The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[triforcharity]

Yea, because heating the steel in the towers as they burned is a lot like what happens on a sunny day.

Wanna elaborate on this??

Oh, and NatGeo did a very simple test. 7,000 gallons of jet fuel, 1 steel beam, one spark. Beam failed in under 4 minutes.

Any questions??

 

[Reactor drone]

Where did they report those gas temps? In 1-5B? Please point them out as I've missed them.



.

They're in chapter 4 entitled "Gas temperatures"





Kind of hard to miss it really

 

[carlitos]

It's almost as if he hasn't read the report he is criticizing.

 

[GlennB]

Maybe I'm behind the times with my NIST versions, but I have NIST 1-5E on my hard drive and it has ample references to gas temperatures, but mostly in chapter 6.

 

[carlitos]

Lulz.

 

[beachnut]

For anyone needing a textbook example of begging the question.



If that's your best analogy, you should stop trying to make them, as that doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever.



That's basically the same thing you say every time you post. At least I know you didn't get your degree in metaphor design.
.

Become an engineer.

The analogy is good, your failure to understand the analogy is indicative of your ability to understand 911.

Repetition is a learning tool that fails to work on truthers.

 

[daws59]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/304704a4d71365ad9e.jpg[/qimg]

I thought It rated at least two crickets

 

[1stClassAlan]

For those interested in thread drift - I once ran 100yds in 10.6 secs and 220 in 23sec - in bare feet on a grass field - British senior school 5th year. I was also moderately good at the Javelin or "chucking the spear" as we nonchalantly referred to it.
.

 

[Furcifer]

For those interested in thread drift - I once ran 100yds in 10.6 secs and 220 in 23sec - in bare feet on a grass field - British senior school 5th year. I was also moderately good at the Javelin or "chucking the spear" as we nonchalantly referred to it.
.

I did several events but the pole vault was my best. I never broke 4m which would have almost guaranteed me a scholarship.

My point of course it that no matter what height I vaulted I fell considerably faster than the towers.

 

[jay howard]

Yea, this thread has drifted like Magellan. But here we are. So, I'm reading through the FDS approximations and comparing their methods of simulation in thermal response in ch. 11 and they clearly say:

"Simulations of the effects of severe fires on the structural integrity of buildings requires a close coupling between the gas-phase enthalpy release and transport phenomena and the stress analysis in the load bearing materials. The connection between the two is established primarily through the interaction of the heat transfer between the solid and gas phase with the conduction of heat through the structural components." (p. 187, 1-5B)

my emphasis.

However, their method for accounting for thermal conductivity was outlined at the beginning of chapter 10 as such:

"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin; thus no thermal conductivity was used. Note the FDS performs a simple one-dimensional calculation of steel temperature to be used as a boundary condition in the calculation." (p. 150, 1-5B)

my emphasis.

Again, in chapter 11, it is emphasized that:

"In order to perform a thermal analysis, the thermophysical properties of the steel and SFRM were needed, including the density, thermal conductivity, and heat capacity. These quantities are generally functions of temperature." (p. 191).


I realize everyone here likes the NIST report just fine, but they've made a couple of strong statements galvanizing the importance of thermal conductivity in making an accurate simulation, yet opt not to include that quality of the materials in designing the simulation.

They do a lot of work to demonstrate that their model works like the real thing, yet how is it that a one-dimensional boundary condition accurately represents thermal conductivity?


.
.

 

[aggle-rithm]

*heavy sigh*

 

[beachnut]

Yea, this thread has drifted like Magellan. ...
.
.

Drifted like Magellan? Ironic as you drift off of topic into pure junk. Magellan, the first to head up the most fantastic navigation of the day? You are drifting like wrong way corrigan. Good job, you are a very truthy truther; don't let us down and get on topic.

Topic is free fall of the WTC towers and how 911 truth failed! Got navigation? Magellan did.

 

[jaydeehess]

*heavy sigh*

en·thal·py [ én thàlpee, en thálpee ] noun
Definition:
thermodynamic property of physical system: a thermodynamic property equal to the sum of the internal energy of a system and the product of its pressure and volume

"Simulations of the effects of severe fires on the structural integrity of buildings requires a close coupling between the gas-phase enthalpy release and transport phenomena and the stress analysis in the load bearing materials. The connection between the two is established primarily through the interaction of the heat transfer between the solid and gas phase with the conduction of heat through the structural components." (p. 187, 1-5B)

So on the one hand he is correct in that the energy in the gas is important. On the other hand he still does not seem to grasp what the actual purpose of the test was. that is to see if the physical test results could be predicted by the computer model and that if they could then the model would be verified and could be considered valid for use in the WTC fire study.

Plus he seems unconvinced that heat, energy and temperature are not the same thing.

 

[vinniem]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this at any point in time given the fact that I've only been on here a couple of months but there is something I just thought of. Its said, by the TM, that the towers fell at free fall speed. The spped of course as we all know is 9.2 seconds. That is determined by the height of the towers. But wouldn't that be had the collapse began from the very top. Since the collapse began in the area where the plane hit the speed of free fall would've been less. Ex. If the speed of free fall is 9.2 seconds, but lets say its 9, this would mean about 12 floors per second. Since the collapse of the south tower began at the 85th floor, this would make it about 7 seconds. The south tower would've collapse in about 8 seconds. Seismics appear to have the collapse at 15 for the south and 22 for the north. Which makes sense since the collapse began at a higher altitude for the north. But the question is simple. Shouldn't the speed of free fall be from the area from where the collapse began not how tall the buildings are?

It isn't just truthers that claim freefall. The NIST report admits that they collapsed "essentially in freefall".

EDITED TO ADD:

They also admit that the first couple of seconds of wtc7's collapse was in freefall.

 

[Macgyver1968]

It isn't just truthers that claim freefall. The NIST report admits that they collapsed "essentially on freefall".

Do you say anything that isn't straight out of the truther 2004 handbook?

What is "essentially on (sic) freefall"? The towers took 15 and 22 seconds to collapse. Freefall from the top would take ~9 seconds. Is 9 essentially 15 or 22?

 

[Arus808]

It isn't just truthers that claim freefall. The NIST report admits that they collapsed "essentially on freefall".

yes, nicely quote mined as well. if you bothered to read the report, they explained why they used that "general" description, but in fact describe when "freefall acceleration" happened in the total collapse.

you show yet again you know nothing about 9/11

 

[dudalb]

This whole thread is why, although I consider both to be insane,LIHOP is slighty less insane ...slightly... then MIHOP. At least with LIHOP you don't have to try to disprove or ignore so much science.

 

[BigAl]

It isn't just truthers that claim freefall. The NIST report admits that they collapsed "essentially in freefall".

EDITED TO ADD:

They also admit that the first couple of seconds of wtc7's collapse was in freefall.

And to the degree that any of this is true, how does in mean that the cause of the collapse was anything but the impact of two big airplanes?

 

[vinniem]

Do you say anything that isn't straight out of the truther 2004 handbook?

The NIST report was published in 2005, so quoting it is hardly from a 2004 handbook.

 

[vinniem]

And to the degree that any of this is true, how does in mean that the cause of the collapse was anything but the impact of two big airplanes?

No airplane hit wtc7.

I wasn't making any wider point. The OP claimed it was truthers saying freefall and that isn't true.