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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you look at ground zero just after the collapse (I remember in another video, 9/11 revisited, some guy with a video camera is there), ther eis nothing more than 3 or 4 storey high left.

Yet, well into the 20 second mark of this collapse, you can see parts still coming down above the height of the buildings in the foreground, which are way more than 3-4 storeys, so core or other wise, it is still FALLING well after 10 seconds.
 
gumboot said:
From this footage, you can see an enormous section of the building is engulfed in flames. Yet fires don't usually spread down. Are we talking about partial internal collapses before total collapse? That would certainly spread the fire through floors beneath the impact point.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly from the Commission report, elevator doors were blown out far down the elevator shafts by the initial explosion. It would stand to reason that fires were started at several different floors below the crash level, not due to buring down but due to the initial blast being directed downward.
 
SezMe said:
If I remember correctly from the Commission report, elevator doors were blown out far down the elevator shafts by the initial explosion. It would stand to reason that fires were started at several different floors below the crash level, not due to buring down but due to the initial blast being directed downward.
Click to expand...

Not sure which report but one had fuel not consumed in the initial blast running down the elevator shafts and starting fires on lower floors.

And fires will burn in any direction fuel is available. They burn faster up, but both matches and candles will burn down.
 
T.A.M. said:
If you look at ground zero just after the collapse (I remember in another video, 9/11 revisited, some guy with a video camera is there), ther eis nothing more than 3 or 4 storey high left.
Click to expand...

I've lost my link to the source, but the debris pile was reported at 6 stories tall.

eta: that's above ground level, the pile extended down into the underground sections.
 
StoatBringer said:
The only possible explanation is that George Bush snuck into the towers the night before and hacksawed through most of the main support girders, and placed remote control transmitters in the towers to guide the planes into them.

I mean, come on people, it's SO OBVIOUS!!!1!1!!!
Click to expand...

Nah, it had to be Cheney. Bush can't do anything right after all.
 
That is an awesome pic.

As for the heigh, it may have been six storeys. Even at 6 storeys, if you watch how long it takes even to see things settle at the 6 storey level, it is much longer than 10 seconds from this angle, unless I am missing or misinterpreting something.
 
T.A.M. said:
That is an awesome pic.

As for the heigh, it may have been six storeys. Even at 6 storeys, if you watch how long it takes even to see things settle at the 6 storey level, it is much longer than 10 seconds from this angle, unless I am missing or misinterpreting something.
Click to expand...

nope, it's at least 20 seconds, probably closer to 30 seconds. The 6 stories just takes the time that much further away from free fall. If you subtract out the 6 stories of height the fall time would be even shorter for a free fall.
 
I think it should be pretty obvious by now that whoever started this whole 'Towers are in freefall' bit was a moron. I think it may have been Steven Jones himself, but a quick glance at any video of the event will show debris which is actually in free-fall, falling much more rapidly than the collapsing tower.

I have yet to see any convincing math from the CT-side showing that the structure of the tower would have slowed the fall more than was observed.
 
Dazed said:
I think it should be pretty obvious by now that whoever started this whole 'Towers are in freefall' bit was a moron. I think it may have been Steven Jones himself, but a quick glance at any video of the event will show debris which is actually in free-fall, falling much more rapidly than the collapsing tower.

I have yet to see any convincing math from the CT-side showing that the structure of the tower would have slowed the fall more than was observed.
Click to expand...


Not to mention I've seen footage of WTC1 collapsing that took closer to 30 seconds...

-Andrew
 
Dazed said:
I think it should be pretty obvious by now that whoever started this whole 'Towers are in freefall' bit was a moron. I think it may have been Steven Jones himself, but a quick glance at any video of the event will show debris which is actually in free-fall, falling much more rapidly than the collapsing tower.
Click to expand...
Have you seen Judy Woods' explanation of this? It took me a little while to get exactly what she is saying, because it didn't occur to me at first that anyone could be that dumb. That avalanche of destruction going down the towers as they collapsed? That's not the debris falling down that you're seeing. The debris can't fall that fast. She proved it with her billiard ball analogy: if you had a person holding a billiard ball out the window on every floor of a 110-story building, and the person on top dropped his, then the person on floor 109 dropped his the instant the first ball came by him, then the person on 108 dropped his the instant that 109's came past him, etc., it would take almost a full minute before the person of floor 2 dropped his. Ergo, the towers could not have fallen anywhere near that fast due to top-down collapse. We're not talking about the differenc between 9.2 seconds and 12 seconds, or even 20 seconds. It would take almost 60 seconds to come down.

No, what you're seeing is a wave of timed explosives, which started at the top, and works its way to the ones at the bottom exploding ten seconds later.

It's a most ingenious solution to the problem.
 
CurtC said:
Have you seen Judy Woods' explanation of this? It took me a little while to get exactly what she is saying, because it didn't occur to me at first that anyone could be that dumb. That avalanche of destruction going down the towers as they collapsed? That's not the debris falling down that you're seeing. The debris can't fall that fast. She proved it with her billiard ball analogy: if you had a person holding a billiard ball out the window on every floor of a 110-story building, and the person on top dropped his, then the person on floor 109 dropped his the instant the first ball came by him, then the person on 108 dropped his the instant that 109's came past him, etc., it would take almost a full minute before the person of floor 2 dropped his. Ergo, the towers could not have fallen anywhere near that fast due to top-down collapse. We're not talking about the differenc between 9.2 seconds and 12 seconds, or even 20 seconds. It would take almost 60 seconds to come down.

No, what you're seeing is a wave of timed explosives, which started at the top, and works its way to the ones at the bottom exploding ten seconds later.

It's a most ingenious solution to the problem.
Click to expand...

Err, would the ball from floor 110 need to strike the ball at 109 (to start 109's motion) if you're even trying to at all simulate the collapse; as the KE from floor/ball 110 is added to floor/ball 109 so floor/ball 109 accelerates faster (initially) than freefall? Or am I completely off base here?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Err, would the ball from floor 110 need to strike the ball at 109 (to start 109's motion) if you're even trying to at all simulate the collapse; as the KE from floor/ball 110 is added to floor/ball 109 so floor/ball 109 accelerates faster (initially) than freefall? Or am I completely off base here?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. How would the famous billiard ball example be changed to actually reflect real life?
 
There's also no reason to believe the lower floors with remain absolutely still until the above weight hits them.

They're part of an overall structure. You'd probably end up with sections collapsing together and out of sequence.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
There's also no reason to believe the lower floors with remain absolutely still until the above weight hits them.

They're part of an overall structure. You'd probably end up with sections collapsing together and out of sequence.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Much more chaotic than a simple billiard ball example.

So you could have floor 105 falling on floor 104, but at the same time 102 has just failed on top of 101, causing 103 to collapse before 104 hits it, and so on all the way down?
 
gumboot said:
There's also no reason to believe the lower floors with remain absolutely still until the above weight hits them.

They're part of an overall structure. You'd probably end up with sections collapsing together and out of sequence.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Not sure about the interior columns, but the exterior columns were panels 3 stories tall, they were staggered when assembled so there wouldn't be a continuous joint around the building. This means if the panels tended to fail at joints 1/3 of the columns on the 3 floors below would also be failing at the same time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom