|
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. |
![]() |
#81 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
Alferd_Packer, thank you.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#82 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,872
|
You'd be right if that's what actually happened. But as those who've studied the collapses know, a large segment of the core (40-60 stories) of each building remained standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building had collapsed and then toppled over. No crushing of the 52 inch box columns at all.
Problem resolved? |
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#83 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#84 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
Nice, transparent baiting! No, Enigma - it's called 'bedtime'. Followed by 'work', which I am still currently engaged in. Hopefully, I'll have some more time to devote to this later on.
Any remnants of the core remained 'standing' for mere seconds. Given that they were set in 70 feet of bedrock, you're argument is weak, at best. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#85 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
"causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C." (B&Z)
""These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time." (NIST) Perhaps it's you who need to do some re-reading. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#86 |
New Blood
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7
|
The problem I find with teh "truthers" is that they first start with a conclusion (conspiracy) then they try to find facts to justify it. This alone takes away thier credability to me.
Besides. Loose change isnt the place that attracts rational people. It attracts "fight the power" anarchist wannabes who are searching for reasons to cause hell rather than the truth. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#87 |
Scholar and a Gentleman
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
|
|
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#88 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
Except that they go to the very core of my OP. Those perceptions can be changed if an entirely cogent and easily grasped explanation can be disseminated. Those perceptions are not helped by 'pancake' type explanations which leave the core intact (as per Nova's graphic) - something which is bound to cause cognitive dissonance among those who know full well what they actually witnessed.
Granted. However, ordinary folk have managed to have previous perceptions overturned through clear argument (the heliocentric system would be an obvious example) - this is what I'm calling for in my OP. Here is an example: You have a BB gun, and a 30.06 high powered hunting rifle mounted at the exact same height - 3 feet from the ground. The barrels are aimed perfectly level. When fired simultaneously, which projectile hits the ground first? I appreciate the analogy. It would appear you appreciate the importance of curing that disconnect through cogent argument. This is all I'm really asking. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#89 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Definitely not.
If you read NIST for content, instead of quote-mining it, you will see that the steel they collected and tested via the microstructure analysis was all at the perimeter, and all predicted not to reach those temperatures. NIST declares that you cannot apply this temperature result on the steel sample to the overall volume of steel on the collapse floors. Right after the quote above, in fact. I'll let you find it, since you need to do some re-reading. In other words, you are a cherry-picker. And, as before, this is why you will never shut up. It's another example of poor scholarship. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#90 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,738
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#91 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
|
Damian, can you answer this hypothetical problem for me.
Let’s start with an intact tower. Lets then say that you had the capability of removing the perimeter walls and all of the floor slabs between the core and the exterior. Let’s also postulate that you could do this without damaging the core structure whatsoever. The questions for you are thus: Would the core structure be able to stand on its own? If so, how stable would it be? |
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#92 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
|
Sorry to quote so much of the OP, and sorry to leave so much out. My take on this OP is that it is disingenuous. Mr/ Ms Pastaume presents him/ herself as impartial, when in fact it's clear, by the 3rd paragraph, that he/ she has already decided that any "official" explanation, or even basic evidence supporting such an explanation, will be rejected.
So no, it's not "fair enough." It's more of the same. And your subsequent statements in the thread support it. It's been said before but deserves restatement. Until and unless Trutherians (I like the word: I made it up: tough) actually present coherent explanations of their own, instead of nitpicking the gaps, or arguing from incredulity ("I don't care what expert A, Ph.D., says, I don't believe it"), then they will not convince anyone. Pure and simple, that is it. (And you UK-onians out there: what's with "whilst"? Not to mention "amongst". You realize that's a dead giveaway, don't you; as sure as sibboleth/ shibboleth in Judges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth. Where did you all pick that up?) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#93 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
You referred me to the NIST paper which I have read twice. I don't essentially disagree with what you've written above. However, it certainly appeared from your original post that this would back up the claims made in the B&Z paper. It doesn't.
True, it leaves the door open for the possibility of higher temperatures absent from the steel actually examined by NIST. Yet the fact remains that the highest temperature stated anywhere in the NIST summary remains 600 °C. Is there any NIST literature which makes strong, evidence-based arguments for B & Z's higher temperatures? If so, I'd be more than happy to review it. If not, I'll have to go with my earlier statement that the B & Z paper is simply making unsubstantiated temperature claims, as well as a whole slew of 'probables' and 'possibles' resulting in an unsatisfactory hypothesis. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#94 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Nice preamble.
1. I doubt most here want to "Shut the TM up". I suspect most here just want to expose them for the frauds they are, to reveal to those who might buy their snake oil, that it is infact SNAKE OIL. Free speech is a right, who am I to deny them that. 2. There is no way to provide them with the proof they require, as their standards are much too unreasonable. Complete disclosure would not do it, as they would claim cover up anyway. Scientific validity certainly hasnt done it, as there is plenty of top notch science lending itself to the official story, and yet the movement pushes on. 3. Your suggestion at the end of your comments would not work, and here is why...(A) They claim the media to be "in on it", (B) they claim NIST to be "In on it", (C) A rational and scientifically sound (with some minor areas of weakness) has been provided for them, and they continue to not only call foul on it, but continue to slander and accuse others of causing the events without ANY PROOF. TAM ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
|
Damien, who cares what the temperature of the columns was? The key issue is what temprature the floor truses reached.
|
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#96 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,153
|
Damien, here is a link to a thread that got into an interesting discussion of the difficulty of cogent explanations in the face of the failure of physical intuition when things are scaled up or down beyond common experience.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=76053 Please take a look at it and tell me if it touches on the issues you wish to raise here. (You can start with page 2, although page 1 isn't without value. It just took a while to get past the politics and focus on the actual desired explanations.) Respectfully, Myriad |
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#97 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
|
Let's get this straight. I'm talking about a (one) paper. You are talking about "these papers".
I'm not sure BLGB's latest paper has been or will be published. The only versions I have seen are marked with "submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics" or something to that effect. I haven't seen any analysis yet from either side that meet the basic requirement of not being able to be refuted by a software engineer with a bachelors degree in electrical engineering. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#98 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
|
Dave,
I asked you about the 135%. Where did you get that? Now I wonder where you get 0.2% and 500% = 1% slowing. Are you doing the math, are you citing someone, or are you just making things up? Ask Dr. Greening what the difference in collapse time is if the energy expended per floor goes up from 400 MJ to 800 MJ. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
|
|
__________________
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#100 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
I'll be frank; your software engineer's opinion means just about as much as mine--NOTHING.
Again, I'm a layman. I rely on experts. The general consensus among experts is that the official story, while not perfect, is the one that makes the most sense. Until that consensus changes, you can parade software engineers 'till the cows come home. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#101 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
|
While you have not stated it, you have implied that the NIST report puts an upperbound on the temperature of 600-C. That implication is patently false.
The steel that NIST tested came from a particular part of the structure. A section that -everyone- agrees was substantially cooler than the primary areas in question. For some reason you believe this rather important bit of information isn't important and instead want to hammer on this "not-technically-incorrect yet entirely misleading" point of yours. Why? What I find most curious is that it appears you actually already knew that. In other words, you knew what you were saying was technically true and was also implying something that was patently false. This means you are, in a sense, trying to deceive... albeit with the plausibly deniable card of "it was technically accurate". It appears to me you are trying to pass off intentionally misleading evidence in support of a hypothesis that is actually contradicted by a proper interpretation of the evidence? It seems to me that you are perfectly happy wording your statements to be technically correct yet at the same time leave plenty of room for false inferences. It seems to me that this mistaken inferences are left there, intentionally. It seems to me that you are willing to play loose with the truth in order to advance one hypothesis over another? Why? Why does this particular issue seem to strike me much more of sophistry and politics than science? |
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
Bzzzt, incorrect.
Let's look at the three and compare them to reality shall we? The Bulidings were massively over-engineered structures No so. Truthers often quote the 2000% figure, claiming that the buildings were designed to withstand 20 times their own weight. It's not true. The figure comes from the live loading from wind that would be applied laterally to the buildings, not to the amount of load the buildings could support. The load the buildings could support vertically was far less and NIST estimates that between the physical damage and the fires, the columns lost about 60-70% of their load capacity on the collapse floors. The Buildings pulverized themselves into their basements Again, not true. The building were not pulverised, large amounts of concrete, steel and even contents remained after the collapse. Estimates are that only about 20% of the building was pulverised with perhaps another 20% ejected. The rest of the material formed a pile that rose up to seven stories above street level. They did this at barely above freefall speed Again wrong. The tower collapses took between 16 and 18 seconds for WTC 2 and between 18 and 20 seconds for WTC 1. Freefall would have been 9 and 10 seconds respectively. This means the towers fell 80-100% slower than would be expected for freefall. This is not "barely above freefall." Video and photos clearly show the debries falling far faster then the collapse zone did. Anyone that persists with the "nearly freefall" meme is either an idiot or deliberately ignoring the facts. Finally lets look at this one: through the path of maximum (and greatly increasing) resistance This makes the assumption that things should always take the path of least resistance. This is untrue as well. Objects take the path of least ENERGY change. Think about it for a moment. If you get hit by a bullet, does it follow the path of least resistance? Surely the path of least resistance is to divert around you through the air, not to pass through your body. Why does it pass through you if that is higher resistance? The answer is because it would require more enegy to deflect the bullet around you that it does to cause a plastic deformation and fracture of your body components. In the same way there is less energy reqyuired to plastically deform and fracture the building below the collapsing top that it would take to deflect that mass off to one side. Thus it is more energy effiecent to crush the building below, and it does. Simple 101 physics, I suggest you get a text book and start reading it. I suggest you go back and read it again instead of following the Truther flock baaaing. NISTs case for higher temperatures is in their fire models, models that correctly predicted the temperatures you mentioned. They also explain why they choice steel that would give lower temperatures (it has something to do with the methods they used to determine the temperatures, but since you have read the papers I'm sure you already know what so I don't need to explain that right?) and also were a reasonably good match to what was seen outside for the fire progression. If anything, NIST erred on the side of caution with most of the Engineers who have critised them so far claiming that they under estimated the fuel loading in the buildings and that the fires were likely hotter! Arup, Quintiere and co all claim that NIST relies too much on the fire protection being removed because of their lower temperature fires, and that with the greater fuel load and hotter fires, even with the fire protection the building would have fallen. It's really funny that the Truthers all want cooler fires when those in the industry that dispute NIST are all bashing them for not having hot enough ones. |
__________________
![]() It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#103 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
Hello TAM -
It largely seems to hinge on the fact that although everything up to collapse initiation of WTC 1 & 2 has been explained, on the whole, quite plausibly by NIST, the collapse itself has not. This would appear to be Frank Greening's main bone of contention, too. Now, I understand that this was never part of NIST's brief, thus no one can credibly criticise NIST themselves for not doing so. However, this does leave something of a vaccuum just waiting to be filled by all manner of outlandish theories. The only way to avoid acknowledging this vaccuum appears to be by pretending that these events can be viewed in complete scientific isolation, void of any political context. For the more intelligent and informed (I don't necessarily mean scientifically) of the TM, this is not an acceptable option. The often-cited PNAC document admitting its military ambitions would likely remain unfulfilled bar a 'New Pearl Harbor' is simply the most obvious example of this. From the three days I've spent on this forum, this would appear to be the most useful demarcation between two camps: those seeing the events of 9/11 as a purely scientific issue vs. those who insist on giving it a wider context. In the first camp, there's nothing left to explain as the bigger picture simply isn't relevant. In the second, the context is paramount - thus explanations built only on the need for improved building safety cannot possibly satisfy. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#104 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#105 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 29,705
|
As anti-sophist has pointed out, this statement smacks of sophism - in that it's vague and leaves so many opportunities for squirming and weaseling.
"NIST summary" ? Which NIST summary? The NISTNCSTAR1 Final Report? That has live workstation fire tests running at much higher temperatures, and WTC fire simulations also running at much higher temperatures. It would appear that either you haven't read the report thoroughly (as you claim you have) or you are setting out to misinform and quote-mine while leaving yourself wriggle-room. You're showing yourself to be the very epitome of why 9/11 "Truth" can never get along with the real world of science. Which, I believe, was the gist of your OP. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#106 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,872
|
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#107 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
|
Thanks for admitting that you're not actually interested in the well-established scientific facts behind the events of 9/11 but rather in confirming a logistically and scientifically untenable conspiracy theory based on nothing more than your own ignorance and political agenda. If only all twoofers were so candid!
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#108 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#109 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
Greening isn't contesting that it couldn't have collapsed. What NIST showed proved the collapse. No further math or research is needed at that point to conclude a global collapse. That Geening wants is research on the actual collapse for the sake of research and study, not to prove it was possible. It's like me pushing you out of a plane and then having to try and prove that it was possible for you to make it to the ground. No explanation is needed to prove that pushing you out of the plane lead to you hitting the ground. But one could examine the process of the fall for the stake of scientific study.
What you Woo side claims is that unless it is proven scientifically, one cannot conclude that pushing someone out of a plane could lead to a person falling to the ground. That's how absolutely absurd the claim is and why it is often laughed at. Had NIST wasted time and resources to do this just to appease Wooers, it would not change a thing. This notion that the only reason people are questioning it is because they left it open is completely false. Look at the Woo claim about the Pentagon video. It was claimed that if they would just release the gas station footage that the Wooers would be satisfied and it would end the debate, but since they refused, it proved guilt. So the footage was eventually released showing nothing as they had claimed. But then the Wooers moved to the hotel camera making identical claims. When that was released, they again moved on to another claim. So this kind of logic does not hold up. The truth of the matter is you want a conspiracy no matter what and no amount of evidence will change that. What ever evidence you require now, you simply require ONLY because you think it is unobtainable and thus allowing you to sustain these fantasies. When they do get crushed, you move on to another one. Whatever it takes to sustain the fantasy. The PNAC issue simply proves that you along with other Wooers don't understand what PNAC was saying. And this is another classic example of what I explained above. It's a tool you use to prolong your fantasy. You don't care that PNAC is long gone and never made the claims you say they did. But it's some text you can cherry pick out of context for your own needs. The debate is a scientific on vs a conjecture and speculation one. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#110 |
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,843
|
Damien,
If you wish to explore possible political theories, can I suggest you post in the Politics subforum? Most people here tend to focus on the scientific side (as you point out), and although there is no clear cut line, I think the preference is to stay away from politics in the CT sub forum. If your intent is to explore possible political conspiracy theories, I suggest you open a thread in Politics. You'll probably get a much livlier discussion there. |
__________________
U.S.L.S 1969-1975 "thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk "He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana "Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#111 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
Be my guest. For anyone that disputes theory, I'd suggest a simple test. We get a bag of a low density material, say flour, of about 6% the weight of the twoofer in denial, suspend the material 3m above a high density material, such as the said twoofers head, and then allow it to drop at freefall to determine if the structure below will collapse in its own footprint on impact, or if the bag of flour will be deflected about the twoofer following the path of least resistance.
|
__________________
![]() It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#112 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,305
|
Damien, if you’re not arguing against CTers and trying to understand where they’re coming from, it’s entirely possible you haven’t come across this. There’s an example on the thread Myriad linked to below at #105:
Quote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=25 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#113 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
Quote:
|
__________________
![]() It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#114 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,305
|
PNAC and a "new Pearl Harbour"
I wonder how many CTers who use that line have read the whole document.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#115 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
|
This is a stupendously weak counter-argument and, frankly, quite idiotic. You know damn well that the explosions associated with an actual controlled demolition are rapid, sequential, and immediately precede that actual collapse of the building. And yet you counter with reports of a handful of explosions in the hours preceding the building's collapse, in a attempt to claim that, "See! There were explosions exactly like a CD!" That's both pathetic and laughable. That you can't seem to understand the inherent stupidity in your counter-argument, which I quoted, absolutely boggles my mind. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#116 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Thanks for the civil and intelligent response.
I will grant this, wrt NIST the collapse itself has not been addressed with the same scientific investigation/calculation as the events leading up to the collapse, and the initiation itself. However, unless a scientist can produce a paper contradicting NIST's claim that the collapse, once initiated, was inevitable, and unstoppable, with solid science to back it up, then I have no reason to decline this explanation from these qualified scientists. Of course, such a paper would have to pass the rigors of peer review (scientific peer review) and publication in a respected scientific journal.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]()
Quote:
TAM ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#117 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,987
|
|
__________________
"Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#118 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
You may well be correct. I'll be studying this further in the course of the next few days and will let you know what my findings are.
That would not seem to conform to the video evidence. Or the images of Lower Manhattan in the aftermath. What are these estimates based on? These are among the highest estimates I've seen and do not sit with the following: "given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity" from "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?" by Thomas W. Eager and Christopher Musso http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html "6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?" NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."NIST faq http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm No - but its progress is certainly slowed/arrested. A falling object can either A: (in the case of insufficient momentum) have its trajectory altered by the resisting force or B: (in the case of sufficient momentum) have its trajectory slowed by the resisting force or C: completely overcome the resisting force. You are obviously arguing for the third scenario. You also obviously feel this concords with what's observed. I don't. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#119 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,987
|
|
__________________
"Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#120 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
|
How do you recoincile the your two statements here? PW says the towers offer a large amount of resistance (and you acknowledge this) then say that PW thinks the intact towers offered no resistance. He is quite obviously stating your (inaccurately phrased) B scenario. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|