• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh yeah...pulverized indeed.......

http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image4.jpg
http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5.jpg
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=151

ETA: Removed a PDF which on closer inspection had nothing to do with the bulk mass of the amount of debris from Ground Zero.

ETA2: Discoverd a couple of links of interest for those interested in the amount of debris on Ground Zero.

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/jun02/story1.htm
http://911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/World Trade Center/Debris Removal.htm

Not as much about the debris but does have a couple of pictures on the remains of the towers before the cleanup started.
http://www.gisvisionmag.com/vision.php?article=200112/feature_1.html
 
Last edited:
TjW said:
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.
Click to expand...

What controls the rate of fall and if it can fall like we saw, is the towers construction. So the explanation for the high fall rate is based in that rather than the exact vagaries of the fall rate.
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not true either.

Either you are deliberately lying, or you haven't been reading the responses you have been recieving.

Would you like some assistance in locating the posts you missed wich contain the information you asked for?

EDIT: YOU do not consider the "free fall" issue to be minor at all. YOU made free fall the the title of this thread and central point of your argument.

Well... until you admitted that there was no free fall.
 
Last edited:
The phrase "too fast" is too vague.

Please provide the following information on which you base your assumptions:
- Time for Tower 1 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy
- Time for Tower 2 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy

This discussion is meaningless without stating the values used in calculations.

- Timothy
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
That's not true either.

Either you are deliberately lying, or you haven't been reading the responses you have been recieving.

Would you like some assistance in locating the posts you missed wich contain the information you asked for?

EDIT: YOU do not consider the "free fall" issue to be minor at all. YOU made free fall the the title of this thread and central point of your argument.

Well... until you admitted that there was no free fall.
Click to expand...

Yes, I need assistance. Just go ahead and post your evidence supporting the tower design FEMA presents.

As for the exact rate of fall, free fall or not, we cannot tell, it is not a primary matter, what is primary is HOW the rate of fall, whatever it was, was created.
 
Timothy said:
The phrase "too fast" is too vague.

Please provide the following information on which you base your assumptions:
- Time for Tower 1 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy
- Time for Tower 2 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy

This discussion is meaningless without stating the values used in calculations.

- Timothy
Click to expand...

Well tim, the end of the fall is vague, so there you have it. The exact time is just not worth discussing. It appears you would rather know that than exactly how the fall rate was created.
 
Christophera said:
NIST uses the wrong basic structure and no raw images of the collapse to support the structure they describe.

Here is a page that uses only raw images and links to engineering sites to show the towers as they really stood.

http://concretecore.741.com/
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
There was no load-bearing concrete core to WTC 1 or 2. Vertical support was entirely done by steel columns.
Click to expand...

Classic, I post a link to many images of the structure. You say "no", and post no proof. Typical, this is the only performance I've seen.
 
Christophera said:
Yes, I need assistance. Just go ahead and post your evidence supporting the tower design FEMA presents.

As for the exact rate of fall, free fall or not, we cannot tell, it is not a primary matter, what is primary is HOW the rate of fall, whatever it was, was created.
Click to expand...

Second page of this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1662593&postcount=57

Gravy provided still images conclusively proving that the towers did not come down at free fall rates, just as you had asked him to do.

If you need further assistance, do not be afraid to ask. This is, after all, a board devoted to truth seekers and asnwering questions.
 
Christophera said:
Well tim, the end of the fall is vague, so there you have it. The exact time is just not worth discussing. It appears you would rather know that than exactly how the fall rate was created.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of bovine excrements.

In order to claim that something falls "too fast" you have to have a basis of comparison. That means a little something called "evidence" of the mentioned statement.
Once one have those, THEN the mechanics starts getting interesting.

If one does not have evidence of an event being different than the norm, then there is no reason to start looking for the evidence behind said unnormal event. Because the unnormal event does not exist.

If you really have those pestering "evidence of an unnormal event", then tim's question is not a hard thing to answer.
And if you don't, then its a moot point.
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, you have asserted those things. Please reread my post and respond again.
 
The_Fire said:
In order to claim that something falls "too fast" you have to have a basis of comparison.
Click to expand...

I think that we are generally past that in the real world. It is well established that they fell too fast for a collapse, even a normal controlled demolition. What is more important is that they fell all the way to the ground identically. Collapses do not happen like that. No steel building has ever collapsed.

Perhaps you have some evidence that FEMA has described the structure properly, others here seem to be unable to come up with any evidence whatsoever.
 
Christophera said:
I think that we are generally past that in the real world. What is more important is that they fell all the way to the ground indentically. Collapses do not happen like that. No steel building has ever collapsed.

Perhaps you have some evidence that FEMA has described the structure properly, others here seem to be unable to come up with any evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Gee....Could it be that both builings were rammed in the side by an airplane? Could it be that they were constructed identically? Could it be that the structural damage caused by a couple of massive airliners-turned-manmanned-missiles were pretty much the same despite a slight difference in the height of the impact site? Could it be that they were made from the same materials? Could it be that said materials reacted to prolonged heat in the same way?
 
Christophera said:
Well tim, the end of the fall is vague, so there you have it. The exact time is just not worth discussing. It appears you would rather know that than exactly how the fall rate was created.
Click to expand...
Then tell me how vague. 10.4 sec +/- 2 sec? 15.3 sec +/- 10 sec? If *you* can't tell me what assumptions you're using, how can you make any claim at all?

They fell too fast? Then:

[size=+10]HOW FAST DID THEY FALL?[/size]

Please provide the following information on which you base your assumptions:
- Time for Tower 1 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy
- Time for Tower 2 to collapse (to a precision of 0.1 second) and estimate of accuracy

This discussion is meaningless without stating the values used in calculations.

- Timothy (not tim)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom