Fyziks 101

[Turbofan]

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop4.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop5.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/tower_fall.JPG

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally
from the demo wave?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_gravity1.jpg

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg

Bonus Question:

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?

How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?

 

[Mangoose]

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally from the demo wave?

1) Why would there at all be a "demo wave" in a building falling "by gravity"?

2) The debris were NOT shooting "up"; just watch any video to see how the pieces of falling debris were falling. For instance, you marked a falling core column as something moving upward (with an "up" arrow), which any video showing that column shows was definitely not the case.

 

[jhunter1163]

I see Turbofan's understanding of the physics of building collapses is on par with his understanding of the inner workings of flight data recorders. He clearly doesn't understand either, at all.

 

[beachnut]

This has been covered, and you are pre debunked and don't know it.

The towers are falling down, you are looking at still photos, big error! The mass is moving down with gravity, the only ejections are due to gravity. The energy released during the collapse is more than 100 1000 pound bombs! For each tower. If you took physics you would be cured of posting real dumb questions. You seem to have a broad ignorance on structures, fire, energy, KE, gravity, and more. You came to the right place.

The chief structural engineer has spoken about his towers. He designed them for impacts of jets equal to 187 pounds of TNT KE, that is 10 times more energy than the impact of the plane with the ESB. On 9/11 the impacts were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT impacts. 7 to 11 times greater than design. This is on an order of magnitude greater than design, this is significant. Like you being able to take one bullet and live, 9/11 was like being shot with 7 to 11 bullets, your chances of survival rival that of the Towers, not good.

Robertson agrees with the way the towers failed due to the impacts and fires, he disagrees with all the 9/11 truth nut case ideas imply explosives or thermite being used.

The squibs are air pressure you lack experience in falling objects, you need to stop and research a few years and save your fingers from over typing all the woo that is coming. Explosions are rapid, the decelerate, the air pressure builds and accelerates. Explosives have noise like RDX, not buildings falling and failing noises heard by everyone. Thermite leaves a distinctive pile of iron, RDX leaves traces of BLAST all over! No evidence of explosives/thermite were found. Dr Jones, fired (retired in lieu of) for being false information manufacturer on 9/11 topics, he made up thermite 4 years after 9/11 as some political bias campaign against the war, or Bush. He has kept his reasons a secret. He has no evidence.

Physics, it makes a mind understand. And look what a great physics guy thinks about what you are using...

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

I was going to post the LC photo, but why...

Why not. The best I can do is laugh with Turbo, I think he is having a young man crisis and explained well by Einstein.

 

[gumboot]

What you're witnessing is the collapse of the impact floors. Stop wasting our time.

 

[Turbofan]

I see nobody tried to answer any of the questions, so I'll post them again.

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop4.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop5.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/tower_fall.JPG

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally
from the demo wave?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_gravity1.jpg

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg

Bonus Question:

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?

How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?

1) Why would there at all be a "demo wave" in a building falling "by gravity"?

Because it was blown up. See photos. Answer the questions.

2) The debris were NOT shooting "up"; just watch any video to see how the pieces of falling debris were falling. For instance, you marked a falling core column as something moving upward (with an "up" arrow), which any video showing that column shows was definitely not the case.

That arrow is pointing to the ejection of dust shooting upward. Explain
how a gravity induced fall shoot material upward.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Because it was blown up. See photos. Answer the questions.

That doesn't look like an explosion, it looks like fine cherry picking Turbo...
The building created a negative air pressure in the wake of the collapse which pulled some of the dust inwards and down. The debris however was falling down only

That arrow is pointing to the ejection of dust shooting upward. Explain
how a gravity induced fall shoot material upward.

Hmmm, doesn't seem words get to you... here's a video to help you out

 

[Anti-sophist]

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before the decent of the support structure?

Because the area above the failure started moving before the area below the failure.

Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself from the top down, without the support structure moving?

Nowhere is there evidence that it "ate itself from the top down". Every one of those images show very clearly that the area of "eating" is very clearly the same as the area of impact.

Where is the mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

Please don't start a thread about physics and then start completely misusing the words of the field, ie 'pressure'. It makes it very difficult to understand what you are talking about.

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?

They broke.

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally from the demo wave?

I am unaware of any law of physics that state this is impossible.

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:

Not enough information is given. You have't stated what A and B are, nor how fast they are moving. Nor what your definition of "win" is.

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?
How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?

False dichotomy. Alot of the air did escape through the large opening opening spanning several floors. There's no rational reason to believe ALL of it could or did.

 

[bje]

That arrow is pointing to the ejection of dust shooting upward. Explain
how a gravity induced fall shoot material upward.

Turbo,

You know full well that is untrue. Which any video shows you. That was debunked easily in 2002 and you pretend to not know?

The dust is being sucked down behind the collapse front, not exploding upwards as you pretend.


You're getting very desperate, Turbofan.

 

[e^n]

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?

They did not

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

It did not, your analysis is incorrect.

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?

Many were destroyed, many lower section core columns initially survived the collapse. A complex series of failures took place meaning simple questions are not valid.

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally
from the demo wave?

Dust is not being shot up, in your image it is incorrectly labelled. The falling of the towers means that the air surrounding them will rush to take their place, this results in pulling the closest areas of dust downwards, creating the impression they had been shot up. Watch any video of the collapse and this should be evident. Lateral ejection is quite expected and is a result of the building's resistance to collapse.

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg

Neither.

Bonus Question:

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?

Some 'squibs' were simply dust being evacuated through the towers HVAC system. Others were windows breaking, the ones involved with window breaking only occur after the collapse has progressed past the aircraft impact zones. Besides the towers were a complex structure, air movement between floors was limited to a specific number of openings per floor. You cannot analyse this problem simply.

How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?

The upper section was dropping, essentially analogous to a cylinder reducing in height.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

Nonsensical question. The impact/fire zones failed due to the damage from the jet and the resultant fires. When that failure occurred, the building fell.

And the mass you're talking about is the upper section, above the collapse initiation zone.

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?

I'd imagine they're failing. The exact sequence is unclear because researchers have not modeled the collapse post initiation, since there's no need to by the time the collapse reaches the runaway point. Regardless, the best model that makes the most sense is that the momentum of the upper block is overwhelming the resistance of the floor below it, causing failures there, then adding the mass of the newly failed floor to the debris zone. Since the floor immediately beneath the collapse progression front did not provide enough resistance to significantly slow down the floor, gravitational acceleration continues, and the mass involved does to, due to the addition of the newly collapsed floor. The progression continues until it reaches the ground.

If you're asking what happened to the lower 30+ sections, I recommend reading Bazant et. al.'s paper "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis", as well as Greening's addendum "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE".

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally from the demo wave?

Dust shooting in all directions due to the escaping of air would not be unusual. And as Grizzly Bear noted, what you're probably seeing is less dust shooting "up" than dust being pulled down in the wake of the building collapse.

Also, the image in question does not show any debris i.e. debris larger than dust "shooting UP and laterally". Debris larger than dust is not proven to have shot "up and laterally" at all; certainly this image is not supporting that assertion. Other images used to promote the mistaken idea that explosives were used - such as the famous images of WTC 1 exterior columns embedded in World Financial Center 3 - also prove no such thing; that the columns travelled some small horizontal distance relative to the height they are falling is simply not unusual.

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:

Depends. If you're talking solid blocks like, for example tree trunks, then the answer is neither. Regardless, I do not see the relevance. Neither scenario reflects what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The upper block was not overcoming the resistance of the lower block as a whole, but rather it was overwhelming the support structures immediately below it. It's a bit wrong to think of that segment as the floors themselves; it is more correct to think of it as being defined by where the connection points between the columns immediately below the collapse front were. Those can support stress up to their breaking point, and when they break, they no longer distribute stress to other columns. But if they break well before slowing the falling mass down - which is what happend on 9/11 - then they do little to nothing to slow the collapse.

It is incorrect to take the lower section as a whole; forces transmitted to the structures immediately below the collapse initiation zone. Then, when the collapse progressed, those forces overwhelmed the section immediately below the collapse zone, gathered the mass of the floor, did not significantly slow down, and moved on to the next floor. Repeat until the ground level is reached.

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were large holes from the airplane entry/exit?

They never did. Plus, why would the air only escape up through all the internal structure of the tower and past the collapse debris front? Presuming that presumes an unhindered path to the impact hole; you'd need to establish that to make your argument work. At any rate, the reality is that some air would indeed escape up through that hole, some would escape through other paths, and some would be forced out laterally, blowing out windows.

How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?

Again, there were no squibs. Do not mistake pneumatic effects for those of explosives. I recommend reading the following sites for basic information regarding the squibs myth:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/squibs?2
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

Granted, the first link specifically discusses the squibs myth in relation to WTC 7, but the principles in the article still applies.

 

[Alareth]

I see nobody tried to answer any of the questions, so I'll post them again.

What is the point of trying to answer questions about events that didn't happen?

Your inability to grasp reality is unfortunately something we cannot help you with.

 

[steve s]

I see nobody tried to answer any of the questions, so I'll post them again.

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"It doesn't. It equals four."

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"It doesn't. It equals four."

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"It doesn't. It equals four."

Child:"Why does two plus two equal five?"

Adult:"I've had enough of this nonsense. Go away."

Child:"Why are you refusing to answer my question?"

 

[Turbofan]

Turbo,

You know full well that is untrue. Which any video shows you. That was debunked easily in 2002 and you pretend to not know?

The dust is being sucked down behind the collapse front, not exploding upwards as you pretend.


You're getting very desperate, Turbofan.

How can you have compression and vacuum at the same time?

I thought the tower was compressing the air to create the squibs?

Nice try.

 

[steve s]

How can you have compression and vacuum at the same time?

Move your hand quickly through the air. In front of your hand is compression. Behind your hand is vacuum.

Nice try.

Steve S.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How can you have compression and vacuum at the same time?

I thought the tower was compressing the air to create the squibs?

Nice try.

You didn't watch the video that he or I posted did you?

 

[Turbofan]

Because the area above the failure started moving before the area below the failure.

Right...

So if you drop a brick on a stack of bricks, and the brick you drop breaks
apart ... what is left to break the rest of the stack?

Nowhere is there evidence that it "ate itself from the top down". Every one of those images show very clearly that the area of "eating" is very clearly the same as the area of impact.

No evidence? Did you not see the photos?

The area you are thinking is only abuot 5 floors in height. What about the
other sides that were not impacted and the approximate 300 feet of tower
that is missing before the support structure descends?

They broke.

Then were are they? There should be 47 * 1300 feet of core steel.

I am unaware of any law of physics that state this is impossible.

I have yet to find one that makes it possible.

Not enough information is given. You have't stated what A and B are, nor how fast they are moving. Nor what your definition of "win" is.

A and B are sections of the twin towers. "Win" would mean, which is able
to destruct the other if dropped?

False dichotomy. Alot of the air did escape through the large opening opening spanning several floors. There's no rational reason to believe ALL of it could or did.

The squibs appear almost instantly as the hole is present. How do you
create compression if you don't have a sealed volume?

 

[~enigma~]

So if you drop a brick on a stack of bricks, and the brick you drop breaks
apart ... what is left to break the rest of the stack?

Enough with the idiotic analogies. Was the WTC a solid object?

 

[steve s]

So if you drop a brick on a stack of bricks, and the brick you drop breaks
apart ... what is left to break the rest of the stack?

A house of cards would be a more apt analogy. Or maybe one built of toothpicks. The towers weren't solid masses. They were made up of thousands of individual parts with the joints between them being the weakest links.

The squibs appear almost instantly as the hole is present.

For the ten billionth time, squibs are what they use in movies to simulate bullet hits. The simple fact that you people can't even get this simple term right just shows how bankrupt your position is.

Steve S

 

[WildCat]

Turbofan, would you care to explain why you ran away from the FDR thread?