I guess you missed this:
a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.
A building cannot fall at free fall acceleration and crush structural steel at the same time. The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives.
Yeah, yeah…you said all that crap already. But where is the evidence? Would it help if I ask nicely? Like “pretty please”? Just a little evidence? You know, like, maybe a receipt from the black ops team that purchased the 200,000 lbs of C4, or thermite, or dynamite, or whatever the hell it is you think was detonated to vaporize 7 or 8 floors of a building…
very quietly.
This little article you provided seems to be a great big ol’ contradiction in what you’re trying to sell. I shall quote the article:
NY Times Article said:
Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.
That creates a lot of open area for floors to fall during a collapse, no? Seems that your FFA theory just got another hole punched, seeing that FFA can be achieved when there’s missing floors that can’t slow it down and the extra large distance for a mass to built up speed. We’re only talking high school physics here, Chris. Are you following so far?
Oh, and this:
NY Times Article said:
workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.
That’s quite a number. Nine generators on the fifth floor. That’s a lot of space and a lot of diesel fuel. You don’t find this rather large fuel supply and numerous ignition points as suspicious? Maybe the thermite crews were careful on that floor? I mean, burning diesel fuel across a large area inside a building isn’t such a big deal, right?
You are behind the times. In the final report NIST stated that the debris damage had little to do with the collapse at the other end of the building. NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39]
I don’t recall saying that it was a major contributor. Nor was this point something I was concerned about. But, all the same, it also cannot be ignored.
The fire that supposedly caused the collapse had gone out over an hour before the collapse. That was also covered earlier in this thread.
I remember reading something to that effect, but I don’t recall seeing any evidence that supports this. I don’t really have my hopes up to see any in the near future either.
Phobah. If you saw the questions then you saw my answer.
Of course I did…it’s the same nonsense you keep repeating. But that doesn’t make it true or evident. Assertions, opinions, and misinterpretations are not evidence.
