ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth , controlled demolition , David Chandler , free fall , wtc7

Reply
Old 17th December 2008, 02:48 PM   #121
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,853
Originally Posted by SPreston View Post
I am surprised that Heiwa and a few other earnest scientists here put up with the ridicule and non-scientific attacks and glad handing and circle jerking. But I do enjoy their input and honest attempts at true science. Many others loiter here, reading some of the earnest attempts at truthseeking, with no interest whatsoever in putting up with the dishonest and endless contemptuous mockery.
You have not seen true science from Heiwa, Heiwa is using trurther science, like Balsamo uses truther math. It leads to failed conclusions like all of 9/11 truth.

His work can be summarized as pure claptrap. There is nothing wrong with him, it is his work on 9/11 that is stupid, he must be the greatest expert you know, but his work is junk.

Please show me what is correct in the work of this guy who has no idea how gravity works in the real world. All I see is failed ideas on 9/11. Pick some of the things he is trying to explain now. Tell us what force he is talking about that makes his fantasy come true.

Please show us what Heiwa has done correctly besides whine about NIST.

I would be happy if you showed where his true science is.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2008, 02:56 PM   #122
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,988
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Well, WTC7 has 24 core columns like mine and and plenty of columns in the side - mine has only 26. To simplify. But the models are basically similar.
No, they are not. Not at all. NOT AT ALL.

And as an engineer, you should know that. Since you persist in this fraud, it stands to reason that you know how fraudulent your model is and that you are willfully perpetrating lies about this event to further your own political goals.

And I reject such behavior utterly and will politely call it what it is: Lies, deceit, and FRAUD.

Quote:
So I remove one column part between floors 11/13. Nothing happens! No parts flying around!
And Dorothy had ruby slippers to whisk her back home. This is just as relevant to the structure of WTC 7 as your craptacular model.

And you know this if you're an engineer.

Quote:
Something wrong with my software?
Garbage in, garbage out.

Quote:
Not really - result is only that load carried by column with removed part is transferred to adjacent columns. You can do the same calculation by hand with a pen and paper. But you should be an engineer. With some basic knowledge of statics.
I don't have to be an engineer to recognize your fraud here.

Quote:
And, pls, be polite. This is a friendly forum.
I am being polite. This forum allows people to use the term "lies" and "liars" when lies and liars stand exposed.

You, sir, are a liar.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 05:18 AM   #123
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,273
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Of course I am an engineer.

Re calculations I note that NIST does not provide any in its report. NIST refers to some magic software that does its calculations but cannot even provide the details of the software. Only printouts of parts flying around. And of course colorful pictures of various temperatures inside the structure.

Not very helpful actually.

So where do we go from here?
You need software to do potential energy calculations? Here's your quote:

Originally Posted by Heiwa
In my opinion there is too little potential energy stored in the building to first produce all the structural failures at floor 12 and second to produce the sudden, vertical displacement at free fall acceleration of the structure above floor 12 as described by NIST (with unknown software).
Before you say that there was too little potential energy, should you not first determine what the potential energy actually is?
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 07:15 AM   #124
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
So you are right - a force of some kind must pull the structure above floor 12 down. This force must not be too strong so that acceleration is more than g or 9.82 m/s² - then it would be too obvious that something is strange - but it would have been smarter to apply a smaller force to produce smaller acceleration.
Given that some nefarious means of removing the structure at floor 12 would inevitably lead to the building collapsing, what possible motivation could there have been for applying any force at all? This is a classic conspiracist argument, in that it relies on the conspirators having been not just stupidly negligent, but actively seeking to give themselves away.

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
However, to pull down the intact structure above floor 12 incl. the roof, you must also remove all the obstructions below floor 12, i.e. the intact structure there! Big job! And it must be done just prior the drop of the structure above floor 12 starts.
And without making any loud noises, remember.

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Easiest is to combine the two tasks, e.g. removing the structure below floor 12 fast that produces an under pressure that assists to pull down the structure above floor 12.
Just out of interest, let's see how big this underpressure could have been.

The cross-sectional area of WTC7, which was 330x140 feet, was about 41,000 square feet. Let's assume the evil conspirators managed to produce a perfect vacuum below floor 12, so the pressure difference between top and bottom was 15psi; it's physically impossible for it to be greater than this without an overpressure at roof level. That gives us a total downward force on the building of a little over 600,000lbs, or about 280 tons. I don't know the mass of WTC7 exactly; one 9/11 truth site gives it as 250,000 tons, but that sounds high given that the Twin Towers only massed about 280,000. Let's guess it at half that, which increases the possible acceleration, and assume that 35/47 of that mass is acted on by the force. That gives us a possible acceleration of 0.003g due to the suction. This is clearly a completely insignificant contribution to the motion.

Is this the force, in your fantasy explanation, that compensates for the structural resistance?

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 09:50 AM   #125
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Before you say that there was too little potential energy, should you not first determine what the potential energy actually is?
The potential energy (J) of the structure (relative ground) is simply the weight of each part in the structure and the extra load on e.g. floors times the height times g. The weights and the loads do only stress the structure <30% yield and deformations are elastic and hardly noticable. Removing column 79 at floors 11/13 does not release much potential energy at all. Removing four columns around column 79 at floors 11/13 still does not release much potential energy. The unsupported floors are just sagging.

Removing all wall columns in the short side of the structure may release potential energy = the wall drops straight down and all the floor connections above are ripped apart at the (missing) wall. The total structure will not completely collapse due to that. The potential energy is used to produce the floor failures and the wall rubble on the ground.

To produce free fall due gravity of the complete WTC structure above floors 11/13 you must remove completely all structure below floor 11/13. Big job!

Last edited by Heiwa; 18th December 2008 at 09:54 AM.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 10:15 AM   #126
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,853
Fire destroys the strength of steel.

If firefighters do not fight fires, building can collapse. This fire was fought and the fire systems worked. By ignoring the damage from fire, Heiwa makes excuses for the terrorists who are responsible for 9/11. Thanks for ignoring facts and making up your own ideas on 9/11 Heiwa, your kids and grandkids will easily see how you made excuses for terrorists and they can be so proud of the topics you are ignorant on. The will so proud of the fantasy conspiracy theories you make up so you can apologize for terrorist due to ignorance of the physical world. At least your ignorance on certain subjects can be your excuse.


I guess Heiwa can ignore physics and gravity he can ignore this:

Fire and steel.

WTC7, ZERO firefighting, ZERO fire systems working, and Heiwa ignores these facts so he can make up lies and apologize for terrorists for his children.

If Heiwa would gain knowledge on a few issues he would not be one of the chief terrorist apologist. He is apologizing for the terrorist who murdered thousands and he says he is doing it for his kids. Hope his grandkids see these posts of his apologizing for terrorist because he is deficient in knowledge on fire, and steel structures. His lack of knowledge and bias against the United States has formed his block to learn and understand the events of 9/11.

The terrorists are responsible for 9/11 events. By ignoring the facts surrounding WTC7, Heiwa is apologizing for murderers; and he is doing it for his kids due to his ignorance on 9/11 events, his ignorance on fire fighting systems, and his ignorance on steel buildings.

Good job ignoring fire, gravity, and steel structures. Excellent fantasy work!

You can’t express your fantasy force of destruction, you play at this as you apologize badly for the work of terrorists.

Last edited by beachnut; 18th December 2008 at 10:34 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 10:51 AM   #127
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,988
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
The weights and the loads do only stress the structure <30% yield and deformations are elastic and hardly noticable. Removing column 79 at floors 11/13 does not release much potential energy at all. Removing four columns around column 79 at floors 11/13 still does not release much potential energy. The unsupported floors are just sagging.

Removing all wall columns in the short side of the structure may release potential energy = the wall drops straight down and all the floor connections above are ripped apart at the (missing) wall. The total structure will not completely collapse due to that. The potential energy is used to produce the floor failures and the wall rubble on the ground.

To produce free fall due gravity of the complete WTC structure above floors 11/13 you must remove completely all structure below floor 11/13. Big job!
Since you make these statements as if you had considered the actual WTC structure, you continue to lie in making them.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 11:07 AM   #128
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,273
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
The potential energy (J) of the structure (relative ground) is simply the weight of each part in the structure and the extra load on e.g. floors times the height times g. The weights and the loads do only stress the structure <30% yield and deformations are elastic and hardly noticable. Removing column 79 at floors 11/13 does not release much potential energy at all. Removing four columns around column 79 at floors 11/13 still does not release much potential energy. The unsupported floors are just sagging.

Removing all wall columns in the short side of the structure may release potential energy = the wall drops straight down and all the floor connections above are ripped apart at the (missing) wall. The total structure will not completely collapse due to that. The potential energy is used to produce the floor failures and the wall rubble on the ground.

To produce free fall due gravity of the complete WTC structure above floors 11/13 you must remove completely all structure below floor 11/13. Big job!
A lot of rambling to not even answer the question. What was the potential energy in WTC 7? You kind of give the equation though it would be the mass of the building, not the weight, times gravity times height, though you do provide an answer. You can not possibly be an engineer.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 11:28 AM   #129
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post

Just out of interest, let's see how big this underpressure could have been.

The cross-sectional area of WTC7, which was 330x140 feet, was about 41,000 square feet. Let's assume the evil conspirators managed to produce a perfect vacuum below floor 12, so the pressure difference between top and bottom was 15psi; it's physically impossible for it to be greater than this without an overpressure at roof level. That gives us a total downward force on the building of a little over 600,000lbs, or about 280 tons. I don't know the mass of WTC7 exactly; one 9/11 truth site gives it as 250,000 tons, but that sounds high given that the Twin Towers only massed about 280,000. Let's guess it at half that, which increases the possible acceleration, and assume that 35/47 of that mass is acted on by the force. That gives us a possible acceleration of 0.003g due to the suction. This is clearly a completely insignificant contribution to the motion.

Is this the force, in your fantasy explanation, that compensates for the structural resistance?

Dave
Yes, let's do that!

Otto von Gericke and Evangelista Torricelli would not be proud of you. I agree - under pressure due vacuum (absence of air) cannot be more than about 1 000 hPa and to maintain it for 2.25 seconds is a big job. But say we can apply 1 000 hPa on a structure!

Say my structure is 100 meters long and 50 meters wide = 5000 m² and I manage to apply 1000 hPa pressure on a floor. (Under or over pressure does not matter - right?) What is the force F in Newton applied to the floor? Right it is 5 000 (m²) * 100 000 (Pa) = 500 000 000 N!

Quite a big force - say 50 000 tons in more understandable units - but let's keep it in N(ewton).

And this force F is now pushing/sucking down the structure. Say the structure mass m is 100 000 tons or 100 000 000 kgs. What is the acceleration a produced by 500 000 000 N acting on 100 000 000 kgs? Right - it is 5 m/s² or 0.5 g.

You thought it was 0.003 g, so we differ only 166.7 times. Nice try, liar!

Actually, vacuum is pretty strong. I have had the misfortune to see tank structures that had collapsed due to vacuum! The poor operators pumped the tanks empty and forgot to allow air into it and BLOUFF - they collapsed.
Next question - how to create vacuum at bottom of WTC7? You have removed all personnel and NYFD (not witnesses) evidently. What do you do next? Right - your remove the air! And BLOUFF - the WTC7 is pulled!

Quite basic, really.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 11:38 AM   #130
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
A lot of rambling to not even answer the question. What was the potential energy in WTC 7? You kind of give the equation though it would be the mass of the building, not the weight, times gravity times height, though you do provide an answer. You can not possibly be an engineer.
Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 01:44 PM   #131
stateofgrace
Guest
 
stateofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?
Actually, mass is how heavy something is without gravity.Mass is how much matter an object as.

Weight is how heavy something is with gravity acting on.

Weight = Mass x Gravity. ( W = mg ) and is measured in newtons ( N ).

Linky

Weight
Quote:
The first thing to realize about weight is that weight is not the same as mass, even though the terms are used synonymously in everyday life. Mass measures inertia - it is a property of an object. Weight is a force - something that happens to an object
linky

Are you sure you are an engineer?

Last edited by stateofgrace; 18th December 2008 at 02:04 PM. Reason: typo
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 01:44 PM   #132
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,853
A vacuum did it. No. But I know where there is almost a pure vacuum, which until a recent post has been undiscovered.

Something new, and stupid.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 05:22 PM   #133
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,988
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Yes, let's do that!

Otto von Gericke and Evangelista Torricelli would not be proud of you. I agree - under pressure due vacuum (absence of air) cannot be more than about 1 000 hPa and to maintain it for 2.25 seconds is a big job. But say we can apply 1 000 hPa on a structure!

Say my structure is 100 meters long and 50 meters wide = 5000 m² and I manage to apply 1000 hPa pressure on a floor. (Under or over pressure does not matter - right?) What is the force F in Newton applied to the floor? Right it is 5 000 (m²) * 100 000 (Pa) = 500 000 000 N!

Quite a big force - say 50 000 tons in more understandable units - but let's keep it in N(ewton).

And this force F is now pushing/sucking down the structure. Say the structure mass m is 100 000 tons or 100 000 000 kgs. What is the acceleration a produced by 500 000 000 N acting on 100 000 000 kgs? Right - it is 5 m/s² or 0.5 g.

You thought it was 0.003 g, so we differ only 166.7 times. Nice try, liar!

Actually, vacuum is pretty strong. I have had the misfortune to see tank structures that had collapsed due to vacuum! The poor operators pumped the tanks empty and forgot to allow air into it and BLOUFF - they collapsed.
Next question - how to create vacuum at bottom of WTC7? You have removed all personnel and NYFD (not witnesses) evidently. What do you do next? Right - your remove the air! And BLOUFF - the WTC7 is pulled!

Quite basic, really.
Holy .

There is no gravity. WTC 7 sucks.

That's your theory for what happened? Seriously? A vacuum sucked WTC 7 down, and that's what Silverstein meant when he said "pull it"?

Oh, please, while you're pulling this out of your nether regions, why don't you explain to us all how this vacuum was created? Where is my popcorn smiley?
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 05:33 PM   #134
Bell
beautiful freak
 
Bell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
Holy .

There is no gravity. WTC 7 sucks.

That's your theory for what happened? Seriously? A vacuum sucked WTC 7 down, and that's what Silverstein meant when he said "pull it"?

Oh, please, while you're pulling this out of your nether regions, why don't you explain to us all how this vacuum was created? Where is my popcorn smiley?
http://www.acme-vacuum.com/

"Meep, meep!"
__________________
Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life.

INY
You gotta love cops.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 06:30 PM   #135
stateofgrace
Guest
 
stateofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by SPreston View Post
I am surprised that Heiwa and a few other earnest scientists here put up with the ridicule and non-scientific attacks and glad handing and circle jerking. But I do enjoy their input and honest attempts at true science.
I am also surprised that your “earnest scientist” doesn't know the difference between mass and weight.

Care to input? Care to defend your “earnest scientist” further?

Or is it ok for everybody to carry on the with the ridicule ?

I look forward to your input and defence of an “earnest scientist” that does not understand basic physics.

Doesn't "honest attempts" at "true science" come from an understanding of science now?

Last edited by stateofgrace; 18th December 2008 at 07:35 PM.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 08:23 PM   #136
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The cross-sectional area of WTC7, which was 330x140 feet, was about 41,000 square feet. Let's assume the evil conspirators managed to produce a perfect vacuum below floor 12, so the pressure difference between top and bottom was 15psi; it's physically impossible for it to be greater than this without an overpressure at roof level. That gives us a total downward force on the building of a little over 600,000lbs, or about 280 tons.
It is with great regret that I must point out a problem with this BOE calculation -- the pressure force you hypothesize is 15 pounds per square inch, or 2160 pounds per square foot. The actual result is 144 times what you calculated. That's what you get for using rubbish units, I'm afraid.

Anyway, I therefore must congratulate Heiwa at finally getting something right. It took long enough. Of course, he appears to be actually advocating this absurd vacuum theory, while failing to consider important points like, "why didn't the same force crush in the sides of the structure?" or "how could the roof, let alone the windows, survive this overpressure while the main support structure failed?" but, regardless, he did get the math right. In related news, the mayor of Hell reported a surprise hard frost, the first in recorded history.

Of course, a mere ten minutes later, he distinguishes himself with the following, which is about the most fundamental mistake one can make:

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?
I have him on Ignore, and I heartily advise every single one of you to do the same. Heiwa included.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES

Last edited by R.Mackey; 18th December 2008 at 08:30 PM.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 10:51 PM   #137
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Vacuum is powerful

Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
I am also surprised that your “earnest scientist” doesn't know the difference between mass and weight.

Care to input? Care to defend your “earnest scientist” further?

Or is it ok for everybody to carry on the with the ridicule ?

I look forward to your input and defence of an “earnest scientist” that does not understand basic physics.

Doesn't "honest attempts" at "true science" come from an understanding of science now?
No problem - mass (kg) or weight (N) - as long as you get the units right. Many alleged engineers don't. You didn't jump on my force of 50 000 tons (sic!) (that people understand) when it is (as I point out) abt. 500 000 000 N (which is not so easy to visualize).

Anyway - vacuum is quite powerful (when you get the units right) and the only explanation to the observations of Chandler (free fall acceleration) is that vacuum (or some sort of under pressure) must have assisted the pull of WTC7. Or actually suck.

The whole thing sucks!
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2008, 11:00 PM   #138
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,139
It's obvious! There was a hurricane on floor 7.


What? That is no more absurd than "pyroclastic clouds".
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 02:36 AM   #139
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
It is with great regret that I must point out a problem with this BOE calculation -- the pressure force you hypothesize is 15 pounds per square inch, or 2160 pounds per square foot. The actual result is 144 times what you calculated. That's what you get for using rubbish units, I'm afraid.
Oh well, that's what you get for doing a calculation in a hurry. Heiwa, I admit I made a stupid error, and you're right about the possible acceleration due to applying a perfect vacuum below one floor of WTC7. If anyone wants to nominate me for a Stundie, there are good grounds.

Now, assuming that the acceleration was increased by applying a vacuum, how could this have been done? If, for example, it was done with explosives, they would have exerted a much greater overpressure before creating a partial vacuum. What effect would this overpressure have had on the structure, and would the shockwave have been detectable by other means? Sound, for example? And if it wasn't done with explosives, how was it done?

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 03:24 AM   #140
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Oh well, that's what you get for doing a calculation in a hurry. Heiwa, I admit I made a stupid error, and you're right about the possible acceleration due to applying a perfect vacuum below one floor of WTC7. If anyone wants to nominate me for a Stundie, there are good grounds.

Now, assuming that the acceleration was increased by applying a vacuum, how could this have been done? If, for example, it was done with explosives, they would have exerted a much greater overpressure before creating a partial vacuum. What effect would this overpressure have had on the structure, and would the shockwave have been detectable by other means? Sound, for example? And if it wasn't done with explosives, how was it done?

Dave
Good, simple question. Remember the (children's) experiment with a lit candle inside an upside down glass jar with its opening below water? The candle burns for a while and then the flame dies. And water rises into the jar. You know what happened! The oxygen in the air reacted with the carbon of the candle and became carbon(di)oxide that has less volume than air (which is 21% or so oxygene, the rest is mostly nitrogen). The volume of air was reduced and produced an under pressure inside the jar - water was sucked in.
Could something similar have happened at the bottom of WTC7? Transform quickly also the nitrogen in the air into some less voluminous gas and you can create a local bubble of underpressure. Of course air will be sucked in from the sides to eliminate this bubble - the underpressure will hardly be applied to the building above - but you never know what clever engineers are up to these days and evil persons misuse.
I still wonder how these strange pieces of junk came about seen in the WTC7rubble. Not by released potential energy for sure.
And what kind of structural damage software is NIST using to describe the collapse?
It is questions like those that should be answered first to sort out this mystery (conspiracy).
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 04:01 AM   #141
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Could something similar have happened at the bottom of WTC7?
Well, there was a fire which was moving around as it exhausted fuel in different areas. What would have been a little tricky was sealing the sides of a building that, as photographs show, had some gaping holes in the south wall and southwest corner, and several windows broken along the east wall.

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Transform quickly also the nitrogen in the air into some less voluminous gas and you can create a local bubble of underpressure.
Can you suggest an appropriate chemical reaction? Nitrogen tends to be relatively inert, and the reaction would have to be very fast to overcome the leakage of air in from the sides.

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Of course air will be sucked in from the sides to eliminate this bubble - the underpressure will hardly be applied to the building above - but you never know what clever engineers are up to these days and evil persons misuse.
This is known as the "appeal to magic".

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 04:47 AM   #142
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,273
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?
As others have pointed out, weight and mass are not the same thing and I would expect an engineer to understand that. If you want to know what my profession and training are in, you can always locate the expertise thread since I clearly spell it out.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 06:15 AM   #143
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
As others have pointed out, weight and mass are not the same thing and I would expect an engineer to understand that.
Yes, yes - I understand that (as should be clear from above), that weight is a force (N) but to make that force/weight easier to understand I divide by g and present the force/weight in kilograms (easy to understand) which happens to be the mass of the object the force is acting on. In a similar way I sometimes define a force in tonnes! Children, my audience, know what a tonne of rock is but hardly what 10 000 N is!

BTW - don't you find it strange that NIST can not inform what software they used to analyse, to identify the failures, to keep track of loose parts, etc, that would simulate the WTC7 collapse as described in the NIST report?

I find it amazing. NIST presents a final report of a structural collapse ... and they cannot tell us what tool (software) they used to do the 1 000 000's + of calculations involved. Or did they do it long-hand? And what units were used?
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 06:27 AM   #144
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post

This is known as the "appeal to magic".

Dave
Not really! Vacuum is not magic. It creates big forces that applied on masses accelerates the masses (when you get the units right). And topic is why WTC7 intact top part accelerates so fast during collapse! I suggest vacuum assists (down below in the lower part). FGS, it is not a conspiracy theory. It is a suggestion based on real physics. Not the NWO Hollywood stuff produced by NIST that most JREF-posters believe is reality. Sometimes I believe this Shyam Sunder is working for Hollywood to improve his standard of living .
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 06:36 AM   #145
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Good, simple question. Remember the (children's) experiment with a lit candle inside an upside down glass jar with its opening below water? The candle burns for a while and then the flame dies. And water rises into the jar. You know what happened! The oxygen in the air reacted with the carbon of the candle and became carbon(di)oxide that has less volume than air (which is 21% or so oxygene, the rest is mostly nitrogen). The volume of air was reduced and produced an under pressure inside the jar - water was sucked in.
Could something similar have happened at the bottom of WTC7? Transform quickly also the nitrogen in the air into some less voluminous gas and you can create a local bubble of underpressure. Of course air will be sucked in from the sides to eliminate this bubble - the underpressure will hardly be applied to the building above - but you never know what clever engineers are up to these days and evil persons misuse.
I still wonder how these strange pieces of junk came about seen in the WTC7rubble. Not by released potential energy for sure.
And what kind of structural damage software is NIST using to describe the collapse?
It is questions like those that should be answered first to sort out this mystery (conspiracy).
Alchemy brought WTC 7 down. You do realize your digging yourself really deep don't you?
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 06:39 AM   #146
Ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect View Post
As far as I understand you can even see the tilt in this video:

http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/...ower-collapse/
Yes, and before the building even starts moving, there are a large number of windows along the right side of the image ( .55 secs in.), seemingly blasted out. Anyone want to offer an explanation for that?
Ragnarok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 06:47 AM   #147
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Not really! Vacuum is not magic.
The appeal to magic is committed when you correctly identify the problem with your hypothesis (the impossibility of creating a good seal around the lower structure to allow the vacuum to be created), then dismiss it by saying that you're sure some clever engineer can come up with a way of doing it. Your hypothesis rests on the bare assertion that this is possible, despite the physical difficulties involved. As a clever engineer who's good at coming up with explanations for physical impossibilities, why don't you suggest a mechanism yourself?

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 06:51 AM   #148
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,405
Originally Posted by Ragnarok View Post
Yes, and before the building even starts moving, there are a large number of windows along the right side of the image ( .55 secs in.), seemingly blasted out. Anyone want to offer an explanation for that?
You are mistaken. Perhaps you have not had the opportunity to watch a non truther video that shows the complete collapse.

Gravy does a great job here:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtc7...anicalpenthous

I suggest you go there to educate yourself.
Mr.Herbert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 06:56 AM   #149
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by Ragnarok View Post
Yes, and before the building even starts moving, there are a large number of windows along the right side of the image ( .55 secs in.), seemingly blasted out. Anyone want to offer an explanation for that?
They don't seem to be "blasted out", as there's no sign of debris being blown outwards. The window apertures appear to lose their reflectivity abruptly. The simple, non-conspiratorial explanation would be that the building was flexing in that area, and that the flexure was enough to break the windows.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 07:00 AM   #150
Ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Cajun Daddy
If Building 7 was not controlled demolition then I would think that the collapse would be studied to determine how building demolition experts can use this mechanism of spontaneous symetrical collapse so that the expense of explosives, labor, and time could be avoided in the future.
Any comments?
Ragnarok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 07:13 AM   #151
Ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
They don't seem to be "blasted out", as there's no sign of debris being blown outwards. The window apertures appear to lose their reflectivity abruptly. The simple, non-conspiratorial explanation would be that the building was flexing in that area, and that the flexure was enough to break the windows.

Dave
No, the windows seem to turn the same colour as the broken windows dotted along the left of the building( presumably nearer the fire source). If the windows were broken by air pressure from the building shifting out of line of sight, why were these effects not more random, or at least, less specific? There didn't seem to be any other places along that face that it happened to? Although it is odd that nothing happened to the windows on the wall at a right angle to it?

Last edited by Ragnarok; 19th December 2008 at 07:14 AM.
Ragnarok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 07:30 AM   #152
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,313
Originally Posted by Ragnarok View Post

"If Building 7 was not controlled demolition then I would think that the collapse would be studied to determine how building demolition experts can use this mechanism of spontaneous symetrical collapse so that the expense of explosives, labor, and time could be avoided in the future."


Any comments?
Cutting corners for the sake of saving a few bucks is asking for legal litigation if not imprisonment of any demolition company personnel that decides to use uncontrolled methods to meet such ends.

Apparently your source doesn't care for the public dangers posed by setting the structure on fire for several hours uncontrolled or the likelihood of the building causing collateral damage when collapsed (Fitterman Hall comes to immediate attention). That statement you quoted is quite bluntly either brain dead stupidity or blatant sarcasm. I won't try to presume which.
__________________
AutoCAD/Photoshop Hobbyist
::Work Samples::
If you want a set (sigs/avatars) or helpful tips for photoshop and CAD. Always glad to help.

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 19th December 2008 at 07:40 AM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 07:46 AM   #153
Ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Cutting corners for the sake of saving a few bucks is asking for legal litigation if not imprisonment of any demolition company personnel that decides to use uncontrolled methods to meet such ends.

Apparently your source doesn't care for the public dangers posed by setting the structure on fire for several hours uncontrolled or the likelihood of the building causing collateral damage when collapsed (Fitterman Hall comes to immediate attention). That statement you quoted is quite bluntly either brain dead stupidity or blatant sarcasm. I won't try to presume which.
When you put it like that, fair dos.

And my post after that?*


* Apologies, I thought you was Dave there. You can still reply if you want!

Last edited by Ragnarok; 19th December 2008 at 07:48 AM.
Ragnarok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 07:46 AM   #154
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by Ragnarok View Post
No, the windows seem to turn the same colour as the broken windows dotted along the left of the building( presumably nearer the fire source). If the windows were broken by air pressure from the building shifting out of line of sight, why were these effects not more random, or at least, less specific? There didn't seem to be any other places along that face that it happened to? Although it is odd that nothing happened to the windows on the wall at a right angle to it?
I suggest you go back and read my post again, then respond to the post I actually made, rather than the one you'd like me to have made. In particular, I didn't mention air pressure, for the very simple reason that those window breakages don't look like they were caused by it.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 07:50 AM   #155
Ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I suggest you go back and read my post again, then respond to the post I actually made, rather than the one you'd like me to have made. In particular, I didn't mention air pressure, for the very simple reason that those window breakages don't look like they were caused by it.

Dave
Oh, so they are 'window breakages' now, and not 'changes in reflective structure'*? So, are you saying that some kind of torque strain caused this effect?


* Although I can see how they might mean the same thing.

Last edited by Ragnarok; 19th December 2008 at 07:53 AM.
Ragnarok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 07:58 AM   #156
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by Ragnarok View Post
Oh, so they are 'window breakages' now, and not 'changes in reflective structure'*? So, are you saying that some kind of torque strain caused this effect?


* Although I can see how they might mean the same thing.
Yes, it looks to me like flexure of the structure caused windows to break*, and the broken windows look like broken windows elsewhere in the structure. There doesn't appear to be any blast involved.

Dave

*Which is why I said "...the flexure was enough to break the windows".
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 19th December 2008 at 07:59 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 08:02 AM   #157
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Why do truthers have such a hard time understanding the concept of gravity?
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 08:05 AM   #158
Ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
missed the edit.

If so, how does that fit into a sequence of 'expulsions' elsewhere, where they rise up the building, instead of fall, as you'd expect if air was pushing the windows out. Does your flexing building account for that?
Ragnarok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 08:08 AM   #159
Ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
Why do truthers have such a hard time understanding the concept of gravity?
Call me what you will, but since when have questions caused any harm? You don't have to respond. You don't even have to read it, if you are that fed up.

Toddle off, "Friends" might be on.
Ragnarok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2008, 08:22 AM   #160
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,313
Originally Posted by Ragnarok View Post
missed the edit.

If so, how does that fit into a sequence of 'expulsions' elsewhere, where they rise up the building, instead of fall, as you'd expect if air was pushing the windows out. Does your flexing building account for that?
The expulsions from what I understand are based on similar dynamics as what we saw with the towers, material such as ash, soot (products of the interior fire), and other light weight materials were forced out via air pressure as the structure collapsed. Given that the failure in WTC 7 happened lower in the structure relative to what was seen with the towers, the difference in the behavior isn't that terribly surprising in so far as I can tell.
__________________
AutoCAD/Photoshop Hobbyist
::Work Samples::
If you want a set (sigs/avatars) or helpful tips for photoshop and CAD. Always glad to help.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.