It's your story that you support here everyday. Is it wrong?
What part of the towers are you inferring that they meant by that statement?
In your oh-so-unclever interpretation, was it 10 seconds?
Or 10.0 sec?
Or 10.00 sec?
Or 10.000 sec?
Regardless of the above, there is a still a question about the precise timing.
(I believe. I haven't looked at this particular bit of nonsense in years. I cannot believe that anyone is still waving this around.)
Because there is no one answer. Because there was no one piece. There were thousands of pieces. And there was no single end point for the collapse. There was a massive, irregular, growing pile of rubble that varied from below street level to about 7 stories high.
But some pieces certainly hit in the 10 second time frame. Some certainly less. And I'd be willing to wager, some in less time than a free faling object. What the truther kids would ever-so-amusingly call "faster than free fall speed"!! "(Nope. Mr. Newton does not prohibit this in the slightest.)
But it looks like central mass around the core came down at some VARIABLE time (because it was not a single, monolithic piece, either) between 18 & 22 seconds for the two towers. With each towers "moment of impact" stretched out over ~2 seconds.
I began to say that the best analogy for this is a snow plow driving at a wall with a bunch of highly compacted, icy snow piled up in front of it. What time does the impact occur? When the icy snow hits the wall? When the plow hits the wall.
But that analogy fails too, because the leading edge of the plow is a solid, well defined surface. This is not true in the upper block of the towers.
So the best analogy is a rock slide or avalanche. And the impact time is not defined. Because the mass approaching the ground does not have a clearly defined leading edge. AND the ground that into which it is impacting does not have a clearly defined edge either. You have one wave crashing into another wave. Both waves have a distribution in space. And therefore the "time" that they collide also has a distribution over some time interval.
The end result of this is to say that "I don't care what time you say that it took to fall. If you define it as one single number (whether you say is 8 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds or 20 seconds), you are wrong."
Nonetheless, I cannot believe that you are still bringing up this irrelevant piece of trivia. It demonstrates that you aren't interested in learning or observing or changing your opinion or attitude to match what is clearly observable.
You are merely interested in picking out tiny little phrase snippets and waving them around like they were gold nuggets.
And they are gold. Fool's gold.
Tom
