Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I honestly do not understand this. What is it that defies physics? The mostly vertical collapse? The speed? - which wasn't freefall, and anyone who claims it was is a fool? What was it?
After 12 years the 9/11 Affair is a scientific travesty no matter what the truth is. It is like the Galileo Affair in reverse. The CLOWNS calling themselves "scientists" and "engineers" have failed us.
No matter what the truth of 9/11 is skyscrapers must hold themselves up and withstand the wind. That means every level must be strong enough to support all of the weight above. That means the designers had to determine what they regarded as the maximum load each level had to support and make every level strong enough to hold it.
That means we should know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the north tower. But how many "scientists" or "engineers" have brought that up in TWELVE YEARS? I asked Richard Gage about that to his face in May of 2008. First he looked at me like I had grown a second head. Then he gave this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. There are over 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. The Empire State Building is 83 years old and they did not have electronic computers in 1931. This is not Rocket Science. Who was thinking about going to the Moon in 1931?
I do not care who did this any more.
The problem is all of the experts not resolving a grade school physics problem which should have been solved in 2002.
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge had a problem when it opened in 1940 and they had a physical model constructed to analyse it in less than 5 months. Why don't we have physical models of the north tower in TWELVE YEARS to explain whatever happened?
Both towers were built to a new design that apparently is sensitive to major fires due to the design of the connections between the floors and the perimeter support structure. OOPS!
I want someone to show me a video of a Boeing 757 flying at an altitude under 2000 ft at 500 mph.
I'll concede my entire argument.
If someone found and showed you the video you're demanding, you'd just say that the plane wasn't actually doing that speed, so there's no point in even looking for such a video.
What we CAN do is prove that you're wrong using actual facts and figures.
Mach isn't a constant figure. The speed it represents is based on the speed of sound under the same conditions, so temperature and fluid density affect it what "mach 1" is in any given situation.
According to NASA, 500mph at sea level is mach 0.656 - well within the limitations of the Boeing 757.
Both towers were built to a new design that apparently is sensitive to major fires due to the design of the connections between the floors and the perimeter support structure. OOPS!
And some people like simple minded things that are easy for them to BELIEVE.
These are how the columns would be arranged in the WTC if it had been the usual grid design.
The commas are the additional columns and the ~ is the additional space. So it is either a building with three times the area of the WTC or it has columns only 17 feet apart.
This animation has 13 columns on the side also, at 2:06.
The animation moves the columns from a grid arrangement to the WTC arrangement but it only puts 31 columns on each side of the perimeter at 2:14. It has 45 columns in the core which is close to the correct number.
13 times 13 would be 169. So 4 times 31 + 45 is 169. So that animation has the same number of columns in both versions but later in the video they specify the correct number of columns on each side of the perimeter and the total for the real WTC. But they never say that a normal grid skyscraper the size of the WTC would have columns 30 feet apart and so would only have 64 columns, so the animation is misleading about other skyscrapers. Since the animation just moves columns to the WTC arrangement it is using the same floor area for both. So the columns could not be 30 feet apart, only 17 which it not the usual arrangement.
The Empire State Building is still 83 years old and they didn't have electronic computers to design it. So engineers are just pretending this structural engineering crap is more difficult to comprehend than it actually is. They would look pretty stupid after TWELVE YEARS if they admitted collapse was impossible. So they are stuck with having to pretend the problem is difficult.
Engineers can't even talk about the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers after TWELVE YEARS. That would have to be similar in both designs regardless of the horizontal arrangement of the columns.
Are you saying they do not specify an altitude for that cruising speed?
Altitude is irrelevant, because mach 1 is determined by ambient temperature and the fluid density of the surrounding air. Mach 1 at 100' is different than mach 1 at 10,000'.
Regardless of altitude, the cruising speed of a 757 is mach 0.8.
Altitude is irrelevant, because mach 1 is determined by ambient temperature and the fluid density of the surrounding air. Mach 1 at 100' is different than mach 1 at 10,000'.
Regardless of altitude, the cruising speed of a 757 is mach 0.8.
I suspect they are assuming the readers of the specs aren't thinking stupid. They specify a maximum range also. But they do not specify the altitude. Is the max range flying at 2000 feet going to be the same as the max range for 30,000 feet?
If someone found and showed you the video you're demanding, you'd just say that the plane wasn't actually doing that speed, so there's no point in even looking for such a video.
What we CAN do is prove that you're wrong using actual facts and figures.
Mach isn't a constant figure. The speed it represents is based on the speed of sound under the same conditions, so temperature and fluid density affect it what "mach 1" is in any given situation.
According to NASA, 500mph at sea level is mach 0.656 - well within the limitations of the Boeing 757.
Yes, now read the next paragraph which explains the cruising altitude is typically 30,000 feet, not 1500.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
