Randi - You've Been Had! TS1234 Email to Randi

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

and the best way to do THAT of course is to hang around internet forums and post videos to youtube, right?

[The_Fire]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

and the best way to do THAT of course is to hang around internet forums and post videos to youtube, right?

Can't help but wonder what the average age of the Toother movement is......How many of them are actually of age to vote and why haven't they done so in the past? How many of them were actually above 16 at the time of the Twin Towers attack? How many of them were there? How many of them actually knows the difference between speculation and evidence?

[firecoins]

In February 2001, I was on the 89thn floor of the South Tower. I am sure there were explosives in the building...

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by The_Fire

Can't help but wonder what the average age of the Toother movement is......How many of them are actually of age to vote and why haven't they done so in the past? How many of them were actually above 16 at the time of the Twin Towers attack? How many of them were there? How many of them actually knows the difference between speculation and evidence?

i wonder if any of them have a grasp of how big the towers were

ive never been to NY, but i liv ein chicago, so ive been to the sears tower, which in terms to floor area, is actually just a little a bit smaller than one of the towers, to rig the sears tower with explosives would be a MASSIVE understaking, and there were 2 of the twin towers that had to be done

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Argument from personal incredulity.

Next.

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

You utterly misstate what I was saying. Of course a cinder block dropped will injure your toe, it cannot injure anything on the way down. To the extent that the cinder block damages anything else on the way down, that energy must indeed be subtracted from available GPE, thus slowing the acceleration and adding to the fall time. Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict.

You imagine collapsing floors stacking up and accumulating mass and momentum. This bears no resemblence to any observations that are made.

You imagine steel floor pans full of concrete falling all the way to the ground and then pulverizing. This is evocative, but there is no evidence for this. None. Every picture and every video show the floors turning into powder, systematically.

All of your ideas about the collapse are evocative, but they do not match what we observe. At all.

Roger, suppose you explain to me what happened with the top 12 floors of WTC1. So 98 fails and the top 12 floors fall down one to 97, right? Then what? Does 97 break and the whole thing falls down another level to 96? Is that what you think? What do we observe Roger?

Ok, now use your imagination and consider a tower of cinder blocks. The blocks are spaced at 0.5m centres, one above the other and each block weighs 1kg, but each block can only support 0.25kg.

Let's now imagine that the block at the very top of the tower is allowed to fall.

When it hits the block below it, that fall will be slowed by the resistance it encounters, but since it's weight and momentum are greater than the loading capacity of the block it has hit, that block will also fall, and so now we have two blocks falling with a combined weight of 2kg onto the block below which provides even less resistance against this falling debris and so this block fails even faster and now 3kg of weight is falling and the collapse is steadily gaining in speed and the falling debris far outweighs the ability of the blocks to resist it.

Now consider this scenario whereby the top 4 or 5 blocks fall as one onto the blocks below, and then you start to get a collapse occuring with little or no resistance from the remaining structure.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Spoken like a human being with a heart and mind that is aligned.

Your question about the premature detonations (erroneously termed "squibs" at times) is answered by cutting charges built into the floors. The image linked above shows the interior box columns ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS") being cut on WTC 2 to get the top started falling eastward.

The full demolition scenario is detailed here.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Spoken like a human being with a heart and mind that is aligned.

Your question about the premature detonations (erroneously termed "squibs" at times) is answered by cutting charges built into the floors. The image linked above shows the interior box columns ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS") being cut on WTC 2 to get the top started falling eastward.

The full demolition scenario is detailed here.

box columns? do we have a steel core now?

[qarnos]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i wonder if any of them have a grasp of how big the towers were

ive never been to NY, but i liv ein chicago, so ive been to the sears tower, which in terms to floor area, is actually just a little a bit smaller than one of the towers, to rig the sears tower with explosives would be a MASSIVE understaking, and there were 2 of the twin towers that had to be done

Has there ever been any effort made by the Troofers to ascertain where these explosives came from?

I mean, surely someone, somewhere, is wondering "where are those several hundred tons of explosives I had before 9/11"? Not to mention the unimaginable miles of detonation cord.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by qarnos

Has there ever been any effort made by the Troofers to ascertain where these explosives came from?

I mean, surely someone, somewhere, is wondering "where are those several hundred tons of explosives I had before 9/11"? Not to mention the unimaginable miles of detonation cord.

There is actually a site that explains where the explosives were located and how they got there.

Demolition

[qarnos]

Originally Posted by Christophera

There is actually a site that explains where the explosives were located and how they got there.

Demolition

I asked if anyone has done any work to find out where they came from - someone must be missing them.

Your site only contains misinformed speculation and does not answer my question.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Who is us? Who are the growing number of us, any real people? How can we gage who the growing number is, and if this is true there is a serous problem of education you guys have failed to learn how to reason and use judgment. You are being mislead by politically biased liars.

Dr Jones? If you could find some facts and explain them, that will be the day. I even checked out the web site of Dr Jones from BYU, oops hold that he was retired/fired cause he is nut case and put his stuff on the school's web site. Do you like his paper of no facts on 9/11, as he continues to change the paper and tries to prove his pre ordained conclusion?

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

At this site you find Jones journal of what I think is a conspiracy of lies because he has a specific political agenda and does not mind being a liar to further his own goals. (not exactly a pure why to get you to go find false perpetrators is it, but go to it and lynch some innocent people and become what you are against!!!)

At the journal is a paper you have failed to use and help us understand your CT movement. We know Jones's goal but under the veil of 9/11 truth you have fallen in with the liars. How, even if you agree with Jones' politically stand, can you sell your mind to the liars? This paper is http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdfMomentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1 by Gordon Ross

In the paper, Ross says WTC1 comes up 390Mj short of the energy needed for the 16 top stories to break thru the first resists it meets when the top fails. Notice right away these dolts agree the top failed as you saw. They just say it was short 390,000,000 joules of breaking through for global destruction of WTC1.

WOW, why have you hidden this from us you know how much TNT that would be? The shorted amount of energy is, hold your breath. ---- 186 pounds of TNT Given the fact they say the top falling would create the energy, as it hit the first resistance, of 2.01GJ, which is the energy of 1006 pounds of TNT. Could they of made a 10 percent error. You know I calculated the energy of the top 16 floor and I came up with 2.7GJ and that would be 1286 pound of TNT energy!!!

10 percent more energy left over as the building proceeds to self destruct! And you know, WTC1 did self destruct, therefore Ross made a mistake, he was 20 percent or more off from me, and thus he could be wrong, and the visual I witnessed live on TV on 9/11 as I watch, confirms my numbers, using his methods. I would not trust the CT guys with your life!! Why do you???

Are all the papers on Jones' tin foil hat Journal wrong? Quick check, the paper I just reviewed and think is wrong looks like real academic work (my calculation show they are wrong, who can you trust, remember the WTC1 did fall, and it proceeded at what looks like the energy as I found! Maybe they forgot the water, the people the desks, the paper, and all the other things on the top 16 floors, 200 people would be close to 4 tons! But bet you do not know that would be trivial), the rest seem to border on the weird and absurd, but I have not finished a review, and do not have time in the near future to debunk the crap put out by idiots who do not even check there work properly. When your engineering papers are peered reviewed by poets and theologians you have bigger problems than credibility, you border on fraud, and risk being label a kook/nut case tin foil hat fringe group.

Why can you not present this paper and defend it?

Do you personally lack the ability to calculate energy?

You talk about people showing you! No you need to show us your numbers.

Got any numbers? Have any proof? Are you just saying what you find on the CT web sites, and you have no capability to seek out both sides?

How can you not do what I just did, seek out the other side and check it? I did it and found that paper very close, but 10 percent, and I found it 10 percent over! The towers fell, why does that make my numbers better? It may not, I could be wrong, and that would make their paper wrong in another area, their assumption of only one floor being destroyed to allow the collapse to start.

This paper infers that the tops did fail, they just think it should not of precipitated the overall collapse and they are basing this on 10 percent!

If you had these number and trusted them you are a fool. If I had these numbers I would leave the building quickly, 10 percent is just too close to call!!!

I saw the WTC1 fall, heard no RDX going off, I guess my numbers are better.

Do you have anything better?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Christophera

There is actually a site that explains where the explosives were located and how they got there.

Demolition

This web site is psychotic, thermite does not cut horizontally, it flows with gravity!

Thermite is not capable of cutting in the horizontal you need to put it on top of something. Like your car, it will go thru the engine block, it does not explode, it burns and will flow with gravity, down, not sideways, in the WTC it would flow down to the floor and burn the concrete some, and burn out! Sorry to break the news but even Dr Jones now uses RDX in his new CT papers!

You are mr concrete core man, no concrete core in the WTC on 9/11 or ever, and if concrete was in the core then thermite is useless.

Having a concrete core would negate the use of thermite even more than gravity alone!

So do you want thermite?

Or do you want concrete core?

There was not molten steel found, no proof.

There are no concrete sheer walls! Error!

Radio wave detonators? What kept them from going off accidentally over the year? Who makes up this junk? It would take years to secretly set up a CD in the WTC, the inspectors would find it, and the individual firms had independent security who would see the idiots working on the secret explosives over the year! You have holes in this web site you could fly a WTC tower thru!!

This web site is debunked on all points, and the concrete core junk proves you to be a liar on concrete core.

[qarnos]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Radio wave detonators? What kept them from going off accidentally over the year?

Chris believes that the explosives were planted during construction of the towers - therefore the detonators would have to not go off accidentally for almost 30 years.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Just were will we do the perp walk?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.

from your physics we should still have the buildings collapsing etrnally.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Suppose a shaped charge was in the core section. How fast would we expect the air to be moving by the time it was at the perimeter?

It wouldn't get there.

Quote:

How else do we explain these tightly focused jets of smoke and debris?

Tightly focused ? You need to look at that video again.

Quote:

Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier.

Why ? What's so hard to believe when these people declared war on the free world ?

Quote:

falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Did you not read what I said ? If whatever it hits is too weak to make much of a difference, it won't. Gravity is relentless, and it continues to add energy to the falling mass. Plus, the fact that it's falling gives it a whole lot more energy than when it was stationary, so it's easy to imagine that the lower floors failed rather rapidly. Plus, you can CLEARLY see the debris falling much faster than the rest. Do you get that ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Spoken like a human being with a heart and mind that is aligned.

OH NO!! Christophera's SPREADING!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Mr. Randi has replied to my letter. Here it is.

pwned

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Gravy

I strongly encourage you not to bring this philosophy to avalanche country.

This gives me an idea. Every time someone mentions "pyroclastic flow", I'm going to counter with "avalanche". If they get to use geological terms liberally, then so should we.

[Indolent Wretch]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict.

This statement as is seems to be fair.

Logically a tower with significant internal structure should take longer to collapse to it's final height than would a ball falling beside it, obviously once one has taken into account wind resistence, etc.

You are of course also stating that this ISN'T what happened. You are stating that the towers did collapse at free fall speeds.

Given the seriousness of these allegations I hope you have something to back them up.

Q1: By your calculations how long should it have taken the top most floor of the tower to reach it's final height?

Q2: By your observations how long did it actually take?

Your answers please. Not somebody elses.

One proviso, In my mind (possibly erroneously) I can see that if the slowing down of the collapse due to internal collisions had a small enough effect so that the point of collision inside the building never reached as high as the falling top most floor then that top most floor probably would have approached near free fall speeds.

Maybe you could construct a simple computer model so that we can check this?

I would do it myself, but I'm pretty clear in my thoughts on what happened that day.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

... Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict...

No. Objects can not continue falling at terminal velocity and inflict damage to other objects.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by qarnos

Chris believes that the explosives were planted during construction of the towers - therefore the detonators would have to not go off accidentally for almost 30 years.

i think chris mentioned once the detonators were not in place all the time, i seem to recall him saying they were placed during the alleged 36 hour powerdown of one half of one tower (how the other 75% were placed i dont know)

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Oh, I see. So you still believe the tired old debunked-a-million-times idea that the towers fell at just over free fall. That's sad. You don't even have the small amount of intellectual honesty it takes to modify your opinion when you are proven wrong with evidence. Like with your idea bout inelastic collisions not causing damage to two bodies, you refuse to admit that you're wrong on this so you can recycle the same story over and over again without ever checking it against the facts.

It seems there's really no hope of changing your mind. Despite all physical evidence to the contrary, you still insist on holding on to your belief in this bit of dogma. Like Catholics with transubstantiation, your religion requires an unwavering faith in the patently false.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i think chris mentioned once the detonators were not in place all the time, i seem to recall him saying they were placed during the alleged 36 hour powerdown of one half of one tower (how the other 75% were placed i dont know)

I see you've been hypnotised, too.

That's the good thing about living in Saguenay.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down. Oh, I see. So you still believe the tired old debunked-a-million-times idea that the towers fell at just over free fall. That's sad. You don't even have the small amount of intellectual honesty it takes to modify your opinion when you are proven wrong with evidence. Like with your idea bout inelastic collisions not causing damage to two bodies, you refuse to admit that you're wrong on this so you can recycle the same story over and over again without ever checking it against the facts.

It seems there's really no hope of changing your mind. Despite all physical evidence to the contrary, you still insist on holding on to your belief in this bit of dogma. Like Catholics with transubstantiation, your religion requires an unwavering faith in the patently false.

Ok, 1 more time, for the record:
IF we consider g=9.807 m/sec^2, and the fall distance as 1360 feet,
we get the following times for the fall
Free-fall 9.195 sec
90% FF 9.692 sec
80% FF 10.28 sec
70% FF 10.99 sec
50% FF 13.0 sec

Amazing stuff, physics. so, at 50% of free-fall acceleration, it only takes 40% longer to fall...but 50% of the KE has somewhere else to go...and it will go there...

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i think chris mentioned once the detonators were not in place all the time, i seem to recall him saying they were placed during the alleged 36 hour powerdown of one half of one tower (how the other 75% were placed i dont know)

Immediately following the leasing of the towers there was extensive work done on the elevators serving the lower floors, or that is what nes casts said. The thick core walls required considerable time to burrow through the parafin plugs cast over the exposed rebar at the bottom of the inspection holes and the was a desire to avoid those long periods of downtime immdiately before 9-11 meaning the lower core detonators were set then. Becase they were a different detonator not subject to inadvertant initiation by radio waves they were also not as predictable in time with their intitiation, meaning this image only exists because of the added delay of that secondary intitation system. The floors were one detonation system and the core was another. Explosions of floors did not disturb the initiation system of the core because it was inside the core protected from the floor blasts outside by the thick concrete walls.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

... Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict...

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

No. Objects can not continue falling at terminal velocity and inflict damage to other objects.

Thank you for confirming what Truthseeker has said. Now we are starting to make some sense around here.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Now we are starting to make some sense around here.

No "we" are not.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Thank you for confirming what Truthseeker has said. Now we are starting to make some sense around here.

Erm, I was correcting Truthseeker's terminology; not necessarily agreeing with his assesments.

Since further clarification appears to be necessary:
per m-w.com:
free fall
One entry found for free fall.


Main Entry: free fall
Function: noun
1 : the condition of unrestrained motion in a gravitational field; also : such motion
2 a : the part of a parachute jump before the parachute opens b : a rapid and continuing drop or decline <a free fall in stock prices>
- free-fall intransitive verb


per wiki:
Terminal velocity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Terminal velocity (disambiguation).
The terminal velocity of an object falling towards the ground, in non-vacuum, is the speed at which the gravitational force pushing it downwards is equal and opposite to the atmospheric drag (also called air resistance) pulling it upwards. At this speed, the object ceases to accelerate downwards and falls at constant speed. An object moving downwards at greater than terminal velocity (for example because it previously used power to descend, it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere or it changed shape) will slow until it reaches terminal velocity.

[defaultdotxbe]

the real question is, did any part of the debris reach TV?

i suppose some of the lighter bits like paper and dust could have

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Erm, I was correcting Truthseeker's terminology; not necessarily agreeing with his assesments.

Since further clarification appears to be necessary:
per m-w.com:
free fall
One entry found for free fall.


Main Entry: free fall
Function: noun
1 : the condition of unrestrained motion in a gravitational field; also : such motion
2 a : the part of a parachute jump before the parachute opens b : a rapid and continuing drop or decline <a free fall in stock prices>
- free-fall intransitive verb


per wiki:
Terminal velocity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Terminal velocity (disambiguation).
The terminal velocity of an object falling towards the ground, in non-vacuum, is the speed at which the gravitational force pushing it downwards is equal and opposite to the atmospheric drag (also called air resistance) pulling it upwards. At this speed, the object ceases to accelerate downwards and falls at constant speed. An object moving downwards at greater than terminal velocity (for example because it previously used power to descend, it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere or it changed shape) will slow until it reaches terminal velocity.

I have cristanoid on ignore, but from what you write:
Terminal velocity for a chunk of steel and/or concrete is going to be considerably higher than for a human bean.
And skydivers can hit close to 200mh in a properly configured dive (or 120mph spread-eagled.)
200mph=293 ft/sec
velocity in a vacuum of an object falling (under 1 g) 1360 feet: 295.8 ft/sec.
Air resistance is a non-player in this instance.
Air resistance (drag) has no effect
Drag does not affect the fall time
you can ignore air resistance and drag by fluid medium (air)
does that help, Bullstuff1234 and gullible?

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

I have cristanoid on ignore, but from what you write:
Terminal velocity for a chunk of steel and/or concrete is going to be considerably higher than for a human bean.
And skydivers can hit close to 200mh in a properly configured dive (or 120mph spread-eagled.)
200mph=293 ft/sec
velocity in a vacuum of an object falling (under 1 g) 1360 feet: 295.8 ft/sec.
Air resistance is a non-player in this instance.
Air resistance (drag) has no effect
Drag does not affect the fall time
you can ignore air resistance and drag by fluid medium (air)
does that help, Bullstuff1234 and gullible?

well my question with regard to termianl velocity is, how long would it take to reach TV as sea-level air pressure, and did the debris have enough time to reach it?

is there an atmospheric equlivent to free-fall? because free-fall implies unimpeded acceleration, terminal velocity is, well, a velocity, not acceleration

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Originally Posted by Christophera

Spoken like a human being with a heart and mind that is aligned...

Swoon, swoon!

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

well my question with regard to termianl velocity is, how long would it take to reach TV as sea-level air pressure, and did the debris have enough time to reach it?

is there an atmospheric equlivent to free-fall? because free-fall implies unimpeded acceleration, terminal velocity is, well, a velocity, not acceleration

no.
ft/sec is a velocity.

Terminal velocity for a chunk of steel and/or concrete is going to be considerably higher than for a human bean.
And skydivers can hit close to 200mh in a properly configured dive (or 120mph spread-eagled.)
200mph=293 ft/sec
velocity in a vacuum of an object falling (under 1 g) 1360 feet: 295.8 ft/sec.
Air resistance is a non-player in this instance.
Air resistance (drag) has no effect
Drag does not affect the fall time
you can ignore air resistance and drag by fluid medium (air)

edited to add:
295.8 ft/sec is very close to 293 ft/sec, which is terminal velocity for a skydivern a head-down dive. Concrete and steel chunks will have a faster terminal velocity than a human, due to better ballistic coefficient.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

no.
ft/sec is a velocity.

Terminal velocity for a chunk of steel and/or concrete is going to be considerably higher than for a human bean.
And skydivers can hit close to 200mh in a properly configured dive (or 120mph spread-eagled.)
200mph=293 ft/sec
velocity in a vacuum of an object falling (under 1 g) 1360 feet: 295.8 ft/sec.
Air resistance is a non-player in this instance.
Air resistance (drag) has no effect
Drag does not affect the fall time
you can ignore air resistance and drag by fluid medium (air)

edited to add:
295.8 ft/sec is very close to 293 ft/sec, which is terminal velocity for a skydivern a head-down dive. Concrete and steel chunks will have a faster terminal velocity than a human, due to better ballistic coefficient.

i understand ft/s as the maximum speed attainable through free fall, however my question is that due to atmospheric resistance, will the object still be accelerated at 9.8m/s_2, or will acceleration be lower in an atmostphere?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Christophera

Immediately following the leasing of the towers there was extensive work done on the elevators serving the lower floors, or that is what nes casts said. The thick core walls required considerable time to burrow through the parafin plugs cast over the exposed rebar at the bottom of the inspection holes and the was a desire to avoid those long periods of downtime immdiately before 9-11 meaning the lower core detonators were set then. Becase they were a different detonator not subject to inadvertant initiation by radio waves they were also not as predictable in time with their intitiation, meaning this image only exists because of the added delay of that secondary intitation system. The floors were one detonation system and the core was another. Explosions of floors did not disturb the initiation system of the core because it was inside the core protected from the floor blasts outside by the thick concrete walls.

Gosh, it seems like so much fun, making this stuff up as you go. Can I do it too ?

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i understand ft/s as the maximum speed attainable through free fall, however my question is that due to atmospheric resistance, will the object still be accelerated at 9.8m/s_2, or will acceleration be lower in an atmostphere?

for a human, spread-eagled, or a feather, or a cloud of dust, or similar such things, yes, the acceleration will be lower.
It takes the same distance to reach Terminal Velocity--but it takes a longer time to get there.
For a rock, chunk of I-beam, or other equally high density/low area things,
the difference matters only to a pedant. (or physics professor on a graded paper)

[juryjone]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Originally Posted by Garb

The truth was exposed when Osama confessed. Duh.

And you do realize how ridiculous your theory is right?

Garb, you give TS too much credit by saying he has a theory. If it's one thing he's proved, it's that he doesn't have a clue, much less a theory.

A theory isn't necessary - only questions.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Ok, 1 more time, for the record:
IF we consider g=9.807 m/sec^2, and the fall distance as 1360 feet,
we get the following times for the fall
Free-fall 9.195 sec
90% FF 9.692 sec
80% FF 10.28 sec
70% FF 10.99 sec
50% FF 13.0 sec

Amazing stuff, physics. so, at 50% of free-fall acceleration, it only takes 40% longer to fall...but 50% of the KE has somewhere else to go...and it will go there...

Plus it took 30 seconds for WTC 1 to finish falling

Did you see the 70 or 80 story thin column remant of the core?

That means there is more energy to do what happened since there remains a damaged core.

I am still wondering where the broken laws of physics would apply in any case?