It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faster than Freefall, Proof of Demolition

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   


Some debris encountered air resistance and stayed above the collapse as is seen the above pic.


No that Debris was blown upwards by the explosives placed in the Towers. Watch the videos of the collapse and you can clearly see concrete and steel beams being sent flying UPWARDS.




What you had was essentially a hollow tube filled with floor slabs and an internal core structure.


Please don't tell me your denying the existance of the 47 core columns, like the 9/11 commission report does?




the towers should've taken at least one minute and thirty seconds to fall


Source? A physicist in California worked it out to be approx. 55 seconds.




demolition is not causing anything to fall faster than freefall.


Demolition COULD cause something to fall faster than free fall, if the demolition explosives created some sort of vaccuum which pulled down parts of the buildings.




posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae

No that Debris was blown upwards by the explosives placed in the Towers. Watch the videos of the collapse and you can clearly see concrete and steel beams being sent flying UPWARDS.


Except maybe for the explosions caused by the planes, which would have probably blown some debris sideways and upwards, and there were probably some small explosions from the janitor closets and such, but i doubt it was powerfull enough to send anything flying upwards.

Some of the debris as it was falling down did probably bounce off some of the floors as the towers were collapsing, but from the collapse itself i doubt anything was flying upwards, bouncing off, yes, flying?....no.


Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Please don't tell me your denying the existance of the 47 core columns, like the 9/11 commission report does?


First of, when you are addressing someone please place their names so everyone knows who you are talking to.

Second, it has been already shown that the towers were one of a kind and the design that was used was unique in the sence that the collumn butresses were stronger than the core columns.




Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Source? A physicist in California worked it out to be approx. 55 seconds.


Strange that you would ask for a source, yet you don't give one.


Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Demolition COULD cause something to fall faster than free fall, if the demolition explosives created some sort of vaccuum which pulled down parts of the buildings.


Except that there was no demolition done to the towers, it is funny that the proponents of the demolition theory don't take into account that although not all the air was burnt by the fires inside the towers, the towers did not have the same amount of air as a building the same size that did not burn...

I have already, and once again despite some of the proponents of this theory trying to claim they know what they are saying, that their new theory is as wrong as the other theories they try to keep shoving down everyone's throats.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by billybob
wow. you showed me, muaddib.

LOL!

if they were actually 'pressure waves', and not just 'pressurised air'(sorry, if i didn't KNOW there was a distinction between the two), then they could only have been caused by bombs. do a little more research.
................


Let's see if it is true that pressure waves are only caused by "bombs" shall we?.....

Pressure waves occur when an object exerts enough compression or "pressure" against a medium (such as water or air) or another object, this forces air molecules to get closer together, which causes a disturbance which is transmitted through the medium/object.

Now, lets see what some real experts have to say about air pressure waves during the collapse of the towers....

BTW, what they say does corroborate what I am saying, except that these experts don't think the earthquakes caused by the collapse of Tower 2 was the cause of the collapse of tower 1, but rather that the air pressure waves released by the falling debris were the cause of the collapse of the other buildings.

First time that I read this btw, but at least it shows that i know what I am talking about....not like some other people...




an earthquake is not an air pressure wave. you have no idea what you're talking about.
once again you have proven a penchant for trying to sound like you understand science by quoting someone else.

i did well in science. i know the basic principles of it without having to go to a website that has 'real scientists'.
in fact, 'real scientists'(including at least one phd) have agreed with me on this issue over at the physorg forum, where i've been spending time talking with 'real scientists'.

i linked to the lerner-lam article years ago as evidence that the energy of gravity which allegedly pushed the towers into the ground, didn't transfer much of it's kinetic energy into seismic energy (according to lerner-lam).

(imaginary)faster than sound air pressure waves have absolutely nothing to do with the seismic analysis.
can you show me in the nist report, or the fema report, or the 911 ommission report where they cite the destructive force of these magical speed of sound air pressure waves.
the fact is, you're just making it up.

and the fact remains that the debris on the outside of the tower cannot fall slower than the material inside the tower which must pass through a steel skyscaper. and yet, the video evidence shows that the destruction wave outpaces the freefalling debris, PERIOD.
and as aelphaeis_mangarae points out, you can even see steel flying upwards and outwards it some pics.

there were explosives. it's just a matter of time.


[edit on 26-4-2006 by billybob]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae



the towers should've taken at least one minute and thirty seconds to fall


Source? A physicist in California worked it out to be approx. 55 seconds.




demolition is not causing anything to fall faster than freefall.


Demolition COULD cause something to fall faster than free fall, if the demolition explosives created some sort of vaccuum which pulled down parts of the buildings.


my source for fall times is based on a FEM done in china, and a RUMOUR that brazant zhou's treatment also brings them down in that time.

faster than the terminal VELOCITY of freefalling debris on earth due to air resistance, yes, but still not out ACCELERATING the acceleration due to gravity on earth.

even in a vacuum, the acceleration is limited to 32m/s^2. to accelerate faster than that, an explosive push from above would do the trick. there is one collapse pic i noticed lately that has just such a 'streamer', or comet-like piece of debris shooting out WAY ahead of the freefalling debris could.

here it is



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

an earthquake is not an air pressure wave. you have no idea what you're talking about.


Billybob....you showed, all by yourself your lack of knowledge in the subject...

I gave even a link where experts were talking about air pressure waves.....They are not imaginary like you are now trying to portray....

You have been proven wrong time and again, yet you don't want to admit it.





Originally posted by billybob
once again you have proven a penchant for trying to sound like you understand science by quoting someone else.


Be a man....admit you were wrong...oh wait, you never do....



Originally posted by billybob
i did well in science. i know the basic principles of it without having to go to a website that has 'real scientists'.


Right... well, sorry to break your fantasy but you have proven, together with BSRay that neither one of you understands # about science.



Originally posted by billybob
(imaginary)faster than sound air pressure waves have absolutely nothing to do with the seismic analysis.


The only people imagining things are those who keep claiming "all of that can only be caused by explosions and bombs".....

You are only demonstrating that first, you people don't know # about science, and even though real evidence is given to you, you still want to believe "only a bomb or explosives could do it"....



Originally posted by billybob
can you show me in the nist report, or the fema report, or the 911 ommission report where they cite the destructive force of these magical speed of sound air pressure waves.
the fact is, you're just making it up.


Are you blind or do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?....

I must be a very respectable scientist to have so many other scientists and experts back what I say...



Damage To Buildings Near World Trade Center Towers Caused By Falling Debris And Air Pressure Wave, Not Ground Shaking, Seismologists Report


www.sciencedaily.com...


Joint Release: American Geophysical Union/Columbia University

Damage to Buildings Near World Trade Center Towers Caused by Falling Debris and Air Pressure Wave, Not Ground Shaking, Seismologists Report


www.agu.org...


Damage to Buildings Near WTC Caused by Falling Debris and Air Pressure Wave, Columbia Seismologists Report


www.columbia.edu...

Shall we see where else do they talk about pressure waves?....


FEMA did provide some information on the fallout pattern from the tower explosions, as well as a description of the pressure waves that accompanied the collapses, in its report.


www.911review.com...


In terms of sequence of response, the air blast first impinges the exterior envelope of the building. The pressure wave pushes on the exterior walls and may cause wall failure and window breakage. As the shock wave continues to expand, it enters the structure, pushing both upward on the ceilings and downward on the floors


LINK

From Fema...who you claimed never said anything about this....


Originally posted by billybob
and the fact remains that the debris on the outside of the tower cannot fall slower than the material inside the tower which must pass through a steel skyscaper. and yet, the video evidence shows that the destruction wave outpaces the freefalling debris, PERIOD.


The fact remains that PRESSURE WAVES TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF SOUND, PERIOD..... unless you want to claim that the debris that was falling from the wtc was travelling at the speed of sound......there is no way for the falling debris to fall faster than the dust clouds which are more easily pushed by such pressure waves...




Originally posted by billybob
and as aelphaeis_mangarae points out, you can even see steel flying upwards and outwards it some pics.

there were explosives. it's just a matter of time.


Which part are you talking about?....when the planes exploded...yes there were a couple large explosions because that's what planes ladden with jet fuel do when they crash......they explode...unless you also think that it shouldn't have exploded because you didn't want the jet fuel to explode...period....???


Of course you also have the janitors closed full of chemicals, and which I have stated before, but there wouldn't be that amount of chemicals in any janitor closet to make steel columns fly away....

There is also the fact that when debris hits floors below, part of that debris will bounce a bit...but it will not "fly away"....

You can always keep up with your imaginary explosives and bombs and that everything is caused by explosives and bombs...and there is no other explanation......

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Muaddib]


[edit on 4/27/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Wow, you agree with yourself?......

That's a first.....

Billybob, don't try to blame on me your lack of knowledge of science....

Even after I gave a link from a physics site, which obviously you did not bothered to read, you claimed that "in order for an object to produce pressure waves the object must travel at the speed of sound"....

You killed your argument right there and then...

Here is some more info which destroys your statement, and shows who is ignorant in this topic...


....................
As pressure waves they travel at the speed of sound. Typical speeds are 330 m/s in air, 1450 m/s in water and about 5000 m/s in granite. P waves are sometimes called "elastic P waves".


en.wikipedia.org...

So take your own advice and leave it alone billyboy, you obviously don't have any idea of what you are talking about. BTW, i don't intent this as an insult, it is simply the truth.


i see now that my major lack of understanding was what the hay you are talking about. it's hard to tell sometimes. you somehow believe that sound is causing the collapse to race ahead of freefalling debris.

pressure waves are excitations of air molecules(or whatever medium). the air(medium) doesn't actually move. i think you have a problem with the scale of these pressure waves, you may want to note the adjective 'tiny' that accompanies 'pressure waves', which are basically the energy of SOUND it turns out. sound didn't break anything.

and even if the air WAS moving, do you think it can pulverise concrete and steel?

all official media lies, so your links to sciencedaily and whatnot don't wash. you gotta bring it yourself, and you don't. you quote out of context, out in left field 'bill nye the science guy' stuff. why don't you remind me of the important 'quantum physics' involved in understanding the collapse.

a pressure wave can not have more energy than the source that creates it. get it? the air pressure on the wing edge of a jet are 'constructively interfering' to a relevent force because of the VELOCITY of the plane. they do not, however, rip the wings off. are you implying that the towers were falling at the speed of a jet in flight? you have no understanding of science.
(beware you high speed fan, it might blow your house apart with 'pressure waves')

science is more than quoting things that actual scientists say.

i create pressure waves by typing, but the keyboard is not flying apart.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
here, dibby. from your 'own' site.

shockwave, even!

okay? you see the animated pressure waves? they do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the structural integrity of the wing. pressure waves in air can only impart as much kinetic energy as the mass/density of air, which, because it's a gas, is NOT MUCH.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
here, dibby. from your 'own' site.

shockwave, even!

okay? you see the animated pressure waves? they do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the structural integrity of the wing. pressure waves in air can only impart as much kinetic energy as the mass/density of air, which, because it's a gas, is NOT MUCH.


Lol....you keep digging the grave to your own theory deeper and deeper bb...

You keep showing just how much you know about this topic...

The facts still speak louder than any fantasy you come up with..


The sudden collapse of each tower sent out air pressure waves that spread dust clouds of building materials in all directions for many blocks. The density and pressure of the dust clouds were strong enough to carry light debris and lift or move small vehicles and break windows in adjacent buildings for several blocks around the WTC site.


LINK




taking into account damage due to falling debris as well as damage caused by the pressure wave produced by the collapsing towers impacting on the ground. Each of the more than 4,600 windows are included in the model, along with each of the 41 floors and 64 columns.


fbtatom.home.mindspring.com...

The more you try to dismiss this fact, the more you show everyone that you don't know what you are talking about.

So keep talking, you keep digging deeper and deeper the grave of those theories of yours.


[edit on 27-4-2006 by Muaddib]
[edit: fixed long link]

[edit on 4/27/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
BTW, since you were talking about the pressure waves produced by aircraft, here is some information for you about shockwaves produced when aircraft fly at the speed of sound and because of this, pressure waves converge and make shockwaves.


Exclusions which apply to this policy
...........
Pressure waves caused by aircraft travelling at the speed of sound, or faster.

www.easymoneyinsurance.com...

Insurance companies should have made it clear that they were actually talking about shockwaves, which do cause a lot more damage than just pressure waves.

BTW, yes, there were shockwaves which struck the buildings when the aircraft crashed in the buildings and the ensuing explosions occurred...



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Muaddib, for your explanation to make any damned sense (assuming it hasn't morphed again) you still have to show the following:

(A) That waves move the material they travel through, rather than just travel through it, or

(B) That such waves could somehow powderize concrete and gypsum and violently eject them from the building.

And btw, suggesting that the expulsions were the fireproofing... I wouldn't even know where to begin. It wasn't the fireproofing. That's insane. For God's sake just look at the freaking concrete powder that rained down all over Manhattan, match it with the gray dust coming out of the buildings ('cause, geez, I guess that's where it all came from!!), and then match that gray dust with the gray dust coming out with the expulsions. A first-grader could do it. It's. The. Same. Freaking. Stuff: masses of pulverized building material.


I'll bring up one of the illustrations you provided of your theory again, too:


You suggested, as an example, that the reason there's a rush of air as a car passes you very quickly is that "pressure waves" or something apparently push the air at the speed of sound away from the car towards yours. ... In reality it's just the air molecules being displaced violently around the vehicle as it passes.

You also tried to use vocal cords as an example of vibrations causing you to exhale (ie parallel with "pressure waves" somehow causing the expulsions at the WTC) when any babbling infant can realize that you have to force out air to cause your vocal cords to vibrate, not the other way around. So you've been offering metaphors that are ass-backwards than what your actual theory suggests. That and information you can't even integrate with what you're saying is all I've seen you post in support of what you're saying.

I thought WCIP did a wonderful job of explaining the problems with what you're suggesting. I guess the real problem is that you don't know when to stop. This thread had a very clearly presented problem with the official story before all of this. So I think I'm going to start ignoring your posts, just so you know. It's really a shame that this thread has been so derailed by something so undeserving.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

i see now that my major lack of understanding was what the hay you are talking about. it's hard to tell sometimes. you somehow believe that sound is causing the collapse to race ahead of freefalling debris.


WTH are you talking about?...

Where did i say that sound is moving the dust clouds or is causing any damage?......

humm, i think i know what you are trying to do now.... Nice try to diverge your obvious lack of understanding of science by now claiming this....

I was talking about P R E S S U R E W A V E S.....pressure waves do T R A V E L at the speed of sound... i never said P-waves are sound...even though there is an interrelation....


The sudden collapse of each tower sent out air pressure waves that spread dust clouds of building materials in all directions for many blocks. The density and pressure of the dust clouds were strong enough to carry light debris and lift or move small vehicles and break windows in adjacent buildings for several blocks around the WTC site.


www.911review.com...


Originally posted by billybob
why don't you remind me of the important 'quantum physics' involved in understanding the collapse.


lol, you can't even understand basic physics, what makes you think you will understand quantum physics?....


Originally posted by billybob
................
are you implying that the towers were falling at the speed of a jet in flight? you have no understanding of science.


lol...the one who seems to think that the towers were falling at the speed of sound is you...since you claimed that pressure waves could only attain the speed of sound if the object which caused the pressure wave travels at the speed of sound....which is not true...

Stop trying to divert attention from your obvious mistakes...

This theory, along with many others of yours which make as much sense as this one, has gone out of the building.


[edit on 27-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
i see what the problem you two have...you have a reading comprehension problem which exceeds even your lack of understanding of science.

BSRay, you obviously can't even read, much less understand science, so who should drop the topic is obviously the both of you.

ATS is a place for truth and real science, not for the made up non-existant science you two keep coming up with...


As always when someone who makes more sense than either one of you and shows your lack of understanding on the topic you are trying to discuss, you try to claim that "it is the other person who doesn't know"....when the facts speak for themselves.

You are going to ignore me from now on? i really don't care, you two have shown that you lack even the basic understanding of science, or reading comprehension, to participate in any logical discussions.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
BSRay, you obviously can't even read, much less understand science, so who should drop the topic is obviously the both of you.


That was not necessary, it might be nicer if everyone can refresh their memory of the T&Cs:


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
WTH are you talking about?...

Where did i say that sound is moving the dust clouds or is causing any damage?......

humm, i think i know what you are trying to do now.... Nice try to diverge your obvious lack of understanding of science by now claiming this....

I was talking about P R E S S U R E W A V E S.....pressure waves do T R A V E L at the speed of sound... i never said P-waves are sound...even though there is an interrelation....


in air, pressure waves ARE sound. it is the EXACT same mechanism. it is a transfer of momentum similiar to the steel balls on a swing desk-top ornament. you seem to feel you can move a concrete block by hitting it with a nerf ball.

bombs cause violent pressure waves, so pointing out the reports of destruction by pressure waves at the towers points to bombs, and not 'overpessure of air'(which actually MOVES THE AIR, unlike pressure waves), caused by displacement by falling debris.
if you can show calculations that dropping a floor pan creates SIGNIFIGANT pressure waves, ie. of the magnitude great enough to shatter steel and concrete, then i will backpedal, and admit you're right and your argument has merit.
i will have to suggest, however, that if you're right, we as a whole must be far more careful about dropping things, because the dread 'p-wave' might get us. once again, it is a case of MAGNITUDE and DENSITY which make you're argument less than a 'puff of air'.

and it was you who has suggested that pressure waves are responsible for the demolition wave outpacing the freefalling debris at the speed of sound, not me. my claims are clear, and the strawman you've built has just been ripped apart by your own pressure waves.

let's get back to the original observation, and that is that an explosive event has occured below the freefalling debris, and the explosions(which are creating SIGNIFIGANT pressure waves, lol) are timed to out pace gravity, thereby allowing the building to fall with no resistance from the structure.

this accounts for fall times, matches eye-witness accounts and news broadcasts, and testimony whcih ALL talk of 'secondary explosions'. it explains the pyroclastic-'like' cloud, it explains the molten steel that lasted for weeks, it explains the complete pulverisation of everything in the towers, it explains why tower seven fell the way it did, it explains EVERYTHING.
your 'pressure waves' which are, according to you, somehow causing the collapse, yet are a result of the collapse explain little beside how it is that we 'hear' things that are occuring at a distance. there are also reports of a huge shockwave which flipped cars, and caused others to burst into flame. explosives cause these effects.

good luck, jim.
beam me up, scotty.

i'm hitting the ignore button, muaddib. congradulations, you're the very first to recieve the honour of being plonked by me. i guess i'll never know if you did the math. i'll just assume you can't. i'd say it's a safe bet.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

in air, pressure waves ARE sound. it is the EXACT same mechanism. it is a transfer of momentum similiar to the steel balls on a swing desk-top ornament. you seem to feel you can move a concrete block by hitting it with a nerf ball.


Pressure waves are sound?... Really?... Waves are energy, are you telling us now that sound waves (a form of energy) can move matter?

Sound is a pressure wave, a mechanical wave and a longitudinal wave. Mechanical waves, such as air pressure waves and water pressure waves, are also pressure waves. There are also other non mechanical waves, which do not need a medium to propagate, but they are electromagnetic in nature. But those non mechanic waves are for another discussion, since they do not apply to this topic.

Sound waves are pressure waves which transport energy without moving matter, (such as air, water, or solids) but there are other mechanical waves which do move the medium (matter), such as air pressure waves and water pressure waves. They all move at the speed of sound.

To understand why they move at the speed of sound, you would have to understand some principles of quantum mechanics, but if you can't understand simple physics, you won't be able to understand quantum physics. (wave/particle duality)

Sound waves occur when objects vibrate, and move through a medium, or solids without moving matter itself. (the medium/solids)

Only certain pressure waves (ie: water pressure wave/air pressure wave) move matter. But all pressure waves move at the speed of sound.


Originally posted by billybob
bombs cause violent pressure waves, so pointing out the reports of destruction by pressure waves at the towers points to bombs, and not 'overpessure of air'(which actually MOVES THE AIR, unlike pressure waves), caused by displacement by falling debris.


It is true that bombs cause shockwaves, but tons and tons of debris falling against the ground do cause pressure waves.

The explosions of the planes hitting the towers caused shockwaves. That truth alone destroys your theory.

BTW, shockwaves are not sound waves, although shockwaves do produce sound. A shockwave is the compression of gas in supersonic flow.

I really don't understand how anyone who claims to know about science can say that "only bombs can cause pressure waves"....

That statement which you made above shows your true intentions, which are political. It also shows that you don't understand science, and much less pressure waves.

I already gave several links from scientists all whom agree with what I am saying about pressure waves. If members are really searching for the truth, they will do some research on their own about the science behind pressure waves and see the fallacies, lies and exagerations that you are making as you try to sell your theory for "political motivations alone".


[edit on 28-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
hi, everybody.
just bumping this thread, cause it's PROOF of DEMOLITION.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Just bumping this thread to remind everybody the difference between free fall and the speed that the WTC builidnings collapsed.




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
that does not address the issue, lefty.
my picture shows freefalling debris, and it shows explosions of dust in two sequential frames showing the distance travelled in 1/30th of a second. the dust from inside by far outpaces the freefalling debris, meaning that gravity is not reponsible, because gravity has a speed limit, but electronic timers do not.
showing a picture of the later progression does nothing to refute what i have proven.
weak, man, weak.
i measured it scientifically-ish, dude. back in physics class, we'd get a strobe camera, and drop a steel ball, and measure the distances between frames to determine the rate of accelration of a falling object(gravity's acceleration). if we were to drop the ball through a series of , say, spiderwebs, would the ball now fall faster? how about tissue papers? there is no explanation that i have heard that would cause the inside of the building to be able to break itself and speed downwards(actually, outwards, as the smoke puff is not falling, but coming out a ninety degrees) faster than steel beams falling through air on the outside.

faster than freefall does not describe the entire collapse, just the portion i circled and measured. do you NOT understand that, for real?



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
faster than freefall does not describe the entire collapse, just the portion i circled and measured. do you NOT understand that, for real?


Apparently he does not, as we have tried to explain this once before, on the first page of this thread. A crude visual representation of what BillyBob is pointing out:



As he said, it doesn't mean the building is falling faster than free-fall for the whole collapse.

What he's pointing out, rather, is more along the lines of the building collapse did not have to accelerate once the explosive vertical collapse began. Free-falling material is still gaining speed, while the building is trucking along at the pace it will maintain the entire time, ahead of the free-falling material (which is, again, still accelerating).

[edit on 9-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I understand what you guys are trying to point out.

However none of proves demolition.

Free falling objects do not change velocity unless they encounter air resistance or hit something.

The Towers did not fall at free fall.

The whole premise that they were faster than free fall is ludicrous and you guys know it.

The fact remains that the freefalling debris hit the ground faster than the non free falling building.

Your graph means nothing when reality disagrees with you.




You are misenterpreting the video.

Here is the video you claim shows proof of demolition.

www.plaguepuppy.net...

What you think is proving your point, is actually debris falling from different heights.

And that puff of debris could very well be a blast of debris being forced out below the collapse, while not being the main part of the collapse.

In which case it totally invalidates your "faster-than-freefall" theory, not that physics and the evidence doesn't do that already.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join