Faster than Freefall, Proof of Demolition

Originally posted by Xeros
I've realised i'm wrong here as the force of gravity is the same so they will still fall at the same rate of speed even if the force is directed outwards too. But could wind resistance be a factor?

Tens of thousands of tons of structural steel should be much greater resistance than air.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Xeros
I've realised i'm wrong here as the force of gravity is the same so they will still fall at the same rate of speed even if the force is directed outwards too. But could wind resistance be a factor?

Tens of thousands of tons of structural steel should be much greater resistance than air.

wow! i think you're right, bsbray! steel framed superskyscrapers probably DO offer more resistance than air.

damn.

I suppose the "massive" amount of weight was just too much for the steel beams and turned it all into powder. Heh... oh that's right, the jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts and weakened all that steel first.

If the building was built weak enough to crumble like that, I'd imagine it would've fallen years ago from wind alone.

The only 3 buildings in history to collapse from fire, all in one day and right next to each other? Hah!

kruel

you're killin' me...

stop man , you're gonna make

somebody ACTUALLY THINK !

OMG

is that ALLOWED ?


nope , wait a sec

people in denial don't think...sorry...

answer this; how in gods name is the presence of demolitions materials going to change the laws of physics?? things fall the same, blown up or not. this topic doesnt make any sense.

Originally posted by Kruel
I suppose the "massive" amount of weight was just too much for the steel beams and turned it all into powder. Heh... oh that's right, the jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts and weakened all that steel first.

If the building was built weak enough to crumble like that, I'd imagine it would've fallen years ago from wind alone.

? Hah!

So your trying to tell me a plane with a maximum take off weight in the 410+ TON range flying at 450+ MPH, would not have those effect on a building? your out of your mind, think of the impact weight of that. Ill do a simple equations for the weight of impact.

force is measured in newtons.
velocity is measured in meters/seconds. 450 mile/hour (mph) = 201.168 meter/second
Mass is measured in Kilograms 410 ton (u.s) = 371 945.743 4 kilogram
F= MxV
F= 371945 x 201
F= 74760945 N
74 760 945 newton = 8 403.464 ton-force

OK so 8403 TONS, worth of impact force. id say that, plus fuel explosions, and fires could easily bring down a building. not to mention the weight of the above floors pushing downward on weakend beams which would also be an insane amount of weight. it would cause collapse.

Originally posted by acura_el2000

force is measured in newtons.
velocity is measured in meters/seconds. 450 mile/hour (mph) = 201.168 meter/second
Mass is measured in Kilograms 410 ton (u.s) = 371 945.743 4 kilogram
F= MxV
F= 371945 x 201
F= 74760945 N
74 760 945 newton = 8 403.464 ton-force

Force is equal to mass times acceleration. NOT, mass times velocity. So, right there your analysis is bunk.

just imagine... floor after floor is falling down, each passing on its falling speed to the floor below, each floor falling faster..

The dust is blowing outward at the moment the mass above hits and breaks through each floor, the solid pieces from the walls fall directly down, the dust first goes sideways before slowly falling down.. it's not an explosion.. well sort of, because you have an entire floor of a huge office building being compressed by several floors above it falling on it, with the only way out is sideways..

Look a the gif I made from this video to see the point... IMO just a normal collapsing building.

www.geocities.com...

[edit on 30-3-2006 by phiniks]

Mass times velocity equals momentum.

Force equals momentum divided by time.

If we assume that the impact caused the planes momentum to go from 400 mph to 0 mph in ½ a second (totally arbitrary numbers), then we can calculate the force involved.

www.physlink.com...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Mass times velocity equals momentum.

Force equals momentum divided by time.

If we assume that the impact caused the planes momentum to go from 400 mph to 0 mph in ½ a second (totally arbitrary numbers), then we can calculate the force involved.

www.physlink.com...

Yes Howard. Force does equal momentum divided by time which also equals mass times acceleration. Your wrong in saying the planes momentum was 400 mph to 0 mph. Remember, momentum is MASS times velocity. The velocity was 400 mph to 0 mph....not momemtum. To be accurate, you would need 400 mph times the mass of the plane for it to be momentum. Then divided by the time for the force.

You are correct, I should have said that the velocity changed.

The calculation of the force required to change the velocity is still the same.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by phiniks
just imagine... floor after floor is falling down, each passing on its falling speed to the floor below, each floor falling faster..

The dust is blowing outward at the moment the mass above hits and breaks through each floor, the solid pieces from the walls fall directly down, the dust first goes sideways before slowly falling down.. it's not an explosion.. well sort of, because you have an entire floor of a huge office building being compressed by several floors above it falling on it, with the only way out is sideways..

Look a the gif I made from this video to see the point... IMO just a normal collapsing building.




[edit on 30-3-2006 by phiniks]

I agree that it's possible that the puffs of smoke could just be dust and debis forced out by the collapse, but it still doesn't hold water. I'm a sr. drafter at a large engineering and construction company, and I deal with structural drawings on a daily basis. There WOULD be more resistance to the collapse from the structural steel in that building. There's no way it would fall that fast if the support structure was intact. The jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough or long enough to soften the steel. After the initial explosion most of the jet fuel was already burned off. That leaves a fire of burning wood, sheetrock, office funiture, etc to generate the tempertures it would take to soften structural steel, not gonna happen. It doesn't matter if you believe the government wouldn't do this, someone did. Skyscrapers don't collaspe into nice piles right in their footprint because of fires. The ONLY thing that can accomplish that is a controled demolision.

[edit on 3/30/2006 by yadboy]

I did a quick calculation.

I have found that the heaviest take off weight of a 767 is 179,170 kg (forgot to save source) if that's wrong, please let me know.

M=179,170 kg
V=400 mph=178.816 meters/second.....actually this is the difference in velocity from 400 mph to 0 mph
T=.5 seconds

So, the Force is (MxV)/T= (179,170 kgx178.816 m/s)/0.5s=640,076,925.44 kg-m/s squared or 640,076,925.44 Newtons

I'd say that's a heck of a lot of force that the towers withstood. Remember that since the towers didn't fall immediately, that the towers were able to absorb that force. Not sure if my thinking is correct or not, but isn't that a heck of a lot more force than say 13 stories crashing down 12.5 feet?

Note: these are not the exact variables of what happened that day and are only put forth as a reference.

Originally posted by yadboy
I agree that it's possible that the puffs of smoke could just be dust and debis forced out by the collapse, but it still doesn't hold water. I'm a sr. drafter at a large engineering and construction company, and I deal with structural drawings on a daily basis.

Then you are probably familiar with supply and return air systems, air shafts, and air fresh air intakes.

What would happen to the air in an air shaft as the floor is feeds collapses?

Originally posted by yadboy
There WOULD be more resistance to the collapse from the structural steel in that building.

Can you do the calculations, or are you just a CAD operator?

Originally posted by yadboy
There's no way it would fall that fast if the support structure was intact. The jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough or long enough to soften the steel. After the initial explosion most of the jet fuel was already burned off. That leaves a fire of burning wood, sheetrock, office funiture, etc to generate the tempertures it would take to soften structural steel, not gonna happen.

Then why do building owners bother to apply fireproofing to steel? That is a lot of money that could be saved in the construction costs.

If you work with structural engineers, then why don’t you ask them about it?

Originally posted by billybob
this is proof that bombs were used.

Yes, it is. In Bizarro World.

How do we know that the stuff you're pointing to isn't falling at the freefall rate, and the other stuff is falling SLOWER than freefall? Huh?

I think if you take a close look at the photo, you'll notice that some of the debris is actually traveling UPWARD into the sky. Does this prove the terrorists also attacked the building with an anti-gravity weapon? I believe it does.

Originally posted by Enkidu

I think if you take a close look at the photo, you'll notice that some of the debris is actually traveling UPWARD into the sky. Does this prove the terrorists also attacked the building with an anti-gravity weapon? I believe it does.

In a gravity driven collapse, how do things get pushed out upwards? Where is there an upwards force? If it was floor joist connections failing, then how did we get debris traveling upwards? Once steel has buckled, it will not spring back into place like a spring. Therefore, even if you want to claim it was from shear, collision, etc from the steel....you can't because steel after deformation doesn't automatically spring back and kick things up.

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
answer this; how in gods name is the presence of demolitions materials going to change the laws of physics??

things fall the same, blown up or not. this topic doesnt make any sense.

exactly(except for the not making any sense part).

things FALL at the same rate of acceleration, and eventually the same terminal velocity - air resistance.

however, the debris in blue is freefalling.
the debris circled in purple is exploding out of the side of the building.
it is not falling. it is a timed explosion. and that is how it is able to go faster than freefall.
it is in fact, the only way.
if poeple would simply click the video link an watch the video, they could see for themselves.

it's much easier to just look at the picture and imagine that the debris is all coming from and going to where you wish it would come from and go to, i guess.

Bazant-Zhou estimated the mass of the upper part of the north tower to be 58,000,000 kg. Accpeting that number for now, and stipulating a 3 meter fall. If we assume that the lower floor was able to move downward 0.25 meter before the deformation caused loss of strucutral integrity (an arbitrary number), then calculating the force of the impact gives us an impact force of 6,820,800,000 N, or about 10 times more than your calculation of the impact force.

All excellent posts, but the one issue that everyone seems to be missing here is why did WTC 7 collapse? It was not struck by a 410+ ton airplane, no air fuel fires to weaken structurally sound metal that has a threshold of 2500 degrees where air fuel burns at it's hottest at 1800 degrees. Maybe I'll accept the fact that the other two buildings collapsed due to airplane impacts and all the other coincidences accompanying these two buildings, but WTC 7 is the enigma. Don't focus on the 2 Towers but the building that experienced no impact and why it collapsed. Smoke and mirrors and FOX news propaganda....look past the two towers and stop arguing over the proper equation for Force which is F=ma in a free fall condition due to the effects of gravity.

Peace.

WTC was hit by falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 resulting in sever strucutral damage. It caught fire and burned for 7 hours before it fell.