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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
Your link You can't beat solid evidence, dude. should have a series of frame of a video that shows all the material ending up onthe ground. If it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the end of the fall. Without the end, the calculations are just rhetorical.

I'm quite sure you do nott know what an idiot is, as you actually exhibit the mental gymnastics required to perform as one.
Click to expand...

Did you yourself not state:

Clearly when the base of the towers cannot be seen determining the exact rate of fall is not possible. I'm satisfied that 20 seconds gets all the debris on the ground.
Click to expand...

This is clearly a LOT longer than free fall would have taken - more than twice as long, in fact. So by your own evidence (which is far less factual than the evidence I have provided) the buildings did not fall at "free fall" speeds.

Therefore your question is answered so you can stop.
 
Christophera said:
Hit youself on the head again. We know the rate of free fall, doh!

We do not know when things stopped falling.
Click to expand...

Great. Now what is the rate of fall with air resistance? You know, Terminal velocity.

Anyhoo The speed of falling debris from CD or explosively cut supports would also fall at terminal velocity, Remebeer the explosive would just knock out the support. gravity still does the job of bringing down the building.
 
Christophera said:
Dude,

You are a new comer who has not read the thread. Note: The only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" are around the outside of the core. The steel inside the core is much smaller and are NOT core columns. That steel is elevator guide rail support structure. Which is why no core columns are seen protruding from the core area in ANY photos. Catch up dude!!!!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3264&stc=1&d=1159154677
Click to expand...


The massive box collumns are the core, you dingbat!
 
Christophera said:
Dude,

You are a new comer who has not read the thread. Note: The only "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" are around the outside of the core. The steel inside the core is much smaller and are NOT core columns. That steel is elevator guide rail support structure. Which is why no core columns are seen protruding from the core area in ANY photos. Catch up dude!!!!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3264&stc=1&d=1159154677
Click to expand...

Look closer at the picture you posted. the support columns are distributed throughout the core.

Look at the floor diagram on this site:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm#fig-2-1

Notice the red squares in the core structure. those are the support columns distributed throughout the core. The elevater shafts are located near the columns but none are used as "rail guides". Elevators are usually shaft and cable suspension type.
 
Skylark said:
Did you yourself not state:



This is clearly a LOT longer than free fall would have taken - more than twice as long, in fact. So by your own evidence (which is far less factual than the evidence I have provided) the buildings did not fall at "free fall" speeds.

Therefore your question is answered so you can stop.
Click to expand...

Two towers to the ground in 20 seconds is WAY TOO FAST. I'm calling it demolition. A collapse would never go to the ground, it would stop a floor below the impact damage, done deal.
 
To those of you who may be relatively new to christophera, he really is seriously mentally ill. You can find links to his various sites that prove this unconditionally in this very thread (search the time frame around 2-3 weeks ago in this thread and you'll find everything you need to know about him).

But in light of that reality, it is probably best not to engage with him over the same two posts and the same two photos that he's been spouting here for the past few months and that he's been spouting for the past few years on various forums. Just read the links and you will understand. Personally, I'd prefer that when his ultimate meltdown occurs, it is on a forum other than JREF.

As annoying as he is, as obvious as it is that his theories are indefensible and nonsensical, as apparent as it is that he's the only person on the face of the earth who believes that the twin towers had concrete cores, he really is seriously mentally ill. No joke. So, please, take the high road and let this thread die despite the temptation to respond to his nonsensical posts.
 
Christophera said:
Two towers to the ground in 20 seconds is WAY TOO FAST. I'm calling it demolition. A collapse would never go to the ground, it would stop a floor below the impact damage, done deal.
Click to expand...

This is getting too sad. I was reluctant to leave the thread because there are other people that seems to be much more rational and there could be some usefulness in cheking the evidence that they say they have for a CT, but I have to agree that by now this thread is just not fun anymore.
 
Belz... said:
You DO know what lateral forces are, right ?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll try to lecture and educate me anyway.

Read it again, I am surprised you missed this as you claim to have some sort of ESP about my posts!!! The comment "What lateral forces?" is asking what lateral forces were present on the day.
 
Huntsman said:
Yeah.

But when people show a pic, model, or drawing of the whole with the entire building, it does look like a little bitty hole that couldn't drop a big building like that.

When you view it as if the top of the building is a seperate building on it's own, as the damaged floors rest on the lower structure and support the higher as a building rests on the ground, then it clears it up a bit. Don't consider it as a few floors of a 100 story building damaged, but as the bottem few floors of a smaller building (just the parts from the damaged areas up). It suddenly becomes much more understandable how this caused a collapse, and why it wouldn't topple.
Click to expand...

Look at the aspect ratio Huntsman.

I didn't show the whole building to try to reduce the visual impact of the damage. I did it to show the density (as this seems to be such a big deal) and extent of the sound structure BENEATH the damage (Assuming that structure is not made of skin).

If the top of the building is seperate on its own as you say then why didn't it just topple off above the damage rather than plummet through all that relatively sound structure? In effect the top should "ricochet" or take the path of least resistance off the top of the building, kind of like trying to balance a block on the end of a broomstick (Go on Belz, take that analogy beyond its boundaries, I dares ya).
 
And that question was answered.

Pull outwards when the floor trusses were wrenched loose by the progressive collapse, and then supplanted by gravity as soon as the columns deviated from vertical.
 
William Rea said:
If the top of the building is seperate on its own as you say then why didn't it just topple off above the damage rather than plummet through all that relatively sound structure? In effect the top should "ricochet" or take the path of least resistance off the top of the building, kind of like trying to balance a block on the end of a broomstick (Go on Belz, take that analogy beyond its boundaries, I dares ya).
Click to expand...
Oh, my. William, I'll make this as simple as possible.

At the same time that it was tilting and twisting, the top of each tower was also falling straight down, fulcrum and all, through the lower section. Any close-up video shows this.

I hope this was helpful.
 
William Rea said:
If the top of the building is seperate on its own as you say then why didn't it just topple off above the damage rather than plummet through all that relatively sound structure? In effect the top should "ricochet" or take the path of least resistance off the top of the building, kind of like trying to balance a block on the end of a broomstick (Go on Belz, take that analogy beyond its boundaries, I dares ya).
Click to expand...

IT DID!

The path of least resistance was down. Remember our old friend, gravity?

I will re-iterate an experiment proposal I created for TruthSeeker1234:

* Take a large, heavy object such as a shipping container and suspend if from a crane so the bottom of the container is a smidgen above head height.

* Go stand under the container, but as far from the centre as possible. You will be acting as the pivot point.

* Have a friend release the container and observe if it tips over (due to your resistance) before chrushing you.

By your logic, the container would "fall around" you. The laws of physics might disagree of course.

NOTE: Attempting this experiment may result in severe personal injury or, more likely, death. I will not be held responsible for the well-being of persons attempting this experiment.
 
Christophera said:
The concept of separate, delayed detonations explains why the lower part of the concrete core stands momentarily.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean this:

The core stopped detonations right after that. The thermite in the basement and the floors detonations were enough to bring the steel to the ground and expose the core for a second or two.
Click to expand...

So, you think you can just blow up the outside of the building, then wait, and then detonate the core, which is still standing on its own ?

Good thing you don't build houses.
 
William Rea said:
I'm sure you'll try to lecture and educate me anyway.

Read it again, I am surprised you missed this as you claim to have some sort of ESP about my posts!!! The comment "What lateral forces?" is asking what lateral forces were present on the day.
Click to expand...

Oh, so we're supposed to guess what it means without the words that would make it clear ?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure a 767 ramming a building at top speed constitutes a lateral force.
 
William Rea said:
Look at the aspect ratio Huntsman.

I didn't show the whole building to try to reduce the visual impact of the damage. I did it to show the density (as this seems to be such a big deal) and extent of the sound structure BENEATH the damage (Assuming that structure is not made of skin).

If the top of the building is seperate on its own as you say then why didn't it just topple off above the damage rather than plummet through all that relatively sound structure? In effect the top should "ricochet" or take the path of least resistance off the top of the building, kind of like trying to balance a block on the end of a broomstick (Go on Belz, take that analogy beyond its boundaries, I dares ya).
Click to expand...

There's where your analogy continuously fails. The building under the roof was not 'like a broomstick', but like a set of smaller, somewhat weaker sticks making a loose box-shape under the roof. Far less stable, and infinitely less likely to act as a unit, deflecting the larger mass of the top anywhere. Add to that the fact that the supporting structure DIRECTLY under the roof began to collapse into the middle, and there's no reason the roof would slide in any horizontal direction.

It had no choice whatsoever than to come down through the floors below it.
 
-the situation is extremely nonlineair and onze the 'block' falls it becomes chaotic, there is enough time for the assumed block to find a path of less resistance

- the speed after one floor is assumed to give the block enough energy to break everything between the block, an initial speed of sqrt(2gh_floor) is assumed. Well assuming that the last thing that is able to keep the block that high (for an hour) breaks, what would be what breaks, in fact they mean at t=0 the block can freely move a distance of 3.7meter to get its initial speed, why would this complete block getting that initial speed.
That is not realistic. First of all 3.7 meter is between the center of masses of the floors, but the floors have a width and what about the plane that is still there and all other stuff, that doesn't give the free 3.7 meter to travel. I would expect that only one part of the block gets a space to travel 1 meter and then, the rest breaks with this, but then the velocity that it reaches when it is at the next floor will be much lower. Kinetic energy goes with v^2 which means that the energy will be much lower in general, much lower. There is so much more that is not taken into account, mass scattering away, the block that will destroy also etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom