9/11 Science Club! What Are Specific Heat and Heat-Energy Content?

No,it did NONE of those things except fall

 

Uniform acceleration?

If it was uniform, can you explain why truthers differentiate between 2.25 seconds of free fall and the "rest of the collapse"?

 

Because during that 2.25 sec, the building experienced NO resistance from stuff under
the falling bit. and the removal of resistance had to be instantaneous & complete
for the "collapse" to happen as observed.

 

It wasn't the whole of the building that fell at that rate: only a portion of the northeast corner.

Regardless, the fact that the collapse slowed debunks your claim of uniform acceleration.

 

so exactly what happened during that 2.25 sec of free fall?
any ideas?

 

Freefall acceleration of the exterior of the building can occur in a natural collapse due to the pull of the interior structure on the exterior, resulting in a stack of forces that can equal or exceed that of gravity.

 

Did you actually stay awake during freshman science?
REALLY?

 

did you?

Or?

 

Yes, as well as advanced senior classes.
Do some research, look at all of the evidence: take your suspicions to a structural engineer at your local college. Listen to what he says.

 

So then your quote in red below was wrong?

Did you mistakenly imply that the ENTIRE collapse was in uniform acceleration or did you mean just the 2.25 seconds was uniform?

 

You never addressed my question regarding your quote above. How did removing all the support for the north and west walls bring down the south and east walls? You said it all came straight down right? Or did you misspeak?

 

Do you understand how loads are transferred throughout a structure to end up at the ground/bedrock? Here is an example of how loads work. Follow the arrows.


The perimeter and core columns helped transfer the vertical loads to the grillages/foundations at the base of the towers which rested on bedrock. One of the grillages below.


So now you have columns responsible for transferring loads to the foundation. One set being the core columns and the other set being the perimeter columns.At the point of impact, you have a certain static load ABOVE that will always be transferred THROUGH the columns at that particular floor/area that are designed to handle those loads. The problem is that the structure is designed to handle those loads AS A WHOLE.

Now, lets slam a plane into the tower. You effectively severed 33 perimeter columns (WTC1). So now, all the other components have to take up the added load in addition to the load the already supported. You also effectively severed some core columns AND damaged others. Now you FURTHER add additional loading to the remaining, intact columns that had additional loads placed upon them from the severed perimeter columns. Now let's weaken those remaining columns with fire.

Do you see the issue here? The load above the damaged/severed columns hasn't changed, but you effectively reduced the number of columns supporting that load and are OVER-STRESSING the remaining columns. Do you understand that the load is not focused on one area? That the load is being dispersed in various amounts to all other remaining components?

Now the top starts to descend. What below is supposed to resist the force of that falling load? The floors? You expect the floors to hold together against a force as great as the descending upper section when said floors are designed to hold their own weight and that of objects placed upon them?

The upper section sheared each floor from it's core and perimeter columns connections. That's why the perimeter columns are seen to fall outward like a peeled banana. Once the stability that the floors provided was removed, there was no way for the core and perimeter facade to stand on their own. Why do you think you see perimeter columns with sheared floor truss connections bending DOWNWARD?

 

So I shouldn't have to explain this to you,
however, it appears that I must.

Say Object "A" is falling at free fall acceleration,
and encounters Object "B" ... if Object "B" is not accelerating at free fall,
then Object "A" must give up some energy to impart to Object "B" and in
so doing slows to less than 1G

Now do you see?

 

oh, that bit about a baseball through a window,
REALLY?

The Window isn't a structural element therefore its possible to break
a window totally independent of the structure.

In the case of the bottom 85% of the north tower, the steel core
& columns in the outer wall + the steel trusses that supported the floors
were all part of the structure and all interconnected.

 

So you DO understand why the buildings didn't collapse at free fall acceleration. Good for you.

 

So let me get this straight,
you are saying that falling material behind the curtain wall, helped it along to achieve
free fall acceleration.

or?

 

For 2.25 seconds, and only of one corner.

 

Perfect.

Let's go inside said house above and smash a sledgehammer to a 2"x4" wall stud, nailed at the base to bottom and top plates. Where is the failure going to happen at? Better yet, why does it fail at all? According to you, that structural stud should withstand the force of the sledgehammer striking it because the entire house is behind it.

Explain how this can happen using your logic.

Riiiight! INTERCONNECTED!!!!

With what were they interconnected with n0spam? Are you suggesting that the connections supporting ONE floor were enough to withstand the force of the falling upper section? Are you suggesting that the lower 85% of the structure is used to determine what one floor is designed to carry as a load? Be careful now, remember the example of the stud above...

 

Right!

So how does your "understanding" of physics described above describe what would happen to an object A (comprised of many interconnected pieces) colliding with object B (also comprised of many interconnected pieces)? Especially if each part is designed to withstand a specific load.

 

First of all, did I say that an interconnected structure would be able to resist ANY force?
also you are arguing "apples vs oranges" in at least two different ways,
first, you have the case of a 2X4 standing vertically and struck on the side,
when in the case of the WTC the structure is steel and the force would have
been applied vertically from the top.

Also, may I ask, do you believe that for 90 floors consecutively,
each and every floor would give way uniformly such as to to maintain
a horizontal plane for the wave of destruction going down, because
if the wave of destruction deviated, and were to become biased to one
side, there is the very real opportunity for tons of material to slide off the
floor and down the side of the building, thus stopping the action before the
complete & total destruction of the building.

 

How do you know it was uniform and horizontal? I asked you in another thread. Did you see through the perimeter columns?

I'm going to make this very simple for you.

How much of a load was each floor designed to resist and how much load was created by the descending upper section after falling 12 feet? Let's take this down the tower. If you can show me that a floor's design load was able to resist the descending mass, I'll concede to you.

 

John Skilling, head structural engineer for the World Trade Center:

Now concede.

 

that would be fine,if the fire retardant hadn't been knocked off by the crash..besides no way the could guarantee that,without practical experience..
And NO.

 

Let's see....John Skilling passed away in 1998...To bad your quote-mine doesn't apply to the events of 9/11. How dishonest are you, now concede.

You know, the Titanic was "unsinkable"...and that's from the engineers of the Titanic. How'd that work for them?

 

WHY, of all the possible ways that the fire & damage to the towers
could manifest itself, WHY is it that both towers suffered complete destruction?