• 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.

Freefall?

The term usually used is that the towers virtually fell in free fall speed. One of our best arguments and a sure sign for the use of explosives.
Click to expand...

However since it's quite clear from the video that they fell at, at least 1 and a half times if not twice the time predicted by just freefall, that isn't virtually freefall speed. So if that's your best argument, you're really in serious trouble.
 
pagan said:
I've never seen any truther claim that the towers fell faster than free fall.

The term usually used is that the towers virtually fell in free fall speed. One of our best arguments and a sure sign for the use of explosives.

Anyway, this is hair splitting. You guys are getting desperate.
Click to expand...

But if the buildings fell in free fall, why does the debris and debris-clouds fall faster?

/S
 
I'm not certain if this is timely here at this thread but thought I'd add it anyway.

Another glaring misnomer of the CD and Conspiracy crowd is somehow there is no weight involved in any of the failures of the three main WTC sructures.

In failure, we always begin with ambient weight in a scenario since that is what effects anything vertical in cascade failure events, like building collapse.

With that stated lets take one floor of the WTC towers, either one. The weight of any floor is 3000 tons, gross. As it fails it drops 8 feet vertically to the floor below. Impact velocity + weight= equals a sqaure increase in apparent weight, not actual. Thus, at impact the floor is now impacting at roughly 8000 tons. Now the floor just impacted is carrying twice the weight and mass on its way down to the next, repeated 110 times. At about the 5th floor impact, the speed and might of dropping might as well be free fall since there is so much weight, at so much impacting speed, no part of the structure can assume this and still stand.

In fact, it is a surprise the core did not collapse faster than it did (some 29 seconds, actual).

Also, the squibs the CT love to target are the reverse pressure wave of some 5000 lbs per square inch of air exiting not only the falling floors but the failure translation all the way down to ground level.

Thought that would be fun to include.

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
behold the rage
________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel
 
SLOB said:
Am I just grossly oversimplifying things here, but doesnt the fact that the debris fall faster than the building itself, debunk the "free fall" and "faster than free fall" theory? Is there any scenario where a building in free fall would have debris falling faster?

/S
Click to expand...

I can imagine that, for example, steel beams might have been compressed and then expelled downwards. Thus it would be possible for some debris to be expelled faster than "free fall". However, it seems extremely implausible that all the debris could be expelled in such a way.
 
westprog said:
I can imagine that, for example, steel beams might have been compressed and then expelled downwards. Thus it would be possible for some debris to be expelled faster than "free fall". However, it seems extremely implausible that all the debris could be expelled in such a way.
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously, and local explosions aorund the buildings could probably have had the same effect. However if the building itself were in free fall, then as you note, all debris including those small particles forming a debris cloud, must have been beyond freefall. And then you would have a lot of explaining to do on how to achieve that effect. Just typing "controlled demolition" wouldnt, as I understand it, cut it.

To me it seems obvious, but then admittedly Im not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

/S
 
Last edited:
SLOB said:
Yes, obviously, and local explosions aorund the buildings could probably have had the same effect. However if the building itself were in free fall, then as you note, all debris including those small particles forming a debris cloud, must have been beyond freefall. And then you would have a lot of explaining to do on how to achieve that effect. Just typing "controlled demolition" wouldnt, as I understand it, cut it.

To me it seems obvious, but then admittedly Im not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

/S
Click to expand...


You sure as hell ain't kiddo. (The sharpest knife)

Local explosions around the building? What is that?
 
pagan said:
It took 40 min to assemble this garbage?

UK mountain bikers forum ?:blush:
Click to expand...

Optional mature adult response: "I see, there are many truthers who claim that the towers fell faster than free fall speeds would have allowed. I concede the point."
 
pagan said:
You sure as hell ain't kiddo. (The sharpest knife)

Local explosions around the building? What is that?
Click to expand...

Maybe my english isn't sufficient, I ment that in an office building there may be explosive materials that when set on fire, exposed to heat or pressure, may cause an explosion. Such explosions would however not account for all the debris and debris cloud.

CD as I understand it would not have all debris, regardeless of size, hurdling "faster than freefall" downwards.

/S
 
Last edited:
pagan said:
It took 40 min to assemble this garbage?
Click to expand...
Yes it did.
And I see you agree with me that the "faster than freefall" claims that I found are "garbage". Well, that's worth at least ten minutes.
 
pagan said:
I've never seen any truther claim that the towers fell faster than free fall.

The term usually used is that the towers virtually fell in free fall speed. One of our best arguments and a sure sign for the use of explosives.

Anyway, this is hair splitting. You guys are getting desperate.
Click to expand...

I have seen many truthers claim the WTC collapsed in 8.4 seconds, a quick google search reveals truthers spreading this lie throughout numerous forums:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=8.4+seconds+wtc&btnG=Search&meta=

8.4 seconds is of course, less than freefall from the roof of a WTC tower, which would be 9.2 seconds.
 
Gravy said:
Here is my challenge to you, William Rea:

You seem to do nothing but complain about the methods used by "skeptics" on these forums. Yet you never demonstrate what us "skeptics" get wrong.

So start a thread and produce your BEST EVIDENCE that the official version of the 9/11 attacks is wrong.

Give us your very best evidence, William. Are you up to it?

I say you're not.
Click to expand...
Apologies Gravy, I may have bored him into indifference.

DR
 
So many of your responses are so right on and so basic, it escapes me that folks that can drive a keyboard can be so resistant to normal thinking. Odd, this. Great responses and a joy to read.

As each floor collapses, regardless of failure speed, the mushrooming or "fountain" effect of the debris wall is due to 5 things:

1. The building is not falling at free fall due to internal structural resistance.

2. The debris must go somewhere since the building is falling slower than free fall.

3. Expulsive wind sheer is nearly 400 mph out the sides of escapes, carrying with it articles weighing up to 500-800 pounds or more. (also explaining "squibs" far below the failure event)

4. The fountain effect is always the tell-tale of systemic collapse, not CD collapse, since the structures fell on top of themselves, through compression, not the "pins knocked out beneath itself".

5. And objects of mass are seen reaching terminal velocity in the fountain column on their way to the ground, as well they should at 160fps.

Again, very cool posts everyone. The naysayers need only be educated on structural dynamics for this to click and some Newton laws thrown in too.....

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
behold the rage dot com
________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel
 
As each floor collapses, regardless of failure speed, the mushrooming or "fountain" effect of the debris wall is due to 5 things:

1. The building is not falling at free fall due to internal structural resistance.

2. The debris must go somewhere since the building is falling slower than free fall.

3. Expulsive wind sheer is nearly 400 mph out the sides of escapes, carrying with it articles weighing up to 500-800 pounds or more. (also explaining "squibs" far below the failure event)

4. The fountain effect is always the tell-tale of systemic collapse, not CD collapse, since the structures fell on top of themselves, through compression, not the "pins knocked out beneath itself".

5. And objects of mass are seen reaching terminal velocity in the fountain column on their way to the ground, as well they should at 160fps.
Click to expand...

WAIT. WAIT. WAIT. This is far too simplistic. There must be another, far more complicated explanation as to why some debris fell faster than the rest of the building. Isn't there? Isn't it more likely that precisely placed explosives were planted prior to the phantom plane impacts, and then subsequently detonated in such a way as to MIMIC these otherwise rational, observed collapse phenomena just to fool intelligent people into believing actual physics laws normally associated with natural building collapses weren't violated even though they obviously were due to the sheer amount of actual explosives used in these wholly Unnatural collapses?
 
Gravy said:
William, you protested about another poster using one example:
In ten seconds, I provided 267 more examples than you could muster. To you, that is insignificant. That's your problem.
Here is my challenge to you, William Rea:
You seem to do nothing but complain about the methods used by "skeptics" on these forums. Yet you never demonstrate what us "skeptics" get wrong.
So start a thread and produce your BEST EVIDENCE that the official version of the 9/11 attacks is wrong.
Give us your very best evidence, William. Are you up to it?
I say you're not.
Click to expand...

The esteem that you are held in on this forum would suggest that you are intelligent enough to understand this so I can't figure out why you question it. YOU were the one that opened this with the "is intellectual sloth really a virtue where you live" link. Are you still claiming that 267 hits on Google is evidence of good intellectual rigour? Seriously? I cannot believe this from the great JREF debunker Gravy! By the way, it dropped to 181 hits when I last pressed the link.

It is 267 examples more than I can muster but that is rather like saying that 267 is a significantly larger proportion of 1,000,000 than 1 is. In less than ten seconds I found 11,000,000 hits for the word Gravy, so what?

I complain about the methods that the "JREF orthodoxy" that you call "skeptic" uses because, they demonstrate time and again the arrogance, hypocrisy and intellectual shallowness of the vast majority of people on here. You don't want to acknowledge it exists but, seem to find succour in looking across t'internet at Loose Change amongst others and patting yourselves on the back at how superior you are. That's what you get wrong and it is what I demonstrate time and again.

This is the last time I'll state it Gravy, I now don't give a ***** if the truth movement farts unicorns or if JREF snorts dynamite up it's nose. I genuinely came here with an open mind about 911 and was vilified by the members. I am not alone in this, I know that the Conspiracy Forum is currently under observation from the owners because of its general behaviour.

I have no interest in your challenge or your rather childish goading; "Give us your very best evidence, William. Are you up to it?
I say you're not". I gave up trying to learn anything about 911 in here long ago and now prefer to spend what little time I set aside to spend in the Conspiracy Thread pointing out how it does not live up to the standards it sets for what is generically termed the "Truth Movement".

Why don't I go somewhere else, well I have in a way. I spend more time in the Politics Forum now, where I have yet to be personally vilified in any way close to the way that I ever was in here. Maybe its because over there there is no orthodoxy that lacks self confidence trying to impose its will?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom