Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 23. (Read 54921 times)

Free-fall release of potential energy results in a well know acceleration.  Any tapping of this energy (e.g., ripping apart steel structual members or pulverizing steel reinforced concrete mid-air) would necessarily arrest this free-fall acceleration to some degree.

My intuitive sense ...
[/quote]

Let's not go down the Intuitive Sense road.  That's not a proof.

Earlier I noted that the KE to move the 4 ton beam 600 feet was only 0.2% of the PE of said beam.  That doesn't arrest any measurable part of the "free fall acceleration."  It doesn't bother or surprise me that some stuff went in upward trajectories, I was just mentioning that neither of us had mentioned that.  The major problem was Tecshare's claim that exponentially higher KE was required to move the beam further distances laterally, which is of course false.

Note that if the force working on the joints exceeds the shear stress by orders of magnitude, there will be no measurable slowdown of the collapse. 

When the military can mis-place 2 TRillion dollars it is fairly plausible that the goobmint can make just about anyone whole when needed if there exists the will to do so.  More than whole if that what it takes to make people clam up.

One would expect the insurers who suddenly owed Silverstein (who is definitely not an 'evil Jew') multiple billions of dollars to have a bit of a glitch in their market cap.  Someone who is good at and who enjoys research might want to look into that.  I've not run across anything one way or another.  Just something I thought up just now.

SO FOR A BILLION DOLLARS, NOBODY WOULD TALK?

Wow.  They must have been really dedicated.

Free-fall release of potential energy results in a well know acceleration.  Any tapping of this energy (e.g., ripping apart steel structual members or pulverizing steel reinforced concrete mid-air) would necessarily arrest this free-fall acceleration to some degree.

My intuitive sense is that given the structural design of this particular building the collapse would be fully arrested with a fair part of the building standing, some of which would have shed the floor pans and outer framework which would be more likely to sluff off with at most a tiny few forcefull ejections of smallish bare members.)

The above if several stories above and below the impact site simply vanished.  In an increasingly plastic collapse such as that which the 'fires did it' people try to argue, the top would simply fall off due to the asymmetries.  Probably again partially stripping some of the floor pans on one side.  We would also see deflection of the tower building due to the polar moment of the clearly tipping upper section.  This would either be to great for the structure to sustain in which case it would topple laterally, or it would not and we would see the lower level standing.

Somewhere along the line I ran across some pretty good footage detailing the various 'upward' trajectories.  Cannot see it now, but in less focused footage plenty of interesting trajectories, accelerations, and mid-air pulverizations are noticed:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

Of course there are a lot of interesting stills as well:



Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's say that there were zero incidents of debris moving past normal to the fall vector (e.g., upward of horizontal).  The energy input needed as impulse to create the lateral velocity noted are more interesting and significant than that needed to create an upward vector from a normal one.  Again, all of these energy sinks and others rob from that available to accelerate the structure on it's collapse path.


This has been quantified from a very early time in the independent analysis.  In looking around, I see a presentation which I'd not yet run across which is interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

This kind of illustrates the mental simulation of the behavior I intuited for such a collapse.  I think it is fair to say that my intuition on such things us above par having spent time taking down buildings as an occupation (albeit exclusively large wooden ones for salvage purposes) and having training level exposure to demolishing various kinds of structures using explosives.

---

Just for fun, here's the kinds of techniques one can use to gauge quantitatively some energetic activities on sort of an order-of-magnitude scale:

1) How much energy is available in a reinforced concrete floor panel due to PE-gravity?  A) How much diesel does a crane use to lift it to it's place.

2) How much energy is necessary to pulverize said concrete floor panel?  A) How much diesel does a jack-hammer use in doing the job?

---

On intuitive thoughts, let's consider the aluminum aircraft parts parsing the steel box columns.  What happens when we intersect 1/13" thick aluminum skin with the 1.5" thick steel box structures at:

 1) 1 m/s
 2) speed of sound
 3) in a ccomputer animation probably done by some failing grad student who wanted a degree and a goobmint job.

What is INCREDIBLE is that someone with your seeming intelligence constantly denies the inside job obviousness.

Here's the brief answer to the question of 9/11-inside-job:

No, that's your conspiracy theory.  Silverman.

So you don't have an answer then?  Because I don't think it's credible that out of hundreds of people involved in some hypothetical plot on 911, that one or two wouldn't have turned informant for a cool billion dollars.

Nope.  Not credible at all.

I like the part about, "Why didn't someone leak it?" If we knew the answer to this question, we could actually start to find the inside-job people.



EDIT: Actually though, the way you keep on bringing up the idea that the Jews did it, you look like you are trying to tell us that they did it, without being too obvious that you are saying such.

No, now that makes no sense.

Straight up now.  Why wasn't the plot by the Evil Jew discovered?

Why didn't someone leak it?  They would have been able to negotiate a billion dollar fee.

That's not quite accurate.  I noted four ways PE could transfer, and I noted by the final of the collapse, PE would be zero, all of it having been transferred.  I don't think either Tecshare or myself has ever mentioned "upwards and outwards," only "outwards."

As for "arresting the acceleration of the collapse," I'm only trying to get it clear what the claim is as to the extent of arresting, before applying some formulas to it.

Note how Spendulus like to have it two ways.  First, the potential energy due gravity was responsible for the launching upwards and outwards of multi-ton steel members, the pulverization of steel reinforced concrete, etc, etc.  Second, he does not believe that the transfer of energy would arrest the acceleration of the collapse.  But, ya know...eight grade physics...

I would disagree with that.  Yes some materials can fall through others virtually without resistence under the right conditions.  Depends on several factors.  For example, if I put a 1/4" piece of steel between two vices, and hit it with a heavy axe, there is negligible slowdown of the axe going through the material because it is sheared.  If every floor individually buckled and warped and collapsed individually, that would mean that shear point had not been reached.  Possibly the first floor to collapse was a buckling and bending motion, then all subsequent floors' structural members sheared apart.

Shearing is fast; bending and buckling is slow.  Which was it?  Well, in the videos do we see slow bending and buckling?  No?  Then structural members were sheared.  But the question is how.  Explosives would have sheered them, so could have the immense weight from above falling down.  However, if the momentum of the falling structure was insufficient to create the shearing forces, then it's necessary to look for another cause.

That's why I asked if you are good with 10 seconds plus or minus 0.8.  I'm not arguing or agreeing with some report, so there's no reason for me to go look at it.  I asked what your number was.

Give me that and I'll look at it.  

Then why don't you go take a look you lazy arrogant fuck? I handed it to you on a silver platter, all you had to do was scroll down to page 305. You are sitting here arguing with me and you don't even bother to check any of the sources? How much more disingenuous and presumptuous can you get? This proves you don't give a flying fuck about what really happened and are simply here to sell your version of the narrative at all costs.



The problem with your logic is estimates I have seen are around the ONE MINUTE range for a total pancake collapse to happen for a building of that height, so .8 seconds is negligible. Again, you are simply using this as an opportunity to divert from the subject matter and create more dithering rather than address the points presented by arguing tertiary issues.

Does every point need to be repeated in each post in order to fit with your seemingly goldfish sized memory? Pretty sure we have been clear that explosives were used. You however are relying on allegories about bridges, objects in orbit, space rays, and ninjas.




I can speak for myself, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to make my points for me Badecker. I Choose specific points and paths of discussion carefully in order to prevent diversion of the debate by this obvious shill, what you are doing is just giving him more endless unprovable topics to argue about in order to pretend his arguments have merit.

No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative.

Shear and tensile strength is the itty bitty start. The buildings sat there for years without a problem. Testing the buildings for shear and tensile strength at the time of the collapse is impossible. But it is necessary because of the many factors that might have contributed to the change in shear and tensile strength.

The Towers stood there for years. Putting a non-uniform hole in the side of each doesn't necessarily produce uniform pancake action. If you say it did, because that is the way the Towers came down, you are using circular referencing.

Crash factors alone were not enough to bring the buildings down. The buildings were built to take that kind of stress.

The next option is jet fuel. The amounts of fuel burned, and the amounts of fuel boiled away are unknowns. Even the amounts of fuel that the planes were carrying at the times of the crashes are estimations. In addition, it is almost near guesswork suggesting that the tower structures provided the "wind" necessary to burn the part of fuel that DID burned, with enough heat to cause any structural damage at all. Why? Because the Towers were designed to keep this kind of wind turbulence from happening.

Another option, explosives, makes the whole Tower destruction operation a sure thing. Why? Because it is used in demolition of buildings all over the place. Experience shows that we can almost produce any crash effect we want with demolition.

The major point against non-demolition of the Towers, is the uniformity of the crashes. With the sides of the buildings weakened as they were, there should have been more topple effect. Yet there was almost none, and the little there was magically corrected itself.

Let's go where the sure answer is - demolition - rather than seeking to guess that the way nature works in chemistry, math, and physics was the thing that produced the Tower crashes, especially in the light of the fact that we don't know which of these applies and to what extent.

If Tecshare was saying the same thing you said, that's like saying a stopped clock is right twice a day, but without glasses you don't know what it says.

He can speak for himself.  No, we don't need to look at examples.  We can simply look at shear and tensile strengths of materials, and use standard engineering formulas.

If I happened to be talking about that at all, it was by accident.

No initial cause necessary. Simply the difference in near free fall speed with a collapse pancake style vs. a collapse after an explosive dismemberment.

Do we really have a pancake example? There must be examples in demolition where dismemberment has been used.

If the only pancake examples we have are the Towers, we don't have enough information other than hypothesis and theory.

Totally unscientific to suggest that the pancake without demolition was what happened, unless we can find other examples of it happening to other buildings in a very similar way.

TECSHARE was simply saying this, but using more words.

There's likely a classical problem in engineering to be seen here.  It's an issue where the cause and effect you are seeking to find is much smaller than the errors in measurement.  For example if you are looking for a difference of 0.1 second, and the error in measurement is + or - 0.8 seconds, then you cannot make a statement about the 0.1.  If on the other hand the cause and effect is 2.0 seconds or 3.0, then regardless of the 0.8 second measurement, you can make a statement.

I'm picking those numbers strictly out of the air to answer your question. 

Also, note that the above formulation does not address the "initial cause."  I refer there to the initial cause of collapse.  We are (as I understand it) discussing the presence or absence of a continuing string of explosives used to create a higher than natural fall speed of the tower. 

The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders.

Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference.

If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-21/cia-accidentally-destroyed-6700-page-torture-report-snowden-calls-bullshit

“I worked @CIA. I wrote the Emergency Destruction Plan for Geneva. When CIA destroys something, it’s never a mistake.”

Food for thought.