Physics explanation sought

[Soapy Sam]

Google the following words.

Fire

Chimney

Updraft

Convection

Coriolis Force

Physics

Stupidity.

 

[beachnut]

Please look at this Zafar picture of the WTC1 event. The picture is taken looking east. Notice how much of the material is falling down and to the left, that is to the north. The wind was blowing towards the southeast that day, at about 5 mph. I can't think of any reason why there would be low pressure to the north of the tower. And it would take some extremely low pressure to suck so much mass so far, against the wind. Why would this material go that way?

Judy Wood was sucking the building that way with her Beam Weapon. OR.

Judy Wood could of told you if she had not had brain damage from her accident and fallen into a coma for years; She could have told you the energy of the towers falling did everything you see.

She could have calculated the energy equal to 248 tons of TNT as the building fell. That is enough energy to do what you see. If not you do not understand energy of the falling building can do what you see then you need to go back to school.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

I believe poor TS1234 is still labouring with such concepts as Newtonian instead of Aristotelian physics.

Newsflash: Things don't need a force to affect them to keep moving in the direction they were already going...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Please look at this Zafar picture of the WTC1 event. The picture is taken looking east. Notice how much of the material is falling down and to the left, that is to the north. The wind was blowing towards the southeast that day, at about 5 mph. I can't think of any reason why there would be low pressure to the north of the tower. And it would take some extremely low pressure to suck so much mass so far, against the wind. Why would this material go that way?

Physics exlanation:

5mph equals 2 meters per second (a meter is roughly equal to a yard, for those unable to use metric). The picture in question is taken appr. 5 seconds into the collapse. So the dust that has been in he air the longest has been displaced 10 meters by the wind. Considering the scale of the scenery, this will hardly be visible in the picture, but if you insist on looking for it, it should show up on the upper parts of the cloud, which have been in the air the longest. And indeed, you can observe that the the top part of the cloud is leaning slightly south, and its edges are more fuzzy on that side.

So, the answer, in short: The shape of the cloud in the picture is not determined to any substantial degree by the wind. It is a product of the physics of the collapse, which can be expected to show debris being trown away from the collapse zone in all directions.

Adding, for clarity: So what makes it seem like the debris is drifting north is actually the top part of the dust-trails (which have been longer in the air) drifting south. In other words, the observation confirms known facts.

........

You're welcome!

Hans

 

[eeyore1954]

The subject of this thread is:

What is the physical explanation for why the material in the OP photo is drifting to the north as it falls? It is doing so against the wind.

I am not even sure what dust you are talking about but don't you think the collapsing structure would have caused a little more havoc with the air then a prevailing 5mph wind (if that is what the wind was).

 

[MRC_Hans]

TS1234 entertains a common misunderstanding. When something drops through a side-wind trailing something light (smoke or dust), he thinks the trail should lean upwind. But it doesn't, quite the contrary, it leans downwind. This is because at any point in time, the upper parts have been exposed to the wind for longer than the parts near the falling object. Thus, they will have drifted farther with the wind, so the upper part of the trail will point downwind, giving the false impression, in a still photo, that the falling object is moving upwind.

Hans

 

[Ocelot]

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc65_small.JPG

Please look at this Zafar picture of the WTC1 event. The picture is taken looking east. Notice how much of the material is falling down and to the left, that is to the north. The wind was blowing towards the southeast that day, at about 5 mph. I can't think of any reason why there would be low pressure to the north of the tower. And it would take some extremely low pressure to suck so much mass so far, against the wind. Why would this material go that way?

I thought that one of the main CT issues indicating a controlled demolition was that the debris mostly fell straight down whereas in an uncontrolled collapse you'd expect the towers to topple a bit in one direction or another.

So what are you trying to prove here Truth Seeker. That the claims of the "Controlled Demolition" theorists are demonstrably false?

If so I think I have to agree with you.

 

[valis]

Physics explanation sought

Check a local community college; they have classes.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I thought that one of the main CT issues indicating a controlled demolition was that the debris mostly fell straight down whereas in an uncontrolled collapse you'd expect the towers to topple a bit in one direction or another.

So what are you trying to prove here Truth Seeker. That the claims of the "Controlled Demolition" theorists are demonstrably false?

If so I think I have to agree with you.

i think the subject of how the debris fell is the best way to highlight the confirmation bias of the truthers, ask 10 truthers and youll get 10 different (and often opposite) answers, but they all definitively prove demolition

truther 1: the towers fell entirely in their own footprint, proving demolition

truther 2: the debris was ejected mostly outside the footprint, proving demolition

truther 3: the towers should have toppled over, but they didnt, so it must have been a demolition

truther 4: gravity pulls down, but the tops of the towers started to topple over, so it must have ben a demolition

 

[Dave Rogers]

TS1234 entertains a common misunderstanding. When something drops through a side-wind trailing something light (smoke or dust), he thinks the trail should lean upwind. But it doesn't, quite the contrary, it leans downwind. This is because at any point in time, the upper parts have been exposed to the wind for longer than the parts near the falling object. Thus, they will have drifted farther with the wind, so the upper part of the trail will point downwind, giving the false impression, in a still photo, that the falling object is moving upwind.

Hans

You can also see that the trails to the right of the tower, where the debris is falling in its lee, are vertical, suggesting that they're sheltered from the wind by the obstacle presented by the tower - not an effect you'd expect to see on the upwind side of the tower.

What confuses me a little here is the question of what implication a large region of low pressure to the north side of the tower has on one's understanding of how events progressed on 9-11. It doesn't seem relevant to controlled demolition or Star Wars energy beams. What's the hypothesis here?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

What confuses me a little here is the question of what implication a large region of low pressure to the north side of the tower has on one's understanding of how events progressed on 9-11. It doesn't seem relevant to controlled demolition or Star Wars energy beams. What's the hypothesis here?

Sometimes it seems to me that it doesn't matter to most CTs. All they like to do is point out ANY perceived anomaly, anything that just "doesn't look right" and obsess on it whether it is relevant to anything.

Some are worse than others. Troothydude is one of the worst.

 

[Horatius]

It doesn't seem relevant to controlled demolition or Star Wars energy beams. What's the hypothesis here?

Dave

The hypothesis is, if we can't provide an explanation that TS will accept, we must accept whatever explanation he provides.

The catch is, he won't ever accept any of our explanations, no matter how well-thought out they may be.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Check a local community college; they have classes.

Yes, but you still have to pass the entrance exams...

 

[uruk]

[qimg]http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc65_small.JPG[/qimg]

Please look at this Zafar picture of the WTC1 event. The picture is taken looking east. Notice how much of the material is falling down and to the left, that is to the north. The wind was blowing towards the southeast that day, at about 5 mph. I can't think of any reason why there would be low pressure to the north of the tower. And it would take some extremely low pressure to suck so much mass so far, against the wind. Why would this material go that way?

The northward slant is due to an illusion made possible by the arc of the falling debris, the perspective distortion due to the angle at which the photo was taken in respect to the arc, and the southward winds.

The debris is falling away from the building making a nice arc.
The combination of the angle at which the photo was taken in respect to the arc of the falling debris and the southward winds blowing the dust clouds to the south makes the debris in the still image look like it is shifting south.

Everything becomes obvious when you look at the videos .
That's one of the biggest problems with looking at still images of a moving object. You are not getting all the information.

Tell you what TS, find video of the debris shifting to the north and we'll talk more.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Gravy, this photo is taken from the north looking south. It is also interesting, as it shows disintegrating steel, worthy of another thread. However, the photo in the OP shows that falling material did not go straight down. Gravity operates vertically. If falling material goes any other direction besides straight down, then some other force is at work. The wind was blowing southeast. Why does this free-falling material go north?

I see the source of your confusion. You think the building is falling at free fall, even though it clearly isn't. This is because you believe CT websites instead of your own eyes.

As the building collapses, chunks of it hit the intact portion. Some of the energy goes into breaking up the intact section, some goes into bouncing the debris off to the side. The smaller the pieces are, the more likely they are to bounce.

So, I would say that most of the smaller pieces were on the north side. In different circumstances, they might have been on the south side. Or the west side. Or maybe evenly divided between the east and north side.

WHO CARES?

 

[fuelair]

I would guess the same reason that the large dust cloud to it's right - and clearly seperate -is. But, that's just me.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Attempting to determine the 3-d characteristics of the collapse, from a static picture, that only shows a 2-d image of the tower is STUPID.

 

[A W Smith]

Steve, the distribution of debris is a very interesting topic, but is not the subject here. Objects which are falling fall straight down, unless acted upon by some other force. Clearly the material in the photo is falling down and to the left, that is to the north. Please tell me what force is present to explain this.

that "force' as you call it is an uneven connection failure of the spandrels tying the perimeter columns together. As the exterior walls collapse and fall away it appears in the picture that connections on the south end of the west perimeter wall failed first while the segment folded northeast and broke the remaining connections.

Why not take Judy's panties off your head, make your point, and admit that you are a space beam hugger?

 

[Lurker]

Attempting to determine the 3-d characteristics of the collapse, from a static picture, that only shows a 2-d image of the tower is STUPID.

I am always amazed at what CTers think they see in pictures like this. It seems whenver I see a CT claim as it relates to a pciture, I read their claim and then I find myself squinting trying to find whatever they think they have seen in the pic. I guess I really suck at picture interpretation. I was never that good at hearing anything when I spun my AC/DC record backwards either. I'm clueless in that regard.

And another thing, it is amazing how when the CTers use some bit of data they make it so absolute. If they are "researching' and find that the wind speed at a certain location was 5 mph SE, they assume that for that 24 hour period, the wind never varied from that vector. As somone who spent much of his youth on a sailboat, I can assure you that is not the case. The best laid plans for a race always fall apart due to the wind shifts.

Lurker

 

[A W Smith]

And another thing, it is amazing how when the CTers use some bit of data they make it so absolute. If they are "researching' and find that the wind speed at a certain location was 5 mph SE, they assume that for that 24 hour period, the wind never varied from that vector. As somone who spent much of his youth on a sailboat, I can assure you that is not the case. The best laid plans for a race always fall apart due to the wind shifts.

Lurker

I bet the huge Colgate Fan in the forground had something to do with the wind speed