If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Osiris88 on April 24, 2006, 6:30 am
Before anybody bashes me, I am not a conspiracy nut. I was talking to
a friend the other night and we discussed this. I would like your
input and expertise, thanks.
I have heard some say that World Trade #7 collapsed "at the speed of
gravity" as opposed to having floor after floor pancake on themselves,
which I gather would be slower. Is that correct?
I am not an architect or an engineer, so I was hoping that maybe some
folks here could illuminate the subject. My point of view, as a
layman, is that the building would not collapse so perfectly because of
debris from the twin towers. Am I correct or is there a possible
explanation that architecture people might be able to describe? Or
other?
If this has been covered before then I apologize, but I would really
like to learn more about this. Thank you for your time in educating
me.
|
|
Posted by Pierre Levesque, AIA on April 24, 2006, 9:29 am
uh oh... here we go again...
> Before anybody bashes me, I am not a conspiracy nut. I was talking to
> a friend the other night and we discussed this. I would like your
> input and expertise, thanks.
>
> I have heard some say that World Trade #7 collapsed "at the speed of
> gravity" as opposed to having floor after floor pancake on themselves,
> which I gather would be slower. Is that correct?
>
> I am not an architect or an engineer, so I was hoping that maybe some
> folks here could illuminate the subject. My point of view, as a
> layman, is that the building would not collapse so perfectly because of
> debris from the twin towers. Am I correct or is there a possible
> explanation that architecture people might be able to describe? Or
> other?
>
> If this has been covered before then I apologize, but I would really
> like to learn more about this. Thank you for your time in educating
> me.
>
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on April 24, 2006, 11:37 am
> Before anybody bashes me, I am not a conspiracy nut. I was talking to
> a friend the other night and we discussed this. I would like your
> input and expertise, thanks.
>
> I have heard some say that World Trade #7 collapsed "at the speed of
> gravity" as opposed to having floor after floor pancake on themselves,
> which I gather would be slower. Is that correct?
Huh? Gravity is not a "speed" =:-p
The acceleration due to Gravity is, on earth, if I remember correctly, 32
feet per second. Gravity has no "speed".
The rate ("speed") at which something falls is a function of its mass, air
resistance, and any other intervening factors (such as pillars and their
composition, and so on).
IOW, it seems to be a non-argument from the get-go. Sounds like the one
"argument" is something along the lines of instantaneous vaporization :p .
It makes no sense. Not to me, at least.
>
> I am not an architect or an engineer, so I was hoping that maybe some
> folks here could illuminate the subject. My point of view, as a
> layman, is that the building would not collapse so perfectly because of
> debris from the twin towers. Am I correct or is there a possible
> explanation that architecture people might be able to describe? Or
> other?
>
> If this has been covered before then I apologize, but I would really
> like to learn more about this. Thank you for your time in educating
> me.
>
>
|
|
Posted by RicodJour on April 24, 2006, 1:36 pm
Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> > Before anybody bashes me, I am not a conspiracy nut. I was talking to
> > a friend the other night and we discussed this. I would like your
> > input and expertise, thanks.
> >
> > I have heard some say that World Trade #7 collapsed "at the speed of
> > gravity" as opposed to having floor after floor pancake on themselves,
> > which I gather would be slower. Is that correct?
>
> Huh? Gravity is not a "speed" =:-p
> The acceleration due to Gravity is, on earth, if I remember correctly, 32
> feet per second. Gravity has no "speed".
You gave a speed, not an acceletation. Gravity acceleration is 32 feet
per second per second, or about 980 cm/second/second. That's for
values near the surface of the Earth...
R
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on April 25, 2006, 7:09 pm
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>> > Before anybody bashes me, I am not a conspiracy nut. I was talking
>> > to a friend the other night and we discussed this. I would like
>> > your input and expertise, thanks.
>> >
>> > I have heard some say that World Trade #7 collapsed "at the speed
>> > of gravity" as opposed to having floor after floor pancake on
>> > themselves, which I gather would be slower. Is that correct?
>>
>> Huh? Gravity is not a "speed" =:-p
>> The acceleration due to Gravity is, on earth, if I remember
>> correctly, 32 feet per second. Gravity has no "speed".
>
> You gave a speed, not an acceletation. Gravity acceleration is 32
> feet per second per second, or about 980 cm/second/second. That's for
> values near the surface of the Earth...
>
> R
>
>
Yup, you're right, per second, per second.
The context implied near the surface of the earth (or at least, as the
saying goes, close enough thereto for government work), since it was the
WTC. Mass and distance from the center of that mass are part of the
Gravity equations, tho' I can't remember at all any more what the
accelertion due to gravity is for other planets.
I almost never use metric any more, haven't for some years, so I've
unfortunately forgotten much of it :(
|
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Building Construction - Issue Of Building Permits (Victoria) | June 17, 2007, 5:27 am |
| Question on construction | January 19, 2007, 6:06 pm |
| Geometry question | April 16, 2007, 7:44 am |
| a little question from Italy | May 28, 2007, 8:43 am |
| Question answered | January 28, 2008, 1:20 pm |
| Re: Engineering question of the day | February 20, 2008, 1:36 pm |
| Re: Engineering question of the day | February 21, 2008, 12:54 pm |
| Looking for pictures of the Seagram Building / Bilder vom Seagram Building gesucht | April 6, 2007, 12:33 pm |
| urgent ..pls help - construction question | January 18, 2007, 8:57 pm |
| Re: Concrete slab question | July 3, 2007, 4:09 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap