In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

The same group of truthers disagree:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

They are of the opinion, and have proven it to any rational person, that the floor strength would determine the collapse speed, and that all physics laws are perfectly satisfied by the collapse speed.

Don't get too upset by their refutation of your erroneous beliefs however, they are still trying to back in a way to show that they were initiated with explosives, thermxte, or pixie dust.

So at the very least, you get to keep SOME of your delusional beliefs intact........

reply to post by iamcpc

I also notice that steel dropped from the top of the WTC towers would hit in 9.16 seconds after factoring the drag coeffecient of the air at sea level.

Does this statement factor in the time the steel would take to reach terminal velocity?

As obviously, a falling steel block does not reach terminal velocity immediately upon release, does it. Even if it were an aerodynamically shaped object, with little air resistance, it would not reach terminal velocity immediately.

Imagine holding a steel ball bearing and dropping it from a great height.
Would the steel ball attain a speed of over 1.5 thousand MPH the instant it left your fingers?

I think not.

reply to post by Joey Canoli
So I'm delusional my ideas (or ideals as I should say) are erroneous anything else?

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
if a massive crane hoisted the top 15 floors of the North Tower to the same height at which it sat on the morning of 9/11, and then released the top to fall unimpeded to the ground with nothing but air to block its way, it would have taken approximately 10 seconds to hit down.

not according to hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

It would fall in 9.1 seconds assuming it was made mostly of concrete and steel.

North Tower sitting under the damaged section of the building offered little more resistance to impede the speed of the Tower's collapse than air itself. This is another unequivocal impossibility.

Didn't you read my source that explained that the WTC towers were 95% air? When you say that you're acting like the wtc towers were 95% steel and collapsed like they were 95% air. Maybe the building offered little more resistance than air itself because it wsa 95% air?

cutter charges and explosives were placed throughout the core of the building, timed to explode and pop out sections of floors and beams to clear a path and create the vacuum that was necessary to account for the tumbling speed of the Twin Towers. .

Compare the WTC collapse to a demolition.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Two major differences.

The wtc towers were hit with airplanes and are on fire. The wtc towers have no audio evidence of explosions. No BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM like I hear in the demolitions.

If there were explosives what on earth kind of explosions can demolish a building and is totally silent?

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

So I'm delusional my ideas (or ideals as I should say) are erroneous anything else?

I don't think your theories are delusional. I also don't think they are erroneous. I don't even know if it's possible to have an erroneous theory. I also don't think the airplane fire theories are delusional. I don't know what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and I never will.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by iamcpc
The wtc towers were hit with airplanes and are on fire. The wtc towers have no audio evidence of explosions. No BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM like I hear in the demolitions.

If there were explosives what on earth kind of explosions can demolish a building and is totally silent?


The firefighters on the ground said otherwise....It would take mild explosions if thermite is used (which it was) that explains the molten metal in which jet fuel cannot melt steel...


Oh don't worry it wasn't you....It was Joey...I think.



en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 26-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by iamcpc

 

The wtc towers were hit with airplanes and are on fire. The wtc towers have no audio evidence of explosions. No BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM like I hear in the demolitions.

If there were explosives what on earth kind of explosions can demolish a building and is totally silent?


The firefighters on the ground said otherwise....It would take mild explosions if thermite is used (which it was) that explains the molten metal in which jet fuel cannot melt steel...


Oh don't worry it wasn't you....It was Joey...I think.

So thermite (instead of fire) was used to weaken steel and then small explosives were used to finish the steel off? I wonder if thermite would have detonated the explosives? I wonder what a thermite demolition looks like? I clearly need to find out more about thermite.

reply to post by iamcpc
I posted the link.
.
.
.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


Yeah they tell about thermite but I specifically want to know about thermite being used to demolish a building. Do any companies do thermite demolitions? Who can i e-mail or write a letter to to get some information about thermite and it's uses in demolition. I want to know if it's even possible to use thermite and explosives in the same demolition.

My 100% non-expert gut tells me that burning hot molten metal would be thrown all over the place, out the window, on the ceiling, everywhere.

reply to post by iamcpc
"My 100% non-expert gut tells me that burning hot molten metal would be thrown all over the place, out the window, on the ceiling, everywhere.".....Why? Anyways traces of thermite was at ground zero but you have to do a lot of digging to get that info.




www.rense.com...



[edit on 26-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

 

So I'm delusional my ideas (or ideals as I should say) are erroneous anything else?

Yeah.

Since you seem to think that your belief that physics laws were violated to be correct, why don't you read that thread, then convince us all that they're wrong, and you're right?

Ain't gonna happen, will it?

reply to post by Joey Canoli
I'm not really sure I understand
but whatever floats your boat, I can only say what the facts are and as phage says "Here's the facts distort them as you please"

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


I still need the source about gravity being off on 9/11/2001 and the source that explains in detail how energy was created and, if at all possible, a source that I e-mail or write a letter to to get some information about thermite and it's uses in demolition. I want to know if it's even possible to use thermite and explosives in the same demolition. If it's even possible to use thermite in a demolition or if thermite has ever been used in a demolition.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by iamcpc

 

I also notice that steel dropped from the top of the WTC towers would hit in 9.16 seconds after factoring the drag coeffecient of the air at sea level.

1. Does this statement factor in the time the steel would take to reach terminal velocity?

2. As obviously, a falling steel block does not reach terminal velocity immediately upon release, does it. Even if it were an aerodynamically shaped object, with little air resistance, it would not reach terminal velocity immediately.

3. Imagine holding a steel ball bearing and dropping it from a great height.
Would the steel ball attain a speed of over 1.5 thousand MPH the instant it left your fingers?

I think not.

1. yes

2. I never said that it would.

3. No it would not. I never said that it would.

Did you not look at my source? It assumes that the object is starting from a speed of 0 feet or meters per second. You put in the density of the object and the distance the object must fall. You also put in the drag coeffecient for the density of air at sea level. The object is not at terminal velocity when it hits the ground.

Feel free to look at the physics for yourself. Play with the source. THe free fall physics calculator!

I'll post it again since you conviently managed to miss it the first time.


hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

"Freefall From Specified Height"
"For an object falling from rest through air with quadratic drag"
"the motion parameters are usually expressed in terms of the terminal velocity"

[edit on 26-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.





[edit on 5/27/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

A potential energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the MASS in question is free to fall the DISTANCE in question. That means the distance must be EMPTY.

psik

It's quite obvious to anyone that reads that thread that OWE, femr2, Major Tom, etc tried to teach you your errors.

Why demonstrate again HERE that you have no idea what the "P" in PE means, nor how it is applied and used while doing physics calculations?

It is quite obvious that you need other people to make your point.

Tell us how an object falls though space that is not empty. And what the point is of doing a calculation through that non-empty space?

By the way, the Laws of Physics don't give a damn about Democracy.

We should demand that our engineering schools build a self-supporting structure such that the top 15% of the structure can be removed and raised 5% of the structures height then dropped and completely crush the rest. If they can't design and build it then what does that say about 9/11?

All the schools can do is talk. But they don't talk about the distributions of steel and concrete. Rather odd after EIGHT YEARS.

psik

[edit on 26-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

A potential energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the MASS in question is free to fall the DISTANCE in question. That means the distance must be EMPTY.

psik

It's quite obvious to anyone that reads that thread that OWE, femr2, Major Tom, etc tried to teach you your errors.

Why demonstrate again HERE that you have no idea what the "P" in PE means, nor how it is applied and used while doing physics calculations?

It is quite obvious that you need other people to make your point.

Tell us how an object falls though space that is not empty. And what the point is of doing a calculation through that non-empty space?

Quite the opposite. It's quite obious that you need other people to make your point. If you used other people then you would realize that you're so obviously wrong. You have yet to cite a source that says the WTC towers had no potential energy which leads me to believe there is not one because the WTC towers DID have potential energy.

Did you not look at my source? The middle school physics site?

FALLING OBJECT= Kinetic energy
OBJECT THAT CAN FALL=Potential energy

merriam-webster dictionary
www.merriam-webster.com...
"the energy that a piece of matter has because of its position or nature"

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is quite obvious that you need other people to make your point.

My point is, that if your friends there can't convince you where you're wrong, that there's no point in trying to educate you until you admit your errors.

Tell us how an object falls though space that is not empty.

By overcoming the resistance provided by the object that is there.

And what the point is of doing a calculation through that non-empty space?

To determine if the ke is sufficent to satisfy my above answer.

By the way, the Laws of Physics don't give a damn about Democracy.

By the way, Shemp and Joe were the 4th and 5th Stooge.

We should demand that our engineering schools build a self-supporting structure such that the top 15% of the structure can be removed and raised 5% of the structures height then dropped and completely crush the rest. If they can't design and build it then what does that say about 9/11?

I think you meant can't destroy the bottom?

Yeah, cuz that happens in real life.

All the schools can do is talk.

They've also been known to teach. Too bad you missed that bit, eh?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is quite obvious that you need other people to make your point.

1. My point is, that if your friends there can't convince you where you're wrong, that there's no point in trying to educate you until you admit your errors.

Tell us how an object falls though space that is not empty.

2. By overcoming the resistance provided by the object that is there.

And what the point is of doing a calculation through that non-empty space?

3. To determine if the ke is sufficent to satisfy my above answer.

We should demand that our engineering schools build a self-supporting structure such that the top 15% of the structure can be removed and raised 5% of the structures height then dropped and completely crush the rest. If they can't design and build it then what does that say about 9/11?

4. I think you meant can't destroy the bottom?

5. Yeah, cuz that happens in real life.

All the schools can do is talk.

1. They aren't my friends. Internet aquaintances at most.

2. But overcoming that resistance would require energy. It would have to be subtracted from your supposed Potential Energy calculation. So if you don't know the energy required to overcome the resistance your so called PE calcultation is nonsense anyway.

3. How can you get the above answer when you don't even know the mass of the obstruction. YOur schools can't tell us the steel and concrete on every level of WTC 1 & 2.

4. I said "the rest", the meaning was obvious.

5. Then they shouldn't have any trouble making a model duplicate the behavior.

6. So if they can teach then why cn't they tell us the distributions of steel and concrete after EIGHT YEARS. Why do we need a Swedish software engineer to come up with a table that is WRONG?

If what they teach corresponds to reality then they should have been able to make a physical model duplicate the behavior long ago. But instead Purdue made a simulation where the core columns don't move under the plane's impact. That is educational alright. LOL

www.youtube.com...

Curious that I haven't noticed any other schools pointing out something that obvious.

Here is a complicated lesson on potential energy.

www.youtube.com...

Notice how the masses need EMPTY SPACE beneath for the potential energy to be released. Multiplying mass time height when the height is not empty space is a physics absurdity.

psik

[edit on 27-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]