WTC Challenge, page 10

Gah, my mistake. I was just looking for the gray smoke and totally missed the obvious fact that a whole building was missing in that picture. I was wondering why there was so much smoke around the ground.. x.x

Here's an alternate, to make up for my brainless mistake:





[edit on 4-7-2005 by bsbray11]

O.K. here is a new theory for you:

9/11 was the ultimate chemtrail opperation!




I am still waiting for someone to put together a rational critique of the NIST report that is based on science, or engineering.

O.K. here is a new theory for you:

9/11 was the ultimate chemtrail opperation!

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.

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.

It goes on, but that's all that you need, really, to get an idea of where the flaws in NIST's report are. But since it's not final yet, but just a draft, I suppose you could probably still shrug this off anyway, HR.

You can find the article here: www.911truth.org...

And the references mentioned in the quote are:

1. www.boulderweekly.com...

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. wtc.nist.gov...

4. www.voicesofsept11.org...

5. wtc.nist.gov... (pg 11)

6. www.forging.org...


The claim that the fires were hot enough to sufficiently damage the steel is crucial to the argument that the WTC buildings fell in accordance with the official story. In fact, that is the argument. That there is evidence directly contradicting this claim not only compromises the NIST reports, but every official government report to date. I would think you would care a little more, than make a mocking off-hand comment and refuse to comment further.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
When the towers fell, pieces of the box columns were ejected outwards for distances of hundreds of feet. Not only were the columns ripped from the spandrel plates they were welded and bolted to, but they were sliced into 12-foot lengths.

The government's explanation for this is "compressed air" expelling outward as each floor collapsed down on the next. Well, let's take a look at one of the plane impacts. 395,000 pounds of plane striking the building at 530 mph (777 ft/s) and the explosion of 23,980 gallons of jet fuel managed to throw heavy debris 300-350 feet. Light debris did fly further, but remember we're talking about the steel pieces. I've put a scale in here showing the 208 feet wide tower and the debris being thrown a further 300-350 feet beyond it.

In fact, I'm being very generous. Most of what you see above is glass, aeroplane bits and office debris being expelled out. I don't see many pieces of steel columns. Do you?

But when the towers collapsed, 36 foot long pieces of steel were sliced into 12 foot segments, ripped from welded and bolted spandrel plates, and, now weighing 880 pounds each, expelled horizontally outwards for distances of up to 300 feet (conservative estimate).

What possible force could snap steel beams like twigs and throw 880-pound pieces of them hundreds of feet sideways? Do you HONESTLY think "compressed air" could do...

THIS??

Neither do I......

The only explanation for such EXPLOSIVE FORCE is...EXPLOSIVE CHARGES.

[edit on 2005/7/4 by wecomeinpeace]

Well, not so true. You guys come up with some interesting theories (seriously) but quite often they aren't backed up with logic or science. Have you ever heard of ballistic trajectory? If you apply some force to an object (say shove it out a window) from the 90th floor of a building, will it then fall straight to the ground like a Wyllie Cyote cartoon? No, it won't.

It will fall pretty much like the objects you have pictured above. Or like I'm picturing here from another location.



Do the objects you are showing from a frame of one of the videos of the towers falling actually fly straight out? No, actually they dont, they cascade down like a waterfall, or a fountain. If you actually watch the video(s) of the tower(s) falling, you will clearly see nothing massive is thrown straight out, it instead falls down along a parabollic curve. (ballistic fall)

If you accelerate an object to 1m/s (about 2.2 mph), and that object is on the 100th floor, how far away from the building (not accounting for any wind at all) will it be when it reaches the 50th floor?

(Answer: about 20.4 feet away from the side of the building.)

But don't take my word for it! This will require some math, but I'll include a handy-dandy online calculator for you to double check this with (plus I can't draw the quadratic formula here in text) and I know how so many folks on ATS don't like facts and instead love the ideas instead of the science.

So, instead here is a handy-dandy graphic which you can click on to access an online calculator where you can punch in your numbers and try this yourself to see how far away from the building an object would be given what amount of force was applied to it at the start; you can also assume a 0 (zero) degree trajectory, even though I think some of the objects would have had a positive and negative initial trajectory. [note: in order to calculate this you will of course need to use a negative number for y since it's a negative height]



The WTC was 1362 feet high (this is the shorter of the two towers, one was actually 1368 but we'll go with the shorter one. ) This translates into
414.8652m (1 foot = 0.3046m)

Each floor is therefore "about" 3.77115m high or 12.37 ft

So, I guess the question you're asking is this: how fast would an object have to be moving for it to fall 300 feet away from a start point that was 1350 feet high?

Well the answer is about 32.6 feet per second (which translates into about 22.2 mph). This is providing, of course, that you wanted to know how fast it was moving initially (at the start of it's fall from up top the building) if the object landed 300 feet away from the base of the tower. Is 22.2 mph a fast speed? I really don't think it is, especially when you consider forces acting on those objects (all that weight falling down onto each floor).

But wait! Lets not stop here!

You can see that the building is falling onto itself, so the beams from higher floors are actually getting enertia from their fall, then they're 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. I'm pretty sure a significant amount of this enertia came from falling->bouncing more so than just windforce from each floor collapsing onto each other. How much enertia (kenetic energy) would be stored up in an 880lb object that fell 3 floors (37 feet), and then bounced off and outwards form other debris below? Something significant to translate into >= 22mph wouldn't you think? It gets too messy here to try to actually figure it all out simply.

Calculating change of direction:
Velocity = SQR ((Radius - track / 2) * f * g)
Radius = Chord^2 / (8 * Middle Ordinate) + (Middle Ordinate / 2)'
or
Velocity = SQR (Radius * f * g)
Radius = Velocity^2 / (f * g)

I'm sure you get the idea... But if we keep this simple and rely on the fact that we all do know that acceleration due to gravity is (g = 9.8 m/s/s) Well 37 feet is about 11.3m so,
11.3 = .5 * 9.8 * t * t
11.3 = 4.75 * t *t
2.38 = t * t
t = sqrt(2.38)
t = 1.54

So, the bar would fall 3 floors in about 1.54 seconds, before bouncing off the rubble below and deflecting outwards.
t = sqrt(2x/a) : where 'x' is the distance in meters and 'a' is 9.8 m/s/s
15.01m/s (54km/h)

The bar would have been doing about 49.5 ft/s or (49.5*0.681818182) = 33mph when it bounced off the rubble 3 floors below.

(I think you can see it's not hard for these massive 880lb objects to get a whole lot of velocity just from the action of the floors collapsing in order to end up 300 feet away from the building when you understand what a ballistic fall is).

But then there's a 3rd issue with some of the falling debris. We can see in most of the images larger chunks of steel beams. In some cases multiple story lengths. So, these must have levered outwards (fell outwards like a tree falls) and then broke off or were smashed off by other falling pillars. How much enertia would these have? I bet you can agree that they could quite conceivable be doing 22mph or more as well (outwards and downwards at an angle).

In all cases, it's not hard for objects doing relatively small speeds at the top of the building (or middle of the building for that matter) to end up a fair distance away on the ground. This didn't require any detonations, it didn't require and bombs, and it really doesn't need a whole lot of "wind force" but I certainly do see how those floors violently collapsing onto each other would generate an amazing amount of force.

Hope this didn't break anyones brain...

I suppose, "How much force would it take to horizontally accelerate a steel beam that was 880lbs to 20mph?" is the next question. But I'm too tired to keep on typing and I'm sure many other people on this forum are much better at physics than I am.

[edit on 5-7-2005 by CatHerder]

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.

If you wish to adhere to your positive parabolic trajectory, then you support the explosives hypothesis. If not, then you must solve it again for horizontal launch. I can't be bothered doing your work for you, so here it is from your own link.

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.

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



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.


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.

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.

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. 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:

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? 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...



May the "wind force" be with you...

[edit on 2005/7/5 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

And before you get your shorts all in a bunch over the "40 ton something or other" this is what he was refering to:



It is a 40 ton hydraulic press that is common in machine shops.

Dear Howard,
I thought i would send you another pic for your 40 ton hydraulic press collection.
Cheers,
Shroud

40 ton Pacific 40/8 hydraulic press, 1970 model


She's a beauty, much better than yours!

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John

Originally posted by HowardRoark
O.K. here is a new theory for you:

9/11 was the ultimate chemtrail opperation!

I am still waiting for someone to put together a rational critique of the NIST report that is based on science, or engineering.

NIST report was based on science and engineering? Interesting, because they didn't even use the WTC blueprints to determine what happened.

In Appendix A
are many of the original design documents.


In wtc.nist.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">this report they describe their tasks as:

Development of structural databases of the primary components of WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers. These electronic databases were developed from original computer printouts of the structural design documents, including modifications made after construction. The task included the scanning and digitization of the original drawing books, a four-step quality control procedure, cross section property calculations, and development of the relational databases to link the generated database files into a format suitable for the development of the structural models.

and from here:

To obtain information for the collapse analysis of the buildings, National Institute of Standards and Technology reviewed design and construction documents, correspondence, and memoranda related to the building projects; interviewed individuals involved in the design, construction, and maintenance of the buildings; obtained information from regulatory and emergency services agencies of New York City; and reviewed books and published journal and magazine articles related to the WTC building projects. Information obtained from various sources are synthesized and summarized in this report.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark

And before you get your shorts all in a bunch over the "40 ton something or other" this is what he was refering to:



It is a 40 ton hydraulic press that is common in machine shops.

Dear Howard,
I thought i would send you another pic for your 40 ton hydraulic press collection.
Cheers,
Shroud

40 ton Pacific 40/8 hydraulic press, 1970 model


She's a beauty, much better than yours!

Uh, dude, the difference is that one is commonly found in a light duty machine shop such as would be present in the WTC basement, and the other would be found in high volume commercial machine shops where its high cost would be justified by its regular use, for production purposes, and not for the occaisonal repair of a pump bearing.

I’ll leave the reader to figure out which is which.

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 16 days ago with 12 member flags

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags

new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags

Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags

you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: