• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Common Sense

28th Kingdom said:
Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity. In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force: their own weight.

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.

You've officially been DEBUNKED!
Click to expand...

OH MY GOD! Explosives made the debris go down faster???

What - the debris pieces had rocket boosters on them?

How old are you? You can't be a day over 17.
 
CHF said:
OH MY GOD! Explosives made the debris go down faster???

What - the debris pieces had rocket boosters on them?

How old are you? You can't be a day over 17.
Click to expand...

He's actually saying the explosives made the debris go outward, and claiming this horizontal movement slowed down the fall to earth. This would then show that the towers could have collapsed at free-fall speeds.

Edit: Sorry, you are right. He's claiming the outward velocity increased the speed to earth. Still wrong.
 
Last edited:
babazaroni said:
He's actually saying the explosives made the debris go outward, and claiming this horizontal movement slowed down the fall to earth. This would then show that the towers could have collapsed at free-fall speeds.
Click to expand...
no, i think hes saying the explosions made the debris go down faster, thats the only way he can account for the debris falling faster than the free-falling towers
 
28th Kingdom said:
*snip*You've officially been DEBUNKED!
Click to expand...

Sorry, i couldn´t resist - it´s too funny. :boxedin:

1110745a194c1ebfeb.gif
 
28th Kingdom said:
Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity. In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force: their own weight.

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.

You've officially been DEBUNKED!
Click to expand...

So you are going to ignore the fact that I showed that since it didn't take 9.2 seconds it wasn't going anywhere near freefall, and replace it with this idea that the dedris were pushed downward? Well, let's look at that claim:

You are saying that the debris were projected downward by explosives. Were this to be true, and were the building to be moving at freefall, the building and debris wouldn't accelerate relative to each other, but they do.

Amazing that when faced with damning evidence, you pick a previous claim that proves you wrong, and explain it away with bunk. Next you will be attaching rockets to the debris, wait--I don't want to give you any crazy ideas, or do I!
 
28th Kingdom said:
Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Correct. Spot on.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity. In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force: their own weight.

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

And explosives? What explosives?
What. Explosives?

You've officially been DEBUNKED!
Click to expand...

Ehm...

:dl:
 
28th Kingdom said:
Okay...let's break down what you said... firstly, near freefall isn't a scientific term... agreed. And, then you claim that 15 seconds compared to 9.2 seconds is NOT near freefall speeds. So, who endowed you with this judgment? So, scientifically speaking... what time would be near 9.2 seconds. 10 seconds? 11 seconds? 12 seconds? What definition of "near" are you working with?

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?
Click to expand...

Since you still refuse to address my post, like you promised, I surmise I've made your vaunted "Ignore" list. But in case not, let me explain your fallacy here.

9.2 seconds is totally different from what you get if you "add 4-6 seconds." A simple calculation will confirm this.

Suppose we compute the time it takes the roof to hit the ground. Let the acceleration be a, in which case the time it takes to hit can be found using d = 1/2 a t2, where d is the distance the roof has to fall, equal to about 417 meters, and t is the time of the fall. We know d, measure t, and work backwards to get the effective acceleration a.

If the structure absorbs no energy at all, i.e. we get freefall, we should measure a = g. In this case, we should see t = 9.2 seconds.

If the structure absorbs some energy, then a will be less than g, or better expressed as a fraction of g.

Once we have this fraction, we can then estimate how much energy was needed to destroy the structure as it fell. Recall that gravitational energy GPE = m g h, where m is the mass of the structure. But this is the same g. Since the building doesn't collapse with acceleration g, the percentage of the GPE that at any time is seen as kinetic energy is not used to destroy the structure, and the remainder must have been needed to destroy the structure.

In other words, the fraction 1 - (a / g) is equal to the fraction of energy that went into destroying the structure.

From calculations elsewhere, the total GPE of the structure was equal to roughly 160 tons of TNT equivalent.

I've made a table for you that describes, for certain values of collapse time, how much energy went into destroying the structure as it fell:

Collapse time ............... Structural fraction ............. Structural energy
---------------------------------------------------------------------

9.2 seconds ................. 0 ................................... 0
10 seconds .................. 0.15 ............................... 24 tons TNT
11 seconds .................. 0.30 ............................... 48 tons TNT
12 seconds .................. 0.41 ............................... 65.6 tons TNT
13 seconds .................. 0.50 ............................... 80 tons TNT
14 seconds .................. 0.57 ............................... 91.2 tons TNT
15 seconds .................. 0.62 ............................... 99.1 tons TNT

What does this mean?

It means, that "adding 4-6 seconds," far from being materially identical to free-fall, means that as much as 62% of the energy was dedicated to breaking the building.

Even a single second of resistance by the structure means it absorbed more energy than an entire truckload of pure high explosive -- far, far more than could possibly have been planted, under any scenario.

Once again, your "common sense" as you call it, is wrong. And feel free to show where I'm "throwing my hands in the air" and disobeying the laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
:)

Mackey....remind me. You're not a structural engineer, but what's your discipline/profession again?
 
Kage said:
So you are going to ignore the fact that I showed that since it didn't take 9.2 seconds it wasn't going anywhere near freefall, and replace it with this idea that the dedris were pushed downward? Well, let's look at that claim:

You are saying that the debris were projected downward by explosives. Were this to be true, and were the building to be moving at freefall, the building and debris wouldn't accelerate relative to each other, but they do.

Amazing that when faced with damning evidence, you pick a previous claim that proves you wrong, and explain it away with bunk. Next you will be attaching rockets to the debris, wait--I don't want to give you any crazy ideas, or do I!
Click to expand...

Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.
 
R.Mackey said:
Once again, your "common sense" as you call it, is wrong. And feel free to show where I'm "throwing my hands in the air" and disobeying the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Thanks R.Mackey.

I joined this forum when I was looking for debunking of Furlong and Ross's seismic paper and found your posts on this matter. Their mistake was astounding. Not realizing the record start time was not the event time.
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.
Click to expand...
you just proved you have no clue what your talking about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom