Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

so burning wood can weaken or even melt steel, good to know

point to ponder: what is office furniture made out of?

It would be more important to ask what paper was made from, as files are still stored in office buildings as paper.
The strongest combustion comes from burning metals.

 

[rwguinn]

It would be more important to ask what paper was made from, as files are still stored in office buildings as paper.
The strongest combustion comes from burning metals.

so close to the truth, yet so far away.
Chainsaw, like many others before you, you know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to understand why you're dangerous...

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I'm a licensed professional engineer in 4 states. I have a Master's degree in Civil Engineering. I knew about the basic structure of the WTC towers from school and other technical seminars on structural engineering. On 9/11 I was in my office when a co-worker told me to come and see what was on television. After hearing the announcers mention that the planes were fully loaded for long flights the term "jet fuel" would not leave my mind. I watched the smoke for about a minute and said, "Those towers are going to fall." Jet fuel burns much hotter than the fire protection on the structural steel was designed for. Additionally, I figured the impact may have knocked some of it off. Those around me were surprised and asked if I should call someone. I said, "Surely they know that." It was horrible to think that maybe they didn't. They fell exactly how I pictured it. There is no coverup. The burning jet fuel caused the towers to collapse. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

American, Nobody paid me. I don't think you know what a "plasma" is.

 

[Belz...]

It would be more important to ask what paper was made from, as files are still stored in office buildings as paper.
The strongest combustion comes from burning metals.

New contender for silliest thing I've heard this month : "burning metals".

 

[Hellbound]

New contender for silliest thing I've heard this month : "burning metals".

Well, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Aluminum will burn, for example. The M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers the military has are covered with 2" cast aluminum armor. I've seen one burn. Essentially, it's a rapid oxidation reaction. Rust is burning iron, and is actually what's used for those disposable "hand warmers" you can buy in a sporting goods stores.

Not that I support any of his theories (he hasn't been coherent enough to make a determination of what he's actually saying), but the idea of metal burning is not, in itself, silly.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Well, considering the "qualified analysts" have failed to explain the exceedingly fast fall rates, the credibility of what our society refers to as "qualified" is VERY much in question.

You have not, as yet, managed to define "exceedingly fast fall rates". What is the normal "fall rate" for a building the size of the WTC? How many have been brought down? What was the measured speed?

What is your experience in the subject other than reading what other people say?

I've enjoyed providing you with a common sense analysis of what "qualifications" have become.

thus far you have provided copious amounts of drivel. Not sure what you think that proves.

 

[CurtC]

I watched the smoke for about a minute and said, "Those towers are going to fall."

The Loose Change crowd quotes Mark Loizeaux (sp?) as predicting that the towers would fall, and conclude that he was therefore a participant in their demolition, because, of course, no steel highrise building had ever collapsed due to fire.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The Loose Change crowd quotes Mark Loizeaux (sp?) as predicting that the towers would fall, and conclude that he was therefore a participant in their demolition, because, of course, no steel highrise building had ever collapsed due to fire.

just goes to show how CTers treat evidence

first they say "no one ver expected the towers to collapse"

then we see lots of knowledgable peopel who figured they would

so all those people must be "in" on it


ockhams snowball

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

New contender for silliest thing I've heard this month : "burning metals".

Thermite is Iron oxide and aluminum it burns at twice the surface temperature of the sun so I would say either you know nothing.
Aluminum is the main fuel in thermite. Aluminum was in the planes and Aluminum does burn in molten form. PS. Steel also burns.
PS. I will tell rocket scientist to stop using it as fuel then since Aluminum and other metals do not by what you say, burn.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0246.shtml

 

[Christophera]

Grossly Inadequate Reasoning For The Wrong Reasons

Mr. Peabody,

it is absolutely unreasonable to conside 2 towers going to the ground from plane impacts. I realize you are out to lunch. Wipe your face off and come back after the bell rings.

And incidentally, though it seems apparent you will not ever concede a point or admit an error, the "near free fall rates" suggestion has been debunked time after time.

bats of bellfree,

Don't you love how coherent this board quotes. U are full of crap, not evidence like exists for the concrete core

Except you claim it was desintegrated FIRST using explosives...

That's an oversimplification if I ever heard one.

Irrelevant.

Consider lauging at the 11 year old child that was five when their mother was killed. Nice joke. It was a tubular concrete core

So were the elevator shafts built into the concrete core, or chiseled out by hand afterwards?

biker dude,

I cannot imagine that an engineer would make such statements and the term plasma just doesn't apply here. You are fake.

I'm a licensed professional engineer in 4 states.
American, Nobody paid me. I don't think you know what a "plasma" is.

Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided evidence.

You have not, as yet, managed to define "exceedingly fast fall rates". What is the normal "fall rate" for a building the size of the WTC? How many have been brought down? What was the measured speed?

What is your experience in the subject other than reading what other people say?

thus far you have provided copious amounts of drivel. Not sure what you think that proves.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

so close to the truth, yet so far away.
Chainsaw, like many others before you, you know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to understand why you're dangerous...

I know, because when I talked to Dr. Jones in 2005 I knew what was screwed up in his experiments and did you know he tried to get hydrogen form aluminum by spraying it with water, he had no clue what he was doing.
He knows nothing about what he is talking or the key to natural themite formation because there is a critical energy form he has left totally out of the equation.

It is not hard to figure out what happened in a dynamic situation like 9/11/2001, but you will never find the answer with static tests in a lab, because you would destroy the lab doing the real tests, you need say a farm in the country where you can do active muti Dynamic tests blow a few things up, to find out what went wrong that day. 18 archers in Kentucky worked for me.

PS. Dr Greening now has the answers he needed.

 

[Cuddles]

Simple jet fuel being liquid is easier to ignite, but wood being able to from solid carbon black has a higher heat potential.

Have you ever seen wood burn? It's quite hard to make charcoal and involves cutting off the air supply so that the carbon can't fully oxidise.

Density of kerosene = 898.64 kgm^-3Density of wood = 200-700 kgm^-3
Kerosene contains only hydrogen and carbon and will fully oxidise to water and CO2. Wood contains many longer hydrocarbons and also many other elements in extremely complex molecules that do not burn easily, which is why it leaves ash when burned. So kerosene is a denser source of fuel, and for a given mass more of it will burn than wood. Your statement that "wood is a more concentrated source of carbon than jet fuel...so it produces a higher energy coefficient than petroleum sources." is complete and utter bollocks.

Graphite another form of carbon is used as a shield on Oxygen lances to remove the slag, on deep cuts in iron and concrete.
IT burns slowly at 6000 degrees.

Irrelevant.

Diamonds well how well do they burn? and they do burn into carbon dioxide.

They burn at around 600^oC, but is quite hard to ignite. Also irrelevant unless you propose the towers were built out of diamond.

The temperature at which carbon burns depends directly on the strength of the chemical bond, and the energy it takes to break it.
That is why life can theoretically be only carbon or silicon based both the elements have similar features.

Life depends on long chain molecules, which only carbon can form. Silicon can form chains with alternating silicon and oxygen, but they become unstable as they get longer and probably could not form long enough or with enough variety to support life. Again, completely irrelevant.

I suggest you learn some basic school chemistry before you try lecturing me about it in the future.

 

[Cuddles]

Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided evidence.

deus ex ma·chi·na (ĕks mä'kə-nə, -nä', măk'ə-nə) pronunciation
n.

1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

[New Latin deus ex māchinā : Latin deus, god + Latin ex, from + Latin māchinā, ablative of māchina, machine (translation of Greek theos apo mēkhanēs).]

Before you try to appear clever by "translating" people's names it might be worth finding the correct meaning. Especially with something as well known as this.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mr. Peabody,

it is absolutely unreasonable to conside 2 towers going to the ground from plane impacts. I realize you are out to lunch. Wipe your face off and come back after the bell rings.



bats of bellfree,

Don't you love how coherent this board quotes. U are full of crap, not evidence like exists for the concrete core

Consider lauging at the 11 year old child that was five when their mother was killed. Nice joke. It was a tubular concrete core



biker dude,

I cannot imagine that an engineer would make such statements and the term plasma just doesn't apply here. You are fake.



Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided evidence.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"

source: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad nauseam

 

[Darth Rotor]

Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided evidence.

If you weren't such a lazy person, you would calculate the "fall rate" as an iterative equation. (floor by floor) You could graph it if you had a brain, and an education, and most importantly the will to actually solve the equation.

Start with initial velocity of zero.

Velocity will increase over time by the acceleration due to gravity, minus the resistance due to obstacles on the way down, to arrival upon the ground. (Total displacement would, in the case of the top of the building, could be reasonably modeled as height of the building.)

Show me your work, if you think you have an answer. Then, show me how you accelerate material falling off of a building beyond the acceleration of gravity.

Where is the booster pack on the falling debris?

None of your assertions in this entire thread account for your claim of where all parts of any falling building accelerate in excess of gravitational acceleration, which would require the building to have had a motive force acting on the structure, and the debris, from the top down.

Laws of Physics much?

DR

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Have you ever seen wood burn? It's quite hard to make charcoal and involves cutting off the air supply so that the carbon can't fully oxidise.

Density of kerosene = 898.64 kgm^-3Density of wood = 200-700 kgm^-3
Kerosene contains only hydrogen and carbon and will fully oxidise to water and CO2. Wood contains many longer hydrocarbons and also many other elements in extremely complex molecules that do not burn easily, which is why it leaves ash when burned. So kerosene is a denser source of fuel, and for a given mass more of it will burn than wood. Your statement that "wood is a more concentrated source of carbon than jet fuel...so it produces a higher energy coefficient than petroleum sources." is complete and utter bollocks.



Irrelevant.



They burn at around 600^oC, but is quite hard to ignite. Also irrelevant unless you propose the towers were built out of diamond.



Life depends on long chain molecules, which only carbon can form. Silicon can form chains with alternating silicon and oxygen, but they become unstable as they get longer and probably could not form long enough or with enough variety to support life. Again, completely irrelevant.

I suggest you learn some basic school chemistry before you try lecturing me about it in the future.

Sorry I was reading an article on flame chemistry and misunderstood that it related to heat radiation do to carbon and soot formation radiating more heat than in fuel oils, and gas fires.
Wood and coal fires are hotter than liquids or gasses not because they have more fuel potential, but because the soots retain more of the heat.
I am having trouble with my vission, sorry your right I confused heat retention with fuel potential.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Consider lauging at the 11 year old child that was five when their mother was killed. Nice joke. It was a tubular concrete core

Sorry, I forgot what it was like to talk to you. I won't do it again.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Mr. Peabody,

it is absolutely unreasonable to conside 2 towers going to the ground from plane impacts. I realize you are out to lunch. Wipe your face off and come back after the bell rings.



bats of bellfree,

Don't you love how coherent this board quotes. U are full of crap, not evidence like exists for the concrete core



Consider lauging at the 11 year old child that was five when their mother was killed. Nice joke. It was a tubular concrete core



biker dude,

I cannot imagine that an engineer would make such statements and the term plasma just doesn't apply here. You are fake.



Where you been twice machine?

If you have to question fall rates as lamely as you've have, check what I posted for Mr. Peabody above.

Unlike you I have provided evidence.

I just want to ask you a simple question, Christophera if you do not mind,
since I have personally tested devices similar to Dr. Jones's, and they could not survive mild impact on steel beams without going off, how will they survive the impact of the PLANES?
Controlled Demolition is not possible with unshielded thermite devices!
I could build new devices that would survive and I emailed Dr. Jones how to do it but they would not be able to make neat little cuts on beams because they have to go though so much shielding first.
Also they are hard to hide, as they do not fit in mail carts, and hard to put in place as they have to be precisely designed to fit on the beams and then bolted in place.
Also I still doubt if the shielding would hold and allow the device to be bolted to the beam and not go off when the plane impacted the top of the structure.
Plus how do you shield them against the burning aluminum at well over
2500c
So how was it done, do you have any answers for that?

 

[anor277]

Well, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Aluminum will burn, for example. The M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers the military has are covered with 2" cast aluminum armor. I've seen one burn. Essentially, it's a rapid oxidation reaction. Rust is burning iron, and is actually what's used for those disposable "hand warmers" you can buy in a sporting goods stores.

Not that I support any of his theories (he hasn't been coherent enough to make a determination of what he's actually saying), but the idea of metal burning is not, in itself, silly.

Magnesium will also burn and quite intensely, and you can even ignite it with a match. Someone once told me that the old VW engines had magnesium engine casings and disastrous results ensued when someone tried to weld them.

I once took freshly deposited aluminum (approx. 200 mg) out of a metal vapour deposition reactor - without the aluminum oxide passivation (that coats normal aluminum) the flames were quite impressive.

 

[rwguinn]

Have you ever seen wood burn? It's quite hard to make charcoal and involves cutting off the air supply so that the carbon can't fully oxidise.

Density of kerosene = 898.64 kgm^-3Density of wood = 200-700 kgm^-3
Kerosene contains only hydrogen and carbon and will fully oxidise to water and CO2. Wood contains many longer hydrocarbons and also many other elements in extremely complex molecules that do not burn easily, which is why it leaves ash when burned. So kerosene is a denser source of fuel, and for a given mass more of it will burn than wood. Your statement that "wood is a more concentrated source of carbon than jet fuel...so it produces a higher energy coefficient than petroleum sources." is complete and utter bollocks.



Irrelevant.



They burn at around 600^oC, but is quite hard to ignite. Also irrelevant unless you propose the towers were built out of diamond.



Life depends on long chain molecules, which only carbon can form. Silicon can form chains with alternating silicon and oxygen, but they become unstable as they get longer and probably could not form long enough or with enough variety to support life. Again, completely irrelevant.

I suggest you learn some basic school chemistry before you try lecturing me about it in the future.

The reason solids are so hard to ignite, and why they generally burn cooler than liquids (and gasses) given the same oxygen conditions is that it takes a lot of energy to get them to gaseous form so that they willburn.
Wood doesn't burn. The vapors do.