The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[BigAl]

No airplane hit wtc7.

I wasn't making any wider point. The OP claimed it was truthers saying freefall and that isn't true.

Read for comprehension. I didn't say a plane hit WTC7.


"freefall" isn't true. "essentially freefall" as described in the publication is.

 

[Macgyver1968]

The NIST report was published in 2005, so quoting it is hardly from a 2004 handbook.

Oooo...you got me there..how about the 2006 handbook?

I noticed you ignored the rest of my post.

 

[jaydeehess]

It isn't just truthers that claim freefall. The NIST report admits that they collapsed "essentially in freefall".

It would in fact be a way of saying that they fell very quickly. It is hardly a consise engineering or scientific description nor was it meant to be.

FEMA says one tower fell in "ten seconds". In scientific papers it is most common to give measurements in numerals rather than words. If FEMA had meant to say that it was a measure time they would have said that the tower fell in "10.0 seconds".

That you cannot separate science and engineering from prose is indicative of how little technical knowledge you posess.

EDITED TO ADD:

They also admit that the first couple of seconds of wtc7's collapse was in freefall.

No, it was a few seconds prior to the END of the collapse.

IIRC its about 2/3's of the way through the fall of the north facade. The north facade came down in about 7 seconds but the entire collapse sequence took closer to 17 seconds.

Maybe you should read the reports rather than just reading what the conspiracy web sites parse from them for you.

 

[jaydeehess]

What is "essentially on (sic) freefall"? The towers took 15 and 22 seconds to collapse. Freefall from the top would take ~9 seconds. Is 9 essentially 15 or 22?

ooh, oooh pick me.

No, 15 and 22 seconds is not free fall. They are 60% and 240% longer than a free fall descent from the height of the towers.

This translates into a total average force of 0.4 and 0.2 (if my math is correct) that due to gravity. So they experienced 40% and 20% the acelleration an object in free fall would.

Still darned quick but if it is supposed to be indictive of something nefarious then there need to be some calculations to show it was. On the other hand we have the work of Bazant and others who have done work that supports the idea that all that is required in these collapses is gravity itself.

 

[jaydeehess]

I noticed you ignored the rest of my post.

Sorry, you wanted vinniem to answer that didn't you?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Anything faster than the speed of clunky clunk is near free fall speed...

 

[Macgyver1968]

Sorry, you wanted vinniem to answer that didn't you?

It's all good...I really didn't expect an answer from him.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Anything faster than the speed of clunky clunk is near free fall speed...

My car went "clunky clunk" one time...it didn't go very fast after that.

 

[Furcifer]

My car went "clunky clunk" one time...it didn't go very fast after that.

Did your paid shill mechanic do an investigation? Did he even bother to look for thermite? Did the government give you cash for that clunker! How convenient. I bet they shipped the steel to China before anyone got a chance to look at it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Anything faster than the speed of clunky clunk is near free fall speed...

Also, free-fall speed becomes extremely slow if the person saying "clunkity-clunk" has a speech impediment.

 

[1stClassAlan]

......... if it is supposed to be indictive of something nefarious then there need to be some calculations to show it was.

Ah - the Nefarious Acceleration Quotient !

I forget now whether I've posted here or elsewhere about my utter consternation over the realisation that the reason behind C.T's putting so much effort into "Faster than Freefall" is their misplaced belief that explosive demolition actually blows the building down faster than it would collapse by itself - to date not one of them has offered any explaination how this might come about.

Despite their silence I pointed out that while one proportionally large detonation - like the propellant in a gunshot pushing the bullet up the barrel can work - to overcome gravity up or down for larger objects requires a constant force to continue the acceleration - did anyone see rocket motors ten times the size of the Shuttle on WTC roof?

Oh I forgot - they were blanked out by faked video.

 

[Furcifer]

Ah - the Nefarious Acceleration Quotient !

I forget now whether I've posted here or elsewhere about my utter consternation over the realisation that the reason behind C.T's putting so much effort into "Faster than Freefall" is their misplaced belief that explosive demolition actually blows the building down faster than it would collapse by itself - to date not one of them has offered any explaination how this might come about.

Despite their silence I pointed out that while one proportionally large detonation - like the propellant in a gunshot pushing the bullet up the barrel can work - to overcome gravity up or down for larger objects requires a constant force to continue the acceleration - did anyone see rocket motors ten times the size of the Shuttle on WTC roof?

Oh I forgot - they were blanked out by faked video.

Don't forget "Sensationalism".

 

[jaydeehess]

Only a few die hards still claim 'faster' than free fall and their numbers can be counted in with the no-planers and dustifying space-a-beams.

The ones who claim as fast as free fall can be shown to be incorrect, leaving only the 'close to free fall' advocates which do not seem to be able to answer the question; "How much removed from actual free fall time would be considered not to be 'close'?".

 

[aggle-rithm]

Ah - the Nefarious Acceleration Quotient !

I forget now whether I've posted here or elsewhere about my utter consternation over the realisation that the reason behind C.T's putting so much effort into "Faster than Freefall" is their misplaced belief that explosive demolition actually blows the building down faster than it would collapse by itself - to date not one of them has offered any explaination how this might come about.

I think the more intelligent ones take the word "implosion" too literally. They actually believe that a powerful pressure differential is created to make a building collapse.

The rest simply nod mindlessly and go along with it.

 

[1stClassAlan]

I think the more intelligent ones take the word "implosion" too literally. They actually believe that a powerful pressure differential is created to make a building collapse.

Ah.... the mystical implosion that was anything but !

A great deal of debris from The Towers fell outwards and entire sections of WTC7 were ejected across the street by the collapses.

Whilst I acknowledge that explosive demolition manages to kill the odd bystander every once in a while - it's generally accepted that this is not the way to go about things and crews spend much of the site prep in wrapping the charges to prevent errant flying materials.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Look the main point of our ae911truth theory is that the towers fell pretty fast.

While we say that falling at 2/3rd's freefall is the same as almost freefall, others say it is the same as almost half freefall. So what; the difference is nitpicking.

It was pretty fast. Which is why we think the near freefall collapse is the #1 reason to believe in CD on our web site.

Here is proof from Tony Zambotti's missing jolt thread:

You are simply wrong as Richard Gage does support my theory. If you think I am trying to undermine anything you are out in left field.

Watch this video and listen to what he says between 4:50 and 5:00 minute marks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txUaDtIbLow

2/3rds or 70% of freefall acceleration is near freefall. Your argument here is nonsensical.

 

[jaydeehess]

Look the main point of our ae911truth theory is that the towers fell pretty fast.

Has anyone disputed such a subjective statement?

Yes it was pretty quick.

I live "near" the USA/CDN border too. It would take me two days to walk to the border though.

If you wish to characterize it as suspiciiously close to free fall acelleration then you should be able to tell me with some specificity how far from free fall acelleration it has to be in order to no longer be suspicious.

 

[jaydeehess]

delete

 

[daws59]

Look the main point of our ae911truth theory is that the towers fell pretty fast.

While we say that falling at 2/3rd's freefall is the same as almost freefall, others say it is the same as almost half freefall. So what; the difference is nitpicking.

It was pretty fast. Which is why we think the near freefall collapse is the #1 reason to believe in CD on our web site.

Here is proof from Tony Zambotti's missing jolt thread:

 

[quest 4 thuth]

Towers + WTC7

I am an engineer - 23 years - welding and metallurgist specialist - TIG, Plasma weld and cut and submerged arc. - currently 18 months R&D with DSTO ( Defense Australia) projects specifically in Explosive welding research and chemical related studies. ( which i have also had some input into)
Thermite and thermate grades of media are consistent with the results myself and my colleagues have researched relating to the other scientific communities explaining the high probability that a thermite type of compound was used in the WTC events - the 911 events were included in our investigations with structural simulations and such - the findings are currently being filed with the Australian Govt under the 'preventative security acts' currently being examined in an endeavour to realise the past and future national security risks relating to further involvements and decisions made that place the Aust govt in a liable situation based on the events that have taken place over the last decade.
The information that I have been privy to has damned the American govts stance and could most likely influence the British studies just started - being a commonwealth and having close ties with British Aerospace we are now setting up a similar program with them over the next few months.

Amazingly thermite family of compounds are actually quite versatile the hardest understandings we had were in the various results we obtained exploring all the possible methods and applications they could be found to work in - (Nuclear has nothing on thermite it is so much more versatile and mobile)

I am sure in the near future some further light will become apparent with regard to the questions that have been raised for so long - mind you we also had a head start - the French gave us a lot of help at the beginning and we are very excited about putting to rest some of these issues.

Of the several times this identical text was posted in various threads, I have kept this one in this thread as the posting closest to being on topic, since the prior discussion does involve structural collapse dynamics of WTC buildings and the possibility of demolition or thermite. Responses to the same post on other threads, that were moved to AAH, may be reposted to this thread if they are on-topic, civil, and all that other good stuff the MA requires.

quest 4 thuth, please do not post the same post to multiple threads. That is considered spamming the forum, which is not permitted under Rule 6 of your Member Agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Myriad