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

For a perspective of why I started this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's an old thread, but I'm not sure if we have come to any conclusion.

Although I respect wecomeinpeace, agent smith, howard and others, I believe their interpretation of some of the arc projectories in that thread are incorrect. When held in the light of what we have been discussing here in this thread.

It's an old thread and even I probably agreed with WCIP at the time.

But, the photo in the OP reminded me of this argument.

Originally posted by billybob
the building is not falling through air, traderonwallst. it is falling through an increasingly more massive(towards the base) skyscraper.

That's an interesting point about the building being increasingly massive toward the bottom. The design of the WTC towers differed from previous approaches like the Empire State in this regard and the increasing strength in the design was in the core columns and the outer walls only. The floors themselves looked identical in terms of the trusses and seats that supported them as each floor only needed to support itself, not the floors above and the only possible exceptions would be the mechanical floors which needed to carry more loading (I'm uncertain if they had more substantial mountings than the other floors).

If the collapse wave was going primarily through the floors which were the only horizontal surfaces taking the full energy of the falling mass the increasing bulk of the core and outer walls wouldn't be a factor and the outer wall and core would be left separated and de-stabilised and all this was going on concealed within the dust cloud.

reply to post by Valhall


That photo in Griff's OP is a rather commonly reproduced one, though not from a video.


This too is quite interesting, of a large section of the facade of wtc2 being ejected above the blast wave (hey, call it what it is).

This is the most anomalous projection of a major structural member I've come across in 100s of these photos.




[edit on 14-2-2008 by gottago]

From ae911truth.org

Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.

I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.

Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, "Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters."

Originally posted by billybob



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

How something falls and why something fell are not the same thing, not in the least bit. Although, why they collapse can attribute to how they fall. One of the most uneducated statements I have ever heard when it comes to 9-11........And there have been a lot of them.

And before a moderator yells at me for saying that, I am not calling him uneducated, only his statement.

reply to post by gottago



That's the Hutchinson effect perfectly demonstrated. That picture tells the tale as to what energy force was used to tear the Towers apart by blasting energy at it and literally ripping the buildings top shreds. No really knowledgable person could see that Tower turen to dust and believe that it was a collapse. No way. It defies all we know.

The 9-11 inside job is the stinking, lumbering, bull elephant no one wants to admit is in the room; they will hold their noses, close their eyes, any do anything to avoid the obvious. The American peop[le are so dumbed down that they will deserve what is coming. It is shocking how banal and droll the average person is; sports and sex and gossip are more important to them that what happened on 9-11.

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by billybob



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

How something falls and why something fell are not the same thing, not in the least bit. Although, why they collapse can attribute to how they fall. One of the most uneducated statements I have ever heard when it comes to 9-11........And there have been a lot of them.

And before a moderator yells at me for saying that, I am not calling him uneducated, only his statement.

the "how" is a sequence of events.

the "why" is the exact same sequence of events.

educate this.

Originally posted by traderonwallst


How something falls and why something fell are not the same thing, not in the least bit.

Just for the record, I agree with you. The problem is, we can't answer either question at this point (especially if we want to try to use the NIST report). So you being right on this particular point doubles the problem we have.

reply to post by Griff


What about when you drop a stone into water. The surface water collapses in at first, but then explodes upwards after. I know this is air, but an explosion works in a similar way. The building falls and due to the speed it does smoke and debris wil lget pushed upwards. Try some experiements at home.

I'm not saying i am 100% right, but it was just an idea!

reply to post by gottago
I look at all these pictures and yet I still don't see evidence of explosions, it has more in common with an avalanche or a waterfall. We see ejected heavy material without evidence of a blast driving it and the only explanation I can suggest is kinetic transfers from the impacting heavy material like sections of core columns. Any blasts with enough power to shift such heavy material would have produced a lot of much faster smaller pieces of shrapnel yet this is not evident.

Back to the OP and the piece of facade suspended high in the air - consider the similarity of the column of suspended fine material above the building to a true pyroclastic cloud and what actually holds such a cloud up and eventually allows it to collapse. In the case of a volcano it's rapidly rising heated air currents and in this case the temperature was not exactly volcanic but the air currents are obviiously there and something like a relatively thin piece of aluminium could easily have been carried higher in those currents. The piece pictured may have just escaped the major updraft carrying the dust and is beginning to flutter down in calmer air.

reply to post by traderonwallst


I am told that that you were there that day.
As a someone who was also there I have to say I have many more questions than answers.

The reason I ended up here is because I did hear many explosions that day and the Official story does not account for what I know to be true.

What are your thoughts on what happened and why do you think in light of all the circumstantial evidence that we have the truth?

If you were there ,you must know what its like trying to go to sleep at night gasping for breath.

You know how important this is and even if the conspiracy people are bonkers which I have to say there are plenty who are, can we really ignore all these Engineers, Architects and Military Officials coming forward?