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

[Christophera]

So why do you think it was freefall, Christophera?`I still
don´t get this argument. And what is freefall - to make
clear that we agree about this one.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/1DKin/U1L5a.html


It is most accurate to say the towers fell at near free fall because the exact moment they stopped falling cannot be exactly determined.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/1DKin/U1L5a.html


It is most accurate to say the towers fell at near free fall because the exact moment they stopped falling cannot be exactly determined.

I don't follow this logic. In the absence of evidence, we should assume they fell at free fall? Why?

Actually, the most accurate thing you could say is "We can't determine at what rate the towers fell because the moment they stopped falling cannot be exactly determined."

 

[delphi_ote]

(1) Only one question on the floor is allowed at a time. Posters that try to stray to another point are chastised until Christophera has had a reasonable opportunity to offer a *specific* response. Reminder posts may be necessary.

This actually sounds really good to me. This thread actually might be interesting if we could keep some kind of focus. Someone should be in charge of the conch (Lord of the Flies?,) so to speak. That person asks one question, and we all stick to that one question until the questioner is satisfied. Then they pass the conch to the next person to request it, and that person asks one question. One topic, one issue, until we get to the bottom of it. We ignore any tangents from Chris. Laser focus. Tunnel vision. Discipline.

If someone strays, remind them in big letters to "Stay on Target," and make your best Star Wars nerd reference when you do so for extra style.

Sound reasonable? We can explain the rules periodically to lurkers. If you guys would like, we'll say I've got the conch and I'm ready to pass it. Whoever wants to be up first with their question, volunteer!

Appropriately, our conch will be Drop it at the end of your post to let people know you have it. e.g.

Has the

 

[delphi_ote]

I realize it might be folly to try and impose order on this thread, but by His Noodliness I'm going to try.

Has the

 

[Z]

Apologies to all, but I think we can engage a reasonable discussion on this point - if we move slowly and carefully.

Chris, what is near free fall? Would that include a rate of fall that takes air resistance into account? Or is there a +/- value you can give us that separates near free fall from some other category of fall?

Understand, the reason I ask this, is that clearly you wish to demonstrate that the rate of the tower's collapse is unusual or unexpected; but if your values for 'near free fall' are significantly different from 'free fall', they may well approach expected collapse rates for this situation, and thus no longer be a point.

After you've responded, I have another question relating to rate of fall...

 

[Z]

This actually sounds really good to me. This thread actually might be interesting if we could keep some kind of focus. Someone should be in charge of the conch (Lord of the Flies?,) so to speak. That person asks one question, and we all stick to that one question until the questioner is satisfied. Then they pass the conch to the next person to request it, and that person asks one question. One topic, one issue, until we get to the bottom of it. We ignore any tangents from Chris. Laser focus. Tunnel vision. Discipline.

If someone strays, remind them in big letters to "Stay on Target," and make your best Star Wars nerd reference when you do so for extra style.

Sound reasonable? We can explain the rules periodically to lurkers. If you guys would like, we'll say I've got the conch and I'm ready to pass it. Whoever wants to be up first with their question, volunteer!

Appropriately, our conch will be Drop it at the end of your post to let people know you have it. e.g.

Has the

Oh, sure, post that WHILE I'm posting...

Keep your ...

 

[jsfisher]

Ok, then. Here's where we stand:

Q: Why do you think it was freefall?
A: It is most accurate to say the towers fell at near free fall because the exact moment they stopped falling cannot be exactly determined.

It was "near free fall," but why do you believe it it was too fast to fit the official explanation for the collapse?

ETA: Ignore my question. There is already another question on the floor, albeit similar.

 

[delphi_ote]

Oh, sure, post that WHILE I'm posting...

Keep your ...

No no. You take the . That's the question: free fall We stay at it until Chris gives us a satisfactory answer.

ETA and the question:

Chris, what is near free fall? Would that include a rate of fall that takes air resistance into account? Or is there a +/- value you can give us that separates near free fall from some other category of fall?

zaayrdragon now has the

 

[Z]

Very well...

Reposted, just in case:

Chris, what is near free fall? Would that include a rate of fall that takes air resistance into account? Or is there a +/- value you can give us that separates near free fall from some other category of fall?

Understand, the reason I ask this, is that clearly you wish to demonstrate that the rate of the tower's collapse is unusual or unexpected; but if your values for 'near free fall' are significantly different from 'free fall', they may well approach expected collapse rates for this situation, and thus no longer be a point.

After you've responded, I have another question relating to rate of fall...

These are clean - yay

 

[Christophera]

I don't follow this logic. In the absence of evidence, we should assume they fell at free fall? Why?

Actually, the most accurate thing you could say is "We can't determine at what rate the towers fell because the moment they stopped falling cannot be exactly determined."

If NIST states that one fell at just over 10 seconds, to say they fell at near free fall is most accurate. To say We can't determine at what rate the towers fell" is not comprehensive and therefore not accurate.

it is a very minor issue when two towers of that nature fell basically identically completely to the ground with concrete turned to sand and gravel and dust and the heavyest steel in the buildings cut into neat equal lengths.

 

[bonavada]

Someone should be in charge of the conch

just don't call me piggy......

BV

 

[Christophera]

Very well...

Reposted, just in case:

Chris, what is near free fall? Would that include a rate of fall that takes air resistance into account? Or is there a +/- value you can give us that separates near free fall from some other category of fall?

Understand, the reason I ask this, is that clearly you wish to demonstrate that the rate of the tower's collapse is unusual or unexpected; but if your values for 'near free fall' are significantly different from 'free fall', they may well approach expected collapse rates for this situation, and thus no longer be a point.

After you've responded, I have another question relating to rate of fall...

These are clean - yay

As I say in my post to Nobby, the issue of free fall is minor. If they took 20 seconds is doesn't matter to me. The fact that they did so identically to the ground is ASTOUNDING. Defying logic totally if described as "collapse".

 

[Arus808]

If NIST states that one fell at just over 10 seconds

To the point where they couldn't see any more of the collapse. They didn't state how they determined that time period.

to say they fell at near free fall is most accurate. To say We can't determine at what rate the towers fell" is not comprehensive and therefore not accurate.

you can't say its near free fall unless the entire collapse was measured. the NIST admits they didn't see the entire collapse.

 

[delphi_ote]

If NIST states that one fell at just over 10 seconds, to say they fell at near free fall is most accurate. To say We can't determine at what rate the towers fell" is not comprehensive and therefore not accurate.

Okay... so far that's not really answering the question, Chris. Please specify what near free fall means, for a start.

it is a very minor issue when two towers of that nature fell basically identically completely to the ground with concrete turned to sand and gravel and dust and the heavyest steel in the buildings cut into neat equal lengths.

STAY ON TARGET!

 

[Z]

As I say in my post to Nobby, the issue of free fall is minor. If they took 20 seconds is doesn't matter to me. The fact that they did so identically to the ground is ASTOUNDING. Defying logic totally if described as "collapse".

Please keep your arguments from incredulity out of it, and focus on the question at hand.

Obviously, the issue of free fall is not minor, in context of this thread, as it's THE issue in the title.

Therefore, please answer the question at hand: how do you define 'near free fall'?

 

[Christophera]

Okay... so far that's not really answering the question, Chris. Please specify what near free fall means, for a start.

[qimg]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/Porkins.jpg[/qimg]
STAY ON TARGET!

I accept this as I posted above. Consider that it is actually unimportant as to the exact rate of fall. What is importnat is the explanation as to HOW they fell that fast, however fast it was.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2093905#post2093905

 

[jsfisher]

Where we stand:

Q: Why do you think it was freefall?
A: It is most accurate to say the towers fell at near free fall because the exact moment they stopped falling cannot be exactly determined.

Q: What is near free fall? Would that include a rate of fall that takes air resistance into account? Or is there a +/- value you can give us that separates near free fall from some other category of fall?
A: The issue of free fall is minor. If they took 20 seconds is doesn't matter to me. The fact that they did so identically to the ground is ASTOUNDING. Defying logic totally if described as "collapse".

Chris, I think your answer is something of an evasion. The opening post for this thread hinges on free fall. Also, to say you cannot determine the time for one collapse doesn't seem consistent with the claim both towers took the same time to come down.

So, I think the question hasn't yet been fully answered.

 

[delphi_ote]

I accept this as I posted above. Consider that it is actually unimportant as too the exact rate of fall. What is importnat is the explanation as to HOW they fell that fast, however fast it was.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2093905#post2093905

Do you retract your claim about "near free fall"? We are not leaving this subject until zaayrdragon says so.

 

[Christophera]

Do you retract your claim about "near free fall"? We are not leaving this subject until zaayrdragon says so.

Can you produce an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area from the demo images showing the supposed columns at some elevation above the ground.

I know from 180 + pages you cannot. This means you answer is NO.

I've said I consider 20 seconds to be "near free fall" and that the issue is unimportant compared to the near identical events.

Are you trying to focus on unimportant issues?

 

[Z]

Chris, acceptable answers are:

1) Define 'near free fall', giving a rate of downward acceleration for comparison.
2) Retract 'near free fall', which eliminates the question in the title of this thread and half of your OP question.

Please, stay on target.