Gravity defies tower collapse explanation

[FallingPianos]

The energy to create those high velocity clouds of dust far exceeds the potential energy in a gravitational collapse

you are totally ignoring the fact that the fall times are estimations some of which i've seen as high as 15 seconds. I'm agreeing with you that 9 seconds is physically impossible. There is also some confusion about the hight of the towers. the 471 number I used before was wrong, to the roof of the buildings the hight was actually 417 metres making the free fall time 9.22 seconds.

you are also totally ignoring the fact that buildings are designed to support the force of their standing weight, not their falling weight which is exponentially greater.

 

[FallingPianos]

The energy to create those high velocity clouds of dust far exceeds the potential energy in a gravitational collapse

how do you know that? what are the numbers?

 

[FallingPianos]

What you pointed out is immaterial due to the inability for the top section to produce the falling debris in such massive amounts in the first place. It requires too much kinetic energy. The top section would have stopped dead in its tracks to produce such a phenomenon. This you ignored from my previous comment.

The flurries of dust were moving at approximately 30 miles an hour through lower Manhattan. No gravitational collapse is going to produce such violent energy.

what is the mass of that dust cloud? how much energy exactly would it have taken?

 

[ngdawg]

What absolutely cracks me up about these conspiracy theorists is the ego minus the intelligence. They 'know' more than everyone else, they're very special that way. And they work for the actual perpetrators by dissing everything both government and private concerns researched and reported on.
I think we've given this one more than the 15 minutes he's allotted to in Warhol terms...there's more air in these non-arguments than anything a building could resist.

 

[Stinger]

How is it a baseless assertion?

Because you have no basis for it.

The tops fell down at free fall speed because the columns and floors below were being blown out preceding it.

They did not fall at freefall speed. They fell slower, much slower, about 4 seconds slower.

The debris is falling faster than the top sections because of the high velocity of the explosives that sent them out there in the first place.

Look at the pictures the debris is FALLING it is not on a straight line trojectory and then curving down. And as already noted it IS falling at free fall speed. The debris originating from the top floors isn't even subject to your theory and even it is falling faster than the structure itself.

 

[Stinger]

what is the mass of that dust cloud? how much energy exactly would it have taken?

When the pressure of that material is funneled down the streets what happens? A venturi effect which according to physics would speed up the material flowing through it.

 

[Stinger]

How is it a baseless assertion?

BTW if it was a government plot with contolled explosives set to be tiggered how did our government coordinate it with the Al gaeda terrorist who carried it out? When did all that happen?

 

[tenseconds]

Because you have no basis for it.



They did not fall at freefall speed. They fell slower, much slower, about 4 seconds slower.



Look at the pictures the debris is FALLING it is not on a straight line trojectory and then curving down. And as already noted it IS falling at free fall speed. The debris originating from the top floors isn't even subject to your theory and even it is falling faster than the structure itself.

There certainly is a basis for it. The dust flurries signifies a massive quantity of kinetic energy which would have dramatically sapped into the potential energy of a gravitational fall. Can you imagine how much energy it would have taken to propel those flurries at such a rate of speed throughout Lower Manhattan.Show me a gravitational collapse that has EVER done that! Gravitational collapses topple . Gravitational collapses exhibit sagging at their weakest point.You are assuming that all the floor connections would have failed at the exact same time when there was obviously a varied dispersion of fire intensity throughout the crashed in floors.

What is especially striking in the collapse of both towers is the enormous volume of material being ejected early in the collapse, and the quantity of shattered steel thrown out ahead of the dust clouds. Much of this broken steel consists of neatly chopped one-story long pieces of the perimeter columns, 14" square steel box columns that are assembled in three-story sections. These columns are also welded to 52" deep plates along each floor, but have somehow been broken free of these at the same time they are chopped up and ejected at high speed. This combination of shattered debris with dust and smoke ejected at high speed makes for a textbook picture of the effects of high explosives. http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/#stills

 

[Stinger]

There certainly is a basis for it. The dust flurries signifies a massive quantity of kinetic energy which would have dramatically sapped into the potential energy of a gravitational fall.

No they represent the air being blown out from between floors as they collapse. Put some flour in one hand and then slap your other on in, then of course there was the spillover as the debris increased and clearly that falls faster than the building itself.

Can you imagine how much energy it would have taken to propel those flurries at such a rate of speed throughout Lower Manhattan.

I don't have to imagine them I saw them.

Show me a gravitational collapse that has EVER done that!

Show me one near the size of this one.

Gravitational collapses topple .

Obviously not always.

Gravitational collapses exhibit sagging at their weakest point.

The pictures clearly show the building falling at a much slower rate than the free falling debris. The evidence shows the building took about 4 seconds longer than a free fall would.

Again I ask, how did the government manage to get the coordination required with Al qaeda to carry out your assertion?

 

[tenseconds]

BTW if it was a government plot with contolled explosives set to be tiggered how did our government coordinate it with the Al gaeda terrorist who carried it out? When did all that happen?

How do you know Al Qaeda was involved?

 

[FallingPianos]

There certainly is a basis for it. The dust flurries signifies a massive quantity of kinetic energy which would have dramatically sapped into the potential energy of a gravitational fall. Can you imagine how much energy it would have taken to propel those flurries at such a rate of speed throughout Lower Manhattan.

can you imagine the enormous amount of potential energy that a 500,000 ton 417 meter tall building has?

you have no numbers. you are attempting to use physics to prove your point, yet you have absolutly no numbers, just claims.

 

[tenseconds]

No they represent the air being blown out from between floors as they collapse. Put some flour in one hand and then slap your other on in, then of course there was the spillover as the debris increased and clearly that falls faster than the building itself.



I don't have to imagine them I saw them.
Who didn't. Try googling Jim Hoffman. He has some calculations.


Show me one near the size of this one.
The WTC would have different collapsing principles?


Obviously not always.
Not never.


The pictures clearly show the building falling at a much slower rate than the free falling debris. The evidence shows the building took about 4 seconds longer than a free fall would.

As you can see by the pic,flurries are not only arching out but downward but also shotting vertically high up into the atmosphere.

Again I ask, how did the government manage to get the coordination required with Al qaeda to carry out your assertion?

I appreciate your civil manner in discussing this.

 

[tenseconds]

can you imagine the enormous amount of potential energy that a 500,000 ton 417 meter tall building has?

you have no numbers. you are attempting to use physics to prove your point, yet you have absolutly no numbers, just claims.

The top 18 floors of the WTC1 wasn't 500,000 tons. Most of that lay below.

There would have been resistance to the 18 floors falling just 14 feet into the remaider of the building. There also would have been a massive dissapation of the initial falling energy of the top floors transferred to the pulverization of the floors below.

 

[FallingPianos]

The top 18 floors of the WTC1 wasn't 500,000 tons. Most of that lay below.

There would have been resistance to the 18 floors falling just 14 feet into the remaider of the building.

I did the math. each tower had approximately 1 trillion joules of gravitational potential energy.

18 floors falling 14 feet? 3 billion joules.

 

[Stinger]

How do you know Al Qaeda was involved?

So you don't even accept that stipulation? Who do you think flew the planes? Or do you not accept they were planes.

 

[tenseconds]

what is the mass of that dust cloud? how much energy exactly would it have taken?[/QUOTE

Here's a good reference http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

 

[tenseconds]

I don't believe that Arabs flew the planes. I'm not a no-planer but it sure looks strange the way 175 melted into the building without even ripping off the wings.

 

[Stinger]

I don't believe that Arabs flew the planes. I'm not a no-planer but it sure looks strange the way 175 melted into the building without even ripping off the wings.

Then who flew them? If it wasn't the identified Al qaeda terrorist. Who did? And was it just a coincidence that each of 4 planes had a team from this Al qaeda group on them?

Oh and the wings were ripped off or at least damaged prior to impact with the building.

 

[FallingPianos]

what is the mass of that dust cloud? how much energy exactly would it have taken?

Here's a good reference http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.

Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton.[/b]... That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy. However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers.... Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

I used landmarks in this photo to make several approximate measurements of the frontier of the dust cloud.

To approximate the volume I used a cylinder... I subtract about a quarter for volume occupied by other buildings, giving 300,000,000 feet^3.

etc...

The entire page is based on speculation, not science. my own estimation of the gravitational potential energy was 2.5 times as great as the estimation on this page. I question the accuracy of all the other numbers involved.

 

[Zyphlin]

We want Teacher. We want Teacher.

That is all. These threads are just more fun with him in them, mostly because they've been done 49253250 dozen times before

 

[Stinger]

I don't believe that Arabs flew the planes. I'm not a no-planer but it sure looks strange the way 175 melted into the building without even ripping off the wings.

Waiting for your response to my last post.

 

[tenseconds]

etc...

The entire page is based on speculation, not science. my own estimation of the gravitational potential energy was 2.5 times as great as the estimation on this page. I question the accuracy of all the other numbers involved.

Lets see your numbers. Please also include the amount of energy to pulverize the entire contents of the building into microscopic particles and jettison sections of the core columns into adjacent buildings as well as fall in near free fall time.

 

[Pogostick]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

:rofl

 

[Stinger]

Lets see your numbers. Please also include the amount of energy to pulverize the entire contents of the building into microscopic particles and jettison sections of the core columns into adjacent buildings as well as fall in near free fall time.

That they were not in free fall has already been proven why do you keep stating it as fact? And yes the force of the air, which the majority of the towers was, we plenty enough to blow things out side ways and upwards as they fell, but the majority of the towers simply collapsed and as they did those parts that were falling off fell faster than the building itself. The films clearly show that along with all the reputable engineering studies.

 

[teacher]

Its over folks. The severed part of the twin towers cannot expel voluminous amounts of microscopic dust particles and crash down into the rest of the structure in ten seconds. This is physically impossible.

I've all ready had one of your threads merged with the place this is WAY covered. pushing your luck?


Read my sig. Put an anti-semite on ignore.