It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 16
3
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bob2000

Just for the record WTC took around 18 - 20 seconds for the top to hit the ground.


Freefall in a vacuum for the WTC is 9.6468243 seconds (an exact calculation). Its some considerable resistance is if took around 20 seconds to fall.

The big question is was this evident resistance that made it a 20 sec fall due to all air resistance or both air resistance and structural resistance?


Id love to see myself proven wrong though. Show me some quantitative evidence conspiracy theorists, you guys "know" you are right and are "So scientific", this shouldnt be a problem.


well, love on, then, because, as pointed out by wecomeinpeace, around 12 seconds is more accurate. even NIST, the bunch of highly paid fat liars, say 12ish.

so, if you don't want to be labelled a conspiracy theorist, you better memorise the official lie.

the floor trusses pulled in the exterior columns, causing bowing. now, because the clips that hold these floor trusses to the exterior columns were the weakest link in the structure, they gave out, which caused all the core columns and the perimeter columns to also give out, which caused the 'cap' or the broken off top piece of the building, to fall one floors worth of height in freefall, which then translated the entire gravity accelerated weight of the cap instantly on the remaining lower part. once the global collapse was initiated, global collapse was inevitable.

did i get it right, howard?




posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   

bob2000 wrote:
Freefall in a vacuum for the WTC is 9.6468243 seconds (an exact calculation). Its some considerable resistance is if took around 20 seconds to fall.

The big question is was this evident resistance that made it a 20 sec fall due to all air resistance or both air resistance and structural resistance?

The conspiracy theorists are going to want to say its all air resistance. The conspiracy thoerists arent smart enough to verify that though. Theyll need to know the "air resistance parameter" (which they dont have) which is how "thick" the air is, and how the shape of the falling building parts effects its air resistance (shape is a factor too). And assuming they can get this information, theyll have to know how to calculate the fall speed using this information assuming air resistance is the ONLY resistance. Based on all conspiracy sites I have seen, and posts by conspiracy theorists, their is strong evidence that conspiracy theorists cant bring forth any quantitative evidence, all I see is qualitative speculation. Our conspiracy theorists are definitly not mathematics savy. And qualitative evidence just dont cut it.

Id love to see myself proven wrong though. Show me some quantitative evidence conspiracy theorists, you guys "know" you are right and are "So scientific", this shouldnt be a problem.


Wow. You really came out with the insult guns blazing in that post.
I'm just amazed that there are any of we dumbarse "conspiracy theorists" left who are still game enough to show our faces 'round here, especially in a thread which is graced with the presence of an enlightened, intellectual prodigy such as yourself. 2 x


But you must have forgotten to take your genius pill this morning, because there are some problems with your post that even a dunce like me can pick out.

1. You say that we'll need to know the "air resistance parameter", when I'm pretty sure you mean the drag coefficient. "Air resistance parameter" sounds like you googled about air resistance and picked the likeliest term for what you wanted to educate us on. Then you say that we don't have the "air resistance parameter", yet are not kind enough in your benevolent wisdom to actually provide it for us. Why don't you help us retards out and tell us exactly what it is? And to at least 10 decimal places, if you will, since we wish to emulate you in your passion for exacting detail.

2. You mention how "thick" the air is as an influencing factor, when I'm fairly sure you mean air density. The only ones who are "thick" around here are, of course, "conspiracy theorists". Some others are just vicious, but definitely not viscous.

3. You also curiously neglected to include in your lesson the fact that air resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity of the object. As the relative speed of an object in the system increases, the air resitance acting on it increases geometrically, which is why objects in motion in atmosphere can reach a terminal velocity. How could a genius like you have missed such a basic and fundamental element? Ahh, I see...you probably didn't mention this because you were trying to test us. Sneaky...

4. You posit that we conspiracy theory half-wits only ever provide qualitative speculation, never presenting any quantitative evidence. However you have neglected to provide any quantitative evidence WHATSOEVER yourself. The single, solitary quantitative statement you made was regarding the results of your free fall calculation for the WTC towers; "an exact calculation" you say. And although I'm probably wrong since I'm one of those birdbrained conspiracy theorists you reference, I'll be brave enough to raise a little pinkie and say...I think you're calculation is wrong.

Most every calculation I've seen, apart from yours and Mr Eagar's, calculate a free fall time of about 9.22 seconds for the height of WTC1. You didn't state which tower you calculated for, the two being different in height, but since your figure of 9.6468243s is higher (and as we know, that 7th decimal place makes ALL the difference) I can only assume you calculated for WTC1 which is taller.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology gives the height of WTC1 as 1368 feet = 416.9664m. Since d = 0.5gt^2, taking gravity as 9.8m/s^2 that gives a free fall time in vacuum of 9.224705072438327s which is what everyone (except for you and Eagar) says it should be.


So then I thought that maybe you were including the height of the antenna on top of WTC1 in your calculations. Under the conditions stated above, your stated free fall time of 9.6468243s would give a drop height of 1496.0521578508333 feet, which is 128.0521578508333 feet taller than the WTC1 structure. But the antenna was 360 feet tall, so THAT'S not it.


But, keeping your supra-geniusnessnessness in mind, I KNEW that there must be something I was missing. Ohhhhh, I know, you're so smart you've taken into account that gravity changes at different locations on the Earth due to variations in crust density, radius of the Earth, centrifugal force, AND altitude above sea level. Brilliant!!

Now, gravity for different latitudes and altitudes can be roughly estimated by the equation:

g = 9.780 318 4 (1 + Asin^2L - Bsin^2 2L) - 3.086×10^-6 H
where A =0.0053024, B = 0.0000059, L = latitude, H = height in meters above sea level.

But this only takes into account the bulge of the Earth towards the equator, and height above sea level. We need something more accurate to keep up with you, right? Luckily for us dummies who can't simply work it out in our heads like you most surely can, the National Geophysical Data Center provides a handy online database for working out exacting gravity at various locations on the Earth:
www.ngs.noaa.gov...

The WTC complex is at 40.71°Lat, 74.01°Lon. The estimated topographic height at that location is 3.20m above sea level. Adding this to the height of WTC1 we get an ASL height of 420.1664. Taking the mid-point of that for an average figure for gravity varying across the entire height, we get 210.0832m. Plugging those figures in gives us a figure for gravity at the WTC complex of 980211 +/- 40 milligals, which equals 9.80211 +/-0.0004 m/s^2

Now with our super-duper accurate gravity figure in hand, we can go back to our free fall time calculation:

d = 0.5gt^2, taking gravity this time as 9.80211m/s^2 that gives a free fall time in vacuum of...

...wait for it...

9.22371216502979s!

Still the same as we consiracy simpletons originally stated!!

But you know what the funniest thing is...none of us addle-brained conspiracy theorists EVER stated that the towers fell in complete free fall! We state that the lower portions of the towers didn't provide resistance consistent with what would be expected from the intact, rigid structures, implying that the connections and supports were severed or weakened somehow, not that they were whisked completely away to another dimension! So the whole air resistance argument is completely moot!! We went through all that for nothing! Ahahahahahahahah...*sigh*...thank you, I haven't laughed like that since I was a little 10 year old conspiracy theorist.

So please, bob2000, Sir, please tell us how you arrived at your free fall in vaccuum time figure so that we nincompoops can learn a little more, and live a little smarter. And then, maybe you will be kind enough to tell us what your "quantitative" air resistance calculations for the collapsing towers were. You say you'd "love to be proven wrong", but you didn't give any quantitative evidence to be proven wrong with. And finally, maybe you can work out for us how much resistance the towers should have provided as rigid structures.

Yours Moronically,

wcip



[edit on 2005-12-15 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you counting the time for the top of the building to hit the ground, or the top portion of the building to hit the ground? How can you tell with all of the dust when exactly that was?

Are you sure you aren’t looking at the portions of the building that were falling outside the building envelope?



Those exterior column trees are obviously in free fall, they are also, quite obviously falling faster than the building behind them.



I thought they came up with the numbers for how long it took by the seismographs (sp?). Wouldn't that be an excellent source to tell when it started and when it finished?

[edit on 15-12-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I can’t see how you can get that info from the seismograph data.

For one, the energy of the seismograph signal spreads out over time depending on the types of rock formations it passes through, and how far away you are. Check out figure 3 in the LDEO report to see what I am talking about.

Secondly, the energy pulse is from when the bulk of the building mass hit the ground, that does not necessarily correlate to the beginning of the collapse.

Finally, wouldn’t there be a certain amount of “reverberation” from the seismic signal afterwards? How could you pinpoint the actual time that the collapse ended?



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
OK...that makes sense except for when people try and use the graphs for the spikes at the beggining of the falls? What would those be if what the graphs are recording is the debris hitting the ground? How could you have a spike in the graphs before the fall if nothing has hit the ground at this point?



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

In physics the angular momentum of an object with respect to a reference point is a measure for the extent to which, and the direction in which, the object rotates about the reference point.

In particular, if the body rotates about an axis, then the angular momentum with respect to a point on the axis is related to the mass of the object, the angular velocity and the distance of the mass to the axis.

Without applying torque to the object, with respect to the reference point, the angular momentum is constant. The angular momentum is a measure for the amount of torque that has been applied over time to the object. The object has rotational inertia that resists changes in rotational motion, quantified by the moment of inertia.

Angular momentum is an important concept in both physics and engineering with numerous applications. For example, the kinetic energy stored in a massive rotating object such as a flywheel is proportional to the angular momentum.


I found this at en.wikipedia.org...

So, I think you were correct in your usage of angular momentum bsbray.
The only difference is angular momentum is a measure of torque over time. They are related but not the exact same thing. Sorry all for any confusion on my part.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
OK...that makes sense except for when people try and use the graphs for the spikes at the beggining of the falls? What would those be if what the graphs are recording is the debris hitting the ground? How could you have a spike in the graphs before the fall if nothing has hit the ground at this point?



The “spikes” are from the debris hitting the ground. Anyone claiming otherwise either does not know how to read a graph, or is deliberately lying. This is a fact, and I will not debate it.

If you look at the red, inset part of the chart in the above report, you will see the “Spikes” rescaled to a different time frame (30 seconds instead of 30 minutes) and vertically compressed.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I know nothing about siezmographs so I will not argue about that. But, why would there be a spike as the initial debris starts to hit the ground and then when there is tons more debris hitting the ground...there are no spikes? Can you explain that please?



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
9/11 Research uses seismic records and the CNN clock to determine collapse time here. But I have to say that after watching the 9/11 Eyewitness movie WCIP posted, seeing as how I don't know exactly what events he's including there, he may be including actual blasts without realizing it. Maybe you guys can compare the blasts observed in Eyewitness with the way the charts were analyzed on that site. It comes up with a figure of around 16 or 17 seconds for WTC1 based on when the large debris stopped hitting the ground. This may have been when the still standing core finally came to rest. So 17 seconds should have been about the absolute max time those towers took to fall. Considering the core lingering around, I would estimate a faster time. I would guess most of the building was at rest somewhere around 12 seconds or so, but that's not really based on anything. At any rate, I don't think 17 seconds is relevant to the collapse speed, as in the charges racing down the building, but rather how long it took for the core chunks left over to smack the ground.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
What you've basically got are two collapse speeds: The speed of the explosions racing down the building, and THEN the speed of the mass of the structure collapsing down on itself once the support was thus destroyed.

You can clearly see the two separate phenomena in these videos:

images.indymedia.org...

terrorize.dk...

terrorize.dk...

terrorize.dk...



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   




1. You say that we'll need to know the "air resistance parameter", when I'm pretty sure you mean the drag coefficient. "Air resistance parameter" sounds like you googled about air resistance and picked the likeliest term for what you wanted to educate us on. Then you say that we don't have the "air resistance parameter", yet are not kind enough in your benevolent wisdom to actually provide it for us. Why don't you help us retards out and tell us exactly what it is? And to at least 10 decimal places, if you will, since we wish to emulate you in your passion for exacting detail.


Oh, I see. Your going to attempt to make me look stupid by criticising my terminology. lol. I guess that means your smarter than me becuase you are using correct terminology.

I guess you didnt read between the lines. Its obvious I see conspiracy theoriests as scientifically iliterate. Do you think Im going to use terms like that in my posts? no. Im speaking to laymen, so I have to use laymen terminology so you guys can "get" what Im talking about. I thought the quotes around my terms hinted at that. But I guess not.

Besides, its not the terminolgy that counts, its the number crunching that does. You can use technical terms all you want, and make your self seem like an expert, but it dont mean squat. Its the numbers that matter.



2. You mention how "thick" the air is as an influencing factor, when I'm fairly sure you mean air density. The only ones who are "thick" around here are, of course, "conspiracy theorists". Some others are just vicious, but definitely not viscous.


There you go again with my use of terminology. lol. Speaking of air density. Here is a very simple challenge. This is very simple. Heres a hypothetical drag coefficient: .5 Take it, and calculate how long it will take an object to fall um say, 157.9 meters. Prove me wrong that you do have the ability to produce quantitative evidence. If you do, then you can almost do this challenge in your head, and give me the answer with no problem. Provide it rounded to um, 4 decimal places. oh, and show your work. lets see if we get the same answer.



3. You also curiously neglected to include in your lesson the fact that air resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity of the object. As the relative speed of an object in the system increases, the air resitance acting on it increases geometrically, which is why objects in motion in atmosphere can reach a terminal velocity. How could a genius like you have missed such a basic and fundamental element? Ahh, I see...you probably didn't mention this because you were trying to test us. Sneaky...


I wasnt giving you a lesson, lol. But it looks like you are attempting to. This time, I am testing you, see above.



4. You posit that we conspiracy theory half-wits only ever provide qualitative speculation, never presenting any quantitative evidence. However you have neglected to provide any quantitative evidence WHATSOEVER yourself. The single, solitary quantitative statement you made was regarding the results of your free fall calculation for the WTC towers; "an exact calculation" you say. And although I'm probably wrong since I'm one of those birdbrained conspiracy theorists you reference, I'll be brave enough to raise a little pinkie and say...I think you're calculation is wrong.


I dont think I really need to provide any quantitative evidence; Im not the one who claims to "know" the truth, nor do I claim Im "so scientific" in coming to my conclusion like you conspiracy theorists do. Not only that, reopen911.org are asking for a quantitative explanation of the gravity collapse theory, yet I think they are so hypocritical that they make that challenge, yet create no quantitative model of their own showing if demolitions were placed in the building, the building would have fallen the way it did etc. Its the hypocrasy of the conspiracy theorists that motivates me to call you guys on how scientifically soft you guys are. You guys are so not scientific, you guys just have qualitative speculation at best.

As for my figure of 9.6468243 (rounded 7 decimal places) which is different than yours is based on the WTC being 456 meters tall. Ocording to the source I used, it stated that WTC1 was 456 meters tall. But I guess my source was wrong. However, my calculation is correct if that were its true height.

Besides, I stand by my statement that the conspiracy thoerists cant produce quantitative evidence. All the formulas you have provided I can tell that you have googled. And your good googling skills still arent going to help you produce the quantitative evidence you guys have yet to produce. What youll need are some good mathematics skills, an ability to model physical systems etc., googling as needed formulas arent going to help you out much. If your dependant on google, you just wont cut it.

oh, dont forget my little challenge




[edit on 15-12-2005 by bob2000]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by bob2000]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by bob2000]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by bob2000]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Mathematical evidence. Hm. Why don't you, or somebody from NIST, or anyone, do calculations to show that the collapses were possible via gravity alone? Just in terms of the amount of momentum. Show there was enough from the caps. That's all.

We've actually been trying to get calculations, believe it or not. In fact, the very calculations for which I just asked you. If you want to help us along in showing us how we are wrong, then here: provide us with the amount of momentum in kg m/s each floor would be able to withstand on average before 75%, or, if you want to be true to the events of 9/11, 100% column failure.

That's really all MacMerdin or I need to finish a proof of the presence of additional sources of energy during collapse. I'm actually figuring two calculations, considering two contradictory building weights: Eager's (of 500,000 tons), which seem, to me, bogus, and Mr. Trumpman's (of 200,000 tons), gathered from FEMA reports and building studies, who has already provided mathematic figures on the collapse of WTC1, illustrating the impossibilities of that collapse here. Really, though, the total weights, which are then divided by the number of floors for an average floor weight (don't complain though - this is giving YOU, the guys behind the official b.s., an advantage, as the weights are being applied to the topmost floors, which were actually the lightest floors in the building as they had to support the least weight, and thus were much below average in terms of total weight), don't really matter, because NIST has released safety ratings indicating how much weight each floor could withstand before failure. These ratings would be the same regardless of the weight of the buildings, so really, the heavier Eager claims, the more weight each floor would be able to hold according to NIST, so the weights ultimately don't even matter. But I've gotten off-topic. The point is, the most important figures, proving the necessity a third source of energy, will come if you'd only come down off your high horse to give us the figure you criticize us for not having.

From how things look right now, even though I'm missing the figure I just described, it seems every 10 falling floors would only require between 7 and 8 intact floors to halt on average, being extremely conservative (the topmost floors were actually much lighter), and assuming no resistance from air (ie, in a vacuum), only 75% failure (also totally ignoring resistance from the other 25% of steel), as well as assuming a full 12-foot drop of the falling floors before contact (which maximizes the amount of momentum and thus energy behind the caps - would have been a shorter fall, if any at all considering the angle prior to full-out vertical collapse, on 9/11, and thus less momentum before resistance). But I need the figure I just described. And like I said, if you can get that figure, for the amount of momentum needed for either 75% or 100% column failure for a single floor, that would be nice.

Hope you can help. If you can, we may be able to promptly post figures illustrating the lack of retardation and thus lack of momentum loss. If not, then I would shut up if I were you, or else go complain to NIST, because it really is a problem of lack of information.


[edit on 15-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
bsbray,

THe whole point of my post was that the conspiracy theorists cannot provide any hard quantitative evidence becuase they dont have the backgound for that, and arent in the position to be acting as if they know the truth. All they can provide is speculation in ambiguous terms, maybe they can povide qualitative evidence. And the purpose of the point was to show that they have no reason to be "So sure" and "so confident" when their theory's "Evidence" isnt sound and is easily refutable due to how "Soft" it is. I even think theyre hypocritical becuase reopen911.org is creating a quantitative challenge but havent done anything themselves.

When I said I wanted to be proven wrong, I meant be proven wrong as in that my beleive that conspiracy theorists cant produce hard evidence is wrong. I beleive my beleif is true. And the fact that you have been seeking your figure and are suggesting I help you with it only seems to be proving my point. If you guys are really scientific and can produce hard mathematical evidence, you wouldnt be needing my help to show you HOW to get such a figure. I mean, you guys act as if you are the experts, so why should you need any help. Wecomeinpeace should have figured this figure for you long ago based on the way he shoots out terminology and mathematical formulas like he did in his last post.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
When it comes to 9/11, again, we cannot provide figures because the information is not available. It isn't a matter of it being right or wrong, or being able or unable to provide calculations. We simply aren't being provided with the means.

Why do you think it's fair to attack us on this point? It's totally beyond our means, short of breaking into some government building and stealing the documents we need. Nor do we have any less evidence for our case than the government has provided for theirs, as I'm sure you've noticed that they have provided none of the things you ridicule us for not providing.

Do you believe the official story, despite it's lack of figures? If so, why? Either you have blindly and moronically accepted it, or you put some reasoning behind it that is not definitive, mathematical, etc. If you have reasoned your position, why can't you similarly reason with the demolition case? Again, we have no less evidence than they have provided. Hell, they've hardly addressed any of the physics anyway. What's the deal, dude?


And the purpose of the point was to show that they have no reason to be "So sure" and "so confident" when their theory's "Evidence" isnt sound and is easily refutable due to how "Soft" it is.


With what, exactly, are the physics problems "easily refutable"? They have not been refuted with science, so by your own standards, they have not been refuted in the least, and you have no reason to state such.

With science, as you should know, a lack of proof is not proof of lack. In this case there is definitive proof for neither case. While some people can use a little common sense when noticing the collapses to deduce there was no change in collapse speed, and thus no change in momentum, it seems that at the moment, neither camp on this issue has the means to formally prove anything one way or the other. This is not our fault. It's the government's fault.

Most of the problems that we've been describing, as LeftBehind has put it, with "essays," are based upon common sense when it comes to physics; the problems are based upon what you and I can observe and deduce, as on a daily basis, without having to do anything with mathematics. When you prick your finger and it squirts blood 12 feet into the air, then common sense would dictate that what you have is no ordinary finger prick. Would you have to whip out formulas and etc. to realize why something like that would be odd? If not, then what, to you, appears so normal about the lack of retardation in the collapse speeds? Do you not understand the principles behind momentum, or what? Surely you can respond to that question without having to ask for some sort of mathematical proof of its existence or of it being a problem in the first place; just watch any video of either collapse. I have no idea how you can put on being so enlightened when it comes to maths and sciences and blatantly disregard these obvious problems, with or without the math.

The evidence needed is in the hands of the government, and not only are they not using it to prove their case, but they're also refusing to release that evidence to the public. This does not mean that we do not know how to calculate this or that. It means your government is preventing us, whether you think we know how or not. Your argument is therefore totally irrelevant.

Find a new one.

Btw - "I before E, except after C."

[edit on 16-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Is it really that hard to figure out these calculations?

It is possible without exact specifications to at least make accurate estimations. Even for laymen like us.

Let's take a number given for the weight of the caps, 45,000 tons.

A quick google search led me to this website with a Kinetic Energy Calculator.

www.csgnetwork.com...

45,000 tons is 40,823,311 kg.

If we say the building was in freefall for one second we can say the velocity is 10 m/s.

That gives us a kinetic energy of 2.04 x 10^9 joules.

That is very close to half a ton of TNT, a ton having 4.184 x 10^9 joules.

There we have it. A very rough estimation of how much force was delivered by the caps falling one floor. Please correct me if any of my numbers are off.


I would say that that is more than enough force to collapse the next floor, building up enough force to shoot smoke out of windows a few floors below.

Wikipedia

Please feel free to do your own calculations on reported estimations. The caps may have weighed more or less, but a few tons difference does not change the energy all that much.



We can even take it farther.

Just for the sake of an example lets assume the same weight fell 539 meters, in 12 seconds. I got 539 by subtracting 30 meters for the caps.

That would give us a very rough 44 m/s average.

At that speed the same weight (assuming all other floors disintegrated) would have 3.95 x 10^10 joules.

Roughly the force of 9 tons of TNT.

So there we go, with no blueprints, and given only the hieght of the building and the weight of the caps I was able to do some very rough calculations.

I think that the above exercise shows that the caps had more than enough energy.


I'm sure there are other numbers for the figures I gave. Does anyone have figures that drastically differ from the ones I gave? Go ahead use the same tools I did, and prove me wrong.

It is not that hard to get quantitive evidence.


Edit to fix link.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
It's easy to find the energy that the caps had...but it's a different story to get the resistance force that the towers would have had per floor without a real construction drawing of a floor....see what I mean when I say you can't tell without the evidence? So what if the caps had 2 million tons worth of tnt energy (just a huge overexageration of mine) .....what if the resistance by the remaining floors was 3 million tons worth of tnt? We'll never know until documents are released. Try another argument please.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Those numbers are absolutely useless. Great job on figuring them out, though. Real investigative work, there. It's just too bad that you can't do squat with those figures in terms of proving or disproving demolition.


I would say that that is more than enough force to collapse the next floor, building up enough force to shoot smoke out of windows a few floors below.... I think that the above exercise shows that the caps had more than enough energy.


And that's why. Those are opinions, dear. Might as well not have done any figures at all if you're going to wind back up at an opinion, eh?


I appreciate the enthusiasm but I don't think you have any idea what you're doing.



It is not that hard to get quantitive evidence.


Not when you're coming up with random calculations as if they mean something and calling that "evidence."

The figure needed is the average amount of momentum (kg m/s) each floor could withstand before 100% failure, as seen on 9/11. Here's where MacMerdin (a structural engineer, mind you) and I are mathematically:

We're trying to take the momentum of the caps and see how many floors they would be able to get through before their momentum was compromised. First, we need the momentum of the caps. Momentum is found by multiplying mass and velocity, so we'll need those two figures first. I'll work with WTC1 alone for simplicity.

I have two figures for the weight of WTC1. Eager provides 500,000 tons from some source unbeknownst to me. A Mr. Trumpman, in this article, provides 200,000 tons that he gathers from FEMA's 2002 report and the study of similar skyscrapers. The weights are really irrelevant, because NIST has provided safety ratings, which aren't based on exact measures, but are relative. So the heavier the building, according to NIST's ratings, the floors will necessarily hold more weight. But there are two weights, nonetheless, and I'm trying to provide calculations for the both of them just for the hell of it.

Here's an excerpt from Trumpman's paper that goes into NIST's safety ratings, as well as how the weight loads were distributed between the core and perimeter columns.


It has been asserted that the WTC 1 weighed 200,000 tons. This figure is inferred from a 2002 FEMA report and corroborated by data about other hi-rise buildings built around the 1970s such as the Sears tower and the Hancock building. I want to point out that the government's providing of basic architectural information about the WTC has been piece-meal at best. NIST mentions in a 2005 presentation that the WTC 1 had 100,000 tons of steel. In a 2004 presentation NIST asserts that the 47 core columns had a factor of safety of about 2.25. The 236 perimeter columns had a factor of safety of about 5.0 (it has been asserted that the higher factor of safety for the perimeter columns was to handle wind loads). It has been asserted that the core columns, the main load bearing columns, carried 60% of the building load, and the perimeter columns supported 40% of the building load. This was a big building, like a rock in Lower Manhattan for 30 years.


Now to apply the safety ratings to get actual numbers, we'll need the dead and live load capacities for each floor. I'll quote Trumpman's article again, but this time I've added comments to show where certain calculations for Eager's figures are derived. My comments are in brackets.


The factor of safety is based upon the dead load (building materials) of the building and the intended live load (people, office furniture, and similar). The dead load of a floor was 1,818 tons [This is an average, derived from 200,000 tons divided by 110 stories. From Eager's questionable 500,000 ton figure, this is an average of 4545 tons per floor of dead load.]. The floor area was rated 40-150 psf (1.9-7.18 kPa), depending on what the area was going to be used for. Higher load ratings generally were for areas that would support larger than normal loads such as mechanical equipment. Below are floor load estimates based on a review of WTC data contained in a 2005 NIST report. This report contained select scanned images of original WTC specification documents. Because of contradictions in the NIST final report this paper relied on the original WTC specification documents. Data was incomplete so inferences had to be made. The load rating for columns in the perimeter area was 50 psf. The load rating for the core area was up to 100 psf. This comes out to be an estimated 75 psf average for an office floor. The load ratings for floors 110-94 average out to be about 82 psf (3.9 kPa) per floor. On average, a floor's design live load was 1,488 tons. [Note that the live load would not be any different for a heavier building, as the live load is not dependent upon the building materials as the dead load is.] The estimated total weight of a floor, dead load plus live load, is 3,306 tons [Or about 6033 tons according to Eager's assertion.]. Add the factor of safety and the building structure could handle multiple times this load. It is estimated that the average factor of safety for a floor was 3.35 [See below calculation]. This means a floor could handle a total of 11,075 tons before failing [Or, again, according to Eager's figure, 6033 x 3.35 = 20,210 tons to a single floor before failure.]. To visualize, imagine 5,500 2-ton cars stacked in a square about 1/3 of a city block [You'd have to imagine more like 10,105 2-ton cars for Mr. Eager, assuming he's anywhere near close or even addressing a relevant weight. Eager may be included the concrete in the basement for all I know.].


The calculation for the rating of 3.35 above is provided as follows:


60 * 2.25 = 135
40 * 5 = 200
135 + 200 = 335
335 / 100 = 3.35


Whereas 60 is the percentage of the load the core columns were receiving as designated by NIST, and 40 is the percentage of the load the perimeter columns were receiving as designated by NIST. These were multiplied by their respective safety ratings, again, as per NIST (2.25 for core and 5.0 for perimeter). When you then take the sum of those two figures and divide them by 100, you get an average that is proportionate to the amount of weight each type of column was carrying in WTC1. If you were to just average the figures by adding them directly and dividing by 2, you would be getting an averaged that assuming each type of column held 50% of the load. Obviously, that wouldn't be accurate. So you have the above calculation. This further provides us with the following information, as presented by Mr. Trumpman:


The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80% of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail. This indicates that the WTC 1 design had lots of redundancy. This was no house of cards.


But, on 9/11, it's fairly obvious that there was 100% column failure as the collapse progressed, rather than 75%. If only 75% of the columns on one floor were destroyed before the collapsed progressed to the next, 25% of the columns would remain intact and thus provide unsymmetrical resistance (That is, unless it's to be believe that the collapse generated a perfectly symmetrical pattern of columns in the 25% or less that it did not destroy - which, according to chaos theory [or even common sense, if I dare to cite it around people who don't seem to have any], would be pretty damned unlikely. Systems create too many unforeseeable and seemingly random events for such uncanny symmetry to be possible.). The collapses were perfectly symmetrical, and this has been explained by the pancake theory as the complete and even destruction of one floor followed by the complete and even destruction of the next, so I think we can all agree that this implies, or even necessitates, that 100% of the support columns on each destroyed floor - were destroyed.

Eager states the cap of WTC1 to have been 45,000 tons. Trumpman figures a 200,000 ton WTC1, and thus an average of 1818 tons per floor. This average would be higher than the weight of any of the topmost floors, given the fact that they were lighter, and made use of thinner columns, as NIST has provided, as they had to support much less weight than the lower floors and therefore using the same strength columns on those floors would just create a superfluous load for the lower floors to carry. So by using the average weight of all the floors, we're actually being conservative because we're giving the topmost floors more momentum, by giving them more mass, than they actually had on 9/11.

Finding the momentum of a 10-story block for Trumpman (for simplicity), we have about 18,181 tons of material. For Eager, for simplicity, I'll just use his given figure of 45,000. This will create discrepancy between the two results, but the calculations based on Trumpman's figures will be per 10 floors, while Eager's should show, if Eager had his 45,000 ton and 500,000 ton figures straight, how many floors the actual caps would have crushed in the exact same scenario as WTC1 on 9/11.

So there are our masses. For velocity, which MacMerdin and WCIP both figured via different methods, we're being really conservative. We're first of all assuming a full 12-foot drop for gaining momentum with absolutely no resistance. This didn't happen on 9/11. If there was even any period of time in which there was no resistance at all (extremely unlikely), then it would be even less likely if that was a full 12 feet. We're secondly disregarding air, not to mention steel, resistance. This is a vacuum figure.

MacMerdin provided the following for velocity:


PE=KE
mgh=(0.5)m(v squared)
mass would [cancel] out
gh=(0.5)(v squared)
(v squared)=2gh
v=SRT(2gh)
v=SRT(2x32ft/(sec squared)X12ft
v=27.7128 ft/sec


WCIP provided the following for velocity:


Here's a couple of easy equations which you can just plug the numbers into:

d = 0.5 x g x t^2

v = gt


Using metric:
d is distance in meters
g is gravity at 9.8m/s^2
t is time in seconds
v is velocity in m/s

Using Imperial:
d is distance in feet
g is gravity at 32.15ft/s^2
t is time in seconds
v is velocity in ft/s

With a distance of 12ft:
d = 0.5 x g x t^2
=> 12 = 0.5 x 32.15 x t^2
=> t^2 = 12/(0.5 x 32.15)
=> t = SQRT[12/(0.5 x 32.15)]
=> t(ime) = 0.864 seconds for an object to fall 12 feet in vacuum.

v = gt
=> v = 32.15 x 0.864
=> v(elocity) = 27.7776ft/s = 18.939mph

So it takes 0.864 seconds for an object to fall 12 feet in vacuum, and it will be traveling at 27.8ft/s once it reaches that distance.


This two got their figures independently of each other, and, as you can see, using different procedures. The small discrepancy (of about 0.06 ft/s) can be accounted for by WCIP's use of 32.15 for acceleration of gravity in feet, while MacMerdin used a rounded 32. To be further conservative with the figures, I'll go ahead and round it to 27.8 ft/s.


Momentum is calculated in kg m/s, so I'll go ahead and convert the masses and velocity to metric.

27.8 ft/s converted to meters per second:
27.8 x 0.3048 = 8.47344 m/s

45,000 tons converted to kilograms:
45,000 x 1016.05 = 45,722,250 kilograms

18,181 tons converted to kilograms:
18,181 x 1016.05 = 18,472,805.05 kilograms

20,210 tons (Load capacity based on Eager figures) converted to kg:
20,210 tons x 907.18474 (kg per 1 ton) = 18334203.5954 kg

11,075 tons (Load capacity based on Trumpman figures) converted to kg:
11,075 x 907.18474 = 10047070.9955 kg

For Eager figures:
8.47344 m/s x 45,722,250 kg = 387,424,742.04 kg m/s
while each floor could withstand 20,210 tons (18,334,203.6 kg) before 75% column failure.

For Trumpman figures:
8.47344 m/s x 18,472,805.05 kg = 156,528,205.222872 kg m/s
while each floor could withstand 11,075 tons (10,047,071 kg) before 75% column failure.

From here we can figure the force in newtons that would be exerted, but what we ultimately to know is how much force/momentum/etc. the average WTC1 floor could withstand before 75% column failure. Getting this figure doesn't seem to be so easy, but if anyone can help, it'd be much appreciated.

I don't know how representative this is of the final result, but just for kicks and giggles, look at the kg m/s and compare that to the amount of weight each floor could withstand.

Eager cap momentum in kg m/s divided among floors according to an average floor's capacity for weight before 75% failure in kg:
387,424,742.04 / 18334203.6 = 21.13 floors to stop the cap, assuming 1/4 of the steel on each floor provides 0 resistance (reality: all of it provided resistance), there's 12 feet of room for acceleration (there wasn't), the top floors are heavier than they actually were, and there's no resistance from air while accelerating (while, of course, there actually would have been).

Eager 10-floor block momentum in kg m/s divided among floors according to an average floor's capacity for weight before 75% failure in kg:
156,528,205.22 / 10047071 = 15.58 floors to stop the cap, assuming 1/4 of the steel on each floor provides 0 resistance, there's 12 feet of room for acceleration, the top floors are heavier than they actually were, and there's no resistance from air while accelerating.

This, again, assumes kg m/s and kg to be equivalent. I have no idea how relevant that is. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not a physicist, so maybe you guys can ask one. But if it is relevant, then the official story as you all know would be dead with those figures alone.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bob2000
Oh, I see. Your going to attempt to make me look stupid by criticising my terminology. lol. I guess that means your smarter than me becuase you are using correct terminology.

bob, I don't need to attempt to make you look stupid, you're doing a fine job all by yourself. But no, it doesn't mean I'm smarter than you, it means that someone like me who quite honestly doesn't know diddly-squat about aerodynamics somehow knows more than you who claim that you are an absolute expert, all the while insulting everybody as nastily as you can. Don't you find that just a little bit odd...bob? You seem to have enormous psychological issues with proving that you are smarter than everybody else. So let me ask you: How's puberty treating you, bob? Tough time, eh?


I guess you didnt read between the lines. Its obvious I see conspiracy theoriests as scientifically iliterate. Do you think Im going to use terms like that in my posts? no. Im speaking to laymen, so I have to use laymen terminology so you guys can "get" what Im talking about. I thought the quotes around my terms hinted at that. But I guess not.

Besides, its not the terminolgy that counts, its the number crunching that does. You can use technical terms all you want, and make your self seem like an expert, but it dont mean squat. Its the numbers that matter.

Well thank you for dumbing things down for us ignoramuses to understand, bob Sir. It's quite clear now that you used the wrong terminology not because you are unfamiliar with it, but simply because you know that you are dealing with your lessers who couldn't possibly understand huge ultra-scientific words like, oooh, "drag". Did I spell it right? Now why don't you actually go ahead and "crunch the numbers" to which you refer? You keep shooting off your big mouth about how stupid we are and how we are simply not in the league of a genius like you who is actually smart enough to work it all out, and yet you consistently fail to actually provide the numbers you reference. None of us here prance around proclaiming we know everything and everybody else is stupid. We simply post what we think and debate the content as is. Show me once where I, or in fact anybody else on EITHER side of the 9-11 fence has claimed that we are experts. Only you are so full of yourself, bob.

So, I'm calling your bluff here and now. I know extremely little about air resistance calculations, and I'll wager the same is true for most folks here, but YOU apparently are the expert. So go ahead and DO the calculations. Show us how much air resistance the structure and individual components would have encountered across the collapse and tell us what influence it would have had, if any, on the collapse times, and the distribution of debris. Here are the NIST reports on the buildings and collapses, which should have all the figures you need to work it out:
wtc.nist.gov...
We're not experts, we never claimed to be, but YOU do, bob. When I come across problems that I need assistance with, I U2U people who ARE experts like Valhall and ask for advice. But I'm sure you won't need that, because again, you're a scientific genius. So go ahead and show us. Put your money where your mouth is.

And once you've done that, tell us what resistance the structure beneath the caps on the WTC towers should have provided. We're not smart enough to figure it out, bob, and neither is NIST or FEMA, but YOU are. Please help the world out. Mankind needs your brain, bob!!


I dont think I really need to provide any quantitative evidence; Im not the one who claims to "know" the truth, nor do I claim Im "so scientific" in coming to my conclusion like you conspiracy theorists do.

That's a nice sidestep, but the thing is you DO claim to know the truth, bob. You have minced all over this thread claiming that you know the truth of the collapses, that the official story is correct, and that we are all stupid and know nothing. And now you are clearly dodging and trying to avoid actually providing ANYTHING quantitative to back up your claims of superiority and your claims that the official story is correct. In fact, in your second diatribe, the only quantitative thing you have provided is a 0.5 drag coefficient for your little hypothetical. Even I, knowing jack sheet about air resistance calculations, am aware that 0.5 is the drag coefficient for a spherical object, i.e. the simplest example possible provided for students who are just learning about aerodynamics in the first year of university or earlier, playing around with simplistic canon shot and ball drop simulation programs. Is that where you are, Scientist Bob?


As for my figure of 9.6468243 (rounded 7 decimal places) which is different than yours is based on the WTC being 456 meters tall. Ocording to the source I used, it stated that WTC1 was 456 meters tall. But I guess my source was wrong. However, my calculation is correct if that were its true height.

Well, whaddyaknow...it wasn't your fault after all, it was the source's fault! Who'da thunk it?



Besides, I stand by my statement that the conspiracy thoerists cant produce quantitative evidence.

Of which, you have provided NONE. We are just individual people trying to nut out the truth. You on the other hand, have all the resources and scientists of the United States government on your side, working to prove your version of the story night and day, $5,000,000 of FEMA whitewash, $20,000,000 and three years of NIST research, teams of shills on the Internet, and to top it off you're a God-damn genius...and whaddya got to show for it? NOTHING! You haven't provided anything in your posts but insults, pontifications about your own intellectual stature and scientific talent, the drag coefficient for a frikkin' soccer ball, and a simple free fall calculation that was completely and utterly wrong.


Originally posted by bob2000:
[edit on 15-12-2005 by bob2000]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by bob2000]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by bob2000]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by bob2000]


Are you telling me it took you FOUR edits to perfect that post, genius?? Oh, my...

[edit on 2005-12-16 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Those numbers are absolutely useless. Great job on figuring them out, though. Real investigative work, there. It's just too bad that you can't do squat with those figures in terms of proving or disproving demolition.



Hey it's a lot more than you have ever provided as far as numbers. The copy/pasting in your newest one included.

I put caveats saying that they were only rough calculations and that my numbers may be wrong. There's no need to be a jerk about it.


Your vaunted Mr. Trumpman has no problems using assumptions to get at his 200,000 ton figure.

First he assumes that the steel frame weighs 100,000 tons, then he says this.


Using an asserted 60/40 steel to concrete ratio, we find that the WTC 1 had 66,667 tons of concrete. Other researches have made estimates upwards to 90,000 tons.


He then uses and average of his made up figure, and what other researchers use.

He also refuses to calculate the force required for smoke to flow out windows. He assumes that only air pressure would pulverize concrete and says its pointless to do the other calculations.

Right.

If you believe my figures are wrong BSbray, show me some other figures and calculate the energy created by their fall. Trumpman does not even reference FEMA as you say, so his made up number is even less reliable.

Insults don't prove your point.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Maybe you missed the fact that the safety factor ratings make the weights totally irrelevant, anyway, eh? The given weight could be 2 kg per floor, and (if we had the amount of weight each floor could withstand before 75% failure) we could still find out when the momentum was depleted.

Next complaint? lol

Guys I'm going down to South Carolina for a few days so I'll bbl.




top topics



 
3
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join