Conspiracy Debunker Challenge!!
- Thread starter Deadtosin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Liza, here is the problem with our conversations. If I show you something that is irrefutable, you will say "blah blah blah" and then accept that what you said was fact. Then, you will say something that I won't agree with and you will say "blah blah blah" I am misleading, or avoiding. I would be willing to take this one thing at a time with you if you will keep your questions, and/or statements simple and to the point. This thread already has all of the information you could ever need but that isn't enough for you. If you wish to take this further, go ahead and give me one simple point your are making "as layman's terms as possible" and I will answer you one and ask you one. I don't have any real hope we will get anywhere but this is my thread and I am willing to give it a go if we can keep it simple.
Well gee... there's just so much to scoff at, it's hard to not scoff.
To be honest I don't really care much about the topic. I believe it was a terrorist attack, but I'm not going to prove it to anyone. The only reason I spoke up about your critique of her word choice is because my friends needle me some about my vocabulary, so what you said hit a nerve.
I'll start.
6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible? -Dave Heller
And how?
6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible? -Dave Heller
And how?
Just to clarify, what point are you trying to make? Irrespective of the method used to take out WTC 7's base, there's no reason to believe that the floors above wouldn't have collapsed in a similar manner. The building's 47th floor didn't reach the ground in "6.5 seconds," although most of the building's floors did indeed fall very rapidly. You're assuming that as a multi-story building collapses in on itself, the collapse halts momentarily as the floor below the collapse holds for a moment before giving way, which -- in your defense -- sounds reasonable. There's a couple of problems that have to be addressed, though. Namely, these problems are the lack of your inclusion and refutation of momentum transfer as an explanation for the speed of the building's collapse and the building's design, which facilitates this momentum transfer.
First, you're looking at the building's floors as though they're all separate structures reinforcing themselves, and that collapsing floors above a given lower-level floor would be acting independently of those lower floors. That isn't the case; the principles of momentum transfer as applied to the towers effectively explains why. F.R. Greening's report on the collapse of towers 1 and 2, which in part analyzes and explains the mathematics behind the collapse of the towers, states...
The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations. The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. If shorter times are to be physically achieved they must involve an unknown additional source of energy acting in a downward direction. Such a source of energy does not appear to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers.
Green makes no mention of Building 7, but it can be reasonably assumed that the principles of momentum transfer apply there, as well. Aside from Green's report, there's not much information from either proponents of the official case or conspiracy theorists that expounds on momentum transfer, especially with respect to Building 7. The main point is that conspiracy theorists aren't putting forward mathematically substantive explanations as to why any of the buildings, including WTC 7, should've collapsed in the manner you're describing. Until that happens, there's nothing else you can say, because "common sense" alone has next to no bearing on the math behind any of the collapses.
First, you're looking at the building's floors as though they're all separate structures reinforcing themselves, and that collapsing floors above a given lower-level floor would be acting independently of those lower floors. That isn't the case; the principles of momentum transfer as applied to the towers effectively explains why. F.R. Greening's report on the collapse of towers 1 and 2, which in part analyzes and explains the mathematics behind the collapse of the towers, states...
The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations. The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. If shorter times are to be physically achieved they must involve an unknown additional source of energy acting in a downward direction. Such a source of energy does not appear to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers.
Green makes no mention of Building 7, but it can be reasonably assumed that the principles of momentum transfer apply there, as well. Aside from Green's report, there's not much information from either proponents of the official case or conspiracy theorists that expounds on momentum transfer, especially with respect to Building 7. The main point is that conspiracy theorists aren't putting forward mathematically substantive explanations as to why any of the buildings, including WTC 7, should've collapsed in the manner you're describing. Until that happens, there's nothing else you can say, because "common sense" alone has next to no bearing on the math behind any of the collapses.
Okay Liza, help me with this. The common argument is that the weight of the top of the buildings was too much and floor after floor was pancaked. Where does the following law of physics apply?
The Law of Momentum Conservation
The above equation is one statement of the law of momentum conservation. In a collision, the momentum change of object 1 is equal to and opposite of the momentum change of object 2. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2. In most collisions between two objects, one object slows down and loses momentum while the other object speeds up and gains momentum.
it is my observation that the towers can not fall at near free fall speed with a skyscraper beneath it.
Momentum Conservation Principle
So please, using this one very simple law of physics explain it to me. Without directing me elsewhere.
The Law of Momentum Conservation
The above equation is one statement of the law of momentum conservation. In a collision, the momentum change of object 1 is equal to and opposite of the momentum change of object 2. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2. In most collisions between two objects, one object slows down and loses momentum while the other object speeds up and gains momentum.
it is my observation that the towers can not fall at near free fall speed with a skyscraper beneath it.
Momentum Conservation Principle
So please, using this one very simple law of physics explain it to me. Without directing me elsewhere.
"It is my observation that the towers can not fall at near free fall speed with a skyscraper beneath it."
Your take on the law of momentum conservation as applied in the collapse of the WTC buildings isn't taking into account a few things. As mentioned before, a working theory of momentum transfer explains the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 to good effect and agreement, and can be used to explain Building 7's collapse in some detail. Bear in mind that the WTC's buildings were designed like hollow tubes. The outside of the building was steel and concrete, there was more steel and concrete in the center of the building where the elevator shafts were, and everything else was held up by that. The design, coupled with numerous structural failures throughout the building that suddenly gave way under extraordinary strain during the global collapse and the empty space between floors that offered no resistance, explains the speed at which the building fell well enough. Moreover, there's not really any good reason to believe that a controlled demolition of Building 7's base would've caused it to fall significantly faster than if its base had collapsed as a result of multiple structural failures attributable to fire.
It's worth noting that the pancake theory isn't an officially-supported view of the collapse of the structures. From NIST:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Your take on the law of momentum conservation as applied in the collapse of the WTC buildings isn't taking into account a few things. As mentioned before, a working theory of momentum transfer explains the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 to good effect and agreement, and can be used to explain Building 7's collapse in some detail. Bear in mind that the WTC's buildings were designed like hollow tubes. The outside of the building was steel and concrete, there was more steel and concrete in the center of the building where the elevator shafts were, and everything else was held up by that. The design, coupled with numerous structural failures throughout the building that suddenly gave way under extraordinary strain during the global collapse and the empty space between floors that offered no resistance, explains the speed at which the building fell well enough. Moreover, there's not really any good reason to believe that a controlled demolition of Building 7's base would've caused it to fall significantly faster than if its base had collapsed as a result of multiple structural failures attributable to fire.
It's worth noting that the pancake theory isn't an officially-supported view of the collapse of the structures. From NIST:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Last edited:
There's something more. Building 7 didn't fall at "nearly free fall speed." The north face of the building descended about 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in approximately 5.5 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This is roughly 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would've otherwise taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. Nobody knows when exactly floor 47 hit ground zero, but it certainly wasn't at "near-free fall."
Last edited:
NIST's analysis says it didn't.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse (again, 5.4 seconds references the portion of the collapse visible in the video):
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse (again, 5.4 seconds references the portion of the collapse visible in the video):
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.