|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2009 : 04:07:25 [Permalink]
|
Atheria, for the purpose of clarification, and mutual understanding in further discussions: what is your education level with regards to physics (specifically: classical mechanics) and strength of materials?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2009 : 16:03:12 [Permalink]
|
Alright boys I'm back. To answer Dr.'s question, I have taken college level physics 1 and 2(goes over Newtonian physics, optics, circuits, et.) with calculus. I also took modern physics, but the discussion of quantum mechanics won't help right now, neither with Einsteinian physics.SO I'm gonna stick with Newton on this.
However I am neither an material engineer, nor have I taken any classes pertaining to steel. But I simple search of the internet pulled up steel's tensile strengths.
Tensile: 250MPa yield and 400MPa ultimate (breakage)
I admit that these numbers have to with non-heated steel. What I'm talking about in this post is the unheated, undamaged portions of the tower. So discussions about the heated steel's strength in the upper floors in unnecessary at this point.
I feel the discussion will progress more smoothly if I explain each point, in detail, as the topic of one post. This does not mean I am abandoning any other points, far from it. Someone is not convinced they are wrong unless you systematically prove the inconsistencies or faults in their thinking. Until you are able to admit that 9-11 could be an inside jobs you will unable to entertain thoughts as to the reason. With this in mind, I will start with my first point.
1. The towers fell too quickly to be a pancake collapse.
I will start with some chemistry here, as to the definition of a solid we can all agree on.
A solid is a rigid body, whose elements or molecules are arranged in an orderly repeating pattern. The ability of a solid to resist deformation is dependent on both it's elections and the bonds between each atom. Electrons from the solid repel electrons from other solids, liquids, and gases. This allows solids to keep their shape after impact with other phases to a certain degree. The bonds between the atoms(or molecules) in the solid also hold the solid together, the stronger the bond (typically) the more ridged and strong the solid.
A solid's bonds of repulsion can be over taken, however, by great forces. When a solid comes into contact with another, energy is transferred, and with enough energy, the solid can deform. In the case of the towers, the above floors weighed down on the lower floors and broke their steel frames away from the core.
According to the Commissioned report page 305 the South tower collapsed in 10 seconds. The Commission report does not state the length of collapse of the North tower. However, Wiki states the times for each towers collapse at 9 for North and 11 for South. I will use ten seconds as it is a both the number stated in the Commissioned report and between 9 and 11 seconds. ( Plus it's an nice pretty number to work with. :P)
The time's quoted for the collapse includes the time it takes for the top of the towers to reach the ground.
Now for some physics:
The towers were 110 stories tall each. The north tower was 1,368 feet (417 m) and the south tower was 1,377 feet (420 m) tall. The force of gravity weighs down on each individual object at 9.8 m/s^2. If an object was thrown off the top of each tower, it would take 9.22 seconds on the North tower and 9.25 seconds on the South for the object to reach the ground. These numbers are derived from the equation sqr(2X/A)=t. where:
X- the height of the towers
A- is the speed at which the towers were moving.
t- time.
These numbers are about 3/4 of a second behind the actual fall times for the towers. However, these times are for an object moving through air and without any air drag.(It would take me a few more minutes to apply air drag to the objects. Involves Cal, and over complicates the equation unnecessarily in this instance.) The North tower was hit in-between floors 93 and 99. The South tower in-between floors 77 and 85. This means for the pancake collapse of each tower the upper floors had to go through 91 and 75 undamaged floors respectively.
I will now ask what you think a reasonable time for the breaking of the bounds of the steel structures underneath each floor would be. I also would like for you to review and agree with any assumptions and definitions I have made or put forth. Thank you.
~Atheria
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2009 : 18:29:32 [Permalink]
|
Nice that the legwork has already been done on most, if not all of the claims that Atheria will bring up with regard to 9/11. Some will come from this site and some from elsewhere.
It's also interesting that after all of these years, not a single person out of the many hundreds it would taken to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude has talked. Not even with their faces blurred and voices electronically altered. Not a single person carrying the guilt of thousands of deaths and wishing to come clean among them. Hmmmm...
Given that just about everything that Bush and his bunch of incompetents did has, or is currently coming to light, you would think that, well… Common sense is not everybody's strong suit.
From: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths
The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.
Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.
The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor. |
Snip:
There is a whole bunch of math that I am not qualified to comment on, along with charts and such. The article goes on:
Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.
Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
|
The bolding is mine.
And the article goes on…
See: 911myths free fall page for more on this.
Bottom line is that the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed as the myth mongers say it did, and so all of their conclusions based on that assertion are wrong.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2009 : 19:25:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Nice that the footwork has already been done on most, if not all of the claims that Atheria will bring up with regard to 9/11. Some will come from this site and some from elsewhere.
|
That's a good site, Kil. He also addresses the "molten steel" claim:"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." |
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2009 : 20:11:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
Until you are able to admit that 9-11 could be an inside jobs... |
9/11 could have been an "inside job" without explosions, thermite or anything other than four airplanes. Proving that those things were involved does not prove it was also an inside job. How the towers fell is independent of whether or not it was an inside job.| ...you will unable to entertain thoughts as to the reason. |
How tremendously insulting of you, thanks.With this in mind, I will start with my first point.
1. The towers fell too quickly to be a pancake collapse.
I will start with some chemistry here, as to the definition of a solid we can all agree on.
A solid is a rigid body, whose elements or molecules are arranged in an orderly repeating pattern. The ability of a solid to resist deformation is dependent on both it's elections and the bonds between each atom. Electrons from the solid repel electrons from other solids, liquids, and gases. This allows solids to keep their shape after impact with other phases to a certain degree. The bonds between the atoms(or molecules) in the solid also hold the solid together, the stronger the bond (typically) the more ridged and strong the solid.
A solid's bonds of repulsion can be over taken, however, by great forces. When a solid comes into contact with another, energy is transferred, and with enough energy, the solid can deform. In the case of the towers, the above floors weighed down on the lower floors and broke their steel frames away from the core.
According to the Commissioned report page 305 the South tower collapsed in 10 seconds. The Commission report does not state the length of collapse of the North tower. However, Wiki states the times for each towers collapse at 9 for North and 11 for South. I will use ten seconds as it is a both the number stated in the Commissioned report and between 9 and 11 seconds. ( Plus it's an nice pretty number to work with. :P)
The time's quoted for the collapse includes the time it takes for the top of the towers to reach the ground.
Now for some physics:
The towers were 110 stories tall each. The north tower was 1,368 feet (417 m) and the south tower was 1,377 feet (420 m) tall. The force of gravity weighs down on each individual object at 9.8 m/s^2. If an object was thrown off the top of each tower, it would take 9.22 seconds on the North tower and 9.25 seconds on the South for the object to reach the ground. These numbers are derived from the equation sqr(2X/A)=t. where:
X- the height of the towers
A- is the speed at which the towers were moving.
t- time.
These numbers are about 3/4 of a second behind the actual fall times for the towers. However, these times are for an object moving through air and without any air drag.(It would take me a few more minutes to apply air drag to the objects. Involves Cal, and over complicates the equation unnecessarily in this instance.) The North tower was hit in-between floors 93 and 99. The South tower in-between floors 77 and 85. This means for the pancake collapse of each tower the upper floors had to go through 91 and 75 undamaged floors respectively.
I will now ask what you think a reasonable time for the breaking of the bounds of the steel structures underneath each floor would be. I also would like for you to review and agree with any assumptions and definitions I have made or put forth. Thank you. |
1) You haven't made a point here. At least, not a coherent point. You are expecting us to agree with your incredulity at the idea that the "breaking of bounds [sic]" could have happened as quickly as milliseconds, but you haven't actually put forth any argument that it couldn't have happened that quickly. The "reasonable time" argument is yours to make, not ours.
2) The "steel structures underneath each floor" did not need to break for the failure to occur as put forth in the "official report." Your question is a strawman.
3) The numbers you found for the strength of steel are meaningless in this context without specifying the size of the steel structure in question. MPa is a unit of pressure, and the load required for destruction depends upon the cross-section of the steel members in question.
4) The cross-section for shear breakage is very small (effectively multiplying the force applied), and since the floors needed to only become disconnected from the support girders, we're talking about sheering a handful of bolts for each truss.
5) Your description of how solids behave is empty rhetoric unless applied (by you) to the scenario in question.
6) What specific assumptions are you making? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2009 : 20:39:00 [Permalink]
|
Note that this whole OT diversion about an "insider" conspiracy is in a thread about how actual "outsider" 9/11 plotters are proud that they did it.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2009 : 20:48:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Note that this whole OT diversion about an "insider" conspiracy is in a thread about how actual "outsider" 9/11 plotters are proud that they did it. |
They're being paid by the Bush administration to do so. They're in a prison, forcryingoutloud! Why should we expect them to be honest?!  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2009 : 21:57:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Note that this whole OT diversion about an "insider" conspiracy is in a thread about how actual "outsider" 9/11 plotters are proud that they did it. |
They're being paid by the Bush administration to do so. They're in a prison, forcryingoutloud! Why should we expect them to be honest?!
|
Oh, I forgot. It's just to make the torturing stop.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 13:05:58 [Permalink]
|
Alright fine. You guys win. Have you convinced me that it wasn't an inside job? Nope. Will I ever mention it again here? Nope.
You go your way and I'll go mine. Either the years as a physicist will convince me otherwise or I'll stick with it, either way it isn't worth agruing on the internet with people I'll never meet.
It doesn't effect me so badly that it's worth the energy and effort, someone else might mention it some other time, but it won't be me.
~Atheria |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 13:36:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
Alright fine. You guys win. Have you convinced me that it wasn't an inside job? Nope. Will I ever mention it again here? Nope.
You go your way and I'll go mine. Either the years as a physicist will convince me otherwise or I'll stick with it, either way it isn't worth agruing on the internet with people I'll never meet.
It doesn't effect me so badly that it's worth the energy and effort, someone else might mention it some other time, but it won't be me.
~Atheria
|
"I won't change my mind, and I won't talk about it" is one position to take.
But if you really believe the 9/11 Truth nonsense, you should be willing and able to answer the technical objections to it. Either that, or you should consider abandoning your counter-evidential, counterintuitive notions.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 14:10:35 [Permalink]
|
Is it you folks default position to aggravate others? I already said I am unwilling to agrue the point with someone I'd never meet in real life. If you were standing right in front of me, and we were discussing it, I'd argue my points till I was blue in the face. I don't back down from debates from someone I can see. But why should I waste valuable time and energy on a person, whose mind I can not change b/c of the past experiences with idiots touting my banner, for a position, that while I believe in, that you can not entertain thoughts as to it's validity? That is absurd.
I have thought of your position, as to it being a result of purely terrorist attacks and fires, and have rejected that claim based on the evidence touted as true by the government. I have entreated you to consider my way of thinking based on several interesting points that are not addressed, by the report, or are not possibly true. The Commissioned report SAYS the South tower fell in ten seconds, yet the very person you cite says not only is the exact time unknowable, but it is most likely over 15 seconds, based on his calculations of basic laws of the conservation of momentum (which I was going to bring up BTW). If this is true then the government is speaking lies, so what assuredness do I have they are telling the truth about anything else to do with the tower's collapse? I have none. My recourse was to investigate others claims contrary to the official story. I have done so and have found them to be satisfactory.
Whether or not I believe 9-11 is an inside job, does not effect my respect for the firemen/women and officers who lost their lives that day. Nor does it negate the sacrifices of those brave men and women or the horrible deaths of the civilians involved.
My opinion of 9-11 is based not only in the physical evidence of the collapse, but in the change of command of NORAD, the lack of scrambling of jets, and the prospering of the republican party, but specifically Bush and Halliburton on the extreme tragedy of this nation, to forward a unconstitutional extremist agenda that took away the liberty of American citizens and is KILLING men and women in a country who was not even involved with Al-Qaeda, the group the perpetrated the attacks. This does not even touch on the spike in oil prices, the destruction of the housing market, and Bush as a puppet for the great inclusion of a never ending war on terror to make the republican party's presence seem constantly necessary.
Now these very same men, by your admission in another topic, are indirectly calling for another attack on American soil and you can't connect the dots? I am neither crazy nor ignorant. The links exist if only we as a people would open our collective eyes to their existence.
~Atheria
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 14:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
Is it you folks default position to aggravate others? I already said I am unwilling to agrue the point with someone I'd never meet in real life. |
Then why did you start such an argument here? Did you know us better then than now?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 14:55:50 [Permalink]
|
I felt then I had a chance to change either you or Dave's or any other person in opposition's mind. However, after a few days of trying and some thought, I've realized it is impossible. You are already too tainted by others who probably can't logic their way out of a shoe box. It's a worth fighting over the internet if it is one I have a chance of winning, or even just invoking thought. But if I'm not going to meet you and you are not going to change your mind(see above past experiences) then why should I waste time?
Maybe I thought I knew you both better, I had never debated with either of you before, b/c I thought you would consider my opinion instead of immediately looking for fallacies(Dave) or just plain shooting it down as impossible b/c of your previous life experiences(Half.) This is what led me to consider the debate. And you asked a question, I merely answered. When Dave asked for clarification I responded with it and the some of reasons, behind my beliefs, thinking that it was a worthy debate to have. I was mistaken, and yet here I am, conceding not only victory but to not mention it again, and you are still hackling me?
What gives you the right to dictate my thinking and beliefs? Not... A... Damn.. Thing. I am insulted that you would go so far as to suggest that you do and know better than I do. If You ppl want an internet WAR I'll give you one. If not get off me, and back the hell up!
~Atheria
P.S. Thank you Ricky( and no I didn't mean you for "you folks") |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 14:56:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
That's a bit unfair. Not wanting to argue is an entirely valid position to take. Indeed, I have taken it many times on various subjects. Dawkins refuses to debate Creationists, do you criticize him for this? |
Dawkins refuses to orally debate creationists, Ricky, because the limitations of that format favor dishonesty over lengthy corrections. He has no problem dismantling creationists lies in print, and has done so on numerous occasions. That's one reason I'm perplexed by Atheria's admission that she'd discuss this issue only if we were "standing right in front of" her. If she was really interested in getting to the truth, a written debate provides a much more reliable format. You can't fact check anything in an oral debate, and are thus forced to take assertions at face value. Truth can survive more in depth analysis. Lies cannot.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Guantanamo detainees say they planned Sept. 11
