[Closed] 9/11 documentary

Here’s a question. If you drop a 25 story building on a 75 story building.

What probably happens?

Surely if planes are so good at destroying massive steel structures then surely the best method of demolishing redundant buildings would be to fly un-manned aircraft into them, no explosives, no expensive planning, no fire proof wiring (sbob) just stand well back folks, what a great day out that would be eh !

Do you know know? If you don’t understand anything about the design and construction of the WTC how are you equipped to debate these issues?

Steel box columns ! :wink:)

A normal plane is very much money. Special plane is very, very ,very much money.

Ok, you asked for it!

Aircraft Mass at the point of impact: Mass taken from [url= http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_7673_en.php ]767-300[/url]

Max take off mass = 181437 kg
Max landing mass = 145150 Kg
Unladen mass = 88469

Assumption 1: Without detailed passenger, luggage and fuel loading data i am going to assume the mass at impact was half way between the unladen mass and the max landing mass, ie 116810 kg

Aircraft velocity at impact: More difficult to estimate, so i've had to resort to google

From: [url= https://www.cbsnews.com/news/speed-likely-factor-in-wtc-collapse-25-02-2002/ ]aircraft-speed-likely-factor-in-wtc-collapse[/url]

"The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph"

Assumption 2: i'm going to take the lower speed, or 429mph, as this will result in the lowest kinetic energy value (best case). This is 191.7 meters per second, as we need to use SI units for the KE calculation

Formula For Kinetic energy: KE = 0.5 x m x v^2

Units: KE in Joules, Mass in Kg, Velocity in m/s

Joules = 0.5 x 116810 x (191.7 X 191.7)

Joules = 2147186858 J or 2.15 GJ

The length of a 767-300 is 54.90 meters, so that 2.15GJ was delivered in around 300ms (0.3sec) which is an average power of 7.15GW

(roughly equivalent to the power produced by 60,000 family cars all at full power!)

Here’s a question. If you drop a 25 story building on a 75 story building.

What probably happens?

Well it would depend on how high it was dropped from ? btw was the building core detached ?

So you don’t know, interesting

Well it would depend on how high it was dropped from ?

A few inches would likely be more than enough, a 25 storey building hovering overhead (presumably hung from some kind of drone?) has rather a lot of PE.

btw was the building core detached ?

you keep banging on about the core, but you've yet to give any indications of why you think it matters?

Let's try a straight forward question:

Do you understand that the WTC towers were an inter-dependant load sharing structure?

ie:

- the 'core' alone cant stand up under it's own weight
- the skin alone can't stand up under it's own weight
- the two are tied together and share loads via connecting elements, it's not simply a core and stuff hung off it
- compromise one (core/skin) sufficiently and you can induce failure in the others
- compromise the connecting elements sufficiently and you can induce failure
- compromise all together and you can induce failure.
- get enough local failures and you can induce a cascade failure

(It's even more complex in the way loads were shared than that but simplified for example sake)

Do you understand that or is this new information to you?

It's not just a case of hitting it really hard and if it's > X it falls, and if < X it stays up.
Damage was varied and cumulative.

Keeping it simple for you,

[b]Velocity x Mass = Force[/b]

Now your turn.

Actually it's
Acceleration x Mass = Force

F = MA

[b](Velocity x Mass is proportional to Energy)[/b]

Wtf? We got folks banging on 'because physics' and question the intelligence or scientific understanding of others, then we get this!

MIT

Even at a speed of only about 500 m.p.h., a partly loaded Boeing 767 weighing 132 tons would have created about three billion joules of energy at impact, the equivalent of three- quarters of a ton of T.N.T., according to another team of researchers at M.I.T.

"Only about 6 percent of that energy would be used up in cutting more than 30 exterior steel columns, said Dr. Tomasz Wierzbicki, a professor of applied mechanics at M.I.T., who did his research with a student, Liang Xue. But some 25 percent would go into ripping up floor structures. .and 56 percent in damaging structural columns in the core.

So the Professor of applied mechanics at MIT suggests there was plenty enough energy to cut the steel outer columns of the WTC towers. If you are the Professor of applied mechanics at a prestigious University then you should be able to easily make any necessary counter point to those figures and prove him wrong. if you are someone who struggles to do two plus two equals four, i suggest you shut up........

Just gonna add some context to your physics fuelled skewed debate the twin towers were very unique with not having a central core as we would know it in modern skyscrapers made of concrete. The entire structure consisted of a grid of load bearing steel girders, including the outside, with no canter leaver floors.

Ok, you asked for it!

Aircraft Mass at the point of impact: Mass taken from 767-300

Max take off mass = 181437 kg
Max landing mass = 145150 Kg
Unladen mass = 88469

Assumption 1: Without detailed passenger, luggage and fuel loading data i am going to assume the mass at impact was half way between the unladen mass and the max landing mass, ie 116810 kg

Aircraft velocity at impact: More difficult to estimate, so i've had to resort to google

From: aircraft-speed-likely-factor-in-wtc-collapse

"The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph"

Assumption 2: i'm going to take the lower speed, or 429mph, as this will result in the lowest kinetic energy value (best case). This is 191.7 meters per second, as we need to use SI units for the KE calculation

Formula For Kinetic energy: KE = 0.5 x m x v^2

Units: KE in Joules, Mass in Kg, Velocity in m/s

Joules = 0.5 x 116810 x (191.7 X 191.7)

Joules = 2147186858 J or 2.15 GJ

The length of a 767-300 is 54.90 meters, so that 2.15GJ was delivered in around 300ms (0.3sec) which is an average power of 7.15GW

(roughly equivalent to the power produced by 60,000 family cars all at full power!)

And you are convinced that was sufficient to do the damage that you previously stated even though your original figure was 4GJ ?

Seems the collapse was because the floors fell out of their holders

"Seems the collapse was because the floors fell out of their holders"

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105

Seems like it, nice case study done on its structural integrity and design.

Am i convinced that 2.15GJ / 7.15 GW (that's best case, worst case is 4.98 GJ / 16.6 GW) is enough?

thats 7,150,000,000 Watts!

(or about 7.15 billion times more energy that your brain seems able to produce)

My original figure, you'll note was "back of an envelope" ie i had estimated the figures used in the calc, and as it turns out, got pretty much half way between the best (2.15GJ) and worst (~5GJ) values

Wtf? We got folks banging on 'because physics' and question the intelligence or scientific understanding of others, then we get this!

It’s easy to make a simple mistake, banging on about it. Well, that’s a dick move

They didn’t. Do some reading

done plenty of reading thanks, also lots of video evidence of policeman, construction guys saying that its about to come down.

I've linked to it before.

But you have no answer.

[img] [/img]

Nighty night, see you all tomorrow 😀

@whathaveisaidnow

This is the quality of your responses

Just the heat and the smoke from all the other
? buildings on fire, you couldnít see anything.

So it took us a while (i.5 hrs) and we ended up backing
p
p everybody out, and thatís when 7 collapsed.

Lieutenant William Ryan, Ladder 85

Yet they could see well enough to carry out a structural inspection to determine when it was going to collapse?

Literally pointless. You really aren’t contributing anything other than noise, maybe try to include some context, and also make a point?

@whathaveisaidnow you continually fail to explain why the fire crew on wtc7 would be told in advance about the demolition in your conspiracy model?

Can't be bothered reading all this but has anybody questioned what happened at the Pentagon that day!?

Yup. Not on here though. Thanks for the diversion, it got a bit shit there for a page or two.

Ned, thanks for coming back, I think amedias has answered most of the stuff I would have answered. And well done for ignoring the insults without biting. We all need to learn to communicate better.

FYI I figured you were busy, as you hadn't made an excuse in advance...

"Can't be bothered reading all this but has anybody questioned what happened at the Pentagon that day!?"
Which bit , the massive plane into the side of the building, or the failure of air defence to intervene ?

I can't tell whose who now....

& I'm out of doughnuts.....

😥

& I'm out of doughnuts....

Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

Can't be bothered reading all this but has anybody questioned what happened at the Pentagon that day!?

Yes that was done a number of pages back.

Jam Doughnuts, Ring doughnuts, sprinkles? All of these will make a significant difference to their structural integrity.

For example, once the outer shell is punctured (for example, by an incoming marker pen) and the filling in a jam doughnut released, the overall structure is decidedly weaker than a ring doughnut with icing and hundreds and thousands on top.

Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

[quote=CharlieMungus ]Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

Greedy so and so - they must be humongous doughnuts if they do that.

Now we're off on that side note... The Pentagon impact I do remember finding 'a bit funny' at first glance, but in a:

"hmm, yes doesn't quite look how I would have expected, I wonder why that is and what the mechanisms at play are, there's probably some learning I need to do here..."

kind of way rather than a:

"look! weird and funny, it MUST have been a conspiracy/drone plane/ghosts"

kind of way...

Was actually planning to re-familiarise myself with it at some point to see if it really was 'odd' as I haven't read/looked for literally years on that aspect of it.

It's very much a case of hearing the clip-clop clip-clop of hooves approaching...some people think:

"that'll likely be a horse approaching"

and go to the window to have a look and see, where as others jump to:

"Oh my god! here comes zombie Jesus riding in on a War-Zebra with his Lance of Righteousness! Run for the hedges!"

And then spend the next week telling their mates down the pub how they narrowly escaped death from a very naughty boy on a stripey pony, despite the fact they never even saw a thing...

Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

Pity there weren’t any police or firefighters around to warn you it was about to collapse.

[img] /revision/latest?cb=20071215181655[/img]

Hang on, hang on. I want proof that they were doughnut and not pancakes.

Were there any crumbs left over that you could eat?

No! I don't know where they went!

Jam Doughnuts, Ring doughnuts, sprinkles? All of these will make a significant difference to their structural integrity.

Well, they were these new ones. They are like ring doughnuts, but more triangular, but still with a round hole in the middle, anyone else tried them?

[img] [/img]

"Seems the collapse was because the floors fell out of their holders"
> http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105
Seems like it, nice case study done on its structural integrity and design.

If I remember correctly there was a fairly detailed Documentary film made by Kris kristopherson, called "Millennium", that clearly explains everything.

Time travel.

@whathaveisaidnow you continually fail to explain why the fire crew on wtc7 would be told in advance about the demolition in your conspiracy model?

what I do know is that there is video evidence and speech on those videos, that suggests that people close to the building somehow new that its collapse was very imminent - not ow... it might come down,... more...'it's coming down right now.

there is also a video of two guys talking near to WT7 and two very loud (what sound like explosions) are heard. Their reactions are consistent with the sound of the explosions, so I'm airing on the side of it is not a fake video.

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

Why would he say it? Maybe these devils are so far up their own rectums that they bait each other into playing these games, who knows?

If i was in the kitchen,...holding a tea-bag in my hand, and a mug in the other and the kettle was whistling and I told you i was going to make a tea.

would i be: making myself a cup of tea

or

would i be fashioning a letter T out of the kettle, the tea bag and the mug?

..exactly...

pentagon...er yeh....that wasn't a plane. a couple of fuzzy images and one very poor video from one of the most protected and highly surveillanced buildings in the world?

...ow..ow...and all our fighter jets happen to be on training exercise.

i think I'm done now. 😯

@whathaveisaidnow you continually fail to explain why the fire crew on wtc7 would be told in advance about the demolition in your conspiracy model?

Can we do Wako Texas next?

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

Ah, now it was pulled down?

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

Can we do Wako Texas next?

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

No it's not. I immediate think of 'pull the rescue operation and get our guys out of there'. Not pull the building down. That assumption can only be made if you're already thinking that there's explosives or some other mechanism that they control to bring the building down.