Why the Towers Couldn't have collapsed from Gravity -- Not Enough Energy Released

[wrs]

I thought I would put this out there for Halophyte. It's my own writeup and calculations about the lack of sufficient energy in a gravitational collapse to produce a progressive collpase of the WTC towers. What is really funny is that the NIST report doesn't address the collapse, it only addresses factors leading up to the collapse so it never substantiates the progressive collapse theory with facts, data or even a model.

Here is my writeup which was done about a year ago:

FEMA Numbers Contradict Claim on Collapse Dynamics

In it's report on the construction of the WTC Towers and their collapse FEMA makes the following statement in their report from Section 2.2.1.5

“Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 1011 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8 x 109 joules of potential energy were stored in the upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact. Once collapse initiated, much of this potential energy was rapidly converted into kinetic energy. As the large mass of the collapsing floors above accelerated and impacted on the floors below, it caused an immediate progressive series of floor failures, punching each in turn onto the floor below, accelerating as the sequence progressed.”


First lets make an educated guess at both the mass and the velocity of the upper floors in WTC1. The FEMA report says the upper 20 floors contained 8x10**9 Joules of energy which if we take an average height for those 20 floors of (1368 + 1102)/2 = 1235ft or 375m. Gravitational acceleration is 9.8m/s. To calculate the Mass of the upper 20 floors we can use the relationship between PE and mass as follows:

PE = mgh and solving for m gives

m = PE/gh

Substituting the FEMA values and known constants we get

m = (8x10**9)/(375*9.8) = 2.176 x 10**6 kg

In order to compute the mass of the remaining 90 floors we do the same thing and arrive at an average height of 167m which gives us a mass of 2.39 x 10**8 kg or basically 100 times the mass of the top 20 floors. So actually we have 1% of the total mass of the structure collapsing on the remaining 99%. It seems a little hard to imagine that this could cause a total collapse but lets study the matter further using the numbers provided by FEMA.

When we look at the statement in the FEMA report concerning the potential energy being converted to kinetic energy it would seem that we are dealing with a very large quantity, i.e. 8 Billion Joules. However, the KE of a falling object is given by the expression

KE = ½ mv**2

When the mass of the upper floors first begins to move it is accelerated at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s. This means that the velocity at the end of one second would be 9.8m/s but it isn't the initial velocity, that is clearly 0. So we must calculate what the final velocity is after traversing one floors worth of distance or approximately 4m. We can use the relationship between position and acceleration to find the velocity after traversing 4m as:

v**2 = 2as where a is acceleration due to gravity and s is distance travelled

v**2 = 2*9.8*4 = 78.4 and taking the square root gives v = 8.85m/s. Now we are ready to compute the KE of the upper 20 floors after traversing the 4m to reach the first undamaged floor below. Plugging into the equation above yields 8.5 x 10**7 Joules or 85 million Joules of Kinetic Energy spread across the area of floorspace of the building which was 3972 square meters or nearly an acre. Now that we have that energy we would like to compare it to the energy that FEMA has allocated to the causes of the collapse.

The first energy source that affected the structure was the collision from the plane which we know was a 767 with an unknown velocity. However from the Boeing site we find that the maximum takeoff weight was 179,170 kg and the crusing speed was 530mph. We don't want to estimate a greater mass or speed in this case because we know the buildings withstood this impact and so therefore we want to minimize or estimate of the impact energy of the plane in order to be conservative concerning our estimates of minimum collapse energy. So estimating that the plane had only 10,000 gallons and the maximum capacity is 24,000 gallons we subtract 40,000 kg from the mass of the plane.
The passenger load was also only about 1/3 of capacity and assuming a passenger plus baggage weight of 200lbs each. We will generously subtract another 15,000 kg from the mass of the plane. So we have a plane mass of roughly 125,000 kg.

The next component of concern is the velocity of the plane. Now the govt has estimated a very high velocity for the impact on WTC-1 of 494mph. This is fine for estimating a large energy of impact but it one desires to minimize the impact energy then we would like a lower impact speed. A lower estimate from another source provided an impact speed of 275mph which is roughly 98m/s. So at the lower velocity we compute an impact energy of 5.25 x 10**8 Joules. If we use the government speed we get 3.4 x 10**9 Joules which is much greater.

Now comparing the energy at jet impact to the energy from the upper 20 floors we see that even our lower number of 525m Joules is far larger than 85m Joules of the upper 20 floors at 8.85m/s. Now one thing we have to consider about the energy from the airplane impact is that it was spread over an area that covered 4 floors so dividing the lower number by four gives us an impact energy of roughly 131m Joules on the low end and 975m Joules on the upper end. These energies are still larger so it is clear the building was able to absorb on a per-floor basis, far more energy than would be contained in the upper 20 stories collapsing.

In looking for a better analysis of the energy distribution on impact I found this article at

http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-47343.html

This article speculates that 56% of the impact energy went into damaging the columns in the core. It unfortunately doesn't say how many floors of columns were assumed to be damaged but one would guess that at least two floors worth of columns were damaged and this article estimates that 24 of the 47 columns were damaged. So taking 56% of their estimate and dividing it by two leaves us with 1.07 x 10**9 Joules of energy absorbed by the core columns on two floors and yet that wasn't enough to cause a collpase. If we take our lower estimated speed and use the 56% number over two floors we get 1.47 x 10**8 or 147m Joules which is still 73% more energy than the upper 20 floors would contain at 8.85m/s.

We can end this analysis right here because we know that there wasn't enough energy in the impact to cause a collapse and we would expect that after the fires weakened the four impact floors that they had added even more energy. In fact, the FEMA report estimates that 1.15 x 10**9 W were produced by the fire in WTC 1. Allowing for 85 minutes of burn time and one half of this energy vented out of the building, we still get an additional 48 Billion Joules of energy. In order not to confuse this any further, I believe it's easy to see that the top 20 floors didn't contain enough energy to collapse even the next floor with generous assumptions.

Moreover, in a collision between two masses there is always kinetic energy lost in heat and deformation unless the collision is perfectly elastic. From the government estimates we have here, we can conclude with reasonable certainty that it would require the upper 20 floors collapsing to contain greater than 1.07 x 10**9 Joules of energy in order to even consider any subsequent collapse. This would require a velocity of 31m/s which would require that the collapse have progressed by 50m before impact which is 12 floors and anyone with eyes can see that there wasn't that much open space to fall through. Now if we take the more generous 147m Joules and compute the fall distance in the same fashion we get 11.6m/s and a drop distance of 7m which is far more reasonable.

To take this another step further, we can consider the columns in the core of the buildings. The amount of force required to cause a column to buckle is given by an equation called Eulers Formula and is given as

F = EI*pi**2/L**2

In this case E is the Youngs Modulus of the material, I is the moment of inertia for the beam type and L is the length of the beam. We are assuming what is called a simply pinned column in this case, which is what the colums on the interior floors of the building are.

There are several types of columns in the WTC core according to the NIST report on page 26 of chapter two. The largest on the floors above the impact zone are W14x730 which weigh 730 lbs per foot and are erected in 39 foot lengths so a single column weighs roughly 14 tons and spans three floors. There were four of these around the outside perimiter of the core and probably 4 in the center. The following table describes the force needed to initially deflect the column and the energy consumed in order to deflect it one meter.

W14x730 126Million Newtons bending force ==> 126 Million Joules per meter bent
W14x219 23.5 Million Newtons bending force ==> 23.5 Million Joules per meter bent
W14x61 6.4 Million Newtons bending force ==> 6.4 Million Joules per meter bent

So one must ask oneself, if the building didn't contain the energy in itself to initiate a collpase beyond fire and impact damage, much less pulverize concrete and shred steel, where did the energy come from to do all that damage?

[Goldhedge]

where did the energy come from to do all that damage?
Because the Government says so! :boxing:

[Halophyte]

Fireproofing, Key to Twin Towers Collapse

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7236

Ineffective fireproofing and a shortage of staircases are highlighted in a preliminary federal safety report into the attacks on the World Trade Center, issued by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on Tuesday. The study is likely to have a significant effect on the future design of skyscrapers and on building regulations in the US.

The NIST report concludes that a combination of factors caused both buildings to collapse shortly after terrorists flew hijacked commercial airliners into them on 11 September 2001. Computer simulations have been used to help piece together the chain of events that unfolded between impact and the collapse of each structure. Several videos of the simulations can be seen here and here (both require Realplayer).

The report says the initial collisions severely damaged several of the columns at the core of each building. Critically, they are also thought to have dislodged fireproofing on both the columns and the floors - the floors linked the inner columns to the supports on the outer structure.

"While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts," says Shyam Sunder, who led the NIST investigation. "This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled."

Photographs show that the walls of the north tower to have deformed by as much as 140 centimetres just a few minutes before collapse and the walls of the south tower to have arched by 50 cm.

Multi-floor fires
Sunder told a press conference that newly developed fireproofing could perhaps have sustained the structure for longer. "Even with the aeroplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires - which are not normal building fires - the buildings would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing that had been dislodged," he says.

The report further concludes that more lives might have been saved if both structures had been built with more than just three staircases. And the stairs were also surrounded by lightweight drywall that was immediately destroyed upon impact. Reinforced surrounding walls "might have provided greater opportunities for escape", Sunder says.

Full report
But some experts remain unconvinced by the study's conclusions. James Quintiere, of the University of Maryland, US, says he does not understand how fireproof insulation could have been dislodged from the buildings' floors and columns.

"Everything I see points to the fact that there may not have been enough insulation," he told New Scientist, adding that the fuel loads used in the report's calculations may have been too low.

And Barbara Lane, leader of the Structural Fire Group at UK engineering company Arup, adds: "[We] don't believe that [the dislodging of fireproof material] has been substantiated in any of the published data to date.” She adds that it is difficult to extrapolate heat assessments of a material to what might happen when it is actually in place in a building.

Lane also questions recommendations concerning the use of thermally-resistant window assemblies to slow the spread of fire. "This is of considerable concern as even this form of glass can fail under direct flame impingement," she says.

The complete report is comprised of more than 10,000 pages, the preliminary 3400 pages of which were released on Tuesday. The remainder of the study is planned for release in July 2005, when the institute will also make recommendations concerning building design and construction.


[B]August 26, 2004

Fire Testing Is Questioned in Findings on Towers
In a conclusion that may have ramifications for understanding other tall buildings and future structures, investigators from the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that the test used to determine fireproofing sufficiency, then and now, may itself be flawed - unable to predict accurately what will be required in a real-life fire. As a result, the towers indeed may been more vulnerable to a fire than anyone could have known.

New York Times


December 15, 2003

Trade Center Fireproofing Tests Suggest a Wider Safety Problem
Hundreds of buildings nationwide with fireproofing similar to that used in the World Trade Center could be far more prone to structural damage during major fires than previously thought, according to preliminary calculations by federal investigators.

New York Times


December 3, 2003

New Evidence Is Reported That Floors Failed on 9/11
Federal investigators said here Tuesday that new evidence supported earlier suggestions that the floor supports in the World Trade Center began failing in the minutes before the towers fell and might have played a major role in their collapse.

New York Times


June 5, 2003

New Theory on Why WTC Towers Collapsed
A vulnerability in the structure of the World Trade Center towers may have contributed to their collapse after the September 11 attacks, a leading structural engineer at the University of Edinburgh's School of Engineering and Electronics said on Wednesday.

Reuters


May 8, 2003

WTC Fireproofing Not Tested to Hold up to Code, Panel Says
Fireproofing on the steel floor supports in the World Trade Center was never tested and might have been too thin to hold up in a fire for the two-hour minimum set by the city building code, federal investigators said Wednesday.

AP via The State


April 23, 2003

Engineering Firm Says Collapse of Twin Towers Two Separate Events
An analysis by an engineering firm says both towers fell because their inner steel cores were weakened by fire. The analysis was paid for by leaseholder Larry Silverstein.

CBS 2


Notice a trend here ? Personally, I think they're trying to cover their a$$ets for lack of proper fireproofing.



Oops, I forgot ... I'm quoting the zionist news agencies ....

So here's a reward for someone to come forward -



$50,000,000.00 Reward Offer for 9/11 Conspiracy Proof

December 7, 2005

WhatDoesItMean.Com today announces that we are offering a reward of $50,000,000.00 (fifty-million dollars) to any present or former United States Government Public or Military Official having direct knowledge and verifiable proof that the events of September 11, 2001 were not caused by Islamic Terrorists.



.

[Ponce Cuba]

Thanks wrs, even I with only a 10th grade education already knew that and the fact that it did happen not once or twice but trice? impossible.

[wrs]

Don't cut and past irrelevant bullshit, address the facts presented or can you not do that?

[Halophyte]

Don't talk to Ponce that way !

[wrs]

The irrelevant bullshit you posted is all about the events leading to the initial collapse. There isn't a shred of analysis that shows what the energy requirements were for subsequent floors collpasing. There isn't a mention made of any models of the progressive collapse nor is that a mechanism proposed that accounts for the core collapse. Not a bit of analysis of how much energy was required to damage core columns and cause them to bend, buckle and break. My analysis gives you the inital collapse so get over that and answer my post or is it beyond your mental capability?

[Halophyte]

@wrs - Gotta go start up a heat pump and finnishing some house wiring. Gotta make a living you know ...


So hold your horses, I'll play math with you later.




This should be interesting ....


.

[wrs]

Im looking for some real thought here. I have shared this with two Structural Engineering friends and they cannot refute it.

[Ponce Cuba]

Don't talk to Ponce that way !


Thaks Halo but it wasen't to me.........but I sure as hell pope that is was not to one of my cats :rant:

[Goldhedge]

I think it was a matter of posting times. No harm done I'm sure.

As for me, I hope my tongue-in-cheek response, i.e., the 'government's pat answer to everything', was taken with a grain of salt and a touch of humor.

Government's response reminds me of the kid asking the parent "Why?" The answer: "Because I'm the mom!" - the underlying message being - "Do not question me!"

I believe, just as that physicist in Utah, wrs has the irrefutable goods.

[gpond]

Some other "expert" opinions on WTC construction available here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Looks like an interesting web site.

[Large Sarge]

@wrs - Gotta go start up a heat pump and finnishing some house wiring. Gotta make a living you know ...


So hold your horses, I'll play math with you later.




This should be interesting ....


.

We are all waiting anxiously for your next Brilliant piece of analysis......

:Zzzz: :Zzzz:

[bigjon]

I'd like to thank WRS for this contribution and hope he will welcome some supporting evidence.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html

Collapse Features

Characteristics of the Twin Tower Collapses and What They Show


The destructions of the two towers were almost identical. The most apparent difference is that the top of the South Tower tipped for a few seconds before falling, whereas the top of the North Tower telescoped straight down from the start. Here are some of the principal characteristics of the destructions, based on study of the surviving evidence (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/surviving.html).
The cores (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html) were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.
The perimeter walls (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html) were shredded (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/steel.html). No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.
Nearly all the concrete (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html) was pulverized (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html) in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.
The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html), which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.
Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.
Explosive events (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/explosions.html) were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.
The towers' tops mushroomed (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/mushrooming.html) into thick dust clouds much larger than the original volumes of the buildings. Without the addition of large sources of pressure beyond the collapse itself, the falling building and its debris should have occupied about the same volume as the intact building.
Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html), occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses. A gravitational collapse explanation would account for these as dust from floors pancaking well down into the tower's intact region. But if the floors -- the only major non-steel building component -- were falling well below the mushrooming cloud above, what was the source of the dense powder in the cloud?
The halting of rotation (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/rotation.html) of the South Tower's top as it began its fall can only be explained by its breakup.
The curves of the perimeter wall edges of the South Tower about 2 seconds into its "collapse" show that many stories above the crash zone have been shattered (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/shattering.html).
The tops fell at near the rate of free fall (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html). The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The forms of resistance, had the collapses been gravity-driven, would include: the destruction of the structural integrity of each story; the pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs of each story, and other non-metallic objects; and the acceleration of the remains of each story encountered either outward or downward. There would have to be enough energy to overcome all of these forms of resistance and do it rapidly enough to keep up with the near free-fall acceleration of the top.

[Halophyte]

Im looking for some real thought here. I have shared this with two Structural Engineering friends and they cannot refute it.

I'm still running and got dinner engagement to attend to, but just on the fly and taking a quick glace at your calculations I'm not seeing any input for Elastic Dynamic Analysis of floor framing structures during collapse. This makes all your calculations pending Inelastic Dynamic Analysis. Don't worry, I think FEMA left it out too.

It might just be me. Don't have the time to review all your calculations right now.

I'll check back with you when I can crunch some numbers. I'm sure it took you more than a half hour to reach you conclusions, so I'll take my time with an cohesive reply.




- nHalo

[wrs]

I give you a down to earth simple problem and you complicate it. There is no need for FEM here, it's a very simple go-no-go calculation. Please refute it if you can.................

Now as to the dynamic modelling of the system, the NIST did one and didn't reveal their model parameters. They also didn't model the system past the initial collapse and they used a lumped model for the non-inpact floors. They had several different input configurations and admitted that the reasonable assumption input configuratoin failed to result in a collapse. They have also refused to share their model with the structural engineering community at large so that visualizations of the collapse could be used when designing new buildings.

Get past this, I gave you the initial collapse, show me the energy calculations. The energy is either there due to gravity or it must be attributed to another source. Show me where it came from.

[Halophyte]

A little more complicated than that. (read; as the towers fell)

Your model assumes energy transfer to total area of the next floor down. Your model assumes evenly spaced lateral support beams in a classic box girder frame design. Your model does not account for lateral stress to fastener nuts/threads. Your model assumes one vector of compression (fall) upon fasteners (shear load). Your model does not account for lateral spread of perimeter vertical columns, horizontal stress to webbing or shear limits to fastener threads as the towers collapse.

I agree with one thing so far, your model is very simplistic. Your model does not take into consideration the building design.

You have proven one thing to me so far - you haven't a clue how the towers were built.



When I return, I'll show you how the design and collapse funtion contributed to reducing the energy required to collapse the towers.




BTW, any fool could see that the IMPACT of the aircraft alone did not knock the Towers down.

So I'm wondering why you think this is Earth shattering news ?



.

[wrs]

I think you must be from another forum I have argued this on. The same kind of irrelevant spew came from that other person, who knows, you might be him/her.

You have proven one thing to me so far - you haven't a clue how the towers were built.

Well that's not true and nothing in what I wrote exposes what I know about the building of the towers. Once again, this is a simple go-no-go analysis, you don't seem to be able to produce any numbers that refute it. You continue to promise to return with something new but all you have is more spew each time.

When I return, I'll show you how the design and collapse funtion contributed to reducing the energy required to collapse the towers.

What is "the design and collapse function" ? Is that part of some program you run to produce your spew (kind of like Ask Jeeves)? It looks yo me like just more bullshit you are spewing to make it look like you know something which you obviously don't.

BTW, any fool could see that the IMPACT of the aircraft alone did not knock the Towers down.

So I'm wondering why you think this is Earth shattering news ?

Well duh, now you are getting closer to the point but still seem a little too dense to get it. Let me spell it out for you:

THERE IS AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE LESS ENERGY IN THE COLLAPSE OF THE UPPER FLOORS BY 20 FEET THAN IN THE AIRCRAFT IMPACTS

Now add in the bending energy for just one 39 foot span of a single W14X730 and even a sophomore in high-school can see there is not enough energy from the upper floors collapsing by 20ft to cause any significant damage to the rest of the structure below it.

[Dude]

I'm not about to pull out my 25 year old course books (which I still have) because I only needed some of these engineering courses to balance my GE degree. Not only that, I don't wish to strain my brain to that degree, because I think that a "simple calculation" cannot describe what actually happened.

Is there some improper comparison and calculation between KE and PE that I'm seeing here? My 3 semesters of Physics at Illinois were a long time ago.

Don't you think thermodynamics could very well play a huge role in the collapse? I only had one semester of thermo.

My two semesters of TAM tell me that more analysis needs to take place. I don't know that the structure could allow for averaging forces across all supports and all columns across all described floors to come up with the idea that the building should still be standing today with weakened members and uneven force loads.

I do have to say in reference to a previous thread, I am one of those that would have a hard time not to believe the official report. If explosives were planted (even by outside enemies), that would mean that they would have had to rely on Americans to gain access to set everything up and the subsequent cover up. These Americans would be implicating themselves in an unbelievable diabolical plot.

[Blue_pill_envy]

....... If explosives were planted (even by outside enemies), that would mean that they would have had to rely on Americans to gain access to set everything up and the subsequent cover up. These Americans would be implicating themselves in an unbelievable diabolical plot.

I think we have BINGO!

I would only like to add that it is absolutely OK to look at something like this in general terms. We’re not talking about a wall cracking here due to some stress. This was a total implosion right down to the street. Wrs showed in a very general and effective way that the numbers just aren’t there to support the government version of events. Since when can 1% of something crush the other 99% into oblivion?

As for instance…. Let’s say you have to predict what will happen when a 2000 pound car doing 50mph hits a 100 pound dog doing zero. You don’t have to be aware of every component within the car or the dog to get a very good idea what’s going to happen upon impact. You can predict that the car will remain moving forward at a reduced speed and the dog will sprout wings. The governments version of the aftermath would have the dog scratching himself, while the car turned to dust.

The reason no one can exactly come up with a model showing how this collapse could happen, is simply explained by the fact that no model can re-create the government version of the collapses. I don’t care if you loaded those 20 floors with TNT soaked in liquid nitro……and dropped the whole thing from the moon……the results of Sept.11 couldn’t be produced…….not without explosives inside the building below..

..

[Dude]

Your "BINGO" is something I refuse to believe at this time. I'm sorry, but I cannot. Call me naive, if you must.

A simple 1% vs 99% mass comparison (or whatever you are referring to) cannot describe an interactive collision between a plane and a building.

Your analogy of non-volatile dog flesh struck by metal compared to an exploding plane hitting a building is quite similar...not.

What are you trying to prove, anyway?

[gpond]

Your "BINGO" is something I refuse to believe at this time.I agree, it is very hard to "go there" mentally. Just keep looking for the truth, wherever it lives.

[GREENSILVERHORN]

I agree, it is very hard to "go there" mentally. Just keep looking for the truth, wherever it lives.

Had a friend at work today come up to me and concur on the inside job theory.

I was taken back.

It seems fine to talk about it here with you guys, but when I am approached outside of here I can still hardly bear the thought of it.

This truth continues to hurt which is why i have trouble posting on it anymore.

[AMforPM]

"Your "BINGO" is something I refuse to believe at this time. I'm sorry, but I cannot. Call me naive, if you must."

--

I don't call you naive, I call you decent. The reason this is so easy to hide in plain sight is that it profoundly offends common decency and decent people find it almost impossible to accept that there are profoundly indecent people in power.

For a decency roadmap look at Katrina, and the torture policies. Torturing children in front of their parents. The cutting off water, shooting out cisterns, then attacking the hospital first before raining fire down on children in Fallujah. Then you will know the kind of diabolical people involved.

In Katrina, FEMA was not incompetent. They were excellent at keeping help out. They turned back trucks full of water at gunpoint, they physically damaged the sherriff's communication system (he repaired it and posted an armed guard to shoot the FEMA guys if they came back), they turned back convoys of citizen volunteers with boats at gunpoint. This is the mindset that gave us 9-11.

This particular bunch of criminals ran cocaine and had nuns raped and tortured and killed and an archbishop gunned down at mass last time they had the power.

It is acutely painful to decent people to see this, which is their protection. They are protected by the basic decency of most Americans.

[Large Sarge]

A little more complicated than that. (read; as the towers fell)

Your model assumes energy transfer to total area of the next floor down. Your model assumes evenly spaced lateral support beams in a classic box girder frame design. Your model does not account for lateral stress to fastener nuts/threads. Your model assumes one vector of compression (fall) upon fasteners (shear load). Your model does not account for lateral spread of perimeter vertical columns, horizontal stress to webbing or shear limits to fastener threads as the towers collapse.

I agree with one thing so far, your model is very simplistic. Your model does not take into consideration the building design.

You have proven one thing to me so far - you haven't a clue how the towers were built.



When I return, I'll show you how the design and collapse funtion contributed to reducing the energy required to collapse the towers.




BTW, any fool could see that the IMPACT of the aircraft alone did not knock the Towers down.

So I'm wondering why you think this is Earth shattering news ?



.

Still waiting for some nifty math formulas to explain the collapse WTC7...

How long you going to make us wait Halo?

Your genius has us all trembling in our boots

[Dude]

Thanks, guys. Good words, but it probably won't help me sleep much better at night.

[AMforPM]

:haha:

This just in, breaking news-- too big for its thread or the board it belongs on "@ wrs - my reply" has been posted over on General. Break out the spotlights!

Pretty hilarious. ;)

Similarly, in the soap opera department, how many here think 'indigo' and 'nonson' are typed by the same hands? They spell about the same, and produce lots of painfully contrived suds together.

[AMforPM]

Dude, it depressed the daylights out of me when I first saw it. One consolation is that these psychopathic personalities are actually quite rare. There aren't many of them. Unfortunately our institutions are not well defended against them, which I think is the biggie we will have to address as we dig out of this mess. If your conscience is just not there, it is easier to accumulate power in our institutions as they are now.

[Goldhedge]

It pains me to believe that there are nefarious elements in control of our government. It also pains me to think that there are those among us who cannot fathom the possibility that these elements exist.

Bush continues to brainwash the public every time he says: "The government must PROTECT the American people". We don't need protection. We need to quit being little children needing the protection of our parents. Get off the welfare bandwagon. This nation and the people in it are totally capable of taking care of themselves without government protection.

As for the impossibility of a conspiracy existing. How is it we still do not know who assassinated JFK? Lone gunman? I don't think so. That is the governments position - don't believe it.

How many of us know the inner workings of the Mafia style family? Silence is the rule - or death will be the tool. Conspiracies exist - believe it.

If you don't believe it, then you must still believe that your vote counts! They've rigged that too with the electronic - we need to know faster results - voting debacle.

Just open your eyes: grandma taking her shoes off in the airport
vs 10K illegal aliens per day crossing our southern border? Working for less wages - gutting the middle class in the process.
vs Arab Emerates running 6 key shipping ports?
vs the anti Patriot Act - which guts the Bill of Rights ('who' gets to determine what an 'enemy' is? The government, or the Patriot trying to Constitutionally reclaim said government?)
vs gutting of Private property rights by the courts
vs NAFTA
vs CAFTA
vs Depleted Uranium and Agent Orange used w/o protection by our troops?
vs The Katrina disaster - when we truly required aid/PROTECTION - non forthcoming.
vs the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Giving control over our money to a private corporation!

These are not what a SOVERIGN NATION is about. If you don't understand what SOVEREIGNTY is, then you'd better forget your current education/brainwashing and start learning.

Start by reading Andrew Jackson's State of the Union addresses and you'll begin to comprehend the essence of what I am trying to communicate to you. Do so, and you will begin to understand how far this nation has deteriorated and what being 'PRESIDENTIAL' really means. Here's the first one: http://www.usa-presidents.info/union/jackson-1.html You can find the rest at the link on the left.
:albertein

[wrs]

He used another thread on the main to answer me and not suprisingly, there is no math in his answers and mostly all he has done is a cut and past from the NOVA site.

Halo is not an Engineer or he wouldn't use cut and paste, he showed himself to be in the main ignorant of Engineering principles of analysis as well as physics on the other thread. Oh well, I guess he had his chance to prove himself and he blew it.

Remember how he promised to play math with me???????