Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[American]

but if he spams, someone eventually will report it and there will be action.

If?

You people are way too restrained in judgement. He is a 19-28 year old male who is shakey with girls, laughing his ass off that he successfully created 3 pages of people taking themselves seriously over an asinine topic.

And although "he" is not "me".... it takes one to know one.

 

[TjW]

You are guessing while not providing links to the sites or images of the basic tower structures that NIST says stood. Nor has a feasible explanation of free fall been linked to or offered.

There's several problems with this statement.

The NIST report does not maintain that the buildings that fell remained standing. It offers a possible sequence of events for how they fell down.
It might be possible to disagree with some of the details, but the best mathematical simulation fits the observed data fairly closely. They even go so far as to tell you about simulations they ran that did not match the observed data.

The buildings did not collapse at free fall speed: the simplest way to see this is in any of the many photographs of fairly early in the collapse(s), where debris ejected from the initial collapse of the top floors is clearly far below the floors it was ejected from. If the building(s) had collapsed at free fall speeds, ejected material would have always been at the same altitude as the floor it was ejected from, since both would be freely falling. Instead, stuff that fell off the building early on hit the ground before the rest of the tower had finished collapsing.

So what exactly are you talking about? That's what has us confused.

 

[Meffy]

Why did you do that? Did it not have the qualities you desired when you posted it?

Because I missed the invisible <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags. My mistake. Inconsequential. Move along.

 

[senorpogo]

Anyone here ever read Alan Moore's "Watchmen"?

I find eerie similarities in the way Rorschach and many CTists communicate.

 

[Meffy]

Anyone here ever read Alan Moore's "Watchmen"?

I find eerie similarities in the way Rorschach and many CTists communicate.

I haven't, but agree that the use of language is striking. I'm having a hard time not hearing "Did it not have the qualities you desired when you posted it?" in the Comic Book Guy's voice.

Sorry, it had to be told. I'll be good now.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Anyone here ever read Alan Moore's "Watchmen"?

I find eerie similarities in the way Rorschach and many CTists communicate.

One key difference; Rorschach was right.

 

[steve s]

This guy's just a troll. There was someone at the LC site trying to round up some people to come over here.

First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground.

Oh ye of little knowledge. Momentum equals mass times velocity. As each floor collapses it adds to the mass of the falling debris field, thus increasing its momentum. It's like a snowball effect; it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and it won't stop till it gets to the bottom.

Likewise, the Kinetic Energy of the collapsing mass equals one-half times the mass times the velocity squared. The energy of the collapse increases along with the momentum.

They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

The second plane hit lower than the first one did. This means that the amount of mass above the impact point is much greater in the second one. This means a lot more weight is bearing down on those weakened beams which caused them to fail before the other tower.

Of course but an explanation is needed. So to cast doubt onto one, another must be provided that has a better basis in evidence.

Simply asking the question doesn't cast doubt. You need to supply some evidence, which you haven't done.

Steve S

 

[Christophera]

I'm sorry, science does not work by taking feel-good guesses and running with them. If you can not determine the rate at which the buildings fell, then you can not make the claim that they fell at, or near, free fall speed.

There is a decent argument for both, and niether matters much. The towers fell too fast. Many people gerenally see that they fell at free fall rates. Actually forensics do. Intuition guides much of the research in the beginning.

 

[Abbyas]

Are we not in agreement that it wasn't a free fall?

 

[Christophera]

Are we not in agreement that it wasn't a free fall?

No, it might be, it might not. The important thing is that the issue remains undiminished because they fell WAY TOO fast.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Many people gerenally see that they fell at free fall rates. Actually forensics do.

You are a freaking moron. If the towers fell at "free fall" rates, then the debris would not have beat the towers to the ground.

 

[Roboramma]

No, it might be, it might not. The important thing is that the issue remains undiminished because they fell WAY TOO fast.

Why do you think so? What evidence do you have to offer to convince us that you're right?
Are you going to do anything other than repeat this assertion?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There is a decent argument for both, and niether matters much. The towers fell too fast. Many people gerenally see that they fell at free fall rates. Actually forensics do. Intuition guides much of the research in the beginning.

Why are you trying to prove a point that you already conceded wasn't true.

You've already admitted that the towers didn't "free fall", continuing to press your case in the face of this admission is not an effective debate strategy.

 

[Christophera]

Likewise, the Kinetic Energy of the collapsing mass equals one-half times the mass times the velocity squared. The energy of the collapse increases along with the momentum.

The second plane hit lower than the first one did. This means that the amount of mass above the impact point is much greater in the second one. This means a lot more weight is bearing down on those weakened beams which caused them to fail before the other tower.

Simply asking the question doesn't cast doubt. You need to supply some evidence, which you haven't done.

Steve S

There is a huge amount of raw evidence and link data to engineers web sites about the concrete core.

Here is an image from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992. So far with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992, I've posted about 300% more image than those who try to support the FEMA core configuration of steel columns. And gues what, they are already trying to imply that I've spammed boards. It is quite impossible to spam when those of the boards continue to ask for the information by denying it exists or has a meaning that can be rationally defined.

 

[steve s]

There is a huge amount of raw evidence and link data to engineers web sites about the concrete core.

Here is an image from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992. So far with the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992, I've posted about 300% more image than those who try to support the FEMA core configuration of steel columns. And gues what, they are already trying to imply that I've spammed boards. It is quite impossible to spam when those of the boards continue to ask for the information by denying it exists or has a meaning that can be rationally defined.

Now it's obvious you're just a troll. Your last post had nothing to do with what I wrote and was totally incomprehensible. You've become boring. At least Geggy was amusing.

Steve S.

 

[RSLancastr]

I'm having a hard time not hearing "Did it not have the qualities you desired when you posted it?" in the Comic Book Guy's voice.

Okay, now THAT made me laugh.

 

[Christophera]

Now it's obvious you're just a troll. Your last post had nothing to do with what I wrote and was totally incomprehensible. You've become boring. At least Geggy was amusing.

Steve S.

Hello?


Physics is meaningless if you are analysing the wrong structure.

 

[Christophera]

You are a freaking moron. If the towers fell at "free fall" rates, then the debris would not have beat the towers to the ground.

Ah, ...... the debris WAS the tower and it fell from the top at the rates of free fall. Technically 9.2 seconds in a vacuum.

 

[Christophera]

Why are you trying to prove a point that you already conceded wasn't true.

You've already admitted that the towers didn't "free fall", continuing to press your case in the face of this admission is not an effective debate strategy.

Considering no one here has posted even one image or link that uses raw evidence to substanciate the FEMA core as anything more than a lie, the free fall issue is very minor which ever way you want it.

 

[Christophera]

Why do you think so? What evidence do you have to offer to convince us that you're right?
Are you going to do anything other than repeat this assertion?

I've shown that there are more important issues and free fall is just a technicality that may be controlling and it may not. Most importantly is that they were way too close to free fall, and 2 towers fell almost identically when they had suffered very different damage.