The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Oh, hell, it was a Scottish guy whose name escapes me. I'd like to continue this tomorrow.

It wouldn't be Scotty from Star Trek now would it?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Oh, hell, it was a Scottish guy whose name escapes me. I'd like to continue this tomorrow.

Gordon Ross? He's been debunked. Many times. By quite a few people. I don't even think that there are any portions of his paper that are actually correct.

 

[sylvan8798]

Just because it wasn't built for dynamic loads doesn't mean all the weld, bolts and fasteners will simply crumble without any resistance either. It takes some amount of energy greater than zero to crush, mangle or otherwise move a welded, bolted joint out of place. On this, again, we can all agree.

I don't disagree that the floors were not designed for dynamic loads. I simply don't think it follows that they would give away with so little resistance. People have done the math on this on both sides and come to exactly the conclusions each side set out to initially prove. Telling.

Do your experts say how much resistance is "enough"? You've already accepted that they were not at "free fall", which means there was some resistance. Saying there wasn't enough is not very specific. The dynamic loading got bigger as the collapse progressed, so one would expect less resistance.

The sad fact is, they were damaged, burned, and collapsed. That's all there is to it.

There are plenty of authority figures with the appropriate knowledge and experience on both sides of this issue as well, and as predicted, they come up with exactly the kind of explanations that fit their preconcieved conclusions about the collapses.

Correction. Truthers have not explained how their theory fits the facts from a physics or mathematical perspective - just some hand waving about how such and such could only be achieved with explosives. No analysis of how that would proceed. Zip. And if your authority figures have appropriate knowledge and experience they have not shown it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh, hell, it was a Scottish guy whose name escapes me. I'd like to continue this tomorrow.

I don't know if he's a Scot but his name suggests it could be so, Gordon Ross.

ETA: zounds betean to it again

 

[DGM]

Gordon Ross? He's been debunked. Many times. By quite a few people. I don't even think that there are any portions of his paper that are actually correct.

Wasn't it Ross that if you plugged the south tower into his paper instead of the north the collapse proved to be inevitable?

 

[Furcifer]

Yah Ross. Damn shame too, the Scots usually fair pretty well in teh maths.

 

[Brainache]

ROFLMAO

yep, probably added the height of the towers, to acelleration due to gravity and came up with the time of collapse should have been.

Let's not forget 28thKingdom and his masterful use of mathematics which led him to conclude that the collapses should have taken about (IIRC) four minutes...

 

[jaydeehess]

Correction. Truthers have not explained how their theory fits the facts from a physics or mathematical perspective - just some hand waving about how such and such could only be achieved with explosives. No analysis of how that would proceed. Zip. And if your authority figures have appropriate knowledge and experience they have not shown it.

Puts me in mind that although Pop-sci did in fact attempt to cut a vertical column with thermite, and failed, none of the therm(?)te proponents have demonstrated that they can. Instead they claim its 'super nano-therm(?)te that no one can obtain that gets used in the towers. ( a tactic I refer to as 'invoking magic')

 

[DGM]

Let's not forget 28thKingdom and his masterful use of mathematics which led him to conclude that the collapses should have taken about (IIRC) four minutes...

Clunkity......Clunk.....

 

[Newtons Bit]

Wasn't it Ross that if you plugged the south tower into his paper instead of the north the collapse proved to be inevitable?

I don't recall that. However, Ross did a sleight-of-hand trick that magically removed about half of the total available energy from existence. It's sly enough to make James Randi jealous.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's not forget 28thKingdom and his masterful use of mathematics which led him to conclude that the collapses should have taken about (IIRC) four minutes...

28K,,, ah the memories are fading now. I don't miss reading his utter nonsense.

 

[jaydeehess]

I don't recall that. However, Ross did a sleight-of-hand trick that magically removed about half of the total available energy from existence. It's sly enough to make James Randi jealous.

Been a while but seems to me it involved a transgression of the law of conservation of energy.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's not forget 28thKingdom and his masterful use of mathematics which led him to conclude that the collapses should have taken about (IIRC) four minutes...

,,, or the 'pilot' who divided the change in altitude(in feet) by the time(in minutes) to turn and descend for flight 77 and came up with what he said was the descent rate in feet per second. Only out by a factor of 60.

 

[daws59]

I like this comparison



concrete and steel have the same density as wood.

is that petrified wood or petrified steel?

 

[daws59]

What?



Right. Just like you're a government shill.

As usual, no attempt at a rational discussion here. Why is it so hard to have a rational, adult conversation about anything related to this? Because you're already had the conversation? If that's the case, then just don't reply. If you want to reply, then have a real conversation.

why is when you so called thinkers get tagged, the opposition is morphed in to paid adolescent schills that can't have an "ADULT" conversation?
please define adult.
BTW: unless I'm wrong, in this forum you'd better bring it or prepare to have your ass handed to you.

 

[Dog Town]

snip...


Do you want to have a conversation or not?

Let me get this straight:
You post on a thread about Twin Towers at free fall speed. People poo poo the idea as rubbish. You then morph into a poor version of Capt. Renault in Casablanca, and start to cry about it. Start your own thread about what ever it is you seem to need attention for! Cuz this ain't the place!
Good Luck,
K9village.

 

[alexi_drago]

I like this comparison



concrete and steel have the same density as wood.

If it's lightweight aerated concrete then depending on the ratio of concrete to steel it could have an average density equal to wood.

 

[Furcifer]

Just for fun, if anyone's interested:Terminal Velocity Calculator

The drag coefficient for a cube is 0.8.

The cross sectional area was 43264 ft^2

Mass? Use Greening's 30,000 tonnes.

What's that you say? The terminal velocity is 781.305 mph?

 

[TruthersLie]

Is this backed up in the NIST report or are you just pointing to some youtube knowledge?

To be precise here, I do NOT advocate calling the collapses "free fall". I DO advocate calling the collapses "near free fall speeds". At any rate, the buildings fell extremely fast. Can anyone argue with that?

"Fast compared to what?" they asked.

Compared to buildings that are damaged at the upper floors but have no appreciable damage to the overwhelming majority of supporting floors.

This is about as silly a conversation as it gets. The buildings fell fast. No question. No arguing. Sure, you could say (and I wouldn't disagree) that the buildings did NOT fall at precisely free fall speed, but that doesn't dispell the questions that arise from such a rapid and thoroughly destructive fall.

Why is it so incredulous to ask why the buildings, whose supporting members below the respective crashes were purportedly intact, fell at such a rapid rate as to incite a debate about whether they fell at free fall speeds or slightly less?


.

No.

The datamined quote that you pointed to had a VERY IMPORTANT part that you are OVERLOOKING.

The FIRST exterior panels struck the ground a 9 and 11 seconds. That is NOT the full collapse time.

The FIRST exterior panels should have struck the ground at about 10 seconds because they sheared off of the towers and were falling at freefall speed.

If you watch the collapse of the towers the first tower to collapse was still over 30 stories tall at 10 seconds into the collapse. (it was ABOVE the marriot hotel). That is NOT at freefall, nor is it even CLOSE to freefall.

The second collapse took over 20 seconds.

The seismic data backs up this claim. The seismic data also completely shows that there were NO explosives.

 

[TruthersLie]

That's just a bare assertion. Yes, the tops of the structures were extremely heavy. But that doesn't make the impact point "trivial". That's exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific dismissal that makes my head spin at this site. Why don't you want a specific answer?

Because IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED. Feel free to read the writings of Bazant. All of them, then take the limiting paper as what it is. They have shown that once the collapse started it would go all the way to the ground.

Since we have all read these papers (most of them anyways), it is rather simple to say, read the paper and then come back with honest questions. Not bald faced lies.