9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

You are making assumptions about how controlled demolition works,
have you done any research on the subject at all?

- - - Updated - - -

oh excuse me, the NORTH & WEST walls descended at the
acceleration of gravity for 2.25 sec and kept their shape
as they did.

is that better?

 

This site has to resort to getting pix of a file cabinet from WTC6
in order to show some sort of surviving office stuff.
the only other bits are huge metal parts of the elevator machinery
& part of the antenna from atop the north tower.

Complete Destruction! The towers & 7 were completely destroyed,
the ONLY way to guarantee total destruction is to engineer the event.
that is Controlled Demolition.

 

Still incorrect. Try again.

 

Explain this then n0spam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA

They pulled out two floors leaving the upper three floors to fall upon the lower section of what? About 9 floors? How did this happen. 25% of the upper section fell upon 75% of the lower section and destroyed it.

 

What happened to the South and East walls? I thought all the supports were REMOVED for 8 floors bringing the entire building down at free fall.

 

Now we're getting into some numbers.
Let's put your theory to the test n0spam. Two questions you should be able to answer since you seem to have down the math already in order to make these kinds of statements.

1. What was the static weight/load of the upper section of either tower?
2. What was dynamic weight/load of either upper section after it descended for 12 feet and then impacting the first floor below?
3. What was the design load for each floor?

Let's see if you can put your money where your mouth is and PROVE what you are claiming.

 

Just no pleasing some people
the North & West walls are the bits we can see, its total
speculation as to the absence ( or? ) of the rest of the structure.

 

I see, two things turned into 3, & note that its not necessary to have a lot of numbers for this exercise.
its a given that the part of the building that constitutes the lower 85% had been in total, that is the whole of it not just the decks, but the core & outer wall columns also, this had been supporting the upper 15%, therefore
if the upper 15% descends upon the lower 85% at a rate that is 64% of the acceleration of gravity,
the lower 85% is experiencing only 36% of the weight of the upper mass, the ONLY way to express the energy and create the effect of the dynamic load, is the have the falling mass at the very least slow down.

 

so you are admitting that it freefell for 12 floors, and impacted the floor below it, yes were are getting somewhere now

 

Have you looked up Verinage yet?

 

Wait, WHAT?!

You're making a HUGE mistake here.

Reread your statement above. Do you understand what ACCELERATION actually is? How can ACCELERATING at 64% of gravity result in the weight of an object weighing LESS? It's ACCELERATING. So you're saying the upper section AVERAGED an acceleration of 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] and it weighed LESS that when it did when it was NOT moving?!



I'm starting to see why you're having problems understanding why exactly happened.

Using the simplest explanation, the upper section, upon collapse initiation, fell at an accelerating rate until it impacted the first floor below. Upon impacting that floor, the upper section slowed down to some degree. SLOWED, not STOPPED. That 's where you have to compare the impact force generated by the descending upper section and the resistance of the floor to figure out how much the upper section was slowed. It's going to be very small. Once the upper section tore through that first floor, it begins to accelerate yet again until it impacts the next floor. It then slows down to some degree. And so on. THAT"S where you get your average acceleration. Also, as the upper section descends, it too is sheared apart, yet it still has it's mass descending and ADDS each sheared floor to it's descending mass. Even though gravel is made up from many pieces, if a pile of it is dropped at once, it's still has a great impact force as a whole. This is why why we see remnants of the core remain standing for a few seconds and then collapse under it's own weight. The upper section, becoming a mass of sheared debris, fell around the core shearing the floors from it, and leaving that damaged, weakened core remnant.

So no, we're not an another planet that has 64% of the earth's gravity which causes objects weigh less. You're expressing ACCELERATION.

 

Second problem you have in your explanation above.

In order for you to be able to consider the entire 85% of the structure below, you have to make sure that the load of the object is able to be redistributed through ALL interconnecting components without any of them failing. For example. The upper section impacts the first floor below it, that force needs to be calculated and then compared to the load that the floor that the individual floor is designed to withstand. If the impact force is greater than the design load of the floor, it fails.

 

Please note that I said expressed weight,
also note that anything falling at 9.8 m/s^2
is expressing 0% of its weight on whatever is below it
because if it had to express any of its weight upon resistance
below, it would not be dropping at 9.8m/s^2

 

Look....I have TRIED to explain this to you but you simply do not have either the education or knowledge to understand why everything you are posting would look absolutely idiotic to anyone with a bit of knowledge specific to general physics.

EVERYTHING you have posted specific to the buildings rate of fall is nonsensical.

AboveAlpha

 

can you do me a favor,
post a link or other pointer to a High-school or college level
physics text or possibly an on-line physics tutorial that would
help to enlighten me?

& Thank you very much.

 

Don't let the names of the books insult you as they are very good books that make physics very easy to understand for just about anyone.

LINK....http://www.dummies.com/how-to/education-languages/science/Physics.html

AboveAlpha

 

You have said that "everything posted was nonsensical"
ok, perhaps you could pill out a bit or two and post a correction
so as to give me a bit of a push in the right direction.

& Thank U.

 

I thought you wanted this in a PM?

OK I guess.

The manner you should be looking at the issue is this.

The MASS of the object falling multiplied times the ACCELERATION....equals the FORCE impacting any object it falls upon.

Now all objects fall at the same rate in the absence of other forces, objects and ... is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2 near the surface of the earth)....as the further an object is away from the surface of the Earth the less the Space-Time Curvature Effects that falling object.

Gravity is in fact....NOT A FORCE...even though it tends to be called a Force in common school text books....but in fact Gravity is Space-Time Dimensionality.

In your example the REALITY is that the object falling is in FACT encountering AIR RESISTANCE....and thus the MASS x ACCELERATION minus Air Resistance.....and MINUS THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW OF GRAVITY SPECIFIC TO THE DISTANCE TO THE SURFACE FROM THE FALLING OBJECT.

Look up Inverse Square Law of Gravity.

Point is there are several factors you are not seeing because you simply don't know about them.

For the average person they are going to think that an object is falling at that acceleration but it really is not as distance to the Earth and Air Resistance changes the FORCE that the object falling will apply to anything it encounters.

AboveAlpha

 

"The MASS of the object falling multiplied times the ACCELERATION....equals the FORCE impacting any object it falls upon."

This applies to the falling object expressing the force by impacting something
note that if the falling object simply continues to fall, it has not expressed that KE.

 

Well....the object would have to be falling in a perfect vacuum but in this case it is not so the object cannot EVER obtain 9.81 m/s2 .

As well the distance to the Earth also is an issue when you are talking about being over 1000 feet above the surface as an object at a greater distance from another object where both are being dropped and falling the object closer to the planet will obtain an acceleration closer to 9.81 m/s2....as the the object 1000 feet from the surface of Earth being dropped compared to an object only 10 feet from the surface of Earth being dropped will not have as fast as an acceleration although the difference in this case would be tiny.

AboveAlpha