The virtually free fall speed

[beachnut]

... Are you serious? Do you know what symmetrical means?
All 3 “collapses” were symmetrical. It almost makes some sense with WTC1 and WTC2, as the buildings were in themselves, symmetrical, or square, lending themselves to a symmetrical failure. ... It’s on, baby

Symmetry - a math concept not understood in 911 truth, but used to mislead the math free drones. Get thyself to a math class now @ light speed. Mr. Scott. Warp 11

When you use symmetry wrong, you failed to understand 911.

Free-fall and symmetry - It ended before it was on.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Because killing 3000 people is one thing, but damaging nearby buildings is a serious no no.

Just like any other business might do the PNAC only paid to have Downtown NYC shut down for 250 days to allow for cleanup. Get the cleanup done before then and they paid a per day bonus, get it done late and there was a per day penalty. The NWO Operatives screwed up big time. That's why there are no witnesses.

Prove me wrong. I base my claims upon the fact that there is no paper trail and nobody has come forward to claim responsibility for setting up the bomb...

 

[Craig4]

Just like any other business might do the PNAC only paid to have Downtown NYC shut down for 250 days to allow for cleanup. Get the cleanup done before then and they paid a per day bonus, get it done late and there was a per day penalty. The NWO Operatives screwed up big time. That's why there are no witnesses.

Prove me wrong. I base my claims upon the fact that there is no paper trail and nobody has come forward to claim responsibility for setting up the bomb...

And don't forget bombs leave lots of evidence.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

And don't forget bombs leave lots of evidence.

Not Hushabooms...

 

[Drs_Res]

Just like any other business might do the PNAC only paid to have Downtown NYC shut down for 250 days to allow for cleanup. Get the cleanup done before then and they paid a per day bonus, get it done late and there was a per day penalty. The NWO Operatives screwed up big time. That's why there are no witnesses.

Prove me wrong. I base my claims upon the fact that there is no paper trail and nobody has come forward to claim responsibility for setting up the bomb...

Somebody set up us the bomb.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is a good beginning.

And IIRC, if there are 3 hinges, the middle one will be twive what the upper and lower are, so about 45 degrees if your math is correct.

That is the special case of the two angles being 45 degrees, the apex would then be 90, a right angle equilateral.

Internal angles in a triangle must add to 180. So, in an equilateral triangle(section buckles in the middle) , with 24 deg at top and bottom they total 48 meaning the larger angle at the apex is 132 deg

Longer lengths would mean less deflection and fewer degrees of rotation?

Yes, I was rounding off at 8 floors of 10 feet each. 7 floors of 12 feet each is 84 feet.

How does column fracturing work though?

Its called 'plastic' hinge but its not actually a perfect plastic. Bend it fast enough and far enough and it may split horzizontally rather than bend right over 180 degrees(more an issue at the upper and lower hinge than the middle hinge)

Larger dimensions fracture at less rotation?

Hmmm, given the same change in angle and over the same time frame, I'd say yes.

Thicker webs fracture at less rotation?

Would that not be a subset of 'larger dimensions'?

Discussing the technical issues is about the only interesting part about 9/11 that interests me anymore.

Me too. I am not an engineer but have learned enough over the last several years to wish I had switched to engineering from physics rather than to a college electronics course. (impatience of youth, 2 year course rather than 4))

 

[GrimFandango]

More drones have been released from the hive.

Mindless insults as a response to a factual post are the refuge of those that are too damned afraid to look at the facts.

The largest smoking gun ever left at a crime scene is found in the collapse of WTC7 - and that is free fall!

NIST admits to 105 feet of vertical structure collapsed at absolute free fall speed. This is physically impossible without explosives. There were 24 massive steel central core columns and 58 steel perimeter columns arranged in an asymmetrical trapezoid shape that all had to fail simultaneously for this free fall to occur. Yet NIST claims it resulted from the failure of one single column.

You believe that the most picture-perfect video of controlled demolition in all of the history of controlled demolitions was not a controlled demolition at all - it was caused by small office-contents fueled fires. I suppose that now that we know that small fires can cause such a perfect controlled collapse, all of the time, expense and efforts of the current controlled demolition processes should be scrapped in favor of simply setting a few fires, and then just wait awhile for the perfect collapse to happen.

People like you cling to the story that cannot explain this impossibility because you don't have the courage or the good sense to look at it squarely - you just make smartass remarks about those that bring the truth to your attention, so congratulations, you are the epitome of the useful idiot, the quintessential criminal enabler, whose hard-headed stupidity has allowed the real perpetrators of 9/11 to sip champagne and plan their next 9/11.

 

[tsig]

Mindless insults as a response to a factual post are the refuge of those that are too damned afraid to look at the facts.

The largest smoking gun ever left at a crime scene is found in the collapse of WTC7 - and that is free fall!

NIST admits to 105 feet of vertical structure collapsed at absolute free fall speed. This is physically impossible without explosives. There were 24 massive steel central core columns and 58 steel perimeter columns arranged in an asymmetrical trapezoid shape that all had to fail simultaneously for this free fall to occur. Yet NIST claims it resulted from the failure of one single column.

You believe that the most picture-perfect video of controlled demolition in all of the history of controlled demolitions was not a controlled demolition at all - it was caused by small office-contents fueled fires. I suppose that now that we know that small fires can cause such a perfect controlled collapse, all of the time, expense and efforts of the current controlled demolition processes should be scrapped in favor of simply setting a few fires, and then just wait awhile for the perfect collapse to happen.

People like you cling to the story that cannot explain this impossibility because you don't have the courage or the good sense to look at it squarely - you just make smartass remarks about those that bring the truth to your attention, so congratulations, you are the epitome of the useful idiot, the quintessential criminal enabler, whose hard-headed stupidity has allowed the real perpetrators of 9/11 to sip champagne and plan their next 9/11.

Has nothing to do with courage we are just doing our jobs.

 

[Dave Rogers]

NIST admits to 105 feet of vertical structure collapsed at absolute free fall speed. This is physically impossible without explosives.

No, it isn't. Once a set of supports has fractured, by whatever means, freefall collapse is not only possible, but inevitable, until some further resistance is encountered. Your claim is an example of the bare assertion fallacy.

There were 24 massive steel central core columns and 58 steel perimeter columns arranged in an asymmetrical trapezoid shape that all had to fail simultaneously for this free fall to occur.

Another bare assertion fallacy. Simultaneous column failure is not necessary for freefall to occur; all that is necessary is that all columns have failed, whether simultaneously or sequentially, a measurable interval of time before any further resistance is encountered.

Yet NIST claims it resulted from the failure of one single column.

Progressive failure is a well-understood phenomenon. Your personal ignorance of it is of no concern to the better informed.

Dave

 

[Carlos]

9/11 Truthers know absolutely nothing about structural engineering and wants to contest a technical study of engineering.

 

[NutCracker]

9/11 Truthers know absolutely nothing about structural engineering and wants to contest a technical study of engineering.

That's a first.

 

[twinstead]

I hope one day the world's respected engineering and scientific communities get off their collective asses and finally read the NIST report, so they can realize that it is full of crap. I mean, whey ELSE would they not be complaining about it?

 

[GlennB]

There were 24 massive steel central core columns and 58 steel perimeter columns arranged in an asymmetrical trapezoid shape that all had to fail simultaneously for this free fall to occur.

Hi GrimFandango

Are you aware that at least some of the core columns are known to have failed several seconds before the collapse of the N wall?

 

[GrimFandango]

"First, "pure free fall" is only possible in vacuum."

True, weasel worded but true. Free fall outside of a vacuum is influenced by additional factors such as height above sea level and humidity. However, NIST has reported 105 feet of free fall, so undoubtedly their calculations have been based on the factors mentioned above. This analysis, although originally brought forward by engineers from the 9/11 truth movement, have been codified by NIST in their official report. You can parse words regarding what constitutes "pure free fall", but you cannot deny that NIST has determined there was free fall, to the tune of 20% of the total height of WTC7, and that this fact either defies Newton's laws of motion, or the collapse had additional energy beyond simply gravity that could account for this phenomenon.

"Second, do you become to this conclusion by analyzing a video?"

No, NIST came to this conclusion, why not investigate their methods?

"That's like saying that a tennis ball has the same size as a basketball using Google Earth."

Depends on the resolution available to you. Even finer distinctions can be made from a satellite view with the appropriate magnification. And the government can read the date on a dime lying on the ground with the magnification available to them.

"But this is just a detail, at the original post I said the collapse at almost free fall speed is consistent with the scenario of a structural collapse due to instability of the structure caused by successive failures of connections and formation of plastic hinges."

More parsing nonsense;successive failures do not produce instantaneous symmetrical results, they produce successive results. We did not see a successive collapse, we saw a simultaneous collapse.



You miss these parts from OP:




and








"Tell me why they would have to re-write Newton's Laws? You know what you are saying or are you just repeating what the truther's manual says.

"

Newton's third law explains why a 12 story chunk of structure cannot destroy a 94 story chunk of structure. Each action has an equal and opposite reaction, therefore as the upper 12 stories of WTC2 fell, they would disintegrate equally when striking and disintegrating the lower stories. Once the 12 story chunk has been destroyed, there would be 82 stories still standing.

Think about it.

 

[GrimFandango]

Hi GrimFandango

Are you aware that at least some of the core columns are known to have failed several seconds before the collapse of the N wall?

NIST claims column 79 failed at about the 8 story level, causing a redistribution of load to nearby columns causing them to then also fail, and then horizontally from the East side of WTC7 to the West side a horizontal collapse ensued.

But we did not see a side-to-side horizontal collapse, we saw a symmetrical downwards, vertical collapse, didn't we?

How can you agree with the NIST explanation while viewing the actual collapse on video?

 

[achimspok]

??? - nonsense.
Got some equations to go with your nonsense? Some numbers, math, physics? You never explained which plane hit horizontally, or specified the pitch angle it hit at. You are all talk, nonsensically talk and you never present your point. You are one reason 10 years of failure are in the bag for 911 truth.

As soon as you say "free-fall", I prepare for idiotic claims and anti-intellectual claptrap to follow. Is being science challenged a prerequisite for supporting the lies of 911 truth?

Freefall, Freefall, Freefall, Freefall, Freefall, Freefall etc pp

Btw,
AA11 pitch angle 4°
UA175 pitch angle < 1°
AA77 pitch angle FDR

When ever you wrote numbers, math, physics, 10 years of failure I prepare for idiotic claims like 15 seconds.

 

[achimspok]

NIST claims column 79 failed at about the 8 story level, causing a redistribution of load to nearby columns causing them to then also fail, and then horizontally from the East side of WTC7 to the West side a horizontal collapse ensued.

But we did not see a side-to-side horizontal collapse, we saw a symmetrical downwards, vertical collapse, didn't we?

How can you agree with the NIST explanation while viewing the actual collapse on video?

For the collapse of the East Penthouse at least 79 - 81 had failed otherwise the south half of the Penthouse had no chance to "disappear" from the skyline before the north wall of the Penthouse fell down.
Once we have a hole as big as the Penthouse almost all the load of the hanging floor slaps would hang on the Perimeter wall. I'm not a structural enineer but the redistributed load to the remaining core columns should be insignificant.
The next failing building part included core columns 78-67. That building part reached free fall acceleration in about 0.17 seconds and finally took the perimeter down.

 

[achimspok]

Symmetry - a math concept not understood in 911 truth, but used to mislead the math free drones. Get thyself to a math class now @ light speed. Mr. Scott. Warp 11

Beachnut,

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

Do you know that symmetry depends on the axis?
Do you know that the east half of the spire collapsed immediately after the perimeter collapse reached the ground?
Before it collapsed it looked pretty symmetrical referred to the north south axis.
However, angry little men do not understand the concept of observation.

 

[achimspok]

Then there's the hundreds (if not thousands) of 130+db bangs and flashes required for demolition by explosives.

Cameras? check
Audio? check

Bangs+flashes? no check. Checkless. Absence of checkiness. Houston, we do not check.

I guess tenthousands if not a billion for one column.
And all the gold beneath WTC2 was gone too.
And all the fuel in at least one WTC7 tank without any sign in the tubes.
And the tank at the first floor was completely gone even if the building fell straight down on it.
And all the WTC7 steel was gone to China.
Checkless. Absence of checkiness. Houston, we do not check.

Btw, absence of checkiness by the thousands if not a million experts consulted by NIST.

 

[achimspok]

No, it isn't. Once a set of supports has fractured, by whatever means, freefall collapse is not only possible, but inevitable, until some further resistance is encountered. Your claim is an example of the bare assertion fallacy.

Right, in the case of WTC1 the first stage of free fall was approximately 2ft.