Newsflash: Millions line up to return gas grills today

[Halophyte]

Well I know your analysis is wrong, as each succeeding floor was built to hold up all of the above floors.

Believe it or not, each floor was designed to be an integral part of the structure, the weight of its contents is its static load. You just described static loads but you do not understand the difference between mass and kinetic energy or momentum.

You seem to have discovered a new free energy system.

To fill the obvious gap of knowledge between us ... I suggest this link for your new interest in physics.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/momentum/U4L1a.html


.

[Halophyte]

Are you trying to disprove set explosives? Or the fact all 3 fell in the same manor.

Neither, I'm just providing some insight on the similar structure designs (box girder framing) and the physics of momentum and its kinetic energy released by collapse, absorbed by the next floor, exceeding static load limits of its frame design, and the resulting continued momentum - the funtion of collaspe.

When a tree falls in the forest, do other trees feel it?

I take that as a rhetorical question.

Angularity of collapse should be a forgone conclusion, because when dominoes fall they fall non-linear.

The "angularity" is a vector. The most prominent vector in the collapse function is the building design. Vertical. The domino effect I write about is the simple mass/momentum/absorption of energy/reaction.

It is NOT a chain reaction - it is a linear replication and transfer of energy - from floor to floor.

If I used that term "chain reation" I was at fault. This is misleading.

Small weight diferences and friction multiply in a chain reaction to create this non - linear equasion.

better analogy a slinky going down the steps. freefall = no steps slinky just falls to the ground.

You getting over your head. Reading too much into the physics of the collapse.

Don't worry, you have company.

.

[Large Sarge]

From Dr. Jones:

" WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says."

The key point being "Conservation of momentum"

it applies to all the buildings involved....

[AMforPM]

For me, besides the obvious political use made of it immediately, that immense and eternal 'war power' that is asserted as trumping all law domestic and international, including the constitution, the most compelling feature is that the pentagon, probably the best defended place on earth re air attack, ready for fighters and bombers and missiles, purportedly was defenseless agaist a big fat airliner with an hour's warning.

Many things strain credulity, but that one just cannot have happened without inside help.

David Griffin's book is very fair and reasoned in presenting reams of evidence.

[Halophyte]

My comments refer to the towers, not WTC-7. I believe building 7 was scheduled to be brought down and the order was given to do so. If it was part of a conspiracy to claim insurance interest that is beyond the scope of my comments about the twin towers.

Watch the video clips of the collapse. These two towers fell from the top down - not the other way around. These physical events were as follows;



1) - Impact of aircraft into the upper stories. Fracturing/destruction of existing masonry that insulated the interior/exterior framing steel - exposing the support structure. Excessive shock to framing fasteners. Shearing, ripping, fracturing, and weakening of framing fasteners.

2) - Shattering of sprinkler system stand piping, catastrophic failure of fire suppression systems with electrical system failures - multiple ignition sources.

3) - Combustion of fuels; JP-4, aircraft combustible sources, building furniture, plastics, petrol-chemical compounds of carpeting and interior finishing’s - a cumulative source of fuels with the resulting black smoke of complex hydrocarbon decompositions.

4) - Drafting of combustion sources by gaping holes - a huge aircraft frontal profile cut into the building's exterior. Exit holes due to impacts. Cross drafting of multiple combustibles at extreme elevations. Catastrophic failure of building structural fire stops, fire dampers and ventilation systems feeding oxygen to the combustibles. Radiation of fires superheats the incomming air drafting the flames - trapped occupants now being to exit the building, choosing to fall to their death instead of being incinerated.

5) - Excessive burn time of remaining interior fire stops, fire walls and framing thermal insulations. Excessive burn time of exposed steel support structure. Time and burn temperatures exceed the design limits for fire ratings.

6) - Expansion (not necessarily melting) of metal framing, I-beams, H-beams and column supports - exceeding tensile, shear and compression load limits of framing fasteners that are cold torked.

7) - Catastrophic failure of steel framing support fasteners. Static weight of the impact area (and all floors above) now exceed framing fasteners ability to hold the support framing together. Static weight of all floors above impact area now begin to crush damaged fasteners below. Momentum pulls on exterior framing supports exceeding static load limits of undamaged fasteners below. Existing undamaged fasteners hold the framing together as it falls.

8) - Collapse; static weight and mass of entire building above impact zone now drops to floors below, exceeding the load limits of undamaged fasteners below. As building falls from top down, momentum of all debris impacts floors below accelerating to complete the collapse. Each floor adds mass to the momentum of collapse as fasteners fail in succession.





It is my sincere belief that these towers would have fallen to the side and toppled over if the impact was at a much lower elevation.

.

[gpond]

David Griffin's book is very fair and reasoned in presenting reams of evidence.
I found this to be true, also.

I am fairly frequently frustrated that some of the most dismissive "official story" apologists are the ones who have looked into the actual evidence the least. So called "common sense" tells them that the offical story is correct, and that is as far as most care to venture.

[gpond]

Halo,

BTW, my comments above were not directed towards you, just to be clear.

Anyway, a question for you.

Would not each floor that had not already collapsed tend to slow down the progress of the collapse, even if for just an instant? I'm not suggesting that the overall collapse would have gotten slower and slower, but rather the acceleration of the collapse would have been impeded with each floor such that a collapse at near free-fall speed would not be possible? Just asking. It seems to me that when the higher floors hit an intact floor that some energy would be expended and some acceleration lost due to the amount of time it takes (however small) to seperate the intact floor as well as accelerate it from zero velocity. Can you help me to understand that?

Thx

[Large Sarge]

My comments refer to the towers, not WTC-7. I believe building 7 was scheduled to be brought down and the order was given to do so. If it was part of a conspiracy to claim insurance interest that is beyond the scope of my comments about the twin towers.

Watch the video clips of the collapse. These two towers fell from the top down - not the other way around. These physical events were as follows;



1) - Impact of aircraft into the upper stories. Fracturing/destruction of existing masonry that insulated the interior/exterior framing steel - exposing the support structure. Excessive shock to framing fasteners. Shearing, ripping, fracturing, and weakening of framing fasteners.

2) - Shattering of sprinkler system stand piping, catastrophic failure of fire suppression systems with electrical system failures - multiple ignition sources.

3) - Combustion of fuels; JP-4, aircraft combustible sources, building furniture, plastics, petrol-chemical compounds of carpeting and interior finishing’s - a cumulative source of fuels with the resulting black smoke of complex hydrocarbon decompositions.

4) - Drafting of combustion sources by gaping holes - a huge aircraft frontal profile cut into the building's exterior. Exit holes due to impacts. Cross drafting of multiple combustibles at extreme elevations. Catastrophic failure of building structural fire stops, fire dampers and ventilation systems feeding oxygen to the combustibles.

5) - Excessive burn time of remaining interior fire stops, fire walls and framing thermal insulations. Excessive burn time of exposed steel support structure. Time and burn temperatures exceed the design limits for fire ratings.

6) - Expansion (not necessarily melting) of metal framing, I-beams, H-beams and column supports - exceeding tensile, shear and compression load limits of framing fasteners that are cold torked.

7) - Catastrophic failure of steel framing support fasteners. Static weight of the impact area (and all floors above) now exceeds framing fasteners ability to hold the support framing together.

8) - Implosion; static weight of all floors above impact area now begin to fall. Interior framing failure and collapse. Momentum pulls on exterior framing supports exceeding static load limits of undamaged fasteners below. Existing undamaged fasteners hold the framing together as it falls.

9) - Collapse; static weight and mass of entire building above impact zone now drops to floors below, exceeding the load limits of fasteners below. As building falls from top down, momentum of all debris impacts floors below accelerating the complete the collapse.



.

What about the "Near Free fall" of the twin towers collapse, I believe free fall was calculated at 8.3 seconds, and the towers collapsed at 8.8.

Then you have the law of momemtum I mentioned earlier...

meaning that enough resistance should have been met to at least slow this whole effect down for the 100+ stories below the actual damage.

Like I said Halo, you are a smart guy, we will elave out all the obvious lies (the Pentagon, WTC 7), and for your sake lets leave out the less obvious lies, Larry Silverstein becoming a multi- billionaire in 6 weeks, or those mystery stock investors putting all those "puts" on American and United 2 days before the actual "Attack"

We can focus on your piece of the puzzle, ignore the forest for the 2 trees you like looking at...

I believe there is a million dollar wager offered on the web if your "office furniture fire" can explain the "near free fall" phenomenom

Since you said you like working for yourself anyway, why not Prove all of us conspiracy theorists wrong, and make a quick million for yourself....

I will find the link for the current wager....

[Libertarian_Guard]

For me, besides the obvious political use made of it immediately, that immense and eternal 'war power' that is asserted as trumping all law domestic and international, including the constitution, the most compelling feature is that the pentagon, probably the best defended place on earth re air attack, ready for fighters and bombers and missiles, purportedly was defenseless agaist a big fat airliner with an hour's warning.

Many things strain credulity, but that one just cannot have happened without inside help.

David Griffin's book is very fair and reasoned in presenting reams of evidence.


You raise a damn good point here my friend and I don’t have any answers as this lapse defies all logic. And without any video evidence forthcoming, this issue can’t be put to rest.

[Halophyte]

Halo,

BTW, my comments above were not directed towards you, just to be clear.

Anyway, a question for you.

Would not each floor that had not already collapsed tend to slow down the progress of the collapse, even if for just an instant? I'm not suggesting that the overall collapse would have gotten slower and slower, but rather the acceleration of the collapse would have been impeded with each floor such that a collapse at near free-fall speed would not be possible? Just asking. It seems to me that when the higher floors hit an intact floor that some energy would be expended and some acceleration lost due to the amount of time it takes (however small) to seperate the intact floor as well as accelerate it from zero velocity. Can you help me to understand that?

Thx


The tower collapsed from the top down - not the other way as explained by the docu-drama experts.

Fastener that are rated at 1,000,000 foot pounds at their shear load limits will not begin to slow a collapse at shear pressures of 100,000,000 foot pounds.

A 200 lb man impacting a wall at 50 mph will weight 40,000 lbs at time of impact. That's 200 G's. What saves the driver in an auto accident is absorbing the impact or streching out the time funtion of a quick stop.

Some of the energy was converted to heat as resulted in molten steel structure supports in the remaing debris.

The remaing intact structure added to the momentum of the collapse, effectively cancelling out the slowing down of the collapse by additive mass.

It's like a bicycle slowing down a Mac truck.


.

[s e t h]

so Halophyte.

you said earlier that wtc7 was demolished yes? and the official story regarding it must therefor be a lie.

what makes you think the official story for wtc1&2 is any different.

i mean your arguments are inconsistent?

i think you're asking too much for us to disbelieve the official and evidence lacking story on the one hand when you don't even believeit on the other.

I am not naive enough to believe WTC 7 was a typical collapse, I think it was brought down after the fact, seperate from the WTC towers.

[Halophyte]

so Halophyte.

you said earlier that wtc7 was demolished yes? and the official story regarding it must therefor be a lie.

what makes you think the official story for wtc1&2 is any different.

i mean your arguments are inconsistent?

i think you're asking too much for us to disbelieve the official and evidence lacking story on the one hand when you don't even believeit on the other.


I'm not here to debunk your conspiracy theory.

The physics of the twin tower collapses are consistent with a typical collapse function. I'm explaining the physics of mass and motion.

.

[gpond]

It's like a bicycle slowing down a Mac truck.Appreciate the response. I'm always trying to understand. This issue is still not settled for me, but of course.

I am left thinking this way: A bicycle in fact does slow down a Mac truck, although only slightly -- too little for us to notice. However 100 or 200 bicycles in series would tend to multiply the effect so that we would in fact notice. Imagine a race between 2 mac trucks of equal everything. One mac truck is unimpeded, the other must run through 150 bicycles. Which one should win? Just a thought experiment for me. I'm not much for arguing, but enjoy hearing your and others informed opinions.

Thanks again,
gpond

PS. I realize there is something wrong with my analogy which is this. Because of gravity and momentum and such, by the time the Mac truck got half way through the bicycles it would in fact be the equivalent of TWO Mac trucks.. Ha ha ha.. The remaining bicycles would not have much of a chance, eh?

PPS. Still... the time that was lost would never be made up, would it? For instance, heavier objects do not fall faster, just with more "determination".

[Large Sarge]

The tower collapsed from the top down - not the other way as explained by the docu-drama experts.

Fastener that are rated at 1,000,000 foot pounds at their shear load limits will not begin to slow a collapse at shear pressures of 100,000,000 foot pounds.

A 200 lb man impacting a wall at 50 mph will weight 40,000 lbs at time of impact. That's 200 G's. What saves the driver in an auto accident is absorbing the impact or streching out the time funtion of a quick stop.

Some of the energy was converted to heat as resulted in molten steel structure supports in the remaing debris.

The remaing intact structure added to the momentum of the collapse, effectively cancelling out the slowing down of the collapse by additive mass.

It's like a bicycle slowing down a Mac truck.


.

so this difference of 8.8 seconds and 8.3 is time enough to allow the top stories (above the damage) to go from resting to 200 mph?
enough momemtum to in fact cause the entire collapse of the building, in .5 seconds....

WOW!
that is a neat trick

Maybe the history channel will do a neato special on that also, or discovery channel

0 to 200 mph in .5 seconds in free fall

[keehah]

A lot of people getting defensive here and I feel it is because we are not focusing on only the mechanism of Twin Towers collapse: A plane impact and fire weaking the structure to failure vs. A planned demolition with additional explosives.

It would appear the most defensive posters (on both sides) are using this issue as a surrogate to the larger issue of did factors other than the on board terrorists conspire in the 911 tragedy. As long as we confuse the larger issue with the TT collapse we will get nowhere.

If I could suggest to those who believe in a 911 conspiracy (I do), as long a we focus on the most controversial issues such as the TT collapse, we make the job of convincing non-believers of any conspiracy more difficult than it needs to be. We then are working for, or fall into the trap of those behind the conspiracy who would keep the conspiracy in the 'fringe' instead of accepted truth were it belongs.

[Large Sarge]

for those who want a real understanding from a real physicist who has submitted this paper for PEER REVIEW (not just internet postings)

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Enjoy, and like I said halo, Why is no other scientist shooting down his paper?

be a great way to make a name for yourself in the academic field,

"I debunked Steven jones and his demolition theory paper"

Write a book on it, make another fortune....

instead they take Tucker carlson who belittles him, and refuses to run the video (after he asks nicely 3 times)

Free fall cannot be explained by an office fire

[Ponce Cuba]

Can't blame fuel "heat" for both towers because 3/4 of the fuel in the sencond plane went out the back, or side, of the building.....so find another excuse.

[gpond]

A lot of people getting defensive here and I feel it is because we are not focusing on only the mechanism of Twin Towers collapse: A plane impact and fire weaking the structure to failure vs. A planned demolition with additional explosives.

It would appear the most defensive posters (on both sides) are using this issue as a surrogate to the larger issue of did factors other than the on board terrorists conspire in the 911 tragedy. As long as we confuse the larger issue with the TT collapse we will get nowhere.

If I could suggest to those who believe in a 911 conspiracy (I do), as long a we focus on the most controversial issues such as the TT collapse, we make the job of convincing non-believers of any conspiracy more difficult than it needs to be. We then are working for, or fall into the trap of those behind the conspiracy who would keep the conspiracy in the 'fringe' instead of accepted truth were it belongs.You make an excellent point. It is awfully hard to let it go.

[Halophyte]

Vertical domino effect of mass and motion - each domino adds to the moving mass of the collapse - no existing fasteners will slow the collapse in a noticable fashion.

The so called "demo charges" going off were in fact blow outs - compression load fastener failures as the weight of the debris compressed structural members below, far exceeding fasteners load limits. A framing fastener rated at 100,000 ft lbs - at failure - will resemble an explosion. If you have ever witnessed this you would understand the physics.

No evidence of demo charges detonating at the sub basement lever is offered beyond the heat of compression evidenced by molten steel. The convenience of these so called "demo charges" did not contribute to the physics of the towers collapse as seen in file footage.

This was a top to bottom collapse - few of you believe your own eyes unless the file footage is narrated for you.

Turn off your volume control and watch the towers collapse.


.

[gpond]

Yes, it is a top to bottom collapse. That is given.

[Halophyte]

So why the basement floor demo charge theory ?

[gpond]

So why the basement floor demo charge theory ?I don't know.

[Large Sarge]

until I see someone debunk Steven Jones well written paper, I stand by the demolition theory...

Thats What "peer Review" is all about, they are inviting any and all criticism...

I would venture it is safe to assume Dr. jones has written more than a few papers in his career


it is supposed to be a rigorous test to get a paper published

No one has said anything to tear apart his research or his paper...

for some aspiring physics or engineering student, debunking Dr. Jones would be the opportunity of a lifetime...

No one is saying he is wrong, they are ignoring him and hoping he will go away

[Halophyte]

until I see someone debunk Steven Jones well written paper, I stand by the demolition theory...

it is supposed to be a rigorous test to get a paper published



Maybe not.

Anyone can publish a paper but none can defy the laws of physics or exceed the load limits of building designs.

I'm out of here, have a good one fellas ...

[keehah]

Why is no other scientist shooting down his paper?

Can I?

Anyway found nothing in there as evidence for a demolition. Just a whole lot of questions and a lie or two. For example:
"there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse"

South Tower was leaning to the corner of the impact for about 20 minutes before it begain to collapse.

[Large Sarge]

here is just a small sample of the analysis from a real working physicist.


"
That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports."

"Evaporated steel"
Hmmmmm Those office chairs burn mighty might hot....

[Large Sarge]

Can I?

Anyway found nothing in there as evidence for a demolition. Just a whole lot of questions and a lie or two. For example:
"there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse"

South Tower was leaning to the corner of the impact for about 20 minutes before it begain to collapse.

Is that the best you can offer?

a sag in one tower.....

"No steel framed building has ever (Before or Since) fallen from fire"

[Large Sarge]

Maybe not.

Anyone can publish a paper but none can defy the laws of physics or exceed the load limits of building designs.

I'm out of here, have a good one fellas ...

and we should get those laws of physics from who?
You? Me or the head of the physics department?

its all there in the paper, I am sorry if the truth hurts....

Have a Nice day also Halo

[Halophyte]

and we should get those laws of physics from who?
You? Me or the head of the physics department?



How about from books instead of the left/right wing pros ?

To understand the building design is to understand the collapse.

Evidence will out the truth.

Oops, the evidence was scraped up by bulldozers ....... must be a conspiracy.


.

[bigjon]

How about from books instead of the left/right wing pros ?

To understand the building design is to understand the collapse.

Evidence will out the truth.

Oops, the evidence was scraped up by bulldozers ....... must be a conspiracy.


.

You're pretty good at hand waving analysis, baffle em with bull shitt.

And in so doing support the official conspiracy of 20 patsies to take the blame, for a war against the American people, because we and the Arabs are the only losers of 911.

You have joined the fight on the side of the Neo-Cons and fly your colors high.