Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

Originally posted by cashlink
And the steel is being blasted away from the building.

This seems to keep getting overlooked. The WTC towers exploded upwards and sideways. Clouds of material moved up — and not down. And not just ‘dust’ particles. Feathery pieces of tons and tons of steel beams went flying into the sky. Come again, but how does gravity cause this? Gravity from the Moon perhaps?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

We're all a bunch of arm-chair amateurs. What do we know. I would encourage anyone who hasn't to visit this link. These are experts and high-ranking officials from virtually every angle of the 9/11 event. See what they say before putting much weight in some anonymous poster.

lol, I guess you guys didn't read the other comments i posted. The impact alone didn't take down the building. And a mountain is not a building. Don't try to take my words out of context. Not what I meant.

As for the debris shooting out. That's what happens in a collision. There are forces pushing downward and forces pushing upwards at the collision point, so therefore the easiest exist for the force to bounce back is to the sides and down. That's why you see debris falling to the sides because there are not enough room for all the debris to go down at the same time. There is a resistance force. In a severe car accident you don't see the vehicle mangle in one area, you see parts of the car all over the street.

Yes, I do know something about physics. I happen to pass my AP Honors physics exam. Thank you.

Originally posted by amfirst
And a mountain is not a building. Don't try to take my words out of context. Not what I meant.

Originally posted by amfirst
The plane that size would have taken anything down to rubbles.

Maybe you should be more specific if you want to be understood? I took nothing out of context. Typical "debunker" post.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Pootie]

It's like throwing a ball against the wall wouldn't it bounce back?

The top floors hit the bottom floors, so of course there will be debris going back up. But then again, it will bounce back because the building is falling downwards, so the best exit will be towards the sides. Does anyone understand what I mean?

Originally posted by amfirst
It's like throwing a ball against the wall wouldn't it bounce back?

The top floors hit the bottom floors, so of course there will be debris going back up. But then again, it will bounce back because the building is falling downwards, so the best exit will be towards the sides. Does anyone understand what I mean?

And if the debris fall off of the sides then you have lost available mass to continue crushing the building.

If the material "bounces" up, you have lost necessary energy to continue the collapse ESPECIALLY without hesitation or deceleration. If it "bounces" the original impact would not have had enough forc and the subsequent "post bounce" impact would have had even less force...

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by devildog832916
Well, we all know that if Rosie doesn't eat regularly she gets these crazy thoughts. Fire does melt steel, I mean what do you think they use to melt it in the first place.

The only thing I agree with is that the buildings fell awful neat.

People keep taking this statement out of context. What is OBVIOUSLY meant is that FIRE at the temperatures displayed in those buildings, especially in WTC 7, do NOT melt steel.

How hot do the temperatures have to be before steel is melted? Close to 3,000 degrees. Okay, it has been commonly stated that the temps of these fires (in the towers, not WTC 7) barely went over half that temp. Sure, the steel can begin to weaken but not all at once.

That is what she is saying.

Originally posted by amfirst
It's like throwing a ball against the wall wouldn't it bounce back?

The top floors hit the bottom floors, so of course there will be debris going back up. But then again, it will bounce back because the building is falling downwards, so the best exit will be towards the sides. Does anyone understand what I mean?

Again, even though, for some reason, this post is WAY OFF TOPIC, I will give you a quick response.

Seriously think about this my friend. Please for yours and our sake. There were how many floors of UNDAMAGED core structure below these 20 or so floors? 80 plus on one tower. Okay, as you describe above, especially with your bad ball bounce example because that argument supports this one that I am giving, there is a natural resistence when two objects come together.

The support of the massive floors below, if this type of collapse was ever possible, WOULD have given some form of resistence against the collapse. Regardless of how much weight was coming down. Plus, why not topple like tower 1 started to do before the, well, floors fell out from under it? The most logical form of collapse would have been for the weakened side of the building to give out (not evenly as is suggested) and then the top would have toppled off and fell to the streets below. Okay, now watch the collapse again of WTC 1 and see how it tilts dramatically one way and then somehow, miraculously, straightens out and comes straight down at free fall with zero resistance.

This is what Rosie is asking to be looked into. Your explanations don't even come close to touching on WTC 7 either. She is simply asking for what the world deserves which is a NON-biased, unattached investigation.

Your right the debris would counter the force, but now your also dealing with a greater force because more floors are callasping.

Then again the impact at the begining could have been strong enough to take the whole building down to start with.

A example would be...hmmm...a karate master and two pieces of wood. Lets just say that his hand is the upper floors of the tower and the wood is the floors below. The force of his karate chop is strong enough to go through the two pieces of wood at impact. The impact will decelerate his hand, but it will be too late.

In the case of the twin towards, I really believe there was enough force applied at the begining to do the damage it needed to be done to distroy the remainding floors below.

Just forget the pancake theory. I don't even like the pancake theory. It just get people more confused.

The motion was too fast to visialize it. Like the wood pieces, you can't possibly see it pancake. The action is too fast.

Originally posted by amfirst
A example would be...hmmm...a karate master and two pieces of wood. Lets just say that his hand is the upper floors of the tower and the wood is the floors below. The force of his karate chop is strong enough to go through the two pieces of wood at impact. The impact will decelerate his hand, but it will be too late.

Bad analogy...

He would have to set his hand on the boards (the buiding did not "wind up"), pressing... then remove one of the boards (like pulling out a table cloth or "collapsing a floor") and somehow have enough force to break the remaining boards.

When the plane hit the floors. The fire weaken the steal on one or more floors. The floor below the weaken floors would have had to catch the all the floors above, when it dropped. That's like a 20 plus feet above. The floor below it would have had to catch all the floors above plus 1, next plus 2, and so on. At some point if not on impact the entire structure would have had to fall down all together.

This is where the hand and distance from the wood comes into play. Some karate masters only need a finger distance.

Originally posted by jtma508
We're all a bunch of arm-chair amateurs. What do we know. I would encourage anyone who hasn't to visit this link. These are experts and high-ranking officials from virtually every angle of the 9/11 event. See what they say before putting much weight in some anonymous poster.

And you are!!! (anonymous poster.)
I have been to your post many times .
These experts, did a fine job covering for the Govment.
I have nothing more to say about your site.
I have a right to post here like anyone else.
(putting much weight in some anonymous poster.)
I think you are trying to belittle the poster here.

Originally posted by amfirst
As for the debris shooting out. That's what happens in a collision. There are forces pushing downward and forces pushing upwards at the collision point, so therefore the easiest exist for the force to bounce back is to the sides and down. That's why you see debris falling to the sides because there are not enough room for all the debris to go down at the same time. There is a resistance force. In a severe car accident you don't see the vehicle mangle in one area, you see parts of the car all over the street.

Yes, I do know something about physics. I happen to pass my AP Honors physics exam. Thank you.

Dear amfirst:

We see. You say that things bounce to the sides and down. What about up? This picture of the North Tower clearly shows an upward funnel of ‘something’!


Also, in a car crash everything is happening in a horizontal plane of motion. Object fly around — horizontally — simply continuing their original (horizontal) paths of movement until they’ve decelerated completely.

Astonishingly, analyzing 9-11 scientifically hardly correlates with a person’s formal education or technical “know-how”. The hallowed institution of MIT was one of the first to postulate the pancake collapse theory based on “truss clip failure”. Evidently some of our famed centers of learning have an ‘agenda’. It’s simply inconceivable that they would be that stupid. Any junior engineer can calculate — in their sleep — the physical impossibility of plane-crash induced skyscraper building collapses. For some reason they just don’t want to. I’m not a shrink so please don’t ask me to guess why.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

The pieces of the debris will fall slower then the main structure of the building, creating a trail or cloud like shape. It's call wind resistance. The rest of the buildiing can't remain in the air because it way too heavy. Smaller things will take longer to fall because of the wind can affect it more.

Plus, the cloud of debris started where the top floor hit the lower floors. Kind of consitant to where the floors collided together don't you think? If the cloud like explosion happen troughout the towers from top and bottom then I might question it.

In a control demolition the drop is a lot cleaner than the twin towers.

People claim the drop of the towers are perfect? Just look at that picture, that's a collision, it's not perfect drop. Way too messy to be a control demolition.

Dear amfirst:

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying a ‘natural’ gravitational collapse is messier than a controlled demolition by generating clouds of debris at the top first, which then sort of linger around “falling slower than the main structure of the building”. May I ask what exactly is falling that’s “way too heavy to remain in the air”? Because at the end of the tumble-down process, once the dust settled, there wasn’t hardy anything left — to form a pile of rubble. Could it be, outrageous as it seems, that all that dust IS the main structure of the building itself?! I. e. the dust is the vaporized mass of the main structural building components — concrete, steel and glass.

Ranking Of Destruction Processes — By Degree Of Messiness
(In Descending Order, Messiest Ones Last):

1. Gravitational Collapse — building materials remain clearly discernable
2. Chemical Explosively Induced ‘Normal’ Demolitions — neatly arranged debris field conveniently readied for easy removal
3. Fusion Nuclear Weapon Arranged Vaporizations — super messy, maximum entropy, solids are particlized into clouds of dust and dispersed over large areas — requiring massive clean-up effort over a large geographical area but leaving much less wreckage at the demolition site itself.

Hope that clears things up.
Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 4/6/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by amfirst
In a control demolition the drop is a lot cleaner than the twin towers.

People claim the drop of the towers are perfect? Just look at that picture, that's a collision, it's not perfect drop. Way too messy to be a control demolition.

bad assumption.

you assume the people who demoed the tower CARED about collateral damage. 'controlled' means they drop it however they want. it does not mean the textbook straight down implosion style demo(like we see for wtc7).

they didn't. they cared about making it look like it was 'natural'.
what they didn't bank on, i guess, is that people are smarter than all that.
i mean, i do think they thought people were pretty smart, but not smart enough to elude all the red herrings they laid out.
however, you lay out enough red herrings, and EVERYTHING SMELLS LIKE FISH!

but, then again, they are the bankers, so it's all kinda moot, unless we ALL go to the bank TOMORROW and withdraw our savings, just like in 'mr. smith goes to washington'.

Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women seem to looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response"shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor).
By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes.
The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires.
FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush. ) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" . It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
So clearly we know fire was not the cause to bring the building down, thier are pic of people walking around the impact hole. So we know it was not as hot as the Gov says and NIST. I have to say that our Goverment and NIST are out right lieing.
That also explain why the FDNY still remains under a gag order.
It also seems the Goverment had to rush to a juge to get that gag order.
Explosions were seen and heard befor any airplane hit the WTC.



[edit on 6-4-2007 by cashlink]

[edit on 6-4-2007 by cashlink]