Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #742520

Re: energy and mass

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 17:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and 
>>>>>>> concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each 
>>>>>> floor fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by 
>>>>>> each impact in succession.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not how things fall, if they hit something hard below.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you would drop something breakable from some height upon 
>>>>> something breakable, but with high resistance against breaks, you 
>>>>> would expect a different pattern:
>>>>>
>>>>> the upper part of a collision would cause breaks in the parts 
>>>>> below, but also breaks of the same kind in itself, because the both 
>>>>> parts were assumed to have the same strength.
>>>
>>> What happened to the Twin Towers was that the towers caught on fire 
>>> and got hot, weakening both the steel frame and the concrete.
>>>
>>> When they got weak enough the Towers collapsed, floor by floor. About 
>>> the only stuff that fell a long way were the supporting columns, 
>>> which leaned way from the building and eventually fell outwards, 
>>> hitting adjacent building. Each floor collapsed inwards, stopping at 
>>> the next floor (but not for long) before the next floor failed
>>>
>>>>> If we concentrate on the upper part only (for a moment), we would 
>>>>> expect parts of the falling piece to splinter off and fall partly 
>>>>> outside of the former building shape, hence would fall in free fall 
>>>>> outside down to the ground.
>>>
>>> Why? It's all tied together by a steel frame, which may be failing,
>>> But stuff isn't going to "splinter off". There don't seem to be any 
>>> reports of that.
>>
>> The entire neighborhood of the twin-towers got struck by large 
>> sections of the perimeter walls.
> 
> That's not the way I read the reports. One the steel holding each floor 
> in place started giving way - from the top because the building was on 
> fire hot air rises - the top floor fell onto the floor below, which then 
> fell onto the floor below a little later. Those two floors then loaded 
> up the third floor so it failed even more rapidly, and so forth down to 
> ground.

I'm mainly a 'visual person' and prefer to look at pictures.

So, I ask google for pictures by typing in something like 'aftermath of 
9/11 debris', click on the 'pictures' tab and scan through the results.

Then I find a picture, which shows a very large piece of the perimeter 
walls, which pierced inside an adjacent building.

I estimate the mass to about 20 to and have something, to prove you wrong.

> This left the supporting columns around the outside of the building 
> disconnected from one another and they started swaying and eventually 
> fell sideways, hitting adjacent buildings. They were studtural columns, 
> not perimeter walls

You should adjust your understanding of the term 'falling' to something, 
which is directed downwards.

'adjacent' means actually not 'downwords', but 'sideways'.

It is among the more astonighing aspects of the distribution of the 
debris, that quite a few pieces 'fell' actually sideways.

>> Some of these sections were HUGE and hit neighboring buildings up to 
>> several hundred meters away (like e.g. building WTC 7).
> 
> A 400 meter long column is pretty big, and there were quite a few of them.

No!!!

These huge beams were bolted and welded together from much shorter pieces.

>> That's why the assumption of simple free fall drop wasn't unlikely at 
>> all.
> 
> Not so much unlikely as inappropriate.

Why?

I mean: gravity acts downwards, hence things tend to fall down.

>>>>> Doesn't matter that much, what percentage would break of the upper 
>>>>> part, because at least some parts would do that.
>>>
>>> An unsupported assumption.
>>
>> WHAT???
>>
>> If a building collapses under the own gravity, it is actually VERY 
>> likely, that the pieces fall down to the ground in one way or the other.
> 
> But not necessarily in large chunks.

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

>>>>> But even at the height of the actual impact zones, sections of the 
>>>>> perimeter wall of the twin towers would fall down with enormous 
>>>>> mass and velocity.
>>>
>>> I saw it happen on TV. They didn't.
>>
>> No, they didn't.
>>
>> But isn't that astonishing??
> 
> Only if you have preconceived and unrealistic ideas about how a burning 
> steel-frame building building might fall down.

You're right...

... supposed steel would burn!

>> I mean: you drop a piece of the enormous buildings composed from steel 
>> and concrete and a weight of a locomotive from a skyscraper.
> 
> You don't drop it. It falls off, largely because the steel has got hot 
> enough to let the frame come apart
Sure, that would happen.

But still these parts would have masses of several tons each.

What we encountered instead were tiny droplets in the range of microns.

That is quite a different story!

>> And it didn't hit the ground!
> 
> Of course it did. Just not in the way that you like to imagine.

These tiny droplets were actually blown away by the wind.

And, yes, I didn't expect that.

>> Instead it turned to dust in mid-air and gets blown away.
> 
> Some of it did. More of it got turned into loose rubble and got moved 
> sideways on the way down by the air-currents that circulate quite fast 
> around a burning building

Some did, but we were expecting ten-thousands of massive pieces and not 
just a few.

>> If you would think, that such a behavior is 'natural', you were a 
>> hopeless case.
> 
> That doesn't seem to be the behavior that was actually observed

If you don't believe, that most of the debris was blown away, than you 
should say to where it actually went.

It didn't fell upon the WTC-plaza, because the street level was mainly 
undamaged. (you could actually see cars in the rubble, which had 
unbroken windows!)

It wasn't in the basement, because there exist videos, where firemen and 
rescue workers marched through all the floors of the basement and have 
not been hindered by any material there.

So: where did the millions of tons of debris go? (estimated mass was 1.6 
millions tons)


TH

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-22 10:31 +0100
  Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 22:21 +1100
    Re: energy and mass liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-03-22 21:23 +0000
      Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 21:51 +1100
    Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-23 09:21 +0100
      Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 22:31 +1100
        Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-23 08:11 -0700
          Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 09:02 +0100
            Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 21:40 +1100
              Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:26 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-27 08:54 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 02:51 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-29 09:56 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 01:32 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:48 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 18:15 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-30 10:17 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:13 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 22:46 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-31 13:57 +0200
        Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 08:59 +0100
          Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 22:01 +1100
            Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 15:00 +0100
              Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 02:47 +1100
              Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-27 09:13 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 03:17 +1100
                Re: energy and mass liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-03-27 20:58 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 16:27 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-29 10:19 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 02:45 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:39 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 23:10 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-01 09:47 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 02:34 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-01 18:23 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:12 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 23:42 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-05 09:57 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-06 02:53 +1000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-06 13:09 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-07 04:11 +1000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-08 09:13 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-08 22:56 +1000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:31 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 03:16 +1100
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-03 09:38 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 04:15 +1100
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-03 23:18 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 21:37 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-05 10:14 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 20:58 +1000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-06 12:51 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-07 04:27 +1000

csiph-web