Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » A 911 thought (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: A 911 thought
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He was being uncivil and was asked to stop. Tom responded uncivily and was also asked to stop.

Or did I miss something?

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom C.

excellent explanation, and thanks for the quoted material.

I realize your frustration, but please don't be inhospitable to the Mod, it is a job which sucks to do already (even if you don't agree with their performance of it), yes I agree that wakeup has been out of line (although I do appreciate he made a longer and more interesting post then the random short post he kept repeating).

Also 'sauce ...' - well 'an eye for an eye and soon everyone is blind'. You are crushing him with arguement so why stoop to using rude behavior when all it does is bring your arguement to a lower level.

LetterRip

[ October 06, 2006, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wakeup:

quote:
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.

It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.

Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.

The minimum duration of collapse in free fall for the WTC towers was 9.2 seconds (or 8.92 seconds when you allow that the collapse was not all the way to the ground, but only to the top of the 25 meter tall pile of ruble.

We know the collapse took longer than that.

We know this because if we look at pictures of the collapse of WTC 2, we see debris falling below the dust cloud. The debris is unsuported, and hence free falling. At the upper section of the dust cloud, however, is a zone were the dust has a substantial horizontal motion, including large chunks of concrete. Because of the large horizontal motion, we know those chunks have just been ejected from the building and only just started to fall. And because of that we also know that that is approximately the location of the actual level where the collapse was occuring. Although shrouded in dust, the building below that level is still intact.

Because the point of collapse lags the freely falling debris, we know that the rate of collapse was less than that of free fall.

By how much does it lag? Well, the height of the lower edge of the dust cloud is from 50 to slightly over 100 meters. It is about a third of the height of WTC 1. In freefall, it takes 3.2 seconds to fall fifty meters. Ergo, the dust cloud shows the collapse to have taken at around three seconds more than the free fall time, or about 12 seconds.

We can also determine the time for collapse from seismic data:

quote:
The first event, occurring at about 9:59, was the collapse of WTC 2, also called
the south tower, (N.B. This was not the first tower to be hit by an aircraft). The north
tower, WTC 1, collapsed at about 10:28 and was responsible for the second seismic
disturbance. The traces recorded at the Palisades station provide the best seismic data for
the events of September 11th, 2001. Because the published traces begin at 9:59:07 (WTC
2) and 10:28:30 (WTC 1), these times are frequently quoted as the actual collapse times.
This is erroneous for two reasons. First, it should be noted that the start of the major
oscillations in the seismic signature of each collapse event corresponds to the ground
impact of the main upper section of the towers. As TV coverage of the event shows, this
impact occurred about 10 seconds after the start of the collapse of each tower. Second,
the Palisades seismic data are delayed by about 17 seconds compared to the actual events
in New York City because of the travel time for the 34 km distance between the towers
and the Palisades seismic station.
The CNN TV coverage of the collapse of the North Tower (WTC 1) provides a
very useful time calibration of this event that may be compared with the Palisades
seismic data. The CNN TV images show that WTC 1 starts to collapse at 10:28:23. The
ground impact of the upper section follows about 10 seconds later at 10:28:33. This is
consistent with the Palisades data if we allow 17 seconds for travel time of the seismic
waves. Thus, if we treat the Palisades data as if it were recorded at the WTC site, the
published seismic trace would now effectively begin at 10:28:13 and the ground impact
responsible for the large oscillations of the trace would occur at 10:28:32. These values
are in good agreement with the visual result derived from the CNN TV images.
Having made these adjustments to the timelines of the 911 seismic data we are
able to conclude that the small ripples in the traces of the WTC collapse events - ripples
that precede the period of large oscillations - represent the first stage of collapse as
defined more precisely below. The seismic signal for this first stage is small, as would be
expected, since kinetic energy is being transmitted to the ground only through the steel
support structure. Furthermore, a significant fraction of this kinetic energy is being
absorbed as the energy needed to buckle and crush the structural elements of the
buildings. The major seismic signal of each collapse is generated by the ground impact of
falling debris, and constitutes what we will call a second stage of collapse. Given the
above considerations and a careful evaluation of the seismic data, it is estimated that the
first stage of collapse took 11.3  1.5 seconds for each WTC tower. We will show in the
following Section that the second stage of collapse added 1 – 2 seconds to the total
collapse times.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

So, the collapse time is not the 9.2 seconds of free fall, but around 12 seconds.

So, time to apply modus tollens to your claim. If there was no resistance, than the collapse time would have been around 9 seconds. But the collapse time was around 12 seconds, ergo there was resistance.

How much? F R Greening has carried out an analysis of the time for a WTC tower to collapse, taking into account that slowing effect of transfer of momentum as each new floor collapses, and taking into account the amount of energy needed to cause each floor to collapse (his E1):

quote:
We have re-calculated the descent velocity after the impacts on every floor and
determined a revised collapse time that now includes the effects of the energy lost in
crushing the support structures. Rather than restrict our calculation to one value of E1, say
0.6  109 J as given in Table 1, we have carried out the calculation with E1 treated as a
variable parameter in the range zero to 2.4  109 J. Some of the key results of these
calculations are shown in Figure 2. Based on an assumed value of 0.6  109 J for E1 we
have the following revised estimates for tc:
WTC 1 WTC 2
Previously (E1 = 0) tc = 12.6 sec Previously (E1 = 0) tc = 11.5 sec
Revised (E1 = 0.6  109 J) tc = 12.8 sec Revised (E1 = 0.6  109 J ) tc = 11.6 sec

So the predicted time, including allowance for energy expended crushing each floors, for WTC 2 is 12.6 seconds, while the observed time was around 12 seconds. In fact, it was 12.5 seconds according to his determination from the seismic data. And this figure is not sensitive to his calculated value of E1. Doubling that value adds only half a second to the collapse time.

The reason the collapse time is so close (but 25% greater than) the free fall time is that the energy to collapse each floor is only a very small percentage of the total energy of the falling mass as the tower collapses. At the first impact, the first floor collapse, it is 26% of the energy of the falling mass in WTC 1 (and only 12% in WTC2), but by the tenth impact it has fallen to only 4%. Only in the first few floors does it have any significant impact at all (See figure 3, page 17).

Finally, is the gravitational energy of the collapse sufficient to drive both the collapse and to shatter the concrete?

quote:
The total kinetic energy generated by the collapse of one WTC tower was about
1012 J. It was estimated in Section 4.2 that an average of about 109 J of energy was
expended in collapsing each WTC floor. Thus about 1011 J of energy was expended in
collapsing all the floors in a WTC tower. This leaves about 9.0  1011 J of energy to crush
the wallboard, insulation and concrete in each tower. We can therefore conservatively
assume that at least 5  1011 J of kinetic energy was available to crush the WTC concrete.

....

Finally, we will calculate the energy needed to crush all the concrete in a single
WTC tower (= 48,000,000 kg) to particles of a specified size. As we have noted before,
the energy required to crush all of the concrete in one tower to 60 m particles = 3.2 
1011 J which is only slightly less than the 5  1011 J of kinetic energy available. However,
the energy required to crush concrete to 100 m particles is 1.9  1011 J, which is well
within the crushing capacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for
the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to
particles well within the observed particle size range.

Of course, no where near all the concrete was pulverized, with much of it remaining in the pile of rubble at ground zero.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MattP:

quote:
He was being uncivil and was asked to stop. Tom responded uncivily and was also asked to stop.
He was being uncivil, and has been for two days. I responded to his uncivil discussion politely twice with no responce, and then responded slightly less politely (I merely reinterpreted his "Doh!" emmoticon) before I had seen the moderators responce to wakeup. I was immediately, and publicly chastised. It seems to me that the moderator was very slow of the mark in one case, and very quick of the mark in the other.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wakeup was being uncivil? well, yeah, but only if one deigns to register wakeup's smug intellectual arrogance in a manner that isn't smug intellectual arrogance.

most of wakeup's respondents have been equally and often moreso.

perhaps team OM cares more about how the grownups here behave than how childish trools behave.

i would.

the impudent child will undoubtedly eazrn its reward, gven enough rope.

no need for us to stoop to the child's level except for the indulgent pleasure it gives us.

OM is here to maintain some rudiments of fairness and dignity, not referee silly spats that virtually everyone engages. [oh we DO love taunting trolls here at ornery]

i know I do. i think trolls enjoy it too. else why post themselves under the bridge and harass wayfarers?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See, I don't consider wakeup a troll as much as I consider him a spammer.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom Curtis

The mods have lives. Someone roused them. They started taking action, saw what you were up to, and gave you a small reprimand.

One or both of them happened to be here to see you. Don't take it personally. It's just like when the other nine people speeding don't get tickets.

They aren't perfect, they're doing the best they can, and to warn wakeup and then have your post hanging there under their warning without comment would have looked mighty bad.

[ October 06, 2006, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"See, I don't consider wakeup a troll as much as I consider him a spammer.'

i thonk spam deserves definitional respect. wakeup m,ay be a redundany apologist but far FAR from a purveyot of spam. there really s someone typing hid posts n reply to our respones.

besides, we DO reply to wakeup. who replies to SPAM!?! not orneryans [Wink]

i go now. 1 arm typing grpws difficult.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse, I understand your point. On the other hand, I see no reason to give the mods the benefit of the doubt on this one. They have evidently been content on a number of occasions to let the discussion become quite poisionous, just so long as you don't use a form of words they will construe as a personal insult. In other words, what they are enforcing is not civil discussion, but a purely formal civility of words. In doing so, for example, they completly unjustly suspended Everard for correctly describing what Pete was doing. Although they invited discussion on the issues raised by that and other concerns, they have apparently not considered the discussion that occured worthy of responding to, either by saying why they consider their reasons for retaining the current system adequate, or in what way they would change the system of moderation to adress those concerns.

They may be doing a difficult job. I see no reason, however, to assume they are doing the best they can to do it.

PS: I've said my say. I won't be commeting any more on moderators or moderation on this thread.

[ October 06, 2006, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Tom Curtis ]

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fortunately the collapse of WTC Building 7 sheds new light on this subject.

Situated across Vesey Street and separated from the North Tower by Building 6,which did not itself collapse, even after sustaining extensive damage from fire and falling debris, WTC 7 showed no significant damage at all in photos taken just before it collapsed. There were a few internal fires, but they weren't large enough or hot enough to even break out the windows. Significantly, this 47-story monolith collapsed completely and uniformly straight down in less than seven seconds. Totally! The whole thing was sheared to the ground! The article states "NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated." Working hypothesis? Is that anything like a conspiracy theory? What evidence is offered to support this?

The unavoidable facts are that an airplane did not strike WTC
7, the discreet distance separating it from the North Tower protected it from falling debris, and there was absolutely no evidence of structural damage.

Conspicuous by its absence is any mention in the article about the stunningly short time span of the collapse. Quite possibly the under-seven-second swiftness was too much for even the "working hypothesis" to explain. Anyone with basic logic skills now knows that this was, in fact, a controlled demolition; and happily this reinforces suspicions about the towers too.

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PS: I've said my say. I won't be commeting any more on moderators or moderation on this thread.
looks like tom curtis met his match
didn't take much
waiting for spontanious reply

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wakeup, it's extremely bad form to plagiarize someone else's words/work: Letter to the editor: Popular Mechanics

In future, link to the source. Stealing others' work (and serially spamming it on 6 different threads no less) just makes you look, if possible, even worse.

Having now succumbed to feeding the beast myself, I beg everyone to ignore this thing in the hopes of driving it off through the sheer weight of its own irrelevance.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
there really s someone typing hid posts n reply to our respones.
Actually, that's part of my point. Most of his "posts" have been directly lifted from other sources; only his incoherent babbling in reply is his own.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
naomi
Member
Member # 3091

 - posted      Profile for naomi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi, I'm sorry I don't get it, What he( Wakeup) is saying about the tower 7 seems logical, so what if it is from another site? You seem more concerned about his spelling and/or source, than the message. This seems important, and i believe him. You are comming across as bullies. What is wrong with you???

Mr Wakeup - what happend to tower 7. I didn't notice it. It didn't play much in Australia, so I am unsure about it. Did see the two towers tho, I can understand how they fell, the planes, intense heat etc.

However NOBODY has talked about all the people who DIED. They just went to work and were murdered, no insurance, for the families, terrorism is NOT part of an insurance policy.

Maybe instead of talking about fractions and gravity we should be talking about the human factor here and how to give their families peace.

Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Three Faces of Eve, anyone?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was my thought, too.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
naomi, you see nothing wrong with taking someone else's words and pretending they're your own? Or on a completely different level, simply cutting and pasting others' arguments without showing any understanding of what you're posting?

As for "no insurance, for the families, terrorism is NOT part of an insurance policy" You do realize that the victims' families were well taken care of, financially, don't you? CBC News: 9/11 victims collect $38.1 billion US in compensation.
quote:
The families of civilians killed or people who were injured received an average payment of $3.1 million from all sources. Emergency personnel received an average of $1.1 million more than civilians, with most of the extra money coming from charities.
Tom/Dave - I've tried not to share my thoughts on that subject - though I will say that there are a surprising number of new Australians posting recently...

[ October 07, 2006, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They recieved payouts from our government under a plan many of us considered dubious at the time.

Essentialy, the best off among the victims received the most money.

As far as I recall, the lowest payout were over half a million dollars. The top payouts were around three million.

Using someone elses research isn't stealing...not citing the source is.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wakeup - please check your email.

Thank you,

OrneryMod

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well. congrats to wakeup. it has graduated to spam. labor-intensive share-cropping spam, but spam nonetheless.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
naomi
Member
Member # 3091

 - posted      Profile for naomi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi Donald D Thank you I stand corrected about the insurance policies...I didn't know,however, I didn't cut and paste anything... are you sure you are talking about me? I would like to comment on the tower 7 tho, how did it fall down ?
Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Short answer; gravity.

The worst of this new guys offenses is plagerism but posting the same crap to several threads, threads that have no relevance to 9-11, and especially MY threads combined is going too far. I've made my complaint to the Mod.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Naomi:

quote:
I would like to comment on the tower 7 tho, how did it fall down ?
Slightly longer answer:

The building recieved significant structural damage from falling debris from the twin tower collapse. Because some of that debris was alight, it started fires.

The structural damage was sufficient that fire men on the scene thought there was a significant risk of collapse, so a decision was made to not fight the fires in the building. (I have already quoted the fireman on this in another of wakeups threads).

The fire burnt for six hours, heating up the structural frame of the building, and hence weakening it. Part of the fuel of the fire included up to a thousand gallons of diesel between floors five and nine, a further 6,000 gallons between floors 2 and 3, and a known 12,000 gallons consumed in the basement. The fuel was stored onsite for diesel generators in case of black out.

Eventually the fire weakened the structure sufficiently that it collapsed. It would probably not have collapsed from the structural damage alone, nor from the fires alone; but the two combined was too much.

The amount of diesel fuel stored on the lower floors is probabily significant, because the collapse started on the lower floors, probably around floor 4 or 5. (That's why it looks more like a conventional controled demolition. In controlled demolitions, collapses are nearly always started from the lowest floor.)

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everything wakeup is saying is from that film loose change 911. A propganda film that trusts bin ladens words more than our own governments
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bradford:
Everything wakeup is saying is from that film loose change 911. A propganda film that trusts bin ladens words more than our own governments

Doesn't matter where it is from in one sense - whether it is true or false can be determined without caring about who first said it.

BTW wakeup - what is this explosion you keep talking about? I don't recall any explosions on 9/11 in the twin towers. There were large fireballs when the plans impacted, but that's not the same thing at all (unless your only knowledge if explosions is from movies...). There was nothing resembling a 'high explosive' detonation such as you'd expect in a controlled demolition. So what is it you are claiming as an explosion?

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1