Gravity defies tower collapse explanation

[Pogostick]

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.

Holy Shizznit Batman.

Common sense to the rescue! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[bilbus]

the towers were built to withstand a 727, not a 747 .... there were no 747's twhen it was built ....

 

[teacher]

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

You got it.

Ten seconds, what a coincidence what your girl calls you is the same amount of time it takes towers to fall. Lucky you.

So, you can't post in the thread where I cover all this over and over. I understand that's cause you can't deal with me, but then, here I am.

This is yours?

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/d...olumev3_1.html

I've allready deal with that. Ripped, it, smacked it, spat it out. Nary the comeback.

Let's deal with this on a purely scientific level.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/398989-post515.html

tenseconds, questions for you.

I've covered this, I've told you so and where to find it.

Do you want me to post the same thing again?

Would it be okay with you if I just linked to where certain posts are that rip ANYTHING you say up?

How do you type with both hands in your pants?

My explanations are based on science and physics. Yours are based on the hope that if you squeeze your eyes shut and plug your ears and chant "I wish it were so, I wish it were so" then shouting "eureka" hardly makes for a compelling argument.

You know tenseconds (no that was me talking to you, not your girl answering a Cosmopolitan "how long does your boy last" quiz out loud) one of these days when "teacher's pyramid crusade and travelling menagerie" is wrapped up, I've won the Nobel and moved to the mountains in Vermont to spend the rest of my life abusing people, sipping hooch and burning fatties while I screen groupies, I'm gonna find Alex Jones and he will be done. I'll let you know when I take your hero out so you can preposistion yourself in your weeping closet with a supply of hankies.

I like to break things down to one salient question...

Is it the foil hat or do you have an agenda?

 

[teacher]

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

:rofl

I've a twin.

Galenrox and I are starting a site that will be much like Madduxes, only with much smart stuff too.

Just started two days ago.

http://www.geocities.com/nocapsorspaces/pyramids.html

 

[teacher]

the towers were built to withstand a 727, not a 747 .... there were no 747's twhen it was built ....

The towers were built to withstand the impact of a plane. Which they did. It's the fire that took them down.

How so many can know so little about so much and yet say so much about what they know so little about should just FRIGGIN PROMPT MIDGETS WITH STICKS TO MAGICALLY APPEAR AND BEAT YOUR SHINS.

Go to the real 9/11 thread, read ALL my posts, and then you'll be set.

Go to that thread and find where I'm proven wrong. Where I don't shed massive doubt on all this bullshit.

But no, we gotta pretend that don't exist and go somewhere else and hide from me.

Lemme tell you 9/11 freaks, this thing was my obsession before pyramids. I'm a certified fire alarm technician, I've done structural rigging, I weld and cut steel. I have 270 posts in that thread of 1300 posts and 16000 views and no one comes close to refuting my explanation. You foil hatters that make new threads are well aware of this because I tell you. That you avoid me and the facts tell me you are not interested in the truth, you are advancing an agenda with bullshit you know is not true.

You are evil liars.

That ain't gonna happen while I have the watch. Many fine people died that day and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let you slur the why and how they died that day when you morons can't begin to debate me on this.

I know what you are doing. I'm done with Volker tenseconds, now you are gonna go the way of Alan, Christopher Brooks, Didga, and the rest of the kool aid drinkers. It's YOUR turn.

You guys are doing okay, but you ain't driving them into the ground with savage factual animosity and that is the only thing these freaks understand.

The combination of compromised structural elements from the plane crash and the remaining steel being exposed to the heat due to loss of the fire retardant caused the core to face column trusses to sag because they heated up over the 1000 degree Fahrenheit point where steel looses rigidity, exceeding the shear point of the two 5/8" truss to face column bolts and the trusses fell ending the connection from core to face and that's all she wrote.

This is why the towers fell.

 

[Teh masterer]

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.

Pleaase refer to http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can't do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long the collapse should have taken. Would it have taken minutes? Hours? Days? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!

Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was "pulverized" -- actually "dissociated" is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.


Conclusions

In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

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.

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The purported "gravitational" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion. :mrgreen:

http://www.911blimp.net/graphics/suspendedWTCtop1.gif

Hey macgyver! But what if the damaged tower was being held up by the lower floors after the explosion. Then the lower floors could of broken down and hence the entire tower would fall down like it did, no? Or pieces could of broken the way they did just by chance to allow for such a fall, unlikely, but definetly physically possible.

 

[Morrow]

O give me a break, gravity is just a theory anyways

 

[25hook]

Puffs Of Dust


CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."


Pulled from Popular Mechanics...those guys sure dont know what they are talking about right Tenseconds? MWAHAHAHAH!


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

 

[25hook]

Big Plane, Small Holes

CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.


Figured Id keep you honest and take an escape route away.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

 

[Btipton]

Sigh. You make me laugh :lol: but onto the point.

It's lovely to see so many American suddenly becoming masters of physics, time, space, and trajectories now that a disaster struck us.

Regardless of your rantings about how strong the lower floors are you've obviously never watched a demolition on such skyscrapers.

They don't offer any resistance what-so-ever. It's like a knife through butter. Take a few classes, revisit some college if you like, has a few people. You'll get your answers without having to go to a conspiracy site run by twenty year old dropouts.