Fyziks 101

[R.Mackey]

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!

Nobody said it did. We're talking about the air.

If you take a floor pan 64 meters square, and drop it on another floor pan 64 meters square, accelerating at, oh, let's call it 6 m/s², how fast does the air move to get out of the way?

Faster than 9.8 m/s?

9.8 m/s is SPEED!

9.8 m/s/s is ACCELERATION!

WHo needs the physics class around here?

You. Your comments in this thread prove it beyond any possible doubt.

 

[Turbofan]

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.

Wait a minute...are you telling me you can't order steel in 1000 foot sections!

OH MY GOD? All this time I thought the tooth fairy delivered those columns
in one piece. You mean contsruction crews actually welded and bolted them
together in sections?

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.

What caused the interior network of beams to bend if the outer columns
were not bending upon descent?

How were they displaced so quickly that they telescoped down so that we
couldn't see them?

Did they disconnect and slide over, falling down elevator shafts?

I just don't get it. Here are some photos of the network of steel that
needed to break apart at rapid speeds and disappear:

http://www.911readingroom.org/jones/images/9-11 Picture6.jpg
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/docs/p2/site1099c.jpg

Also notice , there's nothing on top except dust. No large section of building
http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg

http://9eleven.info/wtc_collapse1B.jpg

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/wtcexplodes.jpg

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/debrisfield.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/54_explodingVolcano_017.jpg

Nothing there looks like it's exploding huh?

 

[Turbofan]

If you take a floor pan 64 meters square, and drop it on another floor pan 64 meters square, accelerating at, oh, let's call it 6 m/s², how fast does the air move to get out of the way?

Drop it?

Sorry my friend, the top sections were never disconnected and never did
drop from a certain height.

You seem to think these outside and inside support columns never existed?

Try again. Nothing dropped.

 

[R.Mackey]

And you believe this because..?

 

[Turbofan]

I think it's pretty obvious that Turbofan is just a troll who is trying to waste peoples time now. Welcome to ignore!

Yup, typical GL move. Ignore the facts.

Funny how nobody questioned the NASA article when the noted SPEED of
the shuttle!

"But Mr. NASA Scientist, the guys at JREF said it's supposed to be 11 KMs/S/S."

LOL

 

[Hokulele]

And you believe this because..?

Don't bother, Turbofan is of the Judy Wood school of the entire top section vanishing into thin air (dustified or whatever).

 

[WildCat]

Nothing there looks like it's exploding huh?

Have you used your fyziks skillz to determine how much explosive would be necessary for your claims? And how they were silent?

 

[Turbofan]

And you believe this because..?

I believe this because of the design of the towers, the NIST report, and ummm...
the simple fact that the twin towers don't suspend themselves in mid air?

Are you kidding me?

Did the plane cut all of the interior and exterior columns?

Once again Mr. Mackey, nothing dropped. It was all connected.

 

[R.Mackey]

Yup, typical GL move. Ignore the facts.

Funny how nobody questioned the NASA article when the noted SPEED of
the shuttle!

"But Mr. NASA Scientist, the guys at JREF said it's supposed to be 11 KMs/S/S."

I am a NASA scientist, and I also didn't see anyone here claim that at all. The person with acceleration/velocity confusion is yourself.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yup, typical GL move. Ignore the facts.

Funny how nobody questioned the NASA article when the noted SPEED of
the shuttle!

"But Mr. NASA Scientist, the guys at JREF said it's supposed to be 11 KMs/S/S."

LOL

if you've got time to mock people then you have time to actually educate if you have the qualification you claim you have to speak of the subject. Please come back after you have taken the remedial physics classes. Clearly your perception of physics approaches Judy Wood...

 

[R.Mackey]

I believe this because of the design of the towers, the NIST report, and ummm...
the simple fact that the twin towers don't suspend themselves in mid air?

Are you kidding me?

Did the plane cut all of the interior and exterior columns?

Once again Mr. Mackey, nothing dropped. It was all connected.

"Nothing Dropped" suggests it is you who believes they suspended themselves in midair.

The impacts cut about 15-20 percent of perimeter columns and 5-8 percent of core columns, best estimate. The remainder failed after the fires. We have video clearly demonstrating buckling at the perimeter wall. Video also shows the roofline descending at a large fraction of gravitational acceleration. The drop of the upper sections is absolutely beyond any question.

Now, again, you seemed to indicate that the "squibs" were impossible because they were too fast. You claimed, in a roundabout way, that 9.8 m/s was the maximum speed of airflow after one second of building upper motion. Do you realize that the air can indeed move faster than building motion, if funneled, as it would be by the collapse of such large structures? Or is that also beyond your comprehension?

 

[Minadin]

Yup, typical GL move. Ignore the facts.

Funny how nobody questioned the NASA article when the noted SPEED of
the shuttle!

"But Mr. NASA Scientist, the guys at JREF said it's supposed to be 11 KMs/S/S."

LOL

G-L? What's that mean, exactly?

 

[nicepants]

Question for Turbofan Re: "Squibs"

You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.

The Space Shuttle produces squibs?

You get compression? Wow. Do you get squibs too?

Compression and squibs are two different things.

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

Please post your definition of the word "squib" as used in the examples above, and cite your source.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Turbofan]

Video also shows the roofline descending at a large fraction of gravitational acceleration. The drop of the upper sections is absolutely beyond any question.

No, no. Let me fix that for you:

"Video also shows the tilt and destruction of the upper section before the
supporting structure descends. The explosion of the upper section is beyond
any question."

Please show me a large section of the building intact as the tower is
crushed for about 1000 feet.

Now, again, you seemed to indicate that the "squibs" were impossible because they were too fast. You claimed, in a roundabout way, that 9.8 m/s was the maximum speed of airflow after one second of building upper motion. Do you realize that the air can indeed move faster than building motion, if funneled, as it would be by the collapse of such large structures? Or is that also beyond your comprehension?

Do you realize there is a massive hole in the side of the building in which
the plane went through?

Kinda tough to create squibs with a 757 sized hole in the side of the building, huh?

Do you realize that within or less than a second the speed of the upper
section could not have exceeded 9.8 m/s?

I did not claim anything in a round about way...we were talking about the
speed of collapse in our discussion.

Stop spinning. Start thinking.

 

[R.Mackey]

No, no. Let me fix that for you:

"Video also shows the tilt and destruction of the upper section before the
supporting structure descends. The explosion of the upper section is beyond
any question."

No, I will not let you. The above is false. Watch the roofline. It descends steadily about 30 meters before it is lost in the dust cloud, for both towers. In the case of WTC 2, not only is it not destroyed "by explosion," but it even retains enough structural integrity -- after starting to fall -- that it develops a kink.

Please show me a large section of the building intact as the tower is
crushed for about 1000 feet.

I cannot, but I can show you a large section intact after the tower is crushed for over 100 feet. The latter stages are obscured by smoke and dust, and we really cannot say one way or the other.

Do you realize there is a massive hole in the side of the building in which
the plane went through?

Kinda tough to create squibs with a 757 sized hole in the side of the building, huh?

No, it's not. Again, the "pressure" is a dynamic pressure, not a static pressure. The big hole means that fluid velocities on that side would be slower, by virtue of reduced pathlength, but it has no effect at all on velocities on other faces.

Do you realize that within or less than a second the speed of the upper
section could not have exceeded 9.8 m/s?

Yes. In fact, certain papers such as Bazant & Verdure and BLBG have quantified it in much more detail than your theoretical upper limit. Our observations are consistent with, and greatly sharpen, your claim here.

Stop spinning. Start thinking.

No spin to be found here. Just your unfamiliarity with physics, and rejection of directly observable evidence.

 

[A W Smith]

when you post a still image of the collapse, you remove the movement and thus remove the evidence that it is not an explosion at all. Thats called being dishonest. in some clips you can still see the intact chamfered edge of the tower parapet as it descends into the plume.

 

[Mancman]

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

Nothing ate itself. All we see is that the top section has compressed by a few floors.

Note that WTC1 does not display this behaviour:
http://i35.tinypic.com/153652h.jpg

The difference is most likely down to the fact that the top of WTC2 met reinforced mechanical levels after only 5 floors of descent, whereas WTC1 would not destroy these before a drop of 20 floors.

 

[GlennB]

You get compression? Wow.

Yes I do. So do you.

Do you get squibs too?

This would be a poor way to change the subject, even if you knew what a squib was. Which you don't. So .. no cigar for you !!

 

[X]

I didn't know you could have compression without a sealed environment,
and some sort of reduction in volume while maintaining the seal?

But such a notion would negate:
- fans
- pumps
- airfoils
- shockwaves
- your namesake
and a great many other things

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 speed of air can change depending on the path of flow, and geometry, and compressibility, and speed (in the trans-sonic region). It does not depend solely on the speed of the moving object pushing it.

Given that it has been shown that air can be compressed without needing an enclosed container (which I assume you know now; maybe you should consider what you do not know before leaping to conclusions dependant on knowledge you do not have) and that pressure differentials drive air motion, it is a straightforward conclusion that the puffs of dust seen exiting the building in random locations during the collapse are the result of escaping airflow driven by the above collapse.

With the relatively small area of the window or vent the air is seen exiting from, basic fluid dynamics holds that the velocity can be substantially higher than the air would move at without restriction.

(On the fluid dynamics: A large volume of air has to move through small area. What is the only way it can do this?
Hint: look up the formulas for volume, area and speed)



By the way, has anyone noticed that Turbofan has a tendency to respond to rebuttals as though they address different points than they actually do?

 

[pomeroo]

WHo needs the physics class around here?

All of the hopelessly ineducable idiots like yourself.