AggiEE said:
JJxvi said:
AggiEE said:
JJxvi said:
I, for one, never even took a science class in college. So all of you can judge "my truth" based on those parameters.
Makes sense
Exactly. Help me understand how big a glob of "thermitic material" sprayed to the side of a 30 foot long, 4 ton object it takes to accelerate that object by 12 m/s2? Shouldn't be that hard of math problem, even for my uneducated brain.
Whatever is sufficient for a free falling body to suddenly accelerate at a rate faster then gravity, you can't really come up with any rational explanation other than his estimates must be wrong, despite being able to visually see debris falling from a similar height at a much slower rate
Again, just add it to the list of unexplained phenomenon like molten steel flowing like lava and eyewitness reports of explosions.
There's only one logical source that could account for any of these glaring issues
Very scientific. Thank you Professor.
I have many problems with it though. I do have an explanation for changes in acceleration, although not "faster than gravity." There are two sources of acceleration acting on a falling piece of debris, gravitational force and drag. Gravitational force is constant, but drag is not. It varies based on the velocity, shape (like the area of the cross section perpendicular to the vector of velocity), mass, etc. So, the high school physics teacher, he measured changes in acceleration by plotting the pixel location of the object on an x and y plot of the video frames, and time, presumably based on the framerate. His observations seem to be in time intervals of 0.2..seconds? I guess?
Anyway, you throw a rectangular prism, rod, cylinder, whatever (lets say one weighing 4 tons and 30 feet long) off of the top of a building. What it will do, is it will oscillate between falling end to end (horizontal, large cross section), and up and down (vertical, small cross section). Both will have very different drag coefficients, and so the drag force imparted will be very different, so as it falls it acceleration will alternately increase and decrease, and when it reaches terminal velocity, it will actually speed up and slow down as each way has a different terminal velocity as well. Think of a person in a sky diving wind tunnel, they flatten body out and they accelerate upwards because drag is greater than gravity, then orient themselves more vertically, drag no longer outweighs gravity and they fall slowly to the bottom of the tunnel.
Your claim that this is "faster than gravity" has no basis, except this physics teach said it. You show me the math. He doesnt have velocity, or distances in his measurements. He or his software has to extrapolate those based on parameters that he puts in. If the camera was 5 inches away from a miniature twin towers but had the exact same size in the field of view of the camera, or if the camera is a mile away from a full size twin towers, the acceleration numbers the software will calculate will be very different. At some point in his analysis, he had to input into the software how many meters he thinks a certain number of change in pixels is. He could easily make an error in that process, and yet we are not shown his work, and we are not even shown how the data gets converted in meters or meters per second, we just see his best fit lines, and he claims different slopes represent different accelerations in terms of g. You just have to trust him. The simplest explanation is that he is wrong, or he misjudged something, not that a 30 foot, 4 ton beam became a rocket.
Regarding being able to visually see debris falling, this is almost useless information to try to compare debris to each other piece by piece. The buildings are 415 m tall and we dont really know if a particular piece of debris starts from the bottom of the impact zone, or starts from near the full height of the building unless we see that in the frame unobscured. To compare two pieces of debris and the rates they are falling, you have to know way too many things about them. You have to know how high they started, at what time compared to each other, you have to know their drag coefficients. If I drop a piece of loose leaf paper out my first floor window at the same time my friend drops a lead fishing weight from the second floor, the fact that the lead weight wins the race to the ground, does not mean that I can jump to the conclusion that the lead weight fell faster than gravity because "i saw other debris falling at a slower rate" etc