"Truthers" and "Trusters" This may change everything!, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 13-3-2010 @ 02:30 PM by ExPostFacto

We all know the premises that the rate of the twin towers collapse was at near free fall acceleration. The method used to show this calculation has been to measure the observable top of the building calculating the rate at which it descends. The billiard ball dropped from the top of the tower is used as an example. However, measuring from the top of the building proves only one thing: that the top of the building descended at nearly free fall acceleration. This is now confirmed by government sources as FACT.

In studying how free fall acceleration is calculated...the height of which an object is dropped is taken into account in the formula. Most of the examples in physics are of a ball or object of a size equivalent to that which is held in a hand, dropped and calculated using the prescribed formula. But in the case of the WTC some 15+ floors broke lose of the main structure and crumbled the structure under it. The some 15+ floors fell at near free fall acceleration as measured from the top of the structure.

What are we missing here? The top floors that broke loose and fell did not pancake (as the OS says the bottom floors did) until slamming into the ground. So the 15+ section of the building is ONE entire object falling. From which point should you measure a falling object this large to determine free fall acceleration? From the top portion? From the median point of the object (center of gravity)? Or, from the bottom of the object when it makes contact with the ground?

My opinion is that the rate of free fall acceleration should be measured from the bottom. Where ever the bottom started to wherever the bottom hit the ground should be the correct point to determine free fall acceleration. If measured from the bottom of the 15+ story section the collapse time is shortened. We can throw out the impact of the 15+ stories as they are irrelevant in the collapse.

Thoughts, opinions, analysis appreciated.

***edit: The use of "truthers" and "trusters" is only used to identify supporters and non supporters of the OS. The issue I raised are methods relied on by both sides of this issue, so this issue is one of joint concern.

We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse. We assume that both WTC building collapses began with an upper block of n floors collapsing onto a series of lower floors as in the “domino effect”. We shall refer to this process as the first stage of collapse. For this stage, (see equation 1), we have an initial mass nmf falling onto the floor below and becoming mass (n+1)mf. This new, enlarged, block of floors descends with velocity v2= {n/(n+1)}v1 through a distance hf at which point it strikes the floor below and becomes mass (n+2)mf moving at velocity {n/(n+2)}v2, and so on. This implies a first stage collapse sequence for WTC 1: all floors from 110 to 96 (= 14 floors) collapse onto floor 95; all these floors collapse onto 94 93 92 and so on to 32  1; for WTC 2 all floors from 110 to 81 (= 29 floors) follow the same sequential process.

At the end of each of these collapse events we envision a second stage of collapse involving the destruction of the upper block of the WTC buildings: for WTC 1 the 97th floor, plus all floors above, collapse onto the pile of rubble topped by floor 96; this is followed by floor 98 (plus all floors above) collapsing onto floor 97 and so on. The 2nd stage sequence for WTC 1 ends with floor 110 collapsing on to all lower floors. For WTC 2 the 2nd stage involves floor 82 collapsing onto floor 81, followed by 83, 84, etc, collapsing on to the pile of rubble until floor 110 collapses onto all lower floors.

www.911myths.com...

The above document illustrates my theory and measures the collapse in two stages. However, does not go far enough to analyze the free fall speed acceleration of the first stage of the collapse; instead assumes the remain portion of the building crumbled in exactly the same rate as the rest of the building under it.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by ExPostFacto]

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 04:14 PM by Son of Will

I think the actual videos of all 3 buildings falling are quite obscured by the plume of dust and smoke that effectively masks the entire collapse site at the moment of collapse. However, that said, let's take a look at what we know for sure.

We know the exact weight, structural profile, building materials used. What has never been adequately studied, to my knowledge, is what a fire-caused collapse would actually look like, without trying to "bend" the data to resemble the WTC collapse. Shouldn't there be a HUGE difference in the collapse time between a controlled demo and a fire-induced collapse?

I think most people agree upon NIST's official collapse times. What's more, we can all agree that even though they may not be exactly free-fall acceleration all the way down, it is very close to free-fall. My gut screams at me that it is far too close to be a coincidence.

If it can be shown that, even with the worst-case scenario of sustained damage and intensity of fires, the buildings would have taken over 30 seconds to collapse through all that still-intact infrastructure, then NIST's own reported times should be able to be taken as proof that fire alone did not bring them down.

I heard somewhere years ago that it should have taken upwards of 45 or 50 seconds for the two main towers to collapse, considering that over 90% of the buildings were completely intact and undamaged. I know this isn't quite what you are saying in your OP, but at least it's related to free-fall =)

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 04:31 PM by Zanti Misfit

reply to post by ExPostFacto

To me , there is still the unanswered question posed by many people here concerning the 48 Interior Columns that seemingly were destroyed during the Collapse . If the Floors of the Twin Towers did fall in a Pancake like fashion , why wouldn't traces of those Load Bearing 48 Interior Columns still be seen intact at the lower levels of those buildings, and why did they not Slow Down the speed of the collapse by their resistence ? They just All turned to Dust somehow ? Hard to Believe......

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 04:38 PM by GoodOlDave

You're missing several points, here...

a) the point of debate isn't over how closely the WTC fell to free fall speeds. The point of debate is over whether the WTC should NOT have fallen in the manner it did, given the peculiar design of the building, the damage from the impact of the planes, and the damage from the fires. If you can't determine how fast it *should* have fallen then it's a logical fallacy to declare how it *shouldn't* have fallen.

b) You've addressed the conspiracy "truthers" as well as the "trusters" (whatever they are), but you've forgotten the conspiracy FETISHISTS, I.E. people who are in so much in love with the idea of a conspiracy behind the 9/11 collapse that it becomes an emotional need, and there is nothing on the fact of the Earth that will convince them otherwise. I think that even you "controlled demolitions" people have to agree that someone watching the attack proceed and believing it was caused by lasers from outer space is *not* basing the opinion on a serious review of the facts.

Therefore, due to both A and B, your post concerning free fall speed hardly changes anything, becuase you're either arguing over entirely moot issues, or, you aren't going to be listened to becuase your post doesn't support "no planes", "nukes in the basement", "secret Satan worshipping numerology cults", or whatever conspiracy it is that the listener absolutely wants to believe in.

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 04:43 PM by warpcrafter

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 05:13 PM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Your post was entirely unnecessary attack on my OP. The point of my OP is to question both government facts as well as non believers of the OS. Both rely on the same method at determining the rate in which free fall occurred. My OP points out that if my theory is true it means that the building fell faster than free fall, which means they were propelled or the air below acted as a suction effect.

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 05:18 PM by ThichHeaded

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 05:19 PM by MysterE

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 05:19 PM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by Zanti Misfit

That is right Misfit. What I propose is to calculate the rate in which the portion under the 15+ stories collapsed. I think the determination will be that it collapsed faster than the rate of free fall acceleration, which would point to demolition.

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 06:36 PM by Zanti Misfit

reply to post by ExPostFacto

A House Divided Cannot Stand . I see.............

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 06:40 PM by infinityoreilly

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I don't know how much will 'change' but interesting analysis. The dust cloud obscures the lower part of the calamity.

As usual, resident truster can't think outside 'his/her box'.

reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 06:51 PM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by infinityoreilly

Yes, the lower portion is covered by dust but you can calculate the amount of floors below it. The link in my OP on page 4 and 5 it goes into the rationalization behind a two phase collapse. Phase one of the collapse is the under section of the building hitting the ground. Phase two is the upper intact building portion hitting the ground. The mistake on both sides of the isle on this issue is calculating the free fall acceleration on the upper portion of the phase two collapse. It should be calculated at the point the phase one collapse ends and the phase two collapse begins.

That is the rate of acceleration height value needs to be adjusted to the bottom of the phase two collapse breaking away from the main structure, which is roughly a 15 floor difference.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by ExPostFacto]

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 02:45 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by GoodOlDave

Your post was entirely unnecessary attack on my OP. The point of my OP is to question both government facts as well as non believers of the OS. Both rely on the same method at determining the rate in which free fall occurred. My OP points out that if my theory is true it means that the building fell faster than free fall, which means they were propelled or the air below acted as a suction effect.

No, actually, I think my post IS necessary becuase you're simply repeating the fallacies in logic I pointed out in the post. For one thing, you have not shown how the actual speed of the collapse is relevent becuase you have never shown how fast the building should have fallen. If it can be determined that the building would have naturally fallen that way given the design, the damage from the planes, and the subsequent damage from the fires, then pointing out that it fell near free fall speeds is entirely moot.

For another, it is undeniable that conspiracy *Snip* will bicker over every quotation mark concerning "Pentagon witnesses saw a passenger jet" but accept "WTC witnesses heard explosions" wholesale, without question, becuase such people have a double standard that favors their conspiracy scenarios. You have seen as many examples of this as I have. The very moment someone admits they have a double standard, they're admitting they really don't question either the government OS *or* the non-believers over what is true or what is false. They just care about what they themselves want to believe.

Please bear in mind that I'm not here to insult you or criticise you. I'm simply here to expose these damned fool conspriacy web sites for the con artists they are, and those con artists make up the gigantic bulk of the orininating source of all these supposed news releases. I say this because I know this whole "free fall speed" bit came from those very conspriacy web sites to begin with.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

That is quite enough with the "Conspiracy Fetish" Remark. Thank you.

[edit on 3/15/2010 by semperfortis]

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 02:57 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Zanti Misfit

That is right Misfit. What I propose is to calculate the rate in which the portion under the 15+ stories collapsed. I think the determination will be that it collapsed faster than the rate of free fall acceleration, which would point to demolition.

Ummm no, actually it would NOT point to demolition becuase demolition would be at or somewhat slower than free fall speed. For it to be *faster* than free fall speed, it would mean some extra force would have to be pushing down on it, like a rocket engine attached to the structure, to artificially increase the speed of collapse beyond how it would naturally fall.

I don't think I need to tell you that idea won't go over too well.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 03:15 PM by SmokeandShadow

I don't believe the towers "fell" at free fall speed at all myself. They were pulverized into dust and fragments that traveled laterally a good distance. They seemed to explode floor by floor quite fast though and jets of pulverized material blasted out many floors below even before the "unimpeded pancake" floors got there. If the towers were made exclusively of drywall, then pancaking floors might hold some water.

It doesn't matter what they were brought down by, so long as we know it was not due to fire and gravity driven collapse.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 03:24 PM by MrWendal

I dont think I have ever been on this forum and agreed with GoodolDave, but like they say... there is a first time for everything.

GoodolDave is right on the money with his post. From what I read I do not think he was tryingto attack or insult. He makes a very valid point, and I do not think this idea would really change anything at all. Best case scenario that I can see is that it just gives us more to argue about, and I for one would prefer debate over arguing.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 03:36 PM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by MrWendal

Free fall speed is not the same as free fall acceleration. It has already been proved that the top portion of the building fell at free fall acceleration. However, the top portion slowed down once it hit resistance. Curious enough the entire structure fell just seconds more than what would have been achieved had it fell in completed free fall acceleration. If we know the upper collapse slowed down significantly, how did the entire structure collapse just seconds more than free fall? The answer is multiple collapse points hidden within the canopy of debris.

You are right though nothing will come of this, as there are too many people that will dismiss an idea and state nothing will come of it; rather than debating the possibilities.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 04:18 PM by MrWendal

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I didnt post here to debate collapse, I posted to discuss the OP's idea that he thought (or so it appeared to me) that BOTH sides would be able to agree on. It's a great idea, I think both sides need an agreeable starting point to begin a healthy debate. Unfortunately I do not think this idea is that starting point. Just you trying to debate with me free fall speed vs free fall acceleration makes my point, and at no time in my previous post did I suggest which side of the issue I was on. Fro all you know, you might be preaching to the choir.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 04:59 PM by jthomas

We have an excellent video of WTC 2's collapse which demonstrates conclusively that it took over 13 seconds for it to collapse: