FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Can Airliner Impacts Destroy Towers?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:28 pm    Post subject: Can Airliner Impacts Destroy Towers? Reply with quote

This was researched by a one time member here. I figure it might be of interest here:

{start copy}

Researched by chek
Discussion thread for this entry: http://911evidencebase.16.forumer.com/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=9

OK then - first thing I'd like to establish is that the WTC Towers were designed to withstand full on 600mph impacts by Boeing 707 and Douglas DC- 8 class aircraft (the largest in existence when the Towers were designed) and very similar, certainly in the same class as B767's.

A lot of misinformation has been bandied around that the WTC towers were only meant to withstand a slow, approach speed impact by an airliner on finals, and they 'forgot' to allow for the fuel being carried. If you've heard this fable, you've heard wrong.

OF COURSE fuel load was factored in with a modern airliner crash - how would it not be. How were these theoretical jetliners meant to be delivered into the towers? By Federal Express? Or dumper truck?

"Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Seattle Times, Business: Saturday, February 27, 1993

John Skilling of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, senior designer of the Trade Centre Towers.

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Centre, recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
[Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8 ) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

Below is a link to photostat images of that White Paper.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC.html

Skilling is known for many positive accomplishments. He is credited with the structural design of more than 1,000 buildings in 36 states and 27 countries, including the Pacific Science Center for the 1962 World’s Fair, the original 50-story Seafirst Building and Seattle’s tallest building, the 76-story Columbia Seafirst Center.

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting”.
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3281135121622917423

Information on the Boeing 707. By the mid 1960's, the 707-320B model was the most commonly used for long haul flights.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

Information on the Boeing 767
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 can carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

While not identical twins, it can be clearly seen that both types are in the same class in terms of size, weight and performance, if not economy.

Formula for calculating kinetic energy: KE = (mass x velocity^2)/2 or 1/2 mv^2

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707-320B at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890) ^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5607MJ).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^ 2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5024MJ).

We can see that the 2001 disaster actually had less impact than Skilling allowed for.

Of even more interest:
"The North Tower impact has been calculated at 2540MJ, and the South Tower at 3658MJ"
(Chapter 4 Aircraft Impact Damage p37 NIST’s Tomasz Wierzbicki , Director of the impact and crashworthiness team)
which is well below Skilling’s calculated figure.

On February 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was involved in designing the Twin Towers, (the architects were Minoru Yamasaki Associates of Rochester Hills, Mich) fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details.

”The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings.

Because of its configuration, which is essentially that of a steel beam 209ft deep, the towers are actually far less daring structurally than a conventional building such as the Empire State Building where the spine or braced area of the building is far smaller in relation to its height.

The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure, The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure”.
City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 133

{End copy}

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What's your point?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's great to see that the impact force actually comes out significantly less for the 767. I shall be using this resource frequently.

---------------------

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
What's your point?

Wow. Big mistake TTWSU3. The correct response was: "Thanks, this is fantastic info for the movement!"

If you don't have anything worthwhile to say as a negative, like questioning his numbers or such, then why would you post here?

Patrick, I'd personally repost the entire thing and keep doing it until this little turd stops disrupting. I think you would be well within your rights.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

a post with evidence that is easy to understand and well laid out and dosnt rely on second hand clips, good post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
a post with evidence that is easy to understand and well laid out and dosnt rely on second hand clips, good post.


What he said.

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For those that haven't got time to read the whole article the thrust of it is that it's unlikely that the aircraft impacts caused the twin towers to collapse. Now I'm not saying this is a fact but it is compelling and a necessary part of the CD theory. If it's possible to state beyond reasonable doubt that the twin towers would not have collapsed due to the aircraft impacts we have to factor in another cause i.e. Explosives of some kind!

For those that believe only a minimal amount of explosives (possibly thermite) would have been needed the power down of the south tower a couple of days before 911 becomes very suspicious. The critics have suggested that the kinetic energy of the collapsing top section of the twin towers explains their fall speeds. Whereas this may explain certain phenomena it may help the CD theory by suggesting that only a minimal amount of explosives (again possibly thermite) was needed to be set (within core columns accessed from the elevator shafts) over a minimal number of floors (let three to five) so as to initiate collapse.

Remember the radio mast on the north tower moves a split second before the upper floors start to collapse. This points to the core columns failing although it seem hard to believe that such a cataclysmic failure of all the core columns could happen within a few seconds of each other. Remember the the core columns were braced so as to limit sideways movement as well as being protected by fireproofing.

This animated gif shows show the symmetrical failure of the core columns of the north tower:



Again watch the symmetrical collapse on this vid clip noting the uniformity and speed of collapse:


Link


Now the official theory would argue that the outer columns (approx 250) are bearing the extra loads as the core columns weaken prior to collapse. So the core may be twisting and buckling with no apparent observable effect at the exterior of the towers. Now this is a possibility and can not be ruled out but the same effect would have been achieved through the use of a minimal amount of explosives (or thermite) placed within the core columns across several floors.

OK so there may be some doubt about the CD theory but what about the lack of fighter planes on 911? There are two possibility's:

1. The American air force/government allowed the Boeing's to impact the towers.

2. The terrorists chose the day of the FEMA terror drill so as to maximize confusion which resulted in the lack of scrambled air support on the morning of 911.

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<


Last edited by Patrick Brown on Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mods please move this poster to critics corner.

Is it not the case that anyone who in any way validates the OCT goes there or is Patrick Brown an exception?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Mods please move this poster to critics corner.

Is it not the case that anyone who in any way validates the OCT goes there or is Patrick Brown an exception?

I'm not validating the OCT I'm just pointing out facts. Everybody seems to neglect the possibility that the terrorists (who ever they may be) used the FEMA terror drills (government ran) to add to the confusion on 911. I said before that I'm suspicious of the MIC and Saudi Arabia.

As for the CD theory I've never gone 100% for it but that's because I remain open minded. The CD still looks highly likely but I wouldn't say it's a fact.

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My understanding is that NIST have split each collapse into two separate events – the initiation of the collapse and the freefall collapse itself. They’ve put forward an explanation for the initiation, but haven’t even attempted to explain the freefall.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


Their explanation of the initiation looks feeble, because:

1) it requires temperatures of up to 1,000 deg C – and these temperatures would need to be sustained for some considerable time

Quote:
the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.


2) if the failure was due to heat weakened steel, then the weakening would have been progressive rather than sudden; i.e. the top of the building would slump rather than suddenly encounter no resistance from below.


But I think the lack of an explanation for the freefall collapse itself, is probably the easiest target to attack. How can they account for both the massive energy transfer AND the freefall collapse? The answer is that they can’t – The Conservation of Energy is getting in their way.

Quote:
… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.


I’ve been trying to express the impossibility in a simple equation:


Freefall Speed = No Resistance = No Energy Transfer

OR

Considerable Energy Transfer = Significant Resistance = NOT Freefall Speed


Does that make sense to anybody else ?


Oh, and my "proof by analogy" is that it would be like asking a mouse to give birth to a baby elephant – it ain’t possible !

_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

QuitTheirClogs wrote:
Freefall Speed = No Resistance = No Energy Transfer

OR

Considerable Energy Transfer = Significant Resistance = NOT Freefall Speed

I can see what you're saying although I'm not a physicist but after lengthy debates with peeps that push the OCT I have considered that the idea of enough kinetic energy being released at the start of collapse might account for the fall speeds. The bonus with this theory is that only a few floors would need to be rigged with devices to cause the catastrophic collapses.

One way to visualize what I'm proposing is to imagine the core columns on several consecutive floors being taken out almost simultaneously. The effect is that of twenty/thirty floors being dropped onto the floors below. I think this might explain the fall speeds without the need for the whole of each tower to be rigged. Remember the towers although pretty strong were of lightweight construction. Also the concrete that some people make such a bid deal out of was only 4” thick as well as being “lightweight concrete” this meaning there was a trade-off against strength. Remember the towers were constructed with early 70's technologies and materials.

The idea that there's no way the towers could have fallen so fast without being rigged top to bottom may therefore just be a smoke screen. And as I keep saying the unprecedented power-down of the south tower only a couple of days before 911 is very very suspicious.

So 911 may well have been an inside job but I don't think it was planned over years. Much more likely someone took advantage of a terror plot and tailored it to their own liking. The who is still unknown but I go for the MIC.

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rodin
Super Poster
Super Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
What's your point?


What's yours?

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TWSU3,
You said someone who posted a very good article on why the towers SHOULD have stood after being hit with planes should have their post moved to critics corner...

Look I dont mean to be impolite here but ARE YOU A TOTAL MORON?

Seriously do you have a fundamental inability to process information and facts?

Your behaviour is utterly without any sensible reason or method. I`m so stunned by such a lunatic comment I`m going to have to sit down for a while...*whew*.

C.

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rodin
Super Poster
Super Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:
QuitTheirClogs wrote:
Freefall Speed = No Resistance = No Energy Transfer

OR

Considerable Energy Transfer = Significant Resistance = NOT Freefall Speed

I can see what you're saying although I'm not a physicist but after lengthy debates with peeps that push the OCT I have considered that the idea of enough kinetic energy being released at the start of collapse might account for the fall speeds. The bonus with this theory is that only a few floors would need to be rigged with devices to cause the catastrophic collapses.

One way to visualize what I'm proposing is to imagine the core columns on several consecutive floors being taken out almost simultaneously. The effect is that of twenty/thirty floors being dropped onto the floors below. I think this might explain the fall speeds without the need for the whole of each tower to be rigged. Remember the towers although pretty strong were of lightweight construction. Also the concrete that some people make such a bid deal out of was only 4” thick as well as being “lightweight concrete” this meaning there was a trade-off against strength. Remember the towers were constructed with early 70's technologies and materials.

The idea that there's no way the towers could have fallen so fast without being rigged top to bottom may therefore just be a smoke screen. And as I keep saying the unprecedented power-down of the south tower only a couple of days before 911 is very very suspicious.

So 911 may well have been an inside job but I don't think it was planned over years. Much more likely someone took advantage of a terror plot and tailored it to their own liking. The who is still unknown but I go for the MIC.


Is the power-down completely confirmed? And why not in the other tower too? If both towers had a power-down and maintenance the w/end before 911 you would have to think they were putting in the detonators making the thermite primed. Sniffer dogs likely don't smell thermite (if it even has a smell being inorganic) but would certainly sniff detonators. I read sniffer dogs were removed from the area a few days before 911. Likely this co-incided with the 'reduced security alert'.

Above from memory, but links should be easy to find.

Now, Patrick, why do you think Saudis, and not USrael, did 911? Because the Bin Ladins were allowed to depart the US discreetly after 911? (BTW has ANYONE got any idea how that fits into 911). Bin Ladin is/was obviously a CIA/MOSSAD asset. His family do business with the Bush cabal (Bechtel/Bin Ladin Construction ties 'ironic' - NYT). The Saudis get nothing from the war in Iraq. Saudis were not caught dancing and cheering WTC, but if the 5 individuals who WERE doing this were not nabbed, there would have been footage that LOOKED as though they were.

You say it is mich more likely that terrorists piggybacked the exercise. This would imply no forewarning of 911 by US authorities. So was the announcement of the 2.3 TRILLION lost by Rabbi Dov Zakheim from the pentagram made on Sept 10th (a very unusual day for 'bad' news which gets put out on Friday afternoons to avoid press questioning of our 9-5 politicians) just a lucky break for Rumsfeld?

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snowygrouch wrote:
TWSU3,
You said someone who posted a very good article on why the towers SHOULD have stood after being hit with planes should have their post moved to critics corner...

Look I dont mean to be impolite here but ARE YOU A TOTAL MORON?

Seriously do you have a fundamental inability to process information and facts?

Your behaviour is utterly without any sensible reason or method. I`m so stunned by such a lunatic comment I`m going to have to sit down for a while...*whew*.

C.



Snowy I am shocked at your unwaivering support for Steve Jones when there is clear evidence that his theories are flawed.

Why do you continue to support him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Partrick;

I'm not familiar with OCT - could you give me a brief overview?

When I look at the evidence from the towers collapse, I see a massive energy deficit. And this deficit is so large that I don’t see the point in people going too far down the road of trying to quantity it. Just saying there is a large, unexplained energy deficit is sufficient.

I agree this implies that a large amount of explosives must have been planted in the towers, and this leads to questions of how and when. For which we can speculate, but we can’t claim to know or have compelling evidence.

I think in general we should be stressing the implausibility of any explanation which doesn’t include explosives. And stressing that NIST don’t actually have an explanation for the freefall is a good place to start.

Different aspects of the collapse will hit home with different people. This summer I watched – from my office window – someone spending a few days attacking concrete foundations with a jackhammer. Concrete does NOT pulverise! Or not without the help of explosives it doesn’t.

_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OCT = Official Conspiracy Theory i.e. the official line of the American government.

I think tons of steel and other debris impacting downwards can explain the pulverization of much of the concrete. Also it's not true that all the concrete was turned to dust.

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
OCT = Official Conspiracy Theory i.e. the official line of the American government.

lol – I should have known that really, but the OCT is such obvious garbage I’ve never paid much attention to it.

Quote:
I think tons of steel and other debris impacting downwards can explain the pulverization of much of the concrete. Also it's not true that all the concrete was turned to dust.

If we assume that to be true (I have my doubts) then it would still require a lot of energy. I think Jim Hoffman has come up with a huge number, but just saying “a lot” is sufficient to demonstrate that the OCT is implausible. If that energy came from the collapsing part of the building, then the collapsing part would have given up a lot of kinetic energy. For an object to experience freefall, it cannot give up ANY kinetic energy - except to air resistance.

In summary, considerable energy transfer would have taken place; the collapsing part would have encountered significant resistance; which means the collapse couldn’t have happened at anything approaching freefall speed.

_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

QuitTheirClogs wrote:
Quote:
I think tons of steel and other debris impacting downwards can explain the pulverization of much of the concrete. Also it's not true that all the concrete was turned to dust.

If we assume that to be true (I have my doubts) then it would still require a lot of energy. I think Jim Hoffman has come up with a huge number, but just saying “a lot” is sufficient to demonstrate that the OCT is implausible. If that energy came from the collapsing part of the building, then the collapsing part would have given up a lot of kinetic energy. For an object to experience freefall, it cannot give up ANY kinetic energy - except to air resistance.

In summary, considerable energy transfer would have taken place; the collapsing part would have encountered significant resistance; which means the collapse couldn’t have happened at anything approaching freefall speed.

As I said I'm not a physicist but the way I see it is that it may be possible to devise a calculation where you take out the core columns from x number of floors then calculate the acceleration over distance before the top section impacts the lower section with enough acceleration to ensure a complete collapse.

I'm definitely no mathematician but I'll try an equation or two.

Mass (of top floors) + distance (of x floors) + acceleration due to gravity = released kinetic energy

Then you need to make sure the released kinetic energy is equal or greater than the resistance of the lower floors to keep the collapse going.

Acceleration + Mass – 1 Lower floor Crushed (energy used) + Mass Gained (energy gained) = Acceleration + Mass = Cascading Collapse

So basically I believe that the number of floors that needed to have the core columns removed to cause a cascading collapse can be calculated. This means theres comes a point where the Energy of Accelerated Mass is greater than or equal to the energy used to crush a single lower floor + the Acquired Mass which thereby maintains the cascading collapse.

Because both towers collapsed completely I think it's highly likely that such calculations were used with explosive devices (thermite) and the calculated damage of the aircraft impacts to collapse the towers.

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Acceleration + Mass – 1 Lower floor Crushed (energy used) + Mass Gained (energy gained) = Acceleration + Mass = Cascading Collapse


In deducting:

Quote:
Lower floor Crushed (energy used)

that involves the collapsing part giving up some kinetic energy to the floor it's smashing in to.

That giving up of kinetic energy is resistence. It means the collapse can't happen a freefall speed.

It order for there to be freefall, there needs to be no resistence. NIST have acknowledged this when they state:

Quote:
the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone.

But they can't then explain the energy expended during the collapse. Hence they haven't issued an explanation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

As a general point, I'm just testing out arguments here, so I know how they work before trying them on other people. It's people like Dr David L. Griscom (see patriots question 9/11) who are going to sort the science and engineering of this stuff out.

_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

QuitTheirClogs wrote:
[That giving up of kinetic energy is resistence. It means the collapse can't happen a freefall speed.

It order for there to be freefall, there needs to be no resistence. NIST have acknowledged this when they state:

Quote:
the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone.

But they can't then explain the energy expended during the collapse. Hence they haven't issued an explanation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

That's interesting as I've never heard NIST mention anything about the collapse before only up to the point of collapse.

If calculations accounting for x number of floors being taken out (that's core columns with explosives) can't cause enough initial acceleration then barring Beam Weapons (which I don't buy) the whole of each tower must have been rigged. I just can't believe the whole of each tower was rigged.

I'm sticking to the idea of an initial acceleration snowballing the collapse. Perhaps I need to factor in some more mass i.e. a few thousand tons of dust loaded onto the upper floors! That last comment may not be as funny as it sounds as it could give enough mass + acceleration to approach free fall speed providing enough floors (core columns) were taken out. The extra mass would just vanish if in the form of bags of concrete dust!

I need to have a lay down! Laughing

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brian
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is nothing really difficult about this as Quittheirrclogs has demonstrated and Andrew Johnson demonstrated from the outset.

Freefall = no resistance.

Pulverisation = massive resistance.

That cannot be resolved in a gravity collapse scenario - it is quite literally impossible.

Therefore the official "explanation" is a lie.

Patrick Brown - you are searching for an answer that cannot exist.

The how of the collapse is of secondary importance and speculation a handicap to the exposure of the lie and the case for for a genuine inquiry.

Expose the lie first and foremost.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

brian wrote:
There is nothing really difficult about this as Quittheirrclogs has demonstrated and Andrew Johnson demonstrated from the outset.

Freefall = no resistance.

Pulverisation = massive resistance.

That cannot be resolved in a gravity collapse scenario - it is quite literally impossible.

Therefore the official "explanation" is a lie.

Patrick Brown - you are searching for an answer that cannot exist.

The how of the collapse is of secondary importance and speculation a handicap to the exposure of the lie and the case for for a genuine inquiry.

Expose the lie first and foremost.

Sorry but you're wrong as near free fall speeds are often observed as a result of CD. So I have no argument with CD other than I don't believe the whole of each tower was rigged with explosives.

Increasing the mass and thereby the potential energy of the top of the towers is an Idea I've never heard anybody discuss before so it will be interesting to hear peoples views.

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I need to have a lay down!


Sorry about that Patrick. As I said, I’m just trying work out which arguments are effective at getting people to question things. There are so many holes in the OTC that it’s difficult to know which ones are worth focussing on.

For me, the energy deficit in the freefall collapse of the towers is so compelling that it says MIHOP – no doubt about it. But it’s not going to make that sort of impression on most people.

NIST are saying that the collapse initiation required temperatures of up to 1,000 deg C. But we know it was an inefficient fire; we know there were people waving from the crash zone; and there’s that firefighters radio call from the South Tower saying the fire could be knocked out with two lines. I suspect this is more compelling to most people.


Quote:
The how of the collapse is of secondary importance and speculation a handicap to the exposure of the lie and the case for a genuine inquiry.


I totally agree. It's not the role of the truth movement to explain what happened, that's NIST's job. But NIST have political masters and they need our help to break free.

_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413


Last edited by QuitTheirClogs on Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:52 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brian
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick, you are muddled.

What I said was -

Freefall = no resistance.

Pulverisation = massive resistance.

That cannot be resolved in a gravity collapse scenario - it is quite literally impossible.

You then say -

"Sorry but you're wrong as near free fall speeds are often observed as a result of CD."

That is what I am saying - gravity alone cannot account for the nature of the collapse.

Apart from the obvious, common sense should tell us that given the construction of the towers - decreasing strength of beams the higher they got due to decreased loading - the upper portion collapsing on the lower portion should have resulted in the weaker upper portion being destroyed and arrested by the stronger lower portion.

This has been dealt with by Gordon Ross and has not been refuted -

How the Towers were Demolished

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Reply to Dr. Greening

http://www.worldtradecentertruth.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

And apart from all that we can all see for ourselves from the videos that much of the mass of the upper portion fell outwith the peimeter of the buildings making the case for the hammer effect of the upper portion a non starter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2016
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:
....The CD still looks highly likely but I wouldn't say it's a fact.


I would. If you understand the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum then controlled demolition is not a theory at all.

It is a fact.

It is that simple.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2016
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:
....The CD still looks highly likely but I wouldn't say it's a fact.


I would. If you understand the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum then controlled demolition is not a theory at all.

It is a fact.

It is that simple.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kbo234 wrote:
Patrick Brown wrote:
....The CD still looks highly likely but I wouldn't say it's a fact.


I would. If you understand the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum then controlled demolition is not a theory at all.

It is a fact.

It is that simple.

Well that's all the evidence we need then isn't it! Rolling Eyes

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2016
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:

I'm definitely no mathematician but I'll try an equation or two.

Mass (of top floors) + distance (of x floors) + acceleration due to gravity = released kinetic energy

Then you need to make sure the released kinetic energy is equal or greater than the resistance of the lower floors to keep the collapse going.

Acceleration + Mass – 1 Lower floor Crushed (energy used) + Mass Gained (energy gained) = Acceleration + Mass = Cascading Collapse



This is UTTER DRIVEL.

This thread is such rot I can't be bothered engaging with the content.....although it might dupe or dismay to the point of disengagement some innocent straying onto this site out of interest for the first time.


Who are you, Patrick Brown?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2016
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:

Well that's all the evidence we need then isn't it!


I am now struggling to obey the site rules not to be abusive.

The hard scientific evidence for controlled demolition has been posted on this site many times in many slightly different presentations.

The work of Gordon Ross and others on this issue has been posted on this site. Scholars for 9/11 Truth covers all this thoroughly.

Actually, if you are not a physicist or engineer common sense should do the trick.

It so happens that I do have an honours degree in Physics. I do not go round calling myself a physicist because I am not a professional physicist, I am a schoolteacher. However, the physics relating to the collapses is not difficult. Even a decent GCSE student can follow the argument re Conservation of Energy.

It is one thing to post reasonable enquiries about controlled demolition, it is another to posit a theory on the basis of the most unbelievably vacuous drivel I have ever seen.

I say it again. What are you up to Patrick Brown?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rodin
Super Poster
Super Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have seen footage where debris is clearly falling faster than the tower itself. I thought this must cast some doubt on the free-fall speed which I had previously accepted as gospel, since debris (falling at free fall speed) was overtaking the building.

I have been re-examining collapse footage. I think some debris started falling before the building began to collapse, hence had more time to accelerate. In this video you can see debris ejected from the fracture level falling at the same rate as the top of the building. Hence WTC2 DID fall at free-fall speed. This is hard evidence after all, just from this footage alone.



Scroll down this link and click on the picture as shown above to play the video in Media Player

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

I have changed my mind. Free fall collapse of WTC2 goes into G911 after all.

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group