"How in the world did it speed up?"

chris lz

Thinker
C
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
182
Quick question:Truther states, "Now address the accelerating collapse. How in the world did it speed up?"
It's been a while since I've visited this topic. What's he getting at?
 
Oh, God, we're not going to see faster than freefall now again, are we?

Cripes... it's like playing whack-a-mole...

ETA: Whoops, Chris, sorry. That wasn't aimed at you. It was a gripe about the claim itself.
 
Last edited:
chris lz said:
Quick question:Truther states, "Now address the accelerating collapse. How in the world did it speed up?"
It's been a while since I've visited this topic. What's he getting at?
Click to expand...

By increasing he energy involved transmited to the structure from the gravitational PE.
 
chris lz said:
Quick question:Truther states, "Now address the accelerating collapse. How in the world did it speed up?"
It's been a while since I've visited this topic. What's he getting at?
Click to expand...
V=g*T
g=32.2 ft/sec^2, 9.8 m/sec^2
simple algebra tells us that Velocity will increase with increasing time. But most troofers can barely add 33 and 5 and get the same answer 2 out of 3 tries...
and to forestall the next question:
Z=(1/2)*g*t^2
 
Acceleration vs Velocity

chris lz said:
Quick question:Truther states, "Now address the accelerating collapse. How in the world did it speed up?"
It's been a while since I've visited this topic. What's he getting at?
Click to expand...

Twoofers seem to think that the falling mass could not have accelerated due to the resistance from the building below.

I even had one go so far as to say that if the resistance of the building slowed the acceleration of gravity from 32fpss to 20fpss, that it would be slowing down.

Try (you will likely fail) to explain to this truther that the force of gravity on an object is measured as an acceleration, not as a static speed.
 
did some one just ask why did the falling object "speed up"? Really???

TAM:)
 
alex04 said:
inside job!!!!!!!!111

we need an investigation into this 'gravity' immediately!:D
Click to expand...




Hm... With "GRAVITY," "it" is *inside* "Gravy."


Obviously, then, GRAVY is part of the INSIDE JOB that caused IT !!!!!11!!!!eleventy!!





Well, it makes as much sense as anything I've seen from Judy Wood, for example.
 
a vs. v

I once tried to explain to a twit that gravity imparts an acelleration of 32 ft/s/s which means that after 1 second of drop it is going 32 ft/s, after 2 seconds its going 64 ft/s etc., HOWEVER not all acelleration is 32 ft/s/s and if something was acting to reduce gravity's effect it could then be acellerating at 28 ft/s/s which would mean that it going 26 ft/s after 1 second, 58ft/s after 2 seconds etc.

He stated that he understood that but how could the collapse speed increase?:jaw-dropp
 
The "buildings collapsed at near-freefall speed" is, for me, one of the most frustrating claims of the entire TM. If we look at WTC1, the upper block coming down at 1 g reaches the ground in about 8.56 seconds. If it comes down at 1/2 g, it reaches the ground in a bit more than 12 seconds. So dialing the acceleration due to gravity back by a full fifty percent only adds about 3.5 seconds to the collapse time.

On the other hand, if you want to make the argument in the opening post that the upper block shouldn't accelerate at all, you're saying that the upward force of the building resisting the collapse is exactly cancelling out the downward force of gravity acting on the upper block, for the entire duration of the collapse. And that's simply absurd.
 
Last edited:
Everyone knows that your speed in a fall is always constant with no acceleration and also if you walk off a cliff you won't start falling until you look down and realize there is nothing under your feet.
 
chris lz said:
Quick question:Truther states, "Now address the accelerating collapse. How in the world did it speed up?"
It's been a while since I've visited this topic. What's he getting at?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link, to where this claim happened?

Because if someone is seriously asking, why a falling object is accelerating....I'd like to see it.
 
I was going to say Gravity, but because I don't want to be seen as a sheep I'm going to say "Air Pressure!" and then run like heck. :D
 
Gravity is only a theory. So it's not a fact. As i have just ruled out gravitation as a reason for the collapse, the only intelligent theory that remains are hidden Saturn5-Booster pointing downward.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom