Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: 9/11 Debate (Read 49569 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from CV and mad panic beha...
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #120 –
Quote from: LP – on

No, I'd prefer an explanation in your own words, using your physics training.

I couldn't give a flying f*** what you'd prefer.

I'm not your mother...you are a big boy.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #121 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
I couldn't give a flying f*** what you'd prefer.

I'm not your mother...you are a big boy.
So, you want to be all expert and no evidence, just crackpot conspiracy videos and mic drops.

Then do not expect to be taken seriously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #122 –
Sincere condolences Baggers. A tragic loss.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #123 –
Quote from: LP – on
So, you want to be all expert and no evidence, just crackpot conspiracy videos and mic drops.

Then do not expect to be taken seriously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

If i'm trying to teach you how to paint and describing the differing methods used between Michaelangelo and Leonardo, i don't need to recreate the pictures for you, i can point to them.

Tada.

I don't care if you believe me.
You have proven, consistently, that you are not about trying to seek the truth.....or discredit, legitimately, those who disagree with you. Instead you prefer to attack the poster and not take it seriously.

If you legitimately want to learn, its there for you. But we both know you have no interest in it.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #124 –
Quote from: cookie2 – on
Sincere condolences Baggers. A tragic loss.
Same here Baggers. The worst thing is he was within sight of sanctuary, assuming the vaccines will do the trick. It’s reminiscent of soldiers dying at the end of WWI just before the 11 o’clock ceasefire.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #125 –
Some basics;

The WTCs weigh 450,000,000kg each.

To make things easy lets say roughly about 10% of them on average was above the impact point. Reports before the collapse from people trapped inside the upper floors stated that multiple floors had collapsed making escape impossible, so lets keep it simple at 3 floors for a rough height of 10m.

That is 10% of a WTC falling 10m under gravity after structural failure, that 10m impact equates to;
E(Newtons) = mgh
E = 45,000,000kg x 9.81 x 10 E = 1,324,350,000 Newtons

Now actually because I've chosen easy units if we keep it simple we can simplify this to an impact force in kilograms, this is because fundamentally the impact force in kilograms is going to be F = E/g.
1,324,350,000 / 9.81 = 135,000,000kg

The truth is though, that the collapsing structures absorb a lot of that energy, but it is the available energy.

Nothing we build could have survived, it was like a sledge hammer falling on stack of straws.

As for the collapse on it own footprint, that is bogus as well. Both towers had the facades peel away from between the 40th and 60th floor, they peeled outwards like a banana. Now by facades we are not talking cladding as some conspiracists like to make out, we are talking full exterior walls, concrete, steel; and glass. Some of those facades directly hit other buildings up to 250m away falling (actually a better description is launched ballistically) from a height above 40 stories, causing multiple buildings to be damaged or collapse. So much for claims about falling straight down, and just this alone would have had significant structural effects on surrounding buildings, it is probably a miracle more were not damaged!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #126 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Building was actually designed to withstand the impact of a plane flying into them.

Which adds to the level of mystery of why it didn't work.
Not the one I was looking for but the statement about the the designers not expecting 90,000L of jet fuel on one floor was what I remember, Ill keep looking though for the what I was looking for. Some other pertinent points are made about why the buildings fell straight down.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time
2025-Carlton can win the 2025 AFL Premiership

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #127 –
Quote from: LP – on
Some basics;

The WTCs weigh 450,000,000kg each.

To make things easy lets say roughly about 10% of them on average was above the impact point. Reports before the collapse from people trapped inside the upper floors stated that multiple floors had collapsed making escape impossible, so lets keep it simple at 3 floors for a rough height of 10m.

That is 10% of a WTC falling 10m under gravity after structural failure, that 10m impact equates to;
E(Newtons) = mgh
E = 45,000,000kg x 9.81 x 10 E = 1,324,350,000 Newtons

Now actually because I've chosen easy units we can simplify this to an impact force in kilograms, this is because fundamentally the impact force in kilograms is going to be F = E/g.
1,324,350,000 / 9.81 = 135,000,000kg

Nothing we build could have survived, it was like a sledge hammer falling on stack of straws.

As for the collapse on it own footprint, that is bogus as well. Both towers had the facades peel away from the between the 40th and 60th floor, Now by facades we are not talking cladding as some conspiracists like to make out, we are talking full exterior walls, concrete, steel; and glass. Some of those facades directly hit other buildings up to 250m away falling from a height above 40 stories, causing multiple buildings to be damaged or collapse. So much for he claims about falling straight down.

Guesses and estimates.

You want figures and details explanation, watch the videos. You are severly undestimating the depths they have gone too.

One video they show is of the mast on top of the towers. That fell in before the collapse of any other part (only just, by a few frames).
Bring up the design of the top of the tower where the mast was situated and it was on the hat trusses, which was supported by the internal supports......the backbone of the whole thing. (They have detailed the size of these supports and how they get increasingly bigger the further down until they are almost solid steel).

How does the strongest part of it fail, before anything else fails?

Sure, a partial collapse can cause further collapses etc....but that does not happen instantly. If you take out the load bearing structure first, then we see what we see. If the whole structure gradually gets weaker, the smaller sections collapse first, and then maybe it will take the laodbearing structure with it. That did not happen.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #128 –
Just a reminder guys that this is the Covid thread? Or does "mad panic behaviour" also cover 9/11?
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #129 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Guesses and estimates.
No actually that is physics, ............... just the basics though .............................. remember any?

As basic as it may be, it shows the forces are extraordinary, unlike the conspiracy evidence which it seems is just plain ordinary! :o

PS; Complex solutions, still have to fit with in the basic physics, the laws do not change with complexity or scale.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #130 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
Not the one I was looking for but the statement about the the designers not expecting 90,000L of jet fuel on one floor was what I remember, Ill keep looking though for the what I was looking for. Some other pertinent points are made about why the buildings fell straight down.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Yep Jet fuel on the floor and intense heat, the clue is debris being forced out the windows...the fireproofing was probably mangled and therefore not effective. At 1000 degrees Celsius the columms, support structures would be melting causing the floor to collapse. Like I said it would have been the heat that would have been the real problem and not the impact so much IMHO.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #131 –
Quote from: LP – on
No actually that is physics, ............... just the basics though .............................. remember any?

As basic as it may be, it shows the forces are extraordinary, unlike the conspiracy evidence which is just plain ordinary it seems! :o
The numbers you are using is what i'm referring too.

What you described is also mentioned as being INNACURATE in the initial report.

It has to do with your 10m.

It, wrongly, assumes a free fall at that point. For the acceleration to be 9.81, means the collapse, and everything above it, happened instantly. It simply could not. The only way that is even remotely possible is through a controlled detonation.

So, back to the drawing board.....

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #132 –
Quote from: LP – on
No actually that is physics, ............... just the basics though .............................. remember any?

As basic as it may be, it shows the forces are extraordinary, unlike the conspiracy evidence which it seems is just plain ordinary! :o

PS; Complex solutions, still have to fit with in the basic physics, the laws do not change with complexity or scale.

Unless you try and teach them....and copy the same exact errors made in the actual reports.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #133 –
Sorry for the loss of your friend Baggers. Even harder when, as Mav said, there was hope and prevention of such events in sight.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #134 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
Not the one I was looking for but the statement about the the designers not expecting 90,000L of jet fuel on one floor was what I remember, Ill keep looking though for the what I was looking for. Some other pertinent points are made about why the buildings fell straight down.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

I've had a look through that and its not bad. The issue i have is with the 90,000L. Didn't the submitted report say that most of this was dissipated on impact, so all the issues of that used in that report are a non-issue.