September 11, 2001 (long read)

Oh okay, so you're saying that an object dropped from 1400 feet will hit the ground at the same time as an object dropped from 400 feet, assuming both objects were dropped at the same time?

The rate of speed is always identical.  I nor anyone else ever said it wasn't. My arguement is in the amount of TIME that it takes for each object to hit the ground.

As stated in an earlier thread, an object dropped from the very top floor of the WTC would take roughly 8.77-9.2 seconds to hit the ground, if completely ubobstructed. 

If the object was obstructed, however, it would take far longer than the above mentioned time frame.  Don't you agree?

I assume you do agree.  So then:  If the towers fell in 9.2 seconds (which they did, if you view the video), it means that the lower floors must have been completely demolished by the time the upper floors have collapse down upon them.  If those lower floors were NOT yet demolished, there is no way that the towers could have fallen in 9.2 seconds.  The upper floors would have been obstucted (even if just SLIGHTLY obstructed), and took some time to "pancake" the lower floors.

Still waiting for the response to my other questions. Here are some more while I wait.

Why are you using 1362' in your equation? Are you saying the top of the building (your point of reference) came to rest at exactly at y=0? So there was not a huge pile of rubble?

9.2 seconds? Even though there is a huge plume of dust completely obstructing the view you can tell, to an accuracy of tenths of seconds no less, how fast the building fell? I can't say for sure exactly how long it took but it sure seems to be longer then 9.2 to me.

How long should it have taken for the building to fall?

1362 is the height of the building in feet.  You must use that number if you wish to calculate freefall speed.

And yes, the pile of rubble was estimated to be roughly 100 feet high (at it's highest point).  This estimation was drawn by the crews that removed the debris after the dust had clear, and rescue attempts were over.

You can clearly see, in multiple videos, when the building had stopped falling.  It stopped at 9.2 seconds.  Unless you can show me a video in which it took longer, I'll refer back to the first page of this post, and the videos I've posted to show the 9.2 second lapse of time.

How long should it have taken the building to FALL?  The building should have not fallen whatsoever.  The only way that building could come down, was if explosive devices of some sort (most likely thermite) were used to aid the collapse.

Is your real question "What should have happened to the WTC Towers after the planes hit" ?  If that's what you meant, then I believe the top floors (above the point of impact) should have collapsed and spilled down to the ground, on either side of the Towers.  There is absolutely no scientific reason that the lower 80 floors collapsed, and there is no scientific data to show otherwise, nor has anyone in this thread explained it.

To reference this question even more specifically, Columbia University used seizmic data to confirm that Tower 1 fell in just over 9 seconds (the 9.2 that I referenced), and Tower 2 fell in just under 10 seconds (they said 9.67 of something).  You do not have to view any video at all, just refer to Columbia's seizmic recorder which was used on September 11th.  This is the same process used to determine catagories of Earthquakes.

I've been extremely hesitant to post in this thread for various reasons but its obvious this is going no where anyway. I'm curious, who in here is a politician, who is a scientist (or physicist more specifically), who is an architect, who is a detective, who specializes in demolitions, etc. Now, who does all of these things? It seems as though your search for a constructive argument means either someone who is in a in agreement with your idea or poses questions you attempt to debunk. The problem is that no one here has any credibility and so no one is going to admit to anyone's "facts".

I can respect someone who has questions and it skeptical of the government, or anything, however this is just nonsense arguing over it on the internet. If you REALLY care for truth, why don't you find the author of said book you have been promoting and help him? Or why don't you go on your on mission for the facts? Maybe its just not convenient to do but when is finding the truth?

 

I've emailed Daniel Estuin about 100 times in the past few years.  Got plenty of advice from him and he's answered thousands of my questions

And I've also been in touch with the U.S. government and multiple contractors that were hired on behalf of the government.  I don't just sit back and ask questions over an internet based forum.  I simply thought it would be a good topic of conversation.

I also disagree that we're "argueing".  I see a clear definition between argueing and debating.  Some in this thread choose to argue and insult, but others are quite intelligent and make very good points. 

I'm completely open to changing my mind about what I think of the 9/11 conspiracy, but so far, no one from the U.S. government, Daniel Estulin, or anyone that had a hang in that day, or even someone in this thread, has changed my mind.

Last post from me on this thread, and I'll leave this guy to deal with the demons he's living with.  

If the debris was 100 feet high then that must be where the top of the building (the point of which you are measuring) must have stopped so you need to subtract that from the distance the object fell. The distance in the equation is the distance the object traveled not the distance the object could have traveled.

There is no scientific proof that would have collapsed? It is called gravity.

Now I know that any thing you read on the Internet is authentic and valid and that you scoff at everything someone else reads on the Internet. Here is a link to the scientific proof you are asking for but I am sure you will just write it off as nothing.

Note he uses the correct equation in his calculations (the one you used on post #1) but it is displayed incorrectly as a formatting errot seems to have removed the 1/2 and the superscript 2 for squared.

What proof do you have that the building should not have fallen? There is absolutely no scientific reason the buildings should not have collapsed. You have provided no scientific evidence supporting such a position.

Funny. I was actually on the Columbia site when I decided to pop back here to see if you replied.

No I had no idea that you would be using this in your reply so while I would like to say so it was completely coincidental.

Here is a document I found on that site.

Looking at other graphs (like page 8) sure look longer then 9 seconds to me and that is nearly 35KM from the site. So does the one on page 9.

The one just over 65 KM looks like about 6 seconds.

Also, I am still waiting for the response regarding all the contradictions. Not going to respond?

Interesting debate here smdio.  Although I can't say I've debated about this in years, I still have interest in this.  I do agree with you that something sinister was going on.  I don't believe that that US govt or the Bilderberger group planned it and executed it.  The cover up that would be needed for this to happen was too great and would involve too many people.  Looking back on it now (and maybe hindsight is 20/20), it was the perfect catalyst for the US to go into Iraq.  There was certain intelligence known a couple years before 9/11 happened that Al Qaeda had planned on using planes in a unconventional manner.  Clinton was still in office at this time, and we don't know what or how this intelligence was used.                Fast forward a bit and in Oct. 2000, the USS Cole was bombed.  Less than a month later, the controversial Presidential election happened.  Did Bush really win Florida or was it stolen to put him in office?  Who knows, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone stole an election.  Now I dislike the Dems and Repubs equally, but I still think he stole it.  It makes more sense now that it was stolen.  If Al Gore was Pres. at the time there is no way he would have went into Iraq.  There wasn't any need to.  This brings me to 9/11.  There were enough reports after it happened that the intelligence communities had leads on certain individuals who were in the country who were suspected to be terrorists or knew these people.  Some were taking lessons in flight schools and there were some who were living out in the open where they could have been found.  To me the problem was more that there was an air of indifference or laissez faire attitude by higher ups in the intelligence communities that allowed this to happen.   And to me, what better way to bring it all about than to blame it on a failure of the intelligence community.  They will all blame it on each other and the American public will buy into it.  When you think about it, who doesn't believe that our govt. isn't incompetant?  

If you remember, in a day or so after the attacks, Saddam Hussien's name was brought into the fold as having a part in it to sow the seeds for America going to war with Iraq.  They had no evidence of this at all, but it didn't matter at the time.  Granted, we didn't go in there for another year and a half.  Hence the need for the administration to fabricate claims of WMD's being there.  We needed a presence in the Middle East for oil and also for certain people and companies to reap huge profits off this war.  And they did.  There are billions of dollars that can't be accounted for in Iraq.  Coincidence?  I highly doubt it.  War profiteering is big business and its something I honestly don't fully understand.

maybe not, but it has everything to do with establishing your credibility, and if what you just said is true then you're a self admitted liar. you got out on 50k bail, not 250k as you stated in your original post. yes, you never said you posted 250k bail in that post, but saying you were waiting on 250k bail would imply that was the case. you can try to twist the story and say you didn't feel it was important to clarify the exact amount, but if you were being truthful you would have simply said you got out on 50k bail, being that it was already after the fact.

let's toss aside that indiscretion for a minute and focus on some of your other eccentricities. what really bothers me about you is you're a little too calm, a little too collected, and a little too smooth. there are quite a few other posts that are a little off in this thread, but the one I can't seem to put my finger on is #8, this is what you said....

"Guys, I appreciate the kind words about my dad.  I really do.  I didn't really start this thread to get sympathy for myself or his death though."

I've been around this forum for awhile and I have read quite a few threads from people who have lost their loved ones, and not once have I ever heard the op say something so strange in response. sure, maybe it was not your intent to garner sympathy, but when a person goes out of their way to wish you well is it really that much trouble to acknowledge their kind gesture before moving on to your agenda... unless, well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions

oh, I did some more digging around, lucky for me this time I didn't have to go far to discover this gem because it's right here on this page. it's about your father whom you claim perished in the wtc...

"I was told that he jumped.  I still, to this day, do not believe this.  My father was not the type of person to "bail" on a life-threatening situation.  He would have instead tried to help the other people around him, not run away and take his own life.  But whatever."

hey smarty, you neglected to add that if you contain people in a small space and start a fire and make them wait for more than 5 minutes, they will pay any amount of money to escape and consider themselves benevolent. they will even get very intentional and enthusiastic about putting labels on other people who are less discerning.

btw- I just don't trust people who refer to themselves in third person

All of the writing in the posts on page 9 goes off to the right side of the page.  I can't see anything past the margins of my computer screen.  I did everything possible to change the zoom and such on my internet settings, nothing works

It's only in this thread too.  I'll have to wait to respond until I get on another computer I guess, which will be later today

Short sentences in case it is still occurring.

I have had that happen sometimes as well.

I figured it affected everyone viewing the page.

I am seeing page 9 fine though.

I thought I tried my other computer with same results.

If you get the same thing on a different computer....

you can copy the text and paste it into Word...

you will get the unseen text.

A little bit of a pain... but it worked...

"rockonova said"

maybe not, but it has everything to do with establishing your credibility, and if what you just said is true then you're a self admitted liar. you got out on 50k bail, not 250k as you stated in your original post. yes, you never said you posted 250k bail in that post, but saying you were waiting on 250k bail would imply that was the case. you can try to twist the story and say you didn't feel it was important to clarify the exact amount, but if you were being truthful you would have simply said you got out on 50k bail, being that it was already after the fact.

let's toss aside that indiscretion for a minute and focus on some of your other eccentricities. what really bothers me about you is you're a little too calm, a little too collected, and a little too smooth. there are quite a few other posts that are a little off in this thread, but the one I can't seem to put my finger on is #8, this is what you said....

"Guys, I appreciate the kind words about my dad.  I really do.  I didn't really start this thread to get sympathy for myself or his death though."

I've been around this forum for awhile and I have read quite a few threads from people who have lost their loved ones, and not once have I ever heard the op say something so strange in response. sure, maybe it was not your intent to garner sympathy, but when a person goes out of their way to wish you well is it really that much trouble to acknowledge their kind gesture before moving on to your agenda... unless, well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions

oh, I did some more digging around, lucky for me this time I didn't have to go far to discover this gem because it's right here on this page. it's about your father whom you claim perished in the wtc...

"I was told that he jumped.  I still, to this day, do not believe this.  My father was not the type of person to "bail" on a life-threatening situation.  He would have instead tried to help the other people around him, not run away and take his own life.  But whatever."

hey smarty, you neglected to add that if you contain people in a small space and start a fire and make them wait for more than 5 minutes, they will pay any amount of money to escape and consider themselves benevolent. they will even get very intentional and enthusiastic about putting labels on other people who are less discerning.

btw- I just don't trust people who refer to themselves in third person

 

Oh, pardon me for not clarifying my bail-structure deal in another thread!  I should have given details!  I shouldn't have intentionally mislead people by saying 250k!  I shouldn't have implied that I posted $250k when in fact I only posted $50k!

Who gives a fucking rats ass you jackwad? Are you mentally retarded, or are you just 100% unintelligent when it comes to a logical debate, and instead try to grasp straws and disprove someones credibility?

Go to hell.  I'll no longer respond to your stupid posts, because they're exactly that, stupid.  I feel my IQ has dropped just by typing these few sentences.

Don't waste your time replying to me anymore, I'll simply ignore anything you write and instead engage in debate with spiff, tiasman, and other intelligent human beings

"spiff said"

If the debris was 100 feet high then that must be where the top of the building (the point of which you are measuring) must have stopped so you need to subtract that from the distance the object fell. The distance in the equation is the distance the object traveled not the distance the object could have traveled.

There is no scientific proof that would have collapsed? It is called gravity.

Now I know that any thing you read on the Internet is authentic and valid and that you scoff at everything someone else reads on the Internet. Here is a link to the scientific proof you are asking for but I am sure you will just write it off as nothing.

Note he uses the correct equation in his calculations (the one you used on post #1) but it is displayed incorrectly as a formatting errot seems to have removed the 1/2 and the superscript 2 for squared.

What proof do you have that the building should not have fallen? There is absolutely no scientific reason the buildings should not have collapsed. You have provided no scientific evidence supporting such a position.

If the top of the building would have only fallen as far at the very top of the 100 foot rubble pile, then the "free fall speed equation" that I referred to at the start of this thread would indeed have to be altered.  But it wouldn't be altered to help your argument at all..

This was our original formula to calculate the 9.2 seconds:

1362 = 16.08 x (84.7)^squared

The new formula would have to be altered to 1262 instead of 1362, to account for less feet that the top of the tower would have had to travel, before reaching the resistant of the bottom "rubble pile".

1262 = 16.08 x ("x")^squared

=> 1262 = 16.08 x (78.5)^squared

=>> Free fall speed (in seconds) of an object falling 1262 feet = 8.86 (square root of 78.5)

This would be in line with the experiments done from dropping the object from the top of the building, unobstructed, to the ground below, as I highlighted here:

https://www.contrarianthinker.com/WTC%20pr1.jpg

8.7 to 9.2 seconds.

Fuck, the first part of my text shouldnt have been in italics.  My bad.

The reasoning that I have for the buildings NOT falling is in 2 parts. 

1.)  History.  There has never been, in the history of the world, a building that had collapsed due to fire (before 9/11, that is). There have been multiple buildings hit by planes, and fires that burned far longer and far stronger than the ones on 9/11.  Yet none of those buildings fell to the ground because of it.

2.)  You are talking about a massive structure, absolutely built to state-of-the-art specifications at it's time of construction:

From Wikepedia:

The structural engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson worked to implement Yamasaki's design, developing the tube-frame structural system used in the twin towers. The Port Authority's Engineering Department served as foundation engineers, Joseph R. Loring & Associates as electrical engineers, and Jaros, Baum & Bolles as mechanical engineers. Tishman Realty & Construction Company was the general contractor on the World Trade Center project. Guy F. Tozzoli, director of the World Trade Department at the Port Authority, and Rino M. Monti, the Port Authority's Chief Engineer, oversaw the project.^[26] As an interstate agency, the Port Authority was not subject to local laws and regulations of the City of New York including building codes. Nonetheless, the structural engineers of the World Trade Center ended up following draft versions of the new 1968 building codes.^[27] The tube-frame design, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads as had traditionally been done. The World Trade Center towers utilized high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.^[27] The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.^[28] Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.^[27]

The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core –a combined steel and concrete structure–^[29][30] of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls.^[31] The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a 4-inch (100 mm) thick lightweight concrete floor slab with shear connections for composite action.^[32]

^{Continued in next post...}

(continued from Wikepedia)

Hat trusses (or "outrigger truss") located from the 107th floor to the top of the buildings were designed to support a tall communication antenna on top of each building.^[32] Only 1 WTC (north tower) actually had an antenna fitted; it was added in 1978.^[33] The truss system consisted of six trusses along the long axis of the core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed some load redistribution between the perimeter and core columns and supported the transmission tower.^[32]

The tube frame design using steel core and perimeter columns protected with sprayed-on fire resistant material created a relatively lightweight structure that would sway more in response to the wind compared to traditional structures such as the Empire State Building that have thick, heavy masonry for fireproofing of steel structural elements.^[34] During the design process, wind tunnel tests were done to establish design wind pressures that the World Trade Center towers could be subjected to and structural response to those forces.^[35] Experiments also were done to evaluate how much sway occupants could comfortably tolerate, however, many subjects experienced dizziness and other ill effects.^[36] One of the chief engineers Leslie Robertson worked with Canadian engineer Alan G. Davenport to develop viscoelastic dampers to absorb some of the sway. These viscoelastic dampers, used throughout the structures at the joints between floor trusses and perimeter columns along with some other structural modifications, reduced the building sway to an acceptable level.^[37]

^{That said, lets look at 2 key elements, the melting point of steel (unfireproofed), and the highest point at which Jet Fuel burns.}

^{Melting point of steel:  2750 degrees F}

^{Burning point of Jer Fuel:  800 degrees to 1500 degrees F}

^{It was absolutely scientifically impossible for the "official explanation" from the 9/11 commission, which states that the "extreme temperatures" from the planes initial impact created a "supernova" of fire inside the WTC, for Commercial Jetliner Fuel to have burned strong enough, and long enough, to melt and/or soften the extremely complex infastructure of the WTC's framing.}

^{The fires simply did not get hot enough.}

^{Please refute.}

Actually, you do.  If they were to set it up it would take a team of 20-40 people about a moth to do it properly.  Like someone wouldn't notice.

I've spent hundreds of hours researching this.  The FACTS say that it was NOT an inside job.

People say, "why weren't there cameras at the Pentagon?"  Well, I don't know, but why don't you take the word of ALL the witnesses who they talked to....who ALL said the same thing.

https://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

And saying they don't know what airplane hit the pentagon...B.S.  Look at the wreckage.  You can see the red AA on the tail piece.

conspiracy theories.

Oh you're right. 

The U.S. government and/or the Bilderberg group cant spare 20-40 people and a month of their time

We have hundreds of spies that operate in secracy for those they work with for dozens of years, yet there's "no way" we can pull off a stunt that's 1/100 of the size

 Naive debunkers.

ROFL pardon me, you know more about Duke University because you googled their curiculum!!!!  How dare I forget the word "SCIENCES" in the description of my degree!!!!  WHATS WRONG WITH ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does the melting point of steel have to do with anything? Yes the melting point of steel is 2750F. Why this constant infatuation with melting steel? It just needs to lose strength and soften enough to distort.

See here. I know it isn't as authoritative a source as Wikipedia but it will have to do.

In summary steel begins to soften around 800F and loses about half it's strength around 1200F. Well within the numbers you posted on the burning temperature of jet fuel (which is actually higher but it doesn't matter since your numbers will work fine).

Nothing in your Wikipedia re-print yields anything to support your argument. Wind force is a lateral force, the same type of force imposed from a plane hitting a building. The buildings didn't fall when the planes hit because the force was less then the design limits of the structures.

No where in the Wikipedia article does it state the static load design would be greater then the dynamic loads to which the structure was subjecting to once the steel was distorted and weakened enough from the extreme heat of a jet fuel fire.