Can a car drive through a brick wall as quickly and smoothly as through an open gate?

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas
Can a car drive through a brick wall as quickly and smoothly as through an open gate?

World News Service - The NiST official explanation of terrorist bomb plantings in the WTC to explain their within-seconds-of-free-fall collapse after upper floor fires is a bunch of hocus pocus, says a new WTC Truth group.

Quote:
"The absurd theory that anyone would have had that kind of access to the WTC towers to lay these alleged explosives is just a remnant of Bush-era, anti-science bafflegab...Rather, "those collapses are easily explained by the progressive collapse theory that researchers at WTC Truth have developed."

Jim Steeves, head researcher for WTC Truth and author of When the Towers Came Down, shows in a new paper, published in the April edition of Popular Mechanist, how, in both cases, the top portions of the buildings began their descent through the impact zone and fire-weakened floors. "... and from there, the rest of the building[s] simply didn't have a chance."

The smaller, but somehow much heavier upper portions (in the case of WTC1, only 12 floors, but in the case of WTC2, approximately 25 floors) descended at free fall speeds for part of the collapse, and within seconds of free fall for the remainder, Steeves says, because, "that's how flimsy the buildings were."

Steeves suggests that, in fact, the WTC towers may have been on the verge of collapse well before the 9/11 attacks. "Whoever flew those planes into the WTC, somehow--I'm not going to speculate how at this point--but somehow knew that they would disintegrate like two tall sandcastles. NiST is lying when they say that it was explosives. They're covering up for someone. We don't know who."

Steeves also claims that "heavy matter" of some kind was stored in the upper floors, that gave them so much extra weight: "There is that missing gold from the Federal Reserve," and the massive disappearance, he notes, of a large lead deposit from the Pine Point Mine in the Northwest Territories, Canada, from a large government-sponsored operation in the early '60s."I'm not saying that that's what happened, but something like that would explain the much heavier weight of the smaller upper building portions and their ability to crush through 91 and 77 intact floors of the WTC, flimsy as they were, in only a few seconds more than it would take a brick falling through air to hit ground."

Steeves and his Truth group have faced much derision for their views, especially with respect to their progressive collapse theory, which, scientists say, is physically impossible. Dr. Tan Philips, professor emeritus at Hartfordshire Technology Institute, notes that the WTC collapse time that was within seconds of the rate of gravitational acceleration is not possible "while you have 80 and 90 floors of intact building underneath this supposedly descending mass."

He states, "I see no reason to question the theory of explosives that NiST proposes. It is clear from the video evidence the speed and manner of descent, the pre-explosions that were heard, the blown-out lobbies, the massive cauliflower clouds of pyrotechnic dust, all this leads any rational person to the natural conclusion that explosives were used, much like in controlled demolition." He adds that the progressive collapse theory cannot account for the fall of WTC7.

Other facts that confirm explosives and not fire brought the buildings down: WTC5 burned for 6 hours on that day, longer than any of the others, but did not collapse. In 1975, the North Tower's 11th floor burned for 3 hours and the building did not collapse. In April 2006, human bone fragments were found on top of neighbouring buildings,

jas

some of those bone fragments were less than 1 cm.

oldgoat

In answer to the thread title, the answer is no.

 

I'm going to the hospital now.

 

(Jeeze, the things I do for you people!)

WillC

oldgoat wrote:

...I'm going to the hospital now.

 

(Jeeze, the things I do for you people!)

True. Thanks, as one old goat to an Oldgoat, good luck.

Michelle

Don't do it for us, oldgoat.  Do it for science!

skdadl

I can see the hospital from my kitchen. Srsly: true fact.

Michelle

*oldgoat closes hospital gown*

jas

Are we sure about this? Because some folks here would say that objects can accelerate through other objects of equal or greater mass and density. In other words. some folks here would say that if you drop 12 (or 25) stacked cinder blocks the height of one cinder block onto 90 (or 77) stacked cinder blocks, those 12 (or 25) cinder blocks, through the sheer force of gravity, would pulverize (or pancake) the 90 (or 77) stacked blocks and descend through them at a speed that is within seconds of the time it would take to drop them through air.

It hasn't yet been established on Babble that mass of equal or greater density will offer resistance in the path of an object being pulled by gravity, so I'm just trying to get a general agreement on a very basic physical principle.

Fidel

If you were a NIST scientist assigned to 9/11 or I imagine even a designated Bush era climate science denialist, then yes. In those cases, you would be able to drive through a brick wall as fast or nearly unimpeded as you would drive through an open gate. At least one of the Popular Mechanix experts decided that Newton's third law of motion doesn't apply to collapsing buildings, and I'll bet they've regretted it since.

I think the handful of Bush era NIST scientists are totally off of the pancaking voodoo and are now favoring the lone gravitational theory with some magical assumptions thrown in for good measure. And, in fact, NIST has stated that they can not fully explain collapses of the WTC buildings. At least not without a legitimate inquiry. But that probably won't stop some people from trying to cover for NIST and former Bushwhackers of the past decade.

jas
Bubbles

Jeez, I know a better one.

How can one lousy snow ball send 500 tons of snow and ice cascading down a mountain at 300 miles an hour? One snow ball against all that snow, who could be behind that?

Caissa
Fidel

[url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/75797]Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases[/url]
The Pentagon Has Turned Over Military Records On Five Men To The Fbi (Sep 15, 2001)

[url=http://911review.com/myth/hijackers.html]FBI director Robert Mueller admits: Not a "Single Piece of Paper" Links Alleged Hijackers to Plot[/url] Several alleged hijackers are alive and well 

How can the 9/11 Commission be taken seriously when they refer to 9/11 'hijackers' who are still alive?

North Shore

Why does it really matter how the buildings came down?  It is almost ten years ago now - any evidence for malfeasance is going to be well obscured.  

The buildings came down, the USA attacked Iraq, and we are where we are at.

jas

Bubbles wrote:

How can one lousy snow ball send 500 tons of snow and ice cascading down a mountain at 300 miles an hour? One snow ball against all that snow, who could be behind that?

Well that explains the law prohibiting the throwing of snowballs against skyscrapers... who knew it could be such a public safety concern? (...Psst! Don't tell the terrirists!)

Of course the comparison is so astute. I bet the avalanche even crushes through the mountain, too, eh, Bubbles? We know, from 9/11 physicks, that gravity prefers to pull things through the path of greatest resistance.

jas

North Shore wrote:

Why does it really matter how the buildings came down?  It is almost ten years ago now - any evidence for malfeasance is going to be well obscured.  

1) The evidence is right in front of your eyes. It's not obscured at all.

2) Why investigate the murders and disappearances of over 582 Aboriginal women? It's probably not going to bring them back.

Quote:

A utility crew stumbled upon body parts last week in an abandoned manhole along the edge of the site, and forensic experts have since dug down and found more than 100 bones and fragments from skulls, ribs, arms, legs, feet and hands.

The discoveries have angered and saddened relatives of the Sept. 11 victims. Of the 2,749 people who were killed that day, the remains of some 1,150 have not been found. That means that families of 40 percent of the victims have nothing — not a sliver of a bone — left of their loved ones.

Almost nine years and no convictions? Lots of tortures, though.

What a question to ask.

Fidel

North Shore wrote:
Why does it really matter how the buildings came down?  It is almost ten years ago now - any evidence for malfeasance is going to be well obscured.

Is there a statute of limitations on prosecuting crimes of mass murder or war crimes in general that we don't know about?

North Shore wrote:
The buildings came down, the USA attacked Iraq, and we are where we are at.

...which is that a phony global "war on terror" is still being waged based on a modern day Gulf of Tonkin incident, or perhaps Pearl Harbor. Or was it more like the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident]Gleiwitz incident?[/url] Or we could pick from a number of false flag terrorist incidents of recent history to compare with. The head gladio country itself has admitted to having planned to stage at least one false flag terrorist attack before and involving passenger planes and murdering innocent people. It wasn't actually carried out, but it's proof that they hath committed false flag terror and murder of innocent people in their black hearts during the cold war.

There not only needs to be a legitimate enquiry, it should probably be handled by the World Court as it would address the possibility that there have been and continue to be war crimes committed as a direct result of 9/11.

Bubbles

jas wrote:

Bubbles wrote:

How can one lousy snow ball send 500 tons of snow and ice cascading down a mountain at 300 miles an hour? One snow ball against all that snow, who could be behind that?

Well that explains the law prohibiting the throwing of snowballs against skyscrapers... who knew it could be such a public safety concern? (...Psst! Don't tell the terrirists!)

 

Well do you see now , why they have a law against deliberately flying airplanes into buildings. It is a public safety concern, as we can see, planes can bring buildings down. And most seem to recognize that, even terrorists.

jas

Bubbles, please try to apply some logic to what you say. If all that is needed to bring down two 110-storey skyscrapers with tight steel mesh structure and solid steel and concrete cores is to disable a few top floors, why don't professional demolitioners employ this technique?

In any case, no one is claiming that it was the plane impacts that brought the buildings down. In fact, both NIST and the chief structural engineers for the WTC highlight the fact that the towers remained standing after the impacts. So, sorry, planes don't bring buildings down.

Bubbles

OK,OK, the plane did not bring it down, gravity did. Just like the snowball did not bring down the avalange, it was gravity. But the snow ball was the trigger, as was the speeding fueled plane, to set things in motion.

jas

The difference between an avalanche and a skyscraper is one is an unstable mass of snow pack that experiences numerous destabilizing weather events throughout its life, and the other is a highrise engineered to stand for many decades, withstand all kinds of different events, including winds up to 140 miles per hour (225km/hr). The Twin Towers were not brittle, frail structures that would crack and crumble from a jet impact. They were young buildings. They were designed to withstand a jet impact. They withstood the jet impacts. They withstood a bombing in 1993. They withstood an earlier fire on a lower floor in 1975. The engineers compare the steel construction to that of mesh or netting. Any puncture to that mesh would only create local damage, like a pencil through a screen door. The rest of the mesh stays intact. That was their design. The core structure, moreover, was a solid, standard design, as you would find in any other building. It was concrete with reinforced steel. The PBS Nova video that attempted to explain how the floors pancaked, completely ignored the core structure in their model, although it is visible in their illustrations. NIST abandoned the floor pancaking explanation several years ago.

The other difference between an avalanche event and the disintegration of the towers that we witnessed is that, pulled by gravity, the avalanche follows the path of least resistance down the mountain. It doesn't crush through the mountain itself, ie, the rock. Because the mountain presents resistance, the avalanche has to flow over it, not crush down through it. The progressive collapse theory attempts to suggest that the tops of the towers "crushed down" through the remaining intact building, ie, the path of greatest resistance. This doesn't happen in physics. It doesn't happen in real life. Lighter objects don't crush down through heavier objects. The laws governing free fall objects govern free fall objects. They do not govern objects moving through other matter that presents resistance. Those floors did not crush down through 80 and 90 floors of intact highrise. In fact, I question the idea that the top floors were even still intact once the collapses began. But it doesn't matter either way. The theory simply doesn't work.

jas

Stunning amateur video. A little surreal to watch it from such a personal perspective, but I have never seen such a high quality and extended recording of the burning (which, you will see, really didn't amount to much) and then the disintegration and massive dust clouds. There was asbestos in that dust. It was one of the well-known liabilities of the WTC, with an estimated cost of removal factoring into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Another reason to investigate who was responsible.

Bubbles

jas,

I am not sure why you think the avalange should crush through the mountain? An avalanche is made of maybe 30 percent solid H2O and 70 percent air, a compressible gas. It will have little effect on the mountain. Just as the WTC towers did not fall through the bedrock they were standing on. By the way , the two towers had about the same average density as the snow in an avalanche, but with far more compressible gas content then snow due to the much higher density of steel over H20. The slope of a mountain adds a solid horizontal force vector to the falling snow. That force was not there for the towers on their way down.

jas

Bubbles, you do not appear to have understood anything I have said. I did not compare the towers to an avalanche. You did.

Furthermore, to suggest that the towers had the same average density as snow in an avalanche is absurd. The rest of what you say appears, also, to be absurd, as if you're cutting and pasting randomly from some physics wiki.

Bubbles

jas, do the math. The building was basically a box with a volume of 64x64x411= 1,683,456 cubic meters with a buiding weight of 500,000 tons that gives an average weight of about 300kg per cubic meter, that is the wieght of a fairly packed cubic meter of snow.   I do not have to visite wiki for that, grade six stuf. Buildings are not solids.

jas

Bubbles, buildings are nothing like snow packs. The disintegration of steel and concrete is not like an avalanche. A gravitational pull horizontally is not a gravitational pull vertically through matter of equal or greater density. The buildings are not "boxes". There is no comparison, and I have no idea what point you would even be trying to make. There's no "math" to be done here. Don't waste people's time.

Bubbles

I am only wasting my own time.

Cars driving through open gates or brickwalls are not like 911 either. Unless we have a lot more info on what happened when the planes entered the buildings we can speculate all we want.

jas

The point of the question in the title is to ask whether things moving through other things are slowed down at  all by those things. The analogy is drawn to illustrate the false physical concept that the progressive collapse theory depends on: that the upper floors, above the impact zone, crushed down through the remaining intact building, 80 and 90 floors of it, within seconds of the speed it would take for those floors to fall through air.

I have now spelled out, hammered out, drawn in crayon this question/principle for you and others three or four times in this thread alone. If you still don't understand what is being questioned, and want to compare buildings to snow packs then I have to assume you either 1) don't understand what NIST is saying, or 2) don't understand why what NIST is saying violates an elementary principle of physics. Actually, from what you've written, I suspect it's both.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

So you saying the building floors fell about as fast as if nothing were under them, correct?

jas

Hm, do I answer this question, or do I pick lint out of my belly button? Hm...

Fidel
Fidel

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/04/30/911-skeptics.html]9/11 skeptics launch Canadian speaking tour[/url]

Quote:
Three Canadian universities will be used as venues for a speaking tour by prominent 9/11 skeptics.

Americans Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin dispute the conventional wisdom that foreign terrorists linked to al-Qaida brought down the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

They will give lectures at the University of Toronto, Carleton University and the University of Quebec in Montreal over the coming days.

Faculty members at the Montreal university told a city newspaper they are upset the institution is being used for the event.

One says it harms the school's credibility.

This tour comes right on the heels of a free-speech controversy that erupted when US pundit Ann Coulter had an appearance cancelled at the U. of Ottawa.

jas

Thanks, Fidel. I'm sorry to hear it won't be coming to central Canada.

jas

Anyhoo... I guess I can conclude that, after a couple of weeks and no strenuous objections, we at least all agree on one principle anyway: that dense objects pulled by gravity through air, and in the absence of significant air resistance, will experience gravitational acceleration. That is, they will fall at free-fall speeds or within milliseconds of free fall.

BUT that objects falling (or being propelled via some other force) through other objects, such as a car through a brick wall, a billiard ball through layers of wood or concrete, a bullet through layers of sheet metal, etc., will experience a slowdown, or a halt, of their momentum.

Is everyone agreed on this principle? If so, then we can move on to the next lesson.

Papal Bull

Haha, you've made 15 posts in a thread with 33 posts in total.

 

That's 45%.

 

4+5 = 9

 

9 + 5 - 4 = 10

 

1+0 = 1

 

10+ 1 = 11

 

So, clearly, you altered gravity that day so that you and your warmonger allies could change physics so you could win internet arguments and repost links over and over again ad nauseum for your own pleasure. A brilliant ploy, jas. But the truth movement will prevail! Your sick and twisted plot to change the force of gravity on earth will fail.

 

You and the reptoids will lose.

writer writer's picture

Quote:

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h. ... It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

jas

4. Massive Core Columns

NIST: "As stated above, the core columns were designed to support approximately 50% of the gravity loads" [4]. "The hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time-enabling large numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely" [10].

"Pacific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the closely spaced exterior wall column panels that gave the buildings their instantly recognizable shape. Stanray Pacific of Los Angeles, Cal, fabricated the enormous box and wide-flange columns that made up the core... The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes." "The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact.... the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20% of their capacity before the aircraft impact" [11].

We totally agree that the WTC Towers included "massive" interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, in addition to the columns in the outside walls. The central core columns bore much of the gravity loads so the Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the false notion that the Towers were "hollow tubes" with the floors supported just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering professor asserted, "The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube..." [12]. The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns - and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.