The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[Algebra34]

Hey Algebra34, here's an opportunity for you to improve your technical knowledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures^WP

You're welcome.

Send it to your bible 9/11 commission. Did they get it wrong? Anytime.

 

[aggle-rithm]

How do you explain the fact that the exterior pieces were falling faster than the collapse zone?

It's your story that you support here everyday. Is it wrong?

I should go with what? The 9/11 commission? Shouldn't I? Why not?

lol

So, in other words, you can't explain it.

 

[Algebra34]

So, in other words, you can't explain it.

In exact words, is your story wrong? Yes or no? Do you endorse it or not?

 

[DGM]

Send it to your bible 9/11 commission. Did they get it wrong? Anytime.

Not my "bible". Too many politicians.

 

[TruthersLie]

I love how twoofs try to present the false choice fallacy, and then go around and try to crow... "see they are wrong!!! Inside jobby job!!!"

Was the 9/11 commission report in error about the collapse time? you bet. Was the nist report not accuate enough about the collapse time? you bet.

Do they need to be? Nope.

Anyone with a stopwatch can go and time the collapses. And you get around 15 seconds for one tower and about 21ish for the second.

does that change the fact that 19 men hijacked 4 jets and flew 3 of them into buildings and a 4th into a field in pennslyvania? Nope.

Massive swing, and massive miss. Thank you for playing.

Did you have a nice break? It was quite with out you... but I fully expect to see you banned soon enough... only to come back as a sock puppet. So no hu hu.

 

[Thunder]

Send it to your bible 9/11 commission. Did they get it wrong? Anytime.

what does your God, Alex Jones, have to say about it?

 

[daws59]

what does your God, Alex Jones, have to say about it?

Alex Jones has a new theory:edible super duper nano thermite: Bush's personal body guards infiltrated all the connection points in the towers, then waited for the planes to collide with each tower, farted, lit the escaping gas in sequence causing each floor to collapse...

 

[Reactor drone]

How fast does the 9/11 commission state it fell?

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds..."

Would you like your .8 seconds back?

So,you didn't read the thread at all then?

This was posted on page 1 by a truther,jay Howard,

Originally Posted by wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

I've bolded a couple of sections you should read and understand.The first exterior panels to hit fell outward and had no building under them to resist.That was the freefall time of panels from the collapse zones of the towers.

Seems fine to me,how about you?



ETA-the commision report you quoted didn't give as much detail and their times can be misinterpreted (which is great for you).

 

[Thunder]

Alex Jones has a new theory:edible super duper nano thermite: Bush's personal body guards infiltrated all the connection points in the towers, then waited for the planes to collide with each tower, farted, lit the escaping gas in sequence causing each floor to collapse...

I like how you think, New Blood.

 

[daws59]

I like how you think, New Blood.

thanks, BTW does any one know a twoofer called black as coal and his buddy Styxx?
they're the tag team uber twoofers at rumblevillians .com.
check them out..tooo funny and too wrong.

 

[Algebra34]

Was the 9/11 commission wrong debunkers? Stop friggin crying will ya? lol

 

[Thunder]

Was the 9/11 commission wrong debunkers? Stop friggin crying will ya? lol

wrong about what? I'm sure they were wrong about something. and that will be evidence of a conspiracy!!!

see, only 9-11 Truthers are allowed to make mistakes.

 

[DGM]

Was the 9/11 commission wrong debunkers? Stop friggin crying will ya? lol

What about the collapse times? For what little they covered it, Yes.

 

[tfk]

Your story that you cling to is the Fool's gold. And it says 10 seconds. Do you not believe it? How do you determine what is the truth about it and what is not? It's garbage. Get it? Tom?

Algebra,

I get the sense that you're about 15 years old. Is that about right? Or do I need to recalibrate.

Here is a PRIME example of the real problem with the truth movement in general.

I went into elaborate, some would say "excruciating", detail about what is "my story".

You appear to have absorbed, understood, processed not one word of what I wrote. Certainly you didn't respond to any one of the 10+ points that I made.

And then you proceeded to TELL me that, "no, that's NOT your story, Tom. THIS is your story."

Do you have any idea how arrogant & juvenile that make you sound?


Tom

 

[carlitos]

Do you have any idea how arrogant & juvenile that make you sound?

I'll hazard a guess and say no, he doesn't.

 

[sylvan8798]

In exact words, is your story wrong? Yes or no? Do you endorse it or not?

Are they wrong about the collapse times? Yeah, sure.

Is YOUR story wrong about any details? Because, by your apparent reasoning - which you don't have the guts to spew - if the official story is wrong about any detail, no matter how minor, that means it is lying about ALL details. So if YOUR story is wrong about any detail, no matter how minor, then it is also lying about ALL details. Ponder that, while you're on suspension, ducky.

Perhaps you can also illuminate us as to why the 9/11 commission would LIE about a detail which could so easily be checked by people with stopwatches. What was the purpose there? If it were a controlled demolition, wouldn't TPTB want to give the LONGEST possible time for the collapses to avoid creating suspicion?

 

[daws59]

Are they wrong about the collapse times? Yeah, sure.

Is YOUR story wrong about any details? Because, by your apparent reasoning - which you don't have the guts to spew - if the official story is wrong about any detail, no matter how minor, that means it is lying about ALL details. So if YOUR story is wrong about any detail, no matter how minor, then it is also lying about ALL details. Ponder that, while you're on suspension, ducky.

Perhaps you can also illuminate us as to why the 9/11 commission would LIE about a detail which could so easily be checked by people with stopwatches. What was the purpose there? If it were a controlled demolition, wouldn't TPTB want to give the LONGEST possible time for the collapses to avoid creating suspicion?

that would make too much sense .

 

[jay howard]

Jay Howard - What does the word " falsifiable" mean?

Good question. It basically mean "testable".

If you have a theory about anything, i.e., that water turns solid at 0 degrees C, then you can test that theory by putting water in a 0 C atmosphere and see what happens.

If it indeed turns solid, then your theory is corroborated. If it doesn't then it's falsified.

If you say "water has a soul" then the next miracle that needs to be performed is to design a test for the existence of the soul of water. If you cannot even test for it, it's not falsifiable, that is, there's no way to tell if the claim is even false or possible.

If there's no way to tell if a statement is false or possible, then it's simply meaningless--or at least meaningless as a scientific claim.

If it's meaningless as a scientific claim, then it's not science. If someone tries to pass this claim off as science, then they are participating in pseudoscience. PERIOD.

That's the difficulty with the NIST theory of collapse. There isn't anything testable about it. Maybe I missed it. If so, please point it out.


.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Good question. It basically mean "testable".

If you have a theory about anything, i.e., that water turns solid at 0 degrees C, then you can test that theory by putting water in a 0 C atmosphere and see what happens.

If it indeed turns solid, then your theory is corroborated. If it doesn't then it's falsified.

If you say "water has a soul" then the next miracle that needs to be performed is to design a test for the existence of the soul of water. If you cannot even test for it, it's not falsifiable, that is, there's no way to tell if the claim is even false or possible.

If there's no way to tell if a statement is false or possible, then it's simply meaningless--or at least meaningless as a scientific claim.

If it's meaningless as a scientific claim, then it's not science. If someone tries to pass this claim off as science, then they are participating in pseudoscience. PERIOD.

That's the difficulty with the NIST theory of collapse. There isn't anything testable about it. Maybe I missed it. If so, please point it out.


.

The NIST report is built, mostly, around a FEA model. You're welcome to build your own and see what happens.

 

[jay howard]

This statement...

... does not logically lead to this conclusion:


And it's rather disingenuous to pretend that it does.

This is true. It doesn't necessarily follow. But the trick is now to point out a falsifiable statement from the NIST report by which someone can test their theory.

Because here's an example of someone providing ways in which the NIST report could be falsified:

Here are some examples of evidence that would almost certainly make the NIST report false:

1. The WTC towers were to be found still, in fact, standing.
2. Steel vapor
3. Extremely high concentrations of radiation
4. Undetonated explosives
5. Obscenely high concentrations of unexplainable elements (ahem, barium?)
6. Evidence of a volcanic eruption on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
7. Evidence of a catastrophic earthquake on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
8. Evidence of a meteor strike on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
9. Maybe a video showing the space laser striking on 9/11/01
10. Maybe a video showing a glitch in the holographic planes

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of falsifiability. I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but basically, it comes down to a testable claim, i.e.: "steel girders of x composition, exposed to temperatures of t degrees for m time under k pressure will exhibit f failure modes."

Where is that claim in the NIST report?

So despite the fact that perhaps no one met your particular semantic standards, examples of the NIST report's falsifiability were provided.

Again, I don't think you understand what "falsifiability" means. This isn't about some standards I made up. That's what makes it a useful concept. Ask James Randi if you don't get it. Or better yet, read it here.