WTC: Rate of Fall (rate of crush)

[George B]

There is no need for calculations for buckling capacities.

All you need to accept is the momentum of the upper floors pulverised the floors below, because those floors' truss connections were miniscule.

Neither the core nor the perimeter walls had the ability to freestand once the floors were obliterated. That is why they toppled radially out over such a massive debris field. Both core and exterior column panels.

So a Verniage demolition would have worked perfectly for Towers one and two. . . . how many floors (minimum) would have been sufficient to get the same total collapse? Obviously, 15 floors was more than sufficient?

 

[slenderbeam]

So a Verniage demolition would have worked perfectly for Towers one and two. . . . how many floors (minimum) would have been sufficient to get the same total collapse? Obviously, 15 floors was more than sufficient?

No amount of computers will tell you how hot it was in there. As seen from the flowing metal from the debris pile, temperatures in excess of 600C would have halved the elastic modulus of perimeter columns. It's all over at 600C when there's no fireproofing as far as I'm concerned.

 

[George B]

No amount of computers will tell you how hot it was in there. As seen from the flowing metal from the debris pile, temperatures in excess of 600C would have halved the elastic modulus of perimeter columns. It's all over at 600C when there's no fireproofing as far as I'm concerned.

The temperature was the cause of the initial collapse not the reason the towers fell to the ground . . . how much weight was required to smash the entire building is the question . . . ?

 

[slenderbeam]

The temperature was the cause of the initial collapse not the reason the towers fell to the ground . . . how much weight was required to smash the entire building is the question . . . ?

That's easy. Not very much weight at all. In theory, one floor falling from height would probably be enough to smash the floor below. Theoretically I mean, if you disconnected one floor all at once and let it fall on the floor below, you'd probably smash the truss connections.

What happened on the day was not one, but multiple floors as you know.

 

[George B]

That's easy. Not very much weight at all. In theory, one floor falling from height would probably be enough to smash the floor below. Theoretically I mean, if you disconnected one floor all at once and let it fall on the floor below, you'd probably smash the truss connections.

What happened on the day was not one, but multiple floors as you know.

Yes, that is the question . . . how many floors?? . . . Why then do professional demolition experts use explosives except at the top of a steel reinforced building? Would seem much cheaper blowing just the support columns of a couple of floors at the top of a high rise . . .

 

[slenderbeam]

Yes, that is the question . . . how many floors?? . . . Why then do professional demolition experts use explosives except at the top of a steel reinforced building? Would seem much cheaper blowing just the support columns of a couple of floors at the top of a high rise . . .

One or two floors. Why do you keep mentioning demolition?

There was enough heat from the fire to soften the columns to progress structural collapse.

Demo projects cannot afford to get it wrong. They need to do it in one shot because of commercial reasons. It also makes them more money to use more detonation materials!! It guarantees a predictable demolition. That is why they do not simply rely on gravity to take down a building, because buildings are generally more robust than expected.

The WTC towers were robust enough to stand as they did after the impact. They were not robust enough to withstand the upper floors smashing the floors below.

 

[Jazzy]

Why do you keep mentioning demolition?

He does so because he's a conspiracy theorist. If you tax him with it, he denies it. But his mind set hasn't altered since he joined some time ago. He won't discuss anything which doesn't accord with his preconceptions, so don't waste your time.

 

[George B]

He does so because he's a conspiracy theorist. If you tax him with it, he denies it. But his mind set hasn't altered since he joined some time ago. He won't discuss anything which doesn't accord with his preconceptions, so don't waste your time.

And you don't have a debunking mindset . . .?

 

[Cairenn]

The debunking mindset, is one that expects facts and science and reason to support what is believed, not opinions and maybes and could have beens and such.

 

[George B]

The debunking mindset, is one that expects facts and science and reason to support what is believed, not opinions and maybes and could have beens and such.

There are plenty of gray areas that can be rationally debated where there is not sufficient data to be certain of a position . . .

 

[Cairenn]

Grey areas or barely off-white ones? I find your insistence that the opinions of a handful of pilots are more important than the opinions of the vast majority of pilots to not be be grey, but to be barely off-white, it isn't even cream

 

[George B]

Grey areas or barely off-white ones? I find your insistence that the opinions of a handful of pilots are more important than the opinions of the vast majority of pilots to not be be grey, but to be barely off-white, it isn't even cream

OK . . . Prove that most pilots believe what you are saying . . .

 

[RolandD]

OK . . . Prove that most pilots believe what you are saying . . .

George, which is more reasonable, that 600,000 licensed pilots remain silent even though they know it was impossible for the hijackers to have piloted the planes into the WTC and pentagon and public revelation would be an even bigger event than 9/11 itself? Or, that 600,000 licensed pilot understand that it was perfectly plausible and probable the hijackers did exactly what the official findings claim and consider alternate claims to be so ludicrous and unfathomable that they can't even imagine that there is a need for them to speak out in support of the official findings?

 

[George B]

George, which is more reasonable, that 600,000 licensed pilots remain silent even though they know it was impossible for the hijackers to have piloted the planes into the WTC and pentagon and public revelation would be an event bigger event than 9/11 itself? Or, that 600,000 licensed pilot understand that it was perfectly plausible and probable the hijackers did exactly what the official findings claim and consider alternate claims to be so ludicrous and unfathomable that they can't even imagine that there is a need for them to speak out in support of the official findings?

Most people are disposed to silence and inaction, just too busy to think about the issues . . . It is in the Declaration of Independence. . . .

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

 

[Cairenn]

Many yes, but NOT 600,000. One question, did a lot of commercial airline pilots quit, right after 9/11? If folks felt that others could seize control of the planes that they are flying and crash them, they would QUIT, ASAP. What I remember is the pilots DEMANDING that the cockpit doors be made secure that they be given the right to arm themselves to protect from SOMEONE entering the cockpit and taking control of the plane.

This is where critical thinking is needed

 

[Jazzy]

And you don't have a debunking mindset . . .?

I hope we all have a low tolerance of bunk, George, and your form of bunk in the style of Zeno's Paradox: Achilles fires an arrow at a rabbit. After the arrow has flown fifty yards, the rabbit has moved a further yard. By the time the arrow has covered that yard, the rabbit has moved 1.8 inches, by the time the arrow has moved those 1.8 inches, the rabbit has moved a further .036 inches. Will the arrow ever strike the rabbit?

By which I mean to say you dissemble, frequently with previously-debunked disinfo, and reduce the thread to incoherence if you can. You are self-appointed smoke to muddy, dilute, diffuse the overall picture.

The topic is the WTC Towers, their rate of fall, the crushing energy involved, remember. Verinage wasn't applied to the WTC towers. That is plainly obvious, so why raise the topic?

 

[RolandD]

Most people are disposed to silence and inaction, just too busy to think about the issues . . . It is in the Declaration of Independence. . . .

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Horse hockey! You're just being obstinate or you truly are delusional to believe that only four pilots out of 600,000 are not "disposed to silence and inaction, just too busy to think about the issues". Come on.

 

[George B]

Horse hockey! You're just being obstinate or you truly are delusional to believe that only four pilots out of 600,000 are not "disposed to silence and inaction, just too busy to think about the issues". Come on.

So then your assumption that 600,000 pilots think like you do is fact???

 

[George B]

Many yes, but NOT 600,000. One question, did a lot of commercial airline pilots quit, right after 9/11? If folks felt that others could seize control of the planes that they are flying and crash them, they would QUIT, ASAP. What I remember is the pilots DEMANDING that the cockpit doors be made secure that they be given the right to arm themselves to protect from SOMEONE entering the cockpit and taking control of the plane.

This is where critical thinking is needed

I never said the hijackers didn't take control . . . I am questioning whether or not they could have flown the aircraft into the targets without technological assistance . . .

 

[George B]

I hope we all have a low tolerance of bunk, George, and your form of bunk in the style of Zeno's Paradox: Achilles fires an arrow at a rabbit. After the arrow has flown fifty yards, the rabbit has moved a further yard. By the time the arrow has covered that yard, the rabbit has moved 1.8 inches, by the time the arrow has moved those 1.8 inches, the rabbit has moved a further .036 inches. Will the arrow ever strike the rabbit?

By which I mean to say you dissemble, frequently with previously-debunked disinfo, and reduce the thread to incoherence if you can. You are self-appointed smoke to muddy, dilute , diffuse the overall picture.

The topic is the WTC Towers, their rate of fall, the crushing energy involved, remember. Verinage wasn't applied to the WTC towers. That is plainly obvious, so why raise the topic?

Then you have not been paying much attention to Mick's and my discussion . . . since there were no explosives in the remaining tower below the damage caused by the aircraft . . . as an analogy that is exactly what is implied . . .

 

[Cairenn]

Do you realize that you are saying that well over half a MILLION pilots either don't care or are afraid to speak out? If the hijackers had some sort of computer aid, then that ADDS even more folks to the conspiracy. You have been told and shown that the onboard computers could not be sabotaged from within the planes.

I am beginning to believe that you write things without thinking about what you are implying

 

[George B]

Do you realize that you are saying that well over half a MILLION pilots either don't care or are afraid to speak out? If the hijackers had some sort of computer aid, then that ADDS even more folks to the conspiracy. You have been told and shown that the onboard computers could not be sabotaged from within the planes.

I am beginning to believe that you write things without thinking about what you are implying

No one has proven anything . . . The statement was made they didn't think a computer could be accessed or altered but did not know for sure . . . I think it may be possible . . . because it is the only way IMO to explain 3 for 3 hits on target . . .


As far as the pilots . . . The vast majority never even thought about the issues involved at the time of 911 and if they did for a few minutes, they had better things to do . . . the rest did like I did . . . Never crossed my mind until 2009 . . . so far after the fact it was too late to do anything except ask a few questions and go on with life . . .

 

[MikeC]

There are plenty of gray areas that can be rationally debated where there is not sufficient data to be certain of a position . . .

but you do not debate them George.

In a debate you present all eth information about a number of scenarios, then make some conclusions - eg which is note msot likely, which are highly unlikely, etc.

you "just ask questions" and never come to any conclusions that involves accepting that there was no conspiracy.

 

[George B]

but you do not debate them George.

In a debate you present all eth information about a number of scenarios, then make some conclusions - eg which is note msot likely, which are highly unlikely, etc.

you "just ask questions" and never come to any conclusions that involves accepting that there was no conspiracy.

So fact finding, examining opposing positions and validating areas of conflict are not part of the process . . . just because I don't say which side of the debate has more convincing evidence does not mean which will eventually win the day . . . I have been in too many situations where the early returns were just that, early returns . . .

 

[Rico]

No one has proven anything . . . The statement was made they didn't think a computer could be accessed or altered but did not know for sure . . . I think it may be possible . . . because it is the only way IMO to explain 3 for 3 hits on target . . .


As far as the pilots . . . The vast majority never even thought about the issues involved at the time of 911 and if they did for a few minutes, they had better things to do . . . the rest did like I did . . . Never crossed my mind until 2009 . . . so far after the fact it was too late to do anything except ask a few questions and go on with life . . .

George, you have to consider that a few pilots out of the bunch isn't really going to make something true without reasonable evidence backing up their theories. You also have to consider that your own theories are all based on the assumption that some of these fringe theories are true. Just yesterday, I randomly stumbled upon a 9/11 conspiracy theory on YouTube that said there were munitions or something externally attached to United 175 when it hit the WTC. An experienced pilot with bars on his shoulder, as well as a retired military general testified that there just has to be something attached to the aircraft, due to the various colorings on the bottom of the aircraft from the footage taken when 175 hit the building. The footage of the aircraft (their evidence), when zoomed in to it's belly, of course was blurry as heck, and I can kind of see why it might have been mistaken for external objects. But in investigating this topic, all it took was to google up a higher definition picture of a typical United Airlines 767 viewed from the belly to expose this bunk. Moral of the story: these experienced professionals were wrong.

So too can be your theories when they hinge off of a few individuals unless you come up with something a little more concrete. Quite frankly, there is absolutely no evidence that supports your theory that the aircraft in 9/11 were controlled via automation to hit their targets. The only thing remotely supporting your notion is that some pilots and other professionals think it can't be done by those at the helm. But if this is all you have to go on, it is proving to be a very weak theory.

 

[RolandD]

So then your assumption that 600,000 pilots think like you do is fact???

No George, I imagine that those 600,000 pilots hold a wide range of opinions on the matter. I wouldn't be surprised if you could find up to 50 pilots who believed it was impossible for the hijackers to have accomplished what they did, but I would suggest that if it were actually as obviously impossible as those few pilots are asserting, that there would be hundreds of pilots shouting it from the rooftops.

Just really give it some thought, how many countries around the world would love for 9/11 to have been a false flag, or just embarrass the US for a coverup? Do you not think that pilots, loyal to those other countries, wouldn't have come forward? North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, etc., countries with resources and power to prove and publicize that there was a coverup. Schadenfreude is very powerful.

 

[Cairenn]

'Early returns' ? George it has been 12 years now. Wait much longer and you will say that 'we will never know the truth, because it has been too long and folks have died'.

I fail to see much on the your side that is even worth considering. You prefer to take the word of half a dozen pilots out of 600,000 pilots, that is TINY number. You do that on everything. You are like the folks that didn't want to believe that picture had been photo shopped when I posted Snopes (they could be wrong). I then posted others sources that showed that it was and they STILL insisted that the picture was right. EVEN when I found the picture that had been photo shopped and that wasn't enough.

 

[RolandD]

As far as the pilots . . . The vast majority never even thought about the issues involved at the time of 911 and if they did for a few minutes, they had better things to do . . . the rest did like I did . . . Never crossed my mind until 2009 . . . so far after the fact it was too late to do anything except ask a few questions and go on with life . . .

You haven't told us of your psychic abilities. You've read the minds of all the pilots on earth and gleaned this information. I'm being snarky, because what you made there was an absolute statement.

You are also projecting. Believing that the way you think is the same way everybody else thinks. I'm pretty sure that isn't true.

 

[George B]

You haven't told us of your psychic abilities. You've read the minds of all the pilots on earth and gleaned this information. I'm being snarky, because what you made there was an absolute statement.

You are also projecting. Believing that the way you think is the same way everybody else thinks. I'm pretty sure that isn't true.

My statement is no more presumptuous than many here . . . since only a handful of pilots testified to the fact something was wrong then the fast majority of 600,000 don't think anything but the OS is likely true . . .

 

[RolandD]

My statement is no more presumptuous than many here . . . since only a handful of pilots testified to the fact something was wrong then the fast majority of 600,000 don't think anything but the OS is likely true . . .

Can you translate what OS means?

 

[Rico]

Can you translate what OS means?

Original/official story.

 

[RolandD]

My statement is no more presumptuous than many here . . . since only a handful of pilots testified to the fact something was wrong then the fast majority of 600,000 don't think anything but the OS is likely true . . .

Except that one is rational and the other isn't.

 

[MikeC]

So fact finding, examining opposing positions and validating areas of conflict are not part of the process . . . just because I don't say which side of the debate has more convincing evidence does not mean which will eventually win the day . . .

you do not examine opposing ideas - you fixate upon one idea and the do nothing more than ask questions like a 5 year old continually asking "why?"

And if you do not like the answer you do not say "Fair enough - I guess that is answered" - no - you just shift to anothe aspect that has piqued your interest and which you can't be bothered researching and start asking "why?" all over again in that area.

It is not as if you do any actual research yourself either - that is almsot entirely done by people with the patience of saints who reply to your questions, and who's good efforts you then abuse their good graces by asking more queestions that demonstrate your unwillingness to examine and evaluate the real evidence!

And then you have the gall to suggest that you are "validating areas of conflict"??

no George - because there are no "areas of conflict" - there are just areas that you will not accept the massively overwhelming evidence for.

the fact that you can ask a question about something that is essentially solved does not make your question a valuable inquiry or the subject matter an "area of conflict"!

I strongly suggest that you read and take to heart this article about "why you are not entitled to your opinion" - you are a classic case of what the author is talking about.

I have been in too many situations where the early returns were just that, early returns . . .

It is a bit late to be thinking about the likelihood of various 9/11 scenarios as "early returns"!!

 

[George B]

you do not examine opposing ideas - you fixate upon one idea and the do nothing more than ask questions like a 5 year old continually asking "why?"

And if you do not like the answer you do not say "Fair enough - I guess that is answered" - no - you just shift to anothe aspect that has piqued your interest and which you can't be bothered researching and start asking "why?" all over again in that area.

It is not as if you do any actual research yourself either - that is almsot entirely done by people with the patience of saints who reply to your questions, and who's good efforts you then abuse their good graces by asking more queestions that demonstrate your unwillingness to examine and evaluate the real evidence!

And then you have the gall to suggest that you are "validating areas of conflict"??

no George - because there are no "areas of conflict" - there are just areas that you will not accept the massively overwhelming evidence for.

the fact that you can ask a question about something that is essentially solved does not make your question a valuable inquiry or the subject matter an "area of conflict"!

I strongly suggest that you read and take to heart this article about "why you are not entitled to your opinion" - you are a classic case of what the author is talking about.




It is a bit late to be thinking about the likelihood of various 9/11 scenarios as "early returns"!!

I beg your pardon . . . I have done as much research as my limited knowledge of aviation allows . . . I do know about automation and a certain amount about weapon systems . . . I know enough also to know that what the government does and does not do about sharing things with the public . . . I have worked with classified systems and ten to twenty years of withholding critical information is child's play for "them" . . . how dare someone question the Official Story?? . . . I do and I will . . . and by the way very little of what the experts here have had to say has convinced me they know anymore than the four or so experts from the Ttuthers . . . since the rest of mainstream experts are basically silent . . . who should I believe . . . someone who insults me?

 

[George B]

Except that one is rational and the other isn't.

In your opinion . . . . are you a pilot or aerospace engineer . . .? Do you work for the NTSB, FAA, NASA ????

 

[Cairenn]

Why do you call it the 'official story"? like it was fairy tale or a TV show? It was an official REPORT.

It was based on science and facts. Folks that saw and measured debris. Experts of all types. They put their careers on the line with their findings, and yet you and others choose to ignore that for the opinions of a few folks

 

[RolandD]

In your opinion . . . .

About that, you're probably right. It is just opinion, but some arguments are rational arguments and some arguments are irrational agrument and that is not subject to opinion.

are you a pilot or aerospace engineer . . .? Do you work for the NTSB, FAA, NASA ????

Nope, just an average guy trying to be reasonable and apply critical thinking. Not sure what that has to do with anything though. Would my arguments hold more weight with you if I were?

 

[George B]

Why do you call it the 'official story"? like it was fairy tale or a TV show? It was an official REPORT.

It was based on science and facts. Folks that saw and measured debris. Experts of all types. They put their careers on the line with their findings, and yet you and others choose to ignore that for the opinions of a few folks

OS was a term introduced by Mick as far as I know . . . you might ask him . . . PS . . . I didn't believe the Warren Report either and I think I am in good company . . . Including Congress . . . .

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and the shooting of Alabama Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued its final report, and concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. However, the Committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did not include the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. The Committee also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule out individual members of any of these two groups acting together. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

 

[George B]

About that, you're probably right. It is just opinion, but some arguments are rational arguments and some arguments are irrational agrument and that is not subject to opinion.




Nope, just an average guy trying to be reasonable and apply critical thinking. Not sure what that has to do with anything though. Would my arguments hold more weight with you if I were?

Well since some people that disagree with you are experts. . . whose opinion should I put more weight on theirs or yours?

 

[RolandD]

Well since some people that disagree with you are experts. . . whose opinion should I put more weight on theirs or yours?

Actually, you're the one disagreeing with me. I'm trying to get you to see why it is illogical to have faith in your half a dozen 'experts'.