WTC 7

Dodger12

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
4,202
Is this a serious thread? It's hard to tell if some people are on crack or if they were crack babies whose brains never fully developed.
 
Dodger12

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
4,202
I like this one....the "No Planes Theory": Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center."
 
Dodger12

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
4,202
Is it that hard to believe that a jetliner, traveling at full speed and loaded with fuel, almost cut the building in two and came out the other end causing extensive damage which resulted in the building collapsing? What the hell is there to refute?

911-south-tower-collapse.jpg
 
bbgun

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,127
Reaction score
2,275
Dodger12 said:
Is it that hard to believe that a jetliner, traveling at full speed and loaded with fuel, almost cut the building in two and came out the other end causing extensive damage which resulted in the building collapsing? What the hell is there to refute?

View attachment 879
Keep reading...

What are you? Some sort of paid disinformation agent? Listen to Alex Jones and broaden your mind!
22892_icon_stevieh_rolleyes.gif
 
J

Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
Fires don't cause buildings to implode at free fall speeds.

WTF is wrong with you people.
 
bbgun

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,127
Reaction score
2,275
Jon88 said:
Fires don't cause buildings to implode at free fall speeds.

WTF is wrong with you people.
Keep reading...

what are your credentials in the subjects of physics and structural engineering?
 
J

Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
bbgun said:
what are your credentials in the subjects of physics and structural engineering?
Keep reading...

Enough to know that the only thing that causes a massive building to freefall is a controlled demolition. Otherwise buildings would just be set on fire without explosives.

How many other buildings around WTC 1,2, and 7 fell like that?

Oh yeah, none.
 
S

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.
Keep reading...

Jon's argument is also compelling.
 
J

Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
It still doesn't explain WTC 7.

We're still waiting on your explanation after you run out of witty one liners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom