Common Sense

[The Doc]

I am really interested in knowing how debris was falling at approx. 1.5x freefall speed.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Not faster than free fall then, in fact not even at free fall, now we're getting somewhere.

So a 110 building...takes 2-3 more seconds to fall than an object that is hurling unimpeded and unobstructed through the air... and you think this bodes well for you.

What about good ole WTC 7 which did fall at freefall:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

DOH!

 

[28th Kingdom]

I am really interested in knowing how debris was falling at approx. 1.5x freefall speed.

What about the fact that the debris wasn't simply falling... but being ejected by explosives... you don't think the energy released from the explosions could have increased the speed at which the debris fell?

 

[Architect]

So a 110 building...takes 2-3 more seconds to fall than an object that is hurling unimpeded and unobstructed through the air... and you think this bodes well for you.

Because, 28th, you don't NEED calculations of structural knowledge to know this, eh? It's common sense!


You're "theories" and lies have been shown for exactly what they are over the last 4 or 5 hours and yet you can't see it. You've failed to provide a single substantial or substantive response, instead running in circles and making bizarre claims about NIST being a fraud because you can't understand their report.

In the meantime, you have about 1/3 of the regular posters on this board on "Ignore" because we responded to technical issues you raised and proved them to be false.....and yet claim that no-one responded to them.

You are truly a coward and a fraud.

 

[Skibum]

So a 110 building...takes 2-3 more seconds to fall than an object that is hurling unimpeded and unobstructed through the air... and you think this bodes well for you.



DOH!

2-3 more seconds? the collapse in your video is at least 15-16 seconds. More like 5 or 6 seconds.

 

[The Doc]

What about the fact that the debris wasn't simply falling... but being ejected by explosives... you don't think the energy released from the explosions could have increased the speed at which the debris fell?

You are aware that cutting charges don't provide anywhere near enough force to do that?

Check this out.

 

[28th Kingdom]

You are aware that cutting charges don't provide anywhere near enough force to do that?

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3572/freefalllolfg7.jpg

Check this out.

The concrete in the buildings were pulverized into dust, and the outer steel framing was catapulted over 300-500 feet away from the building... I would say there is a great force at work. Maybe a force that's even strong enough to crush an entire 110 story steel-structure building.

 

[Architect]

Unsubstantiated bluster.

 

[The Doc]

The concrete in the buildings were pulverized into dust, and the outer steel framing was catapulted over 300-500 feet away from the building... I would say there is a great force at work. Maybe a force that's even strong enough to crush an entire 110 story steel-structure building.

Nice way to avoid the free fall issue.

So, along with answering the free fall issue, answer me this. What type of explosives do you believe brought the WTC's down.

 

[Skibum]

The concrete in the buildings were pulverized into dust, and the outer steel framing was catapulted over 300-500 feet away from the building... I would say there is a great force at work. Maybe a force that's even strong enough to crush an entire 110 story steel-structure building.

You are correct, there were great forces at work that day. It was the upper portion hitting the lower portion that caused all that damage, no explosives necessary. It was also more than enough to crush an entire 110 story steel-structure building.

 

[Architect]

No, no! The design of all the lower joints was well in excess of the shear imposed by the dynamic loadings.....here are 28th's calculations:



oops.



That's right. He has none.

 

[28th Kingdom]

2-3 more seconds? the collapse in your video is at least 15-16 seconds. More like 5 or 6 seconds.

I didn't say that... they're making this crap up.

 

[Yawn]

I just want you to read back what you wrote...

Please do the same:-

At the sake of sounding like a genius...you could hammer an asteroid from outer space straight down on one of the (undamaged) twin towers...and it would not cause a chain reaction of floor failures from top to bottom. If anything, it would drill the vertical columns into the ground like a nail.

This must be some new definition of genius I've never previously encountered.

I think my single (admittedly long) sentence sums up what I feel about reading this thread for the last 5 hours and as I'm in the UK sleep beckons... goodnight all.

 

[Architect]

I was going off of freefall times that someone else came up with. According to this video, freefall for steel beams a certain size would be 4.7 seconds over the distance of 100 meters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

So we divide 100 meters into the height of WTC 2 (415m) We get 4.15.

4.15 X 4.7 = 19.505 seconds.

Erm, what? You are aware that objects ACCELERATE at 9.8m/s-2 due to gravity, aren't you?!?!

 

[uk_dave]

The concrete in the buildings were pulverized into dust, and the outer steel framing was catapulted over 300-500 feet away from the building... I would say there is a great force at work. Maybe a force that's even strong enough to crush an entire 110 story steel-structure building.

Yep, it's called gravity, and it's strong enough to keep your feet on the ground and stop you flying off into space.

Amazing eh?

Of course, common sense tells us that nothing heavier than air other than a winged animal could possibly fly and so all those aircraft spraying chemical....oooops....flying over our heads are just (another) optical illusion.

Common sense tells us that a wooden ship floats because wood floats, therefore a steel ship must sink.

Common sense tells us that if a car is moving towards us, and then passes us and moves away, it will sound the same at all times because within the car it IS making the same constant sound. Right?

Common sense tells us that all structures are built the same and that they cannot disintegrate during collapse unless explosives are detonated at each connection between columns and between columns and floors, because the alternative is too scary for our common sense approach to deal with. Right?

 

[Skibum]

I was going off of freefall times that someone else came up with. According to this video, freefall for steel beams a certain size would be 4.7 seconds over the distance of 100 meters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

So we divide 100 meters into the height of WTC 2 (415m) We get 4.15.

4.15 X 4.7 = 19.505 seconds.

You are dense aren't you.

 

[Firestone]

I was going off of freefall times that someone else came up with. According to this video, freefall for flat steel beams would be 5.6 seconds over the distance of 100 meters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

So we divide 100 meters into the height of WTC 2 (415m) We get 4.15.

4.15 X 5.6 = 23.24 seconds.

Please, do yourself a favor and learn BASIC PHYSICS. For a starter read this.

 

[uk_dave]

Common sense tells us that things fall to earth at a constant speed, which is why we could jump from a height of 100m and land as if we had just jumped from a height of 1m. Right?

 

[DarkMagician]

displacement = (original velocity x time) + (1/2)*(acceleration x time x time)

displacement from freefall = (original velocity x time) + (1/2)*(gravity x time x time)

There, so next time you try using physics, you actually look smarter than a doorknob.

 

[28th Kingdom]

You are dense aren't you.

Show you calculations please. What is the freefall time for a 415m tall steel-structured building? Are you a man... can you step up or do you just want to name call like a little girl?