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

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

Yes master yoda, I only said smoking gun of upward forces.

Can you explain these tensile forces in the facade please. I didn't know that the steel was pre-stressed or post-tentioned.

Maybe you are talking about moments? Please elaborate. I am not trying to be an ass, just maybe I have overlooked something.

reply to post by Griff


I wonder if anyone had the opportunity to measure the radioactivity in what they call a metorite. No jet fuel fire could cause that to happen. Only the direct energy of DEW (direct energy weapon) or direct energy of H- or A-bomb (indirect energy weapon) could cause that to happen.

Only thermonuclear energy can do that no differently than done naturally in outer space, which is also caused by in intense, massive, lethal radioactive waves, i.e. gamma and x-ray. That is done on the edge of the most directed energy applied. It is indirect thermonuclear energy close to the highest point of applied direct energy. If that was done to a biological organism, that is what the biological organism would look like - incinerated to a charcoal carbon crisp as happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

It takes nature millions of years to do what a DEW can do in seconds - make coal and diamonds from once living organic fossils.

Originally posted by Griff
Here is an article about Mr. Voorsanger and his credentials.

www.arlisna.org...

Artifacts and other objects? Fine art? Is he an architect or art dealer?

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Do me a favor, atleast perform the test...then let me know what your results are.

I DON'T NEED TO PERFORM YOUR TEST. You are correct in what you state.

I'm trying to figure out what caused that piece to have an upward vector velocity.

The reason why I started this thread was for the people who claim that there was no upward force. And go on to try and discredit the guy from NJ who filmed the "explosions" and put together his pictures of the arcs. That was a long time ago though (back in the days of Agent Smith posting that stuff). I believe I and we (including you) have proven that some debris was ejected upward. Correct?

Again, I will recommend this experiment with a curve (pun intended).

Take 5lbs or more of sugar. Take a 5lb object. At the same time, release the sugar and toss up and out (arc it) the other 5lb object. Please note which one hits the ground first and why.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
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.

you need to drop the crumpled paper through a pile of cumpled paper which is glued or taped together for your experiment to have meaning.

do you think the crumpled paper will fall through the pile of crumpled paper faster than the sheet of paper will fall through air?

reply to post by Griff


Griff, the hat trusses and all floors automatically placed gravitational load on the attached-to-the-outside- perimeter walls. Air from inside is also lateral load pressure always. Heat expanding and cooling contracting metal.

reply to post by Griff

Can you explain these tensile forces in the facade please. I didn't know that the steel was pre-stressed or post-tentioned. Again, sort of like a vertical suspension bridge.

The unique design of the towers did in fact incorporate a pre-stressed condition which was supported by the center columns.

And BTW, this has nothing to do with WallStreet's experiment.

[edit on 2/13/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


If that is the case, I can agree with you. I'll have to dig more into the design of the building. Unless you can point me in the right direction?

reply to post by traderonwallst


For your experiment to have any relevance to the WTC collapse the facade in the OP picture would be your flat piece of paper the rest of the falling building would be the crumpled ball of paper.

There is visual evidence in the form of pictures and video of large pieces of facade laying scattered about after the collapse. So clearly some of all the millions of pieces of the rest of the building were not all like your crumpled ball of paper but were in fact more like the facade piece in the OP picture or your flat piece of paper.

So the question remains why did the facade in the OP picture act differently i.e (ejected up and out from the rest of the falling building) than the other pieces of facade on the building?

[edit on 13-2-2008 by etshrtslr]

reply to post by billybob


If all the crumpled papers are dropping together...then yes.

over and over again...yes

reply to post by Griff


Sorry, I don't have a link. It was explained to me by a NY State engineer who worked in the same building I did.

Keep in mind though, that WTC 7 was not of this unique design, and was not hit by a plane, yet it collapsed. Or was it "pulled" as Mr. Silverstein has said?

[edit on 2/13/0808 by jackinthebox]

When the facade breaks the pieces "most likely" snap into those pieces. This snapping created an undue un-natural force pushing the pieces out and up. take for example a tooth pick. If you hold it between your thumb and pointer finger and try to squeeze the tooth pick flat...it bows in the middle and snaps. When it snaps, and if it snaps in half the piece you were pushing down goes in a downward direction. The pieces resting on your thumb was pushed up and out in an arcing direction. If not for gravity that piece would continue in an upward and outward direction. But gravity eventually captures that piece and bring it in a downward direction.

I know I chose to use simple examples, but as I have said repeatedly on this and other threads, the easiest way to explain things.

I am very sorry if people just can;t understand it. I try to make things as easy as possible. I know that most people on here only chat on these borads to prove that the US government did this. But if you have read any of the posts I have been on in the past, I was there that day and I just can;t bring myself to believe it.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by billybob

 

If all the crumpled papers are dropping together...then yes.

over and over again...yes

it is one piece of crumpled paper trying to fall through a pile of static paper, so they are not falling together.

without doing the experiment, i can safely predict that the crumpled piece of paper will not break apart a pile of taped together crumpled paper, it will bounce off to the side. energy always takes the path of least resistance.

away from the analogy, and back to reality, the debris which is falling must not only fall through air, but must fall through a massive steel lattice.

there are quite a few anomalous upward ejections besides this one facade panel. many have 'comet tails' of powder fanning out behind them, very much like the one's seen bursting out of the ground from underground nuclear explosions.

reply to post by traderonwallst


What should have happened under any other conditions was a horizontal snapping off, out and down. What did happen, was the perimeter walls were being tossed up and arced outward before dropping down. That can only happen with massive pressure from the inside pushing up and out first.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
I know I chose to use simple examples, but as I have said repeatedly on this and other threads, the easiest way to explain things.

LOL

Sorry but your little 'examples' have nothing to do with building collapses.
The towers did not have anything pushing up or down to create the pressure you are putting on your tooth pick equally at both ends.

There is no easy way to explain a building globally collapsing from asymmetrical damage and office fires on a few floors, while showing no sign of resistance. There is no easy way to explain the up and out expulsion of pieces of facade weighing in the tons. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Try again...

as an aside, i just measured the landmark tower's descent time. the roofline 30 storeys above the earth, took 15 seconds to hit the ground after the first explosion at the base of the tower.

so, how does a building accidentally 'crush itself' in less time than a building a little more than one quarter the size(380 ft. vs. 1368 ft) takes to fall after being intentionally broken apart for the purpose of making it 'freefall'? (in fact, demolitionists use gravity to help break the building, so the timing of the descent is planned to be slighty slower than if they only used explosives to break the building)

Basic physics that we all should have taken in school shows that ALL objects accelerate toward the earth, from the earth's gravity, at the same rate (32ft/sec). It does not depend upon the objects mass but rather it is the earth's mass that determines the acceleration rate. The mass of the object determines the acceleration rate of the earth towards it, so all objects accelerate at the same rate towards the earth no matter their mass.

An objects density and surface area can slow down it's free fall rate over time until it reaches terminal velocity (Resistance=Acceleration). To get a building to fall faster then a free falling object next to it you would need to remove all of the resistance including air, remember air resistance is almost nothing compared to concrete and steel.

The acceleration multiplied by time gives total acceleration, multiply that by 1/2 gives average speed, multiply that by the time again gives total distance or; 32ft x 10sec (x 1/2 x 10sec)= 1600ft (total distance without resistance).
The magic was not getting mass to defy the laws of physics but to get the world to believe that it did.

reply to post by Devino


According to NASA, and everything else I have ever read on free falling, it only happens in a vacuum because speed remains constant, regardless of mass, only a vacuum.

www.grc.nasa.gov...

An object that falls through a vacuum is subjected to only one external force, the gravitational force, expressed as the weight of the object. An object that is moving only because of the action of gravity is said to be free falling and its motion is described by Newton's second law of motion. With algebra we can solve for the acceleration of a free falling object. The acceleration is constant and equal to the gravitational acceleration g which is 9.8 meters per square second at seal level on the Earth. The weight, size, and shape of the object are not a factor in describing a free fall. In a vacuum, a beach ball falls with the same acceleration as an airliner. Knowing the acceleration, we can determine the velocity and location of any free falling object at any time using the following equations.

The remarkable observation that all free falling objects fall at the same rate was first proposed by Galileo, nearly 400 years ago. Galileo conducted experiments using a ball on an inclined plane to determine the relationship between the time and distance traveled. He found that the distance depended on the square of the time and that the velocity increased as the ball moved down the incline. The relationship was the same regardless of the mass of the ball used in the experiment. The story that Galileo demonstrated his findings by dropping two cannon balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa is just a legend. However, if the experiment had been attempted, he would have observed that one ball hit before the other! Falling cannon balls are not actually free falling - they are subject to air resistance and would fall at different terminal velocities.

Originally posted by Devino
The magic was not getting mass to defy the laws of physics but to get the world to believe that it did.

Thanks for your input. I like this last line.