towers did not fall at free-fall speed

an introduction, my name is jake and i'm very interested in 9/11 and the "truth movement", and i do my best to debunk the theories, as i find them all to be very easy to debunk.

i've heard a lot about towers 1 and 2 collapsing at "free-fall speed", and i made a video in the hopes of disproving this claim. please tell me what you think: youtube.com...

-jake

Good video, thank you. I don't think it proves that it didn't fall too fast, but at least it's a rebuttal against people who throw the term "free fall speed" around freely.

Originally posted by iamthejake2000
an introduction, my name is jake and i'm very interested in 9/11 and the "truth movement",

Welcome Jake.

and i do my best to debunk the theories, as i find them all to be very easy to debunk.

Question. Why? If you feel they are bunk, as I see you do, why spend all this energy to debunk them? I understand that we don't want mis-information but.

i've heard a lot about towers 1 and 2 collapsing at "free-fall speed",

I have too. BTW, did you know that the reports originated from the official story?

and i made a video in the hopes of disproving this claim. please tell me what you think: youtube.com...

-jake

Nice video.

Originally posted by iamthejake2000
i've heard a lot about towers 1 and 2 collapsing at "free-fall speed

As has the Community here at ATS. By the way ... Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time on the boards.

In response to any claims of "free fall", no they didn't collapse anywhere near such speed. In fact, there were portions of the buildings that stood for 30 seconds or so After what some have claimed the "collapses" ended. I was watching some of the "collapse" videos earlier today, from various network sources. Depending upon the camera's perspective/vantage point, it's quite clear that several Large portions of the buildings were left standing long after [proportionately speaking] the initial collapses.

Anyway ... Welcome to your new "home away from home"

If ever a question or concern , please don't hesitate to ask.

 

Originally posted by Griff


Welcome Jake.

thank ya.

Question. Why? If you feel they are bunk, as I see you do, why spend all this energy to debunk them? I understand that we don't want mis-information but.

the biggest reason is that i find many theories so visibly wrong that it's very frustrating to see so many people believe them, so i like arguing over them. i like arguing over anything.

I have too. BTW, did you know that the reports originated from the official story?

whoever said it, it's wrong.

Nice video.

thanks.

Depending upon the camera's perspective/vantage point, it's quite clear that several Large portions of the buildings were left standing long after [proportionately speaking] the initial collapses.

as far as i'm concerned, the fact that sections of the core stood after the collapses helps to disprove any demolition theory. if the collapses were demolitions, why would they wait to demolish the cores until after the rest of the buildings collapsed?

[edit on 15-6-2007 by iamthejake2000]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
In response to any claims of "free fall", no they didn't collapse anywhere near such speed. In fact, there were portions of the buildings that stood for 30 seconds or so After what some have claimed the "collapses" ended. I was watching some of the "collapse" videos earlier today, from various network sources. Depending upon the camera's perspective/vantage point, it's quite clear that several Large portions of the buildings were left standing long after [proportionately speaking] the initial collapses.

Well, if we are to get technical, the collapse took weeks. Since there were portions of the outer facades still standing weeks later. Not sure of the specific time but you must see my point in that.

Free fall speed is 32.2 ft/s or 9.8 m/s... How can they possibly know for a fact that the buildings didn't fall at this rate? Free fall is used as a method of determining the speed that an object falls due to gravitation.

It is my understanding that all the supercomputers that were used to test all the different possibilities and could NOT get the computer simulation to run until the outer walls were taken away and all kinds of nonsense that certainly was no where near a real life event.

In computer simulations it does not fall.
It needs a unreal sceneario to fall.

The free fall debate is kinda mute as are the I disproved 9/11
UNTIL you get a computer simulation to do what the towers did


[edit on 15-6-2007 by junglelord]

The towers collapsed much too quickly for it to have been trusses falling and steel impact-loading alone imo, but the free-fall argument is misinformed and most here are probably already aware of that.


Now what I want to know, is why is it important to debunk the claim that the towers fell at free-fall? Obviously if the towers free-fell then there would be a problem because it suggests no kinetic energy was spent, and there was no resistance at all to the falling mass. Falling slightly slower than free-fall doesn't mean that enough energy was spent by the KE, but that's beside the point.

If falling at free-fall is a physical problem for the official account (which it would be, and you seem to implicitly agree), then what about WTC7? It actually did accelerate at free-fall, in a vacuum, to within a very small margin of error. Is this still a problem or can this just be hand-waved away for Building 7? In fact, I don't think there has ever even been a collapse mechanism assigned to WTC7's collapse.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Free fall speed is 32.2 ft/s or 9.8 m/s... How can they possibly know for a fact that the buildings didn't fall at this rate? Free fall is used as a method of determining the speed that an object falls due to gravitation.

No, it's 9.8m/s². It's an acceleration. However, due to the resistance of air (and wind), things inside Earth's atmosphere don't accelerate that quickly, and stop accelerating once they get to a certain point.

I don't know enough to tell you how fast something should fall taking any sort of resistance into consideration.

I have a few questions to pose then:

1) The South Tower Collapse: Why did the top (approx) 1/3rd of the building tilt and then proceed to collapse completely and symmetrically straight down?

Logic would dictate that since the center of gravity of the top portion would no longer be directly over the core of the building, that it would take the path of LEAST resistance - that being falling completely off of the bottom portion of the building.

2) The North Tower Collapse: The central core of the building (the part that offers the MOST resistance in a collapse) is not excessively large but very compact. How is it that the top (approx) 15% of the building fell completely and symmetrically through the entire bottom 85%? Doesn't the steel get thicker as you go DOWN the building? How does the top 15% even have enough MASS and FORCE to travel through the entire bottom 85 floors?

3) If the planes hitting the building caused the fire protection to "blow off", wouldn't the steel "weaken" extremely un-evenly?

4) If the central core was mostly "elevator shafts and stairways" how did the fires manage to burn hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel? www.pbs.org... (inferno part 4) Jet fuel burns on in definately less than 10 minutes.

I'd be eternally greatful if you could help me with these questions.

-AD