collapse front faster than falling debris?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
…
7
8

collapse front faster than falling debris?
Topic Started: Jul 6 2008, 01:04 PM (1,896 Views)
mynameis	Jul 7 2008, 11:31 PM Post #176
Internet Jujitsu Posts: 1,438 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: 01/15/08	Arvel Jul 7 2008, 11:29 PM Quote: And the ejected material below the collapse wake? Is still starting at velocity 0, isn't it? And falls faster than the collapse front.



Arvel	Jul 8 2008, 10:37 AM Post #177
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08	Quote: And falls faster than the collapse front. I don't think I understand. If it fell faster than the collapse front, then at that particular moment in time, the collapse front wasn't in freefall. Nevertheless, I don't see any debris ejected below the collapse front. I see some debris at the collapse front that is falling off of the top portion of the building (and thus is already traveling at the same speed.)
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08


mynameis	Jul 8 2008, 10:29 PM Post #178
Internet Jujitsu Posts: 1,438 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: 01/15/08	Arvel Jul 8 2008, 10:37 AM Quote: And falls faster than the collapse front. I don't think I understand. If it fell faster than the collapse front, then at that particular moment in time, the collapse front wasn't in freefall. Nevertheless, I don't see any debris ejected below the collapse front. I see some debris at the collapse front that is falling off of the top portion of the building (and thus is already traveling at the same speed.) You must be blind. I won't even reply to this garbage any longer. Edited by mynameis, Jul 8 2008, 10:29 PM.



Arvel	Jul 8 2008, 11:17 PM Post #179
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08	It is so frustrating to try hard to remain civil on this forum only to have sincere posts labeled as garbage after two one-line posts. All you had to do was point out where I'm wrong. If that's too much to do, then say so, instead of tossing out insults. But if you--or someone else--could just show me where my arguments about debris don't work, then I might actually learn something. Otherwise, all I can do is assume no one knows whether I'm right or wrong.
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08


Headspin	Jul 9 2008, 06:47 AM Post #180
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Arvel Jul 8 2008, 10:37 AM If it fell faster than the collapse front, then at that particular moment in time, the collapse front wasn't in freefall. Yes Quote: Nevertheless, I don't see any debris ejected below the collapse front. OK, but you've moved into another issue here (?) which is easily disputed with many examples. The ABC video at 7 seconds on the left face, debris is clearly seen ejected below the skylobby, well ahead of the "collapse front". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3y7ni-iG0E Quote: I see some debris at the collapse front that is falling off of the top portion of the building Do you mean you "see some debris that has fallen off of the top portion of the building"? its a complex issue so its important to explain clearly otherwise there'll be nothing we'll never knowingly know that won't be explained with clarity. Quote: (and thus is already traveling at the same speed.) so you are saying there is debris travelling at the same speed as the collapse front? Edited by Headspin, Jul 9 2008, 06:48 AM.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Stundie	Jul 9 2008, 09:07 AM Post #181
Posts: 523 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Arvel Jul 8 2008, 10:37 AM Nevertheless, I don't see any debris ejected below the collapse front. Highlighted for Arvels ignorance.... Look at the starting image on this video.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wpPb3dWARk That is debris ejected (Outwards!) below the collapse front.
Posts: 523 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Arvel	Jul 9 2008, 12:33 PM Post #182
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08	Quote: The ABC video at 7 seconds on the left face, debris is clearly seen ejected below the skylobby, well ahead of the "collapse front". Ok. I misunderstood; I thought there was a claim of constant debris ejection from just below the collapse front. I can't think of any practical way to compare these ejections to the speed of the collapse, though. Quote: Do you mean you "see some debris that has fallen off of the top portion of the building"? I meant what I said, see below. Quote: so you are saying there is debris travelling at the same speed as the collapse front? Consider the top portion of the building, the part that is falling, as made up of pieces. All of those pieces are traveling at the same speed when they begin to fall. After the whole thing has been set in motion, some of the pieces fall off. They are now detached from the whole, but they are starting at the same speed as the collapse (as opposed to the debris that is ejected laterally, which is starting at or near zero). Once they are free of the building, the only forces acting on it are gravity and air resistance, so they accelerate. Thanks for the civil response, Headspin. And Stundie, thanks for jumping on me for a misunderstanding.
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08


Stundie	Jul 9 2008, 02:22 PM Post #183
Posts: 523 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Arvel Jul 9 2008, 12:33 PM And Stundie, thanks for jumping on me for a misunderstanding. Sorry if you feel like I was jumping on you Arvel, it was not my intention. The debris being ejected from below the collapse point as been pointed out in many videos and photos. These ejections are happening much lower than the collapse point. Its just seemed odd as to why you would even deny this..... I am not sure if your misunderstanding are genuine or intentional, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 523 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Headspin	Jul 9 2008, 02:59 PM Post #184
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Stundie Jul 9 2008, 02:22 PM Arvel Jul 9 2008, 12:33 PM And Stundie, thanks for jumping on me for a misunderstanding. Sorry if you feel like I was jumping on you Arvel, it was not my intention. The debris being ejected from below the collapse point as been pointed out in many videos and photos. These ejections are happening much lower than the collapse point. Its just seemed odd as to why you would even deny this..... I am not sure if your misunderstanding are genuine or intentional, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. actually it is a very significant point made in loose change 2, arguably it is even the most memorable core issue of the film. go and watch it Arvel. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=loose+change&sitesearch=#
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
7
8