Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

The times for the towers collapse was between 14 and 16 seconds. Explosives don't make a collapse faster than gravitational collapse. 911review.com...

Top pieces were blown off the building. They would naturally fall at gravity's acceleration
an not be blocked by the rest of the building underneath.

To prevent too much staying on top, not blown out by explosives, the lower floors were
weakened to keep the collapse running, like the structure beams were not connected
by a series of more explosions. This had to happen to provide room for the top explosion.
Any slight pile up must have caused the time to increase.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

The times for the towers collapse was between 14 and 16 seconds. Explosives don't make a collapse faster than gravitational collapse. 911review.com...

Top pieces were blown off the building. They would naturally fall at gravity's acceleration
an not be blocked by the rest of the building underneath.

To prevent too much staying on top, not blown out by explosives, the lower floors were
weakened to keep the collapse running, like the structure beams were not connected
by a series of more explosions. This had to happen to provide room for the top explosion.
Any slight pile up must have caused the time to increase.

Falling at gravitational acceleration from the top of the building would take about 9.25 seconds in a vacuum; longer in air.
Your second paragraph doesn't make sense.

reply to post by pteridine


I would imagine that free-fall time to the ground of a chunk of concrete from the top of the late WTC towers would be around 13 seconds (9.2 seconds in a vacuum). At any rate the towers collapsed virtually without resistance, an obvious physical impossibility in a gravity driven event. So the official story is just one big and very silly lie.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine

 

I would imagine that free-fall time to the ground of a chunk of concrete from the top of the late WTC towers would be around 13 seconds (9.2 seconds in a vacuum). At any rate the towers collapsed virtually without resistance, an obvious physical impossibility in a gravity driven event. So the official story is just one big and very silly lie.

You would imagine or you have calculated it? Air resistance is a function of velocity and aerodynamic shape so 13 seconds may or may not be realistic. The fact that the towers did not collapse from their tops and still required 14-16 seconds to fall says that there was some internal resistance, much as you would like to claim there was not. All demolitions are gravity driven; the idea is to remove key supports and let gravity do the work.

NIST explanations are far more believable than any theories proffered by some-guys-for-911-truth websites, given the complete lack of evidence that would support any of those theories.

reply to post by pteridine


I´m not going to haggle over a single second or fractions of a second. Also I very much doubt that you can stretch the collapse time to 14-16 seconds. The original footage is all archived at archive.org. Then it´s just the old stopwatch.

The issue here is that those towers collapsed virtually without resistance in a supposedly gravity driven event which is a physical impossibility. The energy sink does not add up by a long shot. Therefore the official story by definition is one big lie. This is called an argument. If you want to discuss arguments you have to start out by identifying them.

I think NIST´s claim that the south tower collapsed in ten seconds is dubious since it would have taken the tower 9.2 seconds in a vacuum to free-fall down to earth. So, they´re probably off by 3-4 seconds or so which would constitute a free-fall in atmospheric conditions. To calculate these things to an absolute second or parts of second you have to have information about atmospheric pressure at the site, any wind, possible updraft etc. This is variable but still miniscule when identifying the issue, those towers collapsed virtually at free-fall speed in a supposedly gravity driven event - an obvious physical impossibility.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine

 

I´m not going to haggle over a single second or fractions of a second. Also I very much doubt that you can stretch the collapse time to 14-16 seconds. The original footage is all archived at archive.org. Then it´s just the old stopwatch.

The issue here is that those towers collapsed virtually without resistance in a supposedly gravity driven event which is a physical impossibility. The energy sink does not add up by a long shot. Therefore the official story by definition is one big lie. This is called an argument. If you want to discuss arguments you have to start out by identifying them.

There has been nothing but haggle over the time of collapse. Of course NIST and many other reports were wrong. Using the stopwatch and the collpase videos gives times of 14-16 seconds. Your claim that they collapsed without resistance is baseless. You don't know how much resistance there was or if it was even significant. Their design is such that the floor membranes were held only by attachment to the core and outer walls by small diameter bolts. the outer columns peeled away as the floors collapsed. The core was visible after one collapse and remained standiing for some seconds.
Is it your claim that explosives were detonated at each joint of each truss just ahead of the collapse? That these explosives made no noise or visible flashes as each floor was detached in 150 milliseconds? That explosives were necessary for such detachment?
Claiming that the "energy sink does not add up by a long shot" and showing that that is the case are two different things. The conclusion that "the official story by definition is one big lie" is not justified by your argument, "identified" or not.

reply to post by pteridine


This hair-splitting is useless.

You will get no support for your obfuscating tactics here any more than hooper did,

The public recognizes this inability to identify arguments.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine

 

This hair-splitting is useless.

You will get no support for your obfuscating tactics here any more than hooper did,

The public recognizes this inability to identify arguments.

What are you guilty of when you make pronouncements with no basis? You have not shown that there was no resistance to collapse nor have you shown evidence for demolitions, all you have done is to repeat the fantasies posted on various conspiracy sites; the same sites that are in business to fleece the gullible galdurs of their hard earned cash.
Identify a few arguments and try again.

reply to post by galdur

This hair-splitting is useless.

Yes, lets not muddy the waters when talking about the time it took for a building to fully collapse by using actual numbers. Where could that possibly get you?

You will get no support for your obfuscating tactics here any more than hooper did,

Except the 21% of member who think that 9/11 was the act of foreign terrorists working alone.

The public recognizes this inability to identify arguments.

Yes, and God knows the public is just knocking down the doors to hear some more of this "truth".

reply to post by hooper


You´re in the very decided minority here as the issue before us is concerned.

Again, my advice to you if you want to rectify this is to identify arguments.

You´re the underdog in this discussion, now work on trying to turn this around.

reply to post by galdur

You´re in the very decided minority here as the issue before us is concerned.

I represent 1 out of 5 - HERE!! On a conspiracy website!

Again, my advice to you if you want to rectify this is to identify arguments.

Arguments? How about plain facts.

You´re the underdog in this discussion, now work on trying to turn this around.

Well if I'm 1 out 5 here then that must mean that outside is 99.9999999% on my side, maybe more. Ergo, I am heading in the right direction. You need to catch up. You could start by telling us all how long it took the towers to collapse from the first deformation until the last object hit the ground.

reply to post by hooper


I´m not denigrating you hooper, just pointing out that your discussion methods don´t seem to work very well. This is because they are very well familiar already to the general public from countless message threads. In real discussions people want arguments identified not evaded. This is my honest advice to you hopper, in the hope that it would elevate you from your apparently hopeless underdog status here.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper

 

I´m not denigrating you hooper, just pointing out that your discussion methods don´t seem to work very well. This is because they are very well familiar already to the general public from countless message threads. In real discussions people want arguments identified not evaded. This is my honest advice to you hopper, in the hope that it would elevate you from your apparently hopeless underdog status here.

It's not just hooper...there are dozens of pages of evasions by the OS faithful all over this thread, and thousands over this forum.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine

 

This hair-splitting is useless.

You will get no support for your obfuscating tactics here any more than hooper did,

The public recognizes this inability to identify arguments.

What are you guilty of when you make pronouncements with no basis? You have not shown that there was no resistance to collapse nor have you shown evidence for demolitions, all you have done is to repeat the fantasies posted on various conspiracy sites; the same sites that are in business to fleece the gullible galdurs of their hard earned cash.
Identify a few arguments and try again.

very interesting how you only inject useless arguments by claiming that we are all wrong no matter what we present or that our arguments contain no proof even though they do...you are only pushing the OS over and over and over and over and over again......it is useless to argue with you and it is very silly to say the least to even entertain your baseless rebuttals....

reply to post by patternfinder


Do you now volunteer to show that there was no resistance to collapse? Have you evidence for demolition that does not consist of youtube videos with lines and arrows added?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by galdur

 

Well if I'm 1 out 5 here then that must mean that outside is 99.9999999% on my side, maybe more. Ergo, I am heading in the right direction. You need to catch up. You could start by telling us all how long it took the towers to collapse from the first deformation until the last object hit the ground.

most people that i know on the outside of ATS believe that 9/11 was and still is an inside job....please stop being silly with your 99.999999%

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder

 

Do you now volunteer to show that there was no resistance to collapse? Have you evidence for demolition that does not consist of youtube videos with lines and arrows added?

there is no reason to devalue the videos on youtube of the collapse...i applaud you for your nice little derail tactic....i'm not that dumb as to fall for derail 101 tactics....

Even NIST admits that the south tower fell down to earth virtually without resistance. It´s a matter of historical fact.

These things are recorded, if you wanna refute them then do it at the source.

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder

 

Do you now volunteer to show that there was no resistance to collapse? Have you evidence for demolition that does not consist of youtube videos with lines and arrows added?

there is no reason to devalue the videos on youtube of the collapse...i applaud you for your nice little derail tactic....i'm not that dumb as to fall for derail 101 tactics....

There is also no reason to overvalue the videos on youtube. Nice try at avoiding the questions but you haven't yet shown that there was no resistance to collapse or shown any evidence for demolition.