• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fyziks 101

Either that, or you are blind?
Yes...I am lying and so are all the photos of the debris pile. You are a really twisted excuse for a human. Does your mother know what you do with your days?
Did yuo watch the video and notice the walls on either side of the building?
And?????
What does it matter how it ended up on the ground. It all got there at nearly
the same time!
Nearly.....that isn't symmetric but by saying it doesn't matter...you just put yourself in the same catagory as Bermass when he said the people are really secondary. I suggest you rethink your idiotic position.
You can verify that with the still shots. Notice the pretty red line going
across the roof of the building?
As you can verify by viewing the debris pile with the north wall atop the pile. You'll have plenty of time to do so because your disgusting remark just earned you a spot on ignore.
 
Last time I checked you had no clue...oops, too bad...this time is the same.

This is symmetry at its finest:

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.1.jpg
Where is the east penthouse in your picture?
WTC7CNNonfire-full.jpg
 
Where is the east penthouse in your picture?
[qimg]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7CNNonfire.jpg/WTC7CNNonfire-full.jpg[/qimg]

What does the penthouse have to do with the outer walls, and other columns
that fell symmetrically?

if the Penthouse and supports fell first, why didn't everything else get pulled
with it?

Those beams must have disconnected themselves huh?

Your argument is BS.
 
What does the penthouse have to do with the outer walls, and other columns
that fell symmetrically?

if the Penthouse and supports fell first, why didn't everything else get pulled
with it?

Those beams must have disconnected themselves huh?

Your argument is BS.
"it fell symetrically except for the parts that didnt!"
 
How dense are you? It's an example of compression in an unsealed environment, which you just said you didn't know was possible. It's a flat surface pushing through the air, it's the least sealed and most extreme compression that came to mind.

Compression and squibs are two different things.

YOu are trying to relate an object moving through a gas at rediculous speeds,
through much lower densities to a building?!

The air may be compressing around the shuttle, but it's not discharging
through a smaller opening.

The compression caused by the collapse of the Twins would not cause
enough heat, or anything you're trying to relate?

I don't know what you're talking about? I linked that article for you to read
how all of these points I just stated are a poor analogy.

I even tried to bold it for you, but it seems you, or someone with mod access
removed my post? How do you have a copy of it, and mine is missing?!

Here's another that will probably get erased :rolleyes:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2006/orionheatshield.html

11 Kms per second vs. 9.8 m/s :boggled:
 
You are disputing that the penthouse fell first?

No! Why are you quoting only part of the question? SPIN and TWIST

You follow me around to every post. You don't offer anything useful to the
debate and you simply take my words out of context and waste my time.
if the Penthouse and supports fell first, why didn't everything else get pulled
with it?

Answer that without running and hiding!
 
11 Kms per second vs. 9.8 m/s :boggled:

Actually about 50 m/s, and the BLGB paper predicts airflows of up to about 300 m/s as air is "Squeezed" out of the lowest floors. There is some support for this but it's difficult to prove.

9.8 m/s must be in reference to gravity, but gravity provides acceleration, not velocity -- at sea level, roughly equal to 9.8 m/s2.

This is a telling error. At this point, I heartily recommend you enroll in remedial physics as soon as possible. There appears to be no subject in physics with which you have even the slightest expertise.
 
Where did those core columns go then? Just like the original posts asked?

Did the bend and buckle inward? Did the telescope down into themselves?
:rolleyes:

Read my post above.
In slightly more detail yes, columns broke and they did so at the weld splices every 30 feet in each core column. There were NO continuous steel columns that were 1000 feet tall. During construction 30 foot, maximum, sections were brought to the job site and hoisted up when needed and welded to the section below eventually creating the 1000 foot tall core columns. Although in some aspects a weld is actually stronger than the column itself it is also the most ridgid part of such a column. Thus when such a column is bent it will do so smoothly only along the 30 foot sections, the welds cannot bend as easily and they fail.





Just give it up. You will never understand.

You need to retake physics.

You see, everyone here assumes the inner core columns and outer perimeter
columns magically disappeared, and the top section had several feet to
drop onto the lower structure.

Read my post above.
In more detail of the initial collapse; some core columns suffered damage or complete severing at the initial impact. Many of those damaged columns and some which had escaped significant damage had their fire insulation abraded.
Many of those were subjected to high temps that lowered the strength of them. This caused the core columns to creep as the load was transfered to columns that were reaching their limit. As floor spans failed lateral support of the core and perimeter columns was lost. We can see that the perimeter columns were bowing outward and that illustrates that the upper section was creeping downward which in turn illustrates that the core columns were sagging as well. The hat truss worked to keep distributing the load throughout the core and perimeter but at some point there was simply no more reserve to left in the building. One more failure, floor truss loss of lateral support, perimeter column or core column failure and the structure as a whole at that level could no longer hold the mass of the upper block. When that occured the columns all buckled/bent in very quick succession and at that point the gravitational force of the upper block would never be transmitted to the ground via the columns. If the columns no longer line up at the collapse zone the mass above the collapse zone is impacting the next lower floorspace which is only designed to transmit the gravitational force of ONE floor to the columns via the span to column connections.
NOPE!

There were only certain columns damaged, or broken.

Initially yes. Then others suffered weakening due to the heat. If I understand where you wish to go with this then you are assuming that if some columns remained in pristine condition then the building must still stand. This is pure folly. Do you then argue that if all perimeter columns were in pristine condition and only one core column that the building must still stand? If so then you have a severe misunderstanding of the physics, and engineering principles involved.

Normally, in the real world...when an object is in motion and strikes another object you expect to see at least one remain. If nothing else, the top
section of the tower should have stayed intact to crush the lower section. It did not.

It blew apart first.

Well it indeed did come apart sooner than the lower 80+ floors but I would really like to see some calculations that illustrate that the upper block should be riding down on top of the collapse zone like some hellish surfer.

Obviously as the upper block impacted the lower floors there would be severe stresses on the lower structure of the upper block. The upper block columns are striking the floor spans of the lower sections, but at the same time the lower section columns are spearing up through the upper section's floor spans. Once again we note that the floor spans supplied lateral support to the columns without which the columns cannot remain standing. After a few floors of collapse the upper block is much less intact as its columns have less and less connectivity to the floor spans.
 
Last edited:
Actually about 50 m/s, and the BLGB paper predicts airflows of up to about 300 m/s as air is "Squeezed" out of the lowest floors. There is some support for this but it's difficult to prove.

9.8 m/s must be in reference to gravity, but gravity provides acceleration, not velocity -- at sea level, roughly equal to 9.8 m/s2.

This is a telling error. At this point, I heartily recommend you enroll in remedial physics as soon as possible. There appears to be no subject in physics with which you have even the slightest expertise.

I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Therefore you can conclude that the speed could not have surpassed
9.8 m/s

Thanks for playing.
 
I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Therefore you can conclude that the speed could not have surpassed
9.8 m/s

Thanks for playing.

Hey genius, acceleration is a constant on the Earth. And it's also measured in m/(s^2).

Do you ever get anything right? <insert suitable smiley here>
 
Compression and squibs are two different things.

You don't even know what a squib is. You're just repeating a word you heard from some CT.

YOu are trying to relate an object moving through a gas at rediculous speeds,
through much lower densities to a building?!

The air may be compressing around the shuttle, but it's not discharging
through a smaller opening.

I just told you, it wasn't a comparison to the buildings, it was an example of compression in an open system.
The compression caused by the collapse of the Twins would not cause
enough heat, or anything you're trying to relate?
No, just drop the shuttle talk, you obviously can't understand the point, even when I explain it multiple times, you keep bringing up the strawman that I was somehow comparing it to the towers.
I even tried to bold it for you, but it seems you, or someone with mod access
removed my post? How do you have a copy of it, and mine is missing?!

You messed up the edit and deleted your own post. I have a copy because someone quoted you before you tried to edit it.

Here's another that will probably get erased :rolleyes:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2006/orionheatshield.html

11 Kms per second vs. 9.8 m/s :boggled:

And now you're comparing a velocity with an acceleration. What school did you attend? I'd like to know so I never make the mistake of sending my kids there.
 
I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Therefore you can conclude that the speed could not have surpassed
9.8 m/s

Thanks for playing.

Funny. All the demolition companies conclude that they can't possibly be squibs because they are far too slow to have been caused by explosives.

Hmm, who to believe... Experts, or a kid who thinks reading specs form a user manual is consulting experts. Hmmm...

Oh and nice assumption about the speed there kiddo.
 
I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Therefore you can conclude that the speed could not have surpassed
9.8 m/s

Thanks for playing.

the first second of the penthouse collapse? thats when the squbs appeared? you sure?
 
11 Kms per second vs. 9.8 m/s :boggled:

Oh stop TF, you are now looking like you have all the grasp of physics and math that Killtown does.

9.8m/s, what is that supposed to mean? 9.8 m/s/s is (nominally) the accelleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface.

So in a fall an object would be moving at a velocity of 9.8 m/s after one second and a velocity of 19.6 m/s after two seconds of fall.

11000m/s would be faster than the speed of sound IIRC.
 
Hey genius, acceleration is a constant on the Earth. And it's also measured in m/(s^2).

Do you ever get anything right? <insert suitable smiley here>

Hey smart guy, do you know the difference between speed and acceleration?

I said the building could not have surpassed 9.8 m/s within one second!
 
Oh stop TF, you are now looking like you have all the grasp of physics and math that Killtown does.

9.8m/s, what is that supposed to mean? 9.8 m/s/s is (nominally) the accelleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface.

So in a fall an object would be moving at a velocity of 9.8 m/s after one second and a velocity of 19.6 m/s after two seconds of fall.

11000m/s would be faster than the speed of sound IIRC.

9.8 m/s is SPEED!

9.8 m/s/s is ACCELERATION!

WHo needs the physics class around here?
 

Back
Top Bottom