FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - The Tower Collapses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 740

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:22 pm    Post subject: I smell fish ... Reply with quote

Sorry for taking so long before getting back involved with this thread. I was vacationing for a few days and one of the posts above sent me into fits of hysterical laughter … you just can’t make this shit up … anyway.

Back to my original post … a long time ago it seems. I’ve been ‘kicking around’ (sinful, but fuck it) the possibility that the towers' core, is a simple ‘closed’ system, and can be viewed as a very large tuning fork. It is a well known fact that everything in nature is influenced by harmonics … constructively or destructively. I posted previously a link to the 'Tacoma Narrows Bridge' ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0Fi1VcbpAI

This bridge completely failed back in 1940 and was due to a natural/chaotic phenomenon. I would like to propose that much was learned from that unfortunate engineering failure and it has been incorporated into many ‘weapons based’ programs.

The argument of ‘lasers’ or ‘particle beam’ weapons is irrelevant for their raw destructive capability. All that matters is that whatever the energy source was, it caused a harmonic vibration that was extremely destructive to steel. At this point it is important to point out that I have no allegiance to ‘Bearden/Tesla/Scalar’ technologies. I have read extensively on these subjects and even with a basic understanding of thermodynamics or simple conservation of energy … you could immediately discount any hijacking of a major energy source in a closed system … just can’t seem to shove this thing or theory into the proven models of reality.

A while back I posted this:

Quote:
I think that Jerry posted a comment about your inference to scalar weapons and that they are being used by the MIC. In a related topic this guy, Martin Kaiser III, who wrote a book titled “Odyssey of an Eavesdropper: My Life in Electronic Countermeasures and My Battle against the FBI “, was on C-SPAN2 last Sunday, he had some interesting comments on the 911 building collapses.

http://www.booktv.org/PublicLives/index.asp?segID=6660&schedID=398

During the Q&A session, a fellow conspiracy theorist asked for his opinion on 911. He told a subtle little story about helping to design a 150 mile long antenna in the Virginia area, designed to communicate with submarines located deep under the ocean. Since the transmissions needed to penetrate very deeply through all sorts on geographic features, very low frequency signals were needed. At first they tried using 6 cycles per second and found that this caused insanity and suicidal behavior in humans after very short exposure … not cool (brown note?). They settled on 10 cycles per second as an acceptable frequency. On the plus side, they achieved excellent deep earth penetration, on the negative; the frequency caused powerful seismic and sub-seismic waves that made things like buildings, fall down for seemingly no reason! This is very interesting stuff and worth investigating further.


What if … the energy source that caused the destructive harmonic was located in space? Is it possible that some orbiting satellite left over from a publicly funded, but now black opp project is the culprit? Are there one or many “capacitive” satellites orbiting around the earth being charged by the sun or some mechanical rotation system, just waiting to fire a powerful electromagnetic pulse capable of creating a devastating harmonic? Think about what would happen if a deadly sine wave was created to vibrate the steal columns. I’m not an expert in the use of harmonics but would that wave ‘powder’ concrete, throw the steel beams in all directions as they failed at each weld point? Is it possible that the ‘failure’ happened so quickly because the ‘failure’ happened all at once and gravity finished the job?

Take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about ‘Infrasound’:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound

The idea of a ‘controlled demolition’ as the only option in a preliminary investigation stinks of disinfo and red/dead herrings … don't even get me started on what the seismic data shows considering the towers' core structure was connected to the bed rock ....

I’m out …

- Hawk

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:14 am    Post subject: Still on CDI Reply with quote

Quote:
Yeah, the words "controlled demolition" are not sinful.
Researchers use the term all the time.

What's interesting is a firm called Controlled Demolition getting the cleanup contract. Even as an explosives expert begins howling "controlled demolition".
Subtle or what?


Sorry, but I still haven’t got why it’s “interesting” that the firm called “Controlled Demolition Inc.” got the contract to do the clean up at the WTC site.

“Subtle or what?” is a mocking expression. I don’t understand what’s being mocked. There was a controlled demolition. People with a brain recognized that. Some of them commented on it. -- What’s subtle got to do with it?

This is a more than typical example of the kind of “reasoning” you employ in your blog articles. Things with a simple explanation -- or any of an infinite number of alternate explanations -- are held up as obvious examples of CIA mind games, designed to trick you into a line of thinking. Conclusions come first, then a recitation of facts that supposedly supports them. But doesn’t. -- These people are complicit, cuz they are. There. See. Proved it. -- And the conversation just moves endlessly along, so that none of it is ever questioned in any detail at all.

Here I want to know about one thing in particular. Since it’s all so obvious to you, it shouldn’t be a big task for you to expound a little bit. What weight can you put behind this idea that they deliberately used a company because of its name, as part of a larger strategic “information management” operation of 9/11? An operation that was supposedly planned out in detail for years before the event. -- Another assertion you’ve made, for which I see no evidence.

If it’s no weight at all, then why do you write in this style?
Back to top
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:30 am    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

Fintan said, and Neo quoted:
Quote:
“Subtle or what?”

A bit of dark humour. Not just by Fintan, obviously, but also by the CIA/MIC. It's not so much "interesting", I suppose, as, well - blatant. You say yourself that it's obvious that there were 3 controlled demolitions - having a firm called "Controlled Demolitions" doing the cleanup work is a bit, like we say over here - "taking the piss"

Or you could just look at it like another of those mocking clues they seem to leave for the more observant spectators.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
This descending mass could have met either:

1) An upward-directed, core-centered explosion which destroyed the
core ahead of the down-falling mass.

OR

2) A basement level destruction (by whatever means) of the lowest
portions of the core, which got the core dropping as it was pile-driven
by the falling mass transfer --so that the core crushed itself.

Now it's interesting that we see a lot of bits and pieces of the exterior
being flung off or dropping down as the top of the towers collapse.

But we see a lot of very long sections of the exterior lying around the
debris field after collapse. Was the collapse of the bottom section
different from the collapse of the top?


Good points.

Why not both? Option 1 takes care of the 'visible' portion of the collapse, then option 2 takes out the core 'stub', hidden behind the dust and the other buildings.

The north tower collapse definitely looks like the core drops immediately following the explosions and the middle of the building gets 'sucked' down.

Thats what always looked weird to me - the way that the collapses began exploding violently outward 'chewing' their way down the building, then the dynamics seem to change as the lower portion appears to be 'sucked' inward and down.

It also appears that the real 'pyroclastic' flow is 'released' at the end of the collapse as expansion rapidly begins to react to the sudden violent increase in temperature, and the 'sucking' in and down comes to an end.

I find it interesting that portions of the actual aluminum facade of the lobby remained intact. That suggests to me that a relatively intact core stump did indeed remain, and that it 'toppled' in one direction, leaving the facade of the opposite side standing.

This suggests a dual procedure in the collapse - the top down action of the upper floors, and another process to deal with the core 'stump'.

Hawk wrote:
I’m not an expert in the use of harmonics but would that wave ‘powder’ concrete, throw the steel beams in all directions as they failed at each weld point? Is it possible that the ‘failure’ happened so quickly because the ‘failure’ happened all at once and gravity finished the job?


The collapses, south in particular, certainly look like there is a large amount of explosive force exploding outward, and even upward.

In relation to the bridge video, and as far as I think I understand your hypothesis, those kinds of resonance frequencies are going to be very long, and are going to show amplitude modulations of tens to hundreds of feet between oscillations - like the extreme waving and bending of the bridge.

That implies to me that the towers would have gone all 'gooey' or wave-y looking, and the debris patters would show a wider range and been flying all over the place like the bridge.

Also, from what I understand, creating that sort of resonance vibration requires both ends of the 'string' to be fixed to a surface solid enough to 'reflect' a phase reversed version of the vibrational energy introduced into the system.

Boy, that sounds 'science-y', don't it? Well, it ain't, and I hope you can see what I'm getting at.

I agree that's it's good to look at all possibilities initially... even if the words 'space laser' immediately make me slap my forehead...Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And from 911Myths here's a series of PDFs by Dr Frank Greening:
Quote:

WTC Report - Dr Greening sent us an interesting study on the WTC collapse, covering such issues as how and why it began, the collapse time, momentum transfer theory, the energy involved in the impacts and the collapse itself (including that required to crush concrete), and more. (PDF file, updated February 16th 2006).


Ok, here are my thoughts on these. I found the mathematical formulas extremely attractive and very impressive, however, I have no idea what they mean or whether or not they're accurate. I think I get the gist from the text, though.

Quote:

Energy Transfer Addendum - This companion to the WTC Report addresses other issues, including Jim Hoffmans claim that there was insufficient evidence from a gravity-driven collapse to pulverise concrete and create and expand the observed dust clouds. (PDF file).


Dr. Greening states that the 'pyroclastic flow' was a simple dust cloud powered by the "piston like action of each collapsing floor". Sorry, Doc, can't buy that one.

He concludes his analysis by mentioning that he's still pretty flummoxed by WTC 7. I don't blame him - it's gonna be tough to explain that without any 'splosions.

Quote:

NIST Report - Dr Greening has some questions of the NIST WTC report, though. Does it really provide a plausible mechanism to show how the process of global collapse was initiated? He points out some possible contradictions and other issues (PDF file).


And comes to the conclusion that the computer model for the 'pancake theory' is inaccurate and useless - but that it happened anyway. Hmmm.

Quote:

WTC Thermite - Another Greening article suggests that perhaps a thermite reaction really did play a part in the collapse of the WTC... Though not for the reasons commonly assumed. (PDF file, updated 8th April 2006 with new observations on the molten metal pouring from 80th floor of WTC2).


Oh for poops sake! C'mon.

Then the cunning molten aluminum formed itself into the shape of a person, donned a policeman's uniform, and snuck away in search of the boy John Connor...

Quote:

Sulfur - Thermite (or thermate) is also commonly suggested as an explanation for the sulfur traces found on WTC steel, but it’s not the only one. In this paper Greening discusses other possible sources of sulfur in the WTC, and mechanisms for the observed sulfidation of the structural steel


Here Dr. Frank seems to be reaching pretty hard to find possibilities for all the sulphur residue in order to avoid the most common cause - explosives. Seems flimsy and confusing. There's also the possibility of a gaseous source - the terrified flatulence of deli-fed NYFD.
Anyway, it seems like an attempt to ignore the obvious in favor of remote possibility.

Are his analysis intended to be scoffed in order to engender popular support for 'controlled demolition?' Dunno. Maybe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:22 pm    Post subject: Church of Skepticology Reply with quote

Quote:
A bit of dark humour … by the CIA/MIC. It's not so much "interesting", I suppose, as, well - blatant. … having a firm called "Controlled Demolitions" doing the cleanup work is a bit, like we say over here - "taking the piss."


Let me just explain this point I'm making, and then I'll drop it for now. This is quite tedious, but I can't apologize for that. It's tedious in inverse proportion to the amount of fun you're having concocting this spy story.

What is happening here, with your deep cover-up theory, is that a hypothesis is being stated, and then turned into a conclusion by interpreting a number of things in a manner which would conform to that hypothesis. These interpretations then become your supporting evidence -- your only evidence. You apparently think yourselves clever -- too clever, too hip, to be tricked -- but this is not cleverness. It's muddled thinking. And if I we’re in the business of confusing people for a living, I certainly wouldn’t need to spend time focusing on you, since you’re already your own worst enemies.

"Controlled Demolition knows how to bring the house down. It is a global leader in controlled demolition, explosive demolition, and implosion of buildings and other structures. Controlled Demolition has brought down some 7,000 structures worldwide. ... In addition, Controlled Demolition provides mass concrete, rock, and debris removal and assists architects and engineers with blast-resistant design services. Founded in 1949 by Jack Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition is owned by the Loizeaux family and part of the Loizeaux Group of companies."

From this profile.

Here is CDI's own website.

In this case, then, the planning for the 9/11 cover up apparently goes back as far as 1949. -- Or would you like to spin it somewhat differently?

I'm trying here to deal with one particular piece of your tendentiousness. We could deal with each piece of your "evidence" for this general theory in the same manner, and I'd be happy to do that. But if you can't be brought to see how any one piece of your puzzle is being cut to measure, then it’s pointless to try to show how your many one things do not add up to a "bigger picture." How these things that are "blatant" and "obvious" to you are, to us logical folk, plodding along in the wake of your brilliance, basically incomprehsible bits of your -- what would you call it? I don't know. Your religion.

Maybe someone is thumbing their nose at you, in some cases. It's quite possible. -- But what does that prove? What does it demonstrate? So far you've offered nothing by way of a cohesive explanation for anything. You're merely saying that there must be something even more sinister going on behind 9/11 that nobody's yet guessed at.

Well, where’s the beef? I’m anxious to see it.
Back to top
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8434

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:55 pm    Post subject: The Dust Hits The Fan Reply with quote



THE DUST HITS THE FAN

by Fintan Dunne, 10 August, 2006

Many 9/11 researchers will well recall when Jim Hoffman produced his mid-2003
paper analysing the dust cloud for the North Tower. He computed the
energy required to produce the cloud and concluded that gravity alone
could not have generated the vast clouds.

It quickly became a cornerstone of explosives theories about the collapse.

Too quickly, it seems. Now Hoffman is already up to version 4 of his
revised analysis. Version 2 used far smaller estimates of concrete and
total building mass --because the first estimates were horrendously wrong.
Later versions also adjusted the arguments for the mixing and expansion
of the dust cloud.

But Dr Frank Greening has published papers on the WTC collapse. One of
them countering Hoffman's latest analysis.

By the way, Greening's main WTC paper is not a wholly mainstream apologia.
He discounts the fire theory:

Quote:
I do not believe that we need to invoke anything as extreme as the melting of structural steel in the WTC to explain why
the towers collapsed. The smoky appearance of the fires suggests that the flames inside each tower were fuel-rich and therefore
probably below 900 C. In addition, the structural steel was
heated indirectly and entire columns probably never attained temperatures much above 750?C. Nevertheless, ~ 20 % loss
of strength is to be expected for steel heated to 550?C, a temperature that may have been reached by someWTC core columns.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Greening asserts that the magnitude of the asymmetric loading on WTC2
was alone "sufficient to initiate a total collapse of the buildings" -without
fires. But by my initial reading he's not taking account of the support
provided by the reinforced concrete in the core. For that, and other
reasons, I don't buy it.

But it's Greening's supplemental paper of the WTC dust clouds
that thoroughly deconstructs Hoffman's analysis.

Here's Hoffman's key error, according to Greening.

Quote:
Mr. Hoffman concludes without proof, that all the gas and dust in each
dust cloud originated from inside the appropriate WTC Tower. While it is
self evident that all the solid material making up a dust cloud was
expelled from one Twin Tower, it is totally unreasonable to assume that
all the gas in a dust cloud came from within a Tower
. But this is what Mr.
Hoffman tacitly does when he calculates his “expansion ratio” of 3.41.

For this expansion ratio, Mr. Hoffman concludes... that the temperature of
the dust cloud was over 700 degrees C! Mr. Hoffman now proceeds to
calculate the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of the gas
(air) and the dust by 700 degrees.


Greening jokes that anyone "would surely have roasted to death after a
few seconds in a 700 degree C dust cloud!"

But joking aside, Hoffman is way off if he assumes the dust clouds
expanded out of the air inside the towers. Clearly the air inside the
towers
would be mixing with outside air as the collapse took
place. And that means that energies Hoffman calculated are way off.

By comparison imagine the force you would need to expend to blow up
a balloon with one long single lungful of air. As opposed, say, to
blowing it up in stages with repeated partial lungfulls. That's the same as
Hoffman saying the whole cloud had been expanded out of tower air only.

So if Hoffman's heat energy calculations are wrong, then:

Quote:
Mr. Hoffman simply invokes an enormous heat input –one that he shows
could not be delivered by gravitational collapse; therefore it must be
recognized that the need for explosives is pretty much built into Mr.
Hoffman’s calculation by his unwarranted and unphysical assumptions.


Moving on, Greening attempts to work out how much concrete was turned
to dust. He figures, no more than 10% of each floor's concrete:

Quote:
We will assume that 10 % of the concrete, or 4,800,000 kg, was ejected
as dust. ...The kinetic energy imparted to the dust is.... per floor... much
less than the energy needed to collapse the support structure of one floor.

I assume that only 10 % of the concrete was dispersed as a fine dust.
This may appear to be not enough material to account for the vast clouds
of swirling dust that were observed for each WTC tower collapse;
however, I would argue otherwise. First, concrete was not the only
component of the dust. Crushed gypsum wallboard, glass fiber and
asbestos insulation were also found in significant quantities in the dust
fallout. But let’s consider what 10 % of the concrete in one WTC tower
represents. It is almost 5 million kilograms of material.....

Spread over an area of radius 1 km... we have a layer of concrete dust
1 mm thick over an area of more than 3 sq. km . This, I believe, is close
to what was observed after the events of 911.

I would add that 10 % of the concrete from each floor represents less
than ˝-inch thickness of the 4-inch layer poured to form each WTC floor
.


While Greening's comments on the dust cloud are well founded, some of
his conclusions are very debatable. He allows only a delay of 1 millisecond
per floor to crush each floor during the collapse. Which would have only
increased the collapse time of a tower by about 0.1 seconds.

That ignores recound effects and inertia. And, critically, it discounts the
time to crush entirely the reinforced core of the tower. And we know it
had to have been crushed somehow, because the core is not left sticking
out of the ruins.

Greening admits that the yield strength of the core columnsis were about
6.7 times higher than the yield strength of the exterior columns, yet he
seems oblivious of the fact that these incredibly strong columns are
wrapped around a reinforced concrete core.

All of this opens some very interesting lines of inquiry (more soon), but
meanwhile this could be the end of proving explosives were used based
on the dust cloud. Of course there are other arguments for explosives,
such as the amount and speed of heavy ejected material. But the dust
cloud argument may be weak.

And that's how it should be, if a theory is weak. Perhaps forum members
might know of other critiques of mainstream and alternative collpase theories?

I'd rather a half dozen strong arguments than a score of weak ones
which fall on examination.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
All of this opens some very interesting lines of inquiry (more soon), but
meanwhile this could be the end of proving explosives were used based
on the dust cloud. Of course there are other arguments for explosives,
such as the amount and speed of heavy ejected material. But the dust
cloud argument may be weak.


Point well made.

I think I agree.

The 'pyroclastic' flow argument isn't all that strong in terms of proving anything, as it isn't actually a feature of of controlled demolitions, but rather volcanos - so it kind of confuses rather than clarifies.

And Stallion will go bananas if I post my volcano theory...(kidding). Wink

I also read (now I can't remember where exactly) that the floors were 'lightweight' concrete which may have qualities that help account for the dust.

I can see how the dust cloud issue is a bit like a door on a hinge that can constantly be pushed either way. No way to nail it down - plus it involves lots of math, which I never trust. Wink Toss it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8434

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hawkwind: Think about what would happen if a deadly sine wave was created to vibrate the steal columns. I’m not an expert in the use of harmonics but would that wave ‘powder’ concrete, throw the steel beams in all directions as they failed at each weld point? Is it possible that the ‘failure’ happened so quickly because the ‘failure’ happened all at once and gravity finished the job?

Jerry F:In relation to the bridge video, and as far as I think I understand your hypothesis, those kinds of resonance frequencies are going to be very long, and are going to show amplitude modulations of tens to hundreds of feet between oscillations - like the extreme waving and bending of the bridge.

That implies to me that the towers would have gone all 'gooey' or wave-y looking, and the debris patters would show a wider range and been flying all over the place like the bridge.

Also, from what I understand, creating that sort of resonance vibration requires both ends of the 'string' to be fixed to a surface solid enough to 'reflect' a phase reversed version of the vibrational energy introduced into the system.


The 'Tacoma Narrows Bridge' collapse is just illustrative. The sine wave
technique could easily be used on a structure which has one end fixed
to bedrock and the other end free to move.

And if you crank up the frequency you could get movement which is not
huge but microscopic. Also, I'm not up to speed on this, but I think you
can have two waves in synchrony and then start to offset one of them.

It could feasibly detach steel from concrete, but I see more problems
with getting the freq. right for localized effects, 'cos the beams are
of differing dimensions. Haven't got a handle on the gross effects yet.

The frequency of a building is definitely part of the design process.
They move.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 740

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:07 pm    Post subject: Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of ... Reply with quote

I found this article "very interesting" ... and yes Jerry, it is a bit 'science-y'. Laughing

Fintan was kind enough to archive this on breakfornews.com and it is worth a careful read.

Quote:
Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

Author: Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984.

Summary:

This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns of WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum transfer after the collision. An energy balance is derived showing that there is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic shortening phase that would not allow the collapse to continue under the constraints of this paper.

[....]

Conclusion:

An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation. This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.

This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.

The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within about 0.02 seconds of impact. Without the many assumptions made which favour collapse continuation, the energy deficit would be far higher than the calculated value of -390 MJ.

A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.


It should be understood that the energy losses referred to as momentum losses cannot be re-employed as strain energy or in the energy required to pulverise the floors, thereby reducing the total energy demand. These energy transfers would exist irrespective of the state of repair of the floors after collision and would exhibit as heat in the impacted materials.

The kinetic energy being considered is that of the impacting mass of the falling section. There is kinetic energy in the now moving lower storeys but this has been lost by the impacting mass. The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy is released by collapse of further columns the falling mass will come to a halt. As the propagation wave continues to load columns further down the tower the energy will spread through lower storeys as elastic strain energy which is recoverable, unlike plastic strain energy. As the upper section decelerates, the force which it is capable of exerting will reduce, and the elastic deflection will reduce in response. As this drops the elastic strain energy previously absorbed by the lower storeys will convert back to potential energy. In other words it will unload, or bounce. The towers were best characterised as being a series of springs and dampers, being struck with a large but relatively slow moving and less substantial series of springs and dampers.

Damage in this analysis aside from the storey removed in order to initiate collapse is limited to the damage to the two storeys which impacted each other, and even this was not sufficient to move the impacted columns through the plastic shortening phase and into the rapid plastic phase which is characterised and accompanied by the onset of buckle points. It should be noted that this concentrates the energy of the impact. In reality several of those storeys nearest to point of impact and especially those with columns of lighter cross section in the upper falling section would each suffer a portion of that damage. This would further serve to dissipate the energy at points remote from the collapse front.

http://breakfornews.com/offsitearchive/PTransferRoss5.pdf

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie


Last edited by hawkwind on Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:15 pm    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

Neo said:

Quote:
Let me just explain this point I'm making, and then I'll drop it for now. This is quite tedious, but I can't apologize for that.

No need to apologize, really.
Quote:
It's tedious in inverse proportion to the amount of fun you're having concocting this spy story.

That is to say not very tedious at all,then,coz I for one find it quite entertaining.Wink
Quote:
What is happening here, with your deep cover-up theory, is that a hypothesis is being stated, and then turned into a conclusion by interpreting a number of things in a manner which would conform to that hypothesis. These interpretations then become your supporting evidence -- your only evidence. You apparently think yourselves clever -- too clever, too hip, to be tricked -- but this is not cleverness. It's muddled thinking. And if I we’re in the business of confusing people for a living, I certainly wouldn’t need to spend time focusing on you, since you’re already your own worst enemies.

"Controlled Demolition knows how to bring the house down. It is a global leader in controlled demolition, explosive demolition, and implosion of buildings and other structures. Controlled Demolition has brought down some 7,000 structures worldwide. ... In addition, Controlled Demolition provides mass concrete, rock, and debris removal and assists architects and engineers with blast-resistant design services. Founded in 1949 by Jack Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition is owned by the Loizeaux family and part of the Loizeaux Group of companies."

Yes, I understand all that. I know where you're coming from, I really do. Forget about it. The name 'CDI' was mentioned in passing,possibly as a kind of dark humour,either on their part,or our part or possibly both. Fuggedaboudit already.

Wouldn't it be a funny old meme if the 'Controlled Demolition' theory turned out to be a honeypot somehow, especially in conjunction with a 'Thermate Only' pyroclastic 'Dust Cloud' theory that turns out to be complete bullshit?

Not funny haha, you understand, more a *groan* kinda thang.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:35 pm    Post subject: Giving Neo Nazi a new meaning Reply with quote

That's cool, Continuity. It's quite possible I don't understand the language you guys are speaking yet.

Man, I just watched this Alex Jones "Martial Law" film. I've never actually sat down and watched an Alex Jones film. What a con. What a slick con. It's all in the third part. The NWO according to Alex Jones. It goes: Bush and Kerry are both Skull & Bones ... Bohemnian Grove is an offshoot of S&B ... which is the Illuminati ... which was run by Madam Blavatsky ... and which was also the Thule Society as well ... of which Hitler was a member ... and Bush's daddy was in there, with IBM ... here's the computer that killed 6 million people ... and Arnold Swarzenegger's dad was in the S.S. -- See the hats! -- and now they're going to do what Hitler almost did.

Fucking Alex Jones, man. He's so likeable too, that's the thing. You kind of want to give him a pass anyway.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 8 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.