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

[Christophera]

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.

Both of those numbers are VERY acceptable and so close ot free fall that it underlines the phenomena which NIST fails to explain. The elements that remain standing, out of site do so for for acceptable estimated periods.

The issue is explanation of the event.

 

[The Almond]

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

I beg your pardon, but NIST has warehouses full of raw evidence. The equations, calculations and references as well as reports of the raw evidence are contained in no less than 42 companion reports. NIST conducted 1200 first person interviews (NIST NCSTAR 1 Abstract xiii). How is that not raw evidence?

 

[Arus808]

This is logical and bascially my position.

then your claims of "near free fall" and "common sense, its near free fall" are without merit, and you resind this claim?

 

[Arus808]

Both of those numbers are VERY acceptable and so close ot free fall that it underlines the phenomena which NIST fails to explain.

Sorry, but NIST has explained it fully in their report, and by your posting here, its evident that you never read it.

Near free fall means the buildingds would have to have fallen completely within hundreths of seconds of 9.1 seconds. The fact taht the NIST state that it could have taken 10 , 12 or as much as 25 seconds proves that it wasn't "near free fall"

 

[Christophera]

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

If we do ont what struutre stood the nature of how the towers cannot be determined in a menaingful way.

A collapse of a tower with those proportions with steel core columns will have the core columns toppling and bending/breaking usually in one direction as they were mostly damaged on one side. Core columns of those dimensions will be VERY visible and would be seen toppling then bending/breaking while attached to outer framework which drags them down destroying them. Columns in the center may stand at great heights after outer framework has fallen away.

They will never appear as this does.

 

[Christophera]

corrected that statement for you.

Can refer to the NIST report and some of its raw evidence?

 

[The Almond]

Both of those numbers are VERY acceptable and so close ot free fall

Ok, let's do the math:

12 seconds for 1368 feet to fall to the ground. That's an average velocity of 114 ft/s. In a gravity collapse, it would take 9.2 seconds or an average of 148 ft/s. The difference between the two answers is 23.4%. That's nowhere near my definition for "close to free fall" just like 30.8 miles per hour was not sufficient for the cop who pulled me over for speeding in a 25 mph school zone.

that it underlines the phenomena which NIST fails to explain. The elements that remain standing, out of site do so for for acceptable estimated periods.

Acceptable according to whom?

 

[Christophera]

Sorry, but NIST has explained it fully in their report, and by your posting here, its evident that you never read it.

Near free fall means the buildingds would have to have fallen completely within hundreths of seconds of 9.1 seconds. The fact taht the NIST state that it could have taken 10 , 12 or as much as 25 seconds proves that it wasn't "near free fall"

Twice and even three times the rate of free fall is still too fast and the entire event had the wrong appearance for a "collapse". The proper appearance would have taken minutes. What happened was fully comparable to free fall.

 

[The Almond]

Can refer to the NIST report and some of its raw evidence?

Gladly:

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

I would suggest starting with the 8 companion volumes to the NCSTAR1 report. Of particular interest to you would be 1-2 and 1-3. They contain large amounts of raw data.

 

[The Almond]

Twice and even three times the rate of free fall is still too fast

I think you might mean half and one third the rate of free fall. Anyway, how is that still "too fast?" What criteria are you using to judge what's too fast?

and the entire event had the wrong appearance for a "collapse".

This statement astounds me. The wrong appearance for a collapse? It collapsed. Theories aside, it did collapse.

The proper appearance would have taken minutes.

Even Judy Wood disagrees with you. Her analysis shows that the collapse couldn't have taken longer than 96.7 seconds.

 

[Z]

Twice and even three times the rate of free fall is still too fast and the entire event had the wrong appearance for a "collapse". The proper appearance would have taken minutes. What happened was fully comparable to free fall.

Bolding mine.

I can live with this answer to the question. He doesn't expect it to collapse in less than two minutes. Hence, anything under two minutes is 'near free fall' or 'way too fast'.

And given such an answer, I'm not bothering with 'how can we measure the rate of collapse' - the point being, according to Chris here, that ANY rate of collapse resulting in the total failure of the building in under two minutes is wrong.

Now, let's imagine a building where pieces are falling away, slowly crumbling like an eroding mountain, taking three or four minutes to fall...

Nope. Can't imagine it. Neither can most of you.

But Chris here can.

Now, I'll pass the socks, but before I do I have one small, related question:

On what do you base this idea, that a building suffering catastrophic structural failure should fall in two minutes or more? Do you, maybe, have some video footage of buildings falling at this much slower rate, that were suffering from total catastrophic structural failure? Or documentation of buildings collapsing due to impacts that took proportionate lengths of time? Or is this more 'common-sense' judgement?

I actually don't expect Chris to answer this one. I expect him to offer some lame waffle about his qualifications (ditch-digger and picture-maker) and experience, while avoiding the subject of hard, raw evidence.

Therefore, I pass the socks. The first non-Chris who posts gets them.

(Sorry they stink...)

 

[gumboot]

The proper appearance would have taken minutes.

Well now I've heard everything.

I'm actually trying to imagine a skyscraper collapsing over a period of two minutes, and I can't, unless I imagine it happening in slow motion.

-Gumboot

 

[jaydeehess]

The two minutes reference is probably from Judy Woods' calculations, though even she does not go as far as two minutes. However in her calculations the collapseing portion must come to a complete stop as it hits the next floor before collapse is initiated at this level. That is obviously not what was taking place and she makes very little in the way of justification as to why it should be that way.

a 10 second collapse(and the estimates run from 10 to 16 seconds for boith towers) for a fall of 415 meters this meansmeans an average acelleration of 8.3 meters per sec²That is 15% less than free fall acceleration.

So far very few CT's have even tried to explain just how long the collpase should have taken. Judy Woods did but as I said her calculations are laughable.

 

[The Almond]

The two minutes reference is probably from Judy Woods' calculations, though even she does not go as far as two minutes. However in her calculations the collapseing portion must come to a complete stop as it hits the next floor before collapse is initiated at this level. That is obviously not what was taking place and she makes very little in the way of justification as to why it should be that way.

That was what struck me about Wood's calculations. That's a rather laughable simplification of the model. Even if you used a two mass collapse theory, the derivative of the position curves at the lower floors should approach the free fall line as the damping coefficient approaches 1. I think someone ran a computer simulation in the "Judy Wood's Math" thread in Python that takes momentum into effect.

 

[uruk]

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

Your so called "raw" evidence is just you guessing and conjecturing what think is going on. You can't even define what is "too fast". You can't quantify it. You can't even articulate it properly.

 

[Christophera]

Your so called "raw" evidence is just you guessing and conjecturing what think is going on. You can't even define what is "too fast". You can't quantify it. You can't even articulate it properly.

I do fine. Perhaps you cannot or willnot understand it. Firstly, those here attempt to term what happened to the twni towers as a collapse. That is so erroneous that no estimate of wat it should be is possible. If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different and therefore have a completly different duration. Basically, givern the actual damage and actual towers structure that stood, no collapse whatsoever would have happened. Had any occured only the floors above would have fallen off.

meaning the entire premise for your post is fallacious and without basis as you cannot prove the structure that you so often fail to assert existed, actually did exist.

I do not have that problem. Here is concrete shear wall.

Here is the concrete core of WTC 2 falling onto WTC 3.

Then the concrete core of WTC 2IMAGE stands, celarly NOT steel core columns.

You have no evidence.

 

[Oliver]

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

 

[Alt+F4]

If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different.

Would it? Has there been another incident where a large, almost fully fueled passenger jet liner crashed into a building over 100 stories?

 

[Arus808]

Twice and even three times the rate of free fall is still too fast and the entire event had the wrong appearance for a "collapse". The proper appearance would have taken minutes. What happened was fully comparable to free fall.

Here you show once again, you fail to understand what you post

twice or three times the rate of free fall speed means YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY ARE FALLING FASTER THAN FREE FALL

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The proper appearance would have taken minutes.

Well now I've heard everything.

I'm actually trying to imagine a skyscraper collapsing over a period of two minutes, and I can't, unless I imagine it happening in slow motion.

A small quibble, if I may:

I would suggest the collapse began when each airplane struck each building. At those points the respective structures were reduced in their ability to maintain relative integrity against gravity's relentless pull.

So, each "collapse" did take quite some time. I know that people are referring here to each building's "fall" from its erect state to a pile of scrap, but I think the clarification is worth making.