Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: If you're bored - interesting opinions on 9/11


The Smiling T.L. Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 4355
Date: May 8, 2007
If you're bored - interesting opinions on 9/11




I'm not saying I support Rosie's claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy. I do not know enough one way or the other, all I know is what I've seen in the media. And I really don't think our media tells us the whole truth... anyway

there are arguments back and forth that really make me wonder!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html

So if you're really bored, read the comments and tell me what you think!

__________________
make love not war


Long Lost DiMera Daughter

Status: Offline
Posts: 8346
Date: May 8, 2007

oh that was too long

__________________
Photobucket


The Smiling T.L. Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 4355
Date: May 8, 2007

It is long, I was a bored. Arguments both ways make sense to me... I like to see both sides to every issue.



__________________
make love not war


Jessica Almighty

Status: Offline
Posts: 3602
Date: May 8, 2007

Ok I checked this thing out and then lookedup info on planned and engineered implosions of buildings. Pretty much the consensus on implosions like that is that it takes 2 weeks just to plan it. Even the best engineers need weeks and weeks of preparation before pulling off something like that. Also if anyone has seen footage that the two brothers took from inside the tower as the first one fell, would know that there is no way on earth that anyone could have constructed an implosion in the complete darkness that was caused by the two towers falling. FOr hours after the second tower came down you could barely see. I may not be a genius who knows everything but I find a planned and orchestrated implosion of the building to be next to impossible.

__________________


Long Lost DiMera Daughter

Status: Offline
Posts: 8346
Date: May 8, 2007

jessica, I was waiting for you to put your thoughts in here first. I knew you would write it better then I would....

__________________
Photobucket


Jessica Almighty

Status: Offline
Posts: 3602
Date: May 8, 2007

Awww Shelley you're making me all blushy

__________________


Long Lost DiMera Daughter

Status: Offline
Posts: 8346
Date: May 8, 2007

yeah, and I didnt want to take the time to look up the physics of all that....which adds another point to my Rosie dislike, when did she become an expert in physics.

__________________
Photobucket


Jessica Almighty

Status: Offline
Posts: 3602
Date: May 8, 2007

I don't think onyone on the show extensively researches anything

__________________


Long Lost DiMera Daughter

Status: Offline
Posts: 8346
Date: May 8, 2007

not likely. Especially since every word that comes out of her mouth gets people talking. As much as I hate her she is good for the ratings

__________________
Photobucket


Jessica Almighty

Status: Offline
Posts: 3602
Date: May 8, 2007

Yeah they will have to pull out some interesting stops in order to get the ratings again after she leaves.

__________________


The Smiling T.L. Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 4355
Date: May 8, 2007

I'm not saying anything one way or another, but if there was a conspiracy then they would have planned it for years in advance.

My opinion is why would we do this to ourselves? And yet read this:

One does not need to be a structural engineer to demonstrate that the destruction of the twin towers were not simply gravity-driven sequential collapses. An understanding of high school level physics is sufficient to prove that the speed of the fall violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I present the model below, and encourage readers to check the figures for themselves. On its website (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) NIST attempts to explain the speed of collapse: "...In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop OR EVEN TO SLOW [emphasis mine] the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass." The idea that a falling mass would not even slow down when striking a stationary mass is patently absurd, as the NIST scientists surely must know. The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the sum of the momentum of two objects after they collide is equal to the sum of their momentum before they collided. For example, consider a 4-ton truck traveling at 60 mph that rear-ends a 1-ton car going 10 mph. Intuitively, we realize that the heavier and faster truck has more momentum than the lighter and slower car, so that after the collision the truck-car mass will be moving somewhat slower than the initial truck speed but considerably faster than the initial car speed. Before the collision, the momentum of the truck was 4 ton x 60 mph = 240 ton x mph and the momentum of the car was 1 ton x 10 mph = 10 ton x mph, for a total momentum of 250 ton x mph. After the collision, the total momentum remains the same (250 ton x mph) so the truck-car mass (5 ton) would be moving at 50 mph (5 ton x 50 mph = 250 ton x mph). Note that this example does not include any force being lost to compressing, crushing, or breaking structural elements of the vehicles. We call this collision perfectly elastic. The NIST scientists certainly would understand why the much heavier and faster truck slowed down a little bit. Regarding the Trade Towers, not only can gravity alone not account for the immense force required to break steel beams and pulverize a building and its contents into fine dust, but also gravity alone cannot even account for the conservation of momentum during the sequential collapse of WTC1. Here I focus on the time during which the building fell to the ground. To overcome uncertainties about the extent of initial damage, steel strength, etc., I make several assumptions, each of which underestimates the true duration of a gravity-only fall. Thus, the model gives the minimum gravity-only collapse time under unrealistically ideal conditions. As you will see, WTC1 fell even faster than that. WTC1 was a 110-story building that was 1368 feet tall. An airplane struck it between the 93rd and 99th floors. Abundant video evidence shows that the collapse began in the area of this initial damage, and progressed sequentially downward. For this model, we let the block of 17 floors above the initial damage, floors 94 through 110, accelerate by the force of gravity (acceleration = 32.17 ft/sec) unimpeded downward until it strikes floor 93. A resistance-free, gravity-only fall over 12.44 feet (1368 ft/110) would last 0.88 sec (distance = 0.5 x 32.17 ft/sec acceleration x time^2), at which time the 17-floor mass would be moving at 28.3 ft/sec (velocity = acceleration x time) as it struck floor 93. According to the law of conservation of momentum, when the falling mass of 17 floors moving at 28.2 ft/sec (17 units of mass x 28.2 ft/sec = 480.9 mass units x ft/sec) strikes the 93th floor (1 unit of mass x 0 ft/sec = 0 mass units x ft/sec), the resulting mass (now floors 93-110) would slow down to 26.7 ft/sec (18 mass units x 26.7 ft/sec = 480.9 mass units x ft/sec; the NIST claim that the falling mass would not even slow insults the reader). Then, the mass of 18 floors, 93-110, continue to accelerate downward until they strike floor 92, and so on. To keep the model free of parameters whose values are difficult to estimate, I make four simplifying assumptions, each of which underestimate the minimum time required for a gravity-only collapse. First, I assume that the mass of each floor is the same (i.e., 1 mass unit). It is highly probable that the actual mass of each floor decreased with increasing height above ground, since the approximately 240 perimeter and 47 core vertical steel support columns which would account for a significant portion of the mass of each floor were tapered, i.e, were thickest at the lowest floors which bore the most weight. The effect of this assumption is to overestimate the mass of the first floors to fall, thus overestimating their momentum and underestimating the deceleration upon striking the next floors. Second, rather than account for the thickness of the structure that separates each adjacent floor, the model treats each floor as a plane of zero thickness but with one unit of mass. While this assumption makes the calculations much simpler, it also underestimates the minimum gravity-only collapse time since it allows each floor to accelerate down a full 12.44 feet unimpeded, thus overestimating the velocity and momentum. Third, the model assumes that all the mass of falling floors remains together and strikes each successive floor. Video evidence shows that this clearly was not the case, as a substantial amount of material was ejected laterally. Rather than attempt to estimate how much mass remained to contribute to the momentum of the mass that strikes each floor, this model significantly overestimates that mass and thus the momentum of the falling floors. Fourth, each collision is considered completely elastic, i.e., all of the momentum of falling floors is transferred to the momentum of the sequentially larger mass. No force is expended to crush any structure, break any steel beams, pulverize the towers into fine powder, or accelerate material laterally. In other words, each floor behaves as if it were floating in mid-air at the moment it is struck from above, with no resistance to downward motion whatsoever other than its own mass. The effect of this assumption is to greatly underestimate the loss of velocity as the falling mass accumulates each new floor, thus significantly underestimating the collapse time. So, according to the model, the collapse first proceeds through 93 steps: floors 94-110 fall onto floor 93, floors 93-110 fall onto floor 92, etc., until the top of the first floor hits the ground. At this point, floors 93 through 1 have been crushed to the ground, and the top of the initial mass (floors 94-110) is still 17 floors (211.4 ft) above ground, moving downward at 169.8 ft/s; 11.3 seconds have elapsed so far. In reality, video documentation shows that the top floors, mostly relieved from bearing weight by nearly free falling, nevertheless somehow turned into dust in mid-air. The present model ignores that strange fact. For the last 17 steps, one step for each floor, we'll simply allow gravity to continue to accelerate the top of the 110th floor downward the final 211.4 ft unimpeded, without any structural or even air resistance. This final phase lasts 1.12 seconds. Thus, the total time for collapse of WTC1, modeled with highly unrealistic assumptions that significantly underestimate the true gravity-only fall time, was 12.42 seconds. However, WTC1 fell to the ground in about 10 or, according to NIST, about 11 seconds. Because 11 seconds is less than the theoretical minimum demonstrated by our model, the NIST progressive collapse theory is therefore unequivocally false. Period. Not only is the force of gravity insufficient to account for the breaking of steel beams (weakened or not), the pulverization of the tower into fine dust, or the lateral ejections of material, it is insufficient for even the speed of the fall, given the law of conservation of momentum. It simply is not physically possible. Clearly, in addition to gravity, there was considerable force that was acting on WTC1 as it collapsed that the NIST has not yet accounted for. Also, for there to be so little deceleration of the falling mass, floors must have already been moving downward at the time they were struck from above, i.e., they already had some downward momentum. These characteristics apparently are consistent with controlled demolition, but are impossible under the NIST model. Because the NIST sequential collapse theory is false, there needs to be another investigation into what brought the towers down. This investigation needs to be open to the public and completely transparent, the government must cooperate fully and allow access to all the evidence (e.g., declassify relevant videotapes and rescind standing gag orders), and all the participants should present their testimony under oath.

__________________
make love not war


Jessica Almighty

Status: Offline
Posts: 3602
Date: May 9, 2007

That's stirring stuff. You have the best point of all, "Why would we do this to ourselves?". There are so many other ways to convince the US to go into a war. The other thing I want to look into is the fact that I think those buildings are constructed so that if something terrible should happen that they would level instead of just fall over. Also what about all of the video manifestos, and the backgrounds of the men involved. Also our government isn't very original, they'd probably have used bombs again. In fact if they had planned this it probably would have failed miserably. Ok yeah I know that's bad, but I don't have much fait in the government right about now.

__________________


Jessica Almighty

Status: Offline
Posts: 3602
Date: May 9, 2007

oH I wonder what the writher of this thought of the Pentagon. In wonder if he or she looked at it and found anything that he didn't agree with.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard