| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
datman
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 20
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject: Fall times |
 |
|
I have been a truther for some time now. There seem to be a great number of skeptics always saying there is scientific explanations disputing all claims made by CTs.
I was thinking about the length of time each building fell. Did towers 1 and 2 fall in nearly the same time?I think so maybe a second different. What floors did the planes hit the buildings at? I'm guessing 90th and 60th ,anyone know? If the collapses were caused by the fires and impacts shouldn't the fall times be different? Common since, yes!
using my guessed numbers , tower 2 collapsing 1st would have fallen at .16666667 seconds per floor at that same rate of fall tower 2 should have fallen a full 5 seconds longer.
Do the math |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Except buildings accelerate when they fall. Try repeating your calculations using constant acceleration instead of constant velocity. This would require the simple second-order kinematic equation taught in any introductory physics course, including the ones in high schools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
datman
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Except buildings accelerate when they fall. Try repeating your calculations using constant acceleration instead of constant velocity. This would require the simple second-order kinematic equation taught in any introductory physics course, including the ones in high schools. |
I should have known I over simplified it. The physics is beyond me. However shouldn't there be some obvious differences when comparing the 2 towers both in how they fell and the debris piles.
to me they came down exactly alike . The fact that the start of the collapses were some 30 floors apart the floors above the impact would less disintegrated and be more or less on top of the debris, in bigger pieces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| datman wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | Except buildings accelerate when they fall. Try repeating your calculations using constant acceleration instead of constant velocity. This would require the simple second-order kinematic equation taught in any introductory physics course, including the ones in high schools. |
I should have known I over simplified it. The physics is beyond me. However shouldn't there be some obvious differences when comparing the 2 towers both in how they fell and the debris piles.
to me they came down exactly alike . The fact that the start of the collapses were some 30 floors apart the floors above the impact would less disintegrated and be more or less on top of the debris, in bigger pieces. |
Well, I'm very much a "critic" of the 9/11 truth movement, I just jumped in to correct the simple mathematical mistake. If you want to understand how I explain your apparent anomaly, you can ask on the Critic's Corner.
That being said, allow me to ask you to view the problem a different way. Both 100th floors fell 100 stories before hitting the ground. Both 90th floors fell about 90 stories, and so on. Wouldn't you expect things dropped from roughly equal heights to "break" roughly equally? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Except buildings accelerate when they fall. Try repeating your calculations using constant acceleration instead of constant velocity. This would require the simple second-order kinematic equation taught in any introductory physics course, including the ones in high schools. |
You keep saying this and it may well backfire on you because if we measure the fall rate on either tower over say forty floors you're saying it will speed up? This may well bring the fall speed into line with the free fall figure which many like to band about.
I think the fall speed is not that important and may even be a smoke screen. The explosions before aircraft impact and pre-collapse are for more important. Important because we have witness statements and seismic evidence as well as video footage.
Don't get me wrong here as I do figure they did fall too quick to account for structural resistance.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stop feeding the troll and send it back to the sewer. The buildings were blown up and it is blatant. Any patronising these jerks with their pseudo scientific lies is smearing the whole site. Do you bother trying to persuade flat-Earthers that the planet is round? That the towers came down due to pre-planted explosives is glaringly obvious and the trolls know it. Stop giving them the time of day in their attempts to prevent the spread of 9/11 truth by muddying the waters. They have said they do it to put off visitors who are inquisitive and seek an alternative to the official account. Please do not help them. Since they refuse to stay in the sewer why are they tolerated here at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: Fall times |
|
|
All,
there is nothing complex about it.
S=u*t + 0.5*a*(t Squared)
Distance travelled = inital velocity * Time + Half * acelleration * time Squared
Initial velocity is obviously zero so the first term is eliminated.
Accelleration is 9.81m/s
All you have to do is some extremely basic algebra to solve for T, as follows.
T= square root of (0.5 * accelleration * distance)
All you have to do then is turn to the 9/11 comission report page 305.
"at 9:58:59, the south tower collapsed in 10 seconds, killing all civilians"
NIST's website also lists the OFFICIAL collapse times
The calculations do not require any mathematical prowess.
WTC 7 has the most glaringly absurd collapse time, however WTC1 & 2 also fall too quickly given than 80% (roughly) of the building below was totally intact.
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanx Snowy, lets hope that's cleared that one up although I doubt the shills masters will let them retire just yet!
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You keep saying this and it may well backfire on you because if we measure the fall rate on either tower over say forty floors you're saying it will speed up? |
Yes. That is what acceleration means.
| Quote: |
This may well bring the fall speed into line with the free fall figure which many like to band about.
|
Freefall is an acceleration due solely to gravity. Calculate the acceleration of the towers and compare it with gravity. I told you which equation you'd need, and the other poster above explicitly gave it.
This is a fairly simple calculation and if you accurately measure distance and time, you'll see that WTC1 and 2 are falling measurably below a "freefall' acceleration. WTC7 falls at virtually freefall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: Fall times |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: |
S=u*t + 0.5*a*(t Squared)
All you have to do is some extremely basic algebra to solve for T, as follows.
T= square root of (0.5 * accelleration * distance)
|
Actually the extremely basic algebra will show that
T = square root of (2 * distance / acceleration) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
You keep saying this and it may well backfire on you because if we measure the fall rate on either tower over say forty floors you're saying it will speed up? |
Yes. That is what acceleration means.
| Quote: |
This may well bring the fall speed into line with the free fall figure which many like to band about.
|
Freefall is an acceleration due solely to gravity. Calculate the acceleration of the towers and compare it with gravity. I told you which equation you'd need, and the other poster above explicitly gave it.
This is a fairly simple calculation and if you accurately measure distance and time, you'll see that WTC1 and 2 are falling measurably below a "freefall' acceleration. WTC7 falls at virtually freefall. |
Good that you agree they fell almost at free fall speed now if we're going to be scientific we just need to factor in “x” for structural resistance don't we. Oh I forgot you don't think the structure of the towers would have put up much of a fight.
Lets just remember that what ever downward force there was it wasn't dropped from several hundred feet on to the top of the towers so where did the initial downward velocity come from? It's more likely that the towers would have lurched and stumbled slowly and probably fallen sideways due to structural resistance. The only plausible explanation for the speed of collapse is that the structural integrity was undermined in such away as to facilitate a smooth downward collapse somewhat like a controlled demolition!
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: |
Good that you agree they fell almost at free fall speed now if we're going to be scientific we just need to factor in “x” for structural resistance don't we. Oh I forgot you don't think the structure of the towers would have put up much of a fight. |
Since you are playing scientist, I'll play along. Yes, you can calculate the difference in acceleration from freefall, which you can model as a constant upward force which would represent the "resistance" of the building. This is a fairly simple calculation, again. Once you've done that, you can then show how that number is far too small given the physics of the building construction. Once you've done all those calculations, post them, and I'll look at it.
| Quote: |
Lets just remember that what ever downward force there was it wasn't dropped from several hundred feet on to the top of the towers so where did the initial downward velocity come from? |
There is an ever-present downward force called gravity. Buildings that are standing have an equal upward force. There is no "initial" downward velocity in the physical sense. It started from rest and accelerated downward once the upward force no longer equaled the downward force. This acceleration is given by Newton's F=ma. If there was -no- upward force at all, that would be freefall, and the acceleration would equal 9.81 m/s^2. Since the two towers didn't fall with that acceleration, we can calculate the difference and therefore calculate roughly the average upward force exerted by the building during the collapse. (I state roughly because it's hard to estimate the mass after the collapse has initiated).
| Quote: |
The only plausible explanation for the speed of collapse is that the structural integrity was undermined in such away as to facilitate a smooth downward collapse somewhat like a controlled demolition! |
Ok, so you've done the calculations already to show this? Can I see them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: |
Good that you agree they fell almost at free fall speed now if we're going to be scientific we just need to factor in “x” for structural resistance don't we. Oh I forgot you don't think the structure of the towers would have put up much of a fight. |
Since you are playing scientist, I'll play along. Yes, you can calculate the difference in acceleration from freefall, which you can model as a constant upward force which would represent the "resistance" of the building. This is a fairly simple calculation, again. Once you've done that, you can then show how that number is far too small given the physics of the building construction. Once you've done all those calculations, post them, and I'll look at it.
| Quote: |
Lets just remember that what ever downward force there was it wasn't dropped from several hundred feet on to the top of the towers so where did the initial downward velocity come from? |
There is an ever-present downward force called gravity. Buildings that are standing have an equal upward force. There is no "initial" downward velocity in the physical sense. It started from rest and accelerated downward once the upward force no longer equaled the downward force. This acceleration is given by Newton's F=ma. If there was -no- upward force at all, that would be freefall, and the acceleration would equal 9.81 m/s^2. Since the two towers didn't fall with that acceleration, we can calculate the difference and therefore calculate roughly the average upward force exerted by the building during the collapse. (I state roughly because it's hard to estimate the mass after the collapse has initiated).
| Quote: |
The only plausible explanation for the speed of collapse is that the structural integrity was undermined in such away as to facilitate a smooth downward collapse somewhat like a controlled demolition! |
Ok, so you've done the calculations already to show this? Can I see them? |
OK so you've obviously done the calculations which is how you're so sure that you're correct! Can I see them?
Of course these calculations must be in the NIST report as well and I'm sure they take many many variables into account to explain the speed of collapse, except the use of explosive charges to weaken the structure of the tower prior to collapse!
If you can't provide your findings then please take your speculations to critic corner where such things are argued.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: |
OK so you've obviously done the calculations which is how you're so sure that you're correct! Can I see them?
|
That I'm correct? About what? I haven't made any statements about the possibility of this scenario. You are the one claiming it's impossible, and I'm asking to see your math. I haven't claimed that is possible or impossible -- I've merely stated that the math for the simple model you propse isn't that complicated and could be done fairly easy.
| Quote: |
If you can't provide your findings then please take your speculations to critic corner where such things are argued. |
What speculations? What are you talking about? I haven't speculated about anything. I'm telling you how to do the math to figure out what you want to figure out. What am I speculating about? You are the one claiming that something is impossible, and I'm just asking to see your math. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | If there was -no- upward force at all, that would be freefall, and the acceleration would equal 9.81 m/s^2. Since the two towers didn't fall with that acceleration.... |
Oh but at least one of them did. According to NIST's own estimate the South tower came down in 9 seconds.
We have had this out on Critic's Corner over the last few days. These trolls eventually retreated from the argument. So One more time.
It is easy to show that for an object dropped from 415metres (the height of this tower) using g=9.81 m/s2, the time taken to reach the ground is 9.2 seconds.
This is a MINIMUM time for a body falling WITHOUT RESISTANCE (from air or anything else)
Therefore we can assert with complete confidence that this building came down at free-fall speed. If it took slightly longer this difference is negligeable.
Common sense tells anyone that a massive building like the South Tower made of steel and steel-reinforced concrete could not completey collapse without offering some serious resistance to that collapse. Knowing that it collapsed at free-fall speed tells you all you need to know. You don't have to be a scientist or a structural engineer to see how ridiculous the official story is.
The free-fall speed of the collapses is THE fact that nails the whole 9/11 lie.
Just to be a little pedantic. Here is an unanswerable argument using the Law of Conservation of Energy.
As WTC2 fell without resistance at free fall speed, ALL the gravitational energy was being converted into kinetic energy of motion as it collapsed.
How then, BEFORE IT HIT THE GROUND (we all saw this) were hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete (and the rest of the building contents) pulverised into fine powder.
Where did the energy come from to do this?
How were 47 massive steel core columns severed in hundreds of places (at an acute angle, so they could slide off each other and not delay the collapse) and the same for many more exterior columns.
Where did the energy come from to do this?
Where did the energy that created the pool of molten steel that lay in the basement of this building for two months or so after 9/11, come from.
The gravitational energy was ALL being used up so........There must have been some other massive input of energy to cause all this destruction.
Explosives in the building? Controlled demolition?
There is not the tiniest doubt about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
..
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
|
Maybe you should quote what that 9 seconds was actually measuring before basing all your analysis on it. Your math estimates the time from the top of the tower, to the bottom. That's not what took 9 seconds, according to NIST. Sorry to spoil the fun.
You said:
| Quote: |
It is easy to show that for an object dropped from 415metres (the height of this tower) using g=9.81 m/s2, the time taken to reach the ground is 9.2 seconds.It is easy to show that for an object dropped from 415metres (the height of this tower) using g=9.81 m/s2, the time taken to reach the ground is 9.2 seconds.
|
Too bad NIST didn't measure how long it took the top of the towers to hit the ground. They measured the time from start of the collpse to first impacts. Those objects weren't dropped from 415m but much lower. Freefall's not looking so good, is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Balls
Get back to CC...
...and sniff my foot, Shill
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha ha. I win again.
To recap:
WTC1 and WTC2 did not fall at free fall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Ha ha. I win again.
To recap:
WTC1 and WTC2 did not fall at free fall. |
Posting rubbish and then laughing about it doesn't mean you win, it means you're stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rubbish as in pointing out your blatant lies?
Are you still claiming the building fell at freefall? Do you want me to spell out, again, how your arugment is based on lies, or are you done getting worked over? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here it is, again, in all it's bs glory... just because it amuses me..
You said...
| Quote: |
Oh but at least one of them did. According to NIST's own estimate the South tower came down in 9 seconds.
|
| Quote: |
It is easy to show that for an object dropped from 415metres (the height of this tower) using g=9.81 m/s2, the time taken to reach the ground is 9.2 seconds.
|
Notice your implication that NIST estimated that the building fell 415 meters in 9 seconds.
Here is what NIST actually said:
| Quote: |
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
|
Please note that the "first exterior panels" didn't fall 415 meters in 9 seconds, like you claimed. That _would_ be freefall, if it was true. But, alas, it's not.
It was pointed out to you that you made a simple mistake, and you've refused to acknowledge it so the only recourse now is to conclude that you are intentionally lying. Now, are you done lying or is this charade going to keep on going? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
datman
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks guys. This has made an interesting read. As I have said before I am a truther and I would like to believe that the buildings were a CD.
What I was thinking and I admit I'm a simpleton but because tower 2 was hit so much lower I would expect it to fall faster by atleast a few seconds. Tower 1 being hit so much higher it would have more floors of resistance slowing the rate of fall. If tower 2 was hit at about 60th floor the start of the collapse would be closer to the ground and the 50 floors above the impact should have stayed intact until it hit the ground and would have exploded almost instantly due to inertia.
I found it very odd how tower 1 ( I think) simply exploded as it began to collapse. It should have fallen all the way down |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Here it is, again... |
If you keep yourself so busy posting you'll forget to collect your paycheck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: |
It is easy to show that for an object dropped from 415metres (the height of this tower) using g=9.81 m/s2, the time taken to reach the ground is 9.2 seconds.
|
So, to summarise, you accept NIST's figure of approx 9 secs but not NISTS's explanation of what that figure represents.
Why not? They make it perfectly clear what they're measuring.
If you don't believe that bit, why do you believe the 9 secs ?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | kbo234 wrote: |
It is easy to show that for an object dropped from 415metres (the height of this tower) using g=9.81 m/s2, the time taken to reach the ground is 9.2 seconds.
|
So, to summarise, you accept NIST's figure of approx 9 secs but not NISTS's explanation of what that figure represents.
Why not? They make it perfectly clear what they're measuring.
If you don't believe that bit, why do you believe the 9 secs ? |
That is what complete and utter fear of the truth looks like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| datman wrote: | Thanks guys. This has made an interesting read. As I have said before I am a truther and I would like to believe that the buildings were a CD.
What I was thinking and I admit I'm a simpleton but because tower 2 was hit so much lower I would expect it to fall faster by atleast a few seconds. Tower 1 being hit so much higher it would have more floors of resistance slowing the rate of fall. If tower 2 was hit at about 60th floor the start of the collapse would be closer to the ground and the 50 floors above the impact should have stayed intact until it hit the ground and would have exploded almost instantly due to inertia.
I found it very odd how tower 1 ( I think) simply exploded as it began to collapse. It should have fallen all the way down |
datman- stuff like the floor levels of the aircraft impacts are freely available in the public domain.
Guessing at these things just confirms that you're a wannabe troofer, and makes you look silly.
Why do you want to be a truther and "believe" ??? Just some urge you have? Given the questions you've asked and points you've made, it's hard to believe it's based on anything like evidence.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The mathmatics of the collapse are tackled in depth HERE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
The unfortunate reality is this kbo "truther" has run away very quickly and will never read an actual scientific presentation challenging his dopey notion of reality. He is very, very afraid.
In some respects, it raises my opinion of the "truthers" that hang around the critic's corner.
As for the original poster, this statement, in particular, baffles me:
| Quote: |
As I have said before I am a truther and I would like to believe that the buildings were a CD.
|
Why would you "like to believe" that the buildings were CD'd? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
datman
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The mathmatics of the collapse are tackled in depth HERE |
very good post Bushwacker. Reading this and assuming the math is correct( it's over my head) would suggest that towers 1 & 2 could have collapsed without explosives. What about WT-7 ?
Ignatz suggested that I may appear silly. He may be right I have been swayed by videos which perhaps have been edited to prove their point. I did some fact checking and found that the Bush administration has lied, distorted, possibly covered up evidence, withheld evidence, refusing to investigate any aspect of 911 that didn't point to Al-Qeada. There are video tapes, black boxes, White house documents that may shed light one way or another, just to name a few. How can someone not have suspicions.
by the way I have found the members of this forum to be a little more patient with my silliness, Thankyou After all I only want the whole truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| datman wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | The mathmatics of the collapse are tackled in depth HERE |
very good post Bushwacker. Reading this and assuming the math is correct( it's over my head) would suggest that towers 1 & 2 could have collapsed without explosives. What about WT-7 ? |
The short answer is that the main WTC7's collapse initiated at the ground level, so the building fell at close to freefall speeds. NIST's report on how and why this collapse occured is due to be released in early 2007. The overwhelmingly probable explaination they will give is likely due to a combination of severe structural damage from falling debris, and severe fires due to the power substation in the building.
This is complicated by the fact that WTC7 collapsed in at least two distinct phases (this is often ignored). The east penthouse is clearly seen in the video collapsing well before the rest of the building collapses. In order for this penthouse to collapse, a good deal of the underlying structure would need to collapse as well.
| Quote: |
I did some fact checking and found that the Bush administration has lied, distorted, possibly covered up evidence, withheld evidence, refusing to investigate any aspect of 911 that didn't point to Al-Qeada. There are video tapes, black boxes, White house documents that may shed light one way or another, just to name a few. How can someone not have suspicions. |
To be honest, I don't really care if you have suspicions about what is in those tapes and in those documents. Just be sure to reconcile those suspicions with what you already know to be true.
The bigger issue that I would object to is that those suspicions would lead you to believe ridiculous theories about thermite or worse (holographic planes... fusion weapons... etc, etc).
Just FYI, most of the video tapes have been released, and two most "important" tapes regarding the pentagon (citgo and doubletree), one has already and one will soon be released. Two of the FDR and cockpit voice recorders have been recovered (93 and 77, shanksville and pentagon). It's commonly misunderstood that the government can release these. They can't. It's actually illegal for the government to release them to the public. The airlines need to (or the courts must order them to).
| Quote: |
by the way I have found the members of this forum to be a little more patient with my silliness, Thankyou After all I only want the whole truth |
I think you'll find if you are honestly searching for answers, people will generally be quite helpful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
