Freefall?

[sophia8]

The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall". Have any of them ever proven this? That is, told us the speed of a object free-falling through the air, and then told us the precise speed of fall of the WTC?

 

[pomeroo]

[=sophia8;2416182]The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall". Have any of them ever proven this? That is, told us the speed of a object free-falling through the air, and then told us the precise speed of fall of the WTC?

Innocence can be charming.

 

[T.A.M.]

They cant prove it because it cannot happen without a downward force in addition to gravity.

An object cannot FALL faster than it can in freefall, in a vacuum.

I suspect they are trying to imply that explosives were used to somehow send the debris to the earth faster than gravity...once again with no proof.

This despite every recording of the building collapses indicating they fell close to but greater than free fall time.

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

The problem is, the 'truthers' ignore the fact that the towers did not start collapsing at the roof and didn't stop collapsing at ground level, so all their timings and distances are rather suspect.

They do fall back on NIST making the 'near freefall' comment, but so long as it was 'near freefall' it cannot have been without any resistance, therefore the CD wasn't needed.

 

[~enigma~]

Freefall is 32 feet per second².
Really slow driving speed of 22 MPH is 32 feet per second.

Freefall isn't a speed it is an acceleration. Are all woowoos that stupid?

 

[CHF]

Faster than free fall would have equired rocket boosters on the debis, driving it towards the ground.

Why the conspirators would bother doing that is anyone's guess.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Faster than free fall would have equired rocket boosters on the debis, driving it towards the ground.

Why the conspirators would bother doing that is anyone's guess.

wouldnt need rockets, im sure an upside down helocopter rotor would do the trick as well, or maybe compressed air shot out of a nozzle, maybe a hydro jet engine, the possibilities are endless!

 

[rwguinn]

wouldnt need rockets, im sure an upside down helocopter rotor would do the trick as well, or maybe compressed air shot out of a nozzle, maybe a hydro jet engine, the possibilities are endless!

Thanks a lot.
More fodder for the "Black Helicopter" folk. Now, they'll know we had one inverted in the basement of the towers when the explosives went off...

 

[Mancman]

None have ever proven it and they never will.

 

[steve s]

The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall".

The video clearly shows that debris which falls away (and which really is in freefall) is travelling significantly faster than the rest of the collapsing structure. So not only did the collapse not happen faster than freefall, it wasn't even near freefall.

Steve S.

 

[Mr.D]

Probably the dumbest part of the whole "faster than freefall" bit is that none of the 9/11 deniers have ever demonstrated (or even plausably argued) that controlled demolition explosives would result in a collapse that was "faster than freefall."

I fact, off the top of my head, the only CT the "faster than freefall" argument is consistent with is Wood's "Invisible Killer Death Rays from Outer Space," which even some of the No-Plane-At-The-Pentagon wackos reject as being too woo.

 

[Andúril]

The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall". Have any of them ever proven this?

No.

Of course, according to CT physics, freefall time would be 415/9,81=42 seconds. They actually were very seriously spreading this previously unknown law of physics at the Loose Change forum.

But that doesn't matter, because every single video and image of the collapse shows how large chunks of the buildings fall faster than the collapse is progressing. Where are they, if not in freefall?

 

[steve s]

Probably the dumbest part of the whole "faster than freefall" bit is that none of the 9/11 deniers have ever demonstrated (or even plausably argued) that controlled demolition explosives would result in a collapse that was "faster than freefall."

Yeah, they seem to think that the CD would create some sort of massive vacuum inside the building which would suck it down. Total nonsense.

Be careful mentioning that CDs don't result in "faster than freefall" collapses. They'll change their tune and start claiming that the fact that it was significantly slower than freefall is proof of a CD.

Steve S.

 

[William Rea]

The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall". Have any of them ever proven this? That is, told us the speed of a object free-falling through the air, and then told us the precise speed of fall of the WTC?

Which CTers and where have they claimed it?

 

[Alareth]

Thanks a lot.
More fodder for the "Black Helicopter" folk. Now, they'll know we had one inverted in the basement of the towers when the explosives went off...

<.<

>.>

The truth about Black Helicopters....

 

[Unfit4Command]

The Free-fall argument is one of the dumbest theories brought up by the "Truth Movement."

"Loose Change" tries to show the South Tower Falling at "near free-fall" speed but for some reason the timer at the bottom of the screen starts about 2 seconds into the collapse and ends before the collapse is even finished.

Beginning from LC:

About .10 seconds before the end of the timer:

Notice something a little misleading there? The building is clearly already leaning to the side when the timer starts and a large portion of the building is clearly still standing when the timer ends.

As for the North Tower, there's not a single video I've seen that shows freefall.

Just watch this video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ&eurl=http://911questions.blogspot.com/

It's a perfect example of how much of a lie "faster than free fall" and "near free fall is." The collapse starts about 5 seconds through the video and the video is only 15 seconds long. Why is a 500+ feet section of the building still standing at the end if it fell at free fall?

Same with this video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

The collapse starts around 2 seconds and ends around 20 seconds through.

Beginning:

Point of a freefall collapse:

End:

 

[A W Smith]

Which CTers and where have they claimed it?

Please refrain from personal insults, and remember your membership agreement regarding civility. I've removed the gratuitous insult you placed in the quote credit for the above.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

from
Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Why Doubt 9/11?

8, The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 9 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

 

[Unfit4Command]

This is probably the worse comparison I have ever seen:

"The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain."

No wonder she's a Dental engineer.

 

[~enigma~]

This is probably the worse comparison I have ever seen:

"The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain."

No wonder she's a Dental engineer.

Ah...the light bulb just went on and I understand why this makes you see she's a dental engineer.

Teeth have roots.
Trees have roots.

Mohammed Atta was seen at a 7-11 in Venice Florida buying a box of Keebler Tollhouse cookies prior to 9/11/2001.

It's all clear...

 

[A W Smith]

This is probably the worse comparison I have ever seen:

"The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain."

No wonder she's a Dental engineer.

A dental engineer who designs dental plates with the molars in the front and incisors at the back no doubt.