Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

[kylebisme]

The only reason you don't see further proof of what actually happened, is that the people capable of providing such proofs have realized long ago that it's pointless to argue with idiots.

Rather, all you can do is argue, and pretend to have proven what you'll never have even a vauge seblence of expermental confirmation to support, because you're among the idiots in this. Thats why I told you to have at it when you offered to produce expermental confirmation of fire-induced free fall:

Thanks for the lab idea though... I'll see if my class wants to build a building out of plywood and cans, then melt one of the lower cans with a blow torch. We'll use video analysis, spark timers, etc., to measure the rate of acceleration of different parts of the building.

While your memory of your education is obviously long gone, do you at least remember that? Do you remember the fact that I started that thread as a challenge from you, with the deal being that I'd never bring 9/11 up again if anyone could prove me wrong? The deal still stands, but producing experimental confirmation to vindicate your beliefs is impossible, which is why you have to resort to attacking me instead.

 

[Paul98]

The "s^2" is the accumulation, each second of free fall giving the mass that much more force.

f=ma is what you were talking about right? we are talking about acceleration due to gravity correct? if so then a = 9.8 m/s^2. So if you have a mass of 10kg. your force would be 10kg * 9.8 m/s^2 = 98N

the s^2 is just the units since we are talking about acceleration.

 

[kylebisme]

You didn't begin to address the first thing about Euler's laws in that response...

For the record:

Rather, the Euler's first law clarifies Newton's second law by noting the fact that motion is most accurately measured from the center of mass, and Euler's second law has to do with angular momentum. Neither have any bearing on Newton's third law, and as the Wiki article TLC quoted explains:

If a body is represented as an assemblage of discrete particles, each governed by Newton’s laws of motion, then Euler’s laws can be derived from Newton’s laws.

The underlined bits explain why TLC's argument is nothing more than inane nitpicking.

 

[Paul98]

I don't know if anyone knows, but what was the mass or an approximation of the mass of the top part that was falling?

 

[al981]

Pssst. This thread is not about the Kennedy assassination so I don't give a shit about answering your question and neither does anyone else in this thread. If you're intensely paranoid about government jackboots dropping out of the sky, that's not my problem. In fact, anyone with that sort of paranoia is the real pussy. Stay skeered, kiddo. Just remember, teh gubment iz out ta gitz yah.

😱

translation: you have no valid explanation and will continue to dodge 😀😀. i love this sig. proof of a coverup in the assassination of a us president. do continue dodging, pussy! btw, please tell me you aren't dodging post 639..

 

[al981]

funny, implosionworld brings up seismograph evidence to try and disprove the use of explosives, yet the 1993 wtc bombing did not register on seismographs either. 😀

btw, it's great watching this demolition expert call WTC 7 an obvious demolition, and notice his shocked / surprised reaction when told WTC 7 fell on the same day as the twin towers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc


implosionworld also falls back on the "air pressure" explanation to argue against the squibs / plumes that are clearly visible. well then, if "air pressure" pushing downward is really what caused the visible squibs, then how is the following possible? ... do observe this jpeg: note that squib A appears before squib B. video of the jpeg seen at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7cvjBViV7g#t=0m25s

so, how does air pressure cause lower squib A to appear before higher squib B? if air pressure was truly the explanation, then B should've appeared before A. you liars and deniars will need to invent another miracle explanation. maybe air being pushed downward and caused squib A (tens of stories below the collapse point), then was pushed upwards by (insert miracle reason here) in order to be pushed downwards again to create squib B? 😀😀😀

anyone have the guts to address why squib A appears before squib B? miracle explanation acceptable so you can get quoted in my sig next. 😀 taste&runslikeachicken doesn't seem to want to touch it... so who's next? or does this point destroy the government's "air pressure" explanation, so you'll all have to continue dodging?

 

[anandmark]

Kylebisme:

What do you think about Judy Woods take on what brought down the towers,
and do you know the original airdate of the Simpsons episode with the 9/11 reference ?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

For the record:

The underlined bits explain why TLC's argument is nothing more than inane nitpicking.

Nitpicking? lol.

Here's why it applies, though I doubt you can even begin to comprehend why:

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

Eulerian description
Continuity allows for the inverse of

to trace backwards where the particle currently located at

was located in the initial or referenced configuration

. In this case the description of motion is made in terms of the spatial coordinates, in which case is called the spatial description or Eulerian description, i.e. the current configuration is taken as the reference configuration.

iow, you have to be able to comprehend rate of changes within the structure of an object during deformation and trace it back to the original configuration before you can understand how energy was exchanged. Newton's 3rd law doesn't allow for that as if applies to idealized objects so Newton's laws are merely a simple means of looking at the issue. I guess simplified explanations that don't actually tell the whole story apppeals to you though.

But you've made it perfectly clear that you can't even begin to comprehend such issues so why even bother? You can't even properly apply Newton's 3rd law in the first place so it's no surprise.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

translation: you have no valid explanation and will continue to dodge 😀😀. i love this sig. proof of a coverup in the assassination of a us president. do continue dodging, pussy! btw, please tell me you aren't dodging post 639..

Take notice folks. This is actually the level of debate that truthers engage in as a rule. Really! They actually think it's clever.

al981, you don't even realize what an ass you're making of yourself in P&N. But, please, do continue. We all love a good laugh, especially at your expense.

 

[kylebisme]

your force would be 10kg * 9.8 m/s^2 = 98N

Rather, that is the weight, but in the case of a falling mass the acceleration of gravity has a cumulative effect on how much force the mass will impart.

I don't know if anyone knows, but what was the mass or an approximation of the mass of the top part that was falling?

I've seen a wide range of estimates, but never had reason to assess them since as massive as the top part was, it was only a fraction relative to the rest of the building below.

What do you think about Judy Woods take on what brought down the towers,
and do you know the original airdate of the Simpsons episode with the 9/11 reference ?

Woods's explanation is just as much nonsense as the official story, and The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson was September 21, 1997.

Nitpicking?

No, inane nitpicking. Normal nitpicking at least has some significance to it, while yours is utterly senseless.

 

[LunarRay]

I don't know if anyone knows, but what was the mass or an approximation of the mass of the top part that was falling?

I think Bazant estimated at 58*10 to the 6th kilograms and 87 '...' for the other...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No, inane nitpicking. Normal nitpicking at least has some significance to it, while yours is utterly senseless to me.

Fixed.

Like I said, it's perfectly clear that you can't even begin to comprehend such issues so why even bother.

Thanks for proving that fact.

 

[al981]

Take notice folks. This is actually the level of debate that truthers engage in as a rule. Really! They actually think it's clever.

al981, you don't even realize what an ass you're making of yourself in P&N. But, please, do continue. We all love a good laugh, especially at your expense.

take notice? yeah, take notice that chickens is dodging like a pussy and won't address my sig, and won't adress my jpeg post destroying the air pressure explanation for the squibs.

incoming dodge again from chickens. you've been online all day and still won't respond to that air pressure post. take notice that i'm throwing that in your face. post #621. dodge it, chickens. dodge it. 😀😀😀

edit: another week, continue dodging my sig 🙂

 

[LunarRay]

I can understand a building collapsing as you claim, but only by stuffing the whole thing with highly flammable material which would bring it down in a ragging inferno over the course of many hours. On the other hand, getting a building to come down as the towers did while doing what you describe is something no one will ever see outside of imagination.

In my imagination is where I visualize stuff ... So I'd agree with you on that point.
On the dynamics involved... I've not been able to get past Kevin Ryan's statement that the truss tested by UL in 2004 that was more or less identical to the Tower's truss configuration did not fail under more severe conditions than could be had in the 9/11 event...

It is this sorta thing that I focus on... Molten metal dripping from an upper floor.. Molten metal at the base of the buildings that collapsed.. and according to many... "running in channels"... Stuff consistent with thermite both reacted and unreacted.. flying 4 tons steel bits going 600'...
Who cares about Euler, Newton, Bazant, and all the et. al. if they don't answer those issues in their analysis.
I actually can't see that one piece that went 600' doing it in any video... but it was found there. So with a leap of faith I'm going to accept that a herd of buffalo truthers didn't drag it there.

I still use a slide rule so it is difficult to enter equations especially when I've not a clue how they apply to the Towers... or Building 7. I think it is fair to say that unless the floor truss system collapses nothing does. So that ought to be the starting point for any of the other stuff... How did they get to collapse? UL test don't provide for it from heat.. or so I'm lead to believe... so How?

 

[Paul98]

Rather, that is the weight, but in the case of a falling mass the acceleration of gravity has a cumulative effect on how much force the mass will impart.

This is correct, the acceleration does have a cumulative effect in the form of velocity. So which equation are you going to use to show how much energy this falling part has?


What you had said before was here

Again, please think about traditional controlled demolition and what produces the force to crush the upper portion of the building once the lower supports are blasted out. Put simply; F=ma, where the mass is the ~2/3s of the building above where the supports are blasted out by explosives, and the acceleration is what accumulates as it falls through where the bottom ~1/3 is blasted out. Now think about when you move the part your going to blast out further up the building; you've got less mass to produce the force, and hence need a larger section blasted out to accumulate enough acceleration for the parts above and below the explosves to crush eachother.

F=ma doesn't mean anything for velocity so it doesn't show the effect of velocity. So from my example before, now lets say you have a 10kg object falling for 5 seconds due to gravity(before that it wasn't moving). Then how much "force" will it have when it hits the ground.
so the three things you have are
10kg
5s
9.8m/s^2

How do you solve this to show what you are calling "force"?

 

[Cogman]

This is correct, the acceleration does have a cumulative effect in the form of velocity. So which equation are you going to use to show how much energy this falling part has?


What you had said before was here


F=ma doesn't mean anything for velocity so it doesn't show the effect of velocity. So from my example before, now lets say you have a 10kg object falling for 5 seconds due to gravity(before that it wasn't moving). Then how much "force" will it have when it hits the ground.
so the three things you have are
10kg
5s
9.8m/s^2

How do you solve this to show what you are calling "force"?

sorry but. 5 * 9.8 = 49 m/s. Which is the speed that the object has to fall. Since the object stops/slows down rapidly that means that a very high force is going to be exerted. If we assume it is a linear slowdown that takes 1 second then the decelleration would be 49/1 = 49 m/s^2 . One second is obviously long, but I'm using it to show that as long as the object stops faster then it started, the force exerted by it over the period of stopping will be higher then the force due to gravity.

That being said, this is a PERFECT example of why crushdown works. Once that objects get going in motion, even though the building below was built to withstand the force of the static object, the dynamic object in motion is exerting a much higher force/stress on the parts below (Easily in the range of 1000x). And once that floor fails, you just pick up more mass, larger forces, ect.

Though, momentum is the more relevant equations here.

 

[xj0hnx]

I've not been able to get past Kevin Ryan's statement that the truss tested by UL in 2004 that was more or less identical to the Tower's truss configuration did not fail under more severe conditions than could be had in the 9/11 event...

Since jet fuel fires burn at a maximum of around 1,500 F (unless in a special combustion chamber) and the melting point of steel is around 2,800 F, the claim that jet fuel fires melted structural steel is absurd.

Since no tall steel building has ever collapsed from fire, or a combination of fire and other damage, there are clearly no experts who can explain how it happened three times in one day.

Seems his theories are not based in truth. No one, as far as I have heard, claimed that the fires melted the steel, but rather that they weakened it, and this makes sense. If you apply heat to metal, it becomes soft, would anyone try to deny that?

And the NIST report investigated several tall steel buildings that collapsed from fire between 1970-2002, I think 22 world wide.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

 

[Paul98]

sorry but. 5 * 9.8 = 49 m/s. Which is the speed that the object has to fall. Since the object stops/slows down rapidly that means that a very high force is going to be exerted. If we assume it is a linear slowdown that takes 1 second then the decelleration would be 49/1 = 49 m/s^2 . One second is obviously long, but I'm using it to show that as long as the object stops faster then it started, the force exerted by it over the period of stopping will be higher then the force due to gravity.

That being said, this is a PERFECT example of why crushdown works. Once that objects get going in motion, even though the building below was built to withstand the force of the static object, the dynamic object in motion is exerting a much higher force/stress on the parts below (Easily in the range of 1000x). And once that floor fails, you just pick up more mass, larger forces, ect.

Though, momentum is the more relevant equations here.

This is exactly what I am trying to get to, was hoping he would have answered it though.

 

[Cogman]

This is exactly what I am trying to get to, was hoping he would have answered it though.

Nevermind then... Carry on 🙂

 

[Number1]

my jpeg post destroying the air pressure explanation for the squibs.

Explosive are not the only explanation possible. A weaker or broken window on the lower floor maybe.

 

[Number1]

We've seen your level of physics understanding demonstrated, or at least a lack of demonstration of anything beyond 8th grade. Your claim that I lack even an 8th grade physics ability is ridiculous. I *teach* physics. I majored in engineering in one of the top universities in the world in my original field of study, and upon going back to university for a further degree, was awarded as being the #1 student at that institution my junior year (not as prestigious a university though.)

The only reason you don't see further proof of what actually happened, is that the people capable of providing such proofs have realized long ago that it's pointless to argue with idiots. Every time something the idiots have stated is disproved, you invent some other nonsense and say "oh yeah, well disprove this." Like your "explosions" in this thread. Enough experts have already spoken. That 100's of 1000's of people with FAR more advanced physics comprehension than yourself haven't spoken out as "huh, that's funny, that doesn't look possible" should be enough for any sane person. You provide little more then entertainment value to the people who wish to engage you in your fairy tale world.

I'm outta here, not to return to the thread.

That was good!!!

It basically reiterated what I have been saying.

But please don`t go away, it feels good to see you clober him over the head with such ease.

LOL

 

[xj0hnx]

anyone have the guts to address why squib A appears before squib B? miracle explanation acceptable so you can get quoted in my sig next. 😀 taste&runslikeachicken doesn't seem to want to touch it... so who's next? or does this point destroy the government's "air pressure" explanation, so you'll all have to continue dodging?

You have no idea what is going on in that building at that moment. Let me ask you this for you to avoid ...if those are controlled demolitions, why are there only two, and why are they so far apart? How do those play into Kylebisme's theory if the demolitions following the collapse? And is it possible something else is happening at those spots besides demolitions? If those are demolitions, why doesn't the building start collapsing from those points? Your silly picture doesn't even begin to prove anything.

 

[kylebisme]

One second is obviously long, but I'm using it to show that as long as the object stops faster then it started, the force exerted by it over the period of stopping will be higher then the force due to gravity.

Sure, and in Paul's example of 10 kg from 5 m, that would be an average force of 490 N over that 1 m of deceleration. However, in the case of the towers, there wasn't any notable space to start falling, and the destruction keeps on accelerating pretty much all the way down, because that destruction wasn't the result of stuff falling on stuff.

No one, as far as I have heard, claimed that the fires melted the steel...

Ryan notes such people in the presentation you were quoting from, and quotes from a couple of them and others can be found here.

If you apply heat to metal, it becomes soft, would anyone try to deny that?

If you apply enough heat to metal, it becomes soft, though I doubt the jet fuel and office contents fires in the WTC buildings applied enough heat to do that to the steel.

And the NIST report investigated several tall steel buildings that collapsed from fire between 1970-2002, I think 22 world wide.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

Check your source. They counted 22 by not distinguishing between steel buildings and other types, and not distinguishing between partial collapses and (purported) total collapses; leaving them with only 6 steel buildings total, four of them on 9/11, and WTC 1, 2 and 7 as the only three steel buildings which supposedly collapsed completely from fire.

 

[kylebisme]

You have no idea what is going on in that building at that moment.

He knows what's going on in the building at that time, you're just confused because you refuse to admit as much, and hence are left asking a bunch of absurd questions ingoring the obvious.

 

[Paul98]

Sure, and in Paul's example of 10 kg from 5 m, that would be an average force of 490 N over that 1 m of deceleration. However, in the case of the towers, there wasn't any notable space to start falling, and the destruction keeps on accelerating pretty much all the way down, because that destruction wasn't the result of stuff falling on stuff.

well that isn't correct and not what I asked for so instead I will give you a new example also very simple shouldn't take any time to solve.

how about instead we have 10kg dropped from 4.9 meter and stops in .1 second.

I'll answer what you said about falling stuff after this, want to go one point at a time.