I have decided that this argument is invalid because it assumes that controlled demolition causes a building to fall at free fall. This is hardly ever the case. However, this particular argument gave me an idea on how to figure out if the rate of the Towers' collapses was consistent with demolition.
A free fall drop of 15 seconds would be from a height of approximately 3617 feet. The Towers were approximately 1368 feet tall. 3617/1368 = 2.64
Therefore, a 15 second free fall drop would be from a height approximately 2.6 times higher than either of the Towers. Now let's do this with buildings that are all known demolitions.
15 story building. 155 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 3.1 seconds.
Its actual fall time was about 6.25 seconds. How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in that amount of time?
629/155 = 4.05
A 6.25 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.
30 story building. 380 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.86 seconds.
A free fall drop in 7.375 seconds would be from a height of about 875 feet.
875/380 = 2.3
A 7.375 second free fall drop would be from a height of over twice that of this building.
31 story building. 376 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.83 seconds.
A free fall drop in about 10 seconds would be from a height of about 1640 feet.
1640/376 = 4.4
A 10 second free fall drop would be from a height over 4 times higher than this building.
24 story building. Approximately 288 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 4.23 seconds.
A free fall drop in 8.4 seconds would be from a height of about 1139 feet.
1139/288 = 3.95
An 8.4 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.
20 story building. Approximately 240 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 3.86 seconds.
A free fall drop in 6 seconds would be from a height of about 590 feet.
590/240 = 2.45
A 6 second free fall drop would be from a height about 2 and a half times higher than building.
So, to summarize:
(15 story building) 629 ÷ 155 = 4.06 About four times higher
(30 story building) 875 ÷ 380 = 2.3 About two and a third times higher.
(31 story building) 1640 ÷ 376 = 4.4 Almost four and a half times higher.
(24 story building) 1139 ÷ 288 = 3.95 Almost four times higher.
(20 story building) 590 ÷ 240 = 2.45 Almost two and a half times higher.
And for the Towers:
3617 ÷ 1368 = 2.6 About two and a half times higher.
It was seem that, based on the debunkers' own arguments, the Towers evidently did fall in time intervals that would be considered consistent with buildings brought down with controlled demolition. But this is extremely problematic because:
a) Both of the collapses started from the upper sections of the buildings, not the bottoms.
and b) Supposedly no explosives were used to bring the buildings down according to the official story.
The only other example of a steel structured building collapsing from top-down due to fire is the partial collapse of the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. This building was a 13-story structure that burned for over 7 hours. A section of its facade collapsed from the fire. Here's how long it took to collapse.
10 seconds for 13 stories to partially collapse. (13 stories equals approximately 160 feet) How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in 10 seconds?
About ten times taller.
In conclusion, the rate of fall of the Twin Towers appears to be consistent with the rate of fall for buildings brought down with controlled demolition. At the same time, their fall rates are inconsistent with the rate in which other steel framed buildings have fallen top to bottom from fire. So ask yourself, "what is more likely to have destroyed the buildings? Fire or explosives?" You decide.
Update:
This is extremely problematic in the case of Building 7.
47 story building. 610 feet tall. Free fall time would be 6.1 seconds.
See: Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7
A free fall drop in 6.6 seconds would be from a height of about 701 feet.
701/610 = 1.1
A free fall drop of 6.6 seconds would be from a height less than 100 feet shorter than the height of Building 7. In other words, NIST would have us believe that fire accomplished something that even explosives don't always accomplish.
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 911 freefall collapses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 911 freefall collapses. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition
An argument against controlled demolition debunkers have raised is that the WTC did not collapse at free fall rates. It is well known that a free fall drop from the height of one of the Twin Towers would be about 9.2 seconds. I except that the Towers took closer to around 15 seconds to collapse, so to the layperson like myself the addition of a few seconds doesn't seem to make a huge difference. However, debunkers have noted it does in fact make a very big difference. They point out that in order for an object to free fall in 15 seconds, it would have to be dropped from a height more than twice that of either Tower.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
1000 "Moonbat Crazy" Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
By Spookypunkos
Right now there's more than 1000 crazy, but nevertheless credentialed, architects and engineers who have signed up with the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth group. These people are obviously ALL deluded. I mean they madly point to ridiculous evidence such as the laws of physics, peer reviewed papers and the obvious flaws in the official account of the World Trade Centre destruction to back their arguments. Crazy.
I'm sure everything these experts claim is completely false. Structural engineers, ex-NASA engineers, professors and experienced architects obviously don't understand the case being made by the official NIST investigation. Their detailed claims of scientific fraud, enacted on behalf of corrupt elements within the US Government, must obviously be groundless. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Of course the public, including many very intelligent people, have correctly ASSUMED that they know all they need to know about 911. No fact checking is required. I'm sure they're right- that accepting the official story at face value, while overlooking the controversy and the details of the attacks (especially ignoring the informed criticisms of more than a thousand engineering and building professionals), is the most logical position to take.
After all, we MUST accept the War on Terror. No one would take advantage of the tensions between the West and Islam to stage an "impossible" false attack in 2001. That'd be tin-foil hat wearing crazy ! Scientific evidence of foul play be damned !!
Let's look forward to endless war against those irrational fundamentalists. We'll gladly sacrifice everything so that the terrorists won't get us "again." There is no alternative !
Please, no one look into the details here. There is no deception. We are not living a lie. Thousands have not died for nothing. Exposing the truth about 911 is NOT the most important thing you can do !
Here is something else not worthy to consider: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth interviewed in the mainstream media - Victoria, BC
Related Info:
1,000 Architectural and Engineering Professionals Chasing a Moving Goalpost
The Loud Debunker-Not
Right now there's more than 1000 crazy, but nevertheless credentialed, architects and engineers who have signed up with the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth group. These people are obviously ALL deluded. I mean they madly point to ridiculous evidence such as the laws of physics, peer reviewed papers and the obvious flaws in the official account of the World Trade Centre destruction to back their arguments. Crazy.
I'm sure everything these experts claim is completely false. Structural engineers, ex-NASA engineers, professors and experienced architects obviously don't understand the case being made by the official NIST investigation. Their detailed claims of scientific fraud, enacted on behalf of corrupt elements within the US Government, must obviously be groundless. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Of course the public, including many very intelligent people, have correctly ASSUMED that they know all they need to know about 911. No fact checking is required. I'm sure they're right- that accepting the official story at face value, while overlooking the controversy and the details of the attacks (especially ignoring the informed criticisms of more than a thousand engineering and building professionals), is the most logical position to take.
After all, we MUST accept the War on Terror. No one would take advantage of the tensions between the West and Islam to stage an "impossible" false attack in 2001. That'd be tin-foil hat wearing crazy ! Scientific evidence of foul play be damned !!
Let's look forward to endless war against those irrational fundamentalists. We'll gladly sacrifice everything so that the terrorists won't get us "again." There is no alternative !
Please, no one look into the details here. There is no deception. We are not living a lie. Thousands have not died for nothing. Exposing the truth about 911 is NOT the most important thing you can do !
Here is something else not worthy to consider: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth interviewed in the mainstream media - Victoria, BC
Related Info:
1,000 Architectural and Engineering Professionals Chasing a Moving Goalpost
The Loud Debunker-Not
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Thinking Clearly about The 911 Forensic Evidence - when you have Eliminated the Impossible, whatever Remains Must be the Truth.
People who are unfamiliar with the scientific evidence, that proves the World Trade Centre buildings were destroyed using explosives on 911, commonly make the mistake of ASSUMING that it would be "impossible" to rig these structures for demolition.
This is not true: it would be difficult, but NOT impossible.
However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of high tech explosives in the rubble pile, and to have the freefall collapses of these buildings, WITHOUT the presence of chemical incendiaries/explosives of the sort commonly used by the military and demolition companies.
The bottom line is that the forensic evidence proving the inside job is unimpeachable.
Moreover, we also know that the building security was compromised before the attacks, and that workmen had access to the core of the Twin Towers during the months leading up to the attacks- whilst an "elevator modernisation" program was undertaken. There was plenty of time to thoroughly rig the buildings.We have both the physical proof of foul play AND a clear opportunity in which to prepare the buildings for destruction.There is no mistake, 911 WAS an Inside Job. To conclude otherwise is not logical.
By Spookypunkos
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, November 11th, 2009.]
This is not true: it would be difficult, but NOT impossible.
However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of high tech explosives in the rubble pile, and to have the freefall collapses of these buildings, WITHOUT the presence of chemical incendiaries/explosives of the sort commonly used by the military and demolition companies.
The bottom line is that the forensic evidence proving the inside job is unimpeachable.
Moreover, we also know that the building security was compromised before the attacks, and that workmen had access to the core of the Twin Towers during the months leading up to the attacks- whilst an "elevator modernisation" program was undertaken. There was plenty of time to thoroughly rig the buildings.We have both the physical proof of foul play AND a clear opportunity in which to prepare the buildings for destruction.There is no mistake, 911 WAS an Inside Job. To conclude otherwise is not logical.
By Spookypunkos
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, November 11th, 2009.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
