It did. What would have been "free fall speed" in seconds and MPH?
Why don't people want to know the truth about 9/11?
- Thread starter miller
- Start date
eots
no fly list
free fall is free fall ,
Last edited:
eots
no fly list
Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only or dominant force acting upon it, at least initially. These conditions produce an inertial trajectory so long as gravity remains the only force. Since this definition does not specify velocity
If you are going to make unsubstantiated vague claims and use them as proof of deviation from predicted events you are not going to be able to prove anything.
How can we know there was no slowing if we dont know the no resistance speed in seconds and MPH which you will not state.
Commit to something.
thats not answering his question
eots
no fly list
it is not a real question you moron...
Yeah it is, If you are going to claim something fell at near free fall speed we need to know what that speed is specifically so the veracity of the claim can be judged based on evidence.
eots
no fly list
and what difference does it make is it is measured in ft per sec or mph ?
give it in either
eots
no fly list
"at near free fall speed" and "essentially at free fall" are the terms and official conclusions of NIST
Does that mean you are going to stop saying there was no resistance?
eots
no fly list
how about you give it in either ..as it is not in dispute...simlpy google nist report and it will give it to you in feet per sec and you can make a point if you even have one
eots
no fly list
Sure if it makes your day I will say essentially no resistances
Obamerican
Senior Member
- Aug 21, 2010
- 1,732
- 136
- 48
Let me show you how your sentence should've been written, you little piece of uneducated shit:
As usual, Gomer, I see you're here to kiss the ass of the resident troll.
Fucking loser.
Rat in the Hat
Gold Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 21,949
- 6,021
- 198
Did you really expect him to answer it???
idb
Gold Member
- Dec 26, 2010
- 14,986
- 2,590
- 265
As usual, Gomer, I see you're here to kiss the arse of the resident troll.Let me show you how your sentence should've been written, you little piece of uneducated shit:
As usual, Gomer, I see you're here to kiss the ass of the resident troll.
Fucking loser.
As we say in the Commonwealth
KissMy
Free Breast Exam
Exactly - Solid blocks don't lend themselves to compaction even though they have been broken.Their debris of solid objects create resistance unlike a hollow structure that just forces the air from between the floors.
Anyhow the video does not mention the force generated. Doing a calculation on a 10-lb sledge hammer dropping 1 story or 10-ft creates a force of 10,000-lbs. That is 1,000 times the force the it took just to hold the hammer static in the air. The same goes for the building. The tower was built to hold less than 20 times its static downward force load at a given height. Now dropping a portion of the building 10-ft increased the downward force by 1,000 times. On top of that for every crushed floor the moving mass gained weight & mass. This kept on increasing the force as the building fell.
what about the core ? and the floors where turned to dust how could they maintain and even gain weigh t? and how could this resistance not slow the collapse ?
The falling mass gain the weight of every floor it tore loose as it fell minus some concrete & drywall dust that was blown out by the air forced out from between every floor. The collapse had resistance & did not fall at free-fall speed. You will notice that debris are falling at twice the rate of the collapse. The core can be seen standing longer but ultimately bent & collapsed by the shear stress. Those bent coulombs are shown in photos.
This is a great point.
How does the debris fall faster than the so called "freefall collapse" of the towers proper? Did the pieces of debris have jet-packs strapped to them propelling them downwards?
eots
no fly list
Exactly - Solid blocks don't lend themselves to compaction even though they have been broken.
Anyhow the video does not mention the force generated. Doing a calculation on a 10-lb sledge hammer dropping 1 story or 10-ft creates a force of 10,000-lbs. That is 1,000 times the force the it took just to hold the hammer static in the air. The same goes for the building. The tower was built to hold less than 20 times its static downward force load at a given height. Now dropping a portion of the building 10-ft increased the downward force by 1,000 times. On top of that for every crushed floor the moving mass gained weight & mass. This kept on increasing the force as the building fell.
what about the core ? and the floors where turned to dust how could they maintain and even gain weigh t? and how could this resistance not slow the collapse ?
The falling mass gain the weight of every floor it tore loose as it fell minus some concrete & drywall dust that was blown out by the air forced out from between every floor. The collapse had resistance & did not fall at free-fall speed. You will notice that debris are falling at twice the rate of the collapse. The core can be seen standing longer but ultimately bent & collapsed by the shear stress. Those bent coulombs are shown in photos.
twice the rate....shut up....why do you debwunkers keep contradicting the NIST report
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
Here's the truth.
Some pissed off assholes from other countries rammed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing people that were just doing their jobs.
That's it.
Done.
Some pissed off assholes from other countries rammed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing people that were just doing their jobs.
That's it.
Done.
New Topics
-
-
One of the central political strategies of Democrats since 2008 is to censor the truth. Conservatives should censor the left lies- Started by ColonelAngus
- Replies: 1
-
IDF KILLS 12 Year Old Witness To Paramedic Massacre- Started by MarcATL
- Replies: 2
-
