Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[jaydeehess]

Sure the debris landed 'uniformly' around the original footprint of the strutures. That is if one considers +/- a few hundred feet in any direction, to be 'uniform'

Take for instance the favourite bugaboo of WTC 7. Most of the western 2/3rds of it fell to the south (over Vesey and WTC 6) whereas the eastern 1/3 fell to the NE (over broadway and hit the Fitterman bldg).
That's 'uniform?

The two towers fell and spread out their chunks also assymetrically +/- a few hundred feet in various directions. In one video a very large multi-storey section can be seen falling to one side.(sorry no link)

 

[tempesta29]

But it was less than g. You have no point.

No. You have no point. The fact that it accelerated less than g isn't relevant to my point at all. When mass meets increased resistance its rate of acceleration will ALWAYS decrease. This wasn't observed, therefore the falling mass met no increased resistance, therefore the upper section wasn't destroying the lower.

You'll grasp this one day.

 

[tempesta29]

Seriously, it's as if you just didn't read.

 

[twinstead]

No. You have no point. The fact that it accelerated less than g isn't relevant to my point at all. When mass meets increased resistance its rate of acceleration will ALWAYS decrease. This wasn't observed, therefore the falling mass met no increased resistance, therefore the upper section wasn't destroying the lower.

You'll grasp this one day.

So only a small group of intrepid internet warriors "grasp" this, huh?

 

[tempesta29]

So only a small group of intrepid internet warriors "grasp" this, huh?

Physics? Are you doubting the fact that an increase in resistance will decrease the rate of acceleration of a falling object?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Why in car accidents are cars totaled when they should be taking the "path of least Resistance", and aim for the air versus the car? Please explain in great detail, with some math, differential equations, and physics showing the formula for the path of least resistance. Go ahead make my decade. This will be good. Do you suspect 911 truth took the path of least resistance when making up the delusional nonsense they fool you with?

Wow. How about a split second? Is that enough math for you?

 

[twinstead]

Physics? Are you doubting the fact that an increase in resistance will decrease the rate of acceleration of a falling object?

SO why don't physicists in general say that the collapse wasn't possible as described in the commonly-held narrative? Where are the REAL scientists (not just internet warriors) who have a problem with this?

The resistance wasn't enough to decrease the rate of acceleration, much like the resistance of a gnat, while probably measurable, could never slow the rate of acceleration of a brick.

 

[jaydeehess]

No, I'm not. Deceleration in this case means a decrease in the rate of acceleration of the falling mass. Resistance to this falling mass would have increased because below the damaged crash zone was unscathed structure. The undamaged structure would have offered significantly more resistance than the crash zone and therefore would have slowed the rate of acceleration of the falling mass, however what is observed is a constant rate of acceleration.
.

What you meant was a lessening of acelleration then.

However your point is not consistent with what we know. The impact zone of 4-6 floors is where the initial collapse began.
IIRC femr's investigation of the minute details of the collapses shows that the acelleration of the collapse DID in fact vary.

However Bazant's work on a first approximation indicates that the impact forces on a pristine next lower floor system were 30+ times that of the design strength they had.
Subsequent floor systems would be subject to even greater forces.

Someone posted a video of Mythbusters ramming a steel plate into a car. In that video the velocity of the plate does not appear to change as it crushs the car. Do you understand why and how this relates to the forces involved in the collapse of the towers and how it 'looked'?

 

[leftysergeant]

No. You have no point. The fact that it accelerated less than g isn't relevant to my point at all. When mass meets increased resistance its rate of acceleration will ALWAYS decrease. This wasn't observed, therefore the falling mass met no increased resistance, therefore the upper section wasn't destroying the lower.

Why would resistance increase?

 

[jaydeehess]

SO why don't physicists in general say that the collapse wasn't possible as described in the commonly-held narrative? Where are the REAL scientists (not just internet warriors) who have a problem with this?

The resistance wasn't enough to decrease the rate of acceleration, much like the resistance of a gnat, while probably measurable, could never slow the rate of acceleration of a brick.

Recently I hit a sparrow with my car. Poor creature flew right accross the lane and hit my bumper. I barely heard the thump and certainly did not notice any change in the velocity of my small truck (Ford Ranger).

In fact I hit a wolf about 30 years ago (in a 1966 Rambler) and it made a much louder bang , yet again, no noticable change in velocity.

OTOH I have seen cars that hit bear, deer or moose. In those cases both objects get a noticable change in velocity.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

It's not really that curious at all, especially since that tower didn't tilt toward its damaged corner. Regardless, it isn't falling in that direction. It's still falling straight down through the lower structure. It's really only rotating through its collapse path, not toppling.

I don't know... call me crazy or whatever. I think that the fact that it tilted in that direction is a pretty clear indication of damage in that area.

 

[jaydeehess]

Why would resistance increase?

AFAIK he is only speaking about the difference between the acelleration at initial collapse versus the acelleration once those impact zone floors are destroyed. Supposedly because the impact zone floors should have allowed a much greater acelleration (upper limit g) than the pristine floors below, there should be a change in acelleration after the first floor or three.

 

[twinstead]

So, tempesta, are you approaching this issue as a scientist, or are you just an interested layman expressing simple incredulity?

 

[jaydeehess]

It's not really that curious at all, especially since that tower didn't tilt toward its damaged corner. Regardless, it isn't falling in that direction. It's still falling straight down through the lower structure. It's really only rotating through its collapse path, not toppling.

Once the pivot is destroyed why would it topple?

You do understand what becomes of the angular momentum once there is no pivoting about an anchor point, right?

 

[twinstead]

Once the pivot is destroyed why would it topple?

You do understand what becomes of the angular momentum once there is no pivoting about an anchor point, right?

Move over Rover, and let gravity take over...

 

[NoahFence]

Is that a joke?

It's amazing. The gall and audacity of the nonsense that the 9/11 hoax believers lay out.

Even worse, they hide neath the skirt of national pride.

So that's a no?

 

[jaydeehess]

Move over Rover, and let gravity take over...

Close enough.

For the edification of tempesta
the angular momentum will be conserved by ROTATING the object about its center of mass. The direction that the center of mass is going? Straight down!

The center of mass of the upper block was still very much over the lower structure, having shifted maybe 10 -15 feet IIRC, from a point centered on the original structure. Only a small portion of the upper block then would be moving in a direction that would have it not fall onto the lower section.

 

[Mikey T]

So, tempesta, are you approaching this issue as a scientist, or are you just an interested layman expressing simple incredulity?

Or a predisposed distrust or hatred of the US Govt or the Joooos or both. There seems to be this attitude in most truther mindsets which is an large hurdle to get over.

 

[tempesta29]

What you meant was a lessening of acelleration then.

That's one of the definitions of deceleration. Look it up.

However your point is not consistent with what we know. The impact zone of 4-6 floors is where the initial collapse began.
IIRC femr's investigation of the minute details of the collapses shows that the acelleration of the collapse DID in fact vary.

However Bazant's work on a first approximation indicates that the impact forces on a pristine next lower floor system were 30+ times that of the design strength they had.
Subsequent floor systems would be subject to even greater forces.

Someone posted a video of Mythbusters ramming a steel plate into a car. In that video the velocity of the plate does not appear to change as it crushs the car. Do you understand why and how this relates to the forces involved in the collapse of the towers and how it 'looked'?

How it looked? I'm talking about what was measured. Chandler did an analysis and there was no measurable decrease in the upper section's acceleration.

 

[jaydeehess]

Is that a joke?

It's amazing. The gall and audacity of the nonsense that the 9/11 hoax believers lay out.

Even worse, they hide neath the skirt of national pride.

Where did national pride enter into that discussion?

Besides your attempt to divert attention from the fact that you cannot illustrate that he made money.