Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

9/11


PolyNewbie

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

There is nothing conventional about how wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished. It was not a ... controlled demolition.
Finally, we agree. It was a progressive failure caused by structural damage and fire.
If it wasn't controlled, at some point one side would have begun to collapse faster than another side causing the remainder of the building to tip over to one side.
In order for the building to tip one half of the supports would have to support the weight of the entire building for several seconds as the top rotated. These supports could not possibly support that load so they would collapse within milliseconds of the first support failure. During the time between the first support failure and the last support failure the center of mass of the top of building would not have time to shift far so the top of the building would fall straight down crushing the floors below. This is intuitively obvious to anyone who understands how buildings are designed. Your 'intuitive' understanding is based on playing with blocks when you were a kid.
Why do they need CD experts when all you have to do is light a few fires, stand back and watch the thing collapse right into its own footprint ?
I have had about enough - I have explained this before but it clear you are unwilling to accept information that disrupts the fantasies. CD experts must ensure that there is _zero_ collateral damage. When WTC1 & 2 came down they caused severe damage to all of the surrounding buildings and spewed toxic dust over most of lower Manhattan. CD experts take months to set up demolitions to make sure that kind of collateral damage does not occur. If a CD expert wanted to simply take a building down quickly they could probably do it much faster with a few well placed charges.

Similarily, a building that had a big chunk taken out of one side and an out of control gasoline fire raging for several hours can experience progressive failure that looks like a controlled demolition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Riverwind:Finally, we agree. It was a progressive failure caused by structural damage and fire.

No. I said the demolitions were not conventional. Don't put words in my mouth. I have looked at seismic data (that I know wexactly how to read) and the collapses show 8 seconds and 10 seconds. Where did the enregy for pulverization come from ? If the official explanation is to hold you have a big energy deficit to explain.

Riverwind:These supports could not possibly support that load so they would collapse within milliseconds of the first support failure. During the time between the first support failure and the last support failure the center of mass of the top of building would not have time to shift far so the top of the building would fall straight down crushing the floors below. This is intuitively obvious to anyone who understands how buildings are designed. Your 'intuitive' understanding is based on playing with blocks when you were a kid.

So the size of the building makes the physics different ? Things cannot tip because of the size ?

Riverwind:If a CD expert wanted to simply take a building down quickly they could probably do it much faster with a few well placed charges.

So to get a building to collapse straight down would require some "well placed charges'. It wouldn't just happen naturally ?

And you think the fact that there is a war on terror and that there are open borders and this does not raise any suspicion on your part ? And even though Larry Silverstein said "...pull the building..." he must have meant "pull the firefighters" ? How long can you keep grasping at straws like this ? Can't you connect the dots ?

All this after they lied about the Iraq war and caused deaths of millions, allow legal torture of little kids and have people locked up in Abu Graib for no reason you still base your thinking on the fact that "the government would never do this to its own people.." Do you have kids ? What kind of future do you want for them - a job with motherland fatherland homeland security ? Will you mind when Bush drafts them ?

There were three additional bombs found inside Oklahoma building and that is in both police reports and mainstream media (local TV), proving Oklahoma was an inside job yet still, the government would never do this !!!

Who do you think shot Kennedy ? Did you know that 80 % of the bombs in Viet Nam were dropped on South Vietnam before the USA rushed in to save them from the scourge of communism ? Did you know the Bush family financed Hitler just before he ran out of money and was going to lose the election ?

Do you really expect to convince anyone that this collapse was natural ?

You must be getting frustrated. A belief system like yours is hard to hang onto, yet 16 % are still hanging on.

After all, you are argueing on the same side as Henry Kissinger, the Prince Of Darkness & George Bush.

You need to learn about banking. Only then can you understand how the USA works. Everything depends on money and runs on money. Rockefeller owns the USA. They vote and choose between the Rockefeller Democrats and the Rockefeller Republicans. Your idea of democracy is an illusion and if you and people like you do not wake up, one morning to will awaken to NAZI Germany hell on earth and you will and should blame yourself for it. Read books like Money by John Kenneth Galbraith to confirm what is in this video: http://www.themoneymasters.com/ read quotes from this site of presidents and head bankers. You can see that video on Google.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the size of the building makes the physics different ? Things cannot tip because of the size ?
Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:

1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable)

2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse.

3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid.

In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare.

Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses.

At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing.

However, assume that before the first leg collapses the another damaged leg has been weakened such that it will only support a 3000N force. In this situation when the first leg collapses and the weight shifts to the others legs, the second weakened leg will collapse immediately. At this point, the remaining good legs have to support 5000N each which exceeds their capabilities which means they collapse as well.

The time between the collapse of the first leg, the shift of weight and the collapse of the remaining legs is measured in milliseconds. During this period, the table would start to tip, however, that period is too short for it to rotate more than a fraction of a degree. Once the two good legs collapse it will no longer be able to tip and will fall have to fall straight down.

The only way the structure could tip is if the undamaged legs were capable of supporting the entire weight of the structure while it was tipping. Tall buildings like the WTC are not designed with that much redundancy. That is why it would be next to impossible to get them to tip even with a controlled demolition. And that is why I say it is natural for buildings to collapse into their footprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be getting frustrated. A belief system like yours is hard to hang onto, yet 16 % are still hanging on.

After all, you are argueing on the same side as Henry Kissinger, the Prince Of Darkness & George Bush.

You need to learn about banking. Only then can you understand how the USA works. Everything depends on money and runs on money. Rockefeller owns the USA. They vote and choose between the Rockefeller Democrats and the Rockefeller Republicans. Your idea of democracy is an illusion and if you and people like you do not wake up, one morning to will awaken to NAZI Germany hell on earth and you will and should blame yourself for it. Read books like Money by John Kenneth Galbraith to confirm what is in this video: http://www.themoneymasters.com/ read quotes from this site of presidents and head bankers. You can see that video on Google.

NUTJOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If only 16% of people are hanging on to this belief system, why isn't Lyndon Larouche president?

Who do you think shot Kennedy ? Did you know that 80 % of the bombs in Viet Nam were dropped on South Vietnam before the USA rushed in to save them from the scourge of communism ? Did you know the Bush family financed Hitler just before he ran out of money and was going to lose the election ?

Do you just ramble on and on without stopping to think about what your saying. The one American who was the most popular with Hitler was Henry Ford, not the Bush family. I highly doubt the Bush family financed Hitler, I don't even know where you come up with half of this shit.

All this after they lied about the Iraq war and caused deaths of millions, allow legal torture of little kids and have people locked up in Abu Graib for no reason you still base your thinking on the fact that "the government would never do this to its own people.." Do you have kids ? What kind of future do you want for them - a job with motherland fatherland homeland security ? Will you mind when Bush drafts them ?

I don't think a million people have died PN. As for torturing little kids, when did this happen? Abu Graib was exposed on the news, all over the world. It's a black eye for American's everywhere, that's why the news reported it. Bush won't draft my kid's since I live in Canada and I'm allready in the military.

And you think the fact that there is a war on terror and that there are open borders and this does not raise any suspicion on your part ? And even though Larry Silverstein said "...pull the building..." he must have meant "pull the firefighters" ? How long can you keep grasping at straws like this ? Can't you connect the dots ?

Open borders, I'm sure the US has open border's for economic reason's PN. I think only the truly imaginative can connect the dots, not the realists.

There were three additional bombs found inside Oklahoma building and that is in both police reports and mainstream media (local TV), proving Oklahoma was an inside job yet still, the government would never do this !!!

Once again shown to be false, and the newsmedia has f%$ked up many times before when reporting a story. You can't back anything up, besides providing proof you have a very vivid imagination and may be doing some potent shroom's.

Do you really expect to convince anyone that this collapse was natural ?

You haven't convinced a single person on here yet, maybe one, but not many more. As well most people rarely believe in your BS. If so many people believed what you had to say Lyndon Larouche would be president and we would be living in a nazi state.

I think that if a person is really paranoid that makes them more likely to kill people. ;)

So lets conclude this debate by simply saying PN needs to go see a therapist. All who agree say yes.

Anybody else want to debate the conspiracy behind the Neverending Story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple grade 10 thermodynamics analysis of the collapse shows an energy deficit- they can be taught about bonding energy and do elementary calculations. Although grade ten students do not often know that they are doing thermodynamics when sometimes they are. I know that because I have taught many kids how to do basic physics as a tutor while in school. There is nothing complex about the physics knowledge required to prove 911 was an inside job.

I did the energy calculations for concrete being broken up into 120 micron spheres which is very generous considering the surface area/ volume ratio of a random piece of concrete would be higher than a sphere.

When I did these calculations I assumed that the towers fell in 12 seconds and 14 seconds respectively (a generous assumption by Hoffman in video analysis and his calculations for his proof). I came to the conclusion that this calculation was too close. I assumed that only half of the concrete mass spilled over the side or was ejected from the building, the rest was allowed to continue falling straight down. This is a generous assumption as well since we know that the floors were converted to dust and there was no big dust pile at the footprint of the buildings after the collapse.

In reality I have found that the buildings collapsed at very close to freefall speed which means even with the above calculations and assumptions an energy deficit would exist that could not be explained. 911 Mysteries clearly shows the collapse speed. I also got in an arguement with one of the scholars with me saying collapse time was longer and was shown to be wrong.

A more realistic set of calculations would have the dust particles much smaller - 60 - 80 microns for pyrocrastic flow and there would be a shape correction factor because the little bits were not perfect sheres - perhaps more like snow flakes. Plus there are the steel parts that were ejected, one must account for this breakage as well, and the explanding dust clouds - which if you use PVT laws will give the least amount of energy equired to make the cloud (PVT laws conserve energy)

Judy Wood models the collapse using pancaking and assuming every floor turned to dust on impact and goes over the side. This is realistic when you consider the clouds generated during the collapse and the lack of a dust pile at the footprint after the collapse. She gets a time of over 100 seconds.

These types of simple calculations have been used various ways by different scientists to show that there is an energy deficit, no matter how you model this. An energy deficit proves that bombs were needed.

I have also argued this with many engineers. The engineers that I argue with seem to either forget or ignore basic science and make gross errors in both their modelling and their understanding of physics. Some try to use invalid complex models that a senior high school student would come up with. Frankly, I worry when I go in a big building, given what I have heard from some engineers about 911.

Before you start going on about Judy Wood being nuts, consider her CV:

Judy D. Wood is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science. Professor Wood teaches courses in the areas of engineering mechanics and experimental stress analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing.

No. Your analysis is wrong. No one with an elementary knowledge of mechanics would come up with that. Intuitively its wrong. The leg furthest away from the one removed in this example would bear almost no weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadianBlue:I highly doubt the Bush family financed Hitler, I don't even know where you come up with half of this shit.

Its a matter of public record that he was arrested and the bank that he worked for - Brown Brothers Harriman was closed for it. The criminal element in the US government got him off, but not for lack of evidence.

Thats it - I'm not answering any more of your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Tall buildings like the WTC are not designed with that much redundancy.

Yes they are. The biggest load in a scraper is caused by wind, not gravity and it wasn't windy that day. The building held steady after the crash and fire and its natural vibration frequency did not change. This means that none of the supporting beams was even close to being plastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadianBlue:I highly doubt the Bush family financed Hitler, I don't even know where you come up with half of this shit.

Its a matter of public record that he was arrested and the bank that he worked for - Brown Brothers Harriman was closed for it. The criminal element in the US government got him off, but not for lack of evidence.

Thats it - I'm not answering any more of your posts.

I pose a suggestion poly; if all you are going to do is respond with phrases like, 'no it isn't', or 'yes they are' without any links or data, what's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharkman:I pose a suggestion poly; if all you are going to do is respond with phrases like, 'no it isn't', or 'yes they are' without any links or data, what's the point?

These things I say can be easily looked up. Anyone reading this has google.

As far as the table leg silliness from our resident technical expert, one only needs to remove one leg of a normal square table to know that these are unstable and sometimes tip with almost no weight applied. This shows that the opposing leg bears almost no load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Your analysis is wrong. No one with an elementary knowledge of mechanics would come up with that. Intuitively its wrong. The leg furthest away from the one removed in this example would bear almost no weight.
I said nothing about the arrangement of the legs. If you have a rigid table top with the legs attached to the floor then the load would redistribute evenly. Even if it didn't, the second leg would fail even faster and that would definitely cause the remaining two to collapse.

Why can't you get this through your head: the top of the building cannot rotate unless the remaining columns are capable of supporting the entire weight of the structure while it is rotating. A high school physics force diagram demonstrates this. You seem to have learned physics from Wile E. Coyote.

Yes they are. The biggest load in a scraper is caused by wind, not gravity and it wasn't windy that day. The building held steady after the crash and fire and its natural vibration frequency did not change. This means that none of the supporting beams was even close to being plastic.
That statement is bogus. The force of wind on multi-tonne structure is insignificant compared to the force of gravity. If it wasn't the structure would be floating on windy day.

I am not surprised. You are so deep in denial that you will refuse to even look at facts that disagree with your views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:That statement is bogus. The force of wind on multi-tonne structure is insignificant compared to the force of gravity. If it wasn't the structure would be floating on windy day.

You say that and if I prove that you are wrong will you stop participating in this thread and stop trying to pass yourself off as a scientific expert on this forum ? Because for that I will go to the trouble of proving my statement. Its not difficult. There are simple formulas for wind loading on scrapers. They tend to be anchored to the ground which is why they do not blow over.

Riverwind:I said nothing about the arrangement of the legs

You said there was four legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that and if I prove that you are wrong will you stop participating in this thread and stop trying to pass yourself off as a scientific expert on this forum ? Because for that I will go to the trouble of proving my statement. Its not difficult. There are simple formulas for wind loading on scrapers. They tend to be anchored to the ground which is why they do not blow over.
Don't bother:
"To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t."
500,000t due to the force of gravity. 5000t due to a 225kph wind. My statement is true. The force of the wind is insignificant compared to the force of gravity.

The statement "the but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design" does not mean the wind load was larger - it just means it presented more challenging design problems. This is a perfect example of how you don't really understand the physics involved and are simply repeating misinformation provided by philosophers and economists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

irregardless, my statement "This means that none of the supporting beams was even close to being plastic.

"

shows that the supporting beams did not go plastic after the attack and fire because the natural frequency of the building didn't change so the building wasn't significantly weakened before the collapse.

My science does not require me to go around and repeat what anyone else says. Also I don't quote economists and philosophers. I quote engineers and published physics theoreticians.

Since you just copies what you said about scrapers and wind load I'll do the calculation and see if you are correct.

That table analysis proves that you are incompetent though.

I know that no one likes getting their @$$ kicked over the holiday season. For that I am truly sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a matter of public record that he was arrested and the bank that he worked for - Brown Brothers Harriman was closed for it. The criminal element in the US government got him off, but not for lack of evidence.

Thats it - I'm not answering any more of your posts.

Hold on, so you once again can't back this up.

These things I say can be easily looked up. Anyone reading this has google.

How about this, instead of us trying to prove your point, why don't you prove your own point. It's like getting into a debate and telling the person debating against you to look up all your references.

How is the University of Sydney tied in with 9/11, and what government agency paid them off to support the official version of events.

I know that no one likes getting their @$$ kicked over the holiday season. For that I am truly sorry.

I've kicked your ass, since you can't seem to find a response to any of my question's. I guess I'm just so intelligent that you can't grace me with a response to my common sense question's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shows that the supporting beams did not go plastic after the attack and fire because the natural frequency of the building didn't change so the building wasn't significantly weakened before the collapse.
This point is irrelevant - the buildings did collapse - the only question is how. You made the assertion that the only way the buildings could have collapsed into their own footprint was as a result of a controlled demolition. I have demonstrated through a simple example using high school physics how a symmetric collapse could occur as a result of asymmetric damage.

The only refutation you could come up with is a claim that the load would not be balanced evenly after the first leg collapsed. Ironically, assuming equal load distribution is the best case scenario - if you redo the calculations assuming the leg furthest from the collapsed leg ends up supporting less load then you will find the that a symmetric collapse would still occur and it would actually occur _faster_ than it would with my original assumptions!

That table analysis proves that you are incompetent though.
ROTFL, you are someone who seems to think that 500,000 tonne buildings will stand still mid air while they tip over instead of falling straight down. The only place where physics works like that is in Road Runner cartoons after Wile E. runs off a cliff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadianBlue:I've kicked your ass, since you can't seem to find a response to any of my question's. I guess I'm just so intelligent that you can't grace me with a response to my common sense question's.

Its not that. I just am sick of hearing about Elvis, The Holocaust and the Never Ending Story. I've explained to you that I ignore your posts because you bring nonsense into a serious debate and you throw around baseless & stupid insults when I have shown that scientists, engineers, head economists, heads of FBI & CIA, senators, congressmen & intelligence heads of other countries agree with my point of view on 911. Its arrogant for you to call me a "nutjob" when I speak about 911 & the banks. This level of arrogance shows that you have no personal integrity and I no longer wish to debate with you.

Riverwind:This point is irrelevant - the buildings did collapse - the only question is how. You made the assertion that the only way the buildings could have collapsed into their own footprint was as a result of a controlled demolition. I have demonstrated through a simple example using high school physics how a symmetric collapse could occur as a result of asymmetric damage.

If you want to believe that buildings naturally collapse straight down as a result of asymetrical damage thats fine with me. Most people will be able to see the faults in your "analysis".

The only refutation you could come up with is a claim that the load would not be balanced evenly after the first leg collapsed. Ironically, assuming equal load distribution is the best case scenario - if you redo the calculations assuming the leg furthest from the collapsed leg ends up supporting less load then you will find the that a symmetric collapse would still occur and it would actually occur _faster_ than it would with my original assumptions!

This "analysis" is all wrong. It was all wrong at the start, in the middle and at the end. Its just your incorrect opinion applied to another example from which your initial analysis was so wrong as to lead anyone to see that you are not competent. It wasn't an anlysis of any kind.

then you will find the that a symmetric collapse would still occur

No, one leg would always collapse before the other causing the load to change its center of gravity as it rotates toward the ground. The other leg may or may not break when the table edge strikes the ground.

ROTFL, you are someone who seems to think that 500,000 tonne buildings will stand still mid air while they tip over instead of falling straight down.

No I am not and 911 doesn't show this. That part of the building that began to rotate was subsequently blown apart with bombs as it began to fall into the rest of the building. Anyone can see that from the videos.

See See top video in this list

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not that. I just am sick of hearing about Elvis, The Holocaust and the Never Ending Story. I've explained to you that I ignore your posts because you bring nonsense into a serious debate and you throw around baseless & stupid insults when I have shown that scientists, engineers, head economists, heads of FBI & CIA, senators, congressmen & intelligence heads of other countries agree with my point of view on 911. Its arrogant for you to call me a "nutjob" when I speak about 911 & the banks. This level of arrogance shows that you have no personal integrity and I no longer wish to debate with you.

Then when I ask serious question's you just answer them and ignore the rest. As for ignorance, so far you haven't been able to substantiate any of your claim's based on what the majority of the scientific community believes, you even went so far as to say the University of Sydney Engineering Dept published an opinion piece despite the fact it was all based on sound science.

Most people would consider you view's as that of a nutjob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK CanadianBlue, which explanation do you prefer from the University Of Sydney, the shockwave version or the version without the shockwave. It seems their story is changing

U Of Sydney

Anyways, if the towers collapsed at freefall speed then there was no energy to produce the dust that was produced which means their had to be bombs. That is a scientific fact, irregardless of anyones opinion.

Australia is in on all the wars as well and War Is A Racket

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Besides, you've changed your idea of what made the towers come down about ten times on here.

I don't think Australian's are all that bad, what do you have against Australian's?

I'm a Libertarian, so I prefer less government, but theirs no way in hell I'm a paranoid statist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can say that some of what you are saying may have some truth, but the heat from the fires of afully fueled jet slamming into the mid building, was and certainly is more then enough to cause a blaze to turn the largest structural steel beams into running molten metal. I can easily see these as being the cause of the start of the pancaking effect, and one started it would then be a dynamic forces that the underlying floors would not be able to withstand. Could there have been other explosions, yes there are many things that in cases like this that are contained in airtight containers and when heated would explode violently. Most of these types of things would naturally be attached to the buildings superstructure. They would and could cause the death of the thosand cuts type thing. The very fact that we did not see smoke coming out the bottom floors or garages before the collapse would be indicative of there not being any explosions from underneath the floors that were hit with the planes. Another thing is the planes do not just have on tank each in the wings and it was quite possible that thye isolated some of these tanks so they would expode in the fires from the crash thereby building up the forces that would be released etc.

Now does that explain a conspiracy or not? That is up for you to understand, but I can say that from what you are saying so far is far too vague to apply exact physics to and rely on it with any certainty. It seems this is a half hearted effort to see if they can make a conspiracy theory fly. I would have to say that I would rather wait until you can show me a complete set of data, before I would make a decision. Right now you are talking only about a small fractional percentage of what a real case would entail. The proffessor may use this to keep her students engaed, but other then that, it has little to no value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, one leg would always collapse before the other causing the load to change its center of gravity as it rotates toward the ground. The other leg may or may not break when the table edge strikes the ground.
Wrong - in this problem the table legs are not strong enough to support the load while it is tipping - so they must collapse immediately. No other outcome is possible. I am pretty sure that distinction is obvious to anyone who understands force diagrams.

Why don't you try drawing some pictures and ask yourself where the normal force pushing up on the load comes from? Gravity does not disappear so the load must either accelerate downward or have a force acting on it that is equal to the gravitational force. In this problem, there are no supports capable of exerting the required normal force so the only physically possible motion is straight down.

Furthermore, I actually have the easier proof to make. Your entire theory is based on the idea that a building cannot collapse naturally straight down which means a single example that shows it is possible for a asymmetric damage to cause a symmetric collapse invalidates your theory. This example does that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue with you about table legs collapsing because I know that all three buildings collapsed at freefall speed. I've seen how things break before and I'm not interested in your opinion on this matter.

The fact is that the buildings collapsed at freefall speed. If that dust was created by the process of the buildings collapsing through themselves the process would have been slowed by at least a few seconds with the most generous of assumptions in calculation. That dust was not created by the action of the building collapse, it was therefore created by some other process which must have been bombs unless you know of another way of creating that much dust from concrete.

This proves 911 was an inside job and there can be no scientific doubt. Many scientists and engineers have pointed this out. They are not wrong, they are just not sycophant necon fascists that are willing to say anything to preserve their position in society.

2+2=4 not 5 and it doesn't matter how many professional organizations or groups that will try to offer another explanation for political or monetary benefit. The fact is that almost anyone can be bought in society today and the US government does horrible things like this to people all the time. Many people are in favour of all the wars and will say anything in their support - its the nature of war and its usually based on lies - like Pearl Harbour, Vietnam and the war in Iraq.

Besides, the videos show the buildings being blown apart not pancaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Wrong - in this problem the table legs are not strong enough to support the load while it is tipping - so they must collapse immediately. No other outcome is possible. I am pretty sure that distinction is obvious to anyone who understands force diagrams.

If one leg breaks before the other the entire free body diagram becomes invalid because the forces all change. Your free body diagram only works up until the point of the first leg breaking then it is invalid and does not explain any further action.

The two legs can never break at the same instant.

You have to admit that you do not have the scientific background that you claim to have. You cannot BS your way through an arguement like this and make people think you have this knowledge.

Riverwind:Your entire theory is based on the idea that a building cannot collapse naturally straight down which means a single example that shows it is possible for a asymmetric damage to cause a symmetric collapse invalidates your theory. This example does that

No, this is just an example is just a vehicle for which you have chosen to re express your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one leg breaks before the other the entire free body diagram becomes invalid because the forces all change.
You have to draw a new body diagram after the leg breaks. When the leg breaks the load must start to accelerate downward. However, the top cannot accelerate downward since the other legs are still in place. This will cause the other legs to compensate by increasing the the normal force they exert on the top. In a situation where the three legs have enough strength to support the top then the system would reach a new steady state with the new normal forces in a matter of milliseconds.

However, in this situation the three remaining legs cannot support the load so they fail one after the other. After each break you have to draw a new body diagram an check how much load is on the remaining legs before you can say what happens next. The table can only rotate or tip if the remaining legs can support the load - you entire theory falls apart because you assume the legs must be able to support the load.

Look at it a different way: imagine a see-saw with a single support in the middle. The support in the middle must support the entire mass - even if the see-saw is rotating about the pivot point. If the support on the see-saw was damaged so it could not support that mass it would collapse and the see-saw would have to fall straight down.

The two legs can never break at the same instant.
I specifically said the legs did _not_ break at the same time. It takes time for the system to reach a new steady state after each leg breaks. However, this time for rigid structures is extremely short - something in the order of milliseconds - so to a human observer the legs would appear to break at the same time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...