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

Status
Not open for further replies.
delphi_ote said:
Is there a difference between the two?
Click to expand...

The one that officially collapsed could not have stood, and if it did and collapsed or was demoed, the official core would be seen in the images. It is not and posters here have proven it by failing to produce images of the official core at elevation from the images.

This thread has the proof. What is it, 83 pages now? Not one obvious image of the official core can be found. All that is found in support of the official core are a plethora of misinterpreted constructon images and 2 misinterpreted demo images.

The other 99% of the thread is littered with images showing the true core of the towers and lnks to the site dedicated to sharing it.

http://concretecore.741.com

Or the only site on the web that explains near free fall and total pulverization.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html.

The other posters here have dedicated their efforts to obliterating the true tower design because it helps explain what was seen.

exploding concrete
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, someone's going to have to clarify this, because if "free fall" refers to a speed, I'd like to know which one. Gravity tends to accelerate bodies, so unless you reach terminal velocity, your speed is increasing, and therefore not constant. "Free fall" speed would therefore be variable, and hence useless.
 
I have never seen anybody tie up a thread for so long with such an untenable position.

Chris my hat is off to you. You don't have a leg to stand on, logically or factually, yet you continue to press your point with the tenacity that only a severly deluded person could muster.

I guess you at least stay true to yourself. Bravo.
 
Christophera said:
Would you be referring to the towers that actually stood or the towers that officially collapsed.
Click to expand...

How does that relate to his elevator and structure question ?

The one that officially collapsed could not have stood, and if it did and collapsed or was demoed, the official core would be seen in the images. It is not and posters here have proven it by failing to produce images of the official core at elevation from the images.
Click to expand...

And, by that logic, if it were true, and since you haven't produced the concrete core in any clear way, what we have to conclude is that:

The WTC had NO core!
 
Christophera said:
...The other posters here have dedicated their efforts to obliterating the true tower design because it helps explain what was seen.,,
Click to expand...

Christophera, you are a proven liar.

The only question that now remains concerning you is, why should anyone even bother to respond to a proven liar? Until you can provide some sort of answer, I don't see why anyone should dignify anything you write with a reply.

This isn't something you can ignore, Chris. You now stand as a liar, and thus have zero credibility. Therefore everything you post can and should be completely dismissed.
 
@Christopera

in the 911eyewitness video at 38min20sec you can see some elements falling after the collapse like mikado sticks. I don't know what this means because I'm no construction specialist, I've cropped that part (aspect ratio and framerate not changed) and it's at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkvnGsDm34M
 
Looks like Christophera has someone to agree with him over at the LC Forums:

JohnDoeX said:
Has anyone bothered to get the blueprints? This whole debate could be moot if someone just checks the blueprints. Im inclined to think it does/did have a concrete core. I remember reading a website a while back with all kinds of quotes from Structural Engineers, Designers of the WTC, et al. All of them referenced a steel reinforced concrete core. I'll see if i can find it.
Click to expand...
 
einsteen said:
@Christopera

in the 911eyewitness video at 38min20sec you can see some elements falling after the collapse like mikado sticks. I don't know what this means because I'm no construction specialist, I've cropped that part (aspect ratio and framerate not changed) and it's at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkvnGsDm34M
Click to expand...

It's a bundle of core columns. The same section that christophera continually mislabels are 'interior box columns'.
 
Belz:

If my college physics serves me correctly, you are correct. The speed the bodies would travel would accelerate until they reached "Terminal Velocity" I would imagine that at some point this occured, given the height of the buildings.

Interesting, because the CTers always refer to it as "Free Fall" speed...so much so that I misspoke it myself (even bumbling on the science by calling it a velocity, although i guess it was a sequence of increasing velocities until terminal velocity was reached, and then it was a constant velocity).

My apologies Dark Lord...but you are right, we should get clarification from one of the CTers as to why they refer to it as Free Fall "Speed" which does not even count for the direction of the motion, let alone the application of the acceleration.

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
Belz:
My apologies Dark Lord...but you are right, we should get clarification from one of the CTers as to why they refer to it as Free Fall "Speed" which does not even count for the direction of the motion, let alone the application of the acceleration.

TAM
Click to expand...

"free fall speed" is a slightly unscientific way of describing a real phenomenon.

An object "free falling" in a vacuum will reach a certain speed after x seconds of travel. Routine school equations apply here.

Add resistance (air) and smaller/lighter items will not reach so-called "free-fall" speeds because of friction. They may in fact reach terminal velocity, where increasing frictional force equals gravitational force.

A sideways element to the direction of travel (for example a bullet fired from a gun) has no effect on earthward movement (always bearing in mind the vacuum part of the discussion) That is - if you simultaneously drop + fling balls from a cliff they wil hit the ground at the same time. The downward component of their motion is the same in both scenarios.

I don't have the science to state categorically that a steel girder wouldn't reach terninal velocity during a 400m fall. I'd seriously doubt it though, as people skydiving take a much greater fall than that to reach termnal velocity, and steel girders are much bigger and denser than people.

Regards
 
Freefall speed, the speed of gravity, there are a lot of misunderstandings of course. I'm sure most people here will know Newtonian mechanics.

Each particle does nothing more than F=ma or F=dP/dt, with P=mv

If you consider the latter as the definition of Force then you can avoid a totally pointless discussion about what a force is.

Each particle wants to move to the middle of the earth with a force

F=GMmu/r^2, at the surface of the earth the excellent estimation F=mg can be used.

The formula at top is inertial mass, the other is gravitational mass, it seems to behave 1:1 (it looks maybe trivial but it isn't)

The acceleration a of a mass m in vacuum is a=dv/dt=(1/m)dP/dt=F/m=(mg)/m=g

When there is air there are other forces on the mass (always opposite to the direction in which it travels) which is the reason that free fall in air will reach a constant speed. This in fact means that the netto force on a falling body with constant speed is zero.
 
T.A.M. said:
Belz:

If my college physics serves me correctly, you are correct. The speed the bodies would travel would accelerate until they reached "Terminal Velocity" I would imagine that at some point this occured, given the height of the buildings.

Interesting, because the CTers always refer to it as "Free Fall" speed...so much so that I misspoke it myself (even bumbling on the science by calling it a velocity, although i guess it was a sequence of increasing velocities until terminal velocity was reached, and then it was a constant velocity).

My apologies Dark Lord...but you are right, we should get clarification from one of the CTers as to why they refer to it as Free Fall "Speed" which does not even count for the direction of the motion, let alone the application of the acceleration.

TAM
Click to expand...
FWIW, I'm not certain that what CTers are calling "Free Fall" speed refers to the velocity of the falling structural elements, I think what they are refering to as "Free Fall" speed is what they believe to be the elapsed time of collapse. In other words: "the buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds, that means the buildings were collapsing at "Free Fall".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom