"Paper Fires" Brought The Buildings Down !

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Flatcoat
in which case the buildings did fall at near "free-fall acceleration"

Still wrong, have you even bothered to watch a video of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

As if you had you would not make such a silly claim!

The buildings took approximately 10 to 15 sec to collapse. An object dropped from a height of 400m would take 9.04 sec to reach the ground. If you had any idea of free-fall acceleration you would not make such a silly comment.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
If you had any idea of free-fall acceleration you would not make such a silly comment.

If you had actually watched the video's you would see the debris falling from the building falling at free fall acceleration, the building collapse is slower!

If you had actually watched the video's you would see the debris falling from the building falling at free fall acceleration, the building collapse is slower!

So what, the point is they fell fast....

a reply to: hellobruce

You do know what the word "near" means, don't you?

originally posted by: wildb

So what, the point is they fell fast....

As you would expect...

As you would expect...

No I would not expect that at all..

originally posted by: wildb
No I would not expect that at all..

That shows you know very little about physics, or how things actually work.

Just like most people who make up conspiracy theories about 9/11!

a reply to: hellobruce

That shows you know very little about physics, or how things actually work.

How very amusing....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: wildb
No I would not expect that at all..

That shows you know very little about physics, or how things actually work.

Just like most people who make up conspiracy theories about 9/11!

The buildings fell much faster than they should have considering the majority of the buildings were intact. Based on your comments, it would seem as though you have a general grasp of physics and calculus, so you should have no problems understanding the following:

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
This paper was written by By David Chandler (B.S., physics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA / M.A., education, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA / M.S., mathematics, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA).

The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight.

Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.

His paper goes into calculations and graphs to show how he reaches his conclusions, in which he states "The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is strong confirmation that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it, allowing the upper block to fall with little resistance."

Here's a video titled "Downward Acceleration of the North Tower", it quickly goes over the information in David Chandler's paper.


Let us compare David Chandler's charts with a very basic chart that simply graphs Free Fall Acceleration. Are there any similarities between the two charts?


The argument of "Free Fall Speeds" or "Not quite Free Falls Speeds" is an aggravation, and purely a game of semantics from the pedantic O.S. followers. As if the buildings falling at slightly slower than Free Fall Speeds somehow completely dismisses the legitimate argument that the buildings not only fell much faster than they should, but that they fell in a manner that is inconsistent with a normal building collapse (ie. A building that collapsed due to something other than explosive demolition).

Anyhow, please read and/or watch some of his stuff and let me know what you think. If you think he is wrong, kindly point out where his errors are.

Thanks.

David Chandler from his own paper:

In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we
have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is
significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of
only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building
to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above
it.

Uhhh he's saying that a hammer falling on your head weighs only 36% of it's weight at rest ?
And from his paper:

A rapidly moving hammer head driving a nail into a solid block of
wood typically exerts a force on the nail many times the weight of the hammer head. But that is true
only if the nail resists the blow.

That my friend is pseudo science.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Paper fires, yeah right, so lame.

Fun fact would be, that NIST was unable to produce evidence for the 'weakened steel due to office-fires' hypothesis.

... the hardness evaluation suggested that there was no detoriation of the mechanical properties of the materials as a result of exposure to pre-collapse fires.

www.nist.gov... (P. 224)

They tried to explain this lack of microstructural change and failed rather epically. Read for yourself if ya like.

a reply to: samkent

Uhhh he's saying that a hammer falling on your head weighs only 36% of it's weight at rest ?

He's not talking about a hammer at rest. He's talking about an accelerating hammer meeting no resistance. Maybe you should read it again...

originally posted by: samkent
David Chandler from his own paper:
[... quotes deleted to save space]
That my friend is pseudo science.

Either you've misunderstood what the author is saying, or you're purposefully being obtuse. Regardless, neither case suggests anything even remotely close to "pseudo science" on the part of David Chandler. I suggest you re-read the paper, and perhaps bone up on some Physics 101.

As for the Hammer analogy, you seem to have forgotten to include the explanation;

A rapidly moving hammer head driving a nail into a solid block of wood typically exerts a force on the nail many times the weight of the hammer head. But that is true only if the nail resists the blow. The large force that drives the nail into the wood is matched by a force that simultaneously decelerates the hammer head, which is why multiple blows are typically required.
If, however, the nail is placed on a block of Styrofoam it will not significantly resist the blow. It will be driven into the block with very little force. The falling hammer head will meet so little resistance that it will be able to accelerate the whole time.

What he's trying to explain, in layman's terms, is the concept of equal but opposite reactions, or Newton's 3rd Law. If you can't follow a simple analogy, I'm not sure there's any hope for you to fully understand the topic at hand.

The lower portion of the WTC Towers is akin to a Styrofoam block, as the upper portion of the Tower is able to continually accelerate. The upper portion of the Tower is not meeting an equal/opposite reaction like it should be. It's quite simple, and fairly obvious.

a reply to: Salander

Even worse, so much of what forensic evidence we have actually contradicts the official story.

If that were true you would have so much public outrage nobody in Washington DC. would have been safe...the fact that didn't happen shows to me you are wrong, but that's just my opinion here.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Salander

Even worse, so much of what forensic evidence we have actually contradicts the official story.

If that were true you would have so much public outrage nobody in Washington DC. would have been safe...the fact that didn't happen shows to me you are wrong, but that's just my opinion here.

That's honestly a decent perspective, as it would stand to reason that if people actually looked into the evidence and saw something odd they would speak out. Unfortunately though, "Joe Average" doesn't look into the evidence, they've seen some clips of the event, they're read some headlines on CNN and have no reason to doubt the 9/11 Reports or the Government - so they believe the official story in the same way that a toddler believes in Santa Claus. It's getting better these days, but for years most people didn't even realize that WTC7 had collapsed as well, that's very telling on it's own.

Also, the fact that there isn't an outrage in DC doesn't contradict what Salander said above, as there are numerous people who have looked at the evidence in much more detail than the average schmo (probably even more than most here on ATS) and they are adamant that the official story is bogus.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: htapath

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

No, I think that would be an incredible waste of taxpayer money.

The truth will come out. Why not now? Are you involved in the cover-up?

Sure. If you want to believe that. Go ahead. I'm not going to stop you.

I can't imagine any other reason for someone to oppose such an endeavor.

Because it was done once already and nothing has surfaced to overturn those results. We may not know EXACTLY everything that went on that day, but we are sure we have a pretty good idea.

One day we're all going to have to put on our big boy britches and face the cold truth of what actually happened on 9/11. Citizens of the USA, it's time to awaken from your slumber.

That's interesting you say that because have you ever considered that you may be wrong about what you think happened on that day? That maybe YOU are the one who needs to put on his big boy britches and accept the cold truth that nothing as sinister as you think went on that day? It really WAS a bunch of pissed off terrorists flying hijacked planes into buildings.

Though that would require you to admit you have confirmation bias and confirmation bias doesn't like to acknowledge itself.

9/11 was the day of coincidences.

It was the day that:


.All of the U.S's security systems failled everywhere. On the ground in airports and in the air everywhere. Fighterjets all of a sudden take hours to take off , accidentally go the wrong way and fly at half speed when they finaly point in the right direction.

.4 commercial U.S planes were hijacked at the same time and all 4 were also succsefull ,using box cutters and all 4 were abel to fly around after being hijacked for a hour or more with no problems to be later flown through one of the most restricted airspaces in the world where there is usually a intercept protocol of about 15 minutes which has been enforced with succses for more then 1.500 times in the 4 years prior to 9/11.

.3 steel skyscrapers for the first time in human history colapse into their own footprint because of fires (not the impacts according to the official report) of which one was not hit by a plane and coincidentally the footage of the collapse never has been aired ever since which also happened to fall into its own footprint symetrically but was caused by random fires and damage on one side , according to the official investigation. not once for the first time in history, but 3 times that day and somehow all 3 of those did so at free fall speed, another first in history and physics outside of controlled demolition.

.The passport of one of the hijackers is found on the streets within the hour. No other passports have been reported to be found in that manner, (i searched i never found any info like that let alone credible info.)

.A third plane crashed but it disapeared into the ground.

.A 4th plane crashed into the Pentagon (habibi's managed to get close to AND fly a boeing into the freaking pentagon!) into a part where there just happened to be reconstruction but also happend to house the documents concerning the missing billions mentioned just the day before it which have been reported as destroyed in the "airplane crash". of which the impact supposedley had a entry hole and a exit hole of the fuselage but no fuselage was ever found because it had disintegrated, but , did leave a punch out hole.

.The owner of the building had just bought a brand spanking new insurrance to both building against terrorsist attacks 1 month before it.

.The owner of the building called in sick that very day

.A very unsual amount of put options where reported for exactly that day.

.The bush familiy where having dinner with the bin laden family that day.

.The events investigation did not start until a year passed on a 1 million dollar budget which eventually grew to a measly 11 million while bill clintons Blowjob was investigated imediatly for aprox 30 million dollars (thirty million dollars) and most metal from the crime scene had been hauled of to china and india within a week. Expect for the metal that was still burning a hole in the ground for a couple of months after the event, which was never explained but always denied.

.Following the moneytrail was not worth it in the investigation as one of the commisionars put it.

.All this happened on the coincidental date of 9/11 the national emergency number for the entire country for which the central operations center also happend to be inside the towers.

I could go on and on untill i reach the character limit of this post but i dont feel that is very necessary.
One would need to be willingly oblivious to the obvious to agree with the offical story. Which is exactly what it seems to be.

a reply to: everyone

You make it all seem so simple to prevent.
Now why don't you predict what the next attack would look like.
Not so simple is it.

Those that are intent on causing damage can just look where we aren't.
What's to prevent a cruise ship from being hijacked and rammed into a carrier in port ?

Most of your points of conspiracy have been shown to be non events.

a reply to: hellobruce

I did watch the videos, and examined other facts and evidence, and what I noticed is that much debris was blown out laterally, several hundreds of feet.

That shows that some force besides gravity was at work.....

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: everyone

You make it all seem so simple to prevent.
Now why don't you predict what the next attack would look like.
Not so simple is it.

Those that are intent on causing damage can just look where we aren't.
What's to prevent a cruise ship from being hijacked and rammed into a carrier in port ?

Most of your points of conspiracy have been shown to be non events.

I did not make it seem simple to prevent. I made it look obvious how it was impossible for all of that to go right, for "The evil doers".

a reply to: everyone

I made it look obvious how it was impossible for all of that to go right, for "The evil doers".

Back in 2001 once you scared the passengers, they would act like sheep.
So all you had to do was kill one person and you then had full control of the plane.

And no it didn't all go right.
Have you forgotten flight 93 ?