eric3579:
I have one question. Are you fucking serious? Did you read it? Out of all the material out there you chose this to reference. Is it just me?

Yes, I guess I am "fucking serious". Yes, I read it (and you didn't, see bellow). Yes I chose to reference it and...wait...what is you argument again ? Ho, that's right, you have none. You're just dismissing a source because you don't like it. Care to come up with an actual reason?


eric3579:
and where is the info for the 30 second collapse?

You ask me if I read it and you can't spot that sentence located *three lines* bellow the pictures I linked to? Can I ask you if you are "fucking serious", please? Here's the quote:

"The visible collapse of WTC 7 was fairly quick. But seismic readings time the rumblings of the building (culminating in collapse that measured 0.6 on the Richter scale) to 30 seconds before the mechanical penthouses on top start to cave in"

So the internal structure started to collapse 30 seconds before the building caved in. That's quite different from "Explosives sent the building down in 6.5 seconds tops".
Also thanks for your link which, again, shows you didn't read the websites I pointed to, as mister Jones's arguments are discussed at length there...

* * *

blankfist:
Is it true? I don't think it is. It sounds baseless. Because a lot of the claims made by people who are critical of the current 911 theories aren't based on assumptions and opinions, like you seem to think, but instead are made from real research and from experts.

A few points first:
* Being suspicious of a government who has in the past started things like the Phoenix Program or MK Ultra is completely understandable. I do not question that.
* The 911 Report is an unconvincing (I would say "incomplete") piece of work on some points. Namely if you ask me, the guys who wrote down that finding out where the terrorists funds came from was "not important" should be thrown down into a pit full of hungry talibans.

That being said:
The most vocal "Conspiracy Theorists", and more specifically those giving themselves names like "911 Truth Movement" do focus on stuff that is, frankly, preposterous. Imagine you are the government and DO cause the 9/11 attacks...why in hell would you, on top of that, sneak in several tons of explosives in buildings occupied by several tenth of thousands employees? Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of doing this? Seriously, why do it? And if you do, why make it a (supposedly) "clean" controlled demolition? Why hide the result and not say the terrorists placed the explosives too?
None of this makes sense, but still a few nutjobs broadcast long-debunked claims. Cellphones don't work in airplanes: Lies. Building free-falling into their own footprint: Lies. Signs of explosions and use of thermite during the collapse (erm, I thought thermite did not explode?): Lies. It's all been proven wrong, but they still repeat it. Each and every "evidence" I have looked at has been debunked, and none has been actually PROVED.
Again, if you have any "real research", with actual solid evidence, please provide it. I doubt you will, because if any hard evidence was found (and by hard I mean which cannot be refuted), here's what would happen:
* Governments hostile to the US would use it and put it under scrutinity.
* Neutral media (independent or foreign media) would report it.
* Eventually mainstream media would have to report it, if only to downplay it.
Do you see any of this happening?

Meanwhile, the real issues (like "where did the money come from", "how did the terrorists operate" or "why did the administration repeatedly ignore warnings from its allies prior to 9/11") remain unanswered. I guess they don't sell as many books.

I am not dismissing any and all dissent toward the official 911 explanation, but in regard to those making claims about "the 911 physics", I do stand by my statement and think it is them who are baseless: they're all talk and no proof.

#1 was obvious and the sound of those seismic charges is bad ass.

Good list, though.

Yes, absolutely the impulse is practically negiglible from the start. We are talking about 12 stories falling into one. Let alone that fact the superstructure is not made up of independent parts. All things considered, it is not only reasonable to discover that the towers fell at an acceleration close to gravity, it is expected.

I should remark that the estimates for the collapse are just that, and more than likely a lower bound. Realistically, the collapse probably started many seconds before the visual or seismic data could have measured.

The 11 seconds is obtained for the seismic data. If you can find me a citation which proves otherwise I'd like to see it.

I am not sure my equation needs anything. I mean if the speed was faster the acceleration of gravity then it would need something.

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).



In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance...

This isn't right surely, what you are saying would mean that I would only have to knock out about 8 inches of my house for the entire thing to collapse into rubble. There isn't enough time for the falling part to gather enough inertia and therefore total mass.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.

g at sea level is 9.81m/s

t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.

416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.

That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.



In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.

g at sea level is 9.81m/s

t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.

416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.

That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.



In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

"[Yet...still people believe that there is science out there that shows global warming is not happening. I can not express how annoying I find that.}-someone, anyone, please, help me to describe the annoying feeling inside, when reading a statement like this-No-the science is there MH, half of it is being pimped to her worshipers, the other denied access to the cathedral.

Glad I could annoy you.


If in fact, his primary mission was to alert the world to the dynamics of earth change, why pick a politically charged issue that has everything to do with big oil and corporate megalopoly....add to that, the flavor-of-the-week Hollow-wood bandwagon, and you've got a media manipulation, that refuses to die-In steps the legacy of Alfred, who also gave the world dynamite, fitting bit of synchronicity-

The reality of global warming is this, kiddies-There ain't a damn thing we can do about it but 2 things-Tell the world the truth, and have them living like there's no tomorrow till the sea levels, seismic, and weather patterns, drive most folks further and further inland who can afford it, or let the elite, and those in the know, continue to spin fanciful stories, as they all race to ensure, that their little empires weather the storm.

The folks in the know??..They are preparing hidey-holes, at the masses expense-We aught to kill them all, on fucking principle!


Political-environmentalista, probably paved the way for NAFTA to grow like the boil that it has become....he deserves this diluted award as much as Arafat did...

Seismic conditions are more important in Italy than a poncy weather report....

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yeah, the prequels ones left me flat, except maybe the Seismic detonator. Agree antonye, that Chewie was robbed - to not be in this list. Chordal growling is awesome.

you've lost me, farhad... admittedly the moon-earth combination might have some unusual quirks, at least in our solar system, but apart from having a very predictable face and location, helping splash water around, and giving some light at night I don't see your cause for evolutionary interest. if the moon influenced the movement of land masses and seismic events, then that would be something (seperating land masses would obviously lead to increased global diversity; after land creatures can no longer swim/fly between islands/land-masses they can no longer interbreed), but I've never read anything about the moon influencing the Earth's mantle or crust.

(by the way, 2cm annually would mean that there won't be a noticable change in how close the moon is until long after the Earth is very, very different from its current state)