The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[Furcifer]

? Not sure what incompatability you're talking about. Is it incompatable that i want to have an adult conversation AND was making a reference that, yea, I could've looked up but thought it was enough to refer to the guy by nationality--a reference correctly picked up on by just about everyone that responded?




The whole reason I joined this thread was to reach common ground. It's not like i'm all over the internet talking about "pods" and "energy beams". My thought was, how could anyone argue with the fact that the towers fell at an exceptionally fast rate? Was it free-fall? No. But it was close. Those who want to say it was 200% slower than free fall sound like toothpaste commercials.

I'm not disagreeing that the event was unprecidented. I'm just saying that anyone ANYONE watching the collapses would have to say "damn, those towers fell fast." And to disagree with that sentiment is bull-headed to the point of irrationality that smacks of dishonesty.



And yet you cannot help but waste your time talking to me. Seriously, if you don't want to respond, then simply don't. If you feel talking to me is a waste of time, then by all means, do not respond. Yet, you want to waste your time by pointing out what a waste of time it is to reply to me. And no doubt you will reply to this--again wasting your time pointing out how "useless it is..." to have a conversation with me. Please.



Haven't done my homework? From the guy who had to have falsifiability explained to him over and over and over again? Correct me if i'm wrong but there never was a falsifiable statement pulled out of the entire 10,000+ pages of the NIST report, was there? Did I miss this?

Seriously, Ryan, if you have something to add to this, I'm all ears. If you just want to lather your condesension in the hope it will read like wisdom, save it.



From an investigative standpoint the real tell is what people do with new evidence or new information. Whatever one believes, it makes sense that they will try to fit the new observations into the existing theory. In some cases that means ignoring evidence or somehow consigning it to the dustbin for one reason or another.

At some point however, the amount of evidence or information that must be ignored or recategorized so as to not rock the boat starts to form an appreciable amount. The history of science is filled with glittering instances of just such an evolution of thought. Some of these stories took hundreds of years to come full circle. Everyone knows about the Copernican revolution and the math of epicycles that ran the geocentric model for centuries.

Initially, the math for predicting the cycles for heavenly bodies was simpler for the geocentric model than the math for making the same predictions from the heliocentric model--this was thought to be clear evidence of the failure of the heliocentric model to match reality.

You can go through my posts with a fine-toothed comb and you will not find me explicitly advocating CD. I do however, have a problem with the way the official theory deals (or doesn't deal) with the totality of evidence. It leads me to believe the official theory is only a fraction of a complete answer. I think better answers exist. I'm not sure what they are. But I do know this: if Theory A must ignore or otherwise categorize some evidence as "unreal" or "trivial" and Theory B ignores nothing, then B is more powerful.

There is a better theory. And when people cannot even say, "damn, those towers fell fast," without a bunch of qualification as to "not anywhere near free fall speeds" and the like, then it starts sounding like epicycles and unnecessary justifications.

Peoples' theories are like their children. They protect them from harm and outside influences. This is human nature, but it's not good science.

Blah blah blah. You sound like any number of other posters that have come and gone.

The fact is your here trying to make impassioned speeches about the practices of good science when you don't know the first things about science. Not a freakin clue.

All you've done is talk bad science. Talk talk talk. Let's talk real science, mass, velocity, acceleration, force, kinetic energy, potential energy. Yes, they are words to you, but to science they are real quantifiable numbers. Do you have any? I bet you don't.

You're just another untrainable puppy jumping on the couch begging for treats.

 

[jay howard]

OK, then.

let's work through tis a bit and see how far we get.

let's start with a a few data points.

0ne) the exterior columns were observed to be bowing inward across several floors prior to the collapse initiation. This indicates that the collapse initiatied through a buckling mechanism rather than a conection failure.

so, for the sake of a discusion, let's just assert that it was a buckling failure to sttart with. Do you agree with this?

Fair enough. Let's start here.

 

[dudalb]

Blah blah blah. You sound like any number of other posters that have come and gone.

The fact is your here trying to make impassioned speeches about the practices of good science when you don't know the first things about science. Not a freakin clue.

All you've done is talk bad science. Talk talk talk. Let's talk real science, mass, velocity, acceleration, force, kinetic energy, potential energy. Yes, they are words to you, but to science they are real quantifiable numbers. Do you have any? I bet you don't.

You're just another untrainable puppy jumping on the couch begging for treats.

And barking the same old "Argument from Incredulity" nonsense.

 

[jay howard]

Because trying to figure out the precise second that each beam, joist, and truss failed is IMPOSSIBLE. Based on their years and years of studies, they KNEW that it would not be able to be stopped.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: it's IMPOSSIBLE to know the details of xyz--despite YEARS and YEARS of study, however, these same people KNOW xyz was inevitable. Does that sum it up?

For those of you interested in theology, this is an analogue to the tapistry argument: i.e., the universe is much too complicated for us wee little beings to wrap our heads around, therefore, we can guarantee that God exists.

Textbook argument from ignorance.

Who are you to question the many many many scientific publications that have been peer reviewed in reputible journals? Do you know more than what those people know?? Highly doubtfull.

Speaking of inevitability, here is the very predictable appeal to authority that eminates from these pages from time to time. Call me skeptical, but I have reason to believe that even experts are human.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm not disagreeing that the event was unprecidented. I'm just saying that anyone ANYONE watching the collapses would have to say "damn, those towers fell fast." And to disagree with that sentiment is bull-headed to the point of irrationality that smacks of dishonesty.

Fast? Sure, they fell down with an alarming amount of alacrity. But no legitimate argument can be made without a comparison. And thus, any argument made using speed is an argument from incredulity: a logic fallacy.

 

[dudalb]

I think that all of us engineering types are failing to recognise some very important parts of C.T. - that the Towers must be proved to fall faster than freefall - because they believe that this automatically proves the use of explosives.

They are driven to this belief because explosives literally blow the building downwards!!!
When I realised this - I couldn't even engage them in serious debate any more - what a waste of time and energy - they are beyond help.

Truthers ...and other CTers..have made a career out of violating one of Sherlock Holmes classic dictums (and,yes, Downey jr does use it in the current movie)
"It is a fatal error to form a theory before you are in full possesion of the facts. Without being aware of it, you begin to twist to the facts to fit the preconceived theory".
ALthough I am not so sure that that the truthers are unaware they are doing this.

 

[jay howard]

Tell me, when energy is inputted to a connection and that connection fails what becomes of the energy? It gets 'used up" right?

No, silly. It gets converted into motion and heat (which, depending on scale can be the same thing.) But my deepest criticisms of the official story are about thermodynamics: where did all the energy come from? We can all see where it went in its various manifestations, but given the (albeit, large) amount of energy from the collapsing structures, can all the leftovers be accounted for?

You say yes. I'm not conviced.

 

[Newtons Bit]

No, silly. It gets converted into motion and heat (which, depending on scale can be the same thing.) But my deepest criticisms of the official story are about thermodynamics: where did all the energy come from? We can all see where it went in its various manifestations, but given the (albeit, large) amount of energy from the collapsing structures, can all the leftovers be accounted for?

You say yes. I'm not conviced.

Energy is consumed by the strain of the elements (which are brittle and consume a very small amount of energy). And I've already done the energy balance.

 

[Furcifer]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: it's IMPOSSIBLE to know the details of xyz--despite YEARS and YEARS of study, however, these same people KNOW xyz was inevitable. Does that sum it up?

For those of you interested in theology, this is an analogue to the tapistry argument: i.e., the universe is much too complicated for us wee little beings to wrap our heads around, therefore, we can guarantee that God exists.

Textbook argument from ignorance.

FAIL. Another FAILED analogy that shows you have absolutely no understanding of science (especially when you make an analogy with religion, wow that's dumb)

Try this. You put a log in a stove and light it one fire. You collect all the flue gases and heat and once it's burned, you take out the ashes. You now have all the heat, flue gases and ashes from the log. Everything, every single part of what was once the log you have.

PUT THE LOG BACK TOGETHER AGAIN!

"OH come on man, you've got 8 years. How do I know that was even a log? How do I know it was burned? Did it really burn? I thought I saw explosions, maybe you used thermite."

Go on making silly analogies that don't apply instead of going out an learning something. It's what all these detractors have done for 8 years.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Fair enough. Let's start here.

Then answer the question.

 

[jay howard]

Fast? Sure, they fell down with an alarming amount of alacrity. But no legitimate argument can be made without a comparison. And thus, any argument made using speed is an argument from incredulity: a logic fallacy.

Again, I haven't advocated any particular replacement theory (CD, nukes, particle beam, keebler elves, etc.). My point here is that everyone, regardless of their favorite explanation for the collapses, should be able to agree that those towers fell with shocking expeditiousness.

What that ultimately means is not clear. And look, I'm not trying to be unreasonable as we both know that even if the towers burned for 8 hours and fell incompletely, there would still be people screaming "CONSPIRACY!!" I know this. You know this. The fact is that the buildings did indeed collapse quickly (relative to things falling from their respective heights) and created massive billowing dust clouds as well as molten metal and remnants of hot, violent reactions in the leftovers.

It's enough for a person without any particular agenda to say "that's wierd." Or "what sense does the collapse make if the only energy inputs are mass, acceleration and fire?" That's not an argument from incredulity because IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT. It's an observation and a question. Did you see me posit an argument for the collapses?

The fact is that this event was unprecedented in numerous ways, however, nothing that happened that day is beyond our ability to account for it.

 

[jay howard]

three: OK, let’s talk for a minute about the nature of structural design. I have noticed that there is a tendency among some people to think that a given floor supports the loads of al the floors above it. This is not the case. All the tenant floors were designed to support the same quantity of static and dynamic loads. The floors transmitted these loads to the building columns. It was the columns that were designed to carry the load of that particular floor and all the floors above it. This is a very important concept and I want to make sure you grasp it fully. There is a vast difference between the loads that a floor is designed to hold and the loads that a column is designed to hold.

With the exception of perhaps the top few floors, none of the floors were designed to hold loads any greater than a tiny fraction of the loads held by the columns.

This is an extremely important point. The floors were designed to hold the loads of the office furnishings and the tenants. They were not designed, nor were they intended to hold up the top of the building. The mass of the top of the buildings including the tenant floors above, were many orders of magnitude greater than the mass of one tenant floor of office equipment, paper and people.

Please respond that you understand this concept, as we can go no further until you do.

That makes good sense. Let's proceed.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Again, I haven't advocated any particular replacement theory (CD, nukes, particle beam, keebler elves, etc.). My point here is that everyone, regardless of their favorite explanation for the collapses, should be able to agree that those towers fell with shocking expeditiousness.

Their fall obeyed gravity. It is, after all, a law.

As a non-expert on building collapse, watching the event on that day, even I knew the collapse would either stop quickly, with the falling floors supported by the strength of one of the highest relatively undamaged floors and its supports, or the collapse would continue at approximately some fraction f (with 0 < f < 1) of the acceleration (not speed) of gravity, with f partly determined by the resistance of the lower floors and their supports. (Until I saw it happen, I did not know that the towers' construction left the floors and supports with too little strength to arrest the collapse.)

To go beyond that, we need numbers. In particular, you need to explain why you think everyone should be shocked by this event's compatibility with the law of gravity.

Will

 

[Newtons Bit]

Again, I haven't advocated any particular replacement theory (CD, nukes, particle beam, keebler elves, etc.). My point here is that everyone, regardless of their favorite explanation for the collapses, should be able to agree that those towers fell with shocking expeditiousness.

What that ultimately means is not clear. And look, I'm not trying to be unreasonable as we both know that even if the towers burned for 8 hours and fell incompletely, there would still be people screaming "CONSPIRACY!!" I know this. You know this. The fact is that the buildings did indeed collapse quickly (relative to things falling from their respective heights) and created massive billowing dust clouds as well as molten metal and remnants of hot, violent reactions in the leftovers.

It's enough for a person without any particular agenda to say "that's wierd." Or "what sense does the collapse make if the only energy inputs are mass, acceleration and fire?" That's not an argument from incredulity because IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT. It's an observation and a question. Did you see me posit an argument for the collapses?

The fact is that this event was unprecedented in numerous ways, however, nothing that happened that day is beyond our ability to account for it.

If you'll notice in my post, I didn't state that you were making an argument. I just said that it's not possible to make a legitimate argument from that one observation. At which point the observation really has no relevance in the 9/11 conspiracy sub-forum of JREF. A forum, I might add, that many truthers and proceed to "Just Ask Questions" that have been asked and answered many times both here and on popular debunking websites. It's happened so incredibly many times that most of the folks here are wary of someone who comes in here and makes observations or is "just asking questions".

 

[jaydeehess]

No, silly. It gets converted into motion and heat (which, depending on scale can be the same thing.) But my deepest criticisms of the official story are about thermodynamics: where did all the energy come from? We can all see where it went in its various manifestations, but given the (albeit, large) amount of energy from the collapsing structures, can all the leftovers be accounted for?

You say yes. I'm not convinced.

Yes, it gets converted ( I don't like 'consumed', or 'used up' since it implies that it disappears) and NB has done a good treatment on this as he points out above, specifically addressing Gordon Ross' paper.

You wanted to know where the energy came from and where it went. Check out NB's treatment and come back with specific questions.
However, if this comes down to you wanting a blow by blow explanation and accounting for every erg you are asking for the moon on a platter.

 

[sylvan8798]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: it's IMPOSSIBLE to know the details of xyz--despite YEARS and YEARS of study, however, these same people KNOW xyz was inevitable. Does that sum it up?

Do you honestly believe that an exact model of the collapse could be constructed, physically or on a supercomputer? It would be impossible. There are too many variables and far too many unknowns. No grossly simplified model would satisfy the average truther. That's just a typical example of setting the goalposts at infinity.

Let me make you a better analogy. I know, for certain, that if I take a glass vase and drop if from my roof onto the sidewalk it will break. I cannot, however, say into which pieces, or along which lines, it will break. After it breaks, it may be so smashed that I cannot identify which pieces started out where. But I will still know why it broke, and that it was inevitable.

So yes, even though they cannot give you exact details, they can tell you it was inevitable.

 

[Furcifer]

So yes, even though they cannot give you exact details, they can tell you it was inevitable.

There's a second analogy for jay that shows some processes are simply too chaotic to reconstruct, but the outcome of the process is clearly known.

You think this will sink in? Do you think he's capable of understanding, or even wanting to understand? I don't think so. This is a very basic concept. Children at some point learn that putting things back together again isn't as easy as breaking them.

Get ready for your argument from incredulity in 3...2...1-

 

[triforcharity]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: it's IMPOSSIBLE to know the details of xyz--despite YEARS and YEARS of study, however, these same people KNOW xyz was inevitable. Does that sum it up?

For those of you interested in theology, this is an analogue to the tapistry argument: i.e., the universe is much too complicated for us wee little beings to wrap our heads around, therefore, we can guarantee that God exists.

Textbook argument from ignorance.



Speaking of inevitability, here is the very predictable appeal to authority that eminates from these pages from time to time. Call me skeptical, but I have reason to believe that even experts are human.

No, not argument from ignorance. Its argument from facts.

To try to model the collapse, and how each and every beam, truss, column, etc. etc. etc. reacted is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot do it. People can get close, but not anywhere NEAR accurate. We just do not have the technology. There are too many variables. Do you understand what that means? It means we have too many things that can alter how something reacts, so to accurately model it would be impossible.

I did not appeal to authority at all. I appeal to the FACTS that we have many many different studies, including math and facts to back it up.
If 10 people tell me that fire is hot, and I research that, and it seems to be true, I would say that it is most likely true.

Does the TM, or you yourself have ANY engineering papers, that arae PEER REVIEWED, in ANY language PROVING NIST and the others wrong? I would love to see it. As would others that are here. We would accept any language you prefer.

We will wait.

 

[triforcharity]

Again, I haven't advocated any particular replacement theory (CD, nukes, particle beam, keebler elves, etc.). My point here is that everyone, regardless of their favorite explanation for the collapses, should be able to agree that those towers fell with shocking expeditiousness.

Stop arguing from your own personal ignorance. I have seen buildings collapse before. It did not strike me as odd at all. Then again, when I was running away from it, I really wasn't paying attention with a stopwatch.

Fast compared to what? We have asked before, and you have yet to provide anything to compare it to.

What that ultimately means is not clear. And look, I'm not trying to be unreasonable as we both know that even if the towers burned for 8 hours and fell incompletely, there would still be people screaming "CONSPIRACY!!" I know this. You know this. The fact is that the buildings did indeed collapse quickly (relative to things falling from their respective heights)

We agree on one thing, but so far, that is it.

You keep going with this quickly line. What are you basing this off of?

and created massive billowing dust clouds

Most collapses do. Do you know what concrete and drywall do when they are stressed and crushed beyond their loading abilities? They make dust. Most things do.

as well as molten metal

There are 10 different metals that melt well within the range that a normal office fire will produce. Can you name them?

Heres a hint.

1-They are all found in abundance in the WTC, and melt anywhere from 1000 deg. f. to 1800 deg. f.

and remnants of hot, violent reactions in the leftovers.

What do you think fire does to things that it touches? Especially for 99 days?!?!!

It's enough for a person without any particular agenda to say "that's wierd." Or "what sense does the collapse make if the only energy inputs are mass, acceleration and fire?" That's not an argument from incredulity because IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT. It's an observation and a question. Did you see me posit an argument for the collapses?

No, most truthers don't.

The fact is that this event was unprecedented in numerous ways, however, nothing that happened that day is beyond our ability to account for it.

Exactly. Agreed. Too bad most truthers don't understand this. You just have to listen to the facts.

 

[TruthersLie]

Again, I haven't advocated any particular replacement theory (CD, nukes, particle beam, keebler elves, etc.). My point here is that everyone, regardless of their favorite explanation for the collapses, should be able to agree that those towers fell with shocking expeditiousness.

And your point is completely and utterly bollux. To say that something fell too fast, is to need a comparision. Too fast compared to what?

To freefall? Nope. Like I showed you 75% longer is the CLOSEST it gets to freefall...

That isn't "too fast." That is what I expect.

What I also notice is that the towers didn't collapse in the same amount of time. Not even in the same ballpark of time. It is a statisticallytly significant difference in the time distrobution of the collapses. 9.22 seconds for freefall. 15ish for the first tower, 22ish for the second. You have MASSIVELY different times which shows you where that energy went and how it slowed down the collapse mechanismsm.

your argument from incredulity is duly noted.

Again and again, you are making the claim that it was "too fast." BACK IT UP. I eagerly await your mechanical and structural engineering papers to show that the collapse should have take much longer.

Please provide it.

What that ultimately means is not clear. And look, I'm not trying to be unreasonable as we both know that even if the towers burned for 8 hours and fell incompletely, there would still be people screaming "CONSPIRACY!!" I know this. You know this.

You apparently don't know this. You think there are 2 sides to this discussion and fail to present any evidence to support the "truther" side. Just one single peer reviewed engineering journal. I'm not asking you to cure cancer.. Just one. Why can't truthers even reach that level of proof?

The fact is that the buildings did indeed collapse quickly (relative to things falling from their respective heights)

COMPARED TO WHAT? To someone with a parachute? To a rocket pointed at the ground?

This is a bald faced argument from ignorance. try again.

and created massive billowing dust clouds

so what? Look up the verinage demolitons techniques, or other CD of buildings. Massive billowing clouds of dust from two 110 story buildings which collapsed... go figure.

as well as molten metal

Please, pretty please show me ANY CD which has molten metal in it. I'd love to see it.

and remnants of hot, violent reactions in the leftovers.

citaiton please. Oh you mean the bs nanothermite, thermate, thermite claims right? ROFLMAO.

or are you talkinga bout the erutic(sp) reactions?

again just one peer reviewe engineering paper from anywhere in the world which contrdicts NIST. It should be easy. I'll take it in ANY language... russian, arabic, korean

It's enough for a person without any particular agenda to say "that's wierd."

And it is enough that a person who does 5 to 10 minutes of REAL research finds the answers to those "that's weird" moments.

Or "what sense does the collapse make if the only energy inputs are mass, acceleration and fire?" That's not an argument from incredulity because IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT. It's an observation and a question. Did you see me posit an argument for the collapses?

No it is an bald faced argument from ignorance. The fact that you don't understand it, and keep JAQing off doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant of the facts.

The fact is that this event was unprecedented in numerous ways, however, nothing that happened that day is beyond our ability to account for it.

And most of it has been accounted for.

Please, pretty please provide even a semi coherent narrative of the events that happened which explain the evidence of what we saw. feel free. It should be easy.