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

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Rea said:
As I have stated consistently from the first post I have no problem with the tussed floors between the inner and outer walls pancaking. That seems perfectly rational to me. I don't have a problem with the outer walls peeling since they were designed as buttresses and would be unlikely to be self supporting in the absence of the floor trusses.

The problem that everyone is dancing around is that the central core which was designed to withstand considerable compressive stress should pancake.
Click to expand...


Oh, well in that case...
About half the core remained standing for a good 15 - 25 seconds after collapse started. You can't see it in most videos because of the smoke. I think the doco "Why the towers fell" covers it.

Once the rest of the building had been ripped away, the core stood for a bit, but I think it's a given, considering the damage it would have received in the collapse and the carnage occuring at its base, the core wasn't going to remain for long once the remainder had fallen.

-Andrew
 
einsteen said:
Oh yeah, black holes have no hair... and mass is mass of course. Have you read my reply why those collapse times match pretty well ? Because all baby powder is assumed to travel in the same direction, in fact this is a theoretical model where the whole collapse occurs in a space

[0,A] x [0,B] x [0,C]

And the upperblock perfectly fits in it and doesn't allow the baby powder to escape.

Even in this model there wil be scattering (some particles do, some don't), it will bounce back but Greening assumes it just merges and the speed is in the same directory and then we get da funny growin' block again

I would not like it if I get such a block on my head, however if you empty a bucket baby powder on my head, with particles reaching terminal speed quickly I'm fine.

It's a desperate remedy to explain the collapse time.
Click to expand...
Desperate nothing. I've already told you and reminded you how to compute an estimate of collapse time with load shedding as it progresses. You'll find it makes little difference.

And for the fourth time, "terminal speed" is irrelevant. The upper block is landing on structure, not falling through a large space of still air. There is no meaningful wind resistance.
 
Take a bucket of baby powder, drive 60 mph with your car, open your window and throw it out of your car. What will happen do you think ?

Do you really think that after a distance of 3.7 meter (distance between 2 floors) the momentum of the powder is the same as in the bucket in your car, in fact that will be the case in vacuum, in air a solid block can approach that.

If you think that you should really follow some primary physics lessons.

Greening does not take into account

1) The above
2) Mass loss of the blocks due to scattering
3) Mass loss of the initial falling block, we all agree of the huge amount of energie, it's obvious that there is loss of mass of that thing also
?)...

Of course 1,2 and 3 will only increase the collapse time
 
einsteen said:
Take a bucket of baby powder, drive 60 mph with your car, open your window and throw it out of your car. What will happen do you think ?

Do you really think that after a distance of 3.7 meter (distance between 2 floors) the momentum of the powder is the same as in the bucket in your car, in fact that will be the case in vacuum, in air a solid block can approach that.

If you think that you should really follow some primary physics lessons.

Greening does not take into account

1) The above
2) Mass loss of the blocks due to scattering
3) Mass loss of the initial falling block, we all agree of the huge amount of energie, it's obvious that there is loss of mass of that thing also
?)...

Of course 1,2 and 3 will only increase the collapse time
Click to expand...
No cure for the terminally stupid.
 
einsteen said:
Take a bucket of baby powder, drive 60 mph with your car, open your window and throw it out of your car. What will happen do you think ?
Click to expand...

That would be throwing it into a free-stream. Not a good model for WTC 1 and 2. This is the fifth and last time I will state this.
 
So R.Mackey a scientist from NASA needs to learn basic physics?

Granted this problem isn't rocket science.
Maybe we should be looking for answers from a brain surgeon.
 
Wow, What A Lie.

Stellafane said:
Nope, you can't get off the hook that easily, liar. You said you saw a BBC/PBS documentary that proves there was a concrete core. No such documentary exists. Therefore you are a liar. Never mind what you think we have or haven't proved. The evidence that you are a liar is stark and unambiguous. You lied, therefore you are a liar -- it's as simple as that. And liars have no credibility at all. Thus Chris, nothing that you say has any significance. That's the price you pay for being a liar. You should have thought of that before you decided to lie.
Click to expand...

A triple, ram jammer, magnum lie.

Curious how the guilty will find backwards kinds of ways to admit it. Sorta' sociopathic, but I guess they get to be burdensome.
 
zaayrdragon said:
You know, it occurs to me that all this talk of concrete cores, explosives, etc. is a smokescreen to disguise the REAL conspiracy going on: that the towers were impacted by commercial aircraft and fell as the official report says is not nearly as significant as who bin Laden and his terrorists might have really been working for!

IOW, why are all the conspiracies focused on such fantastical, nonsensical concepts such as nonexistent concrete cores and rapid-placed invisible C-4, when very potentially valid concepts like bin Laden being a pawn of the government is simply flatly ignored?

... Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

Such is not ignored, it just does not explain this, which needs an explanation.

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3017&stc=1&d=1157952135
 

Attachments

  • corefacesexploding.jpg
    corefacesexploding.jpg
    33.8 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
einsteen said:
Take a bucket of baby powder, drive 60 mph with your car, open your window and throw it out of your car. What will happen do you think ?

Do you really think that after a distance of 3.7 meter (distance between 2 floors) the momentum of the powder is the same as in the bucket in your car, in fact that will be the case in vacuum, in air a solid block can approach that.

If you think that you should really follow some primary physics lessons.

Greening does not take into account

1) The above
2) Mass loss of the blocks due to scattering
3) Mass loss of the initial falling block, we all agree of the huge amount of energie, it's obvious that there is loss of mass of that thing also
?)...

Of course 1,2 and 3 will only increase the collapse time
Click to expand...


Would you be willing to stand under a perpendicularly suspended dumptruck full of baby powder that is two stories above you and allow it to release its ~5 ton load on top of you?
 
Christophera said:
A triple, ram jammer, magnum lie.

Curious how the guilty will find backwards kinds of ways to admit it. Sorta' sociopathic, but I guess they get to be burdensome.
Click to expand...

Oooh, look, Chris's argument has degenerated to "I know you are, but what am I?" Then again, maybe "degenerated" isn't the right word, since it implies his argument was at some point at a higher level.

Unfortunately for you, Chris, you and I aren't the only ones in this thread who can read. You said you saw a BBC and/or PBS documentary on the building of the WTC in which they showed a concrete core. It was a critical cornerstone to your entire argument on this thread. Now it has been shown that no such documentary has run on BBC or PBS. That makes you a liar.

Kinda sucks right now, doesn't it? Unlike the LC forum, you can't get one of your little mod buddies to ban me and remove my posts, or edit them so it looks like I'm saying something ridiculous so you can thrash me for hours after I'm banned and can't reply. It's out here for all to see. You're a liar, Chris. And liars don't have any credibility.
 
einsteen said:
Take a bucket of baby powder, drive 60 mph with your car, open your window and throw it out of your car. What will happen do you think ?
Click to expand...


Are you saying the WTC was made out of baby powder?

Now wonder it fell down! :eye-poppi

-Andrew
 
Good lord... 88 pages of nothing but "3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers" ad nauseum.

Is this thread going to be split a'la the monster LC thread or can we have it properly euthanized when it hits 100?
 
Christophera said:
Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?
Click to expand...


Hmmm. Freefall. Well, if the buildings in the following videos are falling at freefall speed, at which speed is the clearly visible debris falling? If the buildings are falling at freefall speed, what is propelling the debris to fall at greater than freefall speed?

yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108995

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2638975558038550089&q=fall+of+wtc&hl=en


Since I cannot, at this point, post URLs, you must add w.w.w or h.t.t.p:// to the above links.
 
Last edited:
Welcome, Mince. I agree with your argument, and we've brought it up before.

Please don't be disappointed if Christophera doesn't give you a thoughtful reply. There are others here who are far more reasonable.
 
Stellafane said:
Oooh, look, Chris's argument has degenerated to "I know you are, but what am I?" Then again, maybe "degenerated" isn't the right word, since it implies his argument was at some point at a higher level.

Unfortunately for you, Chris, you and I aren't the only ones in this thread who can read. You said you saw a BBC and/or PBS documentary on the building of the WTC in which they showed a concrete core. It was a critical cornerstone to your entire argument on this thread. Now it has been shown that no such documentary has run on BBC or PBS. That makes you a liar.

Kinda sucks right now, doesn't it? Unlike the LC forum, you can't get one of your little mod buddies to ban me and remove my posts, or edit them so it looks like I'm saying something ridiculous so you can thrash me for hours after I'm banned and can't reply. It's out here for all to see. You're a liar,
Chris. And liars don't have any credibility.
Click to expand...

You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

So you believe in Santa Claus too?

We can all believe in the images of the demolition. They show the concrete core. Curious how your side has never been able to produce an image of even one of the 47 supposed steel core columns. You've shown interior box columns which are not inside the core. The core area is void of anything whatsoever the spire is outside the concrete core wall. Here the interior box are silouetted against the concrete wall. column[/url].http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3018&stc=1&d=1157955748
 

Attachments

  • shearspirewall.jpg
    shearspirewall.jpg
    25.4 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
Christophera said:
You must be very naive to believe that PBS would actually still know it had such a documentary.

So you believe in Santa Claus too?

We can all believe in the images of the demolition. They show the concrete core. Curious how your side has never been able to produce an image of even one of the 47 supposed steel core columns. You've shown interior box columns which are not inside the core. The core area is void of anything whatsoever the spire is outside the concrete core wall. Here the interior box are silouetted against the concrete wall. column[/url].http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3018&stc=1&d=1157955748
Click to expand...

Maybe the dosage is wrong Chris. Talk to your doctor. There might be a better medication for you.
 
Christophera,

Your ridiculous posts are even more offensive than usual today. Why don't you just slink back to the LC board or some other conspiracy forum and peddle your nonsense to the idiots who inhabit those boards instead of embarrassing yourself further here?

At least on the LC forum and other conspiracy sites that you have not yet been banned from, you stand half a chance at encountering people stupid enough to be fooled momentarily by your BS. You won't find anyone that stupid here.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
[slight derail]Mr. Rea, do you mind if I ask you to describe "high temperature non-ferrous superalloys"

Nothing sinister in my question, I assure you. I'm just not used to the term "superalloy" mostly. A couple of examples would probably satisfy my curiousity.[/derail]
Click to expand...

Sure, mainly exotic nickel or cobalt based alloys, with the main alloying elements of chromium, aluminium and titanium.

Predominant alloys in the field are IN738LC, FSX414, MARM247, IN939, IN713, CMSX4 and CM247. The Aerospace guys on here will recognise most of these but the main feature of these alloys is high temperature strength and creep resistance as well as excellent corrosion resistance in some cases.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom