9/11

Splurrrt

 

Gah! In my eye!

 

Na, you don’t get off that easy vanilla, why don’t you explain then how the WTC just swallowed up a plane and Newton’s 3rd law of motion just didn’t work out this time

 

well for starters the airplane was big and heavy and it went into windows which aren't going to stop a big and heavy airplane.

 

Run along irminsul, the grown ups are talking

 

You are starting off with an incorrect premise in the first place. That there was a single force directed in one direction, and an opposing single force in the opposite direction.

Thats the simplified version you get taught in high school, but its not Newtons third law. Newtown said the total magnitude of all opposing forces ads up to zero, not the direction.

You hit two snooker balls together in what looks to you like opposite directions. And there is always a small amount of force directed at the surrounding air, the tension of the balls themselves, they will compress and expand a couple hundred times, as will that section of the snooker table. Just that most of that happens too fast for you to see.

There is no such thing as the conservation of the direction of a force.

In the case of a plane hitting a building, you have the lift of the aircraft, air pressure which compresses just before the point of contact, gravity, temperature which is different for both the plane and the building, temperature is different at the front of the plane compared to the back for that matter. The tension in the different substances in both plane and building. The vertical movement of the wing tips. And the plane was in a slight turn at the time, so part of the vector is on the z axis. The MAGNITUDE of all these forces adds up to zero, but not the direction

Another incorrect assumption is that both the plane and the building are the one thing. The very first point of contact would have been the nose of the plane hitting probably a window. After that point the differences in the different materials of tbe plane means they were then traveling at different speeds and different directions. Ever so fast the front of the plane would buckled and vibrated sending some parts sideways.

I"m afraid, the way you have always thought about Newtons third law has been wrong. Newtowns 2nd law too. Because in the 2nd example you gave, the building hitting a stationary plane, inertia is a big factor. F=ma, m is mass, and mass is not weight. A truck hits a stationary car a lot more damage is done to the car than if it had been a car hitting a stationary truck.

Its never the case that a plane hitting a building would have the same result as a building hitting a plane

 

So people still think Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11?

 

People still think Obama killed bin Laden.

 

Yeah!! That is even funnier yet. And yet to respect the evil terrorist, they promptly gave him a proper burial at sea. You cannot make this shit up... unless you're the CIA.

 

Building 7 is pretty much the go to point on 9/11 conspiracies now. Nobody even tries to disagree that that made no sense.

 

A history of meth use is the go to point for 9/11 truthers

 

All you have is ad hominem attacks since you cannot address the issue he brought up.

 

I've never touched meth. But everybody knows that fires don't cause a building to collapse at free fall speed.

Steel lattices, thick steel and concrete. Even wooden houses hold up better. What happened on 9/11 is not typical of fires at all. Buildings burn for hours and hours and are left burnt out or shells of themselves. Skyscrapers have burned for hours and hours and were left standing. And this is thick steel we're talking about, riveted together. It's not sloppy work, it's a freaking lattice of steel beams. That's not how things happen. Buildings don't just spontaneously collapse into rubble.

 

And it fell perfectly into a neat little pile at freefall speed. This was a heavily fortified 47-floor building. The fires were minimal relative to the size of the building.

 

On the day it happened, I remember the news reporting on Tower 7 collapsing later on after it was evacuated. The very next day and onward, it was never talked about by the media ever again. Tower 7 was taller than any high rise building in my state, and taller than every building in at least 25 others.

 

Even wooden houses hold up better when a boeing full of jet fuel hits them at 590 mph?

Where do you all get the idea that somehow steel columns are indestructible?

 

REQUIREMENTS ON CONCRETE FOR FUTURE RECYCLING

C Müller
Aachen University of Technology
Germany

Whereas in the first case, the aggregate recovered (> 2 mm) could normally be reused up to 100 % without a negative influence on the concrete properties, the content of crushed concrete with attached cement paste has to he limited in the new concrete. At the moment digestion rates of around 60 % can be attained with electro-mechanical crushing methods (sonic impulse). This method is nevertheless not competitive compared to common mechanical crushing methods (impact crusher: roughly 1.5 kWh/t concrete)

Requirements on concrete for future recycling
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Assuming this is correct (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), how many kilowatt hours of energy is required to crush/pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete? just multiply 1.5 x 90,000. It comes out to 135,000 kilowatt hours.

2.2.1.5 Progression of collapse

"Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules (400,000,000 joules) of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure."

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-9168/403_ch2.pdf

400,000,000,000 joules translates to 111,000 kilowatt hours of energy. Therefore, the total energy stored in the construction of the North Tower is 111,000 kilowatt hours. That means that there was not enough energy in the structure to pulverize the concrete. And this is to say nothing of the energy required to bust up the core structure as well. Nevertheless, there are still people who think that it is completely reasonable to believe that the upper block of the North Tower should have descended through the course of most resistance for the first 360 feet at a rate just 40 feet shy of freefall.

Keep in mind that the observed lateral ejection of concrete and steel from the get-go not only required kinetic energy from the upper block to do so, but reduced the mass and kinetic energy of the upper block at the same time as well. Also, the pulverization of that concrete and steel took yet more kinetic energy from the descending upper block. So where did the energy to do all this, with enough left over to clear a path for the upper block to drop through the intact lower core structure at virtual freefall speed, come from?

Just imagine the gullible believers of the official narrative trying to wrap their minds around the facts that point to their naïveté.

 

from crazy people and idiots

and the conspiracy section of hipforums


just imagine their brain trying to understand things if they were to investigate water jet cutters

 

If you built a skyscraper made of wood held together with nails it wouldn't have collapsed like the three buildings did on September 11, 2001. It would have teetered, perhaps, and huge swaths of the lattice structure would have remained. WTC was composed of steel and barely anything remained of its structure, if anything at all. It's ludicrous.

Steel beams aren't "indestructible." I never said they were. Forget "indestructible." Albeit the fact they were very much...destroyed...which is even more preposterous. But a steel lattice structure doesn't just suddenly cave in on itself due to fires, I'm sorry. Look at EVERY SINGLE OTHER skyscraper fire and you'll have an example of what happens when one burns. The common sense thing occurs.

And even if the support columns had all given away and collapsed, the twin towers had massive steel cores that would have been left standing regardless of the momentum of the collapse. The cause does not equal the effect whatsoever.

 

I think the main thing is that when you have a spiderweb of steal beams or any support structure all connected, and WTC were obviously connected quite well, reinforced...they were built to withstand jet planes flying into them...these things fall apart slowly, bit by bit over time. That's as common sense would have it.

You've even got PNAC saying they need a catalyst, a "new Pearl Harbor" and then this happens, which was such a spectacle. Well, the people who wrote that for PNAC should be at least ashamed of themselves, because they got exactly what they wanted, couldn't have asked for a better drama (even a memorable name "9/11".) They should be a bit ashamed for having wanted it, I think, instead of parading around like they're patriots who were devastated by it.