You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #143: Why? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #142
143. Why?
> i doubt any collapse would have involved more than a portion of the top bit.

But, why? Theoretical calculations based on the kinetic energy released and the actual strength of the materials (neglecting heat affects, after to collapse started) show that the collapse would be complete. Your model doesn't address that issue at all because, as has been pointed out, the major problem with your model is that the gravitational energy in it, relative to the strength of the hardware cloth, bears no resemblance whatsoever to the WTC towers.

> Certainly this model is not energy balanced, as there simply is not enough energy left to keep the rubble burning for 100 days... nor to blow the structure apart sideways and pulverize it at the speed of gravity.

But it's already been explained to you that the energy to do all that didn't come from the jet fuel. The initial damage from the plane crash and the subsequent fire only weakened the structure enough to initiate the collapse. (And according to NIST's study, they did so in a way that isn't represented at all in your model: the sagging floors pulled the perimeter columns in, which reduced their buckling resistance.) After that first level collapsed, gravity took over: The energy to destroy the structure came from the gravitational energy stored in the building (which your scale model vastly under-represents). That gravitational energy was equal to the energy it would take to lift the whole building to the height of it's own center of mass. How much energy would it take to lift half a million tons about 600 feet in the air? That's how much energy was released when the tower fell, and it was equivalent to about 240 tons of TNT.

The fires that burned for weeks were obviously fueled by combustibles already in the building -- paper, carpeting, plastic, etc. in the offices, and gasoline in the tanks of the cars in the basement parking garage.

> As the 'actual observed' contains these secondary events, i figure that this model is accurate up to the point that explosives were used to demolish the WTC by bush/cheney's CIA and their saudi secret strike teams.

Your model is not accurate in any significant way to support that conclusion. And I'm still waiting for the results of the firecracker experiment, because I don't think your model can be destroyed with firecrackers. Would that prove to you that building demolition with explosives is impossible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC