Acceleration of the falling top blocks.

WTC Dust said:
You didn't know that about me? You didn't know that I collected a huge amount of WTC dust from approximately 200 feet away from Ground Zero?
Click to expand...

You collected your dust from an area open to the elements 8 years after 9/11.
 
Debunking Richard Gage is an easy task, and doesn't require
a science degree. Gage is only an architect.

DaveThomasNMSR said:
Well, I have debated Richard Gage three times, and also published a very detailed article on 9/11 in Skeptical Inquirer.

Part of the special knowledge in my toolkit is an awareness of something we physicists call "conservation of momentum."

When the first block falls, it does take about 3/4 of a second, and gets up to 19 mph. When it collides with the floor below, that inelastic collision slows down the falling mass, but only by a few percent (there's that momentum thing.) Because momentum is conserved, the mass before collision (say, 15 floors of WTC) times that velocity (19 mph) will be the same as the mass after collision (16 floors) times the slightly-reduced velocity (about 18 mph).

Since the top is already falling at 18 mph (SLOWED DOWN FROM 19 MPH BY COLLISION), it only takes a third of a second to fall 12 more feet, not 3/4. It gets up to 25 mph, which is reduced to 24 mph by the next collision, and so on.

Taken to its conclusion, the model shows the towers collapsing in 12 to 15 seconds, just as was observed.

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/911movie.gif[/qimg]

(The red squares are objects in true free-fall, for purposes of comparison. The red lines are scale setpoints.)

You can read about this in more detail in my S/I article, as well as the NMSR website.

And what is your expertise on 9/11? Outside of hours of videos of you playing with magnets and iron filings?
:D
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
Debunking Richard Gage is an easy task, and doesn't require
a science degree. Gage is only an architect.
Click to expand...

Ahem. Dr Blevins: the topic is not Richard Gage, it's acceleration of the collapsing towers.

I have shown that your statements here are wrong:

Acceleration takes time, which means that things don't actually
get going very fast in a twelve foot fall, which was the distance
between the floors of the WTC.

If you believe the gravity collapse model, you have to add up all
those twelve foot falling times. It's way off. Not even close.
Which disproves the gravity collapse model in its pure form.
Gravity didn't change. Gravity didn't go away. It just wasn't
the destructive force.
Click to expand...

I have added up the falling times, and they are right on the mark.

Your statements that the collapse stops in its tracks at every single floor, and that it must take 3/4 second for the collapse to proceed from floor to floor, are WRONG.

You're welcome.
 
WTC Dust said:
This is a serious misunderstanding of the gravity collapse model.
Floor 80 doesn't begin to fall until floors 81-110 reach it (taking
0.75 seconds, at a minimum). Then, floors 80-110 begin to
fall and take 0.75 seconds to reach floor 79. You can't fall
faster than that on Earth, if the only force is gravity.

The gravity collapse model is faulty. I'm simply taking it seriously
for the purposes of this discussion.
Click to expand...

What's rather tragic about your incompetence is that you've had this explained already, and yet are behaving as if nothing had happened - ie you're reciting exactly the same mistakes.

One day in the future, you may find yourself slapping your forehead and thinking 'I really made an ass out of myself'. Or maybe you're just playing dumb for gits and shiggles.
 
alienentity said:
What's rather tragic about your incompetence is that you've had this explained already, and yet are behaving as if nothing had happened - ie you're reciting exactly the same mistakes.

One day in the future, you may find yourself slapping your forehead and thinking 'I really made an ass out of myself'. Or maybe you're just playing dumb for gits and shiggles.
Click to expand...

It's the Christopher7 method of 9/11 woo. When confronted with facts that debunk your theory, repeat it as if talking to a three-year-old. Clearly, the more times you repeat something, the truer it gets.
 
WTC Dust said:
Acceleration is a very good topic. Acceleration takes time.
If, say, the upper twenty stories fell one story, it would take a
certain amount of time for them to hit the story below, the
better part of a second, actually.

Then, once the top twenty-one floors started falling, it would
take that same fraction of a second for them to hit the lower
floor.

Then, once the top twenty-two floors started falling, it would
once again take the same fraction of a second to hit the next
lower floor.

The distance from floor to floor was about twelve feet, and it
takes about 0.75 seconds to accelerate through that distance
even without including the resistance that the bottom floors
and wall sections of the building would have provided.

Add up all these fractions of a second, and you get something
very different from what was seen on 9/11. We saw the buildings
go away in about a dozen seconds. There wasn't enough time
for a floor-by-floor gravity accelerated collapse. The buildings
fell too fast for this to be a proper explanation.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that?

The forces are not identical. There is no reason to assume that the acceleration would thus be identical.

You seem to have omitted from your mental model the basic idea of acceleration; that events happening later in the collapse are NOT within the same balance of forces as events happening earlier in the collapse.
 
WTC Dust said:
This is a serious misunderstanding of the gravity collapse model.
Floor 80 doesn't begin to fall until floors 81-110 reach it (taking
0.75 seconds, at a minimum). Then, floors 80-110 begin to
fall and take 0.75 seconds to reach floor 79. You can't fall
faster than that on Earth, if the only force is gravity.

The gravity collapse model is faulty. I'm simply taking it seriously
for the purposes of this discussion.
Click to expand...

You are doing nonsense, when you need physics. You don't do science you do your own opinion based on delusions.

Here is the time for each floor based on physics, it adds up to over 12 seconds, much slower than free-fall, but not your fantasy time made up due to ignorance.

0.869
0.397
0.314
0.272
0.245
0.226
0.212
0.201
0.192
0.184
0.177
0.171
0.166
0.162
0.157
0.154
0.150
0.147
0.144
0.141
0.138
0.136
0.134
0.131
0.129
0.127
0.125
0.124
0.122
0.120
0.119
0.117
0.116
0.114
0.113
0.112
0.110
0.109
0.108
0.107
0.106
0.105
0.104
0.103
0.102
0.101
0.100
0.099
0.098
0.097
0.097
0.096
0.095
0.094
0.094
0.093
0.092
0.091
0.091
0.090
0.089
0.089
0.088
0.088
0.087
0.086
0.086
0.085
0.085
0.084
0.084
0.083
0.083
0.082
0.082
0.081
0.081
0.080
0.080
0.079
0.079
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.077
0.077
0.076
0.076
0.076
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.074
0.074
0.073
0.073
0.073
0.072
12.081 seconds.

You don't understand acceleration, momentum, as if you are anti-physics, anti-science.
 
Gamolon said:
So you think these floor connection circled in red:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/perimetercolumns.png[/qimg]

Should have stopped this:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/collapse-1.jpg[/qimg]

From descending?????

:eek:
Click to expand...
That really seals the deal. The second pic is of 25 or so floors descending rapidly. Nothing is stopping total collapse at that point.

Perhaps, the truther disconnect with reality is that they believe "the floor below bore that weight for decades, and therefore should still be able to bear it".

It's just a thought, but might explain why they think as they do.

In any event, that is just my truther speculation. In reality, the floors are there so that you have floors for people to use, otherwise what would be the point of such an edifice. They are not load bearing, except in the sense of bearing the load of the occupants, and collateral material (more or less) and certainly not capable of bearing the load of 25 falling upper stories.
 
I do recall Dr Judy Woowoo speculating publicly about the drag coefficients of a grand piano falling from one of the towers. She posulated that said instrument would take no less that thirty seconds to fall through the air. Jim Fetzer piped up that perhaps the grand piano would slow down because it's lid would act as a parachute. This is the type of thinking we are dealing with here folks. I don't expect any rational thinking from that sde of the fence anymore (not that I did much)

Call me an old cynic but I'm only here for the lulzzz.

Sorry.


Compus
 
Last edited:
Am I hearing argument by toilet here? The lack of toilets proves demolition?

WTC Dust, I have never seen you post here before, but I am curious what your "foam" looks like, literally. If you have a phone take a picture and upload your foam. That way I know it's something other than the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 30 years.
 
WTC Dust said:
I have what is likely to be the world's largest private collection of
World Trade Center dust, and I'll tell you something about it:
IT'S A FOAM!!! Yes, amazingly, this stuff is a foam. Magnetic,
metallic foam. I did not expect this before I found my samples.
Click to expand...

This foam - you keep it in a tank made from unobtainium in the room where the unicorn sleeps on the yeti fur rug?
 
You debunkers are all missing the point.

Isaac Newton was a white male European.

Consequently his laws of motion are long overdue for re-evaluation in the context of a new liberated multicultural feminist paradigm.
 
slowsmile said:
This foam - you keep it in a tank made from unobtainium in the room where the unicorn sleeps on the yeti fur rug?
Click to expand...

Yeti fur is illegal since Yetis are an extremely rare and endangered species. Probably fake Yeti fur - I know mine is... ;)
On the other hand I have real powdered unicorn horn, smuggled in from truthertopia.
 
Myriad said:
You debunkers are all missing the point.

Isaac Newton was a white male European.

Consequently his laws of motion are long overdue for re-evaluation in the context of a new liberated multicultural feminist paradigm.
Click to expand...

That was very witty! hehe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom