Free fall explained by Veronica

[HERA]

Free-fall: Is defined for a vacuum, i.e. uninfluenced by air. Depends SOLELY on the height above ground, NO OTHER FACTORS WHATSOEVER. This demonstrated CONCLUSIVELY by Galileo & Isaac Newton (and, of course, ALL PHYSICS depends on it for things to work the way they are designed & built). We know the height of the Towers. The calculation (defined by Galileo/Newton) says between 9 & 10 seconds. According to NIST one fell in 9 & the other in 11 seconds. 9/11 Omission states 10 seconds for the South Tower. Air increases vacuum free-fall to anything up to 30 seconds for that same height.
So they should have taken about 30 seconds, whereas they took circa 10 seconds.
V

Better put this in Critics Corner : might cause awkward problems for the planers/nobeamers.

[marky 54]

ok thats veronica explaining, can you show how see came to those conclusions? or is mimicing what someone said without proof evidence now?

i dont mean it to sound nasty in anyway im seriously asking.

[physicist]

Your 30-second estimate is a wild guess. The fall would be slowed a little by air resistance but not that much.

Fall would be slowed due to conservation of momentum as material hit the next floor down. Also some mometum would be transferred to the Earth as the debris hit something solid. I'm thinking that the steel core would represent something very solid.

However, if the supports of the building were taken out, the momentum considerations wouldn't apply.

So, controlled demolition could occur at the observed speed of collapse. I don't know if it was done with charges/explosives though.

It's interesting the passion that the mode of collapse generates. It shows how everyone outside CC wants to know the truth.

[Patrick Brown]

[Patrick Brown]

This clip is to do with the collapse of building 7 but it makes an important point that directly relates to the collapse of the twin towers.


Link

[Snowygrouch]

RUBBISH!!!!

30 sec is a DIRECT copy out of Reynolds paper. I know because I read it (and regretted doing so after I can tell you).

The time will be fractionally above the vaccum time.

NOTHING LIKE 30 secs.

NONSENSE!!!!!

[Andrew Johnson]

This argument is to do with "Terminal Velocity". It is a difficult calculation to do accurately with the WTC because of the jumble of debris - it is hard to work out the surface area of the "downward face" of falling debris. But here is some maths which shows that the fall times of the WTC are pretty anomalous, when all the physics is taken into account.

This page

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html

can be used to calculate the terminal velocity of something falling. Judy Wood disagrees with Jones freefall calculation, as she said here:

http://www.911scholars.org/GrandPiano.html

Calum, where is the 30-second figure referenced in Morgan's article? Could you post or send me the link? Thanks.

[Patrick Brown]

This Fetzer guy is a bit odd!!


Link


Still at it Andrew? Yawn