9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?

[DiveCon]

thats nothing but more of your paranoid delusions

Not buying the Sale item here. 12 floors + 12 floors = 24 floors coming down on the rest, compounding speed, weight, and mass, as it drops. The types of structures in the comparison are dissimilar too. Two of the same types of structures are what should be compared here. You would be better off researching design flaws with WTC design. There were many. There were strong arguments against building it in the first place.

exactly

 

[Obamerican]

F**king Disturbing.

Knowing the basic physics shown and proven in this video, how did the video analysis prove Controlled Demolition? Care to address the facts and take off the blinders?

Both WTC's collapsed, yes COLLAPSED, due to their unique design. Show me another building in the world that was built where the outside walls are held in place by TRUSSES!!!

Once again:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

After watching the video and listening to the facts presented through basic physics and video analysis, what is your take?

Can you handle it?


Care to address the FACTS that PROVE it was NOT a COLLAPSE which you KEEP FALSELY stating? Wouldn't you actually want to know what you were talking about? Physics prove your view is 100% incorrect. The collapse theory is impossible.

This video proves CD. Watch it, stop being afraid. I thought you could handle it considering you're so sure of yourself and the 9/11 story from the Govt.

Debate these points if you're so sure that "The two WTC towers do not fit the criteria for a CD"

I don't think you're man enough to stand up for that statement.

The building in the video where they use hydraulics to collapse the center section is not even built like the WTC!!

Once again, name another building built like the WTC!!

 

[eots]

thats nothing but more of your paranoid delusions

Not buying the Sale item here. 12 floors + 12 floors = 24 floors coming down on the rest, compounding speed, weight, and mass, as it drops. The types of structures in the comparison are dissimilar too. Two of the same types of structures are what should be compared here. You would be better off researching design flaws with WTC design. There were many. There were strong arguments against building it in the first place.

nonsense..what building codes have made changed as a resullt of the collapse of any of the three buildings ?

 

[Obamerican]

thats nothing but more of your paranoid delusions

Not buying the Sale item here. 12 floors + 12 floors = 24 floors coming down on the rest, compounding speed, weight, and mass, as it drops. The types of structures in the comparison are dissimilar too. Two of the same types of structures are what should be compared here. You would be better off researching design flaws with WTC design. There were many. There were strong arguments against building it in the first place.

nonsense..what building codes have made changed as a resullt of the collapse of any of the three buildings ?

What in the hell does that even mean?

 

[eots]

I thought you freaks believed those puffs of smoke were bombs inside the building. LOL!

Why do you even speak when you have no clue ?...I have no doubt you are another one of these that does not even know the basics of the offical investigations you blindly support

 

[hortysir]

Asking AGAIN;
How many steel-structured buildings have been collapsed by burning jet fuel that would determine that it's physically impossible for one to collapse in this manner?

 

[eots]

Asking AGAIN;
How many steel-structured buildings have been collapsed by burning jet fuel that would determine that it's physically impossible for one to collapse in this manner?

kerosene fuel does not burn at high temperature it just sounds dramatic to say "jet fuel" and no jet hit wtc 7

 

[DiveCon]

Asking AGAIN;
How many steel-structured buildings have been collapsed by burning jet fuel that would determine that it's physically impossible for one to collapse in this manner?

kerosene fuel does not burn at high temperature it just sounds dramatic to say "jet fuel" and no jet hit wtc 7

sure it cant
National Geographic TV Debunks 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Monday | NewsBusters.org

 

[Intense]

thats nothing but more of your paranoid delusions

Not buying the Sale item here. 12 floors + 12 floors = 24 floors coming down on the rest, compounding speed, weight, and mass, as it drops. The types of structures in the comparison are dissimilar too. Two of the same types of structures are what should be compared here. You would be better off researching design flaws with WTC design. There were many. There were strong arguments against building it in the first place.

nonsense..what building codes have made changed as a resullt of the collapse of any of the three buildings ?

Construction began in 1966 and cost an estimated $1.5 billion. One World Trade Center was ready for its first tenants in late 1970, though the upper stories were not completed until 1972; Two World Trade Center was finished in 1973. Excavation to bedrock 70 feet below produced the material for the Battery Park City landfill project in the Hudson River. When complete, the Center met with mixed reviews, but at 1,368 and 1,362 feet and 110 stories each, the twin towers were the world's tallest, and largest, buildings until the Sears Tower surpassed them both in 1974.

The World Trade Center: Statistics and History




Overcome by emotion, he silently showed more of the now-familiar images from that day’s aftermath. In a soft voice, he began to talk about the comparative blast power of the two planes’ fuel loads. The Oklahoma City bomb that destroyed the federal building, for example, was the equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel. The Boeing 767 that hit the first tower was estimated to be carrying 45,600 liters of fuel.

"A lot of people have told me, ‘You should have used more concrete in the structure,’" Robertson said. (A concrete-and-steel frame is believed to be more fire-resistant.) He showed a chart plotting the strength-versus-temperature-performance of steel and concrete. At the incendiary levels that raged in the towers, the two materials differ little in performance.

Original WTC Engineer




You might like to study this.

Chapter 2 - The WTC Report.

 

[hortysir]

Asking AGAIN;
How many steel-structured buildings have been collapsed by burning jet fuel that would determine that it's physically impossible for one to collapse in this manner?

kerosene fuel does not burn at high temperature it just sounds dramatic to say "jet fuel" and no jet hit wtc 7

So that's "none".

The point is, to you and your paranoid friends, that there is no precedent for this kind of event and no feasible way to reenact it to make the unequivocal determination that it is impossible.

 

[Intense]

Asking AGAIN;
How many steel-structured buildings have been collapsed by burning jet fuel that would determine that it's physically impossible for one to collapse in this manner?

kerosene fuel does not burn at high temperature it just sounds dramatic to say "jet fuel" and no jet hit wtc 7

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.



After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

 

[hortysir]

Popular Mechanics??
pfft....

 

[PhysicsExist]

Are you citing popular mechanics? Holy shit.

 

[DiveCon]

Are you citing popular mechanics? Holy shit.

its better than any of the BULLSHIT you post

 

[PhysicsExist]

The video is using Physics in 1 gravity driven demolition and Physics in WTC Tower collapses and comparing them. He proves with PHYSICS that the top floor did not PILE DRIVE and GRAVITATIONALLY crush the bottom part of the Towers, because 1: It is physically impossible, 2: there is no jolt (required by physics) and 3: there is acceleration. Grasp basic physics before responding with such bunk.

You don't even realize how ignorant it sounds to debate someone who is using Physics, and then you cite POPULAR MECHANICS as your rebuttal is just EMBARRASSING to your credibility on this topic

What language do you need to understand physics prove this was a Controlled Demolition?

Take. Off. the. Blinders.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawHFFo[/ame]

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Plain and simple physics:

Things expand when they are heated

Metals loose strength when they are heated.

The beams expanded because of the heat

The beams were no longer able to support the active load of the floor because of the heat.

This has been the word of science since Archemedis.

Give it a rest

 

[eots]

Plain and simple physics:

Things expand when they are heated

Metals loose strength when they are heated.

The beams expanded because of the heat

The beams were no longer able to support the active load of the floor because of the heat.

This has been the word of science since Archemedis.

Give it a rest

NO kidding.. Einstein !.. and believe it or not these properties of steel are common knowledge to those who build skyscrapers and that has all been accounted for with large redundancy factors built in so a child with a pack of matches doesn't accidentally bring down a skyscraper

 

[Baruch Menachem]

You build for normal range plus a bit.

You don't build for really weird and bizzare.

I know these engineers built for large temperature ranges... You look at any large structure there are all kinds of expansion joints and the like.

The article said the NIST said there should be a re think of building codes based on this. This wide of a single beam with no space to give in these conditions mean that this is going to be a problem in the future.

But, the did not build it for a condition where there was no way to cool the fires down for 7 hours. They didn't assume that all the water mains would be broken. The code assumed that if there were a fiere, the NYFD would be hosing it down in short order.

 

[daveman]

Asking AGAIN;
How many steel-structured buildings have been collapsed by burning jet fuel that would determine that it's physically impossible for one to collapse in this manner?

kerosene fuel does not burn at high temperature it just sounds dramatic to say "jet fuel" and no jet hit wtc 7

So that's "none".

The point is, to you and your paranoid friends, that there is no precedent for this kind of event and no feasible way to reenact it to make the unequivocal determination that it is impossible.

On the contrary. This exhaustive experiment proved that fire cannot weaken a steel structure sufficiently to allow it to collapse.

 

[Queen]

I thought you freaks believed those puffs of smoke were bombs inside the building. LOL!

Why do you even speak when you have no clue ?...I have no doubt you are another one of these that does not even know the basics of the offical investigations you blindly support

Believe me, I have a clue. LOL. Here's my clue.