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

[Belz...]

The block itself also collapsed, because otherwise it should stay intact until it reaches the ground somewhere. It is impossible to collapse in the air because there is no initial 'helping hand' to let that block (that follows its own "free fall" part in the air) collapse, because it's assumed that the whole magical collapse process starts if the block collapses on the floor below. Why would the block also atomize into dust ?

Atomise ? You need to check those pictures of ground zero again.

the magical process is a progressive collapse from top to down, under the damaged zone. Does the magical process flow back into the falling block ? That must be a smart process. The same argument for the other building.

Are you saying that the top section, coming down in the relatively intact bottom section, shouldn't have been demolished as it fell down ?

 

[einsteen]

Well, whether it topples of not, it is assumed to start the magical process, it is assumed that the total mass of the block at top containing n floors will 'merge' with the floor below and that this (n+1) store floor will repeat the process but then with a new speed. It is obvious from the movies that once things pulverize it does not merge as a new block, small particles like dust will reach their maximal speed very quickly, a lot of mass is 'hanging' in the air as you an see, ok but alright then, if you assume this you get a theoretical bottom value, for a total elastic (billiard balls) situation the collapse you get a theoretial upper value, the real value then must be between this, of course the situation becomes extremely complex and an exact calculation is not trivial.

This site got some detailed pitures

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/south-tower.htm

 

[Belz...]

I don't know how the towers fell anymore than the investigators seemed to in their report but I am suspicious of their claims.

Why ?

Regardless of the construction of the core (remember concrete is very good in compression and steel reinforcement is only there to resist tension) I am surprised at the mode of failure for the towers. My expectation would be that the floors would certainly pancake on each other leaving the core remarkably intact and that the top would topple over the core and fall to the side of the building.

Like in cartoons...

 

[Belz...]

Well, whether it topples of not, it is assumed to start the magical process,

What "magical" process are you refering to ? This kind of attitude doesn't reinforce the notion that you're here to debate and learn.

it is assumed that the total mass of the block at top containing n floors will 'merge' with the floor below and that this (n+1) store floor will repeat the process but then with a new speed. It is obvious from the movies that once things pulverize it does not merge as a new block, small particles like dust will reach their maximal speed very quickly, a lot of mass is 'hanging' in the air as you an see, ok but alright then, if you assume this you get a theoretical bottom value, for a total elastic (billiard balls) situation the collapse you get a theoretial upper value, the real value then must be between this, of course the situation becomes extremely complex and an exact calculation is not trivial.

What's your point, here ?

 

[einsteen]

My point is that F.R.Greenings theoretical bottom value is under the assumption of a block that grows each floor. If we have N floors and the initial block that falls contains n floors, then the next one contains (n+1) floors and so on, at the bottom the first floor will then finally crash because

((n+1)+1)+...+1)=N-1 floors will fall on it, this in fact is assumed to be a solid block (in fact the whole building) transferring it's momentum and energy. It's obvious from the videos that this is not the case, there is no doubt about it that that is the thing that happens, no chance at all, nothing.

Well, if you expect the initial block falls into pieces, then you really cannot assume this. Even the block I assumed is believed to be falling in pieces, but F.R. Greening assumes the block will only grow, floor by floor.

 

[Brainache]

Sorry Einsteen. I don't quite follow your banter old man.
What does that mean?
Are you saying that the top should have remained all in one piece all the way down?

 

[rwguinn]

My point is that F.R.Greenings theoretical bottom value is under the assumption of a block that grows each floor. If we have N floors and the initial block that falls contains n floors, then the next one contains (n+1) floors and so on, at the bottom the first floor will then finally crash because

((n+1)+1)+...+1)=N-1 floors will fall on it, this in fact is assumed to be a solid block (in fact the whole building) transferring it's momentum and energy. It's obvious from the videos that this is not the case, there is no doubt about it that that is the thing that happens, no chance at all, nothing.

Well, if you expect the initial block falls into pieces, then you really cannot assume this. Even the block I assumed is believed to be falling in pieces, but F.R. Greening assumes the block will only grow, floor by floor.

ok, here's how it works.
go out and find yourself a dirt clod.
Weigh it.
throw it against the ground.
weigh al the pieces and dust.
amazing! they weigh the same!
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, merely transformed.
when the top flooors start falling, they break up. the vast majority of the pieces add themselves to the mass hitting the floor below, which also breaks up and falls. most of that hits the next floor.
Even though it is in pieces, it still has mass, and given that it is moving, it has momentum and energy.
There is some loss, because dust particles will hit terminal velocity rather quickly, but even though there is a tremendous amount of dust, the vast majority of the stuff is of pebble-size and larger (much larger!).
Have someone empty a bucket of gravel or sand on your head from your roof. After you get back from the hospital, contemplate the reality of Newtonian physics.

 

[Hellbound]

Criticism of shoddy argument accepted. Will try harder

So the girders and other dense, substantial debris do reach terminal velocity during a 400m fall? The equations in Wikipedia are way beyond my maths. Any volunteers?

The girders I don't know, I was speaking of the skydivers. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I doubt a plain girder, falling vertically, would reach terminal velocity. However, this one is going to depend on the orientation ,surface area presented to the direction of motion, and lots of calculus, which is beyond my abilities (and therefore I make no claims on that part). gravity acceleration alone, however, provides a 9 second fall time (for 400m) and a top speed of ~200mph.

I'm not really seeing that it makes that much difference, though, whether or not they hit terminal velocity.

 

[Christophera]

Sorry Einsteen. I don't quite follow your banter old man.
What does that mean?
Are you saying that the top should have remained all in one piece all the way down?

No wonder folk here think there was a collapse in NYC on 9-11.

Einsteen says that Greening thinks that it should have remained in one piece all the way down.

Because of the appearance of the image at bottom, and fact that the official story does not explain its being pulverized BEFORE it hits the ground, the only explanation is found here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

I much prefer getting hit on the head with a bucket of sand than a bucket of gravel or the worst case, a bucket of yesterdays concrete, hardened, and, there is a reason for this that has been completely ignored,


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3006&stc=1&d=1157818503

 

[Pardalis]

My point is that F.R.Greenings theoretical bottom value is under the assumption of a block that grows each floor. If we have N floors and the initial block that falls contains n floors, then the next one contains (n+1) floors and so on, at the bottom the first floor will then finally crash because

((n+1)+1)+...+1)=N-1 floors will fall on it, this in fact is assumed to be a solid block (in fact the whole building) transferring it's momentum and energy. It's obvious from the videos that this is not the case, there is no doubt about it that that is the thing that happens, no chance at all, nothing.

Well, if you expect the initial block falls into pieces, then you really cannot assume this. Even the block I assumed is believed to be falling in pieces, but F.R. Greening assumes the block will only grow, floor by floor.

emphasis mine

Grow?

What in the freaking hell (sorry Belz) are you talking about?

What is this stupid pseudo science? What do you do for a living again?

 

[R.Mackey]

No wonder folk here think there was a collapse in NYC on 9-11.

Einsteen says that Greening thinks that it should have remained in one piece all the way down.

Einsteen is wrong. Greening says nothing of the kind.

You might try reading Greening's paper for yourself, rather than relying on somebody else's off-the-cuff, completely misleading analysis, if you had any interest whatsoever in research.

Because of the appearance of the image at bottom, and fact that the official story does not explain its being pulverized BEFORE it hits the ground, the only explanation is found here,

[Link to unproven, fantastical, lunatic delusions deleted]

Your "fact" is a lie. The official story explains the mechanics of collapse thoroughly.

I much prefer getting hit on the head with a bucket of sand than a bucket of gravel or the worst case, a bucket of yesterdays concrete, hardened, and, there is a reason for this that has been completely ignored,

Ignored by whom?

The reason is a distinction between momentum and energy. A truckload of sand dumped on you from a few stories will kill you quite effectively. Greening treats both in his paper. The subject is not ignored, and you have lied again. Except I'll let you off easy because I strongly suspect you lack the education to appreciate the difference. But please, go try to learn something about basic physics. If you refuse to learn from people here, you're just going to have try something else.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

I see you are posting your "thoughts"* over at the Loose Change forum. Do you honestly think that contributing to one Internet forum after another is going achieve anything?

So I ask you again: What are your plans for providing your evidence, such as it is, to one or more scientific journals?

Oh, by the way...

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers...

Name them.

*That is, misinformation and lies.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...I'll address your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order inaccuracy. I suspect it'll be for naught, but what the hey.

First, I was attempting to walk you through the simple deductive process when I initially engaged you on the matter. But your general unresponsiveness proved continually taxing. Then, when you returned after your suspension (not "ban," as you lied on the physorg forum), you continued your difficult manner.

But let's get to it.

The 110-story WTC 1 was struck first by a Boeing 767 at approx. 490 mph. The floors damaged were between 93 and 99. This left 11 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 102 minutes after impact.

The 110-story WTC 2 was subsequently struck by a Boeing 767 at approx. 590 mph. The floors damaged were between 77 and 85. This left 25 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 56 minutes after impact.

Please don't tell me I have to explain this any further.

Mr. B:

Your silence, in regard to the above, is deafening.

Oh, and what was the name of your imaginary BBC/PBS documentary, again?

 

[Christophera]

Einsteen is wrong. Greening says nothing of the kind.

You might try reading Greening's paper for yourself, rather than relying on somebody else's off-the-cuff, completely misleading analysis, if you had any interest whatsoever in research.

You might try reading what I wrote, if you had any interest in quality communication.

 

[Christophera]

Mr. Brown:

I see you are posting your "thoughts"* over at the Loose Change forum. Do you honestly think that contributing to one Internet forum after another is going achieve anything?

So I ask you again: What are your plans for providing your evidence, such as it is, to one or more scientific journals?

Oh, by the way...

Name them.

*That is, misinformation and lies.

Dear Mr. Peabody.

I know there have been murders and I know that you are defending their lies, this does not mean I know who they are.

Science BTW, since 9-11, has suffered great credibility loss.

 

[R.Mackey]

You might try reading what I wrote, if you had any interest in quality communication.

As if it needed further proof, this pathetic attempt at rebuttal demonstrates that you have no inclination, and perhaps no ability, to provide such.

I can't believe you thought I'd be impressed by that.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I know there have been murders and I know that you are defending their lies...

Just like you "know" about the documentary that you can't find? Just like you "know" the towers fell in the wrong sequence? Just like you "know" there are 3" rebars of 4' centers? Just like you "know" some shadowy, unnamed group installed explosives when the WTC was constructed decades ago? Just like you "know" a single, still image of a smokey, rapidly changing, dynamically violent event reveals a concrete core -- the existence of which cannot be verified on any plans, drawings, or descriptions, vouched for by any architect or structural engineer, and which not one eyewitness will attest to existing?

...this does not mean I know who they are.

A remarkable admission on your part. Congratulations. Now, why not try to build from there?

Science BTW, since 9-11, has suffered great credibility loss.

You are perhaps the least qualified I know to judge anyone's credibility.

 

[einsteen]

Have someone empty a bucket of gravel or sand on your head from your roof. After you get back from the hospital, contemplate the reality of Newtonian physics.

I don't like this way of conversation. Why that aggresive, what did I do to you ? I know enough of Newtonian mechanics.

 

[Belz...]

My point is that F.R.Greenings theoretical bottom value is under the assumption of a block that grows each floor.

[...]

It's obvious from the videos that this is not the case, there is no doubt about it that that is the thing that happens, no chance at all, nothing.

It doesn't matter if floors above were pulverized or otherwise destroyed. A million tons of concrete and steel weighs a million tons no matter in what shape it is in.

 

[Belz...]

No wonder folk here think there was a collapse in NYC on 9-11.

Einsteen says that Greening thinks that it should have remained in one piece all the way down.

Because of the appearance of the image at bottom, and fact that the official story does not explain its being pulverized BEFORE it hits the ground, the only explanation is found here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Are you saying that explosives in the top portion of the towers went of AS THAT PORTION FELL TO THE GROUND ???

I much prefer getting hit on the head with a bucket of sand than a bucket of gravel or the worst case, a bucket of yesterdays concrete, hardened, and, there is a reason for this that has been completely ignored,

It doesn't matter. If it's the same weight, it's going to have pretty much the same effect. A ton's a ton.