9/11

[Canadian Blue]

Hey Polynewbie, do these guy's use idea's from Austin Powers all the time, or is it just once in a while.

[Riverwind]

...from a guy who doesn't know the difference between Newtonian and relativistic physics and gets basic free body diagrams wrong. Everything Riverwind has said about physics has been wrong !

PN, for that last time I never said anything about non-Newtonian physics - it was your total incompetence that made you think that a plain English explanation had something to do with non-Newtonian physics.

Not evenly as I have already pointed out. The load becomes less evenly distributed among the supports and that makes a straight down collapse less possible. So you are wrong again.

If the supports cannot support the additional load then straight down is the only way it can go.

The top of a building collapsing through its remainder is fundamentally an unstable system and that is just using sophisticated terminology to describe common sense. The instability of the system means that the building top cannot continue falling though the building itself.

I have shown many times that a building cannot tip over unless part of the structure can exert a force on it equal to its weight. If no part of the structure can support the weight then it cannot tip. The structure will collapse and the building will fall straight down. Once the building starts moving down the momentum will overload the supports of the floors below and cause them to collapse.

[White Doors]

Hey Polynewbie, do these guy's use idea's from Austin Powers all the time, or is it just once in a while.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[White Doors]

If the supports cannot support the additional load then straight down is the only way it can go.

Unless someone doesn't support 'newtonian physics' (that being gravity).

[Riverwind]

If the supports cannot support the additional load then straight down is the only way it can go.

Unless someone doesn't support 'newtonian physics' (that being gravity).

I suspect Poly got his degree from the Wile E. Coyote School of Engineering

[White Doors]

If the supports cannot support the additional load then straight down is the only way it can go.

Unless someone doesn't support 'newtonian physics' (that being gravity).

I suspect Poly got his degree from the Wile E. Coyote School of Engineering

Come on now, you are giving Poly a wee too much credit there are you not?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind, after I have pointed out numerous simple examples of your errors you keep using stupid insults and even dumber explanations about physics that show you know even less about the topic each time.

There are plenty of examples of buildings collapsing or partially collapsing. Its no accident that none ever collapse straight down into their own footprint.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, after I have pointed out numerous simple examples of your errors you keep using stupid insults and even dumber explanations about physics that show you know even less about the topic each time.

Poly, you have no business complaining about insults - your posts are full of them. Don't insult me and I won't insult you.

There are plenty of examples of buildings collapsing or partially collapsing. Its no accident that none ever collapse straight down into their own footprint.

Where did I say the every building would collapse into its footprint? My arguments merely show that it is possible for a building to collapse into its footprint. You are the one who insists that it is 'impossible' for a building to collapse into its own footprint. My arguments demonstrate that your assertion is completely false.

Futhermore, there is nothing wrong with my physics (I spent many years studying the subject in university and aced every course). The fact that you cannot/refuse to understand the analysis is your problem - not mine.

[kimmy]

Kimmy:Conservation of momentum says: m1*v1 = m2 * v2

m1 = mass of 25 floors of building; v1 = velocity before impact with the floor below them.

m2 = mass of 26 floors of building; v2 = velocity after impact.

Solving for v2/v1 shows that the added mass slows the downward avalanche by only 3.9%.

blah blah blah

Pancaking or no pancaking, the math works out the same: the law of conservation of momentum shows that the stationary mass encountered by the moving mass doesn't slow the collapse by more than a few percent.

There is the fact that the floors were converted to dust and that takes up some ouf this energy. This would have slowed the collapse by an additional few seconds and would prevent a free fall rate of collapse.

The collapse wasn't at free-fall rate.

The idea of pancaking is pure fiction and that is quite obvious from the video, but if pancaking did occur it could not collapse through the building straight down if the perimeter columns broke during the collapse (which they did)

The top of the tower collapsing down on the remainder of the tower forms an unstable system. The top of the tower could not possibly fall through the rest of the building. As soon as one side started experiencing a little more resistance that the other side due to the "pancaking", the center of gravity for the top part of the building would shift causing more rotation and the building would go through the air rather than through the building because the air offers less resistance to the falling mass than the remainder of the building (which was intact).

If objects could just freely find the path of least resistance in following gravity, coffee cups would spontaneously fall off of tables, books would fall off of shelves, your monitor would fall off your desk, and so on. Why doesn't happen? It's because to fall off the desk, my coffee cup would have to slide horizontally against the resistance of friction.

It is the same with the falling section of building. Before the building gets to fall through the air, the center of mass would have to move 32 meters to any one side. How does it get there? ooh, ooh, the assymetric damage makes one side weaker, so it exerts less upward force, and the difference between the sides is what makes it go one direction. Except that the truss design of the tower shifts load to the remaining walls to reduce this difference. Also, the three largely intact walls would resist any attempt by the tower to lean to one side, through the mechanism of tension. Also, as Riverwind keeps trying to tell you, the puvot-point in the system isn't strong enough to support all this leverage. Also, the assymetric damage is high on the tower and not far below the center of mass of the portion as it starts to fall, so the assymetric damage is only a factor during the initial moments of the collapse, after which the falling mass has already passed the area of assymetric damage and any horizontal velocity it had acquired during the early portion would be far outweighed by the vertical velocity it acquires as it's accelerating downward.

-k

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Poly, you have no business complaining about insults - your posts are full of them. Don't insult me and I won't insult you.

Then stop trying to pass yourself off as someone who knows something about physics.

I'm not arguing anymore about this pancaking idea because anyone can see from the videos that the buildings were blown apart ! You can see large chunks of building being blown upward in a trajectory - only explosions can make this happen.

If the building could pancake due to column failure it couldn't pancake straight down because that would mean all the supports at each floor would have to break at the same instant at each floor all the way down- not possible.

kimmy:It is the same with the falling section of building. Before the building gets to fall through the air, the center of mass would have to move 32 meters to any one side. How does it get there? ooh, ooh, the assymetric damage makes one side weaker, so it exerts less upward force, and the difference between the sides is what makes it go one direction. Except that the truss design of the tower shifts load to the remaining walls to reduce this difference. Also, the three largely intact walls would resist any attempt by the tower to lean to one side, through the mechanism of tension. Also, as Riverwind keeps trying to tell you, the puvot-point in the system isn't strong enough to support all this leverage. Also, the assymetric damage is high on the tower and not far below the center of mass of the portion as it starts to fall, so the assymetric damage is only a factor during the initial moments of the collapse, after which the falling mass has already passed the area of assymetric damage and any horizontal velocity it had acquired during the early portion would be far outweighed by the vertical velocity it acquires as it's accelerating downward.

I'm not going to read anymore of these physics explanations that are a product of peoples imaginations. Once the building starts to tip it will keep on tipping because tipping is easier than going through a building - which would not happen anyways because the building was strong enough for (1) maintain stength after the initial damage after the accident and during the fires & (2) the top part would have enough impulsive force to smash through the building from falling.

You guys use whatever part of your scientific imagination to make you believe the official version of 911. Keep in mind these arguements you are using are YOUR arguements and not the results of any investigation.

What I am saying is the result of scientific investigation and validation. Your arguements are based soley on convenient hypothesis and nothing more.

[Black Dog]

I'm not arguing anymore about this pancaking idea because anyone can see from the videos that the buildings were blown apart ! You can see large chunks of building being blown upward in a trajectory - only explosions can make this happen.

No. And no again.

[Riverwind]

If the building could pancake due to column failure it couldn't pancake straight down because that would mean all the supports at each floor would have to break at the same instant at each floor all the way down- not possible.

Why is it not possible? Because Polly says so? That is basically your argument. Even a controlled demolition cannot precisely time the denotations - there will be milliseconds between each detonation caused by variations in the denonators and the explosives attached to each column. Based on your logic buildings should always tip over even when demolished. Obviously, this does not happen which proves that, once again, you are wrong.

Once the building starts to tip it will keep on tipping because tipping is easier than going through a building

No motion can occur in any direction with out a force. What forces acts on the body to cause this tipping? If you actually tried to a proper force analysis you would quickly realize that the build could not tip unless part of the building below acted as a pivot. If that pivot cannot support the load then the building cannot tip. This is real physics that anybody without an agenda should be able to understand.

Keep in mind these arguments you are using are YOUR arguements and not the results of any investigation. What I am saying is the result of scientific investigation and validation.

The truthie 'scientific analysis' is based on a bunch of assumptions which are easily shown to be either unprovable or false. That is why everyone in the serious academic community views the thruthie analysis as rubbish.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:The truthie 'scientific analysis' is based on a bunch of assumptions which are easily shown to be either unprovable or false. That is why everyone in the serious academic community views the thruthie analysis as rubbish.

The mainstream scientific community does not address how the buildings collapsed - its the same as the investigative community not investigation the very odd stock put options placed on United Airlines right before 911. Billions were made. Its like when they destroyed the evidence of the attacks and would not let the normal investigative bodiers near it, or hiding the Pentagon tapes.

There is a seriuos effort to implement a police state in America and to start wars as a result of 911, but there was never a serious effort to investigate 911.

[PolyNewbie]

You can see huge chunks of the towers being blown upward somewhat clearly in the above links posted by BlackDog but its a lot clearer in other shots. There is no doubt that chunks of building are being projected upward even from Black Dogs links but you have to look carefully. This proves that explosives were used.

Even a controlled demolition cannot precisely time the denotations - there will be milliseconds between each detonation caused by variations in the denonators and the explosives attached to each column. Based on your logic buildings should always tip over even when demolished. Obviously, this does not happen which proves that, once again, you are wrong.

In a controlled demolition the bottom supports in a building are blown out first. This is why we have video footage of explosions occuring at the base of the buildings before they were blown apart. The bottom part of the building being blown out and the times explosions cause a collapse into the building footprint.

We saw three buildings collapse perfectly on that day. This is not coincidence and and its no mystery why buildings do not naturally collapse into their own footprint - the laws of physics and the instability of most collapses will not allow for it.

[Riverwind]

In a controlled demolition the bottom supports in a building are blown out first.

Which is one of the reasons why the WTC collapses are most definitely _not_ a controlled demolition. All motion started with the top of the towers collapsing at the point where the planes hit. If there were actually explosions at the bottom of the tower then we would have seen motion in the bottom of the tower. However, the video evidence clearly shows that the bottom of the tower did not move until the collapse coming from above reached it. IOW: your own arguments contradict themselves.

We saw three buildings collapse perfectly on that day. This is not coincidence and and its no mystery why buildings do not naturally collapse into their own footprint - the laws of physics and the instability of most collapses will not allow for it.

The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 were hardly perfect - they spewed debris across most of the lower Manhattan and destroyed 5 surrounding buildings. Any professional demolition expert that would be sued out of existence for such incompetence. Futhermore, the laws of physics - for those of us that actually understand physics - tell us that symmetric collapses are not that unusual. Controlled demolitions rely on this natural behavoir to get the buildings to come down and all of the effort that goes into preparing buildings for demolitions is mainly designed to prevent the debris from damaging surrounding buildings.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Which is one of the reasons why the WTC collapses are most definitely _not_ a controlled demolition. All motion started with the top of the towers collapsing at the point where the planes hit. If there were actually explosions at the bottom of the tower then we would have seen motion in the bottom of the tower.

Explosions occured at the bottom of the towers minutes before they collapsed. Its on video (911eyewitness) as well as reported by several witnesses. 911 Mysteries shows the inside of the towers after this explosion before that cam crew gets out. Countless witnesses as well as video evidence shows exploions occured at ground level before the towers collapsed.

Riverwind:The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 were hardly perfect - they spewed debris across most of the lower Manhattan and destroyed 5 surrounding buildings. Any professional demolition expert that would be sued out of existence for such incompetence. Futhermore, the laws of physics - for those of us that actually understand physics - tell us that symmetric collapses are not that unusual. Controlled demolitions rely on this natural behavoir to get the buildings to come down and all of the effort that goes into preparing buildings for demolitions is mainly designed to prevent the debris from damaging surrounding buildings.

wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished but not using convention techniques of implosion. Its likely the buildings were too tall and thin for this. For those of us that have eyes, we can watch the videos and see parts of the buildings blown upward which can only be explained by explosives.

If you know so much about physics, why do I have to constantly correct you ?

Do you want me to find the thread where I correct your thinking and you tell me that I am using non Newtonian physics ? I can find it and re post it here. It does prove that you are incompetent in the subject area.

[Riverwind]

Explosions occured at the bottom of the towers minutes before they collapsed.

If explosions at the bottom of the tower triggered the collapse then their should have been motion in the bottom of the towers. There was no motion in any of the videos. Therefore, it is simply not rational to suggest that such explosions (if they really occurred) had anything to do with the collapse.

wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished but not using convention techniques of implosion. Its likely the buildings were too tall and thin for this. For those of us that have eyes, we can watch the videos and see parts of the buildings blown upward which can only be explained by explosives.

Only an idiot would look at those videos and conclude that 'only explosives' can explain the observed phenomea. Think about what happens when you drop a large rock onto a seesaw: anything on the other end will shoot up into the air (assuming it is lighter than the rock). The collapsing building is like a rock and which could easily cause some debris on the periphery to shoot up in the air.

Do you want me to find the thread where I correct your thinking and you tell me that I am using non Newtonian physics ? I can find it and re post it here. It does prove that you are incompetent in the subject area.

Go ahead - anyone other than you will recognize that I was mocking you for your inability to understand basic physics (just like my previous link to your alma mater).

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:If explosions at the bottom of the tower triggered the collapse then their should have been motion in the bottom of the towers. There was no motion in any of the videos. Therefore, it is simply not rational to suggest that such explosions (if they really occurred) had anything to do with the collapse.

The explosions did in fact occur at the base of the building before the collapse. Maybe this was just another coincidence

The building is not a pubble of water and its a poor anology to assume a building made of steel and concrete behaves like water. If the building collapsed (any way, bombs or natural) under water there would be waves created in all directions.

Furthermore the lever explanation doesn't work either because the bits of building flew upward too high and were projected with a greater velocity than the falling building - which is obvious from the video. The energy required for this would have impeded the collapse to a large extent if the energy came from the collapse because of the size of the chunks.

Each floor supposedly collapsed at the same time all around its perimeter according to your "physics" so this idea of a lever couldn't really happen in the context of your ideas on how the buildings collapsed straight down at near freefall speed.

The next time you bring up the topic of physics I will find the part of this thread where you accuse me of using non Newtonian physics when I corrected your free body diagram from an obvious error. You suggesting that I was not using Newtonian physics proves that you are a fool.

[Canadian Blue]

Explosions occured at the bottom of the towers minutes before they collapsed. Its on video (911eyewitness) as well as reported by several witnesses. 911 Mysteries shows the inside of the towers after this explosion before that cam crew gets out. Countless witnesses as well as video evidence shows exploions occured at ground level before the towers collapsed.

I believe that was jet fuel going down the elevator shaft Bill Nye.

The explosions did in fact occur at the base of the building before the collapse. Maybe this was just another coincidence

No they didn't, this is simply the way a twisted mind thinks because to often facts get in the way of the truth.

wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished but not using convention techniques of implosion. Its likely the buildings were too tall and thin for this. For those of us that have eyes, we can watch the videos and see parts of the buildings blown upward which can only be explained by explosives.

Strange how only you and your partner in crime can see this. Yet everyone else doesn't.

The next time you bring up the topic of physics I will find the part of this thread where you accuse me of using non Newtonian physics when I corrected your free body diagram from an obvious error. You suggesting that I was not using Newtonian physics proves that you are a fool.

The fact that you think Rockefeller [probably the Jews as well] are to blame for all of the world's problem's proves that you are a fool.

[Riverwind]

The building is not a pubble of water and its a poor anology to assume a building made of steel and concrete behaves like water. If the building collapsed (any way, bombs or natural) under water there would be waves created in all directions.

Show me one example of a controlled demolition where there is not evidence of motion in the entire building once the charges at the base go off. Claiming that explosions at the base of the tower could trigger a collapse 80 stories up is absurd.

Furthermore the lever explanation doesn't work either because the bits of building flew upward too high and were projected with a greater velocity than the falling building - which is obvious from the video. The energy required for this would have impeded the collapse to a large extent if the energy came from the collapse because of the size of the chunks.

What kind of proof do you have for that claim? Answer: NONE. You are just making it up because it is impossible to know what the 'velocity' of the debris is. Furthermore, even if you did know the velocity it is impossible to make any claim about what could happen as a result of collapsing building and what requires additional energy.

Each floor supposedly collapsed at the same time all around its perimeter according to your "physics" so this idea of a lever couldn't really happen in the context of your ideas on how the buildings collapsed straight down at near freefall speed.

Where did I say that it was impossible for debris to be ejected as the buildings collapse. It only said that the buildings could not tip unless part of the structure could support the weight of the building.

The next time you bring up the topic of physics I will find the part of this thread where you accuse me of using non Newtonian physics when I corrected your free body diagram from an obvious error. You suggesting that I was not using Newtonian physics proves that you are a fool.

Go ahead - I was mocking you. That will be obvious to anyone.

I find it amusing that you have to keep bringing up that point in order to 'discredit' my physics based arguments. It is pretty much an admission of failure on your part because it shows that your are incapable of actually providing a scientific counter argument.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Show me one example of a controlled demolition where there is not evidence of motion in the entire building once the charges at the base go off. Claiming that explosions at the base of the tower could trigger a collapse 80 stories up is absurd.

I'm not giving any reason as to why the explosives were set off at the base of the building - only that they were and there is piles of evidence of that. It cannot be doubted. Maybe that was needed to make the collapse happen the way it did.

Riverwind:What kind of proof do you have for that claim? Answer: NONE. You are just making it up because it is impossible to know what the 'velocity' of the debris is. Furthermore, even if you did know the velocity it is impossible to make any claim about what could happen as a result of collapsing building and what requires additional energy.

You can see HUGE chunks being blown outwards and upwards...They are travelling faster (much faster) than the building collapse. The enrgy for this had to come from somewhere, if not the collapsing building then explosives, if the collapsing building then the building collapse would be slowed greatly. Its obvious from the size and speed of some of the parts. 200 ton beams were sticking out of nearby buildings like arrows. See 911 Mysteries: Part1: Demolition (free on google)

Riverwind:I find it amusing that you have to keep bringing up that point in order to 'discredit' my physics based arguments. It is pretty much an admission of failure on your part because it shows that your are incapable of actually providing a scientific counter argument.

...whatever...I'll dig it up sometime today and post it.

The only arguement in favour of the official version as to why the buildings collapsed is nothing more than hypothesis and it has little scientific backing. The version of events that shows controlled demolition uses evidence and physics papers to make the arguement.

[Riverwind]

I'm not giving any reason as to why the explosives were set off at the base of the building - only that they were and there is piles of evidence of that. It cannot be doubted. Maybe that was needed to make the collapse happen the way it did.

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about. All of evidence clearly indicates that the collapse started where the damage from the plane impact occurred. Furthermore, the time between the impact and the actual collapse is consistent with the location of the impact (i.e. the tower with damage lower down collapsed first). These facts alone rule out the possibility of a controlled demolition so any inconsistencies with the official explanation must be explained with something other than a control demolition.

You can see HUGE chunks being blown outwards and upwards...They are travelling faster (much faster) than the building collapse. The energy for this had to come from somewhere, if not the collapsing building then explosives

We are talking about the collapse of a 500,000 tonne structure - there is more than enough energy to blast 200 tonne beams sideways without explosives without affecting the over all collapse.

The only arguement in favour of the official version as to why the buildings collapsed is nothing more than hypothesis and it has little scientific backing. The version of events that shows controlled demolition uses evidence and physics papers to make the arguement.

All truthie psuedo scientific analysis is based on flawed assumptions or bad data. That makes it junk science. Moreover, the deafening silence from the serious academic community indicates that they see no problem with official explaination.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about. All of evidence clearly indicates that the collapse started where the damage from the plane impact occurred. Furthermore, the time between the impact and the actual collapse is consistent with the location of the impact (i.e. the tower with damage lower down collapsed first). These facts alone rule out the possibility of a controlled demolition so any inconsistencies with the official explanation must be explained with something other than a control demolition.

You are an idiot. I said that (read carefully) EXPLOSIVES WERE RECORDED AT THE BASE OF THE BUILDING BEFORE THE COLLAPSE !!!! You cannot argue that fact with your twisted version of physics. I do not attempt to explain or hypothesise why this happened.

Riverwind:All truthie psuedo scientific analysis is based on flawed assumptions or bad data. That makes it junk science. Moreover, the deafening silence from the serious academic community indicates that they see no problem with official explaination.

The official hypothesis about why the buildings collapsed is not backed up by anything. Its just an opinion. The papers use to justify the official explanation make very erroneous assumptions and have all been shown to be seriously flawed by Hoffman. The conspirators view is based on indisputable evidence of bombs and very simple physics.

Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman and many others are part of the acedemic community and the only people that are speaking up about 911 are saying it was an inside job using evidence & analysis.

The "deafening silence" by the most of the community is likely explained by the silence of various investigative bodies wrt issues around 911 (ie stock put options on American & United). If you speak out, as we know from Stephen Jones & Kevin Ryan, you lose your job in mainstream - thats why people are not speaking up.

I'm done with this. Its turned into a stupid physics debate, not a debate about 911.

[Riverwind]

You are an idiot. I said that (read carefully) EXPLOSIVES WERE RECORDED AT THE BASE OF THE BUILDING BEFORE THE COLLAPSE !!!! You cannot argue that fact with your twisted version of physics. I do not attempt to explain or hypothesise why this happened.

SO WHAT? I have read that the truthie reports of explosions are fabrications but I can't be bothered to disprove that assertion right now so lets assume that explosions did occur. Even if explosions did occur then they could not had anything to do with the collapse because the only motion in the building in above the point of jet impact - that means the collapse started the point of jet impact. This is a irrefutable fact that is evident on all video evidence.

The papers use to justify the official explanation make very erroneous assumptions and have all been shown to be seriously flawed by Hoffman.

Hoffman's analysis is full of even more erroneous assumptions and bad data.

Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman and many others are part of the academic community and the only people that are speaking up about 911 are saying it was an inside job using evidence & analysis.

Truthies only look for 'evidence' that explains their wacky theories. They routinely ignore counter evidence or invent even more ridiculous hypothesises to explain away this counter evidence (e.g. space beams and mini nukes). Anyone who is really interested in finding answers must look at all of the evidence. Anyone who looks at all of the evidence must come to the conclusion that NIST is basically right.

The "deafening silence" by the most of the community is likely explained by the silence of various investigative bodies wrt issues around 911 (ie stock put options on American & United). If you speak out, as we know from Stephen Jones & Kevin Ryan, you lose your job in mainstream - thats why people are not speaking up.

They would be lauded as heros today if their science ws credible. The fact is, it is junk science and everyone who looks at it realizes it pretty quickly. Futhermore, there are lots of civil engineers outside the US have had an opportunity to look at the problem with an open mind and their silence indicates that they see no major issues with the official explaination.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Hoffman's analysis is full of even more erroneous assumptions and bad data.

Really ? How is that ? Do you have any examples ?

Riverwind:The fact is, it is junk science and everyone who looks at it realizes it pretty quickly.

Really ? Where ?

Riverwind:Futhermore, there are lots of civil engineers outside the US have had an opportunity to look at the problem with an open mind and their silence indicates that they see no major issues with the official explaination.

They are not silent. You won't see what they say on TV in North America. You keep saying silence is some kind of testimony. Even engineers that speak up over here lose their jobs. Jones (Phd physics), the leader of the truth movement lost his, so how can you be convinced that all these engineers would speak up ?