‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

What is 'free fall acceleration'?

 

OMG... progress. Not because you misread the post, but because you apparently didn't understand it until you did some more research. I understand your resistance to being honest about the circumstances of your self correction, and so I celebrate it without judgment.

Good for you. Now if only you can continue the process.

Alas... there is more work ahead of you.

1. Any requirement to "weaken key core columns in the lower floors" only exists if the dynamic force of the falling upper floors is not strong enough to overwhelm the static load capacity of the support columns. Engineers generally design a safety margin of 3X to 5X the ordinary static load in anticipation of events such as earthquakes or hurricanes. So if the dynamic force of the falling upper stories exceeds that designed safety margin, no prior weakening is necessary.

2. There is no possible way you can eyeball that video and assert that "The top floors of this building never come close to free fall acceleration." But that's okay, because neither did the WTC towers.

 

it depends on a lot more than that now doesnt it?

 

No, conspiracy theorists are not sane. Or at least their ideas are not sane.

They are very insane.

- - - Updated - - -

oh, so the laws of physics change based on the materials of the building?

interesting Trougher logic you got there.

 

oh?

imaginary body-less flesh then?

so if you shoot a deer in the ass you think the bullet will keep right n going through huh.

What are you using a tank round? LMAO

 

no lets not.

lets not talk about after the fact.

lets talk about the fact

lets talk about how it can come crashing down in the first place when we know fire heats very slowly and cause slow cave in over time.

lets talk about how it had global symmetrical failure across all load bearing core and exterior columns at the same time or within milliseconds of each other in the first place.

Explain how so many columns could fail at once for us.

 

You have a physics problem in your inbox. We'll talk about all that "lot more" once you finish your first assignment.

 

um...much of the core remained standing after the outside and floors collapsed.

that's some controlled demolition, they forgot to blow the core!!!

 

now thats just not true now is it.

 

Please, again, do not try to change the question. Answer the question actually asked, and save the red herring for after.

It depends on the path of the bullet, and what it strikes other than flesh.

My preferred rifle for deer is a 30-06. But again... do not try and change the question.

 

That's what I want to hear from Perilica grad Ameriku, too. Explain how so many steel columns could fail all at once from office fires.

 

no it didnt it was flattened

 

fire is heat.

heat weakens steel.

weakened steel loses strength.

 

yep
he already admitted that it came crashing down, (which is what a demolitions does) just need to fill in the blanks what caused it now.

- - - Updated - - -

it strengthens it too, strengthened steel gains strength.

 

admitted?

wow. so anyone who understands that the wtc came crashing down, is now a 9-11 Trougher?

lol!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

heat does not strengthen steel.

you just failed Strength of Materials 101.

 

Some of those columns were no where near the fires and new evidence proves that NIST lied in their report that column 79 was "unrestrained" when in fact it was "restrained."

 

they didn't fail from 'office fires'.


Haven't you been paying attention?

- - - Updated - - -

So prove it.

 

next you'll tell us that there were no large fires in the WTC.

just a guy holding up a lighter.

 

fire does not cause global symmetrical failure across a 200ft x 200ft area which is the manner it came "crashing down".

it most certainly can strengthen steel, seems your steel education is sorely lacking.

 

fire will cause a global collapse if its accompanied by massive impact damage from a 757.

 

I told you that, that is all there was in wtc2

not even enough to have a good bbq









one side and most of the core completely undamaged!





using nists numbers it should have stood forever

 

I agree, yet that was the official explanation by NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. Watch for yourself around two minutes into this video.

[video=youtube;A7tSfwkKaUo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo#t=349[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo#t=349

 

your disrespect to the 9-11 victims, is disgusting.

but standard for a 9-11 Trougher.

next you'll tell us there were no planes, and nobody died in the towers.

- - - Updated - - -

what, can't make your own argument?

have to always rely on others to talk for you?

Your reliance on Youtube videos is very sad.

 

Wait.... certainly you are not actually running away from a freshman year physics problem? But I thought you were all up on Newton's Laws of Motion? Have you been misleading us all along? This is not a difficult physics problem, and rather than doing as you usually do (i.e. wave your hands and make bold ambiguous assertions about physics) it is an opportunity for us to get into the real detail and mathematically demonstrate an actual understanding of what went on.

Come on Mr. Physics genius... show us you're not a complete phoney.

No. That would be completely changing the subject. If you would like that to be your next physics problem, I'm happy to hold your hand through the math for that one too. But this one is about your repeated claim that the lower floors would have pushed back on the falling upper floors with "equal and opposite force." Unless you want to simply concede that you were talking out of your ass the whole time, then we're still on that same subject.

So come on... I gave you everything any high school kid would need to answer the question.

Go for it.

That would be a third discussion, and I'm happy to get to that one later too. But I know you really would like to get that ADHD under control, so I gently suggest you come back to the subject at hand.

You have repeatedly insisted that the lower floors would have "pushed back" with equal and opposite force. here is your chance to prove that you actually know what you're talking about. Come on!!! You can do it!!! You're a physics genius! I have faith in you.

Ready... set... GO!

Oh... happy to. But first things first. Here is your current task in case you have forgotten:

Demonstrate for us mathematically and using the laws of physics that the steel structure of the WTC towers lower floors would have pushed back "with equal and opposite force" against the falling upper floors. The first step is to calculate exactly what that force actually was.

So, provide us with your calculation for the force of the falling upper section of the tower (we'll just consider the North Tower for now) as it struck the first floor immediately underneath the point of structural failure (i.e. the 95th floor). Be sure to account for the stiffness of the towers and their horizontal floor supports.

Unless you can make a case for a different set of variables, use the following generally agreed upon values: the mass of the top 14 floors was 58x10[SUP]6[/SUP] kg, the stiffness of the remaining steel support structure underneath was 71x10[SUP]9[/SUP] nt/m, and the drop height was 3.8 meters.

Please give your solution for F[SUB]dynamic[/SUB] in newtons.

Show your work.

Extra credit for calculating the associated G forces experienced by the falling upper towers when they impacted the 95th, 94th and 93rd floors respectively. (Hint: This is easiest to do using conservation of momentum).

 

no it wont, the timing to do such a feat is in milliseconds, if you think it can then tell us how it can heat all metal throughout that huge (*)(*)(*)(*)ing building to failure within milliseconds.