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.

 

We can't judge freefall from the falling debris

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I posted this in another thread but thought it deserved it's own.


I'm not sure if we can take debris falling on the outside as a measure for freefall. Suppossedly these huge pieces of facade were thrown out by torquing forces right? How can we judge what is falling at freefall (something that would just fall off with no force) compared to something that has been forcefully thrown out and down? That's the only way for the trajectory of a torqued facade is out and down. So, those pieces that everyone says are falling at freefall are not because they were forced downward and not just dropped. In both scenerios they would be thrown down (explosives or torque), so none of us can use the falling debris outside the footprint as a gauge to freefall speeds. Just saying.

Oh, BTW, the government sources are the ones who came up with the 10 seconds and 11 seconds for the speeds of fall. Not that I agree with the governments take on most of 9/11 anyway, but it is the government's reports that state the collapse times closer to freefall. I'm not arguing that they did or didn't, but I say we can't judge from falling debris outside nor can we judge from government sources.


What I'm saying is that no matter what you believe caused the facades to end up 600+ feet away or even damage WTC7, then you have to admit that those pieces were under forces that added to the force of gravity in the downward direction.

[edit on 8/29/2007 by Griff]




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Hmmm. Maybe I should have put "smoking gun" or "proof" in my thread title. Maybe more would even look at it.


Edn

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I don't remember anyone talking about debris falling at free fall speed, what I do remember is the buildings them selfs falling at near free fall speed.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the debris from the buildings are unlikely to fall at free fall speed if they were thrown out downwards.

In any case free fall debris isn't the same as free fall buildings.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Hmmm. Maybe I should have put "smoking gun" or "proof" in my thread title. Maybe more would even look at it.


Lol griff that would just make my eyes roll, keep it straight.


Of course your analysis is right that the debris is being ejected with force and not simply dropping and that linkage to freefall is thus invalid, whatever your POV on events.

Are your gov't-sanctioned speeds of collapse coming from NIST? I'm surprised they are so short; even CD proponents usually hem at 13-15 secs. thoughts as to why?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Are your gov't-sanctioned speeds of collapse coming from NIST? I'm surprised they are so short; even CD proponents usually hem at 13-15 secs. thoughts as to why?


I believe they are from NIST. I could be wrong and they could be from FEMA.

As far as hearing that the debris was at freefall, I hear it all the time.

I hear: "The buildings couldn't be falling at freefall speed, look at the debris falling faster on the outside of the building."

Like here: www.debunking911.com...

And this famous picture here:




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It's NIST. Althought they say they got the times from the freefalling debris hitting the ground.


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).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

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.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

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.


Source: wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


thanks for the link and the excerpt; it sounds so plausible until you stop to consider that they argue the structure below offered no resistance at all to the upper building mass, and that the video evidence shows that the upper building masses explosively disintegrated about 2 secs into the collapse sequence.

I also like how they mention the cores standing for several seconds before they too gave way; as if all this was quite natural.

funny, too, they base their calculations on timing the fall of ejecta. has anyone done a serious modeling of the forces necessary to launch all those structural members horizontally (and at times at an upward angle)?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
has anyone done a serious modeling of the forces necessary to launch all those structural members horizontally (and at times at an upward angle)?


Not that I know of off hand. I'm sure someone has though.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
..seems you just try to use this claim to debunk the clear freefall fact?

hm, nice try.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by anti72
..seems you just try to use this claim to debunk the clear freefall fact?

hm, nice try.


Care to explain what I'm trying to do? I think you may have taken my motives the incorrect way.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by anti72
..seems you just try to use this claim to debunk the clear freefall fact?

hm, nice try.


He's actually using it to support it. Read again.

I always liked the freefall arguement till people started 'debunking it' left and right. For me the 'smoking gun' is that a falling object takes the path of least resistance, and the building fell strait down.

I see what you're saying however, if the debris was forced down it fell faster than freefall so the building did fall at close to freefall speeds (using the debris as a 'benchmark').

Im pretty sure freefall is 10 seconds for 1350 feet however.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I'm not necessarily saying they fell at freefall speeds. I'm also saying NIST used these speeds to come up with their times of collapses. Among other things. So, if they can be wrong about a simple thing as speed and vectors and forces, why should we trust them with anything? I'm not saying anything about the whole of NIST. Just the poor ones who had to figure out how an unnatural collapse can be explained naturally.

Oh and also to stop the argument of "they didn't fall at close to freefall, look at the debris falling way faster than the building" statements.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join