+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: 9/11 Debate (/thread-5114.html)
Re: 9/11 Debate - ElwoodBlues1 - 03-21-2021
(03-21-2021, 06:24 AM)Gointocarlton link Wrote:Not the one I was looking for but the statement about the the designers not expecting 90,000L of jet fuel on one floor was what I remember, Ill keep looking though for the what I was looking for. Some other pertinent points are made about why the buildings fell straight down.
https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Yep Jet fuel on the floor and intense heat, the clue is debris being forced out the windows...the fireproofing was probably mangled and therefore not effective. At 1000 degrees Celsius the columms, support structures would be melting causing the floor to collapse. Like I said it would have been the heat that would have been the real problem and not the impact so much IMHO.
Re: 9/11 Debate - kruddler - 03-21-2021
(03-21-2021, 06:42 AM)LP link Wrote:No actually that is physics, ............... just the basics though .............................. remember any?The numbers you are using is what i'm referring too.
As basic as it may be, it shows the forces are extraordinary, unlike the conspiracy evidence which is just plain ordinary it seems! :o
What you described is also mentioned as being INNACURATE in the initial report.
It has to do with your 10m.
It, wrongly, assumes a free fall at that point. For the acceleration to be 9.81, means the collapse, and everything above it, happened instantly. It simply could not. The only way that is even remotely possible is through a controlled detonation.
So, back to the drawing board.....
Re: 9/11 Debate - kruddler - 03-21-2021
(03-21-2021, 06:42 AM)LP link Wrote:No actually that is physics, ............... just the basics though .............................. remember any?
As basic as it may be, it shows the forces are extraordinary, unlike the conspiracy evidence which it seems is just plain ordinary! :o
PS; Complex solutions, still have to fit with in the basic physics, the laws do not change with complexity or scale.
Unless you try and teach them....and copy the same exact errors made in the actual reports.
Re: 9/11 Debate - Lods - 03-21-2021
Sorry for the loss of your friend Baggers. Even harder when, as Mav said, there was hope and prevention of such events in sight.
Re: 9/11 Debate - kruddler - 03-21-2021
(03-21-2021, 06:24 AM)Gointocarlton link Wrote:Not the one I was looking for but the statement about the the designers not expecting 90,000L of jet fuel on one floor was what I remember, Ill keep looking though for the what I was looking for. Some other pertinent points are made about why the buildings fell straight down.
https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
I've had a look through that and its not bad. The issue i have is with the 90,000L. Didn't the submitted report say that most of this was dissipated on impact, so all the issues of that used in that report are a non-issue.
Re: 9/11 Debate - Gointocarlton - 03-21-2021
(03-21-2021, 06:40 AM)cookie2 link Wrote:Just a reminder guys that this is the Covid thread? Or does "mad panic behaviour" also cover 9/11?Agree Cookie, should be moved to general discussion.
Re: 9/11 Debate - Gointocarlton - 03-21-2021
TGA approves CSL AZ vaccine today, final batch testing and can be released for use. AZ have declared its safe and effective in response to countries who have suspended its use.
Re: 9/11 Debate - capcom - 03-21-2021
So sorry for the loss of your mate [member=61]Baggers[/member] ... I know that feeling and not a day goes by without me thinking of my best friend. They sure leave their mark.
Re: 9/11 Debate - LP - 03-21-2021
(03-21-2021, 06:49 AM)kruddler date Wrote:The numbers you are using is what i'm referring too.No not all all.
What you described is also mentioned as being INNACURATE in the initial report.
It has to do with your 10m.
It, wrongly, assumes a free fall at that point. For the acceleration to be 9.81, means the collapse, and everything above it, happened instantly. It simply could not. The only way that is even remotely possible is through a controlled detonation.
So, back to the drawing board.....
You know the math can't lie, you could halve all the figures from the actual and the resulting energies are still way beyond anything a building could resist. That is how back of the envelope calculations like this work, you don't end up an order of magnitude out.
For example; Looking 1/2 Mass(5% of WTC 1 or 2), 1/2 Gravity(reduced acceleration), 1/2 fall height
E = 22,500,000 x 4.9 x 5
E = 551,250,000 Newtons
F = E/g
F = 551,250,000 / 9.8
F = 56,250,000kg
Nothing we build today can withstand even that, it's at least an order of magnitude too high for any building to withstand and transmit that energy down through the structure to the foundations like a shockwave.
For comparative reference, the recent Beirut fertilizer blast was about 1/10th the collapse energy of just one WTC.
Ockham's Razor at work, I think I've read that somewhere before!
Re: 9/11 Debate - cookie2 - 03-21-2021
But undeterred.....................