| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The official story can be disproven in <3minutes | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 28 2009, 10:35 PM (752 Views) | |
| Guerilla Radio | Mar 28 2009, 10:35 PM Post #1 |
|
this is like a physics lesson for dummies, but very effective nonetheless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M Edited by Guerilla Radio, Mar 28 2009, 10:43 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| TDX | Mar 29 2009, 03:15 AM Post #2 |
|
wake up this is 2009 the video is totally outdated and wrong, the towers didn't collapse at anything near to freefall speed (excluding WTC7) I would expect something like that in 2004 and I'm angry at the majority of truth movement for tolerating this vids, the video made it to the news section of 9/11 blogger achimspok's and my videos didn't make it......... if you really want to have arguments, which are based on actual physics, then go and watch achimspok on youtube, or look for heiwa's site |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Mar 29 2009, 04:26 PM Post #3 |
|
They absolutely did. Free-fall for the towers is about 9.2 seconds. NIST or the FEMA report (don't remember) says the towers fell in 10 seconds, but the actual collapse time was closer to 15 seconds. A six-second difference between actual free-fall time and actual collapse time is very close. So, not sure where you're getting your information from. |
|
|
| noeffects | Mar 29 2009, 08:31 PM Post #4 |
|
"achimspok" on Utube... looks interesting... don't understand computer German tho...any English versions? I guess i can just read the tiny closed captions... I'll check it out some more. Thanks! Edited by noeffects, Mar 29 2009, 08:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
| TDX | Mar 30 2009, 09:24 AM Post #5 |
|
No, the collapses looked something like that: 0s - core starts to collapse due to severe thermite/explosives useage ( respectively some core rows....), (then continuing to fall down at freefall speed, inside the elevator shafts, the squibs....) 0,5-0,7s first glimpses of failure are visible on the exterior walls 0,5-4s the perimeter failures are spreading acros the entire perimeter, that causes tillting in the upper sections ( downward displacemnt = 0-5 floors) 4s- the upper sections of the towers are in full fall 9s the elements of the core in freefall hit the ground 11-12s freefalling elements outside the building are reaching ground 20+ seconds - the upper sections are reaching ground, while decelerating rapidly, due to the vast ammount of debris 30s+ the last standing elements - the spires- are starting to collapse ............. thanks to achimspok in short - the simple freefall argument holds no water, afterall we can not say how much time would take natural collapse, we don't even know the exact numbers for weight distribution inside the towers........ however, we are absolutely sure that the core elements (100 tons+) were at freefall inside the shafts.....that alone proves CD well, as for achimspok, AE911truth.org knows, but because they don't give a shit, there will be no english version...... now, he's making vids with large captions and english translator voice........ but, I have a few vids in HD from him, so you can see the letters..... http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IB3S83WG http://rapidshare.com/files/209083640/Part1_Chapter_25.mp4.html http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DANBT6B5 |
|
|
|
| Xenomorph | Mar 30 2009, 02:49 PM Post #6 |
|
That's a load of bull, members of ae911truth are interested in the video. I've done everything possible to connect Achimspok with ae911truth and was still having a dialogue going on with him, and all I've seen from you is complaining. It doesn't matter anyway anymore, someone else ae911truth affiliated is undertaking the project as of today, and has someone fluent in German to help them both with it . So you will finally get your wish. Edited by Xenomorph, Mar 31 2009, 12:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Mar 30 2009, 03:48 PM Post #7 |
|
Yeah, we're not even gonna pull this shit again. This is the same tactic that the debunkers used to say that WTC7 didn't fall in free-fall because the penthouse fell 10 or 15 seconds before the rest of the building and they were trying to count that as part of the collapse time. The spires/cores were still standing after both towers collapsed and are not part of the free-fall of the main portion of the towers and therefore will not be counted. You can count them in your mind if you like, but all 3 WTC buildings fell at near free-fall speeds. |
|
|
|
| TDX | Mar 31 2009, 09:43 AM Post #8 |
|
I'm sorry for that and thank you for the heroic effort, I just wanted to express my (little distrust in regard to ae911truth.....you know what I mean) to Bonez: Please, I'm on your side , you just have to understand that your dream of 3minute lecture that operates with one handwaving number (and somehow proving inside job) isn't reality I'll explain:I don't remember the exact energy released in the collapses, but I think that it was something in order of 25tons of TNT charge big enough to break core column at the weld would have energy eq. of 4kg TNT, and since we know that the spires consisted of 800 and 700 row columns...we know that only the outer core columns were affected (.....) that gives us maximum reasonable nume¨ber of appx. 250 charges per tower (I actually think that it was far less,but now it doesn't matter)...= 1TON of TNT, so normal collapse scenario = 25tones of TNT, maximum demolition scenario = 26 tones of TNT, in other words the demolished tower would have 4% more energy..which could be transferred into motion....that means that the maximum demoltion case collapse would be maybe 1 or 2 seconds quicker than the natural collapse (other effects accounted...) now, we don't know the exact load distributions inside the towers, so we can not have accurate models of how fast would they naturally come down.....and at the same time we don't know how fast the building would collapse......... Is it clear now? The collapse times are "under" our resolutions, you can't say that natural collapse would take 15 sec and that the towers collapse collapsed in 13 seconds-> controlled demo..... nevertheless, the perimeter collapse took at least 18 seconds in each case (more likely 22+s) ...go and watch any video....... Long story short- the total collapse time of the towers is irlevenat for us..... There is a big shit- load of evidence in regard to the towers, you don't know about it ( watch achimspok.....) , it seems that you are defending the FF argument, because it was proposed in early days when we had nothing, no you don't have to worry about loosing this argument, we have better examples..... As for WTC7 : yes, that's entirely diffrent story,the building fell at freefall speed for 2,25s - that strongly suggests CD but again- the building collapse took 18 sec you have to admit that, no matter on which side of barricade you are what really happened? WTC7 was a subject to severe thermite/explosives weakening...hours and minutes before the collapse than at cca 5:2xy failed column 80 and/or 81 and column 79 followed in quick succession that is highly suspicious, then the collapse progressed to the east penthouse (.....) and caused the penthouse to freefall, at the same time the weakened building was a subject to a massive vibrations (energy from the penthouse+ thermite cuts at the core columns)...after a short time the building started to collapse..and after that the last intact connections failed (there were few intact connections...) and the building entered freefall, there was a slight decrease in acceleration after the building reached intact parts of the structure (above floor 13 and the thermite cuts) watch these videos for better understanding |
|
|
|
| Guerilla Radio | Mar 31 2009, 02:32 PM Post #9 |
|
Have you read the NIST report? Apparently you never bothered to, because if you did you would know that NIST states on their website that the towers fell at freefall speeds. They calculated 9 seconds for the South Tower, 11 secs for the North tower. That is free fall speed, as NIST freely admits. The collapse times are not in dispute, except from those who don't know any better such as yourself. From NIST FAQs page:
|
|
|
|
| noeffects | Mar 31 2009, 03:52 PM Post #10 |
|
9 seconds- 11 seconds hmm.. just another # coincidence ?   
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Mar 31 2009, 03:55 PM Post #11 |
|
Part of the problem with NIST's calculations is they're going by seismic data. The seismic data recorded the detonation sequence, not the actual collapse. The pieces of building weren't big enough to create the kind of seismic data we see. Further, if you watch any video and time it yourself, actual collapse time is closer to 15 seconds. I'll even accept TDX's 18 seconds, but any more than that is pushing it. If you have access to the video "9/11 Eyewitness", you can even hear and see that the detonation sequence was shorter than actual collapse. That's why the seismic data, i.e., NIST's calculations, differ from actual collapse times. Edited by BoneZ, Mar 31 2009, 03:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Guerilla Radio | Mar 31 2009, 04:21 PM Post #12 |
|
NIST states that the towers fell at freefall speed or faster ('...speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)'). Are you saying that NIST is wrong about that?? If so, what is your source?? |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Mar 31 2009, 05:32 PM Post #13 |
|
I thought I made it clear that NIST was wrong. And the source is the very link you posted that says:
Instead of questioning, why don't you watch several videos of the collapse and time the collapses yourself. It's really easy. |
|
|
|
| Guerilla Radio | Mar 31 2009, 05:58 PM Post #14 |
|
Hmm...so after thousands of pages technical pages written on the subject, of all the hundreds of brilliant scientific minds working at the NIST, and yet none of them know how to count? So tell me, what else is NIST wrong about? Have you made them aware of this gross error so that they might take prompt steps to correct it?
I have, and there is nothing in the collapse videos that is inconsistent with freefall speed. Regardless, freefall speed has little to do with the premise of the video I posted. That is, the upper section could not have collapsed through the much larger section all the way to the ground, REGARDLESS of the speed. The VW Bug cannot go through the school bus, freefall or not. The basic laws of physics still apply, even on 9/11. Edited by Guerilla Radio, Mar 31 2009, 06:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Guerilla Radio | Mar 31 2009, 06:01 PM Post #15 |
|
dupe
Edited by Guerilla Radio, Mar 31 2009, 06:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Mar 31 2009, 06:43 PM Post #16 |
|
You must have me confused with TDX. He's the one saying there was no free-fall. |
|
|
|
| TDX | Apr 1 2009, 08:31 AM Post #17 |
|
Uh, there we go the bad physics hurts  maybe I realize that arguing with you has no sense at all, because you are unable to do basic measurements and understand basic physics principles 1) NIST states that the first exterior panels hit reached ground after 9-11 seconds (it is more like 11....) 2) NIST does not state anything about the global collapse time of the towers 3) you can't detect explosions with seismograph, at least not explosions of core-column cutting charges in the "air" the energy transferred to the ground via vibrations of the demo'ed column is very small it is comparable to car crash, do you suggest that you can detect car crash from 30km via seismograph on the NYC background? 3) the "explosions" in the 9/11 Eyewitness fantasy movie were simply added, the soundtrack was altered 4) in reality the collapse was initiated by thermite charges and one or more small charges, which were to small to be noticed, then the collapsing tower offered background for bigger charges, if they were there 5) "Regardless, freefall speed has little to do with the premise of the video I posted. That is, the upper section could not have collapsed through the much larger section all the way to the ground, REGARDLESS of the speed. The VW Bug cannot go through the school bus, freefall or not. The basic laws of physics still apply, even on 9/11." Uff, so your saying that bullet can't crush wall or kill human? Great news everyone, I'm now jumping out of the chair, because I'm impenetrable 6. many other nonsense 7.The acctual collapse time: In my second post I explained how the collapse looked like, but if you want....i'm sorry for linking to rkowens video, but of course, the captions are bullshit, but the timing is right ( for your information typical CD is up to 50% slower than freefall......) CD doesn't¨t equal to freefall or would you like achimspok? (look at the video description) here is a 9/11 truth forum, they are truthers and engineers ..... http://the911forum.freeforums.org/does-the-collapse-time-of-wtc1-indicate-assisted-collapse-t11.html conclusion: proving CD in under three minutes is immposible, (in regard to the towers, WTC7 is a diffrent storry), especially when you are defending flawed logic, proving CD in real physical terms would/ takes many hours with physics educated truther............ |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Apr 1 2009, 04:06 PM Post #18 |
|
This is the second time that I've seen this claim made without any source. Care to share a source that has a detailed analysis of this claim? Seigel is alot of things, but I can't imagine the explosions being added. |
|
|
|
| Guerilla Radio | Apr 4 2009, 02:07 AM Post #19 |
|
You're actually comparing the WTC collapse to a bullet going through a human body? Wow, you certainly give new meaning to the term 'pseudo-science.' |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Apr 4 2009, 09:07 AM Post #20 |
|
I think JREF's resident structural engineering expert Newtons Bit, made a far more ridiculous statement, when he claimed the heat of the air friction created by the collapsing towers was comparable to that of the heat of re-entry for a space shuttle. MM |
|
|
|
| chrisfarb | Apr 4 2009, 09:28 AM Post #21 |
|
I'm sure he was just kidding, right? 
|
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Apr 4 2009, 09:47 AM Post #22 |
|
Believe it or not, he was quite serious, in spite of how many times I pointed out how ludicrous his comparison was. It was his lame attempt to explain the heat stored in the WTC debris piles. MM |
|
|
|
| TDX | Apr 4 2009, 10:28 AM Post #23 |
|
"That is, the upper section could not have collapsed through the much larger section all the way to the ground, REGARDLESS of the speed. The VW Bug cannot go through the school bus, freefall or not. The basic laws of physics still apply, even on 9/11."" "You're actually comparing the WTC collapse to a bullet going through a human body? Wow, you certainly give new meaning to the term 'pseudo-science." Uff, the ignorance hurts You sad that the basic law of physics is that object with lower mass can not destroy object with greater mass(regardless it's speed), I proved you wrong with my example there's no such a law The upper section, at least in WTC2 case had a lot of energy, certainly enough to crush the rest of the building and not I'm not comparing WTC to bullet, that's your ridiculous statement wake up and smell real word physics of course, the pools were created by thermite and sustained by the CH fires, thermite alone would (iron) solidify in a few days ( dozens of hours) |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Apr 4 2009, 12:48 PM Post #24 |
|
How could it have had "enough energy"? The upper section wasn't dropped from mid-air to gain energy before going through the lower section. Buildings, especially the WTC towers, are built to stand tall and strong, not to crumble under a little stress. Further, the upper section was tilting and should have slid off and fell to the ground. THAT is real-world physics. But because explosives were placed from top to bottom, the upper section was blown to dust while the lower section was also being blown to dust to make it APPEAR that the upper section crushed the lower section even though it should have just fell off to the ground. The upper section of either tower would NEVER have crushed the lower sections completely to dust and small pieces, all the way to the ground. I don't think there would have even been a global collapse, period, from the upper sections had they been natural collapses without explosives. |
|
|
|
| Guerilla Radio | Apr 4 2009, 04:34 PM Post #25 |
|
Air friction? That's a good one.  What the hell is that? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
6:44 PM Nov 23
