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

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

You might need to read the source of that info a little more closely.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

You might need to read the source of that info a little more closely.

In respect to which words?

Originally posted by ANOK

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...

First off, have you read any of my posts? I am not proving anything about how the building fell, but why the 1 piece acted differently.

The building feel because 2 planes struck them within 30 minutes of each. I heard the plane hit, but witnessed, along with thousands of other people on the ground that day, the 2nd plane impacting the other tower.

reply to post by OrionStars


Multiple forces affect things like this. Had he used 1 ball on an inclined plane and 1 block on an equally inclined plane the ball would have dropped first, due to another factor....ONE CALLED FRICTION. The friction created between the block and the inclined would have also slowed down the block object.

I again go back to the flat piece of paper vs. a crumbled piece of paper. The crumbled will hit the ground first EVERY TIME. Surface area allows more air to be captured under the object causing more resistance.


If someone were to jump out of a plane they increase their rate of accent proportionally as the get closer to the earth. The rate is actually not a constant, but multiplying by a constant. The speed increases proportionately the more distance you travel. A parachute SLOWS you down because it allows air to build up and slow the object down.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Multiple forces affect things like this. Had he used 1 ball on an inclined plane and 1 block on an equally inclined plane the ball would have dropped first, due to another factor....ONE CALLED FRICTION. The friction created between the block and the inclined would have also slowed down the block object.

Funny you should mention friction.

So, you agree with us that the friction of the intact building would slow the collapse more than just air would correct?

Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Multiple forces affect things like this. Had he used 1 ball on an inclined plane and 1 block on an equally inclined plane the ball would have dropped first, due to another factor....ONE CALLED FRICTION. The friction created between the block and the inclined would have also slowed down the block object.

Of course the ball would reach the ground first on the same degree of incline on both planes, because it rolls and does not slide. However, if the incline for the block was made steeper, and the ball incline left the same or dropped to a lesser angle, what would happen then? What is your direct point related to the twin towers with your example?

I cannot agree with your paper experiment, because I see no direct relation to the twin towers in your experiment. Exactly, how does it relate to the twin towers?

reply to post by traderonwallst


You know this is getting tiering. Anyone ever notice when we get to the point where the de-bunkers are running out of argument some new posters come along and try to start the whole thing over by making statements like what this poster made?

Pls traderonwallst (is that so hmmmm?)...explain how the aircraft impacts caused global collapse with no resistance...You know actually don't bother, read through a few threads and get the gist of where the argument is so we don't have to keep re-hashing the same thing over and over...Please.

There has been much discussion of the one piece Griff circled; here is a photo of WTC 1 almost 2/3 into its collapse. Note the massive arcing streamer to the left over WTC 7 and the huge, horizontally gushing stream of debris on the west face of the tower.

This was not exterior cladding.

traderonwallstreet 'demands' that people do his experiment, but IGNORES people who are pointing out that a steel skyscraper has more resistance than air, hence nullifying the relevance of his air resistance vs. air resistance argument.

the building is not falling through air, traderonwallst. it is falling through an increasingly more massive(towards the base) skyscraper. your crumpled piece of paper needs to smash down 10 equal(or better, increasingly larger) crumpled pieces of paper(taped together) in the same time that a sheet of unmolested paper falls through air for your experiment to have ANY meaning with regards to the subject at hand.

reply to post by OrionStars


Then either you did not watch the videos, did not pay attention when they were playing or need to clean your glasses.

reply to post by bsbray11


Umm no. I pointed out to Griff that his circled object most likely was a part of the building facade to the left and above the circle. I pointed out that we know during the collapse, there were still sections of the building that briefly remained standing till they too collapsed and posted videos showing this. I did not say that the core flipped a piece up and out (or horizontally) from what was left of the building.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Then either you did not watch the videos, did not pay attention when they were playing or need to clean your glasses.

Watch which "the videos"? You did not reference anything specific in your comment. All you did was was use a lame excuse to throw more ad hominem at me.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Umm no. I pointed out to Griff that his circled object most likely was a part of the building facade to the left and above the circle. I pointed out that we know during the collapse, there were still sections of the building that briefly remained standing till they too collapsed and posted videos showing this. I did not say that the core flipped a piece up and out (or horizontally) from what was left of the building.

well, there is no 'section of the building' near this lone traveler. there is a single aluminum cladding piece all lonesome-like in space, far, far from any other structural components.

your explanation for this "ufo" is highly unsatisfactory.



edit 'cause there's only one 'l' in the middle of traveler, and i put two. go figger english.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by billybob]

When the hell have I ever said anything about the collapse of the buildings? I have from my first post been describing the descent of the 1 object circled. I don;t know anything about how the buildings feel, I was away from the area and only saw the dust cloud. The reason why they collapsed were the planes and the ensuing fires caused by them.

Actually the more I look at this the building looks to be *ERUPTING* with an illusion of collapse. That type of 'arc' and the ejection. I mean most of the mass is being ejected by the time that picture was taken and we see the acceleration of what some call a "COLLAPSE"??



[edit on 14-2-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I pointed out that we know during the collapse, there were still sections of the building that briefly remained standing till they too collapsed and posted videos showing this. I did not say that the core flipped a piece up and out (or horizontally) from what was left of the building.

I didn't say you said anything flipped UP and out. Just out horizontally. Because there is nothing else even remotely near the piece of debris anymore, so it isn't just falling straight down or even rotating out from a fulcrum. Do you understand the problem?

Originally posted by traderonwallst
When the hell have I ever said anything about the collapse of the buildings? I have from my first post been describing the descent of the 1 object circled. I don;t know anything about how the buildings feel, I was away from the area and only saw the dust cloud. The reason why they collapsed were the planes and the ensuing fires caused by them.

you are obviously caught up in your own precepts. we're talking about percepts, here.

that's why you contradicted yourself in adjacent sentences.

I don;t know anything about how the buildings feel

("fell", i assume?)
and then, the opposite:

The reason why they collapsed were the planes and the ensuing fires caused by them.

...which is just repetition of the official rhetoric, and has no bearing on the physics of collapse, which is the main issue. ie, "how can an object falling through air, fall slower than (similiar)objects falling through A SKYSCRAPER?"

for the record, "how" and "why" they collapsed, is essentially the same thing.

reply to post by OrionStars


This is a very difficult subject to debate for many reasons and makes it that much more important to see it all for what it is. Your understanding of free fall in a vacuum may be correct but your terms are not, speed is not a constant and is defined differently then acceleration. Gravitational acceleration is considered a constant near the earths surface but air resistance is not. Resistance to a force is not a force so all objects free fall at the same rate regardless of their mass, it is the resistance thats different not the force.

I firmly believe that the most important thing to always remember, for those seeking truth and understanding, is to see things for what they are and not what we are told they are supposed to be. I have a fairly good understanding of physics and from my perspective what I have seen it's the rate which those buildings collapsed that's the smoking gun. It proves with empirical evidence beyond all doubt that the "official" conspiracy theory is false. Debating this issue with paper and toothpicks is like kicking a dead horse. What's the point? The physics are simple what it implies is difficult.

I don't spend time wondering who is to blame or how and why it was done but rather focus on the deception and how it has effected us all. I found little comfort behind this veil and yet the stark contrast of truth reminds me of the adage-ignorance is bliss.


[edit on 2/14/2008 by Devino]

Hi Griff,

Is the photo in your OP a frame from a video? If so, can you supply a link to that video? I think it would help to see the frames preceding and following the one snapshot.

P.S. If this has already been asked and provided, I apologize. I tried to find it, but couldn't.

Also, thank you in advance.

[edit on 2-14-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall


Actually, I asked the same question. I got that photo from another thread, I think gottago posted it first in the other thread. I just used it.

A video would be nice to view. I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have one available.