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.
Originally posted by cashlink
I cant even post anything about 911 on any thread with out being belittled or Attack by the same poster over and over in any of the 911 threads.
Originally posted by billybob
i always like to point out that some features went faster than freefall.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm not beyond convincing but you're up against it if you're suggesting freefall speed collapses, even in the case of WTC7. Maybe 'near freefall' but the question is then 'how near'.
The intent is to measure the average acceleration of the collapse of the main structure as opposed to the total collapse time of the entire building, hence the separate collapses of the penthouses on top of the building are not considered as reference points.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd ask just how much of the internal structure was intact to provide resistance immediately after the penthouse collapsed.
The bottom line is that none of the WTC buildings collapsed at freefall speed
and WTC7's final collapse was certainly the fastest but it doesn't represent the whole collapse of that building.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Free-fall here is not a "speed," it is an an acceleration.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
The best data I could find indicates the building was ~186m tall including the penthouse so what I could see amounts to approx top 74m of the building give or take a metre.
At freefall (9.8m/s^2) the roof would have hit the ground in 6.16 seconds and considering the mass involved (estimated 170000 tonnes) there's a lot of work being done in that difference of 2.34 seconds.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
I removed what I said about his geometric error as viewing a lot of other videos I have of the event shows it to be not as far out as I was going to suggest (in relation to the corner he used as a reference). The reason for my arrival at a slower acceleration is that I'm viewing the start of that movement which was near the centre of the building, not the corner.
Also - I'd like to add that if my own independent analysis agreed with his I'd have said so as I really don't have a stake in any of this other than discerning fact from fiction.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
I have a hard time believing there was a gravitational anomaly that day so the only explanation for the >9.8m/s^2 initial acceleration of that corner is that a greater mass (the rest of the building) was already well in motion and dragged it down once the upper steelwork took up the strain.