Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: democracydemo

Interestingly, you agree that the core downward movement would seem to be the likely culprit for the observed inward bowing, by every truss attached to that core pulling downwards and inwards

What was cited for you?

Collapse initiation

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. "The ensuing loss in vertical load-carrying capacity was confined to a few storeys but extended over the entire cross section of each tower."[23] In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[24]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The inward pulling action was from floor tresses that expanded and deformed during the heat of the fires then contacted during cooling. There is no evidence of the core below the jet impacts dropping to cause the inward bowing.

The core columns stood in long lengths after the complete collapse of the floor systems.


So no. The core columns were not cut by pyrotechnics below the areas of jet impacts to drop the core. And definitely not cut floor by floor to achieve the witnessed collapse speed as claimed by the truth movement.

The sections above the jet impacts and inward buckling fell as a unit. The sections showed no sign the core dropped, then the outer walls dropped. This is evident in the way the sections of above the jet impacts tilted as whole units.


There is no evidence or witnessed movement the core dropped to cause the inward bowing that initiated buckling leading to collapse.

a reply to: democracydemo

In the context of you claiming a dropped core somehow produced inward bowing perfectly perpendicular to the core columns, I again ask...

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Vs cooling and contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they bowed inward and buckled at the areas of jet impacts. Making it impossible planted charges initiated collapse. The stories above the bowing and buckling fell into the building below


And I guess the real argument is actually

Collapse initiation

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. "The ensuing loss in vertical load-carrying capacity was confined to a few storeys but extended over the entire cross section of each tower."[23] In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[24]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: neutronflux

The core columns stood in long lengths after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

Horse manure as a blatant lie and witnessed otherwise:

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

False Twin Towers came down at free speeds also, in their report.

Cannot sugar coat that one either. Blatant lie.

How. When long lengths of vertical columns were still standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems?

www.skeptic.com...

You show every day your lack of knowledge about the Twin Towers collapses. 
A lie? 

Open the link, then scroll down to page 146 and read the information, are you're capable of doing that?

Find it here.
6.14.4 Events Following Collapse Initiation

nvlpubs.nist.gov...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

So? You actually cannot refute these below? So you cannot actually quote from a source to refute the below?

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Vs cooling and contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they bowed inward and buckled at the areas of jet impacts. Making it impossible planted charges initiated collapse. The stories above the bowing and buckling fell into the building below.

The pre-collapse inward bowing of WTC2

www.metabunk.org...

The falling mass broke floor connections.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
Failure of connections, as a result of overloading, occurred within the heat-affected zone of the base metals

app.aws.org...

Summary
Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

And the vertical columns only tumbled down because of loss of lateral support from the failed floor systems.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Because you don’t like a report doesn’t mean there is proof of the fantasy conspiracies?

Should I believe in nukes?

No planes and missiles or lasers?

Dr Wood’s Dustification?

Should I believe in Gages fizzle no flash bombs. When a controlled demolition system would never survive the jet impacts? And the towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance?



Or should I believe the columns were cut by thermite? When the columns fell last? From tumbling? Not being cut? With no visible molten cuts? Form columns still standing?



From meta bunk on the actual WTC 7 collapse progression.

9/11
WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion?
Thread starterJoe Hill Start dateThursday at 10:43 PM

www.metabunk.org...

A closer inspection reveals the first move of the visible perimeter frame was a sudden lurch to the left at the moment the west penthouse descended. There is no descent of the perimeter frame. The east half of the structure is falling over to the north at onset of the perimeter frame.
An explanation of that motion: www.metabunk.org...

Watch the left vertical edge (NE corner). It is falling over toward the camera, pivoting far below what is visible, near the ground. Watch the left face; it is turning to face the camera.
Does this look like controlled demolition? How does controlled demolition make the structure move like this? There is no drop, sudden or otherwise; just half the structure falling over.

Your second video shows the east half continued falling north throughout descent, creating the "kink", or vertical fold of the north face.

The east half is fully facing the camera, falling north, while the west half is noticeably falling south.

The west half has still not distorted commensurate with the radical motion of the east half. The two "halves" are falling over in opposing directions.
How did controlled demolition cause the perimeter frame to behave as two separate units during collapse, connected by the north wall?
No, it doesn't "look like" controlled demolition to me. It behaves like a perimeter frame that sustained a vertical breach somewhere out of view of the camera.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Each floor of the building is not hollow

Then where do all the people work? How is there office space to rent? Where does all the office furniture and equipment go?

Added...
And how do elevator shafts, stairwells, air ducts, piping run between floors?

This post is the reverse of my argument. Do you have reading difficulties?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

So? You actually cannot refute these below? So you cannot actually quote from a source to refute the below?

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Vs cooling and contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they bowed inward and buckled at the areas of jet impacts. Making it impossible planted charges initiated collapse. The stories above the bowing and buckling fell into the building below.

The pre-collapse inward bowing of WTC2

www.metabunk.org...

The falling mass broke floor connections.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
Failure of connections, as a result of overloading, occurred within the heat-affected zone of the base metals

app.aws.org...

Summary
Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

And the vertical columns only tumbled down because of loss of lateral support from the failed floor systems.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Because you don’t like a report doesn’t mean there is proof of the fantasy conspiracies?

Should I believe in nukes?

No planes and missiles or lasers?

Dr Wood’s Dustification?

Should I believe in Gages fizzle no flash bombs. When a controlled demolition system would never survive the jet impacts? And the towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance?

Or should I believe the columns were cut by thermite? When the columns fell last? From tumbling? Not being cut? With no visible molten cuts? Form columns still standing?

From meta bunk on the actual WTC 7 collapse progression.

9/11
WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion?
Thread starterJoe Hill Start dateThursday at 10:43 PM

www.metabunk.org...

A closer inspection reveals the first move of the visible perimeter frame was a sudden lurch to the left at the moment the west penthouse descended. There is no descent of the perimeter frame. The east half of the structure is falling over to the north at onset of the perimeter frame.
An explanation of that motion: www.metabunk.org...

Watch the left vertical edge (NE corner). It is falling over toward the camera, pivoting far below what is visible, near the ground. Watch the left face; it is turning to face the camera.
Does this look like controlled demolition? How does controlled demolition make the structure move like this? There is no drop, sudden or otherwise; just half the structure falling over.

Your second video shows the east half continued falling north throughout descent, creating the "kink", or vertical fold of the north face.

The east half is fully facing the camera, falling north, while the west half is noticeably falling south.

The west half has still not distorted commensurate with the radical motion of the east half. The two "halves" are falling over in opposing directions.
How did controlled demolition cause the perimeter frame to behave as two separate units during collapse, connected by the north wall?
No, it doesn't "look like" controlled demolition to me. It behaves like a perimeter frame that sustained a vertical breach somewhere out of view of the camera.

Stop Embarrassing yourself everyday.

This is NIST opinion on page 146.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quote the recorded temperatures from the Harriet paper. There is no proof the reactions burnt hotter than the melting point of steel.

You can live in your make believe world. But the video is evidence. We can hear on video NIST denying freefall. Changes they made later are not believeable.

Again...




a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There claiming negligible support in the revised report underneath

If this is not another falsehood by you, then quote the final report where such a statement is made.

Again.

Another falsehood by you. Quote from the final support where NIST made any claims of negligible support. When the facade columns buckled, they offered negligible resistance. Huge difference.

Again you have not understood free fall like most debunkers. For Freefall to have taken place in building seven, there was zero support with a big 0 and there were no collisions of steel on steel when the building came down .Buckling of columns would still yield resistance across the width of building, even when weakened. How fire weakened the underneath structure across the width of building, based on the NIST model can't be resolved. NIST computer model of collapse shows no freefall at all, they screwed up so badly they were unable to improve on the computer finite element model and dropped the old model that refutes freefall. 

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There was zero collisions across the width of the building.

What does that have to do with the penthouse bearing witness by disappearing below the roof line WTC 7 was undergoing a East to west international progressive collapse before the facade moved? Then once the facade began to move in stage one, the facade columns became overloaded leading to buckling and negligible resistance in stage two of the facade collapse.

NIST speculation about the collapse doesn't even make sense logically and not endorsed by science..

Realize how chaotic it is, Building seven, inside steel support on every floor had given way prior to full collapse! Where did the dust from the collapse go? Why no shattered windows on different floors? Why is there well no movement/distortion at the walls?

How long would it that take for fire collapse to twist, buckle and crush 47 floors?
Video evidence merely shows a Penthouse roof collapse and later the failure of the entire building six seconds afterward. The timing is as significant as the failure!
Video: Like I mentioned. There is no evidence of protracted drawn out progressive collapse. What we sees is the rapid collapse of the entire building, after the Penthouse collapsed. 

So my view a demolition occurred on some floorS somewhere in the building, the Penthouse fell in, and inside internal failures took place on different floors and when the building was no longer able to maintain itself, it dropped. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You might actually read what is posted.

It states “essentially free fall”. It does not state free fall. Then the photographic / video shows it is wrong concerning the core columns.






The video / photographic evidence shows the below is more correct.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Since your the one stating NIST is credible, the whole context of your quote.

nvlpubs.nist.gov...

6.14.4 Events Following Collapse Initiation
FailureofthesouthwallinWTC1 andeastwallinWTC2causedtheportionofthebuildingabovetotilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass atandabovetheimpactzone. Thepotentialenergyreleasedbythedownwardmovementofthelarge building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that 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.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not fmd any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

Then you find section 6.14.4 credible? “ NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. ”


Also from you referenced document
Page 33

The upper section of the building then collapsed onto the floors below. Within 12 s, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble.

nvlpubs.nist.gov...

If WTC 1 fell at free fall speed, what should the collapse time have been?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Since your the one stating NIST is credible...

www.nist.gov...

11. 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 NIST 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.

Just Incase you missed it, “ 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.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You might actually read what is posted.

It states “essentially free fall”. It does not state free fall. Then the photographic / video shows it is wrong concerning the core columns.

The video / photographic evidence shows the below is more correct.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Since your the one stating NIST is credible, the whole context of your quote.

nvlpubs.nist.gov...

6.14.4 Events Following Collapse Initiation
FailureofthesouthwallinWTC1 andeastwallinWTC2causedtheportionofthebuildingabovetotilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass atandabovetheimpactzone. Thepotentialenergyreleasedbythedownwardmovementofthelarge building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that 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.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not fmd any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

Then you find section 6.14.4 credible? “ NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. ”


Also from you referenced document
Page 33

The upper section of the building then collapsed onto the floors below. Within 12 s, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble.

nvlpubs.nist.gov...

If WTC 1 fell at free fall speed, what should the collapse time have been?

What you on about now?
NIST said Freefall took place in their report, but they didn't actually mean it according to you? Facepalm. 

You showing people here a fuzzy, out of focus, washed out colored Youtube screen image! Towers had a surrounding layer of steel fencing at each corner of the tower wall and i can't determine that's indeed the hat truss steel core?

For Argument it is.
The collapse started at the top. So that could be just some of the foundation steel that naturally buckled at the bottom from the chaotic events unfolding?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Simple proof the floor system did not fall at the rate of free fall.

9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!

m.youtube.com...

The leading leading edges of the debris cloud is a good 10 floors ahead of the progress of the collapsing floor system in this screenshot. And the difference in distance only grew as the collapse progressed.

So..... Yes. Any one stating the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall is wrong or lying.

Sorry.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Simple proof the floor system did not fall at the rate of free fall.

9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!

m.youtube.com...

The leading leading edges of the debris cloud is a good 10 floors ahead of the progress of the collapsing floor system in this screenshot. And the difference in distance only grew as the collapse progressed.

So..... Yes. Any one stating the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall is wrong or lying.

Sorry.

Do a Kinematic equation then? See if you do understand physics?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

NIST said Freefall took place in their report, but they didn't actually mean it according to you? Facepalm.

Are misquoting.

The actual quote.

the building section above came down essentially in free fall,

The whole paragraph

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.

It doesn’t even say the building as a whole collapsed at free fall. It is literally and only refers to the building section above the collapse initiation coming down essentially in free fall.

So. One, NIST never stated as a whole the building collapsed in free fall.

Two. It is referring to the section of building falling into the building above collapse initiation. “ 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.”

Three. NIST never said the part of the building that fell down above the collapse initiation ever reach free fall speed.

Then your totally debunked by the actual video and photographic evidence

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Simple proof the floor system did not fall at the rate of free fall.

9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!

m.youtube.com...

The leading leading edges of the debris cloud is a good 10 floors ahead of the progress of the collapsing floor system in this screenshot. And the difference in distance only grew as the collapse progressed.

So..... Yes. Any one stating the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall is wrong or lying.

Sorry.

With photographic/video evidence the core columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system. Clearly showing the core columns fell last, slower than floor system collapse, and the towers as a whole did not collapse at free fall.






Again

The video / photographic evidence shows the below is more correct.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Simple proof the floor system did not fall at the rate of free fall.

9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!

m.youtube.com...

The leading edges of the debris cloud is a good 10 floors ahead of the progress of the collapsing floor system in this screenshot. And the difference in distance only grew as the collapse progressed.

So..... Yes. Any one stating the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall is wrong or lying.

Sorry.

Do a Kinematic equation then? See if you do understand physics?

Moot point. The photographic and video evidence shows the floor system collapsed slower than free fall speed. And the video / photographic evidence shows the core columns even collapsed at a rate slower than the floor system.

Your not helping your case dude.

Again
Simple proof the floor system did not fall at the rate of free fall.

9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!

m.youtube.com...

The leading leading edges of the debris cloud is a good 10 floors ahead of the progress of the collapsing floor system in this screenshot. And the difference in distance only grew as the collapse progressed.

So..... Yes. Any one stating the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall is wrong or lying.

Sorry.

With photographic/video evidence the core columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system. Clearly showing the core columns fell last, slower than floor system collapse, and the towers as a whole did not collapse at free fall.






Again

The video / photographic evidence shows the below is more correct.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Do a Kinematic calculation for the twin towers, please. It should not take more than five minutes.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again...

So..... Yes. Any one stating the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall is wrong or lying.

Sorry.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again...

So..... Yes. Any one stating the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall is wrong or lying.

Sorry.

Prove it do a kinematic calculation? 

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Do a Kinematic calculation for the twin towers, please. It should not take more than five minutes.

Moot point. The exercise is the actual rate of the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 which is in the actual video, photographic, audio, seismic evidence.

How does a calculation give you the actual time line of an event that was literally recorded in real time. With the time line of the event literally recorded. From multiple angles and devices.
Again....
By screenshot and video evidence of the actual event...

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Simple proof the floor system did not fall at the rate of free fall.

9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!

m.youtube.com...

The leading edges of the debris cloud is a good 10 floors ahead of the progress of the collapsing floor system in this screenshot. And the difference in distance only grew as the collapse progressed.

So..... Yes. Any one stating the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall is wrong or lying.

Sorry.

Do a Kinematic equation then? See if you do understand physics?

Moot point. The photographic and video evidence shows the floor system collapsed slower than free fall speed. And the video / photographic evidence shows the core columns even collapsed at a rate slower than the floor system.

Your not helping your case dude.

Again
Simple proof the floor system did not fall at the rate of free fall.

9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!

m.youtube.com...

The leading leading edges of the debris cloud is a good 10 floors ahead of the progress of the collapsing floor system in this screenshot. And the difference in distance only grew as the collapse progressed.

So..... Yes. Any one stating the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall is wrong or lying.

Sorry.

With photographic/video evidence the core columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system. Clearly showing the core columns fell last, slower than floor system collapse, and the towers as a whole did not collapse at free fall.






Again

The video / photographic evidence shows the below is more correct.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.