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.

 

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Did you read what I have posted?... i never said the top portion of the building did not tilt....


Ah, ok. Then you are simply not addressing the same thing we are, and effectively avoiding the topic completely. I don't think you really understand what we're saying, honestly, because that interview has nothing to do with it.




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Now give me a quote from an engineer explaining the sudden lose of moment that the cap underwent and i'll start believing. I'm actually asking for more info as I've not done an indepth structural analysis as these other engineers have. Thanks in advance if you can provide that info.

editted to add: I fixed my messed up thread.
edit: poor spelling
[edit on 15-11-2005 by MacMerdin]


Here it is.


THE COLLAPSE
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


Excerpted from.
www.tms.org...



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Ok...he makes sense in what he says. I'd like to point out though that in one of your quotes (I think) it says that the temperature and heat where different in different parts of the floors. Now this would account for a toppling effect of the cap....but I asked for an explanation of the cap suddenly falling straight down when it was toppling. That would take the columns bowing at the same time, practically making the cap free fall down and stop toppling.

The domino effect still doesn't explain WTC7. As it didn't fall in the classic domino effect but the classic controlled explosion effect...i.e. starting with the folcrum at the middle and the outer walls falling in on the rest of the building...classic demolition style. Does Eagar have ANYTHING to say about this?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Ok...he makes sense in what he says. I'd like to point out though that in one of your quotes (I think) it says that the temperature and heat where different in different parts of the floors. Now this would account for a toppling effect of the cap....but I asked for an explanation of the cap suddenly falling straight down when it was toppling. That would take the columns bowing at the same time, practically making the cap free fall down and stop toppling.

The domino effect still doesn't explain WTC7. As it didn't fall in the classic domino effect but the classic controlled explosion effect...i.e. starting with the folcrum at the middle and the outer walls falling in on the rest of the building...classic demolition style. Does Eagar have ANYTHING to say about this?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by MacMerdin]


Remember that wtc7 was hit by the falling debris from the twin towers, taking a portion of the bottom of wtc7 and sending burning debris and burning fuel into wtc7 which is the most probable cause it collapsed.

Because the bottom of wtc7 was weaker due to the hole produced from the collapse from the twin towers into the bottom of wtc7, and because probably that hole allowed more burning debris and burning fuel to enter through that hole weakening even more the redundant structure of wtc7, it collapsed not from the top to the bottom, but from the bottom, or near the bottom, up.

This picture doesn't give a full detail of the damage to the bottom of wtc7 because of the angle of the picture, but gives an idea of how wtc7 was damaged.



In the following link, in page 17 which I have given a couple of times already, you will find diagrams on how the twin towers hit wtc7 opening a hole near the bottom, or at the bottom of the building.

www.fema.gov...


[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings


How does this explain why the angular momentum disappeared?

First, it suggests that, as a result of the massive amount of weight bearing down from the tilting caps, the buildings began falling symmetrically at an incredibly rate. Maybe you can explain to me how columns on the opposite side of the tower gave way at the exact same time as the side that was being bore down upon, and by what miracle this symmetricality was maintained the whole way down, with no apparent ritards, as the collapse descended into thicker and thicker columns.

Secondly, it assumes that the caps stayed intact all the way down, thus providing a plunger of sorts for the rest of the building. The caps did in fact not stay intact. Far from it, they were utterly destroyed and ejected laterally with all the other debris as the collapses progressed. So what continued to drive the buildings downward?



Also note that when the cap began to disintegrate, it suddenly exerted that much less force upon the rest of the building as it fell. As something falls apart, it isn't going to have the same force when it lands upon something else, because the pieces are going to bounce off here and there instead of more directly impacting. That's on top the massive amounts of energy that would've been exerted and thereby lost to crush each floor on the way down. Energy that, apaprently, could never deplete, as the buildings had no trouble going and going and going into thicker and thicker and thicker columns until the base was reached without slowing down. Have we finally found free energy in catching skyscrapers on fire?

I would make a comment into how it suggests the angular momentum was lost, but it doesn't really. It just repeats the standard official line, really. The floors below would somehow have to be crushed by the caps, without caps touching them, because this contact with the fulcrum would continue the momentum. I don't really see how it addresses the problem itself, but just, as I said, repeats an official line.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ah, ok. Then you are simply not addressing the same thing we are, and effectively avoiding the topic completely. I don't think you really understand what we're saying, honestly, because that interview has nothing to do with it.


Yes i did, several times i posted the same links, and excerpts even giving my own input, addressing specifically why the top floors fell at an angle at first, but lost the momentum of that angle when the combined mass of debris fell on the floors below the point of impact of the plane, creating a domino effect as the floors buckled under the total weight of the 10 floors falling on the rest of the floors of the building/s.

You are simply trying to disregard the evidence I have been providing, because it does not fit with your preconcieved idea that "something else must have happened."



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib





Do you know if that was taken after the first collapse or the second? If the damage in that picture was caused by debris from the towers, I very much doubt it would be enough to take out the numerous steel support beams, even though we can't see the full extent of the damage from that angle. What about the reports of molten steel in the basement?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
---edited for double posts-----

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Muaddib, would the structer not be weaker on one side than the other?

In my mind, this would cause it too fall to the side and not down. Remember they say that the foam that protects the steel was 'ripped' off with the impact however the plane didn't smash all the way through. If you take it from a side view and look at it in your mind wouldn't you expect the most likely event to be it folding over and the top parts buckling out instead of directly down?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

How does this explain why the angular momentum disappeared?

First, it suggests that, as a result of the massive amount of weight bearing down from the tilting caps, the buildings began falling symmetrically at an incredibly rate.


They fell "nearly symmetrically", it is impossible for such a large structure to fall "symmetrically," there are too many variables.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe you can explain to me how columns on the opposite side of the tower gave way at the exact same time as the side that was being bore down upon, and by what miracle this symmetricality was maintained the whole way down, with no apparent ritards, as the collapse descended into thicker and thicker columns.



Because of the way these towers were built, the momentum of the initial tilt was lost once enough columns lost their integrity and made the redundant structure of the entire floors fail. Remember that even when part of the columns buckle, they are still attached to the rest of the columns that are still standing, hence making them collapse because the entire weight that fell from the initial collapse, the total weight of the 10 floors that collapsed initially in a tilt, was far higher than the amount of weight the remaining of the columns could support, taking with them everything that was still standing and causing a dominoe effect as the total mass of the top floors fell on each one of the bottom floors.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Secondly, it assumes that the caps stayed intact all the way down, thus providing a plunger of sorts for the rest of the building. The caps did in fact not stay intact. Far from it, they were utterly destroyed and ejected laterally with all the other debris as the collapses progressed. So what continued to drive the buildings downward?



Also note that when the cap began to disintegrate, it suddenly exerted that much less force upon the rest of the building as it fell. As something falls apart, it isn't going to have the same force when it lands upon something else, because the pieces are going to bounce off here and there instead of more directly impacting.


That is true only when small pieces fall upon a larger object, but when enough weight falls upon something else, most of the falling mass will not bounce off since there is not enough resistance to stop the fall.


Originally posted by bsbray11
That's on top the massive amounts of energy that would've been exerted and thereby lost to crush each floor on the way down. Energy that, apaprently, could never deplete, as the buildings had no trouble going and going and going into thicker and thicker and thicker columns until the base was reached without slowing down. Have we finally found free energy in catching skyscrapers on fire?


With every floor collapsing due to the amount of weight from the above floors falling, you add more weight to the total mass of debris falling down.... There is no free energy involved in this.....

Perhaps you should brush up on the conservation laws of physics, and perhaps you should also think over at what happens to the momentum of a mass of falling debris, when more and more falling debris is added with each floor that collapses....



Originally posted by bsbray11
I would make a comment into how it suggests the angular momentum was lost, but it doesn't really. It just repeats the standard official line, really. The floors below would somehow have to be crushed by the caps, without caps touching them, because this contact with the fulcrum would continue the momentum. I don't really see how it addresses the problem itself, but just, as I said, repeats an official line.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by bsbray11]


......it is not repeating the "official line" as you are trying to portray it....

There was an overstress even on the adjacent surviving columns which made them fail and collapse with the rest of the columns. i don't think you can understand the amount of weight that we are talking about in here collpasing upon the floors below.


Anyways, I have to go, my shift is done and I don't have time to revise what I wrote until tomorrow morning. i will continue responding tomorrow, as we don't have any internet connection in our living quaters and I am working in a rig in the middle of nowhere.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Here it is.

Excerpted from.
www.tms.org...




Thomas Eagar, like many unscrupulous politicians, has ridden on the back of the 9-11 disaster in order to increase his own fame in academic and industrial circles. He has consistently changed his stance, both in regards to the general collapse mode of the towers, and many other smaller details. He lets other people and other teams do the research for him and then changes his tune to match theirs when he is proven wrong by other researchers on both sides of the collapse argument. He originally started out with the "pancake hypothesis", then modified it to the "truss zipper hypothesis", and has recently changed his tune, once again, to match with NIST's column failure hypothesis. He uses intellectually dishonest tactics, such as graphics in his articles misrepresenting the true construction of the towers to support his repetitions of the latest version of the official story. E.g: the now infamous columnless "pancake core":



Here's what it really looked like:



Eagar is nothing but a record, play and repeat apparatus for the official story.

Let's take a quick look at what was posted earlier:


Eagar states:
www.tms.org...
THE COLLAPSE
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The term "allows for loss of one primary structural member" is deceptive. Buildings can and do survive with loss of multiple structural members. They are specifically designed to do so. Mr. Eagar has also not bothered to do the demand-capacity ratio calculations and show exactly how much load was redistributed to the other support components. Therefore what he has presented here is conjecture without doing the math to prove his statements.


Eagar states:
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant.


As was the core. The core and the perimeter each shared 50% of the gravitational load. Mr Eagar neglects to mention the core at all in his hypothesis - 47 huge columns which had the same load-bearing capacity as the 459 perimeter columns combined.


Eagar states:
It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures.

Again, conjecture. He offers zero evidence to support the intensity and extent of the fires. NIST conducted tests on the steel from the wreckage and found no steel support members that had undergone exposure to temperatures higher than 600C for any significant time, and no core columns that had undergone temperatures in excess of 250C. The physical evidence of the steel tested is in direct contradiction to NIST's crystal ball computer modelling which projected temperatures in the 800-1000C range for extended periods of time, and is in in direct contradiction to Mr. Eagar's conjecture.


NIST WTC 1-3 Structural Steel p132
Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time for the recovered pieces.

Perimeter columns exposed to fire had a great tendency for local buckling of the inner web; a similar correlation did not exist for weld failure.

Two of the core columns with as-built locations in the fire-affected floors were examined for paint cracking. The few areas with sufficient paint for analysis did not show mud cracking patterns, indicating the columns did not exceed 250 °C.



Eagar states:
Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

Mr Eagar does not specifically state who these structural engineers who "believe" the angle clips were weak, and that they were the only component fixing the trusses to the columns. This is pivotal to the government deception. The claim that entire floors of these massive buildings were simply resting on small angle clips is ludicrous. Mr Eager and the government "forget" to mention the 24 x 18 inch metal plates that were covered with shear studs and also set in the concrete slab. These plates, together with the 6 foot long diagonal bars and the welded and bolted truss connections, provided a strong connection between the floor slab and the perimeter wall. The plates are the dark rectangular objects along the perimeter wall in this photo:



Again he mentions the redundancy of the support members, however he cites the 1,300t figure without specifying which floor he is referring to. The required load-bearing capacity of each floor is different. Furthermore, stating the entire 500,000t weight of the building is irrelevant and deceptive - what matters is the weight of the structure above the failure point.


Eagar states:
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell.


WRONG The outer columns bowed inward. Video and picture evidence clearly shows this. Mr Eagar once again demonstrates that he hasn't done the research to back up his claims. The fact that his statement regarding the outward bowing of columns is the complete opposite of what was observed implies that he is making things up to fit his story. Come on, Thomas! Put down that Big Mac and do some research!


Eagar states:
This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds...

Mr Eagar has jumped from collapse initiation directly to the end of the collapse. The only attempt he makes to describe the collapse mechanism is a "domino effect".

* Nowhere does he mention that the 'caps' were disintegrated by less than half way down the building,
* Nowhere does he address the energy deficit in the complete destruction of the towers down to the very pavement, the pulverization of the concrete into micro-dust, and the disproportionate expansion of the dust cloud.
* Nowhere does he address the increased strength of the structure the closer to the foundation, and the fact that the increased resistance of this added no significant amount to the time of the collapse.


Eagar states:
If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds...


WRONG. WTC1 was 1368ft (417m tall). Taking g = 9.8m/s^2, the free fall collapse would have taken 9.22s. This brings the figure much closer to the actual time of the collapse, further reducing the apparent resistance provided by the undamaged, unweakened structure beneath the collapse. That extra 1.22 seconds is a life time to a physicist or engineer, particularly in this instance of studying these collapses. Mr Eagar again shows that he has not bothered to do even the simplest calculations, nor even to check the height of the damn buildings to back up his repetition of the official story.


Eagar states:
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.

This statement is needless repetition of a given. All buildings can implode, but there are reasons why they don't. Also Mr Eagar's statement here actually refutes the stance that the caps were able to destroy the buildings below them. The cap is as easily imploded as the building below it. The problem arises once the cap is destroyed and no longer acting as a rigid structure to grind and crush the structure underneath, which effect can be observed in video and photographic images of the collapse. The official story hinges on the structure above being massive and indestructible, and the structure beneath being weak and offering little to no resistance.

Hoffman states:

911research.wtc7.net...
Describing one of the the WTC towers as "a building that is mostly air" sounds profound but is no more valid than saying that atoms are mostly empty space, and so matter should collapse or implode at any provocation. It is a clever rhetorical flourish that does a great injustice to the structural integrity of these buildings, implying that they were houses of cards waiting to tumble down. In fact they were very rigid and had far more compressional strength than needed to avoid collapse. Each core had 47 steel box columns, all interconnected with steel plates at each floor, and trussed box columns at the corners that can be seen in the picture above supporting construction cranes. The outer "tube" comprised 256 14" square steel box columns tied together with 52" tall steel plates at each floor.



Eagar states:
Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

No one is claiming that the caps would have tipped over like a glass on a table. Of course this is impossible. However the caps were observed to be rotating and then stopped, showing that the structure both beneath and above was no longer acting as a single, rigid structure, again refuting the crushing action of the cap being able to destroy the entire building down to the very pavement.

Secondly, Eagar does not address the fact that collapse of anything in the wide universe occurs in accordance with the principle of the path of minimum resistance. The rotation of the cap proves that the collapse initially occurred non-uniformly, meaning that regions of the structure beneath collapsed faster than others. The momentum of the rotating cap would have continued in the same direction, and the a large portion of it would have slewed off to the side, unless the resistance of the lower structure was suddenly nullified. The only explanation for this uniform and simultaneous loss of resistance is that the lower regions were being destroyed by a force other than the descending cap. "Boom! Boom! Boom! Every floor popping out like they had detonators or something", is I believe what FDNY witnesses said.


This above was just after a casual glance over of Mr Eagar's "work". More detailed analyses can be seen here:

911research.wtc7.net...

hawaii.indymedia.org...

[edit on 2005-11-15 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Remember that wtc7 was hit by the falling debris from the twin towers, taking a portion of the bottom of wtc7 and sending burning debris and burning fuel into wtc7 which is the most probable cause it collapsed.

This picture doesn't give a full detail of the damage to the bottom of wtc7 because of the angle of the picture, but gives an idea of how wtc7 was damaged.



It has been explained that the damage in that photo to the South West corner was between the 8th and 18th floor, not to the bottom, as was stated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which body has been charged with explaining the collapses. It has been explained how structures redistribute load and that the building would easily have compensated for this relatively minor damage.


In the following link, in page 17 which I have given a couple of times already, you will find diagrams on how the twin towers hit wtc7 opening a hole near the bottom, or at the bottom of the building.

www.fema.gov...


Here is page 17 from that document:



Which picture exactly are you referring to which supposedly shows a hole at the bottom of WTC7?

[edit on 2005-11-15 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
FYI as to the credibility of Steven Jones.

It seems that he was involved in the cold fusion debacle back in 1989.

blake.montclair.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

partners.nytimes.com...

Based on his close association with that fiasco, I would say that his credibility is somewhat suspect.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Steven Jones paper was "Accepted for Publication"




Accepted for publication:

Steven E. Jones, (2006). “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?,” The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.


Who is Elsevier?


The research is founded on analyzing society in a manner consistent with classical Marxism. International in scope, the annual volumes deal primarily with economic and political issues and the unity between them. Both theoretical and empirical works are included. While published papers must be appropriate for developing class analysis of society, they need not be explicitly Marxist.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Can anyone clarify what Jones means in this particular sentance from his "paper?"


The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.


That makes no sense whatsoever.

If I was a student or a graduate of BYU that had to take a class taught by this bozo, I would demand my money back.

He is a laughing stock.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
FYI as to the credibility of Steven Jones.

It seems that he was involved in the cold fusion debacle back in 1989.


Attack the person and not the material.

A 2-second scan of one of those links:


partners.nytimes.com...
Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons.


Above I pointed out numerous mistakes from Thomas Eager, some of them in Junior high school level physics. By the reasoning of the credibility attack tactic, Mr Eagar's statements can be wholly and completely dismissed as total bunkum without further analysis.

[edit on 2005-11-15 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
They fell "nearly symmetrically", it is impossible for such a large structure to fall "symmetrically," there are too many variables.


Pretty perfect as far as buildings go. You couldn't do better with demolition charges.
Those collapses were freaky symmetrical.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe you can explain to me how columns on the opposite side of the tower gave way at the exact same time as the side that was being bore down upon



Because of the way these towers were built, the momentum of the initial tilt was lost once enough columns lost their integrity and made the redundant structure of the entire floors fail.


Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
That's sort of not at all what I was asking about.


Remember that even when part of the columns buckle, they are still attached to the rest of the columns that are still standing, hence making them collapse because the entire weight that fell from the initial collapse, the total weight of the 10 floors that collapsed initially in a tilt, was far higher than the amount of weight the remaining of the columns could support, taking with them everything that was still standing and causing a dominoe effect as the total mass of the top floors fell on each one of the bottom floors.


Maybe you didn't get what I said.

I asked why did both sides of the building begin collapsing together, symmetrically, when all the weight of the tilt was pushing down on one side? If they fell the way you explain, the opposite side would have fall after the side being bore down upon. That wasn't the case. The building fell floor-by-floor symmetrically from side to side. Your explanation here makes no sense in the light of that, because your explanation would require an uneven collapse.


That is true only when small pieces fall upon a larger object, but when enough weight falls upon something else, most of the falling mass will not bounce off since there is not enough resistance to stop the fall.


As much as 80% of the masses of the buildings was thrown outside of the footprints, with the centers of gravity still being within the footprints.



With every floor collapsing due to the amount of weight from the above floors falling, you add more weight to the total mass of debris falling down.... There is no free energy involved in this.....


So you're saying the energy, the massive amount of potential energy stored in the caps, was duplicated upon every single floor's shattering in order to keep the collapse going at the speed it was. Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid, without being some kind of magical free-energy device. The "added weight" of the newly-shattered floors, aside from being mostly ejected outwards, was also nowhere near the energy the building's collapse started with. You can't possibly expect it to have been.


Perhaps you should brush up on the conservation laws of physics, and perhaps you should also think over at what happens to the momentum of a mass of falling debris, when more and more falling debris is added with each floor that collapses....


I think our disagreement stems from your misunderstanding, not mine. I'm not sure you completely grasp some of the problems here. In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't, but you try to respond anyway, without fully understanding the problems we're presenting, or even why we see them as problems.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
His research into the facts is alos woefully incomplete.


Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)



The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.


Metalugists have studied the "partially evaporated" steel and have determined that is was caused by a Eutectic reaction. The hot corrosion of the steel was casued by exposure to sulfur, a component of gypsum (drywall).



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I would like to just repost these pictures of the inward bowing of the exterior faces of both towers shortly before they each respectively collapsed.



and



Please note that what is significant about these photos is that they show the failure of not just a few columns, but the buckling failure of an entire structural system, namely the exterior wall column structure.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
He is also woefully wrong in this statement

5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower collapse:

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)


NIST looked at all of the available evidence and determined:


Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed.

page 235



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join