faster than free fall

[GodisEnergy]

While the building didnt collapse at freefall speed, Certain parts of the 'collapse' did.
Watch the racing series of explosions travelling down the side of the building,at faster than free fall speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

how is this possible without explosives

[Doctor Evil]

It may not be polite, but:

[Doctor Evil]

Hint; You can clearly see a few small solid chinks, which are not influenced by air drag, falling faster than everything else.

[dtugg]

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for Rule 12.

[Quad4_72]

This is really awful. I don't even know what to say to that. GIE, do us a favor and unplug your computer's power supply and cancel your internet service.

[GodisEnergy]

why?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

why?

As Doctor Evil mentioned, you can see chunks of building material that are falling somewhat slower than free fall (due to air resistance), but are still falling faster than the collapse front (those are not explosions). Ergo, nothing in your video is "faster than free fall".

[GodisEnergy]

yes some parts of the collapse i agree, but there is a part of the collapse a second in where its the other way around

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

yes some parts of the collapse i agree, but there is a part of the collapse a second in where its the other way around

What the hell are you talking about?

Faster than free fall? Seriously? Were there rocket engines pointed upwards? There is something wrong with your brain.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

yes some parts of the collapse i agree, but there is a part of the collapse a second in where its the other way around

And how exactly did you determine this? Show your measurements and calculations that demonstrate what the velocity should have been 1 second into the collapse (hint, 9.806 m/s²), and what is your calculated velocity for the "line of explosions". On this forum, it is pathetically unacceptable to state that it simply looks that way.

[GodisEnergy]

well its faster than the falling debris,
Im trying to figure out how to measure the distance then i can work out the exact speed ,but its hard to see the floors
i was hoping you guys could help

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

well its faster than the falling debris

Again, how did you determine this? Since the debris is not at the same level as the collapse front, how can you tell?

It is not my job to support your assertions. If you cannot provide evidence for your points, it may very well be due to the fact that they are completely wrong.

[Doctor Evil]

I do not know if this help you, GIE, but there are two errors you would want to avoid.

Firstly, you can not assume that all debris will fall in the same manner, due to air resistance. For instance, some panels from the face of the building fall in a way somewhat similar to the way in which a piece of paper would fall. That is, they tumble around. These type of debris clearly fall slower then they would in vacuum.

Look for compact and solid pieces of debris if you want to reduce the effect of drag.

Secondly, do not confuse speed and acceleration. Faster or slower than free fall is a claim about the acceleration of an object, not its speed. As an example, let us assume that during the collapse a piece of material is ejected horizontally from the building.

At the moment that the piece is ejected its vertical component of the velocity is zero, which is slower then the collapse front. However, its acceleration may be that of a free falling object, which is larger than the one of the collapse. As a result its vertical velocity will increase at a larger rate than the one of the front. But, until the time these vertical components of the velocities match, it would lag more and more behind. The crucial point is that this does not mean the front is faster than free fall.

Good night.

[Travis]

A building that falls faster than free fall would be a sign that everything we think we know about physics is just wrong. At that point whether it was a demolition or not becomes rather insignificant.

So what's the point of this claim again?

[Myriad]

Hi GodIsEnergy,

One thing to keep in mind is that all any collapse video can show you is a very small part of what's going on, on the surfaces closest to the camera.

Mathematical models of the collapse describe a step by step process of floors crashing into floors, neatly and evenly like a falling row of dominoes, because that makes the calculations manageable and it's accurate enough to represent limiting cases. People counting frames and pixels on video clips are making that same basic assumption. But the real collapse is more like dumping truckloads of dominoes onto a ski slope and then starting an avalanche. Nothing is happening one step at a time. And you can only see a small part of all that chaotic flow.

So, there might very well be frames in videos that show the outer columns buckling at one floor, and very quickly thereafter (or perhaps even in the same frame), more movement beginning several floors below. That doesn't mean, though, that the first upper movement is the direct cause or the only cause of the movement below. It doesn't mean that the timing of the two events is an accurate measure of the speed of anything falling. One likely possibility is that the interior collapse of the floors might already have progressed past all of those those floors and what you're seeing is several floors worth of of no-longer-supported outer wall giving way more or less all at once.

What you don't see in the videos is any specific object -- whether small piece of debris or large mass of structure -- accelerating at faster than free fall. Nor does the progression of the collapse as a whole, observed on a time and distance scale large enough to smooth out the turbulence of the process, accelerate or travel faster than "free fall speed."

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Travis

A building that falls faster than free fall would be a sign that everything we think we know about physics is just wrong. At that point whether it was a demolition or not becomes rather insignificant.

So what's the point of this claim again?

Well, it may just have been an error in his wording (), but it didn't read as if GiE was claiming that the building was collapsing faster than free-fall, but that there was a "line of explosions" moving faster than any debris or the collapse front, assuming "lines of explosions" aren't a gravity-driven event. I was trying to show him (her?) the error of his (her?) ways by having him (her?) try and figure out what the velocity should have been at time t=1 second vs. what it apparently was. Hence the hint about the acceleration due to gravity. Ah well.


ETA: Myriad's answer is better.

[mrbaracuda]

Quote:

how is this possible without explosives

Uh..

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

Watch the racing series of explosions

Which is it, GiE? What I see is a "racing series" of air and dust being pushed out by an internal collapse / the upper part crashing down and fires being fueled and pushed out by that air for a second.

How do you explain the very visible fact that the outer walls were pulled inside?

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by Myriad

One likely possibility is that the interior collapse of the floors might already have progressed past all of those those floors and what you're seeing is several floors worth of of no-longer-supported outer wall giving way more or less all at once.

Indeed!

[MarkyX]

Someone actually believes that controlled demolition is a supernatural event since it breaks the law of gravity.

Idiots, 9/11 deniers are such *********** idiots.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by MarkyX

Idiots, 9/11 deniers are such *********** idiots.

And you've only just figured this out now?

[rwguinn]

Welcome to 2003.
This BS has been covered in several dozen threads. Do we really need a new one for those too damn lazy to do a tiny bit of research?
I get >10 pages of threads on the issue.
This is trolling, spamming, and incivility all rolled in to 1.
Put the ijits on ignore and let's move on...

[bio]

There are no "squibs" at the corner of the tower.
Why?

[TjW]

Originally Posted by bio

There are no "squibs" at the corner of the tower.
Why?

I give up; why?

[tomwaits]

Originally Posted by bio

There are no "squibs" at the corner of the tower.
Why?

[Trojan]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

While the building didnt collapse at freefall speed, Certain parts of the 'collapse' did.
Watch the racing series of explosions travelling down the side of the building,at faster than free fall speed.


how is this possible without explosives

Its not possible to fall faster than free fall speed. To travel downward faster than free fall speed, you would need a force pushing the items downward. How would this occur?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Trojan

Its not possible to fall faster than free fall speed. To travel downward faster than free fall speed, you would need a force pushing the items downward. How would this occur?

Why, a Star Wars Space Beam of course!

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

While the building didnt collapse at freefall speed, Certain parts of the 'collapse' did.
Watch the racing series of explosions travelling down the side of the building,at faster than free fall speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

how is this possible without explosives

Where did you pick up this special science?
Why did you pick the air pressure in your avatar to make up junk science, already discovered by 9/11 truth, and refuted, debunked, and explained with real science?

Air Pressure. oops, it was NWO secret, but gee, science let the beans spill a long time ago.

9/11 truth is in truth, the anti-intellectual side of 9/11, called woo, or nut case ideas on 9/11, 9/11 truth is anything but truth.

You are talking about the air pressure escaping from the building. Fluid dynamics. is a tough subject, but you can see in your avatar, the air is escaping from the WTC collapsing. Did you know light acts like a wave and a particle? If you can explain light, you would not be confused by air pressure.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

While the building didnt collapse at freefall speed, Certain parts of the 'collapse' did.
Watch the racing series of explosions travelling down the side of the building,at faster than free fall speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

how is this possible without explosives

The way I see it is this: As the buildings began to fall, parts of the structure impacted on other parts, causing shock waves in the structure below. These travelled downwards through the structure. Because the collapse was chaotic, there would have been multiple different shock waves propagating from different points and bouncing from side to side of the structure at different angles, and at some points multiple shock waves would have interfered constructively. This would strain parts of the structure beyond their limits, causing localised failures. The shock waves, being basically sound waves, would travel downwards at the speed of sound in steel - about 4500 metres per second - much faster than falling debris. There would also have been pressurisation of the lower structure, because of the top part collapsing into it, so any local failure due to elastic waves would result in dust being thrown out of the building where the failures occurred. No physical object is falling faster than freefall (insofar as the phrase has any meaning).

How would you suggest it should be explained, GiE? How is "faster than freefall" possible with explosives?

Originally Posted by bio

There are no "squibs" at the corner of the tower.
Why?

For the same reason that there are no squibs anywhere else; there were no special effects explosives or fireworks going off in the collapses.

If you're wondering why there are no ejections of debris at the corners of the towers, of the type erroneously described by some 9/11 truthers as "squibs", using an incorrect term to suggest an inappropriate description of the phenomenon, bear in mind that only about six such occurrences were observed in both collapses together, and the statistics are such that this could be simply coincidence.

Again, bio, why do you think there were no ejecta of debris at the corner of the tower?

Dave

[gumboot]

Guys you're being a bit hasty here to ridicule, and not paying attention to the argument. While I agree whole-heartedly with you about the nonsense of the "faster than freefall" argument, you guys are mostly arguing against a strawman. GodisEnergy is not arguing that material fell faster than freefall. GodisEnergy is arguing that the apparant propagation of the collapse front descends at a rate faster than freefall speed. This would indicate that the propagation of the collapse front was being caused by something other than gravitational force - because gravitational force could only cause it to propagate at a maximum speed of freefall.

Instead, GodisEnergy proposes that timed detonations are occurring one floor after another, and that the timing of these explosives is close enough that the time between one floor detonating and the one below it detonating is less than the time it would take the upper floor to fall that distance.

Thus, if the propagation of the collapse is progressing down the building at a rate that exceeds freefall speed it stands to reason the collapse propagation cannot be driven by gravity and must be driven by a series of local independently initiated failures.

Now, there's lots of flaws in this analysis, the most glaringly obvious being that the collapse doesn't propagate faster than freefall speed, or even close to freefall speed. But let's not argue strawmen here folks - there's no talk of actual objects falling faster than freefall in the OP.

[GodisEnergy]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Guys you're being a bit hasty here to ridicule, and not paying attention to the argument. While I agree whole-heartedly with you about the nonsense of the "faster than freefall" argument, you guys are mostly arguing against a strawman. GodisEnergy is not arguing that material fell faster than freefall. GodisEnergy is arguing that the apparant propagation of the collapse front descends at a rate faster than freefall speed. This would indicate that the propagation of the collapse front was being caused by something other than gravitational force - because gravitational force could only cause it to propagate at a maximum speed of freefall.

Instead, GodisEnergy proposes that timed detonations are occurring one floor after another, and that the timing of these explosives is close enough that the time between one floor detonating and the one below it detonating is less than the time it would take the upper floor to fall that distance.

Thus, if the propagation of the collapse is progressing down the building at a rate that exceeds freefall speed it stands to reason the collapse propagation cannot be driven by gravity and must be driven by a series of local independently initiated failures.

Now, there's lots of flaws in this analysis, the most glaringly obvious being that the collapse doesn't propagate faster than freefall speed, or even close to freefall speed. But let's not argue strawmen here folks - there's no talk of actual objects falling faster than freefall in the OP.

thankyou

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Now, there's lots of flaws in this analysis, the most glaringly obvious being that the collapse doesn't propagate faster than freefall speed, or even close to freefall speed. But let's not argue strawmen here folks - there's no talk of actual objects falling faster than freefall in the OP.

The freefall speed arguments needs to wilt anyway.... freefall is motion without any acceleration other than that provided by gravity. For the reasons you put forth and others the argument is DOA, period

[Homeland Insurgency]

What does any of this matter?

Just go to the top of a building and drop a bullet with one hand and at the same time fire a bullet from a gun towards the ground in your other hand.

I think one of them will get there first.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

What does any of this matter?

Just go to the top of a building and drop a bullet with one hand and at the same time fire a bullet from a gun towards the ground in your other hand.

I think one of them will get there first.

if you fire a bullet straight down...from a building, say, 100,000 feet tall..

the bullet will slow down by the friction of the air until it reaches terminal velocity..and will be at the same falling speed as the dropped bullet.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

how is this possible without explosives

How is it possible with explosives?

[Mangoose]

I have a question for those with physics/engineering background....

The falling top section of the tower exerts a downward kinetic force on the lower portion of the building. Isn't it reasonable to expect that this energy can be transmitted through the steel structure of the building at a speed quite independent from the speed of gravity? When the collapse initiated, couldn't those at the lobby begin to feel the rumbling?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

What does any of this matter?

Just go to the top of a building and drop a bullet with one hand and at the same time fire a bullet from a gun towards the ground in your other hand.

I think one of them will get there first.

Is that your attempt to explain why the debris falling away from the towers hits the ground faster than the collapse front?

I mean, you do realize that explosives inside the tower exerting a downward force on material inside the tower would not explain the debris outside the tower, because for explosives to eject debris outside of the tower, the force would be applied laterally, therefore not contribute to any downward acceleration... right?

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

I have a question for those with physics/engineering background....

The falling top section of the tower exerts a downward kinetic force on the lower portion of the building. Isn't it reasonable to expect that this energy can be transmitted through the steel structure of the building at a speed quite independent from the speed of gravity? When the collapse initiated, couldn't those at the lobby begin to feel the rumbling?

Stresses would indeed propagate at the speed of sound in steel, which is very large. However, in such a case I would expect that a (oversimplified) description of the collapse is as follows: When the top floor impact the bottom one the dynamics stress is transferred fast, but then the closest weak point to the impact zone fail. Then this new chunk of matter falls with the previously falling one, until it hits the next "intact" part. The resulting collapse is rather complicated, but on a large scale still depends on gravity to drive the falling debries.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Originally Posted by parky76

if you fire a bullet straight down...from a building, say, 100,000 feet tall..

the bullet will slow down by the friction of the air until it reaches terminal velocity..and will be at the same falling speed as the dropped bullet.

The WTC was 100,000 feet tall?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Is that your attempt to explain why the debris falling away from the towers hits the ground faster than the collapse front?

I mean, you do realize that explosives inside the tower exerting a downward force on material inside the tower would not explain the debris outside the tower, because for explosives to eject debris outside of the tower, the force would be applied laterally, therefore not contribute to any downward acceleration... right?

Why don't you tell me what threw columns out sideways fast and hard enough to impale another building hundreds of feet away? Was that just gravity? And why couldn't they be thrown just as fast straight down?

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Why don't you tell me what threw columns out sideways fast and hard enough to impale another building hundreds of feet away? Was that just gravity? And why couldn't they be thrown just as fast straight down?

A violent and chaotic collapse might be a hint... I'f be interested of course if there really were Hush-a-booms with that much power behind them. Please tell me more about these silent super explosives HI. You seem to have plenty of insight to offer