Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
That's a stupendously simplistic assertion. What was the acceleration of the falling object? The momentum? The resistance put forth by the stationary object? Did both towers fall at the same acceleration rate?
Are we even sure that both objects A. and B. fell at the same rate? What base level of acceleration are you basing this on? I've seen no evidence to suggest that the towers accelerated in their descent at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, but would love the opportunity to look at data that suggests that kind of free fall.
In both cases video evidence suggests the building fell from the top down... are you disputing this?
Sorry, I forgot you were a twat and would require spoon feeding.
When I asserted:
quote:
[a] and
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
----------
Will never fall at the same rate.
Where A) represents an object with the path of greatest resistance, and B) represents the path of least resistance.
I was implying that gravity was at work. If you dropped a brick onto a stack of other bricks, and released a similar brick at the same time without a path of resistance; the second brick would fall to the ground first. E-v-e-r-y time. Aside from 9-11, that is.
This does not look like a collapse from the top down to me.
quote:
[b]Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Umm, acceleration is due to gravitational pull between object. Which is the same for any object in free fall on earth, g, which is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. If I remember correctly F = GMm / r^2. The only way to go faster than free fall is to have additional force which would also lead to additional kinetic energy. The only way those building can fall at nearly free fall speed is if every single support beam failed simultaneously, or at least before each successive floor hit the one below it... in fact, it should even be hitting it period if it's to fall at that rate. There is no evidence to support the pancake theory, it's just a theory, and a very bad one.
SHHh. You're making too much sense. :thepirate
Krypton
This could easily be explained as the pressure caused by collapsing upper floors being forced out of the floors below, which would cause windows to explode ahead of the collapsing avalanche.
Anyways, who set the explosives? Do you have a whistle blower we could talk to? Because as of now, all you have is pictures and video which neither confirm or deny your argument.
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
This could easily be explained as the pressure caused by collapsing upper floors being forced out of the floors below, which would cause windows to explode ahead of the collapsing avalanche.
Anyways, who set the explosives? Do you have a whistle blower we could talk to? Because as of now, all you have is pictures and video which neither confirm or deny your argument.
Could you please elaborate for me whether or not you are invoking the Pancake Theory as a possibility?
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Umm, acceleration is due to gravitational pull between object. Which is the same for any object in free fall on earth, g, which is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. If I remember correctly F = GMm / r^2. The only way to go faster than free fall is to have additional force which would also lead to additional kinetic energy. The only way those building can fall at nearly free fall speed is if every single support beam failed simultaneously, or at least before each successive floor hit the one below it... in fact, it should even be hitting it period if it's to fall at that rate. There is no evidence to support the pancake theory, it's just a theory, and a very bad one.
Right, but b.s.e. is operating from the assumption that the towers fell at free-fall speed, yes? I'm merely asking if that's a valid assumption. Is it verifiable that they did indeed fall at that rate?
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
SHHh. You're making too much sense. :thepirate
We said the exact same thing. :wtf:
Look, I'm trying to actually have a discussion with you (which is what you wanted, yes? A chance to prove your points are valid?) and you're sitting here calling me a "twat" and insinuating something about my intelligence. If that's how you're going to have an intellectual discussion, then I can see we're clearly wasting our time here.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Could you please elaborate for me whether or not you are invoking the Pancake Theory as a possibility?
I am invoking the notion that if the air contained in collapsing upper floors is being squeezed into still intact lower floors, it would be completely normal to see windows exploding just in front of the avalanche.
And again, who set the explosives? None of you have ever answered this question. Nor do you have some whistle blower to talk about the demolition. And if there was a demolition, why fly commercial jets into the buildings to begin with?
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
We said the exact same thing. :wtf:
Look, I'm trying to actually have a discussion with you (which is what you wanted, yes? A chance to prove your points are valid?) and you're sitting here calling me a "twat" and insinuating something about my intelligence. If that's how you're going to have an intellectual discussion, then I can see we're clearly wasting our time here.
I'm sorry, dude. I'm the twat :wtf:
WTC 7 Falls in under 7 seconds. The rate of free fall for the 47 story building is 6.8 seconds.
I'm used to dealing with the likes of Xanax and PKC.. totally rude of me.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
There is no evidence to support the pancake theory, it's just a theory, and a very bad one.
yeah, because there's oh-so-much evidence supporting controlled demolition! :p
you might like this, its well beyond my technical abilities:
the best parts that i DID understand included these:
quote:
The interdisciplinary interests of Gourley, a chemical engineer with a doctorate in jurisprudence, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser’s criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering. It also provides an opportunity to rebut a previous similar discussion widely circulated on the Internet, co-authored by S. E. Jones, Associate Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University and a cold fusion specialist.
quote:
Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that, to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information.
notice that this is published in the journal of engineering mechanics which isn't a publication that the conspiracy deniers have been able to get their own peer-reviewed analysis published in.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
I'm sorry, dude. I'm the twat :wtf:
WTC 7 Falls in under 7 seconds. The rate of free fall for the 47 story building is 6.8 seconds.
I'm used to dealing with the likes of Xanax and PKC.. totally rude of me.
Ok, I may need some clarification. Are we talking about the Twin Towers or WTC 7 here? Because it seems to me that you posted a picture of one of the towers, but a video about WTC 7. The pancake theory or whatever wouldn't apply to WTC 7 because it didn't fall from the top down - the structural damage was at its base, correct? So as the lower debris fell, the bottom dropped out from the top, allowing the building to fall at a faster rate of acceleration.
Do you have any data about the rate of acceleration for either of the main towers? I would think your argument would hold more water there.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm merely asking if that's a valid assumption. Is it verifiable that they did indeed fall at that rate?
no, its not. and painfully obvious in videos that the towers didn't fall at freefall speed.
atbell
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Ah, yes. So, I take their calculus over the law of physics? Maybe I should check out what happened during 'This Week in Washington' while I'm surfing the page. LOL
You guys are all wrong. 100%.
Hum, the law of phisics? I was not aware that there was only one...
The first half is about all you should need before moving on to applications in phisics (where you will learn about all of the laws).
Thanks I left an 'S' off a word, you can't even spell 'physics'. lol
Newton’s law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed.
