Speed of collapse

furrod · 9th August 2007, 03:11 PM

I’m sure this has been discussed, ad nauseam, but recently I thought of an angle that I haven’t read before and I was hoping someone could expand upon it and/or point me toward a discussion I my have missed.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that the WTC towers collapsed within a time period only slightly faster than an object in free fall. The argument being that the individual floors would have provided some resistance and slowed the whole collapse down.

In an effort to avoid complicated equations and analysis, I’ve been looking for an easier explanation. Here is my thinking.

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?

According to http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm they do, but it is entirely due to explosives on the lowest floors, initiating the collapse, and then gravity takes over for the remainder of the building. Any explosives used in the upper part of the structure are primarily used to direct its fall.

The problem with this is that the upper explosive could be helping to speed up the collapse.

My question: Is there an example of a building being demolished using controlled demolition where the only explosives used were the ones on the ground floor, and did that building collapse at near free fall speed?

If so then I would think it is game over for those who cling to the idea that near free fall speed equals controlled demolition. An example of this sort would easily illustrate to even the densest conspiracy theorist that the floors that were not blown also did not provide any significant resistance to the speed at which the building fell.

Anyways, that’s my thinking. I hope it goes somewhere…

GlennB · 9th August 2007, 03:25 PM

[quote=furrod;2850971]

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?
[quote]

My bolding. Start here.
Where do you get this idea?
What are the figures and how are they arrived at?

CHF · 9th August 2007, 03:34 PM

Gravity was more than enough to caused the top masses to smash through the WCT towers.

South tower - 120,000 tons

North tower - 50,000 tons

Truthers think that what these masses fall 12 feet onto the floor below that it will somehow be stopped or significantly slowed down.

God knows why.

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 03:37 PM

[quote=GlennB;2851037][quote=furrod;2850971]

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?

Quote:

My bolding. Start here.
Where do you get this idea?
What are the figures and how are they arrived at?

Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1

Quote:

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass

CHF · 9th August 2007, 03:46 PM

Hey everyone, wanna see a cool magic trick? I'm gonna make Rev91 disappear!

Hey Rev, why did the trusses pull in on the outer columns?

*poof* he's gone!

e^n · 9th August 2007, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1

NIST qualifies that statement as you can see mentioning the relatively low amount of resistance. This is taken from Bazant + Greening who calculated the energy available to fail a floor as having an 8 fold excess. You can read their paper which also includes collapse time analysis here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...%206-22-07.pdf

T.A.M. · 9th August 2007, 03:54 PM

and could we please refrain from incorrectly referring to it as "FREE FALL SPEED". Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, moves at FREE FALL SPEED, as that silly thing called gravity causes all objects falling to ACCELERATE. The acception to this occurs once TERMINAL VELOCITY has been reached.

pet peeve

TAM

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

Hey everyone, wanna see a cool magic trick? I'm gonna make Rev91 disappear!

Hey Rev, why did the trusses pull in on the outer columns?

*poof* he's gone!

They sagged. Don't you even know that?

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by e^n

NIST qualifies that statement as you can see mentioning the relatively low amount of resistance. This is taken from Bazant + Greening who calculated the energy available to fail a floor as having an 8 fold excess. You can read their paper which also includes collapse time analysis here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...%206-22-07.pdf

Did they mean essentially in freefall? Yes or no?

CHF · 9th August 2007, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

They sagged. Don't you even know that?

What caused them to sag? Heat? Bombs?

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

What caused them to sag? Heat? Bombs?

I thought you were going to disappear me?

Heat.

beachnut · 9th August 2007, 04:04 PM

Momentum. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Greening does some stuff.

You can look up numbers from other work, and do your own study.

I think of the impact of the first part breaking the section below. The velocity is not stopped, it is only changed by the new mass and a small amount of energy lost. The entire process of collision is accelerating due to gravity. Each section of resistance is not stopping the fall, only taking away some energy. If you subtract that small amount of energy and calculate the new velocities and acceleration, you get close to what you see on 9/11. I come up with numbers close to Greening, he got -
WTC 1: tc = 13.48 s ; WTC 2: tc = 12.07 s

Pardalis · 9th August 2007, 04:06 PM

CHF · 9th August 2007, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

I thought you were going to disappear me?

Heat.

Heat from....what?

stateofgrace · 9th August 2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

The measurements have indicated that tower one collapsed in ABOUT eleven seconds and tower two in ABOUT nine seconds and the argument goes that this is essentially the rate at which freefall would happen BUT the building is 70% air in volume and all of the columns are not solid steel they are steel boxes in which the steel varies in thickness from about a quarter of an inch on the top to ABOUT three quarters of an inch to an inch and a half at the bottom, so they are not by any means solid structural components. But they are properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions and the weight of the occupants and the furniture in the buildings. Those are all things that these structures can withstand very well but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of, let’s say a 20 floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion the magnitude of the energy released is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied and it essentially came down in freefall.

Shyam Sunder, NIST

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

So why does the speed of the collapse matter?

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

Heat from....what?

Didn't you notice the fires started by the jet fuel? You need to be more observant.

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

Shyam Sunder, NIST

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

So why does the speed of the collapse matter?

So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time?

beachnut · 9th August 2007, 04:11 PM

[quote=Revolutionary91;2851078][quote=GlennB;2851037]

Originally Posted by furrod

The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition.

Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed?

Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1

Wrong. Any kid can calculate the speed, even Dr Greening does a good job. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

You could get help from a physics teacher or do it on a spread sheet. The CD part is humorous, but quite illogical and not very good as an intellectual judgment on the topic. Failure to present empirical data as why CD is required is your downfall. Failure to do the math and physics to show gravity collapse times as seen on 9/11 is quite childish. Oh, you are a child; sorry. Do you need help on this? I can get you help, and you do need it.

Unsecured Coins · 9th August 2007, 04:12 PM

so.... no thermite?

T.A.M. · 9th August 2007, 04:13 PM

NOT SPEED!!!!!!!!!!!

Time of Free Fall is in seconds.

Speed is in m/s

Speed changes as gravity forces acceleration of said object...

sorry....pet peeve

TAM

Unsecured Coins · 9th August 2007, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time?

we do not. Essentially freefall is not the same as freefall. That's like saying you have boiling 211 degree water.

close, but not quite

Par · 9th August 2007, 04:13 PM

Google Video This video is not hosted by the JREF, the JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

How fast, do we think?

CHF · 9th August 2007, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Didn't you notice the fires started by the jet fuel? You need to be more observant.

So...fires caused the trusses to bend which pulled in on the columns.

Doesn't sound like a demolition so far.

Go on....

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 04:16 PM

Stateofgrace why did you say this?

Quote:

If you believe the Towers fell at freefall speed then you believe in magic.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...ll#post2409754

T.A.M. · 9th August 2007, 04:17 PM

I have done the calculations repeatedly, and it never came down near freefall.

If you account for the center of gravity of the top section for the Second Tower to fall, the height was 394m.

t*t=2*d/g = 9.0s

even at the full height of 417m,

t*t=2d/g = 9.2s

how is 12 seconds, or even 11 seconds "Near" this? that is a 15-25% difference from free fall time.

TAM

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins

we do not. Essentially freefall is not the same as freefall. That's like saying you have boiling 211 degree water.

close, but not quite

OMG, the post you responded to said essentially.

I wuill repeat. Do we agree that they came down essentially in freefall?

beachnut · 9th August 2007, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time?

Free fall is 9.1 seconds. Darn, neither tower fell in 9.1 seconds. Wrong again. Physics is good. Your physics is absent. The towers fell exactly how a gravity collapse would look and the time of collapse matches models grade school kids could do. The 9/11 truth movement is not able to do the numbers because it would destroy their movement. You have chosen sides poorly. Go ask a physics teacher how to calculate the WTC towers fall, and stop making up the CD stuff, it is a broken record debunked over 5 years ago.

Explain why the cores were still standing for 10 to 20 seconds longer; looks like the silent CD was not in the core. Silent CD, Apollo hoax, what is next, I bet JFK is one of you CTs too, sorry but do you have some numbers to back up your lies about CD?

stateofgrace · 9th August 2007, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time?

Maybe you missed this bit

Quote:

If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion the magnitude of the energy released is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied and it essentially came down in freefall.

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

Maybe you missed this bit

No I caught that bit. Maybe its my eyes, but that quote still seems to say that they fell essentially in freefall.

CHF · 9th August 2007, 04:23 PM

Rev91. You got as far as the trusses pulling in on the columns due to the fire's heat.

What happened next?

Good lord, this really has to be beaten out of you.

T.A.M. · 9th August 2007, 04:23 PM

To me, it is like trying to argue with traffic cop over a ticket....

Officer: sir, did you know you were going 70 in a 55 zone.
Me: Well I was essentially going 55

TAM

defaultdotxbe · 9th August 2007, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Stateofgrace why did you say this?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...ll#post2409754

because even if you believe in a controlled demolition hypothesis for the towers to have fallen in the exact time it would take to freefall from the top the collapse would have had to have started at the bottom and progressed upwards like a typical demolition

this didnt happen, so for freefall speeds you would either need magic or some way to adjust the gravitational field of the earth

Par · 9th August 2007, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

OMG, the post you responded to said essentially.

I wuill repeat. Do we agree that they came down essentially in freefall?

In a thread devoted entirely to the speeds of the collapses, why be unnecessarily vague?

Unsecured Coins · 9th August 2007, 04:28 PM

and what is "essentially in free fall" supposed to prove?

Pardalis · 9th August 2007, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

Rev91. You got as far as the trusses pulling in on the columns due to the fire's heat.

What happened next?

Good lord, this really has to be beaten out of you.

Pathetic isn't it?

beachnut · 9th August 2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

No I caught that bit. Maybe its my eyes, but that quote still seems to say that they fell essentially in freefall.

This is so simple. Please list the times it took the towers to collapse. Please state the time it would take the towers to fall if they fell by gravity due to failure as seen on 9/11. Darn, we do have a problem with this. There was no CD, but please show us your numbers and calculations. I agree with Greening numbers, because they match what I got. (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf)

So tell us what the numbers were, should be, and why.

CHF · 9th August 2007, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Pathetic isn't it?

Sure is.

I think the problem is that he realizes that each step brings him further and further away from a demolition theory that makes any sense at all.

e^n · 9th August 2007, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

No I caught that bit. Maybe its my eyes, but that quote still seems to say that they fell essentially in freefall.

(Bolding mine)

Yes, here is a definition

Originally Posted by m-w.com

1 : of, relating to, or constituting essence : INHERENT

The towers fell essentially in freefall, there was some resistance from floor sections but this was relatively minor.

"The towers fell in freefall" implies no resistance
"The towers fell essentially in freefall" implies a caveat or additional information. It's just English (and I SUCK at it).

Pardalis · 9th August 2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

Sure is.

I think the problem is that he realizes that each step brings him further and further away from a demolition theory that makes any sense at all.

The problem is that he realizes that each step brings him closer and closer to the truth.

Quite the truth seeker.

Par · 9th August 2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

The problem is that he realizes that each step brings him closer and closer to the truth.

Kicking and screaming; red-faced and shaking.

9th August 2007, 03:11 PM	#1
furrod Student Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 44	Speed of collapse I’m sure this has been discussed, ad nauseam, but recently I thought of an angle that I haven’t read before and I was hoping someone could expand upon it and/or point me toward a discussion I my have missed. I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that the WTC towers collapsed within a time period only slightly faster than an object in free fall. The argument being that the individual floors would have provided some resistance and slowed the whole collapse down. In an effort to avoid complicated equations and analysis, I’ve been looking for an easier explanation. Here is my thinking. The towers collapsed at near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition. Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed? According to http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm they do, but it is entirely due to explosives on the lowest floors, initiating the collapse, and then gravity takes over for the remainder of the building. Any explosives used in the upper part of the structure are primarily used to direct its fall. The problem with this is that the upper explosive could be helping to speed up the collapse. My question: Is there an example of a building being demolished using controlled demolition where the only explosives used were the ones on the ground floor, and did that building collapse at near free fall speed? If so then I would think it is game over for those who cling to the idea that near free fall speed equals controlled demolition. An example of this sort would easily illustrate to even the densest conspiracy theorist that the floors that were not blown also did not provide any significant resistance to the speed at which the building fell. Anyways, that’s my thinking. I hope it goes somewhere…
furrod Student Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 44

9th August 2007, 03:37 PM	#4
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	[quote=GlennB;2851037][quote=furrod;2850971] *The towers collapsed at* *near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition. Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed? Quote: My bolding. Start here. Where do you get this idea? What are the figures and how are they arrived at? Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1* Quote: Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 03:50 PM	#6
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1 NIST qualifies that statement as you can see mentioning the relatively low amount of resistance. This is taken from Bazant + Greening who calculated the energy available to fail a floor as having an 8 fold excess. You can read their paper which also includes collapse time analysis here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...%206-22-07.pdf
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810

9th August 2007, 03:57 PM	#8
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Originally Posted by CHF Hey everyone, wanna see a cool magic trick? I'm gonna make Rev91 disappear! Hey Rev, why did the trusses pull in on the outer columns? poof he's gone! They sagged. Don't you even know that?
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 03:58 PM	#9
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Originally Posted by e^n NIST qualifies that statement as you can see mentioning the relatively low amount of resistance. This is taken from Bazant + Greening who calculated the energy available to fail a floor as having an 8 fold excess. You can read their paper which also includes collapse time analysis here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...%206-22-07.pdf Did they mean essentially in freefall? Yes or no?
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 03:25 PM	#2
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,932	[quote=furrod;2850971] *The towers collapsed at* *near free fall speed*; therefore it must have been controlled demolition. Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed? [quote] My bolding. Start here. Where do you get this idea? What are the figures and how are they arrived at?

9th August 2007, 03:34 PM	#3
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Gravity was more than enough to caused the top masses to smash through the WCT towers. South tower - 120,000 tons North tower - 50,000 tons Truthers think that what these masses fall 12 feet onto the floor below that it will somehow be stopped or significantly slowed down. God knows why.

9th August 2007, 03:46 PM	#5
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Hey everyone, wanna see a cool magic trick? I'm gonna make Rev91 disappear! Hey Rev, why did the trusses pull in on the outer columns? poof he's gone!

9th August 2007, 03:54 PM	#7
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	and could we please refrain from incorrectly referring to it as "FREE FALL SPEED". Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, moves at FREE FALL SPEED, as that silly thing called gravity causes all objects falling to ACCELERATE. The acception to this occurs once TERMINAL VELOCITY has been reached. pet peeve TAM

9th August 2007, 04:03 PM	#10
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 They sagged. Don't you even know that? What caused them to sag? Heat? Bombs?

9th August 2007, 04:04 PM	#11
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Originally Posted by CHF What caused them to sag? Heat? Bombs? I thought you were going to disappear me? Heat.
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 04:04 PM	#12
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	Momentum. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf Greening does some stuff. You can look up numbers from other work, and do your own study. I think of the impact of the first part breaking the section below. The velocity is not stopped, it is only changed by the new mass and a small amount of energy lost. The entire process of collision is accelerating due to gravity. Each section of resistance is not stopping the fall, only taking away some energy. If you subtract that small amount of energy and calculate the new velocities and acceleration, you get close to what you see on 9/11. I come up with numbers close to Greening, he got - WTC 1: tc = 13.48 s ; WTC 2: tc = 12.07 s

9th August 2007, 04:06 PM	#13
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831

9th August 2007, 04:07 PM	#14
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 I thought you were going to disappear me? Heat. Heat from....what?

9th August 2007, 04:08 PM	#15
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	Quote: The measurements have indicated that tower one collapsed in ABOUT eleven seconds and tower two in ABOUT nine seconds and the argument goes that this is essentially the rate at which freefall would happen BUT the building is 70% air in volume and all of the columns are not solid steel they are steel boxes in which the steel varies in thickness from about a quarter of an inch on the top to ABOUT three quarters of an inch to an inch and a half at the bottom, so they are not by any means solid structural components. But they are properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions and the weight of the occupants and the furniture in the buildings. Those are all things that these structures can withstand very well but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of, let’s say a 20 floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion the magnitude of the energy released is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied and it essentially came down in freefall. Shyam Sunder, NIST http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html So why does the speed of the collapse matter?

9th August 2007, 04:09 PM	#16
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Originally Posted by CHF Heat from....what? Didn't you notice the fires started by the jet fuel? You need to be more observant.
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 04:11 PM	#17
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Originally Posted by stateofgrace Shyam Sunder, NIST http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html So why does the speed of the collapse matter? So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time?
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 04:11 PM	#18
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	near free fall speed, but do any 9/11 truth members do the math? [quote=Revolutionary91;2851078][quote=GlennB;2851037] Originally Posted by furrod *The towers collapsed at* *near free fall speed; therefore it must have been controlled demolition. Why is that? Do buildings that are demolished using controlled demolition normally collapse at near free fall speed? Maybe he got it from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1* Wrong. Any kid can calculate the speed, even Dr Greening does a good job. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf You could get help from a physics teacher or do it on a spread sheet. The CD part is humorous, but quite illogical and not very good as an intellectual judgment on the topic. Failure to present empirical data as why CD is required is your downfall. Failure to do the math and physics to show gravity collapse times as seen on 9/11 is quite childish. Oh, you are a child; sorry. Do you need help on this? I can get you help, and you do need it.

9th August 2007, 04:12 PM	#19
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: in your macaronis. warming my feets Posts: 5,741	so.... no thermite?
	__________________ *http://kcbastards.com/* "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

9th August 2007, 04:13 PM	#20
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	NOT SPEED!!!!!!!!!!! Time of Free Fall is in seconds. Speed is in m/s Speed changes as gravity forces acceleration of said object... sorry....pet peeve TAM

9th August 2007, 04:15 PM	#23
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 Didn't you notice the fires started by the jet fuel? You need to be more observant. So...fires caused the trusses to bend which pulled in on the columns. Doesn't sound like a demolition so far. Go on....

9th August 2007, 04:16 PM	#24
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Stateofgrace why did you say this? Quote: If you believe the Towers fell at freefall speed then you believe in magic. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...ll#post2409754
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 04:17 PM	#25
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	I have done the calculations repeatedly, and it never came down near freefall. If you account for the center of gravity of the top section for the Second Tower to fall, the height was 394m. tt=2d/g = 9.0s even at the full height of 417m, t*t=2d/g = 9.2s how is 12 seconds, or even 11 seconds "Near" this? that is a 15-25% difference from free fall time. TAM
	Last edited by T.A.M.; 9th August 2007 at 04:21 PM.

9th August 2007, 04:18 PM	#28
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 So we agree that it came down essentially in freefall? Why deny it all this time? Maybe you missed this bit Quote: If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion the magnitude of the energy released is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied and it essentially came down in freefall.

9th August 2007, 04:23 PM	#29
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Originally Posted by stateofgrace Maybe you missed this bit No I caught that bit. Maybe its my eyes, but that quote still seems to say that they fell essentially in freefall.
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 04:24 PM	#32
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 Stateofgrace why did you say this? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...ll#post2409754 because even if you believe in a controlled demolition hypothesis for the towers to have fallen in the exact time it would take to freefall from the top the collapse would have had to have started at the bottom and progressed upwards like a typical demolition this didnt happen, so for freefall speeds you would either need magic or some way to adjust the gravitational field of the earth
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

9th August 2007, 04:26 PM	#33
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,769	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 OMG, the post you responded to said essentially. I wuill repeat. Do we agree that they came down essentially in freefall? In a thread devoted entirely to the speeds of the collapses, why be unnecessarily vague?

9th August 2007, 04:28 PM	#34
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: in your macaronis. warming my feets Posts: 5,741	and what is "essentially in free fall" supposed to prove?
	__________________ *http://kcbastards.com/* "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

9th August 2007, 04:29 PM	#35
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by CHF Rev91. You got as far as the trusses pulling in on the columns due to the fire's heat. What happened next? Good lord, this really has to be beaten out of you. Pathetic isn't it?

9th August 2007, 04:31 PM	#36
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 No I caught that bit. Maybe its my eyes, but that quote still seems to say that they fell essentially in freefall. This is so simple. Please list the times it took the towers to collapse. Please state the time it would take the towers to fall if they fell by gravity due to failure as seen on 9/11. Darn, we do have a problem with this. There was no CD, but please show us your numbers and calculations. I agree with Greening numbers, because they match what I got. (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) So tell us what the numbers were, should be, and why.

9th August 2007, 04:33 PM	#37
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Originally Posted by Pardalis Pathetic isn't it? Sure is. I think the problem is that he realizes that each step brings him further and further away from a demolition theory that makes any sense at all.

9th August 2007, 04:34 PM	#39
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by CHF Sure is. I think the problem is that he realizes that each step brings him further and further away from a demolition theory that makes any sense at all. The problem is that he realizes that each step brings him closer and closer to the truth. Quite the truth seeker.

9th August 2007, 04:36 PM	#40
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,769	Originally Posted by Pardalis The problem is that he realizes that each step brings him closer and closer to the truth. Kicking and screaming; red-faced and shaking.