or the upper floors wouldn’t slow down as they crashed into the lower floors
Here you go
Why would they? Show your math. Stop nitpicking and prove your assertions.
This feeds the NIST narrative that it was just a spindle and the floors were the records sliding down. Like a pile driver lol
I see we’ve reached the ‘not even trying’ stage of truther antics in just a couple of hours.
Again, they DID slow down. WTC 1, which is often the one used, took over 15 seconds to collapse…more like 20-25. Debris falling from the tower that actually was in free fall took around 9 seconds. As to the ‘tube’ collapsing, I have no idea even what your point is. But if you are trying to build some sort of case for why the tower fell in ‘free fall’, you are starting with a false premise. Obviously, you don’t know anything about structural or material science. But it’s pretty evident that even if you don’t have a clue (which you don’t) about this science stuff you can see, for yourself, that debris falling from the tower next to the collapsing building fell a lot faster than the tower collapsed.
Seriously, you have to have watched the video at least once…right? Did you never question the idiots telling you that it was falling ‘in free fall’ while watching large chunks of the building and other debris fall to the ground first??
In fact, we all the top basically stop as soon as it hit the lower floors. That’s on video. How do you explain that slowed momentum? How do you explain that thing becoming a pile driver after that?
Maybe you should actually look at the ‘NIST narrative’, as your caricature is pretty stupid to anyone who has actually read it and seen the models. This is one of those things that only flies with others who ignorant of the details.
So, essentially, you have nothing. Just more ignorance. Well, not like I’m surprised.
Did you read what I quoted? That’s you guys saying that.
LAZombie, on the first page of this thread, you complained that posters were being sarcastic and mocking those who were Just Asking Questions. You said you wanted an honest debate.
THIS IS WHY Truthers are mocked and these threads start with tons of sarcasm. It always devolves into “the buildings wouldn’t have fallen that way” or “the jet fuel wouldn’t have burned like that” or “the fireproofing would have protected the building”. It is stupid minutia not based in any factual evidence.
You said you were open minded. You’re not. You will never accept the rational answers given to your questions. This is why mocking and sarcasm accompanies Truther posts. The SDMB has done this before with the exact same results and and we’ll do it again next year with the exact same results.
Fine, but XT, those huge pieces were ejected out, they didn’t just fall out like you are trying to say. FPS backs this up as well.
Can you put this in terms that a simple caveman like myself would understand? I can’t follow your esoteric civil engineering jargon that you are using here.
Patently untrue.
Why. We know how things behave, it’s not a mystery now. We can now examine the video’s and see some thing is wrong with the official story.
You don’t even understand the basics of how these building were constructed, and yet, you think you know “the science” of why they couldn’t collapse the way they did. This is why truthers are laughed at.
And here you just ignore reality. As was posted earlier:
…they did slow down. they just didn’t slow down enough to actually stop the collapse. “Freefall” is a completely bullshit claim by people who can’t even seen what obvious right in the videos and photos of the collapses.
Once the collapse started, on multiple floors, the weight was such that it essentially pulverized each succeeding floor. But the floors weren’t sufficient to fully destroy the falling upper structure until it hit the ground. Pretty standard actually, you can see examples of this in myriad building collapse videos. And pretty much a red herring, as this has nothing to do with the mechanism for what initiated the collapse. I assume that’s actually what you are getting at, and that all this other horseshit really has nothing to do with anything, as it doesn’t change that initial cause.
So, here is my guess as to what you are getting at. The building collapsed in ‘free fall’ because it was wired for explosives. We shall leave aside the lack of evidence for this. And that the explosives were detonated after the planes hit. And the explosives were perfectly places so that they collapsed the floors right where the planes hit, which is where we see the collapse initiating.
So, let’s go with that. You haven’t walked us through any of this, just vague horseshit and JAQing off, but that’s what you are getting at. Now, let’s say that’s the case. How does this change anything wrt to the collapse you are nitpicking? It doesn’t, unless you assume that EVERY floor was wired to blow all the way down. Because, regardless, the building isn’t going to be in ‘free fall’ unless every floor is taken out all the way down. So, leaving aside, again, the lack of evidence it would take to wire every floor, or the fact that NO ONE does that when ACTUALLY taking a building down, or the lack of video evidence for this happening (we can see the upper floors and structures pulverizing the lower ones on the way down), we still have some questions. Why does debris coming off the building and spraying out around it fall faster than the collapsing structure? They SHOULD fall at the same speed. I mean, you blow out a floor, and debris from the floor is blown out horizontally. Yet gravity is still the major force acting on it. They SHOULD fall at, you know, the same basic speed. Maybe a touch different. But not 5-10 seconds different. Which is the reality of what we see on the actual video. Just answer this one, simple question if you would. We dont’ need to talk about how impossible it would be to wire a building this way, or how it would be difficult in the extreme to get the timing right or how you got those explosives where the planes hit to still work AND be the ones you initiate first. Just answer the question of why, if they blew out all the floors, causing the structure to ‘free fall’ (leave aside that it didn’t), the debris coming off the the building STILL fell faster. Was it rockets? Some sort of alien dark matter extra gravity thingy?
What the hell are you even saying? Ejected by what forces, independent of those in your fantastic imagination?
External structure pieces were shed from the collapsing structure and fell independently, faster than the main structure that pancaked as it fell, meeting some internal structural resistance, thus falling at a slower rate than external falling debris.
Of course they did. That’s the point I was making.
Ejected? By what means? I’m sure you are implying explosives. Here’s a hint: Explosives aren’t very good for pushing things like that.
No. They were individual pieces of the tower that, probably somewhat ahead of the chaotic mass of building material, struck some part of the building that hadn’t lost structural integrity yet. the angular momentum was thus changed to impart some horizontal momentum to those smaller pieces (small being relative to the huge mass of building coming down). This allowed said pieces to continue unhindered by anything but the air underneath it. In a few cases the horizontal momentum was enough to make it a decent distance from the tower. Not unexpected.
I now expect this explanation to be either ignored or nitpicked with the usual “What about wah!” followed by “what about wahwah!” with no actual scientific support for said nitpicking.
Who?
Ever seen the basic physics experiment where someone shoots a gun and drops a bullet at the same time? Know what the result of this experiment is? Basically, they hit the ground at the same time. Know why? I’ll leave that part to you to work out.
The fact that this basic understanding seems to be something you don’t get SHOULD clue you in to the fact that you don’t get even the basics. And it SHOULD be something you consider the next time you watch or listen to a Truther expound on this subject.