Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thanks Paddoboy for taking the time to post that vid. I really did enjoy it.
Alex
Alex
You are one twisted dude....that vid. I really did enjoy it.
I enjoyed having it explained Dave.You are one twisted dude.
Right - but those sites are _very_ selective with the videos they show you. Here's one that shows the penthouse collapsing into the center of the building several seconds before the final collapse starts:Well I guess thats the problem...all the vids I have seen shows it standing with no apparent problems and then it falls real fast with nothing appearing to move a great deal all crumplying from the bottom no tilt just straight down just like many demos.
Here's the quote that caused all the ruckus:And the owner did say " pull it" and he did not sound like he meant pull the firemen out..They were out.
16 seconds? That's considerably longer than freefall time. Did you include the time from the beginning of the penthouse collapse?And the rate of fall was calculated by a physist to be very very near free fall...by the eye no structual resistance...
Like Simon and Garfunkel said, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." There was plenty of chaos that day. If you want to believe ANY conspiracy theory about that day, you can probably find some snippet of conversation or some video angle to support your belief. However, Occam is generally correct.Dont you think folk could put that all together and think it sounds and looks fishy? That does not make their conspiracy valid but I certainly can see why folk convince themselves something was wrong.
but those sites are _very_ selective with the videos they show you.
The only time the term is used is when they use cables to pull a building down so it falls in a certain direction.
16 seconds? That's considerably longer than freefall time. Did you include the time from the beginning of the penthouse collapse?
Like Simon and Garfunkel said, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
I dont want to believe anything ...I dont really care.If you want to believe
Because the NIST determined that the building collapsed due to damage from debris and from the fires.No and I would not now...Why would you?
However, the penthouse collapse shows that the building had such serious damage that the penthouse fell into the center of the building (doing even more damage) seconds before it finally collapsed. This is definitely not what you would see if controlled demolition was used to bring it down
Right. I was wondering why you didn't use the top of the structure (i.e. the penthouse.) But I agree you can use a different point (like a top floor window) if you just want the fallrate of that particular point.Yes I agree with all you have said but I think you miss the point I tried to make.
The rate of fall can only be measured when the top of the outter wall starts its movement down. You are in effect measuring the rate of acceleration and you measure when a spot starts (presumably the top of the structure) and at some point that spot arrives at during its fall.
Right
I don't know, I'm no expert, but I am not surprised that fully fuel loaded jet air craft going at probably more then 600kph, would do considerable damage.
Do you think the difference is significant?How long are we going to hear this "fully fueled" crap? The maximum capacity was 24,000 gallons. The airlines are only going to put that much on board for long distance flights, like across the Pacific. The want the planes to land with little fuel in case of crashes and flying fuel around would cost money to accomplish nothing.
The planes impacted with about 10,000 gallons though I have seen some source say 7,000 gallons.
Do you think the difference is significant?
"That fast?" Both took around an hour to collapse.I don't believe that airliner impacts and fire could have destroyed the buildings and made them come down that fast even if they were "fully fueled".
Go for it!I have suggested a computer simulation of the north tower that simply removes 5 stories, 91 through 95, and just drops the top 15 stories on the lower 90. That is more damage than aircraft impact and fire could do. So if the simulation does not come anywhere near destroying most of the building what will everyone say?
But why should so many people who are so certain about the collapse have any objection to such a simulation?
"That fast?" Both took around an hour to collapse.
Go for it!
Yes. It took time for the fires to weaken the remaining building structure enough for the collapse to happen.You are counting from the time of impact.
OK.I am counting from the time of the start of the collapse. Wikipedia says "25 seconds"
Why is that a "problem?"There is a slight problem called the "Conservation of Momentum"
Right. And by the time the upper section of the building gets there, its destructive energy has increased several times due to its higher speed.but then lots of people seem to regard accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete as irrelevant even though it should be obvious that the lower portions of 1000+ foot skyscrapers should need to be stronger than the upper portions and therefore have more steel farther down.
How exactly do you see this problem manifesting here?I am counting from the time of the start of the collapse. Wikipedia says "25 seconds". There is a slight problem called the "Conservation of Momentum"
Yes. It took time for the fires to weaken the remaining building structure enough for the collapse to happen.
OK.
Why is that a "problem?"
Right. And by the time the upper section of the building gets there, its destructive energy has increased several times due to its higher speed.
How does this address your mention of Conservation of Momentum?Do you have evidence that the fire in the north tower did any damage below the 85th level below the collapse?
About half-a-dozen people in the south tower got out from above the impact zone and they said the south tower was in normal condition below the 75th floor.
How exactly do you see this problem manifesting here?
Conservation Momentum applies to systems upon which there are no external forces acting.
There is definitely an external force acting to pull down the buildings.
Do you speculate that they came down too slow? Too fast?
To invoke CoM is to imply there is some external force acting on the buildings. What?
How does this address your mention of Conservation of Momentum?
Yes. It took time for the fires to weaken the remaining building structure enough for the collapse to happen.