As I've said, the title field only accomodates a certain amount of text. You are attempting to make a non issue, an issue.
And you are waffling.
s not your role to decide what is most important in what I ask. Clearly, an explanation is the point not the exact rate.
But without understanding the rate, no explanation can be forthcoming.
If the rate were, say, 14 m/s/s, obviously no normal rational explanation could cover such a rate of acceleration; if, however, the rate were, say, closer to 5 m/s/s, the rational explanation is that the structure of the building failed, and the tower suffered overall collapse.
Consider this analogy:
A: "Why were you speeding?"
B: "What do you mean speeding? How fast was I going?"
A: "The important thing isn't how fast you were going, it's why you were going as fast as you were."
B: "And how fast was that? If I was doing 45mph I wasn't speeding; if I was doing 95mh I probably was; so how fast was I going?"
A: "Well, you were nearly speeding; why?"
B: "What is nearly speeding?"
.... and so on.
You're saying something is wrong, but refusing to define what, exactly, is wrong!
Clearly, if you read the thread, that the historical posts in the thread accept that I have retracted "free fall" and adjusted it to "nearly free fall" and reasonably so because we simply do not know when the debris stopped falling.
Problem being that A) you haven't defined what 'near free fall' means; and B) you don't need to know when the debris stopped falling; all you need is to be able to calculate where the debris was over a set of times, say, every 1/10th of a second, and determine the rate of downward acceleration.
This is not a physics discussion.
WRONG! THIS IS EXACTLY A PHYSICS DISCUSSION!!! ONLY PHYSICS CAN DEAL WITH A QUESTION ABOUT THE RATE OF FALL!!!!
If I intended it to be such I would have titled the thread, "What is free fall and did the towers do that?" Or something like that.
And so you did.
More pertinant to the gist of the issue is the strcuture that fell too fast.
So what does 'too fast' mean?
This is EXACTLY the problem, Chris. You're throwing the term out and not telling anyone what that means. It's meaningless, Chris.
And we're certain you're lying. You've already demonstrated a piss-poor memory for details and facts, and a willingness to make up lies on the fly. So why should we believe you over anyone else?
If you knew about materials you would know that steel core columns cannot be cut to fall instantly.
And that the towers didn't fall 'instantly'. Instantly would mean that the time between the beginning of the fall and the subsequent settling would be effectively zero, which we can tell it was not. However, since you have a problem with how fast the towers fell, the first thing you need to do is tell us how fast the towers fell, and how fast they should have fallen.
the underlying issue is the concrete core,
The underlying issue is irrelevant until the initial question is properly defined. Period.
More attention-whoring for your crap website. Quit the nonsense, Chris, and deal with the question.
because concrete can be fractured to fall instantly.
Unlikely.
THSI FACTOR can EXPLAIN the high rate of fall.
WHICH WAS WHAT, CHRIS???
So the thread has been anturally an properly focused and your attempts to re focus it are diversionary tactic.
The only diversionary tactic being employed at the moment is by you.
FACT: You initially ask for an explanation for how the towers fell at free fall.
FACT: You have changed this to 'near free fall'.
FACT: You have now changed this to 'falling way too fast'.
FACT: You have NEVER, not ONCE, properly defined what you mean by either 'near free fall' nor by 'falling way too fast'. Until you can define these terms, we can neither agree nor disagree and cannot examine ANY explanation for ANY of these phenomenae. I could just as easily claim the towers fell 'way too slow', and demand an explanation.
So, quit the idiotic diversionary tactic, and address the question at hand:
What does 'falling too fast' mean? What was the rate of downward acceleration?
If you refuse to exactly define what you mean, I will counter that the towers fell exactly as fast as they should have fallen, consistant with a steel core building suffering structural failure from impact and subsequent thermal damage, and point out that any disagreement from you is irrelevant until you define how fast the towers fell, and compare that collapse rate to the expected rate of collapse of the towers.
So please, Chris, stay on target: what is 'way too fast'?
