911 - World Trade fell at free fall speed!!

Originally posted by bsbray11

And that small difference has some kind of significance to you, as opposed to it not being there at all? You realize this is a rigid steel skyscraper falling and smashing into itself repeatedly and not a leaf falling through the air and simply experiencing drag, right?

Yeah, it means a lot.

The towers fell 30%+ SLOWER than free fall.

That means that the towers absorbed a HUGE amount of energy during the collapses.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The towers fell 30%+ SLOWER than free fall.

Please show me the calculations that you use to determine this, along with the collapse time that you used.

reply to post by tezzajw


9.5 seconds free fall.

12+ seconds as seen in videos.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
12+ seconds as seen in videos.

So you disagree with the Commission Report and think that it is false, when it states the following:

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".

So, once more - was it ten seconds or more than twelve?

Who should people believe, the Commission Report or you?

reply to post by tezzajw


Yeah, why should we trust you and your YouTube videos, Seymour, when the Kean Commission said 10 seconds? Are you saying they're all "conspiracy theorists"? Do you think they would publish such blatant garbage in the official government report of 9/11, despite the input of hundreds of professionals?

I'm joking, of course. Both the Kean Commission was full of crap, and none of the "reasoning" I'm mocking above makes logical sense.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The towers fell 30%+ SLOWER than free fall.

Yeah, 70% of "free-fall" then. That's not a big difference. You'd get a similar, if not bigger difference from a wide leaf falling through the air.

WTC7 fell at 100%, accelerated at 9.8m/s^2. So I don't see why you even act like any of this means anything to you at all in the first place, because it obviously doesn't.

reply to post by bsbray11

This thread shows the hypocrisy of believing in the official story. To believe in the official story means that you actually have to believe it to be true - just as it allegedly happened, without deviation.

The original post has a statement from the 911 Commission Report, which is part of the official story. That stement is:

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds

You would think that believers in the official story should recognise this as being an official time for collapse, afterall, it's printed in the report!

Yet, we have the following comments from a couple of members (who may or may not believe in the official story):

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

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
12+ seconds as seen in videos.

Now, if you believe in the official story, then why would you dispute the time taken for the tower to collapse??? You can't believe in the story, yet cast doubt over a fundamental aspect that is a key to that story!

According to some believers, the official story of ten seconds is wrong, yet the official story is to be believed? That's a logical fallacy, which can not be refuted.

And the believers wonder why the truthers want a real investigation, not the sham effort that we got???

I pose these questions to ANY believer of the official story:
If the official collapse time was not ten seconds, then what was it?
If the official collapse time was not ten seconds, then why was it used in the Commission Report, if it was knowingly false?
If the official collapse time was not ten seconds, then why aren't you demanding a proper investigation, which will determine the official collapse time, given that the time in the report was wrong?
If the official (and actual) collapse time was ten seconds, then why do many of you deny that the towers collapsed at very-near free-fall velocity?

Please, believers, enlighten me and the rest of us truthers.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
reply to post by Neon Haze

 

Jeff King is not an "MIT engineer" - he studied some electrical engineering there in the 70s and has worked as a family medical Dr for the last 25 years.

So what about these other fully Qualified Scientst who aslo stand up?

Michael M. Andregg PhD U California Davis
St. Paul, MN, USA Intelligence Affairs

Robert Ballan MSc & JD: Clarkson College
Norwood, NY, USA Chemistry & Law

Kevin Barrett PhD U of Wisconsin
Lone Rock WI, USA Islamic Studies

William A. Christison BA, Princeton University
Santa Fe, NM, USA Central Intelligence Agency (ret.)

Walter Davis PhD: U of Connecticut
Kent, OH, USA Kinesiology

A. K. Dewdney
PhD: U of Waterloo London,
Canada Mathematics

Derrick Grimmer PhD: Washington University
Ames, IA, USA Physics

Joel Harel HBS U. of Edinburgh.
Laguna Hills, CA, USA Aeronautical Engineer and Qualified Pilot

David Heller BS: Physics Bard College
Berkeley, CA, USA MA: S. F. Inst. Archit
Architect and Builder

Annie Higgins PhD University of Chicago
Gainesville, FL, USA Arabic Language & Literature

Barbara Honegger MS Psychology & Graduate of Naval War College
Carmel Valley, CA, USA Senior Military Affairs Journalist, Naval Postgraduate

Timothy P. Howell PhD: U. of Edinburgh
Upsala, Sweden Computer Science

Steven E. Jones PhD: Vanderbilt University
Provo, Utah, USA Physicist, Brigham Young U.

Peter J. Kirsch MD: University of Witwatersrand
Western Cape, South Africa Forensic Pathology

Karen Kwiatkowski PhD Catholic University
Mt. Jackson, VA, USA Lieut. Col. USAF (ret.)

Shelton Lankford MSC Systems Mgmt. USC
Salisbury, MD, USA Liet. Col. USMC ret.

Jerry Longspaugh MSc: Brooklyn Polytechnic
Fort Worth, TX, USA Aerospace Engineer

Brad Mayeaux Electr. &Tech. Inst. of New Orleans
Kenner, LA, USA Cellphone Engineer

George F. Nelson FAA A&P Licence
Huntsville, AL, USA US Airforce Colonel (ret.)

Ralph W. Omholt AAPP University of Alaska
Kirkland, WA, USA Professional Airline Pilot

Kevin Ryan BSc Indiana University
Bloomington, IN, USA Chemistry
ASQ Certified Quality Engineer

Helen Stace PhD: U of Sydney
Perth, Australia Biology

Don Trent (Four Arrows) Jacobs Ed. D. Boise State University
Sequim, WA, USA Professor, Fielding Graduate U

Bernard Windham MS Florida State
Tallahassee, FL, USA MS Louisiana State
Statistician

Russ Wittenberg BBA U. of Miami FL
Carefree, AZ, USA US Airforce Capt. (ret)
Captain for PAA & UAL

Thier Colective statement..

"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."

Source - Physics911

These people have had a vast amount of experince between them.

These are not crack pots who are looking to make a fast buck these are some extreamly clever people who are standing up and puting thier own jobs and livelyhoods on the line to do so.

When someone with more knowledge than you states that something is not right about an official story and they have nothing to gain directly from doing so, it surely must make you stand and at least listen to what they have to say.

In answer to someone's earlier question about not being able to view you tube. I am working on a break down of the physics presented in my above vids and will present them in a static form for those at work or on low bandwidth access.

Power to the People!!!

NeoN HaZe

Originally posted by Neon Haze


So what about these other fully Qualified Scientst who aslo stand up?


Thier Colective statement..

"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."

Source - Physics911




When someone with more knowledge than you states that something is not right about an official story and they have nothing to gain directly from doing so, it surely must make you stand and at least listen to what they have to say.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you. Although some of them have backgrounds that may be relevant to that of structural engineering, physics, and mathematics. Most of them do not.

I read the statement. I listened. They gotta walk the talk. They, like others. (A&E for 911 Truth) have not offered anything to back up their statement.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
They gotta walk the talk. They, like others. (A&E for 911 Truth) have not offered anything to back up their statement.

Please, ThroatYogurt, would you mind backing up this statement of your's?

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

Please explain why you believe that the 911 Commission Report used a time of ten seconds, if you believe that it took more than ten seconds?

reply to post by tezzajw


Tezza... first of all the OP title is "WORLD TRADE CENTER FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED."

We know that is not accurate. Agreed? ok

Now in regards to the 911 Report.

On August 21, 2004 the The 911 Commission closed. NIST had not concluded their findings.

The NIST FAQ that was released in 2006 stated this:

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).
...
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.

wtc.nist.gov...

What do i make of that? The exact time is not known by anyone. Again this is my opinion.

What is FACT? The towers did not fall at free fall speed.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Yeah, 70% of "free-fall" then. That's not a big difference.

LOLOL...

You don't have any idea what that means, do you?

You have no idea of the potential energy unleashed, to be converted into destroying the structure, when the buildings failed, do you?

You're just making things up as you go here, hoping that you'll look cool, aren't you?

Keep trying, kid. You're showing just what kind of sheeple inhabit the CT movement.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You have no idea of the potential energy unleashed, to be converted into destroying the structure, when the buildings failed, do you?

I can calculate effects of capacitances and inductances on the voltage/current phase, configure one-shot triggers as multivibrator timers, construct voltage comparators, etc., and your sad rebuttal to me is to suggest I don't know what potential energy is?

Don't pretend like you have some intuitive sense of what is "significant" and what isn't, or especially base your arguments upon it. What are your credentials? What is your field of expertise, and what physics or engineering classes have you ever had in your life? Better yet, how old are you? All this childish BS is coming to an end, "Seymour Butz," because you were destined for my ignore list the second you first set up your troll account.

You're just making things up as you go here, hoping that you'll look cool, aren't you?

Are you talking to yourself?

Btw, when you head off posts with things like "LOLOL," you don't actually fool anybody. I realize you're the one playing up to an audience. I've only put up with you for this long because I thought pointing out your own immaturity to you might nudge you into thinking a little more deeply, but I'm about done with that.

reply to post by bsbray11


Yep, it's like I thought.

You have no idea about the massive amount of energy absorbed during the collapses in order to slow down the fall speed by 30%.

This is key, but I see you avoiding it like the plague.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you. Although some of them have backgrounds that may be relevant to that of structural engineering, physics, and mathematics. Most of them do not.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. That is of course thier choice.

What I find fascinating is that you would make a statement such as that.

What are you basing your opinion on??

Which of the Fully Qualified Scientists above would you have us discount evidence from??

And why??

I read the statement. I listened. They gotta walk the talk. They, like others. (A&E for 911 Truth) have not offered anything to back up their statement.

Hmmm... So you read thier collective initial statement yet you have not bothered to look at their evidence before you discounted it. You just assume they don't know what they are on about??

What qualifies you to discount these very educated people??

What about the words of the people who built the towers in the first place... would you listen to the 100+ Qualified architecs that have petitioned congress to have a full investigation as they do not concur with the official findings.

The list is fat to big to present here so Please follow the link..

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

The List is v.long and most of these people are willing for you to go right ahead and contact them. Full list and their evidence can be found here

Source: - Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect Scott Page, M. Arch / Designer
Lic: C19220 CA Berkeley, CA
B. Arch. S.F. Bay Area, CA

Bruce B. Maxwell, Architect Alan S. Glassman, M. Arch., Associate AIA, CSI, SA, Architectural Re *
Lic: C27715 Lancaster, PA
M.Arch.
Santa Rosa, CA

Bruce Richey, AIA, Architect Andrea Walhof-Grisham, Designer
Lic: Oregon Architect's License #2618 exp. 6/08 B.S. Architecture
Ashland, OR Truckee, CA

C Matthew Taylor, Architect

Andrew McClure
Lic: South Carolina Architect's License #AR .4827 I, ex B.Arch. VPI & SU
B.A. Architecture, U. of Cincinnati Raleigh, NC
Hilton Head Island, SC

Chris Swigert, Architect Arnold A. Valdez, M.Arch, Designer/Planner *
Lic: Calif. Architect License #C27595 1998, exp. 4/09 Santa Fe, NM
Oakland, CA

Christian Mungenast, AIA, Architect Arthur Stopes, Planner
Lic: Massachusetts Architect's License #8856, exp. 8/08 Berkeley, CA
Arlington, MA

Dan Bartlett, AIA Chad Jones, B. Arch.
Lic: New Hampshire Architect's license 2919 B.S. Science (Major in Arch.), WUSTL
B. Arch St. Petersburg, FL
Keene, NH

Daniel W. Richard, P.E., LS (retired) Chris Jung
Lic: PE2406, LS16889 B. Arch.
B.S. Chemical Engineering Berkeley, CA
Eagar, AZ

Daniel Saari, Architect David A. Johnson, Dr., FAICP, Ph.D.
Lic: Arizona Architect's license 35466 BA (Arch) & MCP, Yale; PhD, Cornell
Master of Architecture Asheville, NC
Phoenix, AZ

David Crawford, Architect Edward Anastas, Designer
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C24904 1994, exp. 3/09 B. Arch, Ms AUD
Walnut Creek, CA Santa Monica, CA

Dennis R. Holloway, Architect Elwin Wong
Lic: New Mexico Architect License #002569 B. Arch - Cal Berkeley
B.Arch., Univ. of Mich., MAUD, Harvard G Oakland, CA
Rio Rancho, NM

Don Gibbons, Architect Felix Goebel, Dipl. Ing (Architektur)
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C18058, 1987, exp. 6/0 Oakland, CA
Pleasant Hill, CA

Donald Ketner, Architect, CCS Francisco A. Planes, Architectural Consultant, Assoc., A.I.A.
Lic: 4688 Alaska B.S. Architecture, CCNY-CUNY
5 year Architecture Penn State Bloomfield, NJ
Anchorage, AK

Douglas Claude Rhodes, Architect Henri Tso
Lic: Montana Architect's License #1400 exp. 6/08 B. Arch.
B.S. Architecture Walnut Creek, CA
Whitefish, MT

Earl H. Booth, Architect Ian J. Colburn, B. Arch.
B.A. of Architecture B. Arch., Virginia Tech.
Salt Lake City, UT New York, NY

Eric Douglas, Architect James W. Broadbent, Project Manager / Designer
Lic: NY Architect's License #031273, exp. 4/09 M.Arch., U. of Oregon
Howard Beach, NY Jackson, WY

Erik R. Thorp, Architect Jan Leits, B. Arch.
Lic: RI #863 Berkeley, CA
B.Arch, M.Arch, Univ of Penna
Warwick, RI

Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc..........

This is what thier evidence points to..





The direct evidence can be found through the source link above. Though I will incite evidence found from this site and others throughout this thread.

Power to the People!!

NeoN HaZe


[edit on 6-7-2008 by Neon Haze]

reply to post by Neon Haze


What does Richard Gage have to say? I have read his info. It is all recycled from Dr. Griffin and Mr. Jones.

Dr. Griffins who is a Theologian was shown how wrong he was by a NASA scientist. Dr. Griffin has refused to make the changes to his assertions even though he knows they are wrong.

Steven Jones has his thermite paper rejected by people that he worked with at BYU and subsequently got severed from his job at BYU.

I have been through the list at A/E 4 911 truth. None of them bring anything to the table. Several months ago, I actually caught Mr. Gage posting a doctored video of a controlled demolition. He removed the audio of the first couple seconds where there were blasts.

HE has since removed it.

Mr. Gage was also just on a debate with Mark Roberts. Mr. Gage used cardboard boxes as evidence for the tower collapses.

Mr. Gage has also been caught saying pretty stupid things. I suggest a google search of his debates will enlighten you.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

What does Richard Gage have to say? I have read his info. It is all recycled from Dr. Griffin and Mr. Jones.

Is it?? If you had bothered to check my source you would see to the contrary.

I don't want to alienate low bandwidth users so here is a PowerPoint used by the following video..

9/11: Re-examining the 3 WTC High-rise Building "Collapses"

You asked what Richard Gage, AIA, Architect Lic: C19220 CA B. Arch has to say?? here you go... But please check take the time to check the source

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

"How the Towers Fell" (1 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (2 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (3 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (4 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (5 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (6 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (7 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (8 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (9 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (10 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (11 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (12 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage

"How the Towers Fell" (13 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage


Sorry to those who are either at work or are on dail-up.

For everyone else, please do take the time to listen to the above.

Throat, I am noticing a pattern to your posts here, you seem to just take the opposite view of all evidence regardless of what that evidence is. A mind works like a parachute my friend.... it works best when it's open.

You also state that due to a NASA scientist saying that the towers could have fallen in the manor they did naturally, that all other evidence is null and void.

I feel I need to point out to you the fact that the source you state as being reliable is directly in the pay of the United States government. NASA receives direct funding from congress... All the sources I posted are independent and have nothing to gain directly, though some may decide to try and raise funding for further research. In fact most have a great deal to lose by standing up as they have.

Review the evidence and re-asses your opinion.

Power to the People!!

NeoN HaZe


[edit on 6-7-2008 by Neon Haze]

*sighs*

I have seen Mr. Gages slide show presentation. He has changed ot so many times I lost track.

There was a website that was dedicated to pointing out the fallacies in each of his slides. He kept changing them.

Forgive me for not watching them again, I just watched a 1 hour debate he had where a NYC Tour Guide had to teach him.

You can notice whatever pattern you want. You can ignore the evidence all you want.

The NASA Scientist did the paper on his OWN dime. Not that it makes ANY difference who funded it. Read it, point out what is wrong in it. So far no one has been able to (besides minor changes)
His e-mail is attached and typically responds within a day.

Funny how you question me for pointing out that Gage is not accurate, yet you are so quick to condemn someone because they work for NASA.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
*sighs*

I have seen Mr. Gages slide show presentation. He has changed ot so many times I lost track.

There was a website that was dedicated to pointing out the fallacies in each of his slides. He kept changing them.

Forgive me for not watching them again; I just watched a 1 hour debate he had where a NYC Tour Guide had to teach him.

You can notice whatever pattern you want. You can ignore the evidence all you want.

The NASA Scientist did the paper on his OWN dime. Not that it makes ANY difference who funded it. Read it, point out what is wrong in it. So far no one has been able to (besides minor changes)
His e-mail is attached and typically responds within a day.

Funny how you question me for pointing out that Gage is not accurate, yet you are so quick to condemn someone because they work for NASA.

[sighs]

I guess you will always blindly believe what is told to you by the leaders of the world no matter what.

Your choice, I respect that. It is your right.

This thread was not meant for people with your attitude towards the events on 911. This thread is for OPEN minded people, who have a genuine interest in understanding what happened on 9/11

So I would kindly ask that if you don't have the time or inclination to review the evidence I present, please don't comment on it until you have.

I also have not heard a single argument so far as to what could cause all three steel buildings to collapse at the speed they did as a result of the official account of the event.

If someone here can demonstrate that the official account of 9/11 is correct then I'm all ears...

I am willing to stake my reputation that no one here can explain why the twin towers fell at the speed and the direction they fell. Or why WT7 fell even though it was not struck by a plane...

Power to the People!!

NeoN Haze

Originally posted by Neon Haze

I guess you will always blindly believe what is told to you by the leaders of the world no matter what.

Your choice, I respect that. It is your right.

This thread was not meant for people with your attitude towards the events on 911. This thread is for OPEN minded people, who have a genuine interest in understanding what happened on 9/11

So I would kindly ask that if you don't have the time or inclination to review the evidence I present, please don't comment on it until you have.

I also have not heard a single argument so far as to what could cause all three steel buildings to collapse at the speed they did as a result of the official account of the event.

If someone here can demonstrate that the official account of 9/11 is correct then I'm all ears...

I am willing to stake my reputation that no one here can explain why the twin towers fell at the speed and the direction they fell. Or why WT7 fell even though it was not struck by a plane...

Power to the People!!

NeoN Haze

Leaders of the world?? LMFAO Where have I posted ANYTHING that showed my support for the world leaders? More specifically the current United States administration. Whom I despise.

You have been shown the most accurate times of the collapse. YOU refuse to believe it.

I have asked all the questions. I have received most of the answers. I have e-mailed Richard Gage asking important questions. HE refused to answer me. I e-mailed Mr. Plumb at the same site. We refused to answer my questions.

I asked my name removed from his site. It still sits on his opening page.



Lets get back to Ryan Mackey. Read his white paper. Then ask ALL the truthers that claim to have engineering backgrounds WHAT he got wrong.

IF they can't find errors in his white paper... ask why. Write to Ryan Mackey with your concerns. He is a great guy with above average intelligence. (after all his is a rocket scientist)

911guide.googlepages.com...

There is the link. Will you read it? Will you ask questions?

Of your mind is open, like you are stating, you would jump at this opportunity.