It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# 911 - World Trade fell at free fall speed!!

page: 1
8
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:41 PM
I posted this as part of a massive thread of truth info... I felt that this info was good enough and valid enough to highlight in a thread of its own....

Source: - Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check

Free-falling from WTC heights
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can't do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a collapse should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!

Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized -- actually disintegrated is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

911 was an inside job FULL STOP.

Once you accept that the US Government sanctioned the deaths of more than 7000 of their own citizens just so they could sway public opinion, you realise what they are capable of..

If enough people are aware of the truth... The Global conspiracy becomes very easy to see in action.

Power to the People!!

NeoN HaZe

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Neon Haze]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:26 AM
Come on people.. it doesn't take a physicist to understand that there is no way that the towers could have fallen at the speed they did unaided..

This is the true smoking gun...

If the occurrence doesn't even stand up against real world physics then it’s as solid as ever the fact that it was an INSIDE JOB!!!!!!!!!!

Wake up people..WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!

Power to the People,

NeoN HaZe

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Neon Haze]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:35 AM
Who's the guy in the 1st video & whos he talking to?

Its obvious those buildings didnt fall 'naturally'. I knew it the day I saw it happen. When I first saw that tiny hole in the wall of the pentagon, and no wreckage, I knew something wasnt right. Nothing was 'natural' about the events of that day.

The problem is for many people ignorance is bliss.

Starred & flagged.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Nonchalant]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:00 AM
Yep they done it, It was an inside job and they killed thousands of their own citizens ........So what ya gonna do about it ?

Power to the people.... Hah... What a joke.

From what i see they (The Government) got away with it and the people have let them off.......Dare i even say "Again" As i don't think this is the first time the US government have stooped that low, Just to sway public opinion.

I think the average "Joe" are just too content with their existence that they don't want to rock the boat........Do they really want to revolt with all the upset and violence that could ensue......Marshall Law anyone.....I don't think so.

We the people have become so pacified, We don't want any trouble...And the Gov know it. And use it to their advantage.

Sorry for the Rant born from frustration

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:05 AM
Watch the debris...it falls faster than the collapse.

End of story.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:11 AM
Dble post sorry....

[edit on 3-7-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

So I guess the 'squibs' some 30 floors down from the 'collapsing' floors was a floor pancaking on itself? Or perhaps it was an occupant firing a fire-extinguisher the wrong way? No, wait I know, it was a gas mains exploding?

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Nonchalant]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Watch the debris...it falls faster than the collapse.

End of story.

I agree with throat on this one. The building did not fall at free fall speed but the outer shell and the top portion eventually hit free fall speed but the top was not some solid mass.

Whats gets me is that if the most of the building broke apart and peeled away during the collapse, then what fell all the way throught the core columns to knock em off its welds all the way down to almost the lobby?

When I looked at the towers i see basically 2 radio towers with and outer shell and floors between.

Check out this demo. See if you can see the similarities.
This tower was about the size of the WTC.

Two (2) weeks earlier, NSE had engaged CDI to design a plan to fell the 1,202’-6” tall structure without damage to the helix house 25’ away.

Operating under severe time constraints, CDI was unable to ship U.S.-made linear shaped charges for the project. A CDI representative flew to Buenos Aires where the local explosives supplier had expressed confidence in their ability to melt and pour pentolite explosives in CDI furnished copper sheathing to a density specification provided by CDI.

Inadvertently, and without damage to the helix house, a far more aggressive means of felling large guyed towers was demonstrated. Subsequent analysis of the structural release sequence of the guys has yielded predictable data which CDI intends to use in the felling of large, cable-stayed towers in the future.
www.controlled-demolition.com...

What went through the whole building that broke all the core columns to the basement?

[edit on 3-7-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:25 AM
Regardless, it wasnt a 'natural' collapse, and thats the bottom line.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by IvanZana

Whats gets me is that if the most of the building broke apart and peeled away during the collapse, then what fell all the way throught the core columns to knock em off its welds all the way down to almost the lobby?

Look at your photo of the towers being constructed. They have the floor beams in, which braces the core columns togather, making it harder to "knock down" as a unit.

But when debris from above the impact zone falls and removes that horizontal bracing, then each core column acts as a single unit, with no bracing at all. So you're left with a tall skinny core column standing there, and with all kinds of falling debris impacting from all sides continueing, it's not hard to understand..

Tall, skinny objects don't stand very well on their own. That's why your radio tower had bracing wires to the ground.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:37 AM
From my observations the collapse got nowhere near free-fall speed and reached a 'terminal' velocity of approx 70mph which is dictated by the resistance it met. Let's assume something like 80% of the building's total mass ended up outside the confines of the outer walls which leaves about 100000 tons falling within the walls at 70mph.

Care to calculate the momentum of that moving mass?
(I did a rough calc which indicates about 45 gigajoules)

'Squibs' do not destroy anything (if there actually were any squibs that is) - their function is to initiate a larger explosion, IE as detonators but we don't see any large explosions. That leads me to believe the flashes are not actually squibs at all but something more mundane.

[edit on 3/7/2008 by Pilgrum]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:39 AM
Mabey so.....

There wasnt enough debris and the laws of physics dictates that the building would of ment resistance on every floor which should of pushed the remain collapsing debris of off to the sides which wasnt the case.

In the picture above you can see the building collasped to the base.

2 seprate attacks, 2 similar buildings, 2 diffrent locations on the buildings = 2 exact collaspes. Doesnt make sense.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:03 AM
I did some calculations a while back that indicated the volume of solid material from both towers (what they contained an abundance of was air) compacted into a pile spread across the area of the WTC site would amount to about 3m (10') high. The post-collapse pics look to have a believable volume of material to me and the dust that blew away would be a negligible proportion of the overall mass.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
From my observations the collapse got nowhere near free-fall speed and reached a 'terminal' velocity of approx 70mph which is dictated by the resistance it met.

I refuse to use imperial measurements for calculations, so all values will be converted to metric.

Initial velocity (u) = 0 m/s.
Displacement (s) = 414.5 m.
Acceleration (a) = 9.8 m/s^2.
Time (t) = 10 s.
Final velocity (v)

v^2 = u^2 + 2as (assuming constant g)
v^2 = 0^2 + 2*9.8*414.5
v = 90.1 m/s
v = 201.5 mph
This confirms Neon Haze's original post.

Now, for you to claim a maximum velocity of 70 mph, we'll check the figures again.

v = 70 mph = 31.3 m/s

v = u + at (Equation 1)
31.3 = 0 + 9.8*t
t = 3.2 s
This implies that the top of the tower took 3.2 seconds to collapse, with an acceleration near g. The top of the tower did not collapse in 3.2 seconds. From this we can conclude that either the top of the tower was travelling faster than 70 mph, or that the acceleration was around 1/3g (3.1 m/s^2).

You claim a figure of 70 mph, so we have to assume that the acceleration value was around 1/3g, for your claim to satisfy Equation 1.

s = ut + 0.5at^2 (Equation 2)
s = 0*10 + 0.5*3.1*10^2
s = 155 m

This is where I stop, as I have demonstrated the contradiction. You can't have a maximum velocity for the top of the tower equal to 70 mph. Doing so implies that the acceleration was nearly 1/3g. Given that the top of the tower fell in around 10 s and travelled nearly 414.5 metres, Equation 2 will only let the top of the tower fall 155 metres, without any resistance at all.

Please explain how you arrived at a maximum velocity of 70 mph for the top of the tower to fall 414.5 metres in 10 seconds without a near free-fall acceleration?

Note, the only variable with minor uncertainty is the time taken for the top of the tower to fall. However, most people can agree on roughly 10 seconds, which is the value I used and was quoted in Neon Haze's OP.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:48 AM
reply to post by tezzajw

tezzajw...

The towers did not fall at free fall speed. "near" free fall is often the term used.

I have seen a video that shows closer to 18 seconds.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:01 AM
My views keep getting pushed and pulled on this subject, Sure it don't look like a natural collapse ! And how these two very high buildings managed to fall into their own footprint is amazing to say the least.

However i was just looking at a video of one of the towers collapsing, And the initial moment of collapse does take place at roughly the point where the plane struck.

How could that have been planned before hand ?

I suppose it is conceivable any rigging with explosives could give those pushing the buttons options of which floors to blow first ?

Hmm questions questions

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:03 AM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I have seen a video that shows closer to 18 seconds.

The following quote is from the OP in this thread:

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".

Are you disputing this time of ten seconds, ThroatYoghurt? If so, why? Please post your evidence of why you dispute the claim that it took near enough to ten seconds for the top of the tower to collapse.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 02:30 PM

Regardless, it wasnt a 'natural' collapse, and thats the bottom line.

You're right - fully loaded and fueled airliners slamming into buildings
are not natural occurances. Wow "truth movement" gets something
right.....

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by Nonchalant

So I guess the 'squibs' some 30 floors down from the 'collapsing' floors was a floor pancaking on itself? Or perhaps it was an occupant firing a fire-extinguisher the wrong way? No, wait I know, it was a gas mains exploding?

It was air blast from massive amount of debris displacing the air as it it fell.

Here is account of FDNY Ladder 6 Matt Komorowski who was trapped in
Stairway B by collapse of WTC 1 (North Tower)

The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

The air blast picks up a 250 lb firefighter carrying 100 lbs more of equipment and flings him down stairs - now image dust being blown
out windows and ventilation openings in side of building.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:01 PM
Squibs are a red herring. Most of the squibs on the vids is air pressure.

The point is how did the core columns collapse all the way to the base?

[edit on 3-7-2008 by IvanZana]

new topics

top topics

8