TerrorStorm: Free movie

[geoffrey]

It's been awhile since I have done some math. Kudos for you for pulling it out. But essentialy you are saying that no resistance whatsoever was present when the towers fell?

You said earlier that if you jumped off the roof of a 110 story building, you'd hit ground in 10 seconds. I haven't actually verified this (either through experience or research) but ok. So, why would you assume that a building would take any longer to collapse?

I have verified it in a really fun way. Skydived a few times. We left at 10,000 feet. Pull the chute at 5000 feet. So in ~30 seconds I fell ~5000 feet in freefall. The wind resistance was not enough to hold me back, but collapsing on other floors below me might cause a slight delay in the collapse.

Gost, your missing what Kimmy is saying. Whether it collapsed due to the plane or planted explosives, the building would have fallen at the same rate.

[GostHacked]

It's been awhile since I have done some math. Kudos for you for pulling it out. But essentialy you are saying that no resistance whatsoever was present when the towers fell?

You said earlier that if you jumped off the roof of a 110 story building, you'd hit ground in 10 seconds. I haven't actually verified this (either through experience or research) but ok. So, why would you assume that a building would take any longer to collapse?

I have verified it in a really fun way. Skydived a few times. We left at 10,000 feet. Pull the chute at 5000 feet. So in ~30 seconds I fell ~5000 feet in freefall. The wind resistance was not enough to hold me back, but collapsing on other floors below me might cause a slight delay in the collapse.

Gost, your missing what Kimmy is saying. Whether it collapsed due to the plane or planted explosives, the building would have fallen at the same rate.

I cannot put faith in that. And I am not missing what she is saying. There was no resistance at all to the collapse. If no resistance was provided and it fell at free fall speed, either the WTC was a shody peice of engineering or the lower floors were taken out. To say the floors would have offered NO resistance I think is wrong.

[Charles Anthony]

To say the floors would have offered NO resistance I think is wrong.

I agree with you but this back and forth is getting tired.

I think the arguments are getting futile and are just as useful as asking "Who killed Marilyn Monroe or JFK or Paul McCartney?" Some people believe this and some people believe that. By the time you can convince enough people, it will not make a difference.

In general, I think the proliferation of conspiracy theories is a sign of a free society.

I want to ask you a slightly different question, if I may: what do you want to accomplish?

[GostHacked]

To say the floors would have offered NO resistance I think is wrong.

I agree with you but this back and forth is getting tired.

I think the arguments are getting futile and are just as useful as asking "Who killed Marilyn Monroe or JFK or Paul McCartney?" Some people believe this and some people believe that. By the time you can convince enough people, it will not make a difference.

In general, I think the proliferation of conspiracy theories is a sign of a free society.

I want to ask you a slightly different question, if I may: what do you want to accomplish?

Either to be proven wrong, or proven right. If I am wrong, I will accept that, if I am right..... I really don't want to be right.

[Michael Hardner]

Nothing can be proven definitively either way.

In general, I think the proliferation of conspiracy theories is a sign of a free society.

Maybe their existance signifies that, but their abundance signifies that there are problems with society.

[Riverwind]

Either to be proven wrong, or proven right. If I am wrong, I will accept that, if I am right..... I really don't want to be right.

Your have to place your faith somewhere. You have two choices:

1) You can accept, without proof, that a democratically elected gov't would deliberately murder thousands of its citizens and cause billions in property damage for dubious political objectives.

2) You accept, without proof, that current building science is not perfect and that there is a scientific explanation for all the physical evidence available that proves that two planes hitting the buildings is what caused the collapse.

In both cases you have to accept a lot on faith. Given the choice between the two I choose 2).

[GostHacked]

Nothing can be proven definitively either way.

In general, I think the proliferation of conspiracy theories is a sign of a free society.

Maybe their existance signifies that, but their abundance signifies that there are problems with society.

Or a problem with how society is governed.

[GostHacked]

Either to be proven wrong, or proven right. If I am wrong, I will accept that, if I am right..... I really don't want to be right.

Your have to place your faith somewhere. You have two choices:

1) You can accept, without proof, that a democratically elected gov't would deliberately murder thousands of its citizens and cause billions in property damage for dubious political objectives.

2) You accept, without proof, that current building science is not perfect and that there is a scientific explanation for all the physical evidence available that proves that two planes hitting the buildings is what caused the collapse.

In both cases you have to accept a lot on faith. Given the choice between the two I choose 2).

Interesting choice. I would have to say number 1. If we have not learned alot about building contruction over the last 100 years then this was again short sightedness.

And as for the second one. In the 9/11 Commision Report, they official explanation if WTC7 is unknown fully, and they even said that it needed furthur investigation. Too bad this came a couple years to late when most of the evidence was shipped off to China.

Simply not enough investigation was done into the collapse of the buildings. So I will cover all my bases and say both the 'conspiracy theories' and the 'official story' are both bullshit.

There is one major diffence on both sides you have to consider.

The people who keep pressing for the truth and those who ask us to trust them.

It's been about 2 years now since I have been looking into this. Loose Change was the first one I watched, but though it was quite outrageous. Then I watched other things to try to refute it. I still lean torwards #1.

Call it a hunch.

EDIT

Ok here are a couple vids available about 9/11 Thse are the ones are the best ones I have seen so far.

9-11 Press for Truth

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=558...duration%3Along

9-11 Mysteries

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-67...q=911+mysteries

9-11 Eyewitness.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-34...duration%3Along

[JerrySeinfeld]

I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for ya

[Charles Anthony]

You have two choices:

No.

I do not believe it was the government.

[kimmy]

It's been awhile since I have done some math. Kudos for you for pulling it out. But essentialy you are saying that no resistance whatsoever was present when the towers fell?

I'm arguing that *air resistance* was a negligible factor. The math I did earlier shows that as the weight of the falling object increases, the effect of air-resistance on acceleration decreases. Since the weight of the falling object in this case was so enormous, the effect of air-resistance becomes insignificance.

We'll look at the resistance of the remaining structure next.

You said earlier that if you jumped off the roof of a 110 story building, you'd hit ground in 10 seconds. I haven't actually verified this (either through experience or research) but ok. So, why would you assume that a building would take any longer to collapse?

I have verified it in a really fun way. Skydived a few times. We left at 10,000 feet. Pull the chute at 5000 feet. So in ~30 seconds I fell ~5000 feet in freefall. The wind resistance was not enough to hold me back, but collapsing on other floors below me might cause a slight delay in the collapse.

Wind resistance did hold you back.

You fell 1540 meters in 30 seconds.

In a vacuum, it would take you only 17.7 seconds to fall 1540 meters. Your free-fall took almost twice as long as it would have if there were no air resistance.

Everybody's heard the phrase "terminal velocity". That's the point at which the air resistance of the falling object is exactly equal to the force of gravity on the falling object. The falling object doesn't accelerate downward anymore, it just falls at a constant rate.

So, how fast did the towers collapse, anyway?

You said earlier that the collapses took 10 seconds. The NIST report says 12 seconds (source)

Either way, they collapsed slower than freefall. The buildings were hit at .79 and .87 of their height, or roughly 330 and 360 meters of their total 417 meter height. A 50,000 ton object falling from 330 to 360 meters from a stationary start would take 8.2 to 8.3 seconds. (easy to calculate using simple kinematics formulas.)

So whether the collapse took 10 or 12 seconds, it came down slower than free-fall.

If you use the 12 second collapse, the rates of acceleration work out to 4.6m/s^2 and 5m/s^2

If you prefer the 10 second number, the acceleration works out to 6.6m/s^2 and 7.2m/s^2

Either way, it's significantly slower than the standard gravity figure of 9.8m/s^2.

Since we've already dismissed air resistance, the only explanation for the slower-than-freefall collapse is the resistance of the remaining structure. So, it turns out that the strength of the surviving structure *did* slow the collapse, by a minimum of 26.5% to as much as 53%, depending which building and which time number you use.

Inevitable question #1: "why wasn't the remaining structure strong enough to stop the collapse completely? It was strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above it, so why did it collapse at all?"

Answer: the stationary case and the moving case are different. Home experiment: take a pane of glass out of your bedroom window. Put horizontally with supports at the corners, and gently rest a brick on it, in the middle. You'll probably find that your bedroom window is strong enough to support the weight of the brick. Probably even several bricks. Maybe even a cinder-block. But what happens if instead of gently resting the brick onto the window, you drop it? Uh-oh. That probably doesn't work very well. You probably don't have to drop the brick from more than a couple of inches for it to break through the glass.

So why the difference? Well, if you gently rest the brick on the window, the window only has to provide force equal to the weight of the brick to keep things stationary. But if you drop the brick, even from a few inches, then to bring the brick to rest, the pane of glass has to absorb the kinetic energy of the brick. The brick has to lose all of its kinetic energy, and the only place for it to go is into the pane of glass. The pane of glass will dissipate some of the kinetic energy as vibration (ie, loud noise), and store some of the kinetic energy as potential energy (by bending.) Since your bedroom window is not very good at either of these things, this becomes a "failure mode."

Like your poor bedroom window, the 77th floor of WTC2 would have had to absorb the kinetic energy of the object falling on top of it. In the case of WTC2, the object coming down onto it would have been a 50,000 ton box. Like your poor bedroom window, the 77th floor didn't have much of a chance of coping with that amount of kinetic energy. It vibrated (as evidenced by the loud sound and by seismic readings during the collapse) and it bent (as evidenced by its collapse onto the 76th floor...) and a snowball effect resulted as each successive floor faced that much more kinetic energy and had even less chance than the floor above it.

-k

[August1991]

Weird thread. It's got Kimmy doing Newtonian physics.

I think Argus got it right here:

But what do you do with university educated people who will argue long and hard, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, that Elvis blew up the World Trade Centre?

Such people are not in need of education, but psychiatric help.

By that standard, Canada has at least two university professors who need psychiatric help. AK Dewdney and Michel Chossudovsky.

I don't know if insanity explains this phenomenon of otherwise educated people believing complete nonsense. It is notable that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists never attempt to explain bombings in London, Madrid, Bali, of US embassies or ships abroad, the Khobar Towers, attacks in Moscow, Beslan or Richard Reid or the killing of Theo van Gogh and threats against Ayaan Ali Hirsi. Their arcane theories are exclusively focussed on events in the United States in September 2001.

People who claim to have seen aliens invariably describe them as remarkably humanoid and so I similarly figure that conspiracy theorists have a hang-up with the US government. I still meet separatists who believe that Trudeau planned the FLQ crisis.

[sharkman]

Bush Derangemet Syndrome. Besides those who have a hang up with the U.S. gov. in general, there are those whose hang up with Bush has become so strong it blocks out logic and reason.

[Charles Anthony]

Like your poor bedroom window, the 77th floor of WTC2 would have had to absorb the kinetic energy of the object falling on top of it. In the case of WTC2, the object coming down onto it would have been a 50,000 ton box.

Excellent! I am now convinced!

I don't know if insanity explains this phenomenon of otherwise educated people believing complete nonsense. It is notable that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists never attempt to explain bombings

Since you mention bombings, let us move on to World Trade Tower 7 that was not hit by anything.

From where did it get its kinetic energy?

[Michael Hardner]

Since you mention bombings, let us move on to World Trade Tower 7 that was not hit by anything.

From where did it get its kinetic energy?

Charles:

Some causes for that collapse have been identified, but nothing definitive. Because that remains unexplained, that's the largest window of opportunity for conspiracy theorists to leap in and construct impossibly complex explanations.

[Charles Anthony]

Some causes for that collapse have been identified, but nothing definitive.

Yes and some of those official causes are as stupid as "fire". The most you will give is "nothing definitive"? How many buildings have fires? Lots! How many buildings have fires and collapse in 10 seconds? One!

Because that remains unexplained, that's the largest window of opportunity for conspiracy theorists to leap in and construct impossibly complex explanations.

It may be a large window for the conspiracy theorist but it is a small window for theorizing the physical cause of why it fell.

WTC7 tower looks exactly like a demolition and it was not hit by anything.

By the way, if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck, what do you think it might be?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes and some of those official causes are as stupid as "fire". The most you will give is "nothing definitive"? How many buildings have fires? Lots! How many buildings have fires and collapse in 10 seconds? One!

There's also the issue of falling debris, but...

It may be a large window for the conspiracy theorist but it is a small window for theorizing the physical cause of why it fell.

WTC7 tower looks exactly like a demolition and it was not hit by anything.

We don't know what exactly happened... therefore it was demolished by the owners.

It doesn't follow. None of the demolition theories make any sense.

[Charles Anthony]

We don't know what exactly happened... therefore it was demolished by the owners.

Well how strategic for them to have rigged it up so fast on the exact same day, is it not?

I guess amid all of the frantic running around, they had their thinking caps on and were able to maintain their composure!

[Michael Hardner]

Well how strategic for them to have rigged it up so fast on the exact same day, is it not?

I guess amid all of the frantic running around, they had their thinking caps on and were able to maintain their composure!

It sounds like you're agreeing with me !

[Riverwind]

WTC7 tower looks exactly like a demolition and it was not hit by anything.By the way, if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck, what do you think it might be?

A goose? WTC7 was hit by falling debris - enough to take a big chunk out of the front of it near the top. This put additional pressure on some of the supports. In addition there was a gasoline fire buring all day in parts of the building - this would have weaken some other supports. The combination of the two events lead to a 'cascade failure' of all supports (i.e. when one support fails the weght shifts to the other supports which immediately fail because of the extra load). A cascade failure produces a collapse that looks like a controlled demolition.

[Charles Anthony]

The combination of the two events lead to a 'cascade failure' of all supports (i.e. when one support fails the weght shifts to the other supports which immediately fail because of the extra load). A cascade failure produces a collapse that looks like a controlled demolition.

That is completely absurd. Landing in ones footprint is geometric balance of the highest order possible. If this illusionary cascade started on one side of the support, you mean to say that all of the other sides will equally collapse simultaneous without one degree of tipping???? That is a leap of faith. I would sooner believe the Earth was flat.

It is completely nonsense particularly in the case of the Twin Towers and makes barely any sense if you believe that Tower7 fell because of falling debris. Here is why:

Twin Towers:

The video footage shows the communications mast-beacon-thingie at the top of the tower falling perfectly downwards along the axial length of the tower IMMEDIATELY upon its descent. It did not tip one degree. That is physically impossible unless all four corners are taken out at the same time.

Tower 7:

falling debris?? Did all of the debris strike the exact center of the roof?

Do you have any links for this "cascading failure" theory?

[Riverwind]

Do you have any links for this "cascading failure" theory?

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=5

[GostHacked]

From the reports on buidling 7, official and conspiracy, it was granted that some of WTC 1 and 2 damaged the south side near the bottom floors. No where do I hear or read or see(videos) about any damage to the near top of WTC 7.

[Michael Hardner]

Here: 911 Myths

[GostHacked]

Here: 911 Myths

Edit gah

From other pics the fires are not at the top, they are about 1/3 of the way up. Any good video of WTC 1 and 2 on collapse show nothing hit the top half of WTC 7. That site is interesting, and seems to have shots that I have not seen anywhere else. But, from the videos, the collapse of 1 and 2 show the debris hitting the bottom portion of that building. On that site the pics show damage to the top of WTC7, and alot of smoke.

Will check into that site some more.