• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debunk This

imstellar28 said:
Like I said, all properly designed building implosions fall faster than freefall. Can you refute this?
Click to expand...

Yes. It defies the laws of physics. Unless your definition of a "properly designed building implosion" means attaching large downward-firing rocket motors to the top of the building and igniting them on collapse commencement.
 
PE joules= xx kg * 9.8 m/s2 * xx m


energy is force over distance
force is mass times acceleration
therefore energy = mass * acceleration * distance
 
"Yes. It defies the laws of physics. Unless your definition of a "properly designed building implosion" means attaching large downward-firing rocket motors to the top of the building and igniting them on collapse commencement."

Are you telling me a change in pressure cant cause a change in force (acceleration)?
 
Mancman said:
Yes it can be determined. We have videos of the bowing wall (albeit in WTC2) folding inwards.
Click to expand...
In both, actually. The bowing was more pronounced in WTC1, but the photos of WTC 2 are better because its east side was in sunlight.
 
"faster than free fall? who makes up this dumb stuff?"

Throw a ball into the ground its not that stupid.
 
beachnut said:
faster than free fall? who makes up this dumb stuff?

use the quote button? quote
Click to expand...

someone needs to study CD before he is exposed as a poor researcher

why am I posting to myself?

throw a ball at the ground? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Who is our explosive expert, tell the brain about how the charges are used to cut the columns not blow up the building? Would a vacuum come after the large explosion, made of expanding gases, why do I have to study explosions now to find out how dumb our new want to be pdoh really is?

and it is done in the future, good job
 
Last edited:
imstellar28 said:
Like I said, all properly designed building implosions fall faster than freefall. Can you refute this?
Click to expand...

Can you cite a single example of a properly designed building implosion that fell faster than freefall?

Despite the use of the word "implosion," rapid building demolitions use explosives. Explosives go "kabboom" because when set off, they rapidly turn into large quantities of gas which rapidly expands outwards.

Release of large quantities of gas raises the pressure and creates an overpressure wave. Not a vacuum. Just the opposite.

To create a sudden vacuum you'd need "implosives," gases that suddenly turn into solid or liquid form when set off (or should that be, set on?). Just the opposite of explosives. Perhaps you might tell me where such substances can be obtained, and how they manage to get around the laws of thermodynamics?

"Implosion" in demolition terms refers only to the direction the walls are made to collapse, that being toward the interior of the building's footprint. That's accomplished by severing the structural members in the correct order to create the necessary torques for inward rotation of standing members -- that's the "control" in "controlled demolition" -- not by creating a vacuum.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
imstellar28 said:
"All I said was that for building implosions they fall faster than freefall, is this or is this not true? It's not true, I'm afraid."

Can you point me somewhere that states that?
Click to expand...
Sure:

Architect said:
imstellar28 said:
All I said was that for building implosions they fall faster than freefall, is this or is this not true?
Click to expand...
It's not true, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Seriously, though. Do you think there's going to be a paper or something out there that says: "Building implosions are not designed to fall faster than freefall."

The burden is on you to come up with a reliable source that says building implosions ARE designed to fall faster than freefall.
 
"someone needs to study CD before he is exposed as a poor researcher"

Can you help me out its pretty hard to search for controlled demolition without having a thousand entires related to 9/11 pop up.
 
imstellar28 said:
Are you telling me a change in pressure cant cause a change in force (acceleration)?
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what a controlled demolition is. The goal is to use a minimal number of charges to remove pre-weakened structural supports so that gravity can bring the structure down. Gravity.
 
imstellar28 said:
"faster than free fall? who makes up this dumb stuff?"

Throw a ball into the ground its not that stupid.
Click to expand...

Its incredibly stupid.

The only way a ball thrown to the ground can be brought up to the scale of an implosion is if you detonated a humungous explosion over the building.

Exploding cutting charges used in CD do just that: Cut. They cut the load bearing parts of the building, and it falls. It does not fall faster than gravity.

There's no signifigant vaccuum created by cutting charges.

This is very, very, very, very, very stupid.
 
imstellar28 said:
I was pointing out that its not silly to imagine objects falling faster than free-fall.
Click to expand...
Your thrown ball is irrelevant to your argument. It is extremely silly to suggest that a structure that undergoes controlled demolition falls faster than freefall. Gravity brings the structure down.

Edit: Apathoid beat me.
 
Last edited:
Anyways....as is with every attempt to debunk these theories the focus has been completely brought of what was originally asked and instead some other random point has been discussed. This whole free-fall vacuum building implosion thing was just a response to one of the posters not even reading the article because of one of the comments about something falling faster than freefall being nonsense (which it isnt).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom