Creative Speculation
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
whitefordmd
(102 posts)Do you believe WTC 1 & 2 fell at near free fall? The nitwit in the video apparently thinks so.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)nitwits think there was nothing unusual about the speed of those three building's collapses that day.
whitefordmd
(102 posts)unremarkable once you understand the collapse process. Itself unremarkable once it is understood.
The speed of WTC 7 is a bit remarkable, (it's not at free fall but unexpectedly fast in my opinion) but not inexplicable once it is understood.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)at free fall for a short time so I guess you need to study up. None of those collapses were remarkable! To the scientifically ignorant!
whitefordmd
(102 posts)Link please
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)look it up. 
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)"The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity"
They only admitted this after a high school physics professor challenged them on it.
whitefordmd
(102 posts)Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you there was free fall which you apparently didn't know.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)... which was after the structure had already descended about 7 feet, something like this:
Tell me again, how much resistance do you and Gage's "experts" expect from a broken column?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you're talking about one column out of 47 massive columns the get larger and larger as they go down to the base of the building! Undamaged columns I will ad. Tell me again why you avoid facts like they are the plague?
William Seger
(11,040 posts)... collapsing in quick succession after the interior structure had collapsed between the 5th and 13th floors, which was what was going on during the 6+ seconds after column 79 and the east penthouse collapsed. And then I'm talking about what happened after the shell fell 7 feet at less than freefall during the first 1.75 seconds: Columns on those 8 floors buckled because they no longer had lateral restraint, and then they broke at the splices, which were at every other floor. Broken columns would have zero resistance, which explains the freefall, and you don't need explosives to break them. Gage claims it looked exactly like a CD, but then he ignores the actual details of what it actually looked like (never mind what it sounded like). The NIST hypothesis fits those observations, whereas his CD hypothesis simply does not, because if explosives had taken out the columns, the freefall would have begun immediately, not after descending 7 feet. Now, I personally attribute Gage's claims to his intellectual dishonesty while some attribute it to stupidity, but really, it doesn't matter so who cares.
BTW, debating tip: accusing someone of avoiding facts is an especially bad way to try to avoid facts.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)it's stilll bullshit! I'm talking about the 47 interior massive core columns. That get larger the closer to the ground you get. They were completely undamaged and built with 5x redundancy. They had to be compromised for the buildings to collapse completely in less than 12 seconds each with the towers and under 7 with #7. And then there's the fact of molten steel weeks after. Your only course is to deny what many actually witnessed! But no one is falling for your specious sophistry.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The vast majority of Americans, and the world, have moved on, your little crusade of CT bullshit is done, no one cares.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)that's just your opinion based on your authoritarian acceptance of the official conspiracy theory and probably some JREF quacks sophistry. More people question the official conspiracy theory every day the more they take time to look at the event closely as can be seen by the growing number of architects and engineers signing up for AE911truth. Now over 2450 and growing! No matter your opinion, that fact remains. Look next week and there will be even more! So obviously many do care. Which just shows your ignorance of the situation.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Meanwhile, in the real world, nobody cares about you and your tinfoil hat types CT nuttiness.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you and many others here care enough to keep coming back trying to suppress those who don't fall for the official conspiracy theory! Many for at least a decade now! Yeah that's not caring alright! 
No wonder you've fallen for the bullshit!
greyl
(22,997 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:31 AM - Edit history (1)
Haribo Gummi Candy Gold-Bears, 5-Pound Bag at Amazon, just to help put things in perspective. They appear to have more wit and wisdom than the stuff expelled by the AE911truth frauds.edit: More impressive, 26,754 people have left 5 star reviews for the Cards Against Humanity card game at Amazon. (roughly equating the count of reviews on Amazon with the count of AE911 "subscribers"
JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)William Seger
(11,040 posts)We don't need to explain things that didn't happen. "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is an irrelevant observation if there wasn't any molten steel, and there is not a single shred of actual evidence proving there was any molten steel found in any of the buildings. Instead of actual evidence, Cole presents several "examples" which he must know are abject bullshit: the beam that was eutectically corroded at only 1000oC; the "meteorite" of compressed (not melted) debris (including unburned scraps of paper); the "melted" guns which actually show no signs of melting (the original claim was that the concrete around them had been melted). These examples are so disingenuous that deliberate fraud is the only explanation for throwing them in, and the only remaining "evidence" is people who simply guessed that the molten metal they were seeing was steel, not aluminum or lead or even glass.
Here's your chance to prove me wrong, Johny: Where is there any actual evidence of molten steel?
JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)Considering that Bechtel safety engineers who were on site to provide assistance in the recovery and clean up wrote in a report:
The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm
More than 2800F, would presumably be enough to melt construction steel, and since these were underground temps measured in the debris pile after the initiating event, presumably the combustion process would now be oxygen starved meaning that initially the temperatures would have been way higher.
By the way, what do you think of Cole's opinion that even simply weakening of the steel on a few of the upper floors by jet fuel and office fires could not possibly have been enough to cause the entire building collapse in the manner observed on the numerous videos posted on Youtube etc.
I understand that NIST has postulated that about 5 or 6 or so floors collapsed around the level where the planes had hit and the fires had occurred, and this was the initiating event of the collapse sequence.
Interestingly enough the engineering and scientific geniuses at NIST, didn't seek to further explain the observed behaviour of the building from that point on (i.e. after collapse initiation), but weaseled out of providing any further explanation by simply referring interested persons to a paper written by a Dr. Zdenek Bazant.
Dr. Bazant's in his paper posited a bizarre "crush-down crush-up" collapse in which the upper portion of the building (largely undamaged and roughly 20 or so stories) falling through the damaged 5 or so stories (where the steel had been weakened by the jet fuel and office fires) then proceeded to act as a pile driver on the much larger and sturdier built lower portion of the building. (The constriction steal in the columns got significantly thicker and stronger the closer you got to ground level.) Once the top section had pile driven itself all the way to ground level, it then suffered a supposed "crush-up" collapse where it destroyed itself from the ground up, leaving just the smoking ruins.
Apparently Dr. Bazant for all his high falluting qualifications never took Physics 101 (or maybe it was so long he forgot the material covered in his "Intro to Basic Physics" course) and forgot about Newton's Laws of Motion and more specifically Newton's 3rd Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." According to the 3rd law whatever forces were acting on the lower part of the building caused by the falling 20 story section, equal forces would have to have been acting on the falling section itself.
So, according to Newton, if the lower section of the building was being destroyed by the falling top section, the falling top section itself would also be destroyed in an "equal and opposite reaction" - only at an even quicker rate than the bottom section was being destroyed, since the steel in the top section was lighter and weaker than the steel used in the bottom section. So unless Newton had made a pretty fundamental mistake, which no scientist or engineer in the last 300 years has noticed, the pile driving top section should have demolished itself by the time it fell through and destroyed the lower 20 stories directly below the damaged section, and at that point the collapse process would have ground to a halt.
Talking about liars and frauds, the NIST engineers and their partner in obfuscastion and misdirection, Bazant, seem to fit the bill quite well themselves.
For a more detailed analysis of Bazant's theory see:
NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE
The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. He can be contacted at gordonjross@yahoo.com.
INTRODUCTION
The NIST enquiry into the destruction of the WTC to wers purported to be an examination of the physical evidence. The final report includes commentary upon much of the physical evidence available from this examination but concentrates upon the time period prior to the onset of the collapse. The report does not go into much detail of the period of the collapse itself but instead relies upon the theoretical work of Dr. Bazant, to argue that once collapse was initiated then total collapse was inevitable.
SNIP
The columns of the upper section were manufactured from lighter material commensurate with their design requirements and the ability of these columns would likely be more affected by aircraft impact and subsequent fires, than columns at lower levels. This factor would suggest that deflections and thus energy demands are likely to occur preferentially in the upper section.
Thus we can see that, in reality, the energy of the falling upper section of the tower would not be utilised to crush only one storey of the tower, but would in fact be distributed throughout the upper section as well as storeys in the lower section. Energy would be absorbed over many more storeys than the first impacted storey of the lower section.
This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction. To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This
scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down - crush up" theory.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf
William Seger
(11,040 posts)Yes, it would, but since that temperature would be completely unexpected in the debris pile, shouldn't we first verify that claim before presuming anything, much less presuming a preposterously implausible controlled demolition? The only known reports of temperature readings taken from a helicopter were those done by the USGS:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
It was 800F, not 2800F, so there is no reason to expect to find any molten steel in the debris pile; so we shouldn't be surprised that there is no actual evidence that any was found. We don't need to explain things that didn't happen.
Cole's opinion is based on ignorance and faulty analysis having virtually nothing to do with happened. It really isn't hard to understand why the buildings collapsed, unless you're determined not to, and physicists and structural engineers who know what they're talking about can explain it pretty well. You should look into it.
> Dr. Bazant's in his paper posited a bizarre "crush-down crush-up" collapse in which the upper portion of the building (largely undamaged and roughly 20 or so stories) falling through the damaged 5 or so stories (where the steel had been weakened by the jet fuel and office fires) then proceeded to act as a pile driver on the much larger and sturdier built lower portion of the building. (The constriction steal in the columns got significantly thicker and stronger the closer you got to ground level.) Once the top section had pile driven itself all the way to ground level, it then suffered a supposed "crush-up" collapse where it destroyed itself from the ground up, leaving just the smoking ruins.
Bullshit. I have yet to talk to a "truther" who understands much of anything about the Bazant paper(s), but since you're regurgitating bullshit from "truther" sites, we need to get the facts straight first: The Bazant analysis that NIST referred to did not include the "bizarre crush-down crush-up" model. There's nothing "bizarre" about that model to people who understand it (so you're admitting that you don't), but it's irrelevant anyway because Bazant did not publish that model until after the NIST report was published. The analysis NIST referred to was simply an argument about energy: There was no way for the building structure to absorb the kinetic energy unleashed by that much falling mass. If you want to dispute that argument, I'm afraid you will first need to learn what it is. After 14 years, nobody has ever refuted that energy argument on valid technical grounds (including Gordon Ross, but more about him later). As you demonstrate, "truthers" typically try to avoid that energy argument by trying to switch to an irrelevant argument about the irrelevant crush-down/crush-up model -- and then they try to argue against that by completely misrepresenting it, as you then go on to demonstrate:
I realize you're only parroting the bullshit you've read on "truther" sites, so don't take this personally, but some people who took Physics 101 and then think they're qualified to argue with one of the world's foremost theoreticians in structural mechanics are apparently unafraid of looking like complete idiots. All they succeed in demonstrating is that knowing Newton's Third Law and applying it correctly in a given situation are two completely different things. What Bazant's model took into account (and what you and Gage's "experts" are ignoring) is that there were three sections interacting, not two: the bottom, the falling top, and the debris layer between them which was also falling and which got larger with each consumed floor. Yes, the forces at the boundary between the debris layer and the bottom were equal and opposite, and so were the forces between the debris layer and the top, but those two boundaries were not equal to each other. The difference was the mass and momentum of the debris layer itself, which your Physics 101 graduates seem to think disappeared into an alternate universe. People who don't understand that are manifestly unqualified to debate a bright high school student, much less Dr. Bazant. But again, debating Bazant's crush-down/crush-up model is completely irrelevant to NIST's referencing his energy argument, anyway. If the issue is whether or not the building should have been expected to halt the collapse, it simply doesn't matter whether or not the top block remained intact, so there's no point in arguing about it. All that mattered was the amount of kinetic energy release by the falling mass, and how much the structure could absorb, and Bazant's argument is overwhelmingly accepted within the structural engineering community, Gage's handful of crackpots notwithstanding. If they want to attempt to refute it, they'll need more than imaginary physics.
And yet, the best you can do to support that slander is abject bullshit.
Ross made a big splash on the 2007 "truther" scene with a paper claiming that "momentum transfer" during the collapse should have dissipated the kinetic energy that Bazant says should have destroyed the structure. To support that argument, Ross presented an "energy balance" analysis showing energy sources and sinks. It was an interesting analysis, at least until several people noticed a glaring error: He had one value for the energy lost in the inelastic collision, and then other values for energy lost in bending steel and pulverizing concrete. The problem is, the energy lost in the inelastic collision was the energy that went into deforming the steel and pulverizing concrete -- that's why that energy was lost -- so he was counting the same energy twice. With that error corrected, his energy balance argument actually showed that the collapse could not have been stopped. That must have been an embarrassing error for a mechanical engineer, but Ross toughed it out for a while and presented one or two more arguments about the momentum transfer aspect, such as the one you quote. Unfortunately, Ross seems to have disappeared after another glaring error was spotted in the whole basis of his arguments, which was that the columns were strong enough to redistribute all that momentum. Here's where Ross's lack of expertise in structural engineering betrayed him (and where he could have learned something from Bazant): It is a simple fact, fairly obvious once someone points it out, that a column cannot transmit more force than it takes to destroy that column, so columns would fail before they could transmit the amounts of momentum that Ross imagined.
As much as "truthers" would love to argue that the towers must have been controlled demolitions because a gravity-driven collapse was impossible, fourteen years of trying have produced absolutely nothing but imaginary physics. As I said elsewhere, if Gage gets his "independent investigation" and brings such bullshit to the table as "expert opinion," I'll gladly take very short odds on the outcome. Believe it or don't; I'm looking forward to some profitable bets.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Not my problem people are scientifically ignorant enough to fall for the official conspiracy theory. 
superbeachnut
(381 posts)Nearly 15 years, and steel fails in fire. Not sure why an engineer is making fun of the truth, with a simple demo how steel fails due to fire. Kind of sad no evidence for CD after 14 years; Watergate was exposed in less than a year.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Hydrocarbon fires don't do that under normal conditions. Deny all you want but steel was melted on 911 as eyewitnesses testiified. A fact 9/11 anti-truth CD believers fail to realize! Sorry you were unaware of that fact.