• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by ManFromUncle, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. samhall

    samhall Newbie

    53
    +0
    Calvinist
    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.
     
  2. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +9,932
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    What makes you say that? On what physical principle/law/behavior are you basing this claim?

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

    How would you have expected it to collapse and why?

    -Dan.
     
  3. true2theword

    true2theword Newbie

    752
    +21
    Non-Denom
    Private



    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
     
  4. cow451

    cow451 Individual-2 Supporter

    +12,013
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  5. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  6. cow451

    cow451 Individual-2 Supporter

    +12,013
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  7. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +9,932
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    You haven't studied any kind of engineering, have you? Namely, the difference between static loads and dynamic loads.


    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.
     
  8. Supreme

    Supreme British

    +444
    Protestant
    Single
    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.
     
  9. Gadarene

    Gadarene -______-

    +2,447
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Labour
    They're called evolutionary dead ends, no?
     
  10. Sayen

    Sayen Cranky Old Man

    306
    +24
    Christian
    Married
    The best part is the thread just started over, as someone new strolls through, tosses out the same ignorant argument already discussed and proven false without bothering to read the evidence already presented.
     
  11. jgarden

    jgarden Senior Veteran

    +1,572
    Methodist
    :liturgy:
     
  12. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  13. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  14. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    Talibs were not the ruling Gov't. They gained no recognition, nor any power beyond what people gave them. Which in our case was a face full of lead!
     
  15. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    You don't have to study engineering to make it through the NIST report.
     
  16. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  17. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    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?
     
  18. samhall

    samhall Newbie

    53
    +0
    Calvinist
    Private

    OK, how long did the collapse take and how long would a free fall from the top of the towers last? Lets see your numbers and your source.
     
  19. samhall

    samhall Newbie

    53
    +0
    Calvinist
    Private
    and just what sort of 'engineer' are you?


    BTW a large number of high power real engineers aren't buying the official myth.
     
  20. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
Loading...