• An archived thread from Something Awful on the morning of 9/11
    326 replies, posted
Parts of the cores stayed up for 15 to 25 seconds before they collapsed, and exact timing of the collapses is impossible. Again, from point 6 on the NIST FAQ. So you've shown that the buildings couldn't have completely collapsed in 9 seconds. Can you show that the incomplete collapse couldn't have happened in 14-16 seconds?
Yes and this is why we don't use simple maths and simple physics to explain shit like this. Are you a structural engineer by any chance?
I absolutely could not prove that at all. If incomplete collapse you mean the cores sticking up for a few more seconds. As I mentioned previously, it does not fly with the laws of physics. I'll shamelessly steal this lovely demonstration. ------------------------------------------------------------------- https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237427/5fa1acc6-06ce-45e9-a418-d36bb9c7843f/image.png Everyone agrees the towers were largely pulverized into dust and small debris.   When pulverization is the outcome of the event then it changes the physics drastically compared to other building collapses.  https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237427/bd59cbd4-05dc-42d8-a512-c91ee44b2ea8/image.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237427/056a2556-99fa-4bd1-8407-e2157b183337/image.png For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Scientists like to use this law for gravity and rockets but it applies to all motion and the forces they exhibet.      When we apply this to the WTC in layman’s terms it means a small mass cannot completely crush a large mass.  https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237427/1b366582-59c9-461d-ad32-93f79824df74/image.png There is not enough potential energy in the smaller mass to generate the force.  It would require the lighter item to have additional energy to pulverize the larger section of the building.   The force applied is the same on both sections.  IN the collapse both items are the same structure and composition.  Lets look at an example of this: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237427/e460d211-b8bc-45d6-9e80-584ca44c7124/image.png Here are both sections of the building at the time of collapse.   If 10 floors on the top are pulverized then 10 floors on the bottom must also be pulverized.  The same amount of force used to pulverize the bottom must also be applied to the top pulverizing it.   And so on until the smaller mass runs out of energy.   In other words there should have been this much of the building left - or a type of collapse that was not pulverization.  https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237427/c1a0460e-c0cd-44cc-aaec-1fe59a32273c/image.png Now a layman might think “well the force of the top pulverizing caused a pancake collapse from floor to floor down the rest of the building.   This is still impossible.      Lets say that this floor pulverized itself on this floor causing it to collapse and pulverize itself on this floor and so on on down the building.   Can you see why Newton’s third law also makes this impossible.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  If the top floor pulverizes the next floor must experience the same reaction.  While a falling floor would have more energy from inertia the force would still be the same.   In other words the two floors pulverize each other and the pancake collapse ends.  If one side pulverizes an equal mass on the other side also pulverizes.   https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237427/866e5f04-a912-4d25-82da-887e1e5021fa/image.png This leaves no more free energy to pulverize the rest of the building. It is physically impossible for a pancake collapse or a direct weight implosion to have pulverized the WTC.   The pancake collapse was originally a conclusion FEMA outlined.   Popular Mechanics has used this theory every since – even after NIST admitted it was impossible.      Popular Mechanics didn’t debunk controlled demolition they debunked Isiac Newton.   -----------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D21oxZvrZbw
its really funny how certain fucking lunatics think the government has managed to keep murdering 3000 US civilians secret for 17 years
This seems to hinge mostly on the towers being a couple of giant concrete blocks and not a shittonne of joints and also ignoring any and all possible external factors and shit like that.
likewise, according to newton, if you make the top 2 cards of a card tower fall down, only 2 more cards will go with them it's just how physics works it's not like you're ignoring that gravity is a constant force on all of it, and instead pretending this is happening in a vacuum
Are you somehow implying that gravity is not a force in a vacuum?
Gravity works vastly different in a vacuum than when not.
I think you are referring to air resistance, which is negligible as the structure was falling vertically. If anything, the air in the office floors would have caused even further resistance.
@JohnnyMo Get this twat to piss off
They couldn't even keep a blowjob in the oval office a secret. Conspiracy theories rely on the government being totally incompetent while also being genius masterminds.
I don't believe I blamed anyone, I wouldn't bother to either.
So your theory is that a bunch of independent extremist thermite charges conspired together to bring down the towers, placed themselves, and coordinated with Al-Qaeda to fly a plane into them to cover up their involvement.
I feel like you don't understand. Here is Billy Connolly to help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2J3sBiHB0M
Oh of course you're "just asking questions ;)"
Resonant I think you need to lay off the layman's terms. The card tower was a good metaphor for why your reductionism doesn't work. Snowball effects can happen.
If snowball effects can happen, why didn't the whole world collapse too????
I was more implying that your supposed analysis only works in space, far away from any planet. Since you're implying "well, when the parts of the tower collide, they pulverize, so an equal number of floors should pulverize compared to the top. Plus, once they're done pulverizing, the energy / force goes away." Which is an insanely simplified view of things. Let me ask you this: where did the energy for the top part come from in the first place? The plane hit from the side. That just means there should only be sideways motion, right? Equal and opposite reaction, right? The government must have PUSHED THE TOP PART DOWN. or maybe there's something called gravity NORMALLY, there's the two opposing forces in the building (hey, there's that equal and opposite reaction thing!) Gravity is pulling down on each floor, while the physical interaction of the matter is pushing up, called the Normal force. This is focused on the beams below the floor. The beams aren't indestructible, though. They can break with a certain amount of force. Like if a plane hits them (or, spoiler, if several floors hit them with energy from velocity added to the gravitational force already straining it). They can bend, too, if they're heated up or are hit with a lot of force. So, when the beams below a floor break, the normal force disappears (or incredibly weakens), since the beams, well, move out of the way. The top floors eventually start falling because 1. some beams holding them up were taken out by the plane, and 2. others were heated up over time to the point where they could bend more easily than at room temperature. Before, the normal force was pushing up against gravity, reacting to it, and matching it exactly. Equal and opposite reaction. But the beams only have a max amount of normal force they can put out. The equation went from 9.8 m/s2 gravity vs 9.8 m/s2 normal (up to some max n), to 9.8 m/s2 gravity vs less than 9.8 m/s2 normal. So the floors start moving - which only increases with gravity, and makes it harder for the normal force side to keep up. Gravity adds velocity (and thus energy) to its side of the equation, but it doesn't go away. (technically there is also movement the other way for the entire rest of the earth, but it's so miniscule that it's immeasurably small, since it's the mass of floors of tower vs the entire earth. Equal and opposite is actually kept intact.) So the top floors fall onto the next floor. They do slow down from this, but guess what? The equation for this next floor is now 9.8m/s2 gravity PLUS some x m/s velocity vs some max n. The x velocity adds enough energy to the other side to be more than the max n, so that floor starts to move down. And here's the kicker. The floor that was hit starts to move, and the floors above slow down. BUT SINCE THE NORMAL FORCE IS GONE GUESS WHAT GRAVITY SPEEDS IT UP AGAIN So the top floors gain speed again, and - to make sure equal and opposite reaction stays intact - the entire rest of the Earth (and hell, rest of the universe, once the pull in space-time reaches it) moves as well - it's just that since the Earth is so much heavier than the tower floors, it's basically nothing. Immeasurably small. And now for the next floor, you again have 9.8 m/s2 vs 9.8 m/s2 normal turning into 9.8m/s2 plus y m/s velocity vs some max n - and y is slightly more than x because now there are more floors and gravity works exponentially and more than made up for the lost velocity from the previous collision. This keeps happening and happening and happening. Now shut the fuck up and stop pretending you have knowledge of physics past public high school No Child Left Behind requirements.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/022/524/tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg
So I bumped this thinking people would want to read some realtime reactions to a historic event aaaaaand it turned into the classic Facepunch flamewar. Great. Can a mod lock this thread?
I think it's important to address people like that when they show up. If they just get shut down, they and vulnerable readers will take it as a sign that people are afraid of accepting some forbidden truth.
Before a mod locks the thread. The numbers that you googled sure do look nice and everybody is impressed... but I'm afraid NIST does not even agree with you. The entire idea of your post is with regards to a progressive floor by floor collapse. https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation >NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. Now with colums did do some bending during the incident, proof was shown of that. But everything you just said does not apply to the WTC.
If you're debating the exact nature and type of structural collapse that the towers underwent, that's (I suppose) a reasonable discussion to have and not conspiracy-level rambling. However, the tone and the way you present these opinions seems to indicate that you think the towers should not have collapsed completely in the first place. Specifically, your rant about Newton's laws and the dynamics of a building collapse were both extremely simplistic and grossly uninformed. NIST disagrees with the pancake theory, yes. They're not calling in to question the legitimacy of the collapse at all, and whether it was intentional or not your posts make you out to be just another "skeptic" who is "just pointing things out" while subtly insinuating that the towers were not brought down by terrorists. A final thought to leave off on is another part of the NIST report: "The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass." I know you'd like to impress people with your "understanding" of physics and building structural analysis but the very report you keep citing disagrees with your opinions.
As you can read on the site, they say that the floors still progressively collapsed. They just didn't collapse in a pancake manner. If a progressive collapse is a rectangle, a pancake style collapse is a square - a specific type of progressive collapse. also I love how the same source you're quoting to try and debunk me is only doing so for a specific type of progressive collapse, and yet vehemently disagrees with your own 'theory' of explosives.
Last or First isn't giving you a comprehensive explanation of how the tower fell, they're responding to your your idea that the towers couldn't possibly collapse completely. The point you had to pick up was that what you referred to as the 'small mass' picks up energy by gaining velocity, and therefore doesn't necessarily cancel out with an equal mass below it. As long as it accelerates, it gains energy with time.
this thread was meant to share firsthand experiences of 9/11/01 and people saw, what they heard, what they felt. Anger, sorrow, panic, terror. is it NOT about the building fucking collapsing or why you think that isn't possible or right 9/11 collapse theories are not personal stories of 9/11/01 derailing the thread with collapse theories can be done in other places on this forum maybe the government report didn't do the collapse proper scientific justice, but you're not giving anyone who died in that collapse any respect by posting here.
Why is it strange that two towers that weren't designed for a massive side on impact fell after a massive side on impact occurred. It's like playing jenga and being confused when the tower falls down.
The floors were still progressively collapsed because the building fell down. I was just pointing out that even NIST doesn't agree with you, and I disagree with NIST. I'll leave it here, I'd rather not cause any more upset than I have already.
Been reading through the comments and looking at them with the things we know now is interesting. "OMG BUSH IS SMUCH A DOOFUS AND HEILL START A WARE WITH PEACE-LOVRING OSAMA BIN LANADEN. If this was terrorism (which it appears to be), the smoking crater left over where Terrorist HQ once stood will be the start and the end."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.