Eftersom jag har en gås oplockad med Void och det är på hans uppmanng så startar jag denna tråd.

Enligt konstruktören av WTC 1 och 2, Leslie Robertson född 1928, så var World Trade Center 1 och 2 unika i deras konstruktion.

"What the twin towers may have lacked in architectural aestheticism, they made up for with engineering innovation. To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes the majority of the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size. This method of construction also meant that the twin towers had the world's highest load-bearing walls."

Så vi har alltså en kärna i husen som står för stadgan och ett ytterhölje där varje våning är upp fäst i.

Man kan likna konstruktionen lite vid en "stack / spindel" med DVD-skivor man kan köpa.

Då har vi på ett enkelt sätt rett ut hur husen var konstruerade, detta är viktigt för att förstå hur husen föll.
För föll gjorde dom oavsett vilken metod man tror på.

Bra bild på WTC uppbyggnad.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia ... d_Elevator_Arrangment.jpg



Vilka krafter uppstod då ett våningsplan började falla?
Ja vi kan lätt ta reda på att varje våningsplan vägde 2000 ton dvs. 2 miljoner kg.


Höjden på husen sätter vi till 416 meter.

Det fanns 110 våningar i husen. Ovan jord.

Hur skall vi räkna då?

Ja, seraphim säger att det tog 10- 12 sek.

Ja vilket är sant då?

Ja vi räknar på 9 sekunder då!

Sen är det bäst att förklara att det vi räknar på är den översta delen på huset. Denna del kommer aldrig att färdas 416 meter eftersom det redan ligger en massa skrot på backen, detta är en väldigt vanlig vanföreställning att dom ( om dom kan ) som räknar på att den översta delen av huset måste falla 416 meter, detta är fel.
Vi räknar på att högen på markplan är 25 meter hög.

I frittfall, dvs i vakuum så hade det tagit toppen 8,93 sek att falla ner.

Varje våningsplan som föll ner gjorde det med 30 till 60 ggr sin egen vikt, DVS. upp till 120 000 ton som faller nedåt. Vad skall stoppa upp dessa 120 000 ton? Ja golven som är 10 cm tjocka och består av lättbetong är fästa i innekärnan och i ytterväggen.

När då det första våningen släpper från sitt fäste så träffar den alltså nästa våning med en kraft som är upp till 60 ggr större än sin egen vikt, våningsplanen är naturligtvis inte konstruerade för detta utan sekvensen är i gång.

Vid varje våningsplan som träffar ett annat så bromsas hastigheten upp med ca 1%, detta gäller naturligtvis bara då det första planet som rasar träffar det underliggande, där efter så får vi en accelererande kraft som fortsätter nedåt.

Den totala hastighetsminskningen blir ca 6% mot om vi skulle ha släppt ett föremål från 391 meter i vakuum.

Så 6% av 9 sekunder som vi utgick i från blir 9,54 sek.

Den naturliga frågan blir då, kan du Void se skillnad på 0,54 sek då tornen faller?

Dessa påståenden finns belagda i denna lilla skrift.

http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/resea ... /media/bazantwtcstory.pdf

Så nu kan väl du Void berätta vad som är fel i uträkningarna som är gjorda!

/Gert

Min vän, jag vill att du kollar in tråden "hittade detta nu", läs allt, tack.

Quote:

Tänk och räkna själv.

Quote:

Uhm, ska jag ta detta som att du inte vågar läsa det?

Quote:

Hmm skall jag tolka detta som att du inte törs kritisera fysikenlagar?

Quote:

Men sluta slingra dig lol.

Quote:

You are entirely correct that melting is unnecessary for failure. However in your rush to spew numbers and facts regarding the properties of jet fuel and structural steel - you have neglected the most important variables in heat transfer, which are scenario based - not properties based.

First and foremost, the temperature of a flame does not "equal" the temperature of a mass that it is affecting. Listing the temperature ranges of fuel and the temperature where steel loses 50 percent or 90 percent of its strength is irrelevant in a specific example, without considering several key factors, which are what ultimately determine the ability of a SPECIFIC MASS OF steel to reach a temperature where it experiences a 50 percent, or a 90 percent loss of strength.

Without further ado, here are the far more governing factors that you are assuming were present, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back you up on :

Number one - TIME - duration of the steel's contact with the fire. I can pass my hand through a 1500 degree flame on my stovetop without being burnt if I do it fast enough. Why ? Because the time was insufficient for the fire to transfer its kinetic energy (heat) into my hand.

I don't know the properties of human flesh, nor the point where I would lose 50 percent or 90 percent of my hand .... but I can rest assured that it will not happen in the tenth of a second that my hand spends in the fire. Is 56 minutes sufficient time to transfer the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of that quantity of steel to those temperatures ?

Number two - Cross sectional area - the ratio of fire to steel and the amount of contact shared between the two. In cooking, if you have a six inch burner and an 18 inch skillet .... the only portion of the pan that will be significantly heated is the section that is in direct contact with the flame - that six inch section. You would become well aware of this if you attempted to cook near the edges of the pan.

The remaining 12 inch area would be warmed by conduction .... but nowhere near the degree that one could cook with. For energy (temperature) to transfer in an efficient manner, it necessitates cross sectional contact with a flame ... not just proximity to one. The ratio of building steel to comparatively small fires was enormous.

Even the places where the fires were burning .... there is little in the way to indicate that there was sufficient contact between the two. The steel must TOUCH the fire, not only that, but for sufficient weakening a large ratio of it must TOUCH the fire.

Number three - volume - amount of fuel. If I have a teaspoon of combusting kerosene, that is "1500 degrees" - it will not raise the temperature of 100 pounds of steel to be 1500 degrees, as it did not produce enough heat before it expended itself. If I have 100 gallons of kerosene that is combusting at 1500 degrees and hold a teaspoon of steel over that flame - that teaspoon of steel will reach 1500 degrees in short order, because of the total energy (heat) produced by the comparatively larger volume of fuel. The jet fuel was "1500 degrees" in both examples ... but only one of them was capable of producing an amount of heat necessary to rapidly transfer those temperatures to the steel.

The jet fuel itself is mostly irrelevant in the case of the WTC. Even the 9/11 Commission Report, as well as FEMA's Building Performance Study, conclude that the majority of the fuel was combusted outside of the building in those magnificent fireballs. The remainder, the part which made it into the building, was estimated to have burnt in ten minutes or less.


Heat and temperature are not interchangeable terms. The best way to look at this is the difference between an oven and the filament in a lightbulb. An oven produces a tremendous amount of total heat while emitting low temperatures. A lightbulb reaches extremely high temperatures, but emits only a small amount of total heat.

Any hydrocarbon fire will naturally burn in high temperature ranges. However, not all high temperature fires produce a lot of heat. For instance, if I burn a single match, the temperature of its flames will reach an identical temperature as the temperature of the flames from a box full of 100 burning matches - the temperature is determined by the compound properties of a fuel (the matchsticks.)

Obviously, the box of 100 matchsticks is producing more "heat" .... more total energy .... Heat in a fire is determined by quantity of fuel and duration of oxidation (time spent burning) ... temperature, again, is determined by the nature of the fuel that is combusting. You can add more fuel and it does not make "more temperature," it makes more energy.

Steel, and any other mass, requires heat (total energy of the combusting fuel and the factor of time spent combusting) and cross-sectional contact (ratio of contacting flameface to mass being heated) to raise its temperature - not just a bold declaration of the properties of an undetermined amount of fuel.

This is a pitiful attempt at a debunk if you are not willing to examine the quantities of each variable. There is an important ratio of time, quantity of fuel, and quantity of metal to be heated that will ultimately determine the final temperature of the metal that is being heated - these are easily more critical factors than misleadingly cited numbers. This argument sounds reasonable only to people with no grasp of how heat tranfer works.

Lastly, the "1500 degree" figure comes from the ceiling at which kerosene burns .... 800 degrees celcius (1472 degrees fahrenheit.) This is what a 1500 degree flame looks like:



This is what a "1500 degree" fire DOES NOT look like:



So let's please stop tossing that figure around.....

"1500 degree" fires are made in these things:



which rigidly control and constantly adjust pressure, airflow, and fuel stream so that they all reach their ideals in feeding fires to maximum combustable temperatures .....



....These things, called floors in an office building, ^^^^^ do not measure and meter these things in perfect harmony.....which are required for kerosene to top out at its "1500 degree" ceiling.

The whole thing that the biggest supporters of the official explanations need to understand is this - No one got any time to examine the physical evidence. What you, the loud supporters amongst you, are parroting back to one another with a voice of authority is, itself, merely theories, with nothing more to back it up than people's projections of what MIGHT have happened.

The tiny investigation that did occur - occured nearly three years later. It occured with the conditional promise that it would be limited in its scope and would instead focus mostly on recommendations on how to avoid terrorist attacks. The joke of a study done at ground zero by FEMA was underfunded, was staffed with volunteers and part-time workers, and did not even begin until after most of the pieces had already been disposed of.

This is what people expect to lend comprehensive results - underfunded volunteers working from photos and only a fraction of the pieces in the rubble ??

The FEMA report and the NIST report are shamefully full of vaguaries and do not sensibly piece together what occured in regards to the mechanism of the collapses themselves. It is full of information about the construction and dimensions of the towers themselves, but incredibly light on explaining the collapse other than a few shoddy diagrams. Instead we are left, when it comes time to deliver info about the collapses, with things like this, actual quotes from the report "that figured it all out" :

"With the information and the time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definetely determined."

-WTC Building Performance Study


and this,

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."
-WTC Building Performance Study

This is a fancy way to say, "We don't know what happened." Go ahead, read the report, I have. Discover just how vague it is. How many people arguing the "pro-official story" on this website have even read this report ? I would imagine very few of you. Sure it is boring, and on its surface looks intimidating and technical, but it is a fairly easy read. From start to finish it is 160 pages of different ways to rephrase "We don't know what happened, but here are some pretty pictures and hypothetical diagrams to look at."

FEMA's team of shoestring budgeted volunteers who were denied full access to the rubble, offered a theory on the collapse of the North Tower and announced the same process (floors pancaked) must have occured with the South Tower because the same design was used in each building. Without acknowledging that the South Tower recieved different damage (corner strike) which would have influenced its specific mechanisms of failure, which even if similar, would still be completely different from a structural vantage point as would the myriad of forces that would determine those failures and the sequencing of them. No legitimate and fully sequential model was made for either building .... only a model of initiation of collapse. No attempt to even posit a theory on building 7 was made at all.

FEMA only explained one building. And within that same document admitted that that explanation was itself a guess. That is the official story kiddos - one building [st]was explained[/st] had a guess lobbed at it by underfunded novices, with nothing to work from but blueprints and pictures and almost no physical evidence, and then everyone in the media agreed with the guess and repeated it with authority.

This is what you are espousing when you regurgitate the official tale. Why would anyone cling to reports that can be summarized as an 160 page statement of "I dunno."

Those reports are full of descriptive adjectives in place of rigid calculations - i.e. - constant use of words like "massive," "intense," "large" instead of legitimate measurements, or for that matter even reasonable estimates.

They couldn't make measurements because it is all guesses. It is all guesses, because everything was immediately whisked away and guarded by machine gun weilding men. The few places that they do make calculations, they admit that they are outrageously unlikely. For instance, this :

"The air needed to support combustion would be on the order of 600,000 to 1,000,000 cubic feet per minute."
-WTC Building Performance Study

A million cubic feet per minute of fresh, flowing, air .... inside of an enclosure with a 130 foot opening, on a 63x63 meter floor that is compacted with 80 tons of debris, an incalcuable volume of broken concrete, beams, dust, glass, corpses, drywall, and non-flammable debris, and all of this while constantly pumping out voluminous clouds of soot and ash that had no ventilation or anyplace to escape to, except for the gashes left by the aircraft, so would therefore be smothering its own flames and acting as a naturally suppressing barrier for oxygen to penetrate to the flames.

..... for the fires to even remain burning, one million cubic feet per minute of fresh air in those conditions ...uh-huh, riiiiiight.

The only source of information about the collapses are photographs, videos, and news reports. Unfortunately those images show only the exterior of the building - and this incredible void of information creates a situation in which NO ONE CAN BE AN EXPERT. Everyone is a "theorist" because anyone who offers any idea at all - is only offering those ideas based on pictures. This includes the government, or more importantly - is the basis of their story too.

But what is astounding is that somehow people will not even consider that in the void of information which rendered everyone a theorist ..... that there is NO possibility that the government account could possibly be wrong about their conspiracy theory. They got it 100 percent right, based on guesses and pictures. And conversely, anyone else making guesses based on pictures have NO possibility of being correct.

The technical term for a fire is called "oxidation." As you might guess by the name of this term - it requires oxygen in order for combustion to occur. It is so vital for combustion, in fact, that it is the base of what is known as "the fire triangle."



Fighting fires requires the suppression of one or more of these three componants. You deny a fire of oxygen = it goes out or at a bare minimum, does not reach maximum temperatures or area of spread. The chemical reaction of combustion is a simple one that breaks the chemical bonds within a combustible substance and replaces them with oxygen. The environment wherein these fires took place acted as a natural barrier to oxygen. There is very little in the way of evidence that suggests that the fires were recieving an adequate amount of it.

There is plenty of evidence that suggests they were being suppressed. The majority of the contents (both by mass and volume) on the impacted floor were both non-flammable as well as poor heat conductors. The 9/11 Commission report itself admits that the "jet fuel" was consumed in ten minutes, meaning the remainder of the fires were fueled by paper, desks, carpet, plastic, and office contents. Add it all up - low temperature fuel, obstructed access to air, non-flammable poor conduction contents .... and all of this in a briefly burning fire (56 and 103 minutes, respectively.)

And if the fires were not a contributing factor - then the government theory is itself flawed.

I am not denying the possibility of the towers being brought down by the airplane impacts alone. That is indeed a possibility. However, there are so many other things that are not accounted for by fires alone, not the least of which is their duration and strength. We forget that even the FEMA report is basically a conclusion that no conclusion was possible.

We are talking about a free-fall speed event. Every floor was not loosely attached .... it was highly redundant grids of supports - thousands of bolts and joints every twelve feet, over 90 percent of which were not affected by fire. They failed at the speed of objects falling through the air. They offered no resistance.

The building fell without slowing in one continuous fluid symmetrical wave that laterally ejected heavy beams hundreds of feet. The floor failure only deals with the failure of the floors .... it does not adress the forty seven, 100 mm thick, core columns, also symetrically failing in a continous wave. As a matter of fact, the biggest opponant of the "pancake theory" is the owner of the buildings himself.

He presented that as the thrust of his argument in the insurance claim that would treat the two failures as independent events so that he could receive double the payout for his losses.

The private company that he employed at nearly two hundred times the budget that FEMA received, and who actually provided a fully sequential model, and whose main specialty is investigating building failures, concluded that only core column failure explains the collapse. FEMA developed the pancake theory, and wrapped up its shoestring budgeted investigation after ten days of study.

Everything that was studied was done in this time and published in its Building Performance Report. FEMA operated on a budget of 600,000 dollars and used volunteers. Compare this to a private firm, using professionals, whose expertise is determining precise structural failure, operating on a 100 million dollar budget, developing a full sequence of failure. I don't know why everyone is so determined to defend the FEMA report given the half-assed assembly of its crew and calculations in its allotted time and budget.

Weidlinger, knows that for that structure to fail, its gravitational support has to fail. The primary source of the gravitational load was beared in the core columns. Pancake theory does not explain the failure of 47 of the world's largest columns in sequence. Severed core theory does.

I am a fan of this line, in particular, taken verbatim from the Weidlinger report :

"Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses."

rivaled only by this one :

"On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell."

Perhaps most telling of all in the whole "pancake theory" argument is .... BUILDING SEVEN. It was not struck by an aircraft. It had a completely different structural design. No theory whatsoever has ever been offered for its free-fall symmetrical collapse.

There was no kinetic energy of airplanes involved. Fire and fire alone. How did that building fall in the manner that it did, from bottom to top in a 6.5 second drop of vertical prescision, clean symmetric wave, clean pile with exterior resting neatly on top, minimal dust, no collateral damage ?




If you are going to apply Occam's razor the simplest explanation for every observed phenomenon is explosives. I don't know how they got there ... I don't know what the motives were for the party that placed them there .... I don't know how they pulled it off. But if you are looking for lowest common denominators that satisfy all parameters. Explosives fit the bill far more accordingly than anything proffered by this government.

As far as I am concerned, there are 3,000 unsolved murders and it is beyond tragic that there has been no legitimate attempt to determine who killed them. I am not necessarily a "conspiracy theorist" .... but Uncle Sam has some serious 'splainin to do.[/quote]

Avslutning:

There are numerous other factors to consider as well. The fires would also have to simultaneously heat the other contents on the floors. Many of these are flammable, however, a considerably larger amount by total mass are non-flammable.

Beyond being non-flammable, many of them are poor conductors of heat and would actually be working as a heat sink .... draining away the energy of the fire. So not only would the fires have to produce enough heat in a brief period of time to compromise massive quantities of steel, but it would have to do so while combatting a considerable amount of its energy being wasted heating things that would not significantly conduct and transfer the heat being drained away.

Any energy used to heat the concrete, gypsum drywall, human corpses, dust, glass, etc.... is a quantity of energy that could not be used to heat steel. What percentage of the fire's strength did the heat sink consume ?

What was the health of the fire and the efficiency of its conversion ? From photos, we can gather that it was severely hampered and suppressed by lack of ventilation - hence the inordinate volumes of black smoke. That black smoke would be coating everything inside the towers with soot and ash .... which would both choke the fire, and raise the energy requirements of anything that was not the fire.

What was the level of obstruction posed by the eighty tons of aluminum and glass that the smashed airplane introduced to an already cluttered environment? How much debris/heat sink/fuel source was pushed towards the center of the structure, like a broom moving everything far away from the windows where it would receive airflow ?

Could these fires burn efficiently and rapidly combust between the distance to the windows, the smoke coating everything, and the natural obstruction of airflow posed by the compacted concrete/human/metal heap ?

The firefighters who made it to the 78th floor in the South Tower (impact area) reported two small fires that 4 men working two hoses could put out. Their voices sound calm. They have a definite plan in place and were planning on going up to floor 79. This does not sound like a "raging inferno" of floor supports that are over one thousand degrees.

These are my questions concerning the specifics of the fires. These are the things which are most important in these fires .... certainly more than arrogantly throwing out an abstract listing of properties.

Debatt sabotage.

Du kanske inte är läskunnig du heller.
Läs rubriken igen.
Tråden skulle handla om falltiden inte branden det kan vi ta i en egen tråd.

Men du törs väl inte räkna på detta det kanske bara blir fel då!

/Gert

Ja om vi ser det så här, det södra tornet blev träffat ungefär vid 80:e våningen, och om vi säger att det tog 0,5 sekunder för varje våning att kollapsa, vilket är väldigt generöst, så skulle kollapsen ha tagit runt 40 sekunder. Men det gjorde det inte, det tog 10-12 sekunder, varför då? Jo för att skiten demolerades, bricks for brains.

Quote:



Ja, vad mer kan man begära av dig seraphim.

Så om du släpper en platta frigolit som är 1 x 1 meter från 100 meter så kommer den landa samtidigt som platta bly som är LIKA stor?

Logik alá seraphim

För det första så liknar din uträkning OSPA det där skämtet när man räknar ut hur många dagar man jobbar på ett år, och det slutar med totalt 2 dagar efter att all ledighet dragits bort.

Dessutom att ett sådant pannkaksfall skulle kunna pulverisera armerad betong till ett fint puder förstår ju även du OSPA är förryckt.

Såvitt jag förstått var FEMA medveten om det och valde helt enkelt i sin rapport att helt enkelt göra om tornets konstruktion och bortse från att den bärande konstruktionen var de INRE 47 pelarna i första hand som i ett pannkaksfall skulle ha stått höga och spretande kvar (eller fallande åt sidan i sin längd av x00 meter).

Quote:

Fel.

FEMA har inte gjort om någonting.

Läs om vad konstruktören av WTC säger. Leslie Robertson.


Dom inre pelarna bar upp huset, ytterväggen höll upp golven på varje våning.

Eller har du någon teori om hur man fäster 2000 ton golv bara i mitten av huset.
Jag tror att Leslie Robertson skulle vara väldigt intresserad av detta.

Men du kunde inte kritisera några uträkningar?

OSPA,Ingen som sett dina tidigare foruminlägg tar dig längre på allvar.
Du är en disinformatör som nu dessutom kallar din värdelösa uträkning om 6% för vetenskap.

Den är allt annat än vetenskaplig då den är både godtycklig (ca 6%) och dessutom räknar tiden för de första våningsplanens tid att lossa från den bärande konstruktionen som en procentsiffra av den totala falltiden.
Publicera hela din vetenskapliga utredning då det krävs avancerade uträkningar och simuleringar för att komma med ett sådant påstående. Vilken är din källa?

och jo, FEMA bortsåg från den inre pelar-konstruktionen som vid den (omöjliga) pannkaksteori hade stått spretande kvar eller fallit åt sidan

Quote:

Du kritiserar ATT jag skriver, du har inga egna tankar om vad jag skriver.

Bara för att Du UTAN vetenskap eller uträkningar säger att 6% är värdelöst så kommer ditt inlägg inte hamna på någon vetenskaplig hemsida direkt.

Det ligger en länk med alla uträkningar i första inlägget.
6% är inte godtyckligt, vi vet att varje golvplan vägde 2000 ton vi vet vad G är och vi vet avståndet till nästa våning.

Sen skriver dom så här:

“− This represents a differential equation for u as a function of time t, and its integration shows that
the time that the upper part takes to fall through the height of one story is, for cold columns, only
about 6% longer than the duration of a free fall from that height, which is 0.87 s. For hot columns,
the difference is of course much less than 6%. So there is hardly any ‘cushioning’.”

Så alla uträkningar är gjorda på kallt stål och det är uträknat på när fallet börjar inget annat.

Så vad mer saknar du?

Nej det går inte att ändra på moderjord och hennes naturlagar så uträkningarna blir lika överallt.
Ja förutom för seraphim som tror att det kommer ta 40 sekunder.

Skojar du?

Du hänvisar till en skrift som är publicerad de 13 September 2001
2 dagar efter att byggnaderna DEMOLERADES. Om rapporten varit verklig hade en sådan rapport tagit mycket längre tid att producera. Snarare 2 månader och inte en dag mindre än 2 veckor.

Men svara gärna på de 2 frågorna som du undvek

Quote:

Skit i när den är publicerad. Tala om vad det är som är fel med de, eller kan du inte det?

Dina ständiga påhopp ATT man skriver börjar bli pinsamma.

Antingen så bemöter du uträkningar eller så skriver du i en annan tråd!


Sen är det väldigt svårt att svara på 2 frågor då du bara skriver ETT ?-tecken.

Sen är det ENDA ?-tecknet besvarat, du har fått din länk.

Så bemöt nu uträkningarna istället för att tramsa runt.

Varsågod.

/Gert

Hur menar du "Skit i när den är publicerad."

Artikeln som du hänvisar till som "VETENSKAP" är DE-FAKTO förberedd innan smällen som en del i COVER-UP och publicerad 2 dagar efter. Lämpligt för Media att plocka upp och sprida som fakta från en proffessor.
Ingen professor publicerar en sådan artikel efter 2 dagar förstår väl även du.

Om du vill se några infallsvinklar på "rapporten" så läs gärna t.ex:

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/e ... zant_jem/bazant_zhou.html

För min del är denna diskussion avslutad.

Även om golven pressats ner mot marken så skall fortfarande dom bärande pelarna stå kvar.

Detta är anledning till varför man spränger sönder dessa innan man spränger våningarna vid rivningar av hus.

Annars skulle man bara behöva använda rivningsklot och slå sänder lite i sidan på husen.

En annan intressant sak förresten..måste kolla upp detta men skriver det ändå.
Topdelen som nu pressat ner hela byggnaden.. borde inte den vara hel och stå eller ligga över hela högen på backen.

Jag menar, den delen borde ju finnas hel om den lyckats pressa sönder hela nedre delen av byggnaden.

Ja enligt 9/11 kommissionens rapport så bestod kärnorna i tornen av ihåliga stålschakt, och det mina vänner är en ren lögn eftersom de bestod 47 enorma stödpelare. Och dessa, om det hade varit en pannkakskollaps, borde ha petat rakt upp i luften efteråt.

OSPA tillhör alltså dom som tror att man kan demolera en 110 våningar hög byggnad på 10-12 sekunder genom att spränga 6-8 våningar. Och jag undrar hur stor chansen är att detta skulle lyckas två gånger i rad?

Seraphin tror att om en våning som väger 2000 ton faller och det tar enligt beräkningar 0.87 sekunder så är det bara och ta 0,87 sekunder x 80 st våningar så får man fram antalet sekunder det tar..


Det är den nivån man skall börja och försöka leta fel på.

Herregud jag har haft högstadieelever som förstått detta bättre.

Ta och prata med din fysiklärare så förklara han detta för dig.
Tyvärr är det kanske ytterliggare slöseri med skattemedel. för detta är bas-fysik.

Men vad i beräkningarna är det som är fel?

Att bara avsluta debatten utan att ens kommenterat ett plus eller minus tecken tyder på en total okunskap i ämnet
Det är nog snarare så att ni läser in lite väl mycket vad dessa "teoretiker" skriver och gör detta tyvärr utan att ifrågasätta något.

inte så insatt som ni dårar, men var det verkligen HELA våningarna som brann och inte bara ca: 1/4?

ta en titt på mitt föregående inlägg så ni får stopp på den här vansinnesdebatten

Quote:


Kan du ju passa på och fråga varför 2 st Professorer från min gamla skola kan skriva detta en vecka efter katastrofen.

http://www.nyteknik.se/art/17356

Fast dom är kanske köpta av Bush C/O.
Det kan inte vara så att det är allmänt känt hur husen var konstruerade och detta var ganska enkelt och förutse hur det skulle bli vid ett ras?

Nä du, dags att läsa på lite om fysik och naturlagar så kommer debatten bli lite mer konstruktiv från din sida.
Det handlar ju om vetenskap. kan du inte detta så passa på och skriv i andra trådar då!