Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 6, 2005 11:21:30 GMT -4
No, it is only your opinion they are squibs going off. It is my opinion we are seeing dust being blown out of the building because the air inside is being compressed by the collapsing floors above. These puffs of ‘smoke’ look everything like clouds of dust and nothing like any demolition squibs I’ve ever seen.
This still doesn’t explain the alleged “free-fall” speed of the collapse. The only way the buildings could collapse in a near free-fall is if all the supporting columns were taken out on all the floors at once. Then each of the building floors would immediately begin to fall almost unimpeded. By the time the top floor reaches the next floor below it, the next floor isn’t there anymore – it has already fallen away. This would continue all the way to the bottom allowing the top floor to be in a virtual free-fall all the way to the ground. Clearly this did not happen in the case of the WTC towers.
In your scenario, when the top floor reaches the next floor, the next floor is virtually stationary (although its supports have just been blown). When an upper floor impacts the floor below it, the top floor will transfer some of is momentum to the stationary floor to get it moving. The two floors, now combined into a single mass, will now be moving at the same velocity. This transfer of momentum speeds up the lower floor but slows down the top floor. This continues all the way to the bottom, each time the top floor slowing down slightly. Consequently, the top floor cannot reach the ground in the same time as a free-falling object.
Any mention of the buildings collapsing at the rate of a free-falling object is unfounded. It can’t happen in either scenario and, in fact, it didn’t happen. In a free-fall the top floor would have reached the ground in about 9 seconds; by all accounts the collapse took longer than this. The alleged anomaly, i.e. the towers collapsing without resistance, does not exist. The towers did meet resistance as would be the case in either scenario – structural failure versus demolition. The observation of the collapse times neither supports nor invalidates either explanation.
Furthermore, it would be impossible to rig an entire building from top to bottom with demolition charges and detonator wire without it being observed by the building occupants. You just don’t pile a little explosive out of sight in a corner somewhere. Demolition charges are installed directly to the structural members. This means the steel columns, etc. would have to be exposed, i.e. the walls ripped out. Also, the perimeter columns were exposed all around the outside of the building. How do you suppose these exterior charges were set without anyone noticing? Can’t you see the absurdity in what you are proposing?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 6, 2005 19:22:10 GMT -4
"Near" free-fall is what has been repeatedly said by myself, not "exactly" free-fall, bob. You know that. And 9 seconds IS correct for the approx. time for a free-fall. The towers took approx. 11-12 seconds to fall. So we have 110 floors of resistance, including 200,00 tons of steel, 450.000 cubic meters of concrete, and walls, office contents (furniture,computers,etc.). All of this adding THREE seconds of resistance?
Working that out per floor - 3 seconds divided into 110 floors we get 0.03 seconds rounded up. So tell me how you would consider 3/100ths of a second any sort of reasonable degree of resistance? One full floor worth of steel columns, beams, and braces, one square acre of concrete (approx.4000 cubic meters), furniture, etc. spread over that one acre of floor -all combined providing 3/100th second of resistance.........110 times! I mean, 220 times! (2 towers), I mean 267 times! (add 47 floors for WTC 7).
Now, if you can prove this is in any way possible through a collapse not assisted through explosives let me see it , because I would sooner believe the moon is made of cheese.
And I know there is NO explanation possible for the molten steel in the basement of all three buildings, other than with including the use of explosives. This alone destroys the "official" story - that's why those of you buying the "official" story choose to ignore arguing about it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 6, 2005 22:03:25 GMT -4
Now, if you can prove this is in any way possible through a collapse not assisted through explosives let me see it. What explosives? Oh yeah, you mean the ones that were installed on every floor of two 110-story buildings all wired and sequenced to go off with milli-second precision. You mean the ones that were attached to the perimeter columns across the entire exposed exterior face of two skyscrapers in full view of the entire population of Manhattan. You mean the explosives that were installed on all the interior columns on every floor right under the noses of tens of thousands of tenets and visitors who occupied the buildings on a daily basis. You mean the explosives that could not have possibly been installed without the knowledge of thousands, maybe millions, of witnesses. You mean the explosives for which there is not a single piece of evidence they ever existed. Are those the explosives you're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 6, 2005 23:51:34 GMT -4
Now, if you can prove this is in any way possible through a collapse not assisted through explosives let me see it , because I would sooner believe the moon is made of cheese. You obviously didn't read this article which I posted about on the previous page of this thread, or if you have read it, you've appartently totally ignored it. And I know there is NO explanation possible for the molten steel in the basement of all three buildings, other than with including the use of explosives. This alone destroys the "official" story - that's why those of you buying the "official" story choose to ignore arguing about it. Again you have been told where it come from. A number of the beams where found to have been corroded in an unusual way where the metal seemed to have vapourised, leaving razor thin metal or holes that made the beam look like swiss-cheese. It was determined that sulphur, most likely from acid rains and air pollution (or in the case of WTC 7, the diesel fuels), was able to mix with the hot steel creating a eutectic mixture which allowed parts of the steel to melt at a vastly lower temperature than it should have. Ignoring what you are told and becoming entrenched into a position is a similar attitude to a hardened CT, if you want to show an open mind, then try reading up on what you are told, instead of just ignoring it and repeating statments that have been shown wrong.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 7, 2005 0:24:23 GMT -4
"Near" free-fall is what has been repeatedly said by myself, not "exactly" free-fall, bob. You know that. You may not have said it, but others have. And 9 seconds IS correct for the approx. time for a free-fall. The towers took approx. 11-12 seconds to fall. So we have 110 floors of resistance, including 200,00 tons of steel, 450.000 cubic meters of concrete, and walls, office contents (furniture,computers,etc.). All of this adding THREE seconds of resistance? Two or three extra seconds is entirely plausible. I performed some rough calculations last year and that is about what I got. (I no longer have the calculations.) When the upper floors collapse their mass comes crashing down on the floor immediately beneath. All that’s required for the impacted floor to collapse is failure of its truss connections. The amount of energy needed to break these connections is very small in comparison to the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The connections will fail almost instantly. The mass of the bottom floor now combines with the mass of the falling debris, robbing the debris of some of its momentum. The debris will lose some velocity, but only a small amount because the added mass is relatively small compared to the initial mass. The debris now hits the next floor, but by this time the mass has gained velocity. The debris has significantly greater kinetic energy and momentum than it had when it impacted the previous floor, thus the next floor fails even more quickly and robs an even smaller portion of the debris’ energy and momentum. As the debris falls its velocity increases rapidly and its mass grows as more floors are impacted. It does not take long at all before the debris’ energy and momentum has grown so large that it falls through each successive floor with almost negligible resistance. The overall fall time is increased by only 2 or 3 seconds. I neglected to mention the columns because they really don’t factor in when determining the fall time. They will simply buckle and collapse under their own weight when their lateral support is removed – the laterally support being the floor trusses. So what we have is a large mass of debris falling down through the interior of the building meeting little resistance and shearing off the truss supports floor after floor. Once the laterally bracing, previously supplied by the trusses, is removed the columns buckle and fall. The whole process progresses very rapidly.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 1:31:58 GMT -4
Now, if you can prove this is in any way possible through a collapse not assisted through explosives let me see it. What explosives? Oh yeah, you mean the ones that were installed on every floor of two 110-story buildings all wired and sequenced to go off with milli-second precision. You mean the ones that were attached to the perimeter columns across the entire exposed exterior face of two skyscrapers in full view of the entire population of Manhattan. You mean the explosives that were installed on all the interior columns on every floor right under the noses of tens of thousands of tenets and visitors who occupied the buildings on a daily basis. You mean the explosives that could not have possibly been installed without the knowledge of thousands, maybe millions, of witnesses. You mean the explosives for which there is not a single piece of evidence they ever existed. Are those the explosives you're talking about? Nice diversion from the question. What you have ranted on about is also exagerrated and conclusive with nothing to base such conclusions on other than unfounded assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 7, 2005 1:39:14 GMT -4
LOL.
Your entire argument is based on explosives that you assume existed. And yet you criticize Bob for making assumptions? Ridiculous.
Everything Bob said in that quote is reasonable. How could anyone have planted demolition charges in two 110-story buildings without the thousands of tenents and visitors noticing? Explain that if you expect us to believe you.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 1:54:38 GMT -4
Now, if you can prove this is in any way possible through a collapse not assisted through explosives let me see it , because I would sooner believe the moon is made of cheese. You obviously didn't read this article which I posted about on the previous page of this thread, or if you have read it, you've appartently totally ignored it. And I know there is NO explanation possible for the molten steel in the basement of all three buildings, other than with including the use of explosives. This alone destroys the "official" story - that's why those of you buying the "official" story choose to ignore arguing about it. Again you have been told where it come from. A number of the beams where found to have been corroded in an unusual way where the metal seemed to have vapourised, leaving razor thin metal or holes that made the beam look like swiss-cheese. It was determined that sulphur, most likely from acid rains and air pollution (or in the case of WTC 7, the diesel fuels), was able to mix with the hot steel creating a eutectic mixture which allowed parts of the steel to melt at a vastly lower temperature than it should have. Ignoring what you are told and becoming entrenched into a position is a similar attitude to a hardened CT, if you want to show an open mind, then try reading up on what you are told, instead of just ignoring it and repeating statments that have been shown wrong. OK - your first link . It makes the early claim... "the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C." Now, to start your entire analysis with a statement that throws out the claim "apparently exceeding 880C", is a real head-shaker! Apparently?? Not a very good word to see at the outset of a scientific paper!! 800C -a figure claimed with no supporting evidence. "The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast. " Probably? Another taboo word to use if you want your thesis to be take more credible than the author's personal theory. Again, nothing provided to support this claim. I'm not even halfway through the first paragraph!! Seriously, phantom - the entire piece relies on countless assumptions, qualifiers, unsourced claims, etc to validate the conclusions they make. It goes back to my earlier analogy of being told that a large square peg was put into a smaller round hole, and your job is to bs as much as you can to make it look like it can be done, theoretically..
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 2:54:01 GMT -4
Put it this way - this theory is so unfounded that the people who came up with it have to see if they can even duplicate the eutectic reaction with a controlled test, let alone explain how this resulted in one steel pool in each basement of the three buildings. Why would only the one spot in each building have steel which was affected by this rare reaction?
The USGS thermal imaging shows that the temps were very high five days after 9/11 - eutectic reaction theory does not account for the high temps, only possibly the melted steel. It is also important to note it is "melted" steel that can occur in a eutectic reaction, not high temp "molten" steel as the witnesses stated was what they observed. Important difference between the two.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 7, 2005 3:11:35 GMT -4
Hi turbonium
Let's work through a couple of scenarios.
The first is that planes strike the WTC towers, and nothing else happens. The firefighters bring the fires under control, and the evacuation is completed. Are you suggesting that, in your expectations, both towers should have remained standing? Can you conceive any situation in which a plane striking a WTC tower could cause the tower to collapse, or do you believe it was impossible for any sort of plane strike to cause a tower to collapse?
The second scenario is that the buildings were brought down by demolition charges. When and where were these charges placed? Were the plane impacts part of this process? Who organised it and why? Why did no one see the demolition charges or report their existence in the years the buildings stood?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 3:28:52 GMT -4
LOL. Your entire argument is based on explosives that you assume existed. And yet you criticize Bob for making assumptions? Ridiculous. Everything Bob said in that quote is reasonable. How could anyone have planted demolition charges in two 110-story buildings without the thousands of tenents and visitors noticing? Explain that if you expect us to believe you. Have you noticed any criticisms of my "assumption" of explosives being used? You might, since I'm the only one here currently supporting it - and I should dare to criticize an opposing assumption!! What nervel! First thing to accept is that explosives are the most logical explanation for what happened. I haven't convinced you of that yet, and that's the part with lots of evidence available. The method used to install the explosives is based on eyewitnesses to unauthorized people and equipment, power-downs that weren't scheduled, and even reports that there was work done at the time they were built! that was closed off from, and not done by, the regular contruction workers for the towers. No way that can be proven even if someone who witnessed it comes forward. It will be put down as a lie, or a made up story by a publicity seeker. You see, the only physical evidence that could have verified the use of explosives was quickly and illegally haulled off to China - before the rescue workers were even done searching for bodies in the rubble......
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 7, 2005 3:30:54 GMT -4
Good grief turbonium you sound more and more like a CT everytime you open your mouth. You beat on a scientist for using words like "Probably" and making assumptions, then turn around and do exactly the same, and worse yourself. No one is going to say that they know 100% for sure what happened because without actually being able to get the data as the buildings fell EVERYTHING has to be speculation based on the best knowledge. Yes the theories based around physics are still theories, and unless someone repeated the incident with a way of recording it all to prove it, they'll stay theories, but unlike all or your theories, they don't need black suited men with briefcases full of explosives. Unlike your theories they actually make sense and don't need to have everyone in the buildings wearing blindfolds, and they don't need to ignore all the rules of demolition by blowing up the buildings' supports on the TOP stories. Do you put your theories to the same disblief you do the science based ones? I bet not because if you did you would see how ridiculous they really are.
I was going to post this in your other thread, but it's just as relevant here. You aren't interested in find the truth out, you are just interested in trying to prove what you already believe. In the Image thread it is quite obvious what the object is if you were willing to look at it rather than trying to prove it's an arm. The S-Band antenna is the right shpe and is in the right place. The captions are even talking about the antenna when it's on the screen, and in the better images that have been posted it's very obviously the antenna. Starting from a point of "I don't know what it is" and trying to figure it out, the logical answer is that it's an antenna. You don't want to accept that though so you just keep posting worse and worse images, refusing to listen to what people tell you and just carry on your merry way becaue you've already made up your mind. Well the same here. It doesn't matter what you get told, you won't believe it because you mind is already made up. You don't want to believe anything else and so you refuse to see the same and worse holes in your beliefs than are in any alternative.
I don't see that there can be anything else gained from continuing here. You've already made up your mind so dicussion is pointless. As such good luck and have a fun life.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 3:59:55 GMT -4
Hi turbonium Let's work through a couple of scenarios. The first is that planes strike the WTC towers, and nothing else happens. The firefighters bring the fires under control, and the evacuation is completed. Are you suggesting that, in your expectations, both towers should have remained standing? Can you conceive any situation in which a plane striking a WTC tower could cause the tower to collapse, or do you believe it was impossible for any sort of plane strike to cause a tower to collapse? The second scenario is that the buildings were brought down by demolition charges. When and where were these charges placed? Were the plane impacts part of this process? Who organised it and why? Why did no one see the demolition charges? Cheers Hi peter, The demo charges I just went over above - likely impossible to ever prove without physical evidence to examine any more. And yes, the towers for sure would remain standing - the supports that were damaged or taken out didn't affect the majority of the load bearing connections. If you look at these two photos, you'll notice that the central core, where most of the steel was located, was built up BEFORE the external facing up to several floors higher than the rest of the structure. The official"pancake" theory does not account for that fact - the core was able to stand without external cross support. I gotta go - I'll finish up tomorrow. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 4:08:29 GMT -4
Good grief turbonium you sound more and more like a CT everytime you open your mouth. You beat on a scientist for using words like "Probably" and making assumptions, then turn around and do exactly the same, and worse yourself. No one is going to say that they know 100% for sure what happened because without actually being able to get the data as the buildings fell EVERYTHING has to be speculation based on the best knowledge. Yes the theories based around physics are still theories, and unless someone repeated the incident with a way of recording it all to prove it, they'll stay theories, but unlike all or your theories, they don't need black suited men with briefcases full of explosives. Unlike your theories they actually make sense and don't need to have everyone in the buildings wearing blindfolds, and they don't need to ignore all the rules of demolition by blowing up the buildings' supports on the TOP stories. Do you put your theories to the same disblief you do the science based ones? I bet not because if you did you would see how ridiculous they really are. I was going to post this in your other thread, but it's just as relevant here. You aren't interested in find the truth out, you are just interested in trying to prove what you already believe. In the Image thread it is quite obvious what the object is if you were willing to look at it rather than trying to prove it's an arm. The S-Band antenna is the right shpe and is in the right place. The captions are even talking about the antenna when it's on the screen, and in the better images that have been posted it's very obviously the antenna. Starting from a point of "I don't know what it is" and trying to figure it out, the logical answer is that it's an antenna. You don't want to accept that though so you just keep posting worse and worse images, refusing to listen to what people tell you and just carry on your merry way becaue you've already made up your mind. Well the same here. It doesn't matter what you get told, you won't believe it because you mind is already made up. You don't want to believe anything else and so you refuse to see the same and worse holes in your beliefs than are in any alternative. I don't see that there can be anything else gained from continuing here. You've already made up your mind so dicussion is pointless. As such good luck and have a fun life. Well if they really wanted to investigate the worst crime ever on US soil they would not have purposely destroyed the evidence and only spent a fraction of what they did investigating Bill and Monica. Then they wouldn't need to make so many presumptions and best guesses. But you won't think that was a big deal either so we will forever differ in views. That's the way it is - good luck and enjoy life yourself, bob
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 7, 2005 8:36:06 GMT -4
This is not just an "agree to disagree" situation. Your entire argument is based on incredulity, conjecture, and ignorance of how things work, and that's before you get around to accusing (presumably) the government to staging the whole thing. You don't understand that steel can melt in hot enough structural fires (you had your temperature scales wrong to begin with); you seem to assert that steel has to melt before it fails; you ignore the massive deficiencies in your demolition claims; you seem amazed that there could still be a lot of heat under 110 stories worth of collapsed, burning skyscraper; and then you sneer at scientific language which uses appropriate qualifiers and states its assumptions clearly. And you're trying to tell us that the cleanup of economic heart of Manhattan was suspiciously rushed, when the rubble was combed over to the level of small personal effects. Oh, of course, we saw hijacked, fuel-laden jetliners crash into them - let's look for demoltion charges! Ludicrous.
Now we switch to showing pictures of the construction. Yes, it stood up fine by itself. Before a loaded jetliner with plenty of fuel rammed it.
As I've said before, there are and will probably always be holes in our understanding of the exact sequences and mechanisms of the collapses. The conspiracy "theory" of demoltion, though, is all hole.
Would you like to move on and tell us how it wasn't really a 757 that hit the Pentagon?
|
|