The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[jaydeehess]

"The Towers burned for several hours"
"That's rwight, they deed"
"And what else burns?"
"Toast?"
"Yes, but what else?"
"Little bits a paper?"
"Rwight, but what else?"
"Them thinns wif a head on em'?"
"Matches!"
"Thass wright, matches, they burn good"
"Yes, matches, but what are matches made uf?"
"I knowz, its thr'mite, thr'mite burns!"
"Yes, that too, but wha else?, keeps you warm at nite?"
"Blankets?"
"Bloody hell man, not blankets, in a stove"
"wood?"
"Ass rwight, wood, wood burns!"
"An the towers, they burned too!"
"Ass wright, the towers burned and wood burns, so the towers is made uh wood"
"And matches!"

I must be prescient. I somehow knew that Monty Python would enter this discussion?

Quoth the 911TM "I'm not dead yet."

 

[Furcifer]

As far as they're concerned, the collapse was "inevitable" after a certain point, and that's all that needs to be said about it. Being a "skeptic" (you may have heard this term before), that is not a satisfactory answer for me. So to entertain a conversation about what was happening to the steel members such that the longest any of the three buildings lasted from beginning of collapse to pile of rubble was 20 seconds, seems like a reasonable request.

If you call a plumber, he won't fix your car.

So to entertain your other conversation, once the upper section started to fall there was nothing on earth going to stop it.

What else you want to talk about?

 

[jaydeehess]

What this is about is visualizing what happened to the complex interconnected network of steel beams below the crash areas such that it was unable to slow the falling mass enough so that we might avoid this conversation.

The NIST account says the steel was heated to the point of "collapse initiation" however, nowhere in their report do they even attempt to address what happened after "collapse initiation".

As far as they're concerned, the collapse was "inevitable" after a certain point, and that's all that needs to be said about it. Being a "skeptic" (you may have heard this term before), that is not a satisfactory answer for me. So to entertain a conversation about what was happening to the steel members such that the longest any of the three buildings lasted from beginning of collapse to pile of rubble was 20 seconds, seems like a reasonable request.



You want to say it was 15 seconds for WTC 2 and 20 seconds for 1? Fine. It still doesn't dispell a rational examination of those collapses.

,,,,,,and many others have in this or other threads gone into great detail about how that came about. Why don;t you quote NIST in its entirety as to the inevitability of gloabl collapse.

 

[Brainache]

My real motive is to make everyone write left-handed, of course. But that's not what this conversation is about. What this is about is visualizing what happened to the complex interconnected network of steel beams below the crash areas such that it was unable to slow the falling mass enough so that we might avoid this conversation.

The NIST account says the steel was heated to the point of "collapse initiation" however, nowhere in their report do they even attempt to address what happened after "collapse initiation".

As far as they're concerned, the collapse was "inevitable" after a certain point, and that's all that needs to be said about it. Being a "skeptic" (you may have heard this term before), that is not a satisfactory answer for me. So to entertain a conversation about what was happening to the steel members such that the longest any of the three buildings lasted from beginning of collapse to pile of rubble was 20 seconds, seems like a reasonable request.



You want to say it was 15 seconds for WTC 2 and 20 seconds for 1? Fine. It still doesn't dispell a rational examination of those collapses.

The answers you seek may be found through a study of the arcane subjects known to some as "Engineering and Physics".

The lies of the false seers of Youtube will lead you astray, heed them not!

Seek you the truth in the fields of science and eschew the deceptive caltrops of Gage...

 

[jaydeehess]

The person who linked that page in another forum tried to backtrack by claiming that the air inside the building is a major component of the building. thus, the building had the same density as wood, and thus should have fallen at the same speed as a block of wood.

I figured as much. If only the TM would say what they mean when they first say it instead of having to backtrack when called on the fact that what they stated is in error.

Now if the entire upper section had hopped off to one side as an intact block it would have fallen and been of the same average dfensity as a block of wood (an enourmous block of wood, but the same density). One could then calculate the terminal velocity of such a block but as ridiculous as such a calculation would be it bears no relevence to the situation at hand. the materials making up the structure came apart and fell as 'blocks' the density of concrete or steel, not wood. they were not incorporating air in their bulk.

At collapse initiation the bulk of the mass of the upper section fell (dynamic loading) on the floor spans, NOT on the lower section columns thus stripping the floors from the column seats and adding to the bulk of falling mass that would then impact the next floor down.

If we halt the conversation right there I would like the TM to explain how this situation can be halted in a structure with long span open floors.

 

[jaydeehess]

The answers you seek may be found through a study of the arcane subjects known to some as "Engineering and Physics".

The lies of the false seers of Youtube will lead you astray, heed them not!

Seek you the truth in the fields of science and eschew the deceptive caltrops of Gage...

Caltrops? gage has hookers on the payroll...?

errr, oh,,, CALtrops,

not trollops(other than perhaps a group dedicated to a trolling operation known as a troll-op)

 

[jaydeehess]

So to entertain a conversation about what was happening to the steel members such that the longest any of the three buildings lasted from beginning of collapse to pile of rubble was 20 seconds, seems like a reasonable request.
.

Well yeah, WTC 7 took about 16 seconds to collapse but it was of course half the size of either of the towers and had not seen an initial impact comparable to that of the towers aircraft hits.

 

[Brainache]

Caltrops? gage has hookers on the payroll...?

errr, oh,,, CALtrops, not trollops(other than perhaps a group dedicated to a trolling operation known as a troll-op)

<insert insane cackling here>

Sorry. I've had just about enough of these Truthers who think they know more about Engineering than people who have studied and worked in the Engineering field all their adult lives.

Where do they get that level of arrogance from? Can they seriously believe that watching Youtube and reading PrisonPlanet is the equivalent of a University degree in Engineering?

 

[Newtons Bit]

My real motive is to make everyone write left-handed, of course.

Dastardly!

But that's not what this conversation is about. What this is about is visualizing what happened to the complex interconnected network of steel beams below the crash areas such that it was unable to slow the falling mass enough so that we might avoid this conversation.

The NIST account says the steel was heated to the point of "collapse initiation" however, nowhere in their report do they even attempt to address what happened after "collapse initiation".

As far as they're concerned, the collapse was "inevitable" after a certain point, and that's all that needs to be said about it. Being a "skeptic" (you may have heard this term before), that is not a satisfactory answer for me. So to entertain a conversation about what was happening to the steel members such that the longest any of the three buildings lasted from beginning of collapse to pile of rubble was 20 seconds, seems like a reasonable request.

It's been proven already. Please see Bazant and Zhou in the JEM. As an engineer, I didn't even need that (nor did my co-workers): it is inevitable.

You want to say it was 15 seconds for WTC 2 and 20 seconds for 1? Fine. It still doesn't dispell a rational examination of those collapses.

I don't really know exactly what it was. But it is fairly obvious that it fell much slower than free-fall. Is it half? One-third? I don't know and I don't care to find out what the exact number is. It's not relevant.

But if you want to examine the collapses, by all means, please do. But you have already been caught in a lie by stating that there are comparable collapses. We both know that there aren't, which is why, I surmise, you didn't even bother defending your previous statement. So everyone here is going to correctly speculate is that you're standing on the last leg of shaky conspiracy theory and trying desperately not to fall.

 

[jay howard]

The fact that the supporting strucutre was intact below the impact point is trivial when you consider the amount of kinetic energy generated by the top of the strucutre at the onset of the collapse.

That's just a bare assertion. Yes, the tops of the structures were extremely heavy. But that doesn't make the impact point "trivial". That's exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific dismissal that makes my head spin at this site. Why don't you want a specific answer?

Sometimes I think this whole issue is more like a rorshach test than any kind of rational argument about anything.

 

[jay howard]

But but but the TM cries, the building was capable of supporting more than its weight due to gravity and yes, it was IF, IF, IF the building was in the intact condition it was up to the time of impact. These are all static loads and bear no relevence to how the building would react to dynamic loading nor how the building's structural components will react to dynamic and static loading that does not conform in any way to the way it was designed to take loads. If a mass greater than that which the floor spans were capable of supporting was on that floor then it (the floor) would fail and it would not matter a whit that the columns could support that load with no problem. If the load was predominantly dynamic overloading the situation is again changed and basically the floor fails in even less time..

Just because it wasn't built for dynamic loads doesn't mean all the weld, bolts and fasteners will simply crumble without any resistance either. It takes some amount of energy greater than zero to crush, mangle or otherwise move a welded, bolted joint out of place. On this, again, we can all agree.

I don't disagree that the floors were not designed for dynamic loads. I simply don't think it follows that they would give away with so little resistance. People have done the math on this on both sides and come to exactly the conclusions each side set out to initially prove. Telling.

There are plenty of authority figures with the appropriate knowledge and experience on both sides of this issue as well, and as predicted, they come up with exactly the kind of explanations that fit their preconcieved conclusions about the collapses.

 

[DGM]

People have done the math on this on both sides and come to exactly the conclusions each side set out to initially prove. Telling.

.

Who exactly on the "truther" side?

 

[Brainache]

Who exactly on the "truther" side?

I bet Killtown had a stab at it. Possibly Spooked9/11 too.

How can the world of professional engineering compete with a couple of genius intellects like that?

 

[jaydeehess]

Just because it wasn't built for dynamic loads doesn't mean all the weld, bolts and fasteners will simply crumble without any resistance either. It takes some amount of energy greater than zero to crush, mangle or otherwise move a welded, bolted joint out of place. On this, again, we can all agree.

I don't disagree that the floors were not designed for dynamic loads. I simply don't think it follows that they would give away with so little resistance. People have done the math on this on both sides and come to exactly the conclusions each side set out to initially prove. Telling.

There are plenty of authority figures with the appropriate knowledge and experience on both sides of this issue as well, and as predicted, they come up with exactly the kind of explanations that fit their preconcieved conclusions about the collapses.

I can balance a concrete block on a paper coffee cup but if I drop it onto the cup from a few inchs it crushes the cup with no discernable (by eye) resistance.

In much the same way the floors failed within milliseconds of the impact of many times more dynamic load than they were designed to ever encounter.
I already demomstrated that a slight decrease in the time of collapse duration will result in a much greater opposing force having been present. Therein lies your resistance.

So far your entire arguement has been one of personal incredulity and you seem quite willing to ignore any attempt to educate you on some details. Now if you want a blow by blow detailed description of exactly what occured during the collapse I am afarid that your goalposts are on another planet.

If not then perhaps you would be so kind as to illuminate us as to exactly where they are.

 

[jaydeehess]

I bet Killtown had a stab at it. ......

ROFLMAO

yep, probably added the height of the towers, to acelleration due to gravity and came up with the time of collapse should have been.

 

[jay howard]

But if you want to examine the collapses, by all means, please do. But you have already been caught in a lie by stating that there are comparable collapses. We both know that there aren't, which is why, I surmise, you didn't even bother defending your previous statement. So everyone here is going to correctly speculate is that you're standing on the last leg of shaky conspiracy theory and trying desperately not to fall.

It's a little dramatic to call it a "lie", don't you think? I'm not saying there are comparable situations, however, as we all agree, those buildings fell fast. Why? There is a reason for everything, and the speed of those collapses is no exception.

And I hardly think this is the last leg. I'm not in some "truther" club, and I don't give a damn about making friends here. I just want to have a straight forward conversation with clear answers. I know full well that most people here aren't even attempting to have a conversation about this. They would just ridicule and high-five each other and claim "victory" about something. Most here are attempting to end this conversation, not have it.

That's what gets to me: this organization is supposed to be a "skeptical" group of people. That is, people who want a real answer, even if it's uncomfortable. And yet, it's clear that people who question the official story are on the "other side", like it's the Cowboys vs. the Redskins.

Do you want to have a conversation or not?

 

[DGM]

I bet Killtown had a stab at it. Possibly Spooked9/11 too.

How can the world of professional engineering compete with a couple of genius intellects like that?

I was going to give him some credit and guess Gordon Ross. But even that's a fail.

 

[Furcifer]

I must be prescient. I somehow knew that Monty Python would enter this discussion?

Quoth the 911TM "I'm not dead yet."

The seem to use the same type of associative logic on just about everything.

There's a pretty simple formula for calculating the velocity of an object moving through a viscous medium due to gravity. I still have yet to see one truther try and use it.

 

[jay howard]

Who exactly on the "truther" side?

Oh, hell, it was a Scottish guy whose name escapes me. I'd like to continue this tomorrow.

 

[jaydeehess]

Just because it wasn't built for dynamic loads doesn't mean all the weld, bolts and fasteners will simply crumble without any resistance either. It takes some amount of energy greater than zero to crush, mangle or otherwise move a welded, bolted joint out of place. On this, again, we can all agree.

.

Tell me, when energy is inputted to a connection and that connection fails what becomes of the energy? It gets 'used up" right?