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

Status
Not open for further replies.
apathoid said:
You could find a popular youtube/google video clip that shows the collapses in their entirety and record the start and stop times of the collapse, I usally get anywhere from 12-16 seconds...
Click to expand...

I did, but he is using some other "timing" device, because he says its 10 seconds (as stated in the NIST report which they stated 11 seconds for WTC 1 and 9 seconds for WTC 2). However, I need a more " conclusive " clicnial analysis cause he doesn't belive that its NOT free fall. Considering that the buidling would have to fall in 8.2 seconds to be even considered freefall (anyone want to offer up why 10 seconds isn't free fall?)
 
apathoid said:
Hmmm, they work for me. Try refreshing the page after you click the links.

Wow, I've never seen that shot before. To me, the only part of the airplane they could possibly be are the spoilers; those are the only perfectly flat squarish parts of the airplane that I can think of...
Click to expand...

It looks to me like those are parts of the main wing spar that have been cut into sections to make it easier to remove.
Note that it is quite thick along the longer sides -- the "spar caps". The thin plate between the caps is the shear web
 
Oliver said:
Ops - i thought it was new. :">
I also try to find the thread...
Click to expand...

Thank you, apathoid.

I already know these pictures, but CT´s think
the hull piece is no evidence and it´s to "thin"
to them to belong to a Boing.
 
Last edited:
ARUS808:
Welcome to the JREF Skeptics Forum on Conspiracy Theories.

The fastest that a falling body (a body that starts from rest, with only gravity acting on it in the downward direction) can travel is "Free Fall" speed. This occurs only when an object is dropped from within a vacuum ,with no air resistance.

If the debris that falls along side the twin towers as they collapse are falling faster than the towers themselves, than the towers cannot be collapsing at Freefall speed because (1) It isnt taking place in a vacuum, and (2) There are items falling faster (the debris), and the fastest the debris could be going is not even free fall (not in a vacuum either).

Now to the above, they will certainly argue a "Strawman", meaning that No "serious" CTer actually believes the towers fell "at" Free Fall speed.

To this I would say, that there is some evidence that the towers fell at near "Freefall" speed, though even this is contraversial.

If they then ask, well how did the towers fall at "near" free fall speed despite all the resistance that should have slowed the fall from the building below, I would reply...

"As NIST has stated, once the collapse was intitiated at the site of impact, the level of energy produced through the fall of the tower above the impact zone, down onto the remainder of the building below was of such a large magnitude as to make the resistance of the floors beneath negligible in comparison, and so the towers came down in a progressive, near resistance free fashion, allowing it to fall at said "near" free fall speed.

but thats just me...

TAM
 
TjW said:
It looks to me like those are parts of the main wing spar that have been cut into sections to make it easier to remove.
Note that it is quite thick along the longer sides -- the "spar caps". The thin plate between the caps is the shear web
Click to expand...

You could be right, I have no idea what the spars look like(except the aft spar) on a 757. If this photo was in color and wasnt so grainy - it'd be an easy identification. But, these parts have a composite appearance to me for some reason and color(lightness) would be about right for spoiler panels. Also, on the underside of the panels, there is weatherproofing frame(left object) that isnt evident from the top(right object)
Its hard to judge the size of these things though. To me, it looks like around 2X6 ft.

Oliver said:
I already know these pictures, but CT´s think
the hull piece is no evidence and it´s to "thin"
to them to belong to a Boing.
Click to expand...

Well, they are wrong. The outer skin on Boeings is typically 0.063 inches, or about 2 millimeters.
 
T.A.M. said:
The fastest that a falling body (a body that starts from rest, with only gravity acting on it in the downward direction) can travel is "Free Fall" speed. This occurs only when an object is dropped from within a vacuum ,with no air resistance.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that free fall was a speed. I thought it was a falling "mode".

Now to the above, they will certainly argue a "Strawman", meaning that No "serious" CTer actually believes the towers fell "at" Free Fall speed.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they then be guilty of a No True Scottsman ?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Sorry, statistics are not my strong suit; how did you come to the 50% chance?
Click to expand...

The height of the pentagon is known, I took this picture (without having read the site from which it is http://www.montalk.net/pentagon.html)

composite.jpg


L then is about 400 feet (I don't use feet normally)
assume a speed of 800 feet/sec (which means each frame the object travels a distance 2L) and ignore the yellow thing

then the chance that a plane with length 0<=l<L is captured (at least one part of it intersects with L) is 50%.
As fas as I can see it is independent of the length, but if l=>L then the
chance is 100% because then there is always at least a part captured although it can be a point of it

To be precise also the chance that the object is precisely in the middle not touching the left or right side needs to be calculated, it's too late for me and probably I have to get some books out of the dust, it's been a while, but that chance must be much lower.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
Hello apathoid,

the links don´t work (forbidden) but i think i guess the
pictures you referred.
Click to expand...

If you use IE and the link does not work then drag and drop the link to the address bar, it is a http-referer issue in this case
 
Belz:

Sorry Dark Master, "Free Fall" speed as I explained it is probably more of a velocity, as it has a direction (down). "Free Fall", I believe, refers to the lack of resistance applied against the falling body.

Einsteen:
I can see where you are getting the number. For any given frame, the chance of seeing "any part of the plane, "Somewhere" in the frame, would be about 50%.

I believe, they did catch the tail section in one of the frames, but it is such a poor quality picture, that people argue about what they are seeing it all the time.

TAM
 
einsteen said:
ironic mode I assume, because an IP doesn't say anything in the time where there are free proxy lists available
Click to expand...

I really have no desire to jump through hoops to view the Loose Change forums. But even if I did, I can't post because my account is suspended until 2009.
 
apathoid said:
I really have no desire to jump through hoops to view the Loose Change forums. But even if I did, I can't post because my account is suspended until 2009.
Click to expand...
What day in 2009? Maybe we should start a count-down to give you something to live for...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom