9/11 Question ('Squibs'?)

Status
Not open for further replies.

I believe he was looking for an official explanation not one of your pdf files that go nowhere

i'm not sure how much success someone that thinks a pdf file "goes nowhere" will have understanding it... but here is part of the pdf file that goes nowhere but others can also see it. mauybe its a huge government conspiracy. :cuckoo:

Velocity of Air Ejected from the Tower
An upper bound on area through which the air initially contained within every story gets expelled (Fig. 3a) is Aw = 4 ahc, where 4ahc = area of one perimeter wall, a = 64 m = width of the side of square cross section of tower, hc = 3.69 m = clear height of one story = distance from the bottom of a story slab to the top of the underlying slab, and = vent ratio = ratio of unobstructed (open) area of the perimeter walls to their total area ( 1). The initial mass of air within one story is ma = aa2hc, where a = 1.225 kg/m3 = mass density of air at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. Just outside the tower perimeter, the air jetting out (Fig. 3a) must regain the atmospheric pressure as soon as it exits (White 1999, p.149), and its temperature must be roughly equal to the initial temperature (this is a well-known general feature of exhausts, e.g., from jet engines (White 1999, p.149) or pipes (Munson et al. 2006)).
So, the mass density of exiting air a. The time during which the top slab collapses onto the lower slab t = hc/z˙ = time during which the air is expelled out (which is only about 0.07 s for stories near the ground).
Conservation of the mass of air during the collapse of one story requires that Aw(vat) = Va. Solving this equation gives the average velocity of escaping air just outside the tower perimeter: va = Va Awt = az 4 hc (7) Since the velocity of the crushing front near the end of North Tower crush-down is, according to the solution of Eq. (2), z˙ = 47.34 m/s (106 mph), the velocity of escaping air near the end of crush-down is va =
64m × 47.34m/s 4 × 3.69m = (205m/s (459 mph or 0.60 Mach) for = 1
340m/s (761 mph or 1.00 Mach) for = 0.604 (8) The vent ratio (which is < 1) is hard to estimate. It surely varies from story to story, and also during the crushing of one story. Its effective, or average, value could be much less than
1 (because some of the perimeter area is doubtless still obstructed early in the crushing of one story, and because much of the air escapes only after the story height has been reduced greatly). In spite of these uncertainties, it is clear that the exit air speed is of the order of 500 mph and that its fluctuations must reach the speed of sound. This must, of course, create sonic booms, which are easily mistaken for explosions (supersonic speeds are virtually impossible since the venting would require an orifice shaped similarly to a convergent-divergent nozzle).
There are other phenomena that can cause va to differ from the estimate in Eq. (8). The air pressure surely exhausts the load capacity of the floor slab for a few microseconds before it is impacted by the layer of compacted debris. So, the floor slab must crack before the story height is reduced to h, and the air must begin to leak through the cracked floor slab into the underlying story, thus increasing the air mass in that story. Obviously some air must also leak
into the ceiling which behaves as a porous layer of compacted gravel (it is impossible for the ceiling and the floor to remain flat and leak no air since otherwise the air pressure would tend to infinity as the ceiling impacts the floor).
All these complex inter-story interactions must cause rapid and large random fluctuations of internal air pressure and exiting air velocity. On the average, however, what matters is the simple fact that the air must, in one way or another, get expelled from each story of the tower within a very short time interval, which is only 0.07 s near the end of crush-down of North 6 Tower. This fact inevitably leads to the average exit velocity estimate in Eq. (7). The high
velocity of air jetting out also explains why a large amount of pulverized concrete, drywalls and glass was ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower (Fig. 3a). Resisting Forces Due to Ejecting Air and Solids
The air mass within the confines of one story, which is aa2hc, gets accelerated from 0 to velocity va as it exits the tower perimeter. The kinetic energy acquired by the escaping air of one story just outside the tower perimeter is Ka = 1 2va 2(a2hc) where a2hc = initial volume of air within the story. The energy dissipated by viscosity of flowing air and by boundary friction is estimated to be negligible. Therefore, virtually all of the kinetic energy of escaping air must be supplied by gravity, and since the spatial derivative of energy is a force (called the material force or configurational force), the vertical resisting force caused by air ejection is Fa(z, z&#729;) = K h = aa4 32 2hch z&#729;2 (9)
Solution of Eq. (2) shows that, at the end of North Tower crush-down, Fa 103 MN, which represents about 8.01% of the total resisting force Fc at the end of crush-down. When the first story under the aircraft impact zone gets smashed, Fa contributes only 2.75% of Fc. During the crush-down, the ratio Fa/Fc starts increasing and reaches the maximum of 12.79% when the 83rd story gets impacted, and then decreases due to the increase of Fb at lower stories. Fa < 5% of Fc up to the 3rd story crushed, and < 10% up to the 7th story crushed (by contrast, in building demolitions, which are conducted in the crush-up mode, the crush-up motion begins with zero velocity, and Fa < 5% of Fc for buildings up to about 20 stories tall, in which case the air resistance can be neglected). The maximum of Fa/Fc is 30.27%, which occurs during the crush-up phase in which Fb is small and the velocity high.
The average over-pressure of air within the tower is pa = Fa/a2 above the atmospheric pressure, which gives, for the North Tower, 7.55 kPa (0.075 atm), 14.31 kPa (0.141 atm) and 25.15 kPa (0.248 atm), respectively, during the crushing of the 80th story, 50th story, and at the end of crush-down, respectively. The last pressure value is enough to break up the floor slab. The pressure peaks near the end of squeezing of a story are doubtless much higher, as
already mentioned, and thus must contribute to the break up of many floor slabs (theoretically, the pressure in a thin layer of viscous gas between two colliding parallel flat slabs approaches infinity at the end). The mass that is shed from the tower, characterized by out, exits at various velocities ranging from nearly 0 to almost either the air ejection velocity, for fine dust, or to roughly z&#729;, for large steel pieces. Instead of complicating our model by some distribution of these velocities, we will simply assume that a certain fraction, eout, gets ejected in any direction (horizontal, inclined downward or upward, or almost vertical) at velocity z&#729;, while the remaining mass (1 &#8722; e)out is shed at nearly vanishing velocity. For a certain empirical value of e, this must be energetically equivalent to considering the actual distribution of velocities of ejected solids. As the crushing front advances dz, the mass of solids (dust plus large fragments) that is ejected at velocity z&#729; is eout&#956;(z)dz and has kinetic energy eout&#956;(z) dz(z&#729;2/2). This must
be equal to Fedz, i.e., to the work of the resisting force Fe over distance dz. It follows that Fe = 1 2 eout&#956;(z) z&#729;2 (10) The computation results shown in figures have been run for e = 0.2; however, a broad range of e has been considered in computations, as discussed later. For the crush-up, e must be ignored because the compacted layer is stationary.​
 
Last edited:
i found this part very interesting...

"In spite of these uncertainties, it is clear that the exit air speed is of the order of 500 mph and that its fluctuations must reach the speed of sound. This must, of course, create sonic booms, which are easily mistaken for explosions (supersonic speeds are virtually impossible since the venting would require an orifice shaped similarly to a convergent-divergent nozzle)."
 
its a load of unverified bullshit...bullshit and pseudo -science laid on so thick.. as to stand logic on its head

Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:


"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." AE911Truth


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 950 Architects and Engineers:

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
 
Last edited:
if it is pulverized how does it have the mass to crush the floor beneath why ? does the collapse never slow significantly ?

When does a collapse ever slow down?

thought i read in the above that speed of the collapse increases as the mass and pressure of the collapse increases.

i'll be honest though. i dont understand the formulas. only what they say about the formulas.
 
if it is pulverized how does it have the mass to crush the floor beneath why ? does the collapse never slow significantly ?

When does a collapse ever slow down?

a free fall does not slow down ...a collapse should experience a loss of energy as it overcomes the resistance of each floor below

i dont think so. i think it would increase as the colllapsing mass increases.
 
if it is pulverized how does it have the mass to crush the floor beneath why ? does the collapse never slow significantly ?

When does a collapse ever slow down?

a free fall does not slow down ...a collapse should experience a loss of energy as it overcomes the resistance of each floor below



From page 13 of Fizz's excellent link.
The onset of the strongest tremor, marked in the figure as instant c, may logically be
interpreted as the instant at which the crush-down front (bottom of the layer of compacted
debris) hits the foundation slab in the ‘bathtub’. Thus it ensues from the seismic records
that the crush-down phase lasted 12.59
± 0.50 s for the North Tower, and 10.09 ± 0.50 s for
the South Tower. The fact that the structure in the ‘bathtub’ under the ground level was
essentially destroyed and mostly compacted into rubble was documented during debris removal
(http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20011008b.asp).
These durations match reasonably well the durations of the crush-down phase calculated
from Eq. (2), which are 12.81 s and 10.47 s for the North and South towers, under the assump-
tion that the reduction factor &#946; applied to Fb is 2/3. If the full uncertainty range, &#946;
&#8712; [0.5, 0.8],
is considered, the calculated mean durations are 12.82 s and 10.49 s, respectively. This uncer-
tainty is shown by error bars in Fig. 8.
Now note that these durations are, on the average, 65.5% and 47.3% longer than those of a
free fall of the upper part of each tower, which are 7.74 s for the North Tower and 7.11 s for the
South Tower. So, the seismic record, too, appears to contradict the hypothesis of progressive
demolition by timed explosives.

I have to admit this is really hard reading. And the math is beyond me. But the math has been done according to Newton, and it jibes with the official story, rather than the sick fantasy.
 
the dust is between the viewer and the structure. The structure on top is still pushing down on the structure beneath. There is not some sort of dust cloud between them, there is one around them.
 
do you have any common sense at all?

how do you think it became a cloud of dust? magic?
 
Last edited:
its a load of unverified bullshit...bullshit and pseudo -science laid on so thick.. as to stand logic on its head

Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng – Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:


"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." AE911Truth


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 950 Architects and Engineers:

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

you keep listing people from this really small list of architects and engineers as if its of any significance at all.

in 2008 there were about 1,600,000 engineers and 141,200 architects employed in the USA. that doesnt include the people that are retired or out of the country as in your list of only 950 people.

read that again because i know you have trouble understanding things. thats about 1,750,000 people to your 950.

hardly impressive.:cuckoo:

Engineers
Architects, Except Landscape and Naval
 
Right and how many worked for NASA as program directors received presidential awards..NASA and repeatedly voted on to the who's who of engineering list ???
and why do you pretend that anyone not signing a petition has determined they support the official theory.?..this is a completely flawed premise for a number of reasons..as you know...what is unimpressive is ..your argument
 
Right and how many worked for NASA as program directors received presidential awards..NASA and repeatedly voted on to the who's who of engineering list ???
and why do you pretend that anyone not signing a petition has determined they support the official theory.?..this is a completely flawed premise for a number of reasons..as you know...what is unimpressive is ..your argument

so you think that one half of one tenth of a percent is impressive?

its confirmed. you are a jackass.:lol:

i knew you wouldnt understand what i wrote. at no time do i say that everyone that didnt sign the petition supports the official story. i even asked you to read it twice. you still got it wrong. what i am saying is that the number of architects and engineers that support the petition is RIDICULOUSLY LOW.
 
Right and how many worked for NASA as program directors received presidential awards..NASA and repeatedly voted on to the who's who of engineering list ???
and why do you pretend that anyone not signing a petition has determined they support the official theory.?..this is a completely flawed premise for a number of reasons..as you know...what is unimpressive is ..your argument
your premise is also flawed and a stupid appeal to authority
 
Right and how many worked for NASA as program directors received presidential awards..NASA and repeatedly voted on to the who's who of engineering list ???
and why do you pretend that anyone not signing a petition has determined they support the official theory.?..this is a completely flawed premise for a number of reasons..as you know...what is unimpressive is ..your argument

so you think that one half of one tenth of a percent is impressive?

its confirmed. you are a jackass.:lol:

i knew you wouldnt understand what i wrote. at no time do i say that
everyone that didnt sign the petition supports the official story. i even asked you to read it twice. you still got it wrong. what i am saying is that the number of architects and engineers that support the petition is RIDICULOUSLY LOW.

yes it is impressive an engineers of Deets level are In all probability much less than one tenth of one percent of those that have an engineering degree
 
Last edited:
Right and how many worked for NASA as program directors received presidential awards..NASA and repeatedly voted on to the who's who of engineering list ???
and why do you pretend that anyone not signing a petition has determined they support the official theory.?..this is a completely flawed premise for a number of reasons..as you know...what is unimpressive is ..your argument
your premise is also flawed and a stupid appeal to authority

Hey Dive back from the hospital.?.hope your feeling better ..don't stress yourself ..trying keeping post to ..5 words or less..
 
&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1884263 said:
It's not showing :/

Can someone let me know whether it's just my machine?
It's actual science and mathematics. It's anathema to both you and your machine.

It loaded just fine over here.


:rolleyes:

Can it, pink crusader. The link you 'quoted' doesn't even go to the same address when clicked as the one in the post you edited. Yours goes to a directory and the original goes to a specific pdf file. Editing quotes is against the rules, btw.

Not my problem if you're so insecure that people asking questions scares you.
 
&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1884230 said:
I am not an engineer and don't have a clue

Enough said. The rest of your post was irrelevant.

OK, genius. What the fuck is it then? You don't seem to be open to common sense. It's real easy to know when you haven't taken your medications.

:lol:

Right... :rolleyes:

All I did was ask a question. Not my problem if you're not sure enough about what happened to simply answer it,.
 
if it is pulverized how does it have the mass to crush the floor beneath why ? does the collapse never slow significantly ?
Um, dude... pulverizing something doesn't change the amount of mass it has in total. :eusa_eh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top