How does debris fall through the air slower than through a building?

It seems to me like the piece of facade that is higher up than the rest of them could have been flipped up there. Like when you take a pencil and put it between thumb and forefinger of one hand and hold the top of it with a finger of the other hand and flip it somewhere/at something. There is certainly a lot of 'butterfly effect' going on in that mess.

I don't believe the official story but, don't think pieces flying in all directions is too out of the ordinary for a massive skyscraper plummeting to the ground.

reply to post by traderonwallst


Like NIST...your test doesn't mean squat when analyzing this. Haven't you understood that yet?

Originally posted by beezwaxes

It seems to me like the piece of facade that is higher up than the rest of them could have been flipped up there. Like when you take a pencil and put it between thumb and forefinger of one hand and hold the top of it with a finger of the other hand and flip it somewhere/at something. There is certainly a lot of 'butterfly effect' going on in that mess.

But, what is the upward force (your other finger flipping the pencil) in a gravity driven collapse?

I don't believe the official story but, don't think pieces flying in all directions is too out of the ordinary for a massive skyscraper plummeting to the ground.

I don't either. But when they start to fly UP, then I see a problem with it.

Massive force of vacuum, from within, will equally massively push upward and outward anything becoming disconnected from the outside attachments. The same happens with imploding stars creating black holes.

For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. That applies to anything outside a massive vacuuming effect downwards/inwards.

As for an experiment, why doesn't someone release the contents of a 5lb bag of sugar and any other 5lb object and watch to see which one hits the ground first? Would that not be more of a simulation to the twin towers than paper and anything else?

The force I was thinking about would be the force of the building coming down which is considerable indeed. Top part of the building would be the forefinger and the bottom part the thumb of the same hand, no need for the 'other hand' in this case. Think of a see saw.

If I saw a video of the piece in question blow out sideways and just hang there so to speak, I'd be onboard.

Originally posted by beezwaxes

The force I was thinking about would be the force of the building coming down which is considerable indeed. Top part of the building would be the forefinger and the bottom part the thumb of the same hand, no need for the 'other hand' in this case. Think of a see saw.

If I saw a video of the piece in question blow out sideways and just hang there so to speak, I'd be onboard.

The twin towers disintegrated. They did not literally collapse as with natural collapse or conventional controlled demolitions. The buildings were disintegrating much faster than exterior being massively blown out, arcing, and then dropping. The top was disintegrated as well. That has been obvious in every photo and video across the Internet.

reply to post by beezwaxes


Now this is what I've been getting at. It's the only way (under the official version) that this could happen IMO. Like a see-saw.

Let's call it impact force reaction.

But, then, wouldn't this dissipate the total force (energy) allowed to crush the rest of the building? If all these pieces are bouncing off and up?

Originally posted by OrionStars
The top was disintegrated as well. That has been obvious in every photo and video across the Internet.

Actually, I've seen video where the architect on site says something about they were worried the antennae (WTC 1) was going to melt along with the rest of the steel. But, it landed on top of the debris pile and was saved.

I can dig up the video if need be. I posted it in one of my threads about the meteorites and molten steel. I'll look through that if you want me to.

Originally posted by Griff

Actually, I've seen video where the architect on site says something about they were worried the antennae (WTC 1) was going to melt along with the rest of the steel. But, it landed on top of the debris pile and was saved.

I can dig up the video if need be. I posted it in one of my threads about the meteorites and molten steel. I'll look through that if you want me to.

You do not have to prove it to me. I timed the end, more than a few times, by the antenna top finally resting on the ground. I could not see the bottom, and had to judge by when the top quit moving. I know it was still intact when it did that.

I wonder why they thought it would melt with the rest of the steel and from what. That is really odd comment to make concerning the antenna. At least 90% of the steel was disintegrated, and only some intact steel showed any signs of highly unusual melting, which would not have happened from jet fuel fire. It would certainly have been helpful if they had qualified any comments on that.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by Griff

 

I could not make my post any easier for anyone to understand.

If you don't think the paper test is worth performing, use my other example. Take a rock about 10 pounds and a carry a parachute weighing 10 pounds up to the same point. Drop both, then come back and tell me which one drops faster. Do it again and again. Did you get the same results each and every time???? NOW, how do you argue with science with those results??????
l

for your experiment to be useful, you need to drop the rock through a pile of rocks which are cemented together. that's what you're missing.

the facade panel falls through air, the building falls through a building. the building is going faster.

reply to post by Griff
Air is being compressed and forced out through void areas in the core like elevator shafts as well as through windows, actually the windows blowing out gives a good idea of how much air had to escape and how much pressure was produced. It's creating those impressive plumes of dust and smoke going virtually straight up (the silent explosions), the stuff that showed pyroclastic characteristics once the source of pressurised air was exhausted (building completely down).

It wouldn't take much of an updraft to keep aerodynamic stuff like that facade aluminium in the air. The piece in question may have been carried much higher and we see it after it escaped the updraft and the dust.

It just doesn't strike me as anything unusual under the circumstances unless it's proven to be something with much higher density than sheet aluminium like a block of concrete or a solid steel object.

reply to post by Griff


I think there was plenty of energy to do both(perhaps with a little help to get it going. I'm sure somebody here could come up with a ballpark energy figure.

I truly hate that it happened but would have liked to have seen,heard,felt it to have a better idea of just what happened..

There was at least 11000F degrees thermonuclear kinetic energy inside the vacuum, if anyone chooses to work up foot pounds of kinetic energy based on that known figure. Plus, using weight and mass of building known figures I did previously post. If it was missed, I will post the figures again.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by beezwaxes

 

Let's call it impact force reaction.

But, then, wouldn't this dissipate the total force (energy) allowed to crush the rest of the building? If all these pieces are bouncing off and up?

i've been saying this for years. the constant upward shocks from downward impacts would 'ping-pong' the energy, vectoring half of the downward kinetic energy into upward kinetic energy(because steel is highly elastic material). apologists never recognise this in their mathematical models(unless they're trying to explain powderised concrete).

with every broken weld, or bent beam, sound created, increase in temperature(like a repeatedly bent hanger is hot where it breaks), kinetic energy is doing the work. it is at the very least counterintuitive that the building should fall nearly as fast, and sometimes FASTER than the acceleration rate of gravity.

and, lest we forget....




and for those who don't see it right away, the vertical length of the purple line is the distance travelled by the freefalling debris, and the vertical length of the blue line is the distance travelled by things exploding from inside the building.

a longer line means a higher sped, as it represents the distance travelled in one frame's time period(about 1/30th of a second, if the video is 30fps)

reply to post by Griff

This is only because of the tensile force ALREADY in the cable when it snaps. The columns and facade were under compression.
Sorry. Nope. Try again.

Perhaps you should try again to understand what I am trying to tell you. The unique construction of the WTC made it very much like a vertical suspension bridge. The facade was under "tensile" conditions as a part of the design. This is why the building would sway in high winds, if an earthquake were to occur, or if they were hit by a plane.

So, when these pieces were broken off by downward and inward forces, the backlash of energy released could cause the pieces to fly off in directions that were not immediately dominated by the forces of gravity. Their kinetic energy had to expire before gravity could become dominant. The kinetic energy was released when the structure failed.

EDIT to add: I do not buy the official story, but smoking gun, found you have not.


[edit on 2/13/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by OrionStars
I wonder why they thought it would melt with the rest of the steel and from what. That is really odd comment to make concerning the antenna. At least 90% of the steel was disintegrated, and only some intact steel showed any signs of highly unusual melting, which would not have happened from jet fuel fire. It would certainly have been helpful if they had qualified any comments on that.

I'm just posting these videos so you can view them.

Here is Bart Voorsanger (Architect hired by the Port Authority to pick out artifacts) talking about the antennae.

www.liveleak.com...

Here he is talking about the meteorite.

www.liveleak.com...

Here is an article about Mr. Voorsanger and his credentials.

www.arlisna.org...

And here is the thread this stuff all comes from. It is quite a fun read to see how many still try and tell us there was no molten steel at GZ.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even NIST

video.google.com...

"I know of absolutely nobody, no eye witnesses who says so, no one who has produced it".

NIST caught in a bald faced lie.

Originally posted by billybob
and, lest we forget....




and for those who don't see it right away, the vertical length of the purple line is the distance travelled by the freefalling debris, and the vertical length of the blue line is the distance travelled by things exploding from inside the building.

a longer line means a higher sped, as it represents the distance travelled in one frame's time period(about 1/30th of a second, if the video is 30fps)

Yes, that was an excellent thread. Just how does debris falling through a building fall faster than debris falling through just air?

I'd really like to hear some scientific explainations for that one.

reply to post by Griff


Thank you, Griff.

A man touting those credentials has accused jet fuel fires of potentially melting that antenna? The fires were gone. They did not reach to the roof. I will watch the rest on what you placed in your post, but wish to keep my posts shorter by discussing each one if each needs discussion.

He is helping us not the people he apparently is supposed to be helping. Maybe he is doing it on purpose putting forth those words and should know they are not accurate? Just a benefit of the doubt thought on my part.

Griff:

So I take it your afraid to perform such a simple test because you could never believe a simple answer for a complex problem.

1 more bit of information concerning the facade. As you can plainly see, it was ejected from the crumbling tower. It ejected in an arcing pattern...meaning up and out. Then down. While the building collapsed straight down. What about that can't you see? The 2 directional force counterplays against the 1 directional collapse. Of course the collapse will fall at a high rate of speed. Gravit was affecting both obejcts the same......9.8 meters per second squared. it was gravity that acted on the facade to slow it down and eventually capture it....bringing it downward. This did not all happen in the same time it captured the building to bring it straight down.

And for your information...surface area of an object does not play into the rate at which an object falls to the ground due to gravity, BUT surface area does play into resistance. When you have 2 forces acting against each other, a result is produced. Here the result would be the slowing of the object...or in the case I explained....the flat paper vs. the crumbled paper. Where the flat paper would float due to the increased surface area (kind of like a parachute effect). Do me a favor, atleast perform the test...then let me know what your results are.