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

[The Almond]

True, I'm the only one employing common sense here.

According to whom?

Okay, very good then. You are out of the discussion.

Do you find this response at all childish?

The thread is about explanations for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.

Again, common sense according to whom? How do you judge common sense in the context of this argument? Is it that there no physical data that can quantifiably prove your point, so you instead have to appeal to plurality?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

The first part of th thread title is;

"Has Anyone Seen A Realistic Explanation", the term free fall simply references a rate of fall which is obviously too fast. if you cannto accept that then you are not capable of engaging the discussion.


This thread IS about explanations for the strictly incredible rates of fall IF the event was supposed to be a collapse.

Please indulge us. In what way is it "obvious"? In what way are these rates "incredible"?

Ther is only one explanation on the entire internet to the near free fall and pulverization of the twin towers which is comprehesive to all factors and it is found here.

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

So are you back to saying it is "near free fall"? If so, how near?

The thread is about explanations for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.

Again, please indulge us. In what way does "common sense" tell us that the towers fell too fast?

Chris, you are asking us to agree to an assumption and then explain a cause for that situation. First we need to make sure it is a valid assumption. What you are doing is very similar to saying, "Since it is obvious the Titanic was not sunk by an iceberg, we need to explain how it was sunk."

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The thread is about explanations for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.

how can common sense dictate how fast a skyscraper should fall? are skyscraper collapses at all common?

 

[Christophera]

Have you failed to realize we were attacked and you live in a fantasy land making light of 3000 killed by terrorist

Have you failed to realize that due process was violated in 3000 captal crimes? Evidence was destroyed and independent investigations were blocked.

The NIST report tells you how the WTC collapse could happen, and as we saw, it did happen. No explosives and you ideas on the explosive place during construction are so wrong, they could never happen.

Below is what we saw. In no way does it resemble a collapse which automatically renders the NIST report as a waste of taxpayers money designed to conceal the true event. What I assert here must have happened because that is the ONLY way what is seen below could have happened.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4081&stc=1&d=1163627762

 

[Christophera]

how can common sense dictate how fast a skyscraper should fall? are skyscraper collapses at all common?

Common sense dictates that in a collapse that plumes of totally pulverized concrete do not project horizontally 300 feet or that the top of a tower descend, pulverized enroute and rates approaching free fall in a uniform mushroom shape.

 

[The Almond]

Below is what we saw. In no way does it resemble a collapse which automatically renders the NIST report as a waste of taxpayers money designed to conceal the true event.

That's quite a bold assumption. Is the entirety of the NIST report a fabrication? Who fabricated it? Why would they do that?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Common sense dictates that in a collapse that plumes of totally pulverized concrete do not project horizontally 300 feet or that the top of a tower descend, pulverized enroute and rates approaching free fall in a uniform mushroom shape.

thats an awfully obscure statement to attribute to common sense, common sense is liek, you dont put your fingers in an electrical outlet, because most people come in contact with both fingers and outlets on a daily basis

building collapses (thankfully) dont fall into the realm of the "common" so an attempt to apply common sense to them is rather fallacious

 

[Bell]

Yes, and it has been explained that the thread title field doesn't have room for qualifying the statement with more complexity.

Should of given it another title then. You did not use LOGIC in this title, it seems.

The thread is about explanations for the rate of fall which common sence dictates is far to fast. If this simple form of mental activity is beyond you capacity you should abstain from participating.

How fast should the towers have fallen? How much slower is this compared to the Twin Towers?

You say 'to fast', what is to fast, how many seconds?

 

[maccy]

Common sense dictates that in a collapse that plumes of totally pulverized concrete do not project horizontally 300 feet or that the top of a tower descend, pulverized enroute and rates approaching free fall in a uniform mushroom shape.

To stay focussed, are you retracting your claim that the towers fell too fast? Or at least admitting that you do not know how fast they ought to have fallen?

Before we can discuss pulverisation, plumes and mushroom shapes you have to:

a. concede that the rate of fall is irrelevant to your thesis; or

b. produce evidence that the rate of fall is too fast to indcate a collapse.

Once we have dealt with the issue of the rate of fall, we can move on to other issues.

 

[Oliver]

How "fast" should the buildings have fallen that you have
never believed in explosives, Alfred? In slow motion?

BTW: Do you know how much weight was on top of the
impact zones, you know - above the damaged and heated
zones?

 

[William Rea]

Free fall

Ok, if we're going to be sensible and focussed and the usual monkey brains aren't going to keep chipping in with their inane contributions I'll kick off...

Free fall means falling ONLY under the influence of gravity with no other forces being involved. In this pure state the object will fall at 9.81 metres per second squared regardless of mass. It will continue to accelerate at this rate unless acted upon by any other force.

If anyone wants to come forward with the actual value of g for the New York District we could be more precise but I think 9.81 metres per second squared is an adequate approximation. The actual value for New York is 9.802 metres per second so the time to free fall would actually be 9.158 seconds.

If you were to take a weight and drop it in a vacuum from the height of the roof of the WTC at 411 metres from the ground then it will take 9.15 seconds to hit the ground.

Those are facts and a suitable benchmark to start from.

How can we establish how long it took the tower to fall from the point at which near free fall conditions occurred, anyone want to chip in with the video evidence?

 

[jsfisher]

Let's everyone stay on topic, here. The (compound) question on the floor is at what rate did the buildings fall and at what rate should they have fallen?

Whether clarification comes from physics, one particular poster's common sense, or mystic forces from Planet X matters not one twit. A value range or value and margin of error can be a sufficient response to frame the notion of "too fast", by the way.

 

[Arus808]

How can we establish how long it took the tower to fall from the point at which near free fall conditions occurred, anyone want to chip in with the video evidence?

there is really no "concrete" way to establish how long it took since much of the collapses were obscured by the debris and dust from teh buildings.

NIST measured the collapse from time they saw the start of collapse to when they couldn't see it anymore (meaning the dust/debris/cloud of smoke obscured what they couldn't measure).

unless someon was there physically that day with a stop watch and watched the entire thing unfold and measured it, there is no evidence of the actual length for each collapse.

 

[hellaeon]

Well if you want to be realistice *nyuk nyuk ah im so funny* you would need to pinpoint all the individual debree. You cant treat the tower as a whole when there would be meters of difference between some lower ejecting debree and the top most in the 'debree' field if thats what I could call it.

at what rate did the buildings fall and at what rate should they have fallen?

they may have fallen at X seconds but surely for an overall guide to eliminate error is to focus one at a time on many pieces, and record the time they begin to fall. Discounting the ejection where some materials went outwards, wouldnt we want to specifically measure the time when they fell? It would depend on what your comparing it to.

edit: then get an average time for the pieces you specifically measured

If you compare it to dropping something, am I correct in thinking you cant measure it from when it begins ejection but from when the horizontal trajectory is 0?

 

[jsfisher]

unless someon was there physically that day with a stop watch and watched the entire thing unfold and measured it, there is no evidence of the actual length for each collapse.

I'd accept a reasonable time range, say, based on observations and stated assumptions of some cited video.

(By the way, of the videos I've found on the web, the north tower videos are more useful for this exercise.)

But the question on the floor still is: How fast was it and how fast should it have been?

 

[Arus808]

But the question on the floor still is: How fast was it and how fast should it have been?

as yet to be answered by chris

nist estimation of WTC 2 collapse was around 12 seconds.
Nist estimation of WTC 1 collapse was around 10 seconds.

Which in definition is nowhere near free fall (around 9.1 seconds)

 

[uruk]

I think it obvious that Chris is not interested in scientific fact. He goes by what he feels is right or what he thinks is common sense. Read his web site. It is not backed up by anything only assumptions and conjecture.

Chris, I have news for you. The world does not operate by what we think is "common sense". "Common sense" had us thinking the world was flat or that the planets and the sun circled the Earth for hundreds of years. Quantum mechanics is another example. Just because you think something is a certain way does not mean that it is so. You say the the building collapsed way too fast but you can't define why. You can't give us proofe that it did otherwise you would have answered the question easily and quickly. Your attempts at delay and changing the subject just verifies that you don't really know.

 

[Christophera]

there is really no "concrete" way to establish how long it took since much of the collapses were obscured by the debris and dust from teh buildings.

NIST measured the collapse from time they saw the start of collapse to when they couldn't see it anymore (meaning the dust/debris/cloud of smoke obscured what they couldn't measure).

unless someon was there physically that day with a stop watch and watched the entire thing unfold and measured it, there is no evidence of the actual length for each collapse.

This is logical and bascially my position.

 

[The Almond]

as yet to be answered by chris

nist estimation of WTC 2 collapse was around 12 seconds.
Nist estimation of WTC 1 collapse was around 10 seconds.

Which in definition is nowhere near free fall (around 9.1 seconds)

To be very clear on this fact, the towers did not entirely collapse in 12 seconds. NIST very specifically states that portions of both towers are known to have remained standing for 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation. The dust and debris ejected during the collapse obscured the view of this.

 

[Christophera]

I think it obvious that Chris is not interested in scientific fact. He goes by what he feels is right or what he thinks is common sense. Read his web site. It is not backed up by anything only assumptions and conjecture.

My website is backed by raw evidence, something the WTC report and the NIST lack.

Chris, I have news for you. The world does not operate by what we think is "common sense".

You got that right.