A brief analysis of WTC 1 : Initial catastrophic failure.

Are you really that surprised your still waiting for an answer.

 

Not really.

 

The question exposes your inability to understand simple physics. In other words, it is a dumb question. It is irrelevant and has no bearing or meaning for the explanation of the collapse. If a meteor landed on top of the building, then it wouldn't be such a stupid question. But a meteor didn't hit the building.

The building was designed to hold the load in static conditions, and your humorously false claim that the upper section dynamically impacted the floors below and severed connections, is so outrageously silly that it exposes your lack of understanding building construction and elementary physics. Thanks for the comedy.

 

The big problem with most dablunder sites is there is always that gaping hole in their theory.

 

the term symmetry when used regarding a demolition means straight down as I explained sever hundred posts ago. apparently you only read up to the question and did not see the answer.

if you sit in a chair and it falls straight down that is symmetrical collapse, if only leg gives way and you tip over that is not symmetrical.

see the difference?

The buildings came straight down and only global symetrical failure can accomplish that, otherwise they would have tipped over instead.

 

Words words words. How about math math math? It would be so much simpler to show mathematically that the building was incapable of collapse. Instead all you do is huff and puff about how people aren't able to understanding you, and that we should take your word for it because of some physics class you took. Didn't they teach you any math in that physics class?

And that design was dynamically re-designed by a rapidly moving aircraft, and by thermal expansion due to heating. In fact, the point of this thread's original post is to quantify that damage, and quantify the resulting loss of structural integrity as a result of that damage.

And your contention is that regardless of the damage caused by the aircraft and the fire, that the mass above the impact zone should just hover there indefinitely? If you don't believe that the damage was enough to initiate the collapse, I think you should show why. A paper submitted to a reputable journal would be nice. If you could do it, imagine what that would do for the truther movement. Your name could be on the mathematical proof showing that the capacity of the building's remaining structure was enough to prevent collapse initiation. Think of all the chicks you'd get.

More words words words. Not many important people are believing them at this point. I suggest you try a line of argument that doesn't rely on your credibility as a guy who took a physics class once, or as a guy who used to build residential structures.

 

The math is irrelevant to explaining the collapse even if a mathematician had accurate numbers to work with. It would explain nothing. It is a waste of time and a very dumb question to even ask. Don't you get that? It is a physics problem.

The top of the building can not crush the lower section of the building without additional weight being added to the top of the building (such as a meteor) even if the entirely crazy concept of the top of the building suddenly going into dynamic motion from being hit by a plane and office fires. It is impossible. You must have missed physics 101. Jonathan Cole demonstrates the concept in scientific experiment.

[video=youtube;9YRUso7Nf3s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

See the first experiment? The top ice block can not destroy the lower ice block as it goes into dynamic motion because as the experiment proves the top block gets destroyed by the lower block as the lower block gets destroyed by the upper block. Newton's laws of motion.

In other words, even if the top 15 stories of WTC I were raised 100' high and dropped on the lower 95 stories it would not cause a global collapse. Newton's laws of physics proves it and Jonathan Cole's experiments demonstrate it. Your math question is stupid no matter how many times you ask it.

 

Yeah, then a miracle occurs and suspends Newton's laws of motion from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on September 11, 2001.

 

This video explains why the world believed that the airplane and office fires caused global collapse of the WTC Towers. The smart people on TV told them so, and if you didn't believe the smart people on TV, then you are just a crazy conspiracy theorist nutjob.

[video=youtube;7GDa-L4hHHo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GDa-L4hHHo[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GDa-L4hHHo

 

Then there was the 'pancake theory' that NIST offered up. I think they abandoned that BS though. Keep up the good fight,bro. It's tough going against the team, I know, and I enjoy your posts.

 

Did they teach you that physics has nothing to do with math in that class you took? This is why no one serious takes you seriously.

Really. You think that weight is the important factor here? Why did Newton think it was exponentially less important than velocity?

Which has more energy, a 100 lb mass moving at 1 m/s or a 50lb mass moving at 2 m/s?

hint:

[video=youtube;9YRUso7Nf3s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

So your experiment shows that we should make buildings out of solid blocks of ice? Except, square cube law shows us that a tower the size of the WTC made of ice could never exist. Not only could it not support it's own weight, but it would be completely unusable. What good is a building that has no habitable space inside? How is your model analogous if it could not exist at full size?

I'm also interested to see what would happen to the blocks of ice if they were not held in place by the structure that does not collapse. Do you realize that the ice is prevented from buckling by this structure? Do you realize that it takes much more energy for ice to fail in a crushing mode that it takes for a slender column of ice to fail in a buckling mode?

Math is the language of physics. You think it's stupid because you don't understand it. That's called projection.

 

yes it would be much easier, so why dont you tell us how much damage had to occur and how it managed to occur such that the damage was symmetrical causing the building to fall straight down, in other words it did not tip over sideways?


the model clearly shows the whole building would have had to been nearly gutted to do what you claim and after all that you are still left with telling us how a global failure occurred causing it to fall straight down instead of TIPPING over like other buildings do.





see when the objects in the model turn red they are over stressed, when they are blue they are at full strength. When they are green they are in the a-ok loading zone. So you have some explaining to do.





especially since the fires were going OUT in wtc 2

 

Sure. See post #1 in this thread. If you have a problem with this feel free to explain with your own calculations.

 

A simple experiment in physics is over your head. It is comedy.

Let's imagine for a moment that there was a helicopter powerful enough to raise 15 stories of WTC I 100' high over the lower 95 stories and dropped it on the lower section. Jonathan Cole's scientific experiments prove Newton's laws of motion that both the upper section and the lower section would destroy themselves but the lower section would cause a rapid deceleration on the upper section as Newton described.

The only exception to that rule was a miracle from 9:30 AM to 10:30 AM EDT on two separate occasions in New York City and then again from 5:20 to 5:22 PM EDT again, amazingly, in New York City as seen on TV. If you can believe that?

Also, I've taken advanced calculus classes and proved the assignment that the absolute value of 2 is equal to 2. I could do the math but I am not going to waste my time on nonsensical problems that are irrelevant. I find your inability to understand simple concepts of physics to be so nonsensical that you are proving the truth debunker movement to be nothing more time wasters.

 

Thanks, I enjoy yours as well. After NIST's patty cake theory, and Popular Mechanics hit job, then National Geographic played this video on TV and proved to the people that heat weakens steel and it just falls over.

One professional hit job after another on the truth and then ridicule anyone who didn't believe the lies. Cointelpro has worked well for over a decade. It is tough going against the professional team of truth debunkers but the win, when we get a critical mass of people who understand the truth, will be sweet. I would like to see a lot of people who committed the crimes and the people who covered it up, such as the people behind this truth debunker video, behind bars.

[video=youtube;OrBNJJc-DIY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrBNJJc-DIY[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrBNJJc-DIY

 

Oh look. Someone doesn't understand

Did you forget that gravity does not scale?

The WTC block would be moving at 44 m/s (That's almost 100 miles an hour) You think that's the same as a block of ice moving at a few feet per second?

Let's look at the scale of your claim.

Let's say a 100 gram block of ice was dropped 1 foot. It's moving 2.4 m/s when it impacts the block below it. That's .288 Joules.

Scale up by a factor of 100 (10000%)

Now we have a 10kg block of ice dropped from 100 feet. It's moving at 44 m/s when it impacts. That's 50,000 Joules.

Doesn't look like your argument makes a heap of sense. Seems like there's a big difference between 288 Joules and 50,000 Joules.

Maybe that's just me and my irrelevant math talking.

 

Models are created with math, and the model shows building has to be nearly gutted before failure.

The OP does not address this, but feel free to show us your math and dont forget to prove all damage in fact existed that would cause it to collapse.

especially the FACT that there was virtually no visible fire in wtc2

 

I just realized I made a mistake in the math above. I doubt any truther will know why or where.

It's not like it changes the point at all.

 

but fire causes very slow deformation as temperature rises, where the hell do you dredge up "drops" from?







this truther isnt going to waste time with your red herring pseudo math any more than I did with the OP and his red herring.

Until you can show us certified damage report or dispute the fact that the building has to be literally gutted before it is even capable of failing you have nothing more than the usual strawman arguments that these dablunder site proffer.

the model clearly shows the whole building would have had to been nearly gutted to do what you claim and after all that you are still left with telling us how a global failure occurred causing it to fall straight down instead of TIPPING over like other buildings do.





see when the objects in the model turn red they are over stressed, when they are blue they are at full strength. When they are green they are in the a-ok loading zone. So you have some explaining to do.

 

The biggest mistake you're making is in ignoring the unlikelihood that ALL three towers which collapsed in the manner of controlled demolitions would coincidentally undergo the necessary changes due to fire which would allow the events as they were observed.

It is also a big mistake to ignore all the rest of the forensic and "coincidental" anomalies which point to a conspiracy among neo-cons and Zionist organized crime. That includes simple questions like who had the means, the motive, and the opportunity.

Your mathematical background or your lack of it does nothing to diminish all of THAT evidence.

So you can go back to your screaming now.

 

I didn't realize that concrete calculations were trumped by your subjective feelings of whether something is likely or not. Statistically buildings are unlikely to catch fire. Clearly that means that buildings should never catch fire. On top of that we should stop spending money on fire protection, prevention, and mitigation. When buildings catch fire, I'm sure you're quite positive the Jews did it and you have 100 youtube videos that prove your case. Thank God you came around. I never would have known we were wasting so much money that we could be spending on killing Jews.

/insane ravings of an illogical bigot

I'm not sure Youtube videos and spurious arguments rise to the level of forensic anomalies, if there even is such a thing.

Who's screaming? This is text. There's no sound. Are you currently hearing voices? That might explain some things.

 

wow off point, dodged everything LOL

 

[video=youtube;LklL_xW5Ovc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LklL_xW5Ovc[/video]

[video=youtube;5wIKjwzBKcU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wIKjwzBKcU[/video]

 

[video=youtube;9-8fzbBtxIc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-8fzbBtxIc[/video]

- - - Updated - - -



Lots of eye witnesses reported explosions.

[video=youtube;ifYKrsutRLU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifYKrsutRLU[/video]

They were all anti-semitic conspiracy nuts.

 

Total bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

The buildings as constructed were, for the purposes of CD, nearly gutted. There were no structural elements below the damaged floors capable of resisting or arresting collapse once adequate loading had been placed upon and caused the individual floors to collapse.

The fact is that, unlike a building of conventional design, the towers were so built that the floors held the walls up.

You pseudo-Newtonians are not discussing what really happened. You are imagining a structure being crushed by the same processes that occur in verinage, in which the weight of the upper floors and wall progressively over-loads the structure on lower floors, thus crushing supporting structures.

But then, you keep shrieking that verinage is impossible because there is an arresting mechanism in there somewhere.

This makes sense only to a small child.

Anybody with one eye can see that lalrge expanses of flors and walls were destroyed on impact.

The buildings were no longer stable as designed on impact.

(*)(*)(*)(*) falls apart if it is not kept fastened. Why is this so hard for you kids to understand?