Is it 400 seconds, 40s, 4s, 0.4s or what? Surely an estimate has been made somewhere, by someone?
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
! |
GENERAL MODNOTE I don't suppose anyone cares to guess why I locked this topic? The_Metatron, many, many reported posts. |
Prog Snob wrote:I know there are hundreds of pages of posts about 9/11 but I was kind of hoping there were some links to the science that someone has handy so I don't have to click through lots of logic and name calling.
Sendraks wrote:You might find the following link helpful, although that depends on your inclination towards conspiracy theories or not.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
The towers fell in their own footprint; if they collapsed from metal fatigue they should have been all over the place
Rebuttal: While the idea of a giant building toppling over like a felled tree is popular in fiction, in reality the structure is designed to bear its weight straight down and in no other direction; throwing a massive building severely out of equilibrium would cause it to fall almost vertically, no matter what direction the initial force was applied from. (It is possible to fell a tall structure like a tree by selectively removing large amounts of support at one side or corner, near the base, but this requires a specific, well-prepared, and overt demolitions plan and either the intent to do so or a horse-doctor's dose of failure.)
In the case of the WTC, the upper floors detached and fell through lower undamaged sections, which can be clearly seen until they're obscured by dust and smoke. This falling mass would be too large for any one floor below it to stop or substantially redirect.
Prog Snob wrote:I concur. I just feel bad having people repeat something they've probably said a million times. But I also don't have time to read through hundreds of pages of discussion.
SafeAsMilk wrote:Prog Snob wrote:I concur. I just feel bad having people repeat something they've probably said a million times. But I also don't have time to read through hundreds of pages of discussion.
As you say they've probably said it a million times: you only have to read through a fraction of the thread before you start seeing things repeating over and over again, then you know you're done. Most threads like that tend to go that way in my experience.
psikeyhackr wrote:Prog Snob wrote:I know there are hundreds of pages of posts about 9/11 but I was kind of hoping there were some links to the science that someone has handy so I don't have to click through lots of logic and name calling.Sendraks wrote:You might find the following link helpful, although that depends on your inclination towards conspiracy theories or not.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
That link claims to be rational and says this:The towers fell in their own footprint; if they collapsed from metal fatigue they should have been all over the place
Rebuttal: While the idea of a giant building toppling over like a felled tree is popular in fiction, in reality the structure is designed to bear its weight straight down and in no other direction; throwing a massive building severely out of equilibrium would cause it to fall almost vertically, no matter what direction the initial force was applied from. (It is possible to fell a tall structure like a tree by selectively removing large amounts of support at one side or corner, near the base, but this requires a specific, well-prepared, and overt demolitions plan and either the intent to do so or a horse-doctor's dose of failure.)
In the case of the WTC, the upper floors detached and fell through lower undamaged sections, which can be clearly seen until they're obscured by dust and smoke. This falling mass would be too large for any one floor below it to stop or substantially redirect.
The issue is not about falling in its own footprint, the issue is collapse time. Also no one is suggesting that one level would stop the collapse it is a matter of slowing it down and would it slow faster than it increased mass. If so then the kinetic energy would decrease and 15 levels could not destroy 90 levels in the case of the north tower.
The obvious question would be how many tons of steel and tons of concrete were on each level of the tower all of the way down the building. Shouldn't most physicists and structural engineers have thought of something that obvious in 2 years, much less FIFTEEN? So where is the data and who asked?
Then there is the matter of physical models or computer simulations or why not both? It only took 4 months to make a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940, to simulate the oscillation. That model was 1/200th scale and 50 ft long and had to be built in a wind tunnel. So why don't we have a model of the north tower collapse?
Of course in 1940 they did not have electronic computers so they could not do an FEA (Finite Element Analysis) at the time. But now we are supposed to be able to simulate the climate of the planet a century into the future well enough to be worth the effort, but we do not have a simulation explaining how the north tower came down in less than 25 seconds. That rational Wiki does not mention the time from start to finish of collapse. Why not?
So 2001: A Stupid Odyssey is utterly nonsensical no matter what the truth is. All conspiracies are irrelevant and mostly time wasting distractions from the middle-school physics.
That link claiming to be "rational" is stupid on the basis of what it leaves out. There is no discussion of the Collapse TIME though it brings up every idiotic conspiracy under the Sun.
That is one of the curious things you may begin to notice over time. It is not what people tell you that really matters but what they leave out and you must find or figure out for yourself. Or find some tin-foil creep that mentions the obvious.
psik
Weaver wrote:Talk about moving the goalposts!
The Rational Wiki segment was addressing the specific claim that the building supposedly wouldn't collapse in its own footprint - that's it, nothing else.
Claiming that it is incorrect because it doesn't address a different conspiracy conspiracy theory detail which you consider to be important is dishonest as fuck, even for your posting style.
You've moved the goalposts not only down the field, but out of the stadium and across the city.
psikeyhackr wrote:Weaver wrote:Talk about moving the goalposts!
The Rational Wiki segment was addressing the specific claim that the building supposedly wouldn't collapse in its own footprint - that's it, nothing else.
Claiming that it is incorrect because it doesn't address a different conspiracy conspiracy theory detail which you consider to be important is dishonest as fuck, even for your posting style.
You've moved the goalposts not only down the field, but out of the stadium and across the city.
Doing a search on "mass" is moving goal posts?
The title of the page is "9/11".
It is all MY FAULT that facts about 9/11 ain't there.
Attention: Prog Snob please take note of this as the logic of 9/11 debates.
psik
Prog Snob wrote:My inclination towards everything is that I think anything is possible, but I don't seek out to believe in conspiracy theories. Hell, I don't want to find out that our government would actually do something like 9/11. That would scare the shit out of me. I'm a man of reason, though, so sometimes I want to read both sides before drawing a conclusion.
psikeyhackr wrote:Also no one is suggesting that one level would stop the collapse it is a matter of slowing it down and would it slow faster than it increased mass. If so then the kinetic energy would decrease and 15 levels could not destroy 90 levels in the case of the north tower.
Prog Snob wrote: some links to the science that someone has handy
laklak wrote:Da fuq is a "natural collapse" anyway? Ain't nothing "natural" about two 767s loaded with fuel flying into a building.
psikeyhackr wrote:WTC 7 Evaluation Finds: Fire DID NOT Cause the Collapse of WTC 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7IVCSpalbA
laklak wrote:Yes, it certainly is. I'll repeat the question in case you missed it: what the fuck is a "natural collapse" of a structure? I mean, one would have to define that before one could measure it's "speed", wouldn't one?
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 6 guests