Looking at 9/11 with actual science

[Hoosier8]

You should try to have to explain how a helicopter flies.

I would explain but it would make your head spin.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Actually, I think the theory of what causes lift on an airplane's wing has changed from when I first learned to fly 30+ years ago. I still hear lift explanations based on the theory I learned Lo those many years ago, but I think there is actually some controversy about some aspects of it. Don't ask me to explain it, though.

I shall have to querry the interwebz about this controversy.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I would explain but it would make your head spin.

As long as the rotor blades remain attached while it's spinning, we're in good shape.

 

[Keith_Indy]

well i say we use a building in the middle east and fly a plane into it and run an official test so we can put this to rest

There's some in Dubai that may have the same construction.

I've always thought that a good movie plot would be white supremacists, or someone attacking the Middle East like they've attacked the West.

********************************

I have a semi-serious question (for anyone.)

How would a building falling from either a controlled demolition, or as a result of collapse, fall any faster or slower then the pull of gravity???

The controlled demo's that I've seen, multiple floors are blown and move at the same rate, at the same time.

Building collapses I've seen, there's a break somewhere in the structure, and everything above it falls at the same time.

In both cases, the pieces falling, fall at the same rate of speed.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There's some in Dubai that may have the same construction.

I've always thought that a good movie plot would be white supremacists, or someone attacking the Middle East like they've attacked the West.

********************************

I have a semi-serious question (for anyone.)

How would a building falling from either a controlled demolition, or as a result of collapse, fall any faster or slower then the pull of gravity???

The controlled demo's that I've seen, multiple floors are blown and move at the same rate, at the same time.

Building collapses I've seen, there's a break somewhere in the structure, and everything above it falls at the same time.

In both cases, the pieces falling, fall at the same rate of speed.

I'm not sure this is an answer to your question, but if I recall the theory correctly, the longer an item falls before reaching its "terminal velocity", the faster it will fall @ 32ft per second squared. All other things being equal, the taller the building, the faster the top floors would collapse? I dunno because then you'ld have to figure in the resistance from each lower floor before it collapsed in turn.

There shouldn't be any difference in the rate of collapse assuming the buildings have the same number of floors and the failure is caused at the same floor level.

 

[SavageEagle]

I've still not watched the video, but IMPO, I think that the government KNEW this was going to happen and allowed it to happen. I also believe someone was covering their butt when WTC7 came down. I also think that GWB not only wanted to finish what his daddy started, but I also know the connections between the Bush family and Hussein family and their oil deals. I would post links to evidence, but all my saved links are gone and the only proof I have is on my external HDD.

I think complacency and inaction led to 9/11. I also think it was a good excuse to grow the war machine to unprecedented levels and push us closer to the Police State.

 

[Hoosier8]

I've still not watched the video, but IMPO, I think that the government KNEW this was going to happen and allowed it to happen. I also believe someone was covering their butt when WTC7 came down. I also think that GWB not only wanted to finish what his daddy started, but I also know the connections between the Bush family and Hussein family and their oil deals. I would post links to evidence, but all my saved links are gone and the only proof I have is on my external HDD.

I think complacency and inaction led to 9/11. I also think it was a good excuse to grow the war machine to unprecedented levels and push us closer to the Police State.

Complacency yes. Inaction due to complacency yes. Government knows what is going on? LOL Why cover butts on building 7 when they had cables attached to it to pull it down?

Growing the war machine to unprecedented levels? We barely have enough for two fronts. It is still below levels before Clinton took office.

 

[dross]

You should try to have to explain how a helicopter flies.

Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana.

 

[SavageEagle]

Complacency yes. Inaction due to complacency yes. Government knows what is going on? LOL Why cover butts on building 7 when they had cables attached to it to pull it down?

Growing the war machine to unprecedented levels? We barely have enough for two fronts. It is still below levels before Clinton took office.

Cables? Really.... I'd like to see that photo. Considering all the government stuff in that building that COULD have been saved, why destroy it? Why not gather all that stuff before demolishing it unless you wanted to cover something up?

Unprecedented levels. Yes. Not in terms of numbers (even though those are still pretty high), but in power. If there was a revolt in this Country and the military was in on the government's side, we'd have no chance. You say we barely have enough for two fronts, I beg to differ. We have more than enough, it's about how much is actually deployed. I've already had this conversation with a retired general not long ago. We could end this war today if we had enough resources deployed.

The sad part is that government is decommissioning over 25% of our military vehicles including tanks, aircraft, aircraft carriers, subs, battleships, and domestic bases. If I can find the link I'll post it.

 

[E5RANGER375]

SE, i agree that the arguement looks strong for the government knowing something was gonna happen prior to 9/11. I was in the military already during 9/11 and I personaly felt something was being planned for. I cannot go into too many details but thats the sense I had. did anyone else that was in during 9/11 have the same feeling or knowledge of things?

 

[Tactical Dave]

Cables? Really.... I'd like to see that photo.

Im going to say there is not any.

The sad part is that government is decommissioning over 25% of our military vehicles including tanks, aircraft, aircraft carriers, subs, battleships, and domestic bases. If I can find the link I'll post it.

They have done stuff like that after every war really but I think now it is far worse.

We used to have 2 fighter bases in IN, we now have 1 and they are now going to A-10's. So none really.

St. Louis had F-15's and has since lost them or is loosing them. Last I heard Michigan was loosing it's A-10's. Ohio only has ONE fighter unit, the other is a training unit. Since like 2000 it has all shrunk bad.

The Midwest has 1 maybe two fighter unit's that could get on scene in a hurry...... an A-10 will take forever and a day. I need to get an update on the closings.

MN has a REALLY GOOD F-16 unit but they are not really midwest I don't think.


Makes you feel safe don't it?

 

[SavageEagle]

Here's the link. If you can't believe Chet Nagle you're not going to believe anyone.

Debts, deficits and defense | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

 

[SavageEagle]

Im going to say there is not any.

Hey, you better share and make some more of that as I fear we won't be seeing it either.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'm not sure this is an answer to your question, but if I recall the theory correctly, the longer an item falls before reaching its "terminal velocity", the faster it will fall @ 32ft per second squared. All other things being equal, the taller the building, the faster the top floors would collapse? I dunno because then you'ld have to figure in the resistance from each lower floor before it collapsed in turn.

There shouldn't be any difference in the rate of collapse assuming the buildings have the same number of floors and the failure is caused at the same floor level.

(not directed at you, just quoting for clarity)

I guess part of the argument is that the falling debris should have been falling past the standing structure. I don't know. Maybe some of it did. With all the dust that was generated, it's impossible to know for sure. Most people fail to grasp the immense size of these buildings.

Now, some people argue that the tops floors should have fallen slower than 32.2 ft/sec/sec because they would be impeded by the floors below them, and to follow the pancake theory, the bottom floor would not fail until the top floor hit it. They say the building fell at exactly free fall acceleration rate of 32.2 ft/sec/sec pointing to a controlled demolition that blew out the bottom floors the same time the top came down.

Kind of like a string of beads, where they're all evenly spaced like this.

- - - - - - - - -

Then you grab the bead on one side and begin to slide it, like this.

- - - - ----

The argument is that the top floors should have smooshed together without affecting the lower floors. Also each time a floor above hit a floor below, it should decelerate, thus going slower than free fall. A good analogy would be like hopping down a flight of stairs. Each time you hit the next step you slow down.

Since the WTC towers were constructed as a tube within a tube, with basically a massive vertical supporting member through the center, this theory only works if the floors don't transmit any force through the center columns.

This does not pass the common sense sniff test. The vertical load from the 20 or 30 floors collapsing onto the lower floors was transmitted all the way into the foundation. Now we'll get into the sciencey part.

Stress is a function of strain, which is a function of size, or in the case of a buckling verticle beam, height. Since the WTC was built modularly, the main beam is actually a series of beams joined together in 3 story segments. This adds a little wrinkle to the modeling since you have to analyze each beam individually, and the entire assembly as a whole.

So, if we apply equal strain (movement) to two columns of differing height, we'll get two different stresses. The longer column having the lower stress.

Knowing this, we apply it to what happened when the building began to fall.

As the top stories began to fall they impacted the first set of modular columns and the rest of the structure as a whole. The first set of columns immediately buckled and transmitted the force through the rest of the structure, which deformed or strained the building, but not enough to cause it to fail, then the debris hit the next set causing them to fail and inducing more strain into the building and so on and so forth. Eventually the strain exceeded the shear strength in the building column as a whole and the entire thing buckled and began to fall.

Also we need to consider the immense amount of energy contained in 20 or 30 floors of steel and concrete and other stuff, versus the force exerted by the column to slow it down to a rate other than 32.2 ft/sec/sec.

The equation for Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared (1/2 m V^2 = KE)

Plotted out, it's easy to see that the structural support force versus the energy of the falling building quickly reaches magnitudes of order difference very quickly. It's likely that nothing short of a mountain would have slowed the building's decent much less the existing structure.

 

[SavageEagle]

It doesn't mean the BOTTOM floor was demolished to create a free fall. only the floors that were blown out.

 

[ATOMonkey]

SE, i agree that the arguement looks strong for the government knowing something was gonna happen prior to 9/11. I was in the military already during 9/11 and I personaly felt something was being planned for. I cannot go into too many details but thats the sense I had. did anyone else that was in during 9/11 have the same feeling or knowledge of things?

Well, it was around the same time that Sadaam was getting all squirrley with the weapons inspectors.

Since it takes a year to train before deployment and about as long to get the logistics in order, I'd say that they were definitely planning for action in Iraq should it be needed.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Well, it was around the same time that Sadaam was getting all squirrley with the weapons inspectors.

Think Iran now......

 

[kedie]

You should try to have to explain how a helicopter flies.

Helicopters don't fly. They beat the air into submission.

 

[Keith_Indy]

SE, i agree that the arguement looks strong for the government knowing something was gonna happen prior to 9/11. I was in the military already during 9/11 and I personaly felt something was being planned for. I cannot go into too many details but thats the sense I had. did anyone else that was in during 9/11 have the same feeling or knowledge of things?

If I'm recalling correctly, one of the books I've read stated that there were plans under way to deal with either Saddam or al Queda in Afghanistan before 9/11. If I have time I'll try to find the quote for you. It was either DeLongs or Franks book.

*****

Thanks for the physics lesson.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Cables? Really.... I'd like to see that photo. Considering all the government stuff in that building that COULD have been saved, why destroy it? Why not gather all that stuff before demolishing it unless you wanted to cover something up?

WTC7 Pulled

With a fire raging inside WTC7, why would they risk sending people in to recover stuff.

Also remember that WTC 4, 5, and 6 were damaged sufficiently that they had to be brought down. And they ruled out using explosives because they were so structurally unsound that it wouldn't have been safe to let experts go in and place them.