http://www.911review.com/boulderweekly/markup/coverstory.html

He writes that when viewing the collapse in real time, the towers both fall at 9.8 meters per second squared—or a free-fall state. The only way he sees this being possible is if the resistance was blown away from beneath it. In the pancake theory, he claims the building would have taken longer to fall and would have stalled briefly at each floor.

Let's mourn for the conspiracy theorists  :'(.

The rubble was 12 storeys high.  
The collapse was only from the point of impact.

That makes the distance fallen at 9.8m/s/s  a lot less than the total height.  The cpnspiraphiles are all loopy..

could you show us your working please?

enviro, should that be abstain, not sustain?

I just did.

The loopys figure the time on freefall for the total height of the tower.
The distance is  a lot less than that  as i have already pointed out.

Most of the action takes place in a debris cloud anyway.  
They have no way of being accurate.
or correct.

All you gave was the acceleration. You left out distance and time. What you posted was an assertion, not any kind of calculation.

Free...
do you think perhaps if you calculated the time required from the point of impact floor to the height of the 12th storey you might get what you specifically want?

The point was that the conspiracists relate (as I have mentioned) freefall time for the entire building.  Tippy top to ground level.

Who knows what I would get if I actually did the calculation? But if I did do it I would show the calculation rather than just insisting everyone else got it wrong while hiding my own assumptions and estimates. I'm not the one drawing the conclusions.

Well apart from the first bit that was an insulting and totally uncalled for flame wasn't it.

I put my point forward, easy enough to understand, repeated myself and never at any stage made a claim about wanting to submit a specific calculation.  But I know what the loopys have calculated and why they are wrong another point I explained.

Which means that since there was a much lesser distance required in the calculation the time taken is indeed probable for a more reasonable explanation.

What was a flame?

That makes the distance fallen at 9.8m/s/s  a lot less than the total height.

This is a conclusion that could only be drawn from doing an actual calculation. You have made several comments about the significance of the 12 storeys to the time taken to fall, without doing a very simple calcualtion to show that it is indeed significant. At least whoever it is that you are criticising probably did a calculation.

Flame?  - But if I did do it I would show the calculation rather than just insisting everyone else got it wrong while hiding my own assumptions and estimates. I'm not the one drawing the conclusions. That flame.

9.8m/s/s is the rate of acceleration due to the force of gravity.  It's not a calculation.

Do you need to calculate that 50 metres is less than 200 metres?  Or that the time required to cross those distances at the same rate of acceleration would be different?  The answer is NO.

That isn't a flame.

Well at least you are starting to give a few more numbers now. If we keep this up we may end up with enough numbers to draw some kind of conclusion.

That's another flame.

If you don't know how to do the maths just give me the assumptions and I'll do it for you. It would be a lot easier to let the figures speak for themselves than argue over something we know nothing about.

What did the 'conspiracy theorists' estimate the building height as, and what is the 'alternative' estimate with the rubble pile taken into account? I'm assuming 200m and 50m were not serious suggestions. Also, what fall time did they get from the video and what conclusions did they draw from that?

more flaming?

look.

I know how to do the maths... speak for yourself.  "WE" may not know...  but I do.

You want figures?  They are available all over the net.  Look up the plans for the towers.

My point has been more than adequately made.

It seems like any event or disaster now results in a conspiracy theory
Except that bombings in Iraq are not explained in this way, strangely

Why would the WTC, Bali, European bombings, etc, be carried out by the West?

Nothing I've seen posted anywhere persuades me terrorists didn't do it
Planes flew into the twin towers - I saw the second one in real time on TV
I saw the towers fall down as it happened on TV

But I'm no supporter of the subsequent war on Iraq
The second invasion of Iraq has turned out to be an obscene disaster
Maybe even criminal
The abductions, torture and murder by all sides certainly are

Does knowing about an incident happening before it actually happens count? In this case I believe the CIA did know that something was going to happen but did not act on it. So I think they are partly responsible.

Smiley wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 11:23pm:

But I'm no supporter of the subsequent war on Iraq The second invasion of Iraq has turned out to be an obscene disaster Maybe even criminal The abductions, torture and murder by all sides certainly are

If we were victorious in Iraq does this mean you would have supported it?

Nobody likes to support, or be seen supporting, a loser.
;)

wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 4:26am:

Does knowing about an incident happening before it actually happens count? In this case I believe the CIA did know that something was going to happen but did not act on it. So I think they are partly responsible.

Obviously the CIA knew that something was amiss but they didn't know what. Who would have guessed that they were going to hijack planes and use them as guided missiles. This time the terrorist beat the CIA, doesn't happen very often.

Even if the CIA rounded all these people up and called them terrorists the people would have rejected it because there was no evidence to the fact.

Look what they are doing to David Hicks! People don't want to believe that he is a terrorist. David Hicks is a mercenary. If David Hicks was not arrested and later blew up Sydney Opera House the CIA would once again get the blame for not arresting him.

The CIA and Intelligence organisations can only work with the tools that we give them. Everytime we give them a tool we lose freedoms. This is why the CIA couldn't put a stop to 9/11.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/computer-simulates-trade-centre-attack/2007/06/20/1182019190229.html

A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Centre (WTC) attack supports original findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

"One thing it does point out ... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press.

"This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Centre when it was built. It wasn't code at that time."

Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering and a lead investigator on the simulation, said Purdue researchers hope their work leads to better structural design and building codes to prevent similar collapses.

Whether the rate of collapse is millisecond accurate or not surely any sentient autonomous thinking person would raise questions as to why these are the only concrete/steel buildings in the history of man that have collapsed into their own footprint without assistance - two of a similar construction and one not only different but not impacted by the original collision and only had a fire - I have been unable to find information on any other buildings collapsing in a similar way from fire alone. I'm no conspiracy theorist but the laws of physics can't be put on hold due to some awkward questions.
The sad situation is that if you raise any questions you must be a nutter or a terrorist. Unfortunately this is the position America takes with any subject that drifts from the original official press release.

alas ,

it has arisen once again ...

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392452584/589#589

very close now we are yes

in truth and divine light

so be it

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

wrote on Jan 6^th, 2007 at 4:48pm:

The rubble was 12 storeys high.   The collapse was only from the point of impact. That makes the distance fallen at 9.8m/s/s  a lot less than the total height.  The cpnspiraphiles are all loopy..

What does: "The collapse was only from the point of impact." mean exactly?  ::)

Circumspicio wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 9:39am:

Whether the rate of collapse is millisecond accurate or not surely any sentient autonomous thinking person would raise questions as to why these are the only concrete/steel buildings in the history of man that have collapsed into their own footprint without assistance - two of a similar construction and one not only different but not impacted by the original collision and only had a fire - I have been unable to find information on any other buildings collapsing in a similar way from fire alone. I'm no conspiracy theorist but the laws of physics can't be put on hold due to some awkward questions. The sad situation is that if you raise any questions you must be a nutter or a terrorist. Unfortunately this is the position America takes with any subject that drifts from the original official press release.

That was no ordinary 'fire' brutha!!  :o :o In normal 'fire' you make swords and stuff expecting them to eventually cool down!

So 9/11 is "debunked" based on the science of how the buildings collapsed?

It isn't even about *HOW* the building collapsed. The conspiracy can still exist and can still be true, it doesn't depend on how the building collapsed.

If you want to go all "scientific proof" then explain why there was very little *EVIDENCE* left behind in regard to the plane that crashed in Shanksville? How did a driver's licence, a passport and a bandana survive the crash intact but the plane exploded upon impact?
If you look at other documented plane crashes there is always a sh*t tonne of debris and human remains.

Then there is the fact that all American news media channels had their cameras ready to go before the plane even enters the frame and hits the WTC, and they sound oh-so-surprised when it happens. Days of Our Lives actors give a better performance.

Then there is also this: the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country that morning when every other plane was grounded. The Bin Ladens had close ties with Bush. An FBI agent spoke up and said in any other circumstance the Bin Ladens would be grounded as well, and questioned.

The Bush administration was quick to accuse Bin Laden, almost as if he had prior knowledge despite denying this.

But no, it's all about the scientific evidence. Because that is the absolution, right? Scientific evidence alone cannot prove whether the terrorist attacks were orchestrated or not. Keep that in mind.

Freedumb wrote on Aug 27^th, 2014 at 6:39pm:

So 9/11 is "debunked" based on the science of how the buildings collapsed? It isn't even about *HOW* the building collapsed. The conspiracy can still exist and can still be true, it doesn't depend on how the building collapsed. If you want to go all "scientific proof" then explain why there was very little *EVIDENCE* left behind in regard to the plane that crashed in Shanksville? How did a driver's licence, a passport and a bandana survive the crash intact but the plane exploded upon impact? If you look at other documented plane crashes there is always a sh*t tonne of debris and human remains. Then there is the fact that all American news media channels had their cameras ready to go before the plane even enters the frame and hits the WTC, and they sound oh-so-surprised when it happens. Days of Our Lives actors give a better performance. Then there is also this: the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country that morning when every other plane was grounded. The Bin Ladens had close ties with Bush. An FBI agent spoke up and said in any other circumstance the Bin Ladens would be grounded as well, and questioned. The Bush administration was quick to accuse Bin Laden, almost as if he had prior knowledge despite denying this. But no, it's all about the scientific evidence. Because that is the absolution, right? Scientific evidence alone cannot prove whether the terrorist attacks were orchestrated or not. Keep that in mind.

Actually scientific evidence can prove it.

How the information gained from that scientific evidence is disseminated is the issue, I think is more to the point...

edit cause I left out some words...

Phemanderac wrote on Aug 27^th, 2014 at 7:18pm:

Freedumb wrote on Aug 27th, 2014 at 6:39pm: So 9/11 is "debunked" based on the science of how the buildings collapsed? It isn't even about *HOW* the building collapsed. The conspiracy can still exist and can still be true, it doesn't depend on how the building collapsed. If you want to go all "scientific proof" then explain why there was very little *EVIDENCE* left behind in regard to the plane that crashed in Shanksville? How did a driver's licence, a passport and a bandana survive the crash intact but the plane exploded upon impact? If you look at other documented plane crashes there is always a sh*t tonne of debris and human remains. Then there is the fact that all American news media channels had their cameras ready to go before the plane even enters the frame and hits the WTC, and they sound oh-so-surprised when it happens. Days of Our Lives actors give a better performance. Then there is also this: the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country that morning when every other plane was grounded. The Bin Ladens had close ties with Bush. An FBI agent spoke up and said in any other circumstance the Bin Ladens would be grounded as well, and questioned. The Bush administration was quick to accuse Bin Laden, almost as if he had prior knowledge despite denying this. But no, it's all about the scientific evidence. Because that is the absolution, right? Scientific evidence alone cannot prove whether the terrorist attacks were orchestrated or not. Keep that in mind. Actually scientific evidence can prove it. How the information gained from that scientific evidence is disseminated is the issue, I think is more to the point... edit cause I left out some words...

That is absolutely correct.