9/11 Science Club: Mass Does Not Accelerate as it Accumulates, It Can Only Slow Down

samhall

Newbie
Sep 12, 2007
53
0
✟7,675.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Only way to have a building collapse at free fall speed is to first eliminate all internal structural support. This is something the fire & aircraft impact did not do. Even if the floor joints had failed you would still have those enormous central columns poking up to almost full height thru the rubble. Instead they and 3/4ths of the mass of the towers were essentially vaporised. Wonder why.

Also there is Building 7 which was NOT struck by an airplane and yet it ALSO collapsed into its foot print in just the manner that one would expect of a careful demolition.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,026
23,935
Baltimore
✟551,730.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Only way to have a building collapse at free fall speed is to first eliminate all internal structural support. This is something the fire & aircraft impact did not do. Even if the floor joints had failed you would still have those enormous central columns poking up to almost full height thru the rubble.

What makes you say that? On what physical principle/law/behavior are you basing this claim?

Also there is Building 7 which was NOT struck by an airplane

Right - it took severe damage from the skyscraper collapsing next door.

and yet it ALSO collapsed into its foot print in just the manner that one would expect of a careful demolition.

How would you have expected it to collapse and why?

-Dan.
 
Upvote 0

true2theword

Newbie
Nov 8, 2012
752
25
✟8,599.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Only way to have a building collapse at free fall speed is to first eliminate all internal structural support. This is something the fire & aircraft impact did not do. Even if the floor joints had failed you would still have those enormous central columns poking up to almost full height thru the rubble. Instead they and 3/4ths of the mass of the towers were essentially vaporised. Wonder why.

Also there is Building 7 which was NOT struck by an airplane and yet it ALSO collapsed into its foot print in just the manner that one would expect of a careful demolition.




some how your supposed to believe that enormous weight, changes the fact that most of the building was structurally sound and unaffected by either fire or the impact, and suddenly this 80% of building disinigrates into dust as if it were not capable of holding any weight at all

what should of been witnessed was the building collapsing and sliding off the weakest side of the structure, maybe 3 or four floors giving way to the excessive weight, but each floor would not give way so uniformly, each floor would not give way as if the weight above was perfectly and equally distributed, thats what is impossible about the whole scenario
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Congress gave Bush Authorization to attack Iraq...

Btw, wikileaks actually did provide some useful information:

But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to
look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Also from the Left-Wing MSNBC...
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

The thing is that the Bush Administration liked to keep these things quiet rather than brag all over the airwaves and endanger the lives of our servicemen and women, unlike what the Obama Administration did to the members of Seal Team 6.

Nice try, but even the WikiLeaks documents noted these are "remnants", not actual weapons. Yellowcake is not a WMD by itself. Leftovers and contaminated sites are not the rationale for invasion. That's why the administration made little effort to publicize them.
 
Upvote 0

Btodd

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2003
3,677
292
✟20,354.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Only way to have a building collapse at free fall speed is to first eliminate all internal structural support. This is something the fire & aircraft impact did not do. Even if the floor joints had failed you would still have those enormous central columns poking up to almost full height thru the rubble. Instead they and 3/4ths of the mass of the towers were essentially vaporised. Wonder why.

Also there is Building 7 which was NOT struck by an airplane and yet it ALSO collapsed into its foot print in just the manner that one would expect of a careful demolition.

The Twin Towers did not collapse at free fall speed, no matter how many times some people repeat it. There is debris well below the point of collapse, and it is falling faster than the collapse itself. Watch the videos.

And the other phrase that bugs me is, 'into its own footprint'. Where else is it supposed to collapse? Gravity works in one direction. But the debris also damaged several buildings around it, so that phrase is quite misleading.


Btodd
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
:doh: No the Taliban was NOT the official AF gov't. If they had been we would've declared war with that Nation and the whole thing would've been MUCH simpler :doh:

The Taliban controlled 90% of the country, including Kabul. There was no "government in exile". The closest thing to opposition was the Northern Alliance, which was holed up in one section. If you recall, their leader was assassinated one or two days prior to 9/11.

All we had to do was "recognize" them, then declare war. There was no such technical excuse for not declaring war on Iraq. As has been pointed out, Congress has mostly rubber-stamped Presidential military actions since WWII.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,026
23,935
Baltimore
✟551,730.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
some how your supposed to believe that enormous weight, changes the fact that most of the building was structurally sound and unaffected by either fire or the impact, and suddenly this 80% of building disinigrates into dust as if it were not capable of holding any weight at all

You haven't studied any kind of engineering, have you? Namely, the difference between static loads and dynamic loads.


what should of been witnessed was the building collapsing and sliding off the weakest side of the structure, maybe 3 or four floors giving way to the excessive weight, but each floor would not give way so uniformly, each floor would not give way as if the weight above was perfectly and equally distributed, thats what is impossible about the whole scenario

Really? Why should the building have collapsed this way? You do know, doin't you, that one plane crashed 15 floors below the top of the building and the other crashed almost 30 floors below the top. Why would only 3-4 floors collapse?

-Dan.
 
Upvote 0

Supreme

British
Jul 30, 2009
11,890
490
London
✟22,685.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The Twin Towers did not collapse at free fall speed, no matter how many times some people repeat it. There is debris well below the point of collapse, and it is falling faster than the collapse itself. Watch the videos.

And the other phrase that bugs me is, 'into its own footprint'. Where else is it supposed to collapse? Gravity works in one direction. But the debris also damaged several buildings around it, so that phrase is quite misleading.


Btodd

I honestly can't believe we're even still discussing this. 95% of us moved on when we studied the evidence and concluded that it added up. 5% of us, however, are still stuck in the past, clinging onto conspiracy theories without any evidence that hasn't been debunked millions of times over.

Meh, I guess we need variation in our species to continue the evolution process. That's the only possible way I can reconcile the fact there are people who believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories with the real world.
 
Upvote 0

Gadarene

-______-
Apr 16, 2012
11,461
2,507
London
✟75,247.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
I honestly can't believe we're even still discussing this. 95% of us moved on when we studied the evidence and concluded that it added up. 5% of us, however, are still stuck in the past, clinging onto conspiracy theories without any evidence that hasn't been debunked millions of times over.

Meh, I guess we need variation in our species to continue the evolution process. That's the only possible way I can reconcile the fact there are people who believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories with the real world.

They're called evolutionary dead ends, no?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S

seeking Christ

Guest
Nice try, but even the WikiLeaks documents noted these are "remnants", not actual weapons. Yellowcake is not a WMD by itself. Leftovers and contaminated sites are not the rationale for invasion. That's why the administration made little effort to publicize them.

WRONG! Giving away our military secrets of what we were up to would have endangered lives. Please don't reduce that to partisan bickering.

It is obvious that Saddam (and his sons) was a murderous madman, that he was interested in WMD's of all flavors, and if in his possession he wouldn't have hesitated to use them. Also obvious is that he decided that that caches of small arms we found were a better use of his money. You know, those caches we found and ABANDONED, only to be recovered by the world's 3rd largest army that we sent home, with their weapons?

If ya want to kavetch, at least kavetch about true things that are kavetch worthy. There's no shortage of them on this topic.
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
And the other phrase that bugs me is, 'into its own footprint'. Where else is it supposed to collapse? Gravity works in one direction.

Oh come on, you can't claim it's not unusual that one side of the structure didn't hang on longer than the other, resulting in the building being knocked over rather than collapsing straight down the way things do when they're intentionally demolished.

But those details are covered quite well in the NIST report.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Btodd

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2003
3,677
292
✟20,354.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh come on, you can't claim it's not unusual that one side of the structure didn't hang on longer than the other, resulting in the building being knocked over rather than collapsing straight down the way things do when they're intentionally demolished.

But those details are covered quite well in the NIST report.

Your wording gives it away...'knocked' over. What's pushing it? I'm not saying that a damaged building cannot fall over under any circumstances, but given the damage the Towers sustained, their particular construction, and the ensuing fires...it is not unusual that they fell straight down.

And if I can't claim it, then perhaps Thomas W. Eagar from MIT can in the journal JOM?

"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.[SIZE=-1]1[/SIZE] It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."


Btodd
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
I'm hoping this principle was well known at the design phase. This guy states "the box columns bow outwards." I thought sure the NIST report said they bowed inwards? The floor sagged first due to steel losing its strength even though it was a long way from melting, then instead of the connection points between floor and columns breaking as originally thought the columns were bowed inwards, allowing the beginning of the collapse.

Hopefully this guy just got that one word wrong, and is right otherwise?
 
Upvote 0

samhall

Newbie
Sep 12, 2007
53
0
✟7,675.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
You haven't studied any kind of engineering, have you? Namely, the difference between static loads and dynamic loads.
..........................

and just what sort of 'engineer' are you?


BTW a large number of high power real engineers aren't buying the official myth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Btodd

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2003
3,677
292
✟20,354.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm hoping this principle was well known at the design phase. This guy states "the box columns bow outwards." I thought sure the NIST report said they bowed inwards? The floor sagged first due to steel losing its strength even though it was a long way from melting, then instead of the connection points between floor and columns breaking as originally thought the columns were bowed inwards, allowing the beginning of the collapse.

Hopefully this guy just got that one word wrong, and is right otherwise?

Good catch, and I think you're right, it's probably a case of mis-speaking. The outer columns, as I understand it, bowed in when the floors started sagging, and once the floors started the collapse...the outer columns stripped away to the outside. Part of the reason damage was caused to surrounding buildings (like WTC7), and why the phrase 'into its own footprint' is at least somewhat misleading.


Btodd
 
Upvote 0