[/I] attack such as that to be a sign that you are running out of arguments.

So your saying that when you attacked the user earlier in the thread (with F@#$-You A*#-Hole) when they stated you were a traitor you were actually just giving us a sign that you are running out of arguments.

That particular post was a response to an attack. I found the insinuation that I am a traitor to my country because I don’t believe that the WTC towers collapsed due to demolition charges to be a bit over the top, so I responded in kind.

Sorry, mine was a typo and not intended as an insult, I have plenty of fuel left.

Will you also continue to ignore my question of the firemen using the terminology of "pull it"?

Well we are straying from the subject of the NIST report here.

Firemen use the term “pull” all the time. They don’t use it to mean the deliberate demolition of a building.

Originally posted by victor was right
what are the chances 7 WTC fell because of good, old-fashioned SUBSTANDARD CONSTRUCTION?

. . .

it's strange how "context" can swallow things up, and render them insignificant.

For what it is worth there are a number of architects, engineers and designers out there that are starting to question the trend to lightweight construction that was exemplified by the WTC complex. However, this is a design issue more than construction.

vincentdunn.com...

www.masonrysystems.org...

www.recordonline.com...

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

There is a technology that has been around since the cold war to create self-destructible structures, such as extra-national missile silos and submarine bases. It consists of wrapping the concrete rebar in C4 before the concrete is poured.

C4 has a shelf-life of 10 years, but when sealed in concrete it has a shelf-life many times that. It is purported that in the video documentary of the construction of this (originally) government building, construction was slowed and workers were evacuated, while another crew with a security escort poured a "special anti corrosion, anti vibration resistant coating on the rebar of the concrete core structure"and in the floor corrugations, and also took over certain butt welding "because the protective coating was flammable".

Dogs would be able to sniff out C-4 even if placed in plastic and embedded in concrete. The risks for this type of construction are way too massive to be used. C-4 needs heat and compression at the same time to explode, but it also only needs heat to burn, and when it burns it can eat through steel. Covertly maintaining all the detonation points would be logistically impossible. Dogs were removed from the WTC shortly before the explosion and documented but inexplicable repairmen for the sprinkler system were also in the building before it went down. I'd say if it was blown the rigging was done shortly before 9/11.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Ok, first lets talk about the ejection of debris and such from the building as it collapsed.

If you think about it for a moment, you will realize that there are three primary forces at work moving the debris about.

The first is obviously gravity. This is the ultimate source of the energy of the collapse.

The second is the air pressure from the collapsing floors. Since over 95% of the building is air, that is a considerable force.

In a real controlled demolition situation, the windows of the building to be demolished are removed first for obvious reasons.

Finally there is one other force that everyone seems to have forgotten about. This is the mechanical action of the collapsing structure itself. As the structure collapsed, the beams and columns buckled, twisted, bent, and fractured. If a beam or column was stressed by bending before the bolted connection failed, there would quite likely be a kickback, like a tree falling.

Given the enormous amount of gravitational energy present in the collapse, I see no problem with the motion of a few miscellaneous pieces of steel and aluminum cladding.

oh, howard. you're making me blush with embarrasment. air trapped between the floors is a RESISTANCE factor, not a 'source of energy'. a CONSIDERABLE resistance, which should SLOW the collapse, just like every snapping beam should SLOW the collapse. and THAT'S why they make sure there are no windows in a controlled demo. because it would slow the collapse, and decrease the destruction.
your wording seeks to decieve. the gravitational energy is not only the 'ultimate' source of energy. it is the ONLY (signifigant) source of energy. any use of air, or 'kickback', to break things, must draw on the same energy sink, which leaves less energy available for a speedy collapse.
yet the collapse was clearly speedy. close to freefall.

the gravitational energy was the only energy available for collapse(plus a little heat from the fire). you're losing it, howard. good.

wecomeinpeace, you're on a roll, buddy. i'm voting you way above. i've read about the C4 being wrapped in concrete to increase it's 'shelf life', before. there's 'probably' a patent for it somewhere(like the patent office).
i've also read that it was used on the floors of the WTC. i've never pursued that angle, because i don't know jack about explosives. i am a big fan of the total energy available as applied to work done argument. we don't even need to show which explosives were used, or how they got there, if it can be proven mathematically, that there wasn't enough gravitational energy(and energy from fire) to do all the work that was done.
mind you, it's getting easier to use just about any one or two of the evidences and scientific and/or critical analysis to pancake the official house of cards.


and shroudofmemphis, i love your hydraulic press. it makes howard's look so tiny.

catherder, i'm watching you with my glow in the dark cat eyes.

Weakening? Not really, they were just getting going. Look at the NIST presentation where they show the photos of the exterior walls starting to buckle inward right before the collapse.

And what evidence are you even going to pretend to have that the fires were "just getting started"? All that I posted about the color and volume of smoke paint a pretty clear picture of how healthy the fires inside were burning before collapse, unless you think that on 9/11 fires stopped functioning the same way just for this particular event. The 'buckling of the walls' has nothing to do with the temperatures of the fires; it's more as if you're trying to avoid discussing what evidence there was of the fires becoming hotter well after the jet fuel source was depleted, because there is none.

The bottom line of what I was getting at with the quotes was also that the fires were not hot enough to sufficiently damage the steel.

Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C)

I'm afraid that changing the test conditions doesn't much matter here, because steel (not steel with fireproofing, but just steel) only becomes so weak at certain temperatures, even removed totally from these testing conditions and tested by itself. The effects of certain amounts of heat on steel alone is fairly well known.

At around 500 degrees F, there is not going to be any substantial weakening of the steel. As I pointed out with there being no spreading of the fire by its own means to other floors, and especially with there being no widespread shattering of windows from heat, the fires could also be located as being just at or below 600F. The testing mentioned above apparently just goes to further validate that.

The "it wasn't valid because the fireproofing was blown off!" argument doesn't work because even totally naked, unprotected steel would not be damaged by fires this cool. So again we're taken back to the fires, of which there is absolutely no evidence of them getting hotter as time went on, or even ever being that hot to begin with.

Since apparently you think the fires did magically get hotter and hotter before collapse, despite clear signs from the properties of the smoke, and the fact that jet fuel burns very fast and was in all likelihood already depleted, I'd like to know what exactly it is that gets you off thinking like you are. Explain to me what evidence there is of the fires getting increasingly more temperate before collapse.

Try again.

More manipulative badgering. You know, you are making absolutely ridiculous claims in saying the WTC fires actually got hotter before collapse. Not to mention you didn't address any of the information I posted backing up my own claims of the fires cooling.

[edit on 5-7-2005 by bsbray11]

WOW Here some more proof that the planes were remote controlled tell me you guys think www.rense.com...

BSbray, since you seem to have studied the fire and smoke patterns, why don't you read this?

(it's a big PDF file, but worth the wait)

I am looking forward to your comments on it.

HR, why don't you be a man and argue your case yourself instead of sending me to sift through 392 pages that won't even finish loading on my computer?

You're avoiding addressing my posts directly. If you've read the report yourself, and it successfully rebutts what I'm saying, then you would have no problem showing me this yourself. So have at it. I'm not wasting my time reading 392 pages of bs if you can't debate it yourself.

How much do disinfo agents make anyway? Expecting an opponent to sift through 300+ pages for you is ridiculous.

Even IF you choose to claim air resistance would have effected them greatly, well then there you go supporting the theory that "violent wind force from the collapse" was indeed enough to push steel beams outwards from the buildings. So which is it? You can't have it both ways, either the beams were "light" enough and had enough surface area to be "blown" away from the building by the wind generated in the collapse, or they weren't.

I did not write "greatly", I wrote "significant" which means important or worthy of consideration. In case of the steel beams, no, it would not affect their trajectory greatly. In respect of the aluminum casings however, it would. Show me how the "violent wind force" you keep referring to could have enough energy to snap 36 foot steel beams into perfect thirds and expel them hundreds of feet.

Nonsense. Pure unmitigated atypical online . 0 degrees is not a positive angle of trajectory. And if the beams didn't fall a couple floors, that's fine, it was ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF HOW A BEAM COULD HAVE GOTTEN ENERTIA in my post.

Again, if there are beams falling three floors before meeting an obstacle, then that is assuming free fall which contradicts the government explanation. Secondly, if there were any beams that fell multiple floors onto lower areas of solid obstruction to then bounce out horizontally, that therefore implies that these higher areas were slower in their collapse than other areas, again, contradicting the pancake theory. If they only fell one floor as the pancake theory depends on, then what are the other examples of how a steel beam can gain enough inertia to snap it and eject it from the building with such force that you infer by stating this is only one, single example?

How much force would be applied to an 880lb steel beam if 100tons of concrete falls against it and pushes it aside? I have no way of calculating exactly what happened on each floor, and neither do you.

Concrete? The concrete was pulverized and expelled in great clouds of super-fine dust. That's what all those huge dust clouds were about. There was virtually no concrete to speak of. This is pivotal to the argument. There does not exist the potential energy in the towers to create these effects: completely pulverised concrete; snapped steel beams; massive, high energy debris ejection. By halfway down the destruction at the latest, the upper portions of the towers kinetic energy was more than spent, even ignoring the fact that much of it fell over the side of the building.

The second plane hit the tower at around the 78th floor. Being generous, that's about 285m being the absolute highest point from where the steel beams were ejected, even though the ejection of steel beams became much more pronounced further down the collapse. To reach a distance of 76.2m (250ft) makes for 9.99m/s. The crucial thing here is not the distance, it is the impulse required to accelerate an 440Kg (880lbs) object to the speed required (9.99m/s) to reach that distance. Non-elastic collisions are generally assumed to be 10 milliseconds (10^-3s). Therefore a beam is accelerated to 9.99m/s in 10^-3 seconds, which gives an acceleration value of 9990m/s^2. F = m*a. Therefore, the force applied to a beam to accelerate it to 9.99m/s is 4395600 Newtons (kgm/s^2).

(Physics is not my strong point so please tell me if I made any errors in my calculations).

But even all of this is assuming a stationary beam at the time of impact. If the beams are falling, striking a solid object and then bouncing off, the initial downward momentum of the beam must be negated before it can then be accelerated away from the collision. This again adds significantly to the energy required to propel the beams. Furthermore, a vertical collision resulting in a lateral ejection implies a secondary lateral impulse, which again adds to the energy required, and also raises the question of where the lateral impulse comes from. The "violent wind force"? Add again to that the fact that the beams were SNAPPED and ripped from welds and bolts before being ejected. Another energy sink.

Collision from another falling steel beam can not provide this amount of energy. Falling one floor and the resulting bounce off a solid object below can not provide the energy required for such an impulse. And the concrete was PULVERIZED into powder. So where did this energy come from???

Maybe this...


...I don't know, I'm just speculating. 0_o

Well, gosh, please do inform me what else pulverized everything in the building.

That's exactly what I'd like to know.

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition of the towers, there is no audio evidence (even from the film crew filming live in the lobby of one tower) of controlled demolition blast noises

There are multiple witnesses, including firemen, and a man who worked in the basement and pulled his burnt colleague out, who said there were explosions before the collapse. I can't be bothered searching and linking to them because it has been done so by other members hundreds of times and consistently poo-pooed or ignored. You mentioned the boom booms. Again, this is possibly unconventional demolition popped out floor by floor. If you want to hear the booming as the floors pop out, watch this video. The white noise you hear is the microphone of the camera registering distortion from sheer signal overload. I've seen video interviews with witnesses close to the collapse who said it was deafening, the loudest thing they'd ever heard.




The beams, spandrel plates and aluminum covers are in free fall. If the beams expelled are from higher up and are in the more vertical part of their parabolic trajectory, then they should be lower than the destruction, UNLESS the destruction is also occurring at or near free fall speed. If this is the case and the destruction is occurring at the same downward speed as debris is falling (i.e. gravity), then the government claims are thereby debunked. If they are not from higher up and instead have been ejected with such massive force from the destruction level, then the explosives theory is supported. Look at the mammoth amounts of kinetic energy being consumed as 90,000 tons of concrete is turned into flour. There is simply not enough energy left to do this and throw the beams out like that unless there was an additional energy source.

Sneering? Mocking? Wtf are you on about? It hurt my brain at 1AM to rehash math that I haven't used in years... Are all of you guys on ATS so bloody hostile? Have you lost that may arguments in life that everything to you is a confrontation? Good lord.

I wasn't being hostile, I was attempting to defuse the confrontational and snide tone of the debate, which is a tool of many of those involved in it. I picked the wrong person to let loose on and I apologize. Friends? Can we move on now? Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this.

[edit on 2005/7/5 by wecomeinpeace]

Funny thing is Larry Silverstein went on PBS and said the firefighters couldn't control the fires in building 7 so they "PULLED" the buildings. On National TV. Pulling a building takes weeks to plan.

Also no modern building has ever collapsed from a fire, buildings have burned for days and it's structure has stayed.

There is also a firefighter tape saying they almost had all the fires contained. There is also footage on 9/11 where the firefighters said it sounded like bombs going off, and right when it happened 2 tv stations said that as well. Anyone want to see these clips, i will gladly post them if they haven't been posted already

I forgot to mention The University of NY and the US geological survey(federal and state) both seismographs picked up the patterns of explosions of a controlled demolition

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Seoul On Ice]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Firemen use the term “pull” all the time. They don’t use it to mean the deliberate demolition of a building.

Please, please, please provide some evidence that firemen use the term all the time.

Not just your word but some evidence.

I have family members as well as many friends who are firefighters throughout New Jersey "paid firemen" not volunteers" and who have been in service a minimum of 15 years and not one that I have asked has said yes that the term "pull it" is often used, if ever.

I have also been conducting an interview experiment throughout the NJ, NY area where I have contacted individual fire companies and asked if this term is used in their industry. Guess what? They all said no.

I have also contacted companies on the west coast just incase it was native to a particular area of the country and the reply is the same, an astounding no!

So please be a sport and tell me where you get your information.

Thanks.