11 facts on Building 7

[Johnny Utah]

This Map shows the Damage caused to other buildings by the collapse of The World Trade Center on 9/11.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Here are some interesting basic physics presented into why WTC 7 could have collapsed:l[/b]

Firstly you took this from a forum, again, and secondly the source they use, was from the white house web site.

:roll:

Yeah it's from a forum and? What people in forums can't present facts gathered from other sources and present them in a reasonable way? :roll:

 

[I think not]

just to point out something for ITN, too-

The residual heat five days later- it does NOT mean that there was a continuing explosion, in your rush to dismiss anything that does not fit with your view of events you kinda made yourself look REAL silly with that statement (and since you obviously missed the point I will elaborate for you)

Actually the entire point was to make it look silly, guess it went over your head. However, since you apparently enjoy making others look silly, allow me to return the favor.

What that fact means, is that if it were a fire (especially of the small-ish sorts described) that 5 days later the shape and intensity of the heat pockest would have been much different than what was actually observed...

Explosions (TNT, C4 etc..) are chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are classified under two types, endothermic (absorbs heat) and exothermic (releases heat). Let’s assume for a moment that the common military explosive known as C4 was used to bring down WTC 7.

The characteristic of C4 or any explosion for that matter (less nuclear or anti-matter, which we can agree, I hope, none of the two were used) at the basic level, is that it burns very quickly and produces a lot of heat and gas within a very short amount of time, followed by a shock wave. The heat generated by the explosive material only exists while material is still combusting. You cannot have combustion without material. C4 explodes (or combusts) instantaneously. If the resulting heat that is generated has caused combustion of other materials, it is those materials that are now being combusted since the initial material that created the explosion, has long been combusted. Get it?

Explosions (especially ones caused by high-explosives)usually produce fantastic amounts of heat, whereas fires (especially smallish ones with limited resources) thend to be a lot less intense and take a LOT more time (and ideally more resources but no-one is gonna throw more fuel on a burning building I wuold hope) to reach (and especially to maintain) the intense heat levels observed 5 days after the event

Temperatures generated from combustion or burning (exothermic reaction) vary based on the material. An explosion is considered a “supersonic combustion”, the debris at the WTC are characterized as “smoldering combustion”. Smoldering Combustion temperature values range from 500 to 800 degrees Celsius (900 to 1400 degrees Farenheit) depending on the material being combusted.

Feeling silly yet?

I have a very good friend who's an engineer(and a dual citizenship type, he was born in the US but lived in Canada most of his life and lives here now)... and one of his colleagues just happened to actually be withing viewing distance of the events of 9-11.... both of these folks are POSITIVE that the official explanation is absolutely impossible- the most important point (which is an undisputed FACT and is also laid out in the linked piece above) is that as the building fell, not a SINGLE piece of ANYTHING even slowed the top down as it fell (speed of gravity) in the real physical world thsi is not necessarily impossible, but with the way structures are designed (especially the high ones) this is so extremely unlikely as to be pretty much dismissable- buildings are designed to NOT do exactly what building 7 did, and if it indeed DID happen unassisted, there should have ben a rather detailed investigation so as the flawd design could be re-worked or scrapped, and any other buildings which may have been constructed with the same flaw could be condemned or fixed or whatever...

As it stands no such investigation was performed, which IS odd considering the phenomenal nature of the event (and I'm trying to focus on building 7, the "non-tragic" one)

I had something else to add to the discussion but I can't recall it now dammit, but anyways interesting thread, I am curious to see what other opinions of the data presented might arise

Oooo, well then your friend should be nominated for a Nobel prize in Physics, because there is no limitation to the speed of gravity, unlike electricity and light and has yet to be determined what the maximum speed of gravity is. There is a limit to acceleration of gravity on earth which is 32 ft/s2, for a free falling object, what this means basically is whether you drop a piece of paper or an airplane they will both have limits of acceleration It does not mean they will both fall to earth at the same time. The force of gravity from the Earth on an object is the acceleration of gravity times the mass of the object. That equals the object's weight. Newton’s law of gravity determines how fast objects will fall., NOT the speed of acceleration. Remember the apple?

Newton’s Law of Gravity:

Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)

Where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects for which you are calculating the force, and d is the distance between the centers of gravity of the two masses.

G is the universal gravitational constant: G = 6.6726 x 10-11N-m2/kg2

m1 is the mass of the top floor of WTC 7 (not knowable), for arguments sake we will assume 1000 metric tons

m2 is the mass of the earth; 6 sextillion metric tons or 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons

d is the distance of the top floor(negligible towards the earths surface) to the center of mass of the earth at 40 degrees latitude, which is approximately 3002 miles.

Do the math and you will come up with Newtons, how the force is converted to speed, I do not know, however, the point is, that using speed of acceleration as opposed to gravitational force is the premise of the conspiracy theory. Look it up, I just did myself. It only takes a few minutes if you want to know the truth and why scientists all over the world aren't calling this a conspiracy.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... there is no limitation to the speed of gravity, unlike electricity and light and has yet to be determined what the maximum speed of gravity is. There is a limit to acceleration of gravity on earth which is 32 ft/s2, for a free falling object, what this means basically is whether you drop a piece of paper or an airplane they will both have limits of acceleration It does not mean they will both fall to earth at the same time. The force of gravity from the Earth on an object is the acceleration of gravity times the mass of the object. That equals the object's weight. Newton’s law of gravity determines how fast objects will fall., NOT the speed of acceleration.

Your understanding is..uh...somewhat limited. Gravity has no speed in the sense you're using, it's a force that imparts accelerations (i.e. changes in velocity) to material objects. It propagates through space at the speed of light, which means the gravitational effect of the earth would be, at least in principle, detectable at a distance of about 4.5 billion light years from here, the same distance light reflected from it will have travelled since it formed. The limit of the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface is solely due to the fact of the earth's finite and more or less fixed mass. The differing observed accelerations of a dropped airplane and a dropped piece of paper are not related to gravity, but to other factors, mostly air resistance. Their gravitational accelerations are identical, and in a vacuum they would be seen to accelerate at the same rate. Newton's law of gravity specifies the gravitational force between two material objects, which in turn determines how they will accelerate towards each other due to their mutual gravitational attraction. "the speed of acceleration" is a nonsense phrase. Acceleration is the rate of change of speed with time, or more correctly, of velocity, since it has a direction as well as a magnitude. Force, velocity, and acceleration, are all vectors, speed is just the magnitude of the velocity vector.

I can do the math.

 

[I think not]

And I never said you couldn't do the math Dexter, unless you are using another handle.

And sure I have a limited understanding, I'm not a physicist, but based on the points the conspiracy theorists have made, I think I tackled it fairly well.

They claimed for example satellite imagery recorded 1300 degrees farenheit, 5 days after the event, and alluded it was from the explosion.

Then they used the maximum speed of acceleration, which is wrong and I don't know why you say it is a nonsense phrase, I have reference to it on many physics sites.

And since you appear to be knowledgeable in the area of Physics, computing the time it takes for the tower to collapse, is using Newton's Law of Gravity the answer? Or part of it?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Then they used the maximum speed of acceleration, which is wrong and I don't know why you say it is a nonsense phrase, I have reference to it on many physics sites.

Yeah, I've seen it elsewhere too; at best it's very sloppy usage, because both words have quite distinct though closely related meanings in physics and engineering and putting them together that way doesn't really mean anything. They should refer to the rate of acceleration; it's the rate of change of speed. For those of you with a first course in calculus, speed is the first derivative of location, acceleration is the first derivative of speed and thus the second derivative of location.

is using Newton's Law of Gravity the answer? Or part of it?

Part of it. Parts of a collapsing building are unlikely to fall with the acceleration given by Newton's gravitational equations because they're not in free fall, they're tearing away from other parts and hitting other stuff on the way down.

And you're right, you didn't say I couldn't do the math. I didn't mean to suggest you had. Poor choice of words on my part; no offense intended. I meant no more than exactly what I said, merely to emphasize my credibility for what I wrote above that: I *can* do gravitational calculations, i.e. I know what I'm talking about. That's all.

 

[I think not]

Well thanks for the input, at least I made a good point on the issue of heat, I think. That one is more common sense than anything else. as for the Physics of the collapse, I suspected it wouldn't be that easy, but hey, I tried.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: 11 facts on Building

It's called observation, we see symetrical collapse from asymetrical damage. Or are our eyes mistaken?

Your eyes are not mistaken, your conclusions are. Localized damage will shift additional load onto the adjacent members, causing them to fail as well. This works laterally as well as vertically. Not to mention the effect of the building core providing lateral stability. The core is designed to take the massive wind & e/q loading... it could certainly take care of any eccentricity cause by 'asymetric' damage.

The Oklahoma building shows the result of asymetric force applied to a structure, the asymetric force applied laterally would be dampened by each succeeding piece of the structure, asymetry cannot become symetry, the eccentricity and asymetric nature of the impact is not residual it is the prime characteristic, the results would have been similar to Oklahoma city and all the other structures bombed in similar manners.
The laws of physics, thermo dynamics and logics and time are streatched beyond reason in the official version of events.
The observed initial damaged was asymetric, it was then corrected somehow and became symetric.No matter how you do the math you can't make apples from oranges.
Asymetric she starts asymetric she ends.
Then we have the sympathetic collapse of WTC7 which is nothing short of magic, blackmagic or witchcraft both offer a more satisfying explanation than the official version.
And don't tell me about the conspiracy theorys because I'v been thinking like this since before the dust settled.

 

[aeon]

Here are some interesting basic physics presented into why WTC 7 could have collapsed:l[/b]

Firstly you took this from a forum, again, and secondly the source they use, was from the white house web site.

:roll:

Yeah it's from a forum and? What people in forums can't present facts gathered from other sources and present them in a reasonable way? :roll:

THe source of your forum, is your own governement, get a grip, they are not credible.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Here are some interesting basic physics presented into why WTC 7 could have collapsed:l[/b]

Firstly you took this from a forum, again, and secondly the source they use, was from the white house web site.

:roll:

Yeah it's from a forum and? What people in forums can't present facts gathered from other sources and present them in a reasonable way? :roll:

THe source of your forum, is your own governement, get a grip, they are not credible.

Ah you don't like the source because it debunks your conspiracy theory sources. :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

Here are some interesting basic physics presented into why WTC 7 could have collapsed:l[/b]

Firstly you took this from a forum, again, and secondly the source they use, was from the white house web site.

:roll:

Yeah it's from a forum and? What people in forums can't present facts gathered from other sources and present them in a reasonable way? :roll:

Correct Johnny. Only information gathered from Conspiracy websites and forums can be regarded as evidence to have any credibility in this thread.

Any evidence posted in contrary to view that Bush orchrestated 9/11 and brought down ALL of these building via implosions in his quest to take over the world is null and void.

Facts have no bearing in this thread ONLY conspiracy is accepted.

Thanks for coming.