The Twin Towers at free fall speed

Luntoc

Scholar
L
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
85
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this at any point in time given the fact that I've only been on here a couple of months but there is something I just thought of. Its said, by the TM, that the towers fell at free fall speed. The spped of course as we all know is 9.2 seconds. That is determined by the height of the towers. But wouldn't that be had the collapse began from the very top. Since the collapse began in the area where the plane hit the speed of free fall would've been less. Ex. If the speed of free fall is 9.2 seconds, but lets say its 9, this would mean about 12 floors per second. Since the collapse of the south tower began at the 85th floor, this would make it about 7 seconds. The south tower would've collapse in about 8 seconds. Seismics appear to have the collapse at 15 for the south and 22 for the north. Which makes sense since the collapse began at a higher altitude for the north. But the question is simple. Shouldn't the speed of free fall be from the area from where the collapse began not how tall the buildings are?
 
physics says it could not have falled at free fall speed. the parts above the impact MAY have fallen close to free fall speed, but then as soon as those sections hit the undamaged sections, the mass slowed down. free fall speed would require ZERO resistance.
 
Luntoc said:
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this at any point in time given the fact that I've only been on here a couple of months but there is something I just thought of. Its said, by the TM, that the towers fell at free fall speed. The spped of course as we all know is 9.2 seconds. That is determined by the height of the towers. But wouldn't that be had the collapse began from the very top. Since the collapse began in the area where the plane hit the speed of free fall would've been less. Ex. If the speed of free fall is 9.2 seconds, but lets say its 9, this would mean about 12 floors per second. Since the collapse of the south tower began at the 85th floor, this would make it about 7 seconds. The south tower would've collapse in about 8 seconds. Seismics appear to have the collapse at 15 for the south and 22 for the north. Which makes sense since the collapse began at a higher altitude for the north. But the question is simple. Shouldn't the speed of free fall be from the area from where the collapse began not how tall the buildings are?
Click to expand...

The TM knows nothing about static resistence. They assume that the Towers fell at "free fall speeds" because they made the mistake of counting the outter columns speed when they were in a free fall state. They never truely focused on the buildings themselves.
 
nevermind the fact that much of the inner core did not collapse at all...at least during the initial collapse. hence, it is moronic to refer to the collapse being at free-fall speeds, since the entire building wasn't even going down.
 
Luntoc said:
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this at any point in time given the fact that I've only been on here a couple of months but there is something I just thought of. Its said, by the TM, that the towers fell at free fall speed. The spped of course as we all know is 9.2 seconds. That is determined by the height of the towers. But wouldn't that be had the collapse began from the very top. Since the collapse began in the area where the plane hit the speed of free fall would've been less. Ex. If the speed of free fall is 9.2 seconds, but lets say its 9, this would mean about 12 floors per second. Since the collapse of the south tower began at the 85th floor, this would make it about 7 seconds. The south tower would've collapse in about 8 seconds. Seismics appear to have the collapse at 15 for the south and 22 for the north. Which makes sense since the collapse began at a higher altitude for the north. But the question is simple. Shouldn't the speed of free fall be from the area from where the collapse began not how tall the buildings are?
Click to expand...
If it was falling at "Free-fall" why was the debris falling faster (as seen in the videos)? The argument is pointless.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear...

Did the last three years of thoughtful, brilliantly entertaining and educational JREF debunker posts just vanish in a squib-like puff of free-falling nano-pulverised-pyroclastic paint chips?
 
DGM said:
If it was falling at "Free-fall" why was the debris falling faster (as seen in the videos)? The argument is pointless.
Click to expand...

Maybe the debris was from the upper block, part of which was destroyed before the main destruction front began to move downward.
 
The only thing to fall at free fall speed is the IQ levels of truthers while watching richard gage's 9/11 blueprint for truth crap.
 
I just kicked back a Bud Lite (that failed to freeze on my back porch over the past week of temps in the teens)..... at free fall speed.

Can some one please explain if in fact two laws of Physics were broken.
 
I don't think folks are understanding the Op's question. I believe he's asking if the speed of the collapse should be measured from the failure point, and not from the top of the building.
 
Luntoc said:
Shouldn't the speed of free fall be from the area from where the collapse began not how tall the buildings are?
Click to expand...

You've just touched on one of the many (near endless (slight exaggeration(though not by much))) examples of how truthers can't get anything right.

Though I think this error isn't usually pointed out (at least I can't remember it) due to the far more obvious fact that the twin towers obviously didn't fall at free fall speed, unless over double still counts as free fall speed.
 
Last edited:
Um, yes luntoc, in a very round about way you are correst. In other ways you've mashed together distance, velocity and acceleration to the point I can't recognize them.

There's a "free fall" speed (it's actually an infinite number of instantaneous velocities) based on an object accelerating due to gravity, in a vacuum from a certain height. This height would be, as you've said, at the point of impact or collapse initiation.

It's utterly meaningless in terms of discussing it with truthers. I wouldn't bother.
 
Luntoc said:
The spped of course as we all know is 9.2 seconds.
Click to expand...

I didn't know this. (Putting aside that speed is measured in m/s, not s)

Free fall time of a heavy, small surface object, from 400m:

g=h/dt2
dt=(h/g)-2=(400/9.8)-2=6.4s

That's the time it would take a heavy, small surface object to reach the ground from 400m. That's free fall.
The speed (velocity) of the object increases during the whole event. v=g*dt. Velocity just before impact: 9.8*6.4=62.72m/s= 225 km/h.

(excuse me folks, I'm having a high school flashback moment here)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom