## View Poll Results: How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

Voters
51. This poll is closed
• Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

22 43.14%
• Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

0 0%
• Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

10 19.61%
• Allah!

2 3.92%
• People keep flogging a dead horse!

17 33.33%

1. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
The top of the building was supported by columns which could support four times the weight of it. The only way a natural collapse could occur is due to an amplified load. It appears that you might not understand why deceleration is required to produce an amplified load.

None of what you have said here has anything to do with it.

A continuous acceleration means no impulse and no amplified load. Something else is going on.

You have not shown that the upper block of the building had a severe impact with lower stories.
Nicely done. Only one question- what does 'no impulse' mean?

2. I have to say. I have heard some very inteligant and uninteligant arguements on both sides.

But I have to say, unless we get some firsthand proof, ie, a video camera inside the building. I do not think there is any for-sure way of proving or disapproving what happened.

3. Originally Posted by scott3x
Nicely done. Only one question- what does 'no impulse' mean?
An impulse is a shock pulse, which occurs during an impact. It causes an amplified load which means the force applied to the impacted item is greater than the weight of the impacting item.

The reason the weight of the impacting item is amplified (and thus the force) is due to the item being decelerated at a greater rate than gravity.

For example, if you had a five pound brick and placed it gently on the hood of a car it would be applying five pounds of force to the hood while it's mass was being accelerated at the rate of gravity which is 32.2 ft./sec/sec. If you took the brick and held it up three feet and dropped it on the hood and it decelerated at ten times the rate of gravity or 322 ft./sec/sec then it would apply a force of ten times it's weight to the hood.

The key is that it decelerated at a rate greater than that of gravity. Deceleration and acceleration are the same except for their sign as one is negative and the other positive. Every item in the universe has the same mass everywhere in the universe. The weight or static force an item applies towards the center of the earth is due to the acceleration due to gravity here.

Force is simply mass x acceleration or deceleration, and if the deceleration is greater than that of gravity then the force will be proportionally greater.

In a building like the towers the columns had a factor of safety and significant reserve strength, so they could hold a lot more weight than what was on them. In order to overload them the collapsing portion had to have a deceleration due to impact. Deceleration and acceleration are simply the change in velocity with respect to time. If there was an impact capable of producing an amplified load there would have to be severe deceleration and an abrupt loss of velocity. However, measurements of the velocity of the upper block of the North Tower show no abrupt loss of velocity. Thus there was no impact or impulse and no amplified load. That is the only way a natural collapse could have occurred and this mechanism is missing. You might call it the missing jolt.

4. Originally Posted by fedr808
I have to say. I have heard some very inteligant and uninteligant arguements on both sides.

But I have to say, unless we get some firsthand proof, ie, a video camera inside the building. I do not think there is any for-sure way of proving or disapproving what happened.
This lack of velocity loss proves that something other than natural collapse was very likely going on. There is no other way to overload the columns with their high degree of reserve strength. The external video of the fall of the upper portions of the buildings allows us to measure it's position with respect to time or it's velocity very accurately. There will be papers coming out on this in the near future concerning the towers.

Have you watched Physics teacher David Chandler's video proving WTC 7 was in full blown freefall for over two seconds or about 100 feet of it's drop? This means there was no resistance whatsoever for eight full stories. He forced the NIST to change their report on this. The three part video is here. They are relatively short.

If WTC 7 was a controlled demolition the charges had to be pre-positioned, as there would not have been time to rig the building and place them that day.

5. Some were it was posted that the whole Tower weight in a 100,000 tons,

The top third then would weigh in at 33,000 tons,
Jesus H. Christ!!!

This shit is going to go on forever without people even checking that their data is anywhere near correct.

Each tower contained about 100,000 TONS OF STEEL!!! There was more to it than just steel!

Total building mass estimates go from 400,000 to 500,000 TONS.

Now the steel in the tower had to taper toward the top. One column I checked was 20 times as massive at the bottom as it was at the top. This tapering should be obvious from the very nature of skyscrapers. Therefore the top third of the tower WOULD NOT have one third of the steel. This is why I make a big deal of needing an accurate table of data specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level. The conservation of momentum would make it IMPOSSIBLE for the lighter mass to break and accelerate the heavier mass below. High school kids should be able to understand why this could not happen.

psik

6. Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Jesus H. Christ!!!

This shit is going to go on forever without people even checking that their data is anywhere near correct.

Each tower contained about 100,000 TONS OF STEEL!!! There was more to it than just steel!

Total building mass estimates go from 400,000 to 500,000 TONS.

Now the steel in the tower had to taper toward the top. One column I checked was 20 times as massive at the bottom as it was at the top. This tapering should be obvious from the very nature of skyscrapers. Therefore the top third of the tower WOULD NOT have one third of the steel. This is why I make a big deal of needing an accurate table of data specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level. The conservation of momentum would make it IMPOSSIBLE for the lighter mass to break and accelerate the heavier mass below. High school kids should be able to understand why this could not happen.

psik
Right the upper third of the tower would not weigh anywhere near 1/3 of the total weight as the towers were virtual pyramids, like any skyscraper, as far as the steel structure was concerned. The floor slab weights were fairly constant though.

7. Originally Posted by fedr808
I have to say. I have heard some very inteligant and uninteligant arguements on both sides.

But I have to say, unless we get some firsthand proof, ie, a video camera inside the building. I do not think there is any for-sure way of proving or disapproving what happened.
So how do we solve this if we don't get some intelligent understanding of physics? The simple fact that we do not have trustworthy data on the distribution of steel and concrete in the building makes this SEVEN YEAR debate extremely unintelligent. Even people that don't understand the physics should find this absurd. How can a 1360 foot skyscraper even be financed without that being costed out before the investors will put up the money?

psik

8. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
Originally Posted by scott3x
Nicely done. Only one question- what does 'no impulse' mean?
An impulse is a shock pulse, which occurs during an impact. It causes an amplified load which mean the force is greater than the weight of the impacting item.
Ah, ok.

The reason the weight of the impacting item is amplified (and thus the force) is due to the item being decelerated at a greater rate than gravity.

For example, if you had a five pound brick and placed it gently on the hood of a car it would be applying five pounds of force to the hood while it's mass was being accelerated at the rate of gravity which is 32.2 ft./sec/sec. If you took the brick and held it up three feet and dropped it on the hood and it decelerated at ten times the rate of gravity or 322 ft./sec/sec then it would apply a force of ten times it's weight to the hood.
Yes, I understand the greater force when it's fallen a ways part, just not the 'impulse' term. Took me a bit to get this 'rate of gravity' thing but I think I have it now.

The key is that it decelerated at a rate greater than that of gravity. Deceleration and acceleration are the same except for their sign as one is negative and the other positive. Every item in the universe has the same mass everywhere in the universe. The weight or static force an item applies towards the center of the earth is due to the acceleration due to gravity here.

Force is simply mass x acceleration or deceleration, and if the deceleration is greater than that of gravity then the force will be proportionally greater.

In a building like the towers the columns had a factor of safety and significant reserve strength, so they could hold a lot more weight than what was on them. In order to overload them the collapsing portion had to have a deceleration due to impact. Deceleration and acceleration are simply the change in velocity with respect to time. If there was an impact capable of producing an amplified load there would have to be severe deceleration and an abrupt loss of velocity. However, measurements of the velocity of the upper block of the North Tower show no abrupt loss of velocity. Thus there was no impact or impulse and no amplified load. That is the only way a natural collapse could have occurred and this mechanism is missing. You might call it the missing jolt.
Personally, I think the 'missing jolt' is a bit obvious (as in explosives), given pictures ilke this:
http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg

But apparently that's not the case for many.

9. Originally Posted by scott3x
Ah, ok.

Yes, I understand the greater force when it's fallen a ways part, just not the 'impulse' term. Took me a bit to get this 'rate of gravity' thing but I think I have it now.

Personally, I think the 'missing jolt' is a bit obvious (as in explosives), given pictures ilke this:
http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg

But apparently that's not the case for many.
I think the pluming certainly says something.

10. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
I think the pluming certainly says something.
Yeah, though I think the far reaching lateral ejections are fairly revealing as well- I've certainly never seen a building collapse that way- the dust is generally seen most when the building hits the ground, not before. As psikey said, this wasn't a normal demolition; a normal demolition was WTC 7, where the building seems to literally sink. The twin towers were truly explosive demolitions.

11. Yes, I understand the greater force when it's fallen a ways part, just not the 'impulse' term. Took me a bit to get this 'rate of gravity' thing but I think I have it now.
That is the trouble with a lot of this crap. They come up with some jargon for a simple idea that grade school kids deal with when they are playing with their toys. But suddenly people don't understand it because they don't know the jargon.

And then you run into pseudo-intellectual morons that don't want to explain the jargon but want to act like you are stupid because you don't know it. I didn't know what dead loads and live loads were when I started reading the NCSTAR1 report but that doesn't make them complicated concepts. But we are supposed to take that crap seriously when they leave out something a simple as the total quantity of concrete. If this shit wasn't so serious I could find the whole thing hysterically funny.

psik

12. Originally Posted by scott3x
Yeah, though I think the far lateral ejections are fairly revealing as well- I've certainly never seen a building collapse that way- the dust is generally seen most when the building hits the ground, not before. As psikey said, this wasn't a normal demolition; a normal demolition was WTC 7, where the building seems to literally sink. The twin towers were truly explosive demolitions.
I think the tower collapses were a really a series of about 25 to 30 three story demolitions one on top of the other all the way down. The pluming is caused by dust from the above demolitions being blown upward and outward from the charges in the lower demolitions. The reason for this is that the material was falling a little faster than the demolitions actually took place.

13. I Hypothesised in the other thread.

If Aeronautics fuel was to drain down the elevator shafts, there is a likelihood that the ventilation ducts would connect to the shaft too. What this basically means is the fuel could generate explosive vapour over a small duration of time and become fully ignited by the blaze.

This would mean that you'd have a sudden flashpoint in the Elevator shaft which just happened to reside in the central core structure (What was load bearing). The force would damage the entire core and obviously the path of least resistance would actually be straight up the shaft. This is what would cause a plume.

I really don't think any "Demolitions" was used at all and if you can't see how absurd it is, then you are just too deeply obsessed with the overall event.

14. Originally Posted by Stryder
I Hypothesised in the other thread.

If Aeronautics fuel was to drain down the elevator shafts, there is a likelihood that the ventilation ducts would connect to the shaft too. What this basically means is the fuel could generate explosive vapour over a small duration of time and become fully ignited by the blaze.

This would mean that you'd have a sudden flashpoint in the Elevator shaft which just happened to reside in the central core structure (What was load bearing). The force would damage the entire core and obviously the path of least resistance would actually be straight up the shaft. This is what would cause a plume.

I really don't think any "Demolitions" was used at all and if you can't see how absurd it is, then you are just too deeply obsessed with the overall event.
Where is there any evidence of a fuel air explosion other than the impact fireballs? The likelihood of liquid fuel running down elevator shafts and then aerosolizing and then having an ignition source is remote at best.

The fuel that remained after the fireball was approximately the same amount that is contained in a backyard above ground swimming pool. It went over several floors and would have been aerosolized by the impact and landed as a thin film on the impact floors, where it did ignite the fires but burned off in minutes. The floors in the towers were one acre in area. If you spread the 5,000 to 7,000 gallons remaining over two floors you have a film thickness of about a tenth of an inch. The link below is a good article on the fuel issue.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...sWTCTowers.pdf

Even if it could happen, it is highly unlikely that any fuel air explosion would damage the columns in the tower, as the pressures it generates aren't high enough for that. It might knock down sheetrock walls but that is about it.

15. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
This lack of velocity loss proves that something other than natural collapse was very likely going on. There is no other way to overload the columns with their high degree of reserve strength.
have any figures on this reserve strength"
i don't recall ever seeing any in my studies of WTC construction.
no wiki articles or biased sites please.

16. Originally Posted by leopold99
have any figures on this reserve strength"
i don't recall ever seeing any in my studies of WTC construction.
no wiki articles or biased sites please.

I do and wrote this short paper discussing it. You can skip to the Reference section for the information on how the the safety factors or reserve strength was determined. You need to know the cross sectional area of the columns and the weight above them, and the yield strength of the steel used in the columns to determine it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...TwinTowers.pdf

17. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
Where is there any evidence of a fuel air explosion other than the impact fireballs?
uh maybe the numerous explosions that were heard?
The likelihood of liquid fuel running down elevator shafts and then aerosolizing and then having an ignition source is remote at best.
it isn't even close to being remote.
that fuel was running down the sides of the building and the elevator shafts.

The fuel that remained after the fireball was approximately the same amount that is contained in a backyard above ground swimming pool.
and of course you know this because you were actually there counting the gallons, right?
It went over several floors and would have been aerosolized by the impact and landed as a thin film on the impact floors, where it did ignite the fires but burned off in minutes. The floors in the towers were one acre in area. If you spread the 5,000 to 7,000 gallons remaining over two floors you have a film thickness of about a tenth of an inch. The link below is a good article on the fuel issue.
the only problem is that the distribution wasn't uniform and you know it.

Even if it could happen, it is highly unlikely that any fuel air explosion would damage the columns in the tower, as the pressures it generates aren't high enough for that.
true, but the explosions could have caused other damage that led directly to the collapse.

18. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
I do and wrote this short paper discussing it. You can skip to the Reference section for the information on how the the safety factors or reserve strength was determined. You need to know the cross sectional area of the columns and the weight above them, and the yield strength of the steel used in the columns to determine it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...TwinTowers.pdf
i said "UNBIASED SITES"

19. Originally Posted by leopold99
i said "UNBIASED SITES"
Your use of the term biased seems to be biased. Why don't you read the article and then comment.

20. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
Your use of the term biased seems to be biased. Why don't you read the article and then comment.
got any links to neutral sources or not?