The absurdity of the 'pile driver' effect occuring at freefall speed

[rollingrock]

Bazant's entire model of WTC collapse rests on the idea that an upper block of each WTC tower broke off and acted as an overwhelmingly powerful pile driver that "crushed down" the lower part of each tower, and that this upper chunk of tower was only destroyed at the very end, when it reached the debris pile and underwent a "crush up" reaction. This model makes sense--in the cartoon world of the Roadrunner that is.

The other fatal flaw in the official story is the idea of this pile driver/crush down effect happening at freefall speed. By definition, a freefalling object is falling freely through nothing but thin air. So the only force that can be acting on a freefalling object is gravity.

However, the offical story tells us that the force which is acting on the buildings causing them to collapse isn't gravity or gravity alone, but it is the 'pile driver,' or the weight of the upper block crushing everything beneath it. But, objects that are colliding with each other, bending and buckling on the way down cannot be in freefall. Newton's 3rd law of motion says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. As the pile driver slams into the solid rigid structures beneath it, there is an equal and opposite reaction by the solid structures being slammed into. This tremendous resistance of the rigid steel and concrete below the pile driver should slow the pace of the collapse to a crawl, halting the descent of the pile driver well before it reached the ground and well before it could even reach freefall speed.








-----------

See question 6 of the NIST FAQs

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[rollingrock]

1. So much for Bazant's pile driver bullshit

:rofl:

[Realityhack]

78. Replying to your own OP to make it look like people agree with you - classy. n/t

[LARED]

2. The true absurity is you humping freefall

something that did not happen.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

Note it says the first exterior panel to strike the ground. Bringing two things to mind. One, the exterior panels do not encounter much in the way of resistance from the building, as they free fell pretty much unobstructed. And two the panel did not fall from the full height.

[rollingrock]

3. You conveniently left this part out

According to NIST,

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Isn't it funny how supporters of the NIST report never seem to know what the hell the report even says??

[LARED]

4. Ok, The true absurity is you humping free fall

and conflating free fall with the NIST statement that the tower fell essentially in free fall

Free fall is not possible, describing the collapse as essentially at free fall is one, possible, and two, sensible.

[rollingrock]

8. So now there's a difference between freefall and essentially freefall?

only in the twisted cartoonish world of OCT logic.

:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

14. Yeah, in the same way there's a difference between Mach 2 and...

"nearly Mach 2". And, as I have previously pointed out, "building section" does not = "whole building".

I think the emoticon you chose is quite appropriate but mostly for the reason it seems to portray you reveling in your absolute ignorance of structural engineering matters. In other words, you only understand enough to not realize how dead wrong you are.

[rollingrock]

20. LOL

in common everyday language, 'essentially' means evident or obviously.

it does not mean 'nearly' by any stretch of the imagination.

[Subdivisions]

30. It does in the Orwellian world of "OCT-o-bots" (the antithesis of "Truthers")...

...where words have new meanings. n/t

[Realityhack]

79. Fail.

1. The NIST report is a technical report. There is no reason to classify that context as 'common everyday usage'. So you can not apply your pet definition to this case.
2. You are wrong about what the word 'essentially' means in common usage anyway.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Precisely...

let's say a boy's father dies at a young age and, as a result, the boy "essentially" becomes his younger sisters' father. Does that mean the boy literally or actually became their factor? Umm, no.

[rollingrock]

21. The premise of question 6 in the FAQs

(of which NIST never denies), is that the buildings not only fell at freefall, but it actually fell FASTER then freefall. because freefall through a vacuum is even faster then freefall through air. That is why they use the term 'essentially' to mean approximately somewhere between freefall through air and freefall in a vacuum.

and again, NIST never denies the premise of freefall in their answer to the question.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Dude...if the "building" is falling fater than freefall or even at freefall...

then why is the debris falling faster than the building?

[rollingrock]

25. Why don't you send an email to NIST and ask them that question?

maybe they'll add your question to the Frequently Asked Questions. lol.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. that's the best you can do?

"lol," indeed.

[SDuderstadt]

28. No, I am asking YOU....

look at any video of the collapse of the towers. Notice that the debris is falling faster than the building. If the building is falling at freefall, then how can the debris be falling faster?

See, this is what I mean when I say you struggle with nuance.

[rollingrock]

29. Who knows

I would think probably the debris is being ejected a bit faster then the collapse front due to the explosive forces of the explosions in the building propelling this debris faster then the collapse front. of course, that would mean all the debris initially starts out at the collapse front and then accelerates faster past the collapse front due to these explosive forces.

that's my theory.

[vincent_vega_lives]

47. gravity doesn't work that way

and you know it. If you watch the video it is clear debris is being ejected outward horizontally and then arching downward in a ballistic trajectory. If it was explosively ejected it would be a non ballistic trajectory.

It isn't.

[wildbilln864]

66. That's a load of bullshit!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: "If it was explosively ejected it would be a non ballistic trajectory."

You do realize that bullets are explosively ejected projectiles! :crazy:
But just for fun, give us an example of a "non ballistic trajectory". :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. I'll Clarify for you

If it was explosively ejected at DOWNWARD angle it would not be a horizontal ballistic trajectory. It is commonly referred to "going ballistic" when an object is solely propelled by gravity.

This was the excuse by truthers like yourself why the debris is traveling toward the ground faster than the collapse front, that it was not a pure ballistic trajectory, but explosively ejected with a downward vector.

[Fainter]

72. Hmmm...

"Ballistic" means "of or relating to ballistics or to a body in motion according to the laws of ballistics".

"Ballistics" is "the science of the motion of projectiles in flight".

(M-W Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition)

What I don't understand is your statement that "going ballistic" is "when an object is solely propelled by gravity". Projectiles are not propelled by gravity but are "hurled", "fired", "shot" from seige engines or firearms; eventually gravity brings them back down to earth. Don't go ballistic, but what am I missing here?

[wildbilln864]

73. It's quite obvious!

He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. But thank you for your post. Maybe he'll get it? :shrug:

[vincent_vega_lives]

74. I guess you would just have to understand

first what the argument is for the debris beating the collapse front.

The debris is "propelled" downward rather than moving toward the ground rather than being ejected horizontally and moving in a downward ballistic trajectory.

[Fainter]

75. What's Propelling The Debris Downward? n/t.

[vincent_vega_lives]

77. Gravity (n/t)

[Realityhack]

82. Ah. I think I might be able to help you there.

Let's take your example of an object hulled from a siege engine.
As the siege engine is in the process of hurling the object (The object is still IN the siege engine but it is in motion) the object's movement is being effected by gravity and the siege engine.
As soon as it is free of the siege engine the object 'goes ballistic'. It is now governed by the "science of... projectiles in flight" as it is now in free flight with just gravity and air resistance acting on it.

So a bullet in flight is an example of ballistic motion. It's flight is predicted using the formulas for ballistic motion.

However, the bullet half way down the barrel is not ballistic motion. At that point the bullet is held up by the barrel and is being accelerated by the propellant. So it is not in free flight.

[Fainter]

85. But What Is The "Propellant" Initiating The Downward Motion...

of the debris? "Propel" means to "impel forward or onward; to push ahead; to drive onward", synonymous with "push" (M-W Collegiate Dictionary 1953). I'm criticizing VVL's usage of "propel" to describe what it is that gravity does.

[Realityhack]

86. No.

You are not criticizing VVL's usage of the word 'propel' you are intentionally arguing minutia of semantics in a scatter shot way to try to distract from the facts VVL pointed out.

If the debris from the towers went 'strait' out horizontally or upward and then passed the collapse front (which we see) we can tell from that ballistic motion that the collapse front is proceeding slower than gravitational acceleration alone (ie. slower than 'free fall').

You can babel all you want about how you don't understand why the term ballistic motion was used, but it does not change the facts.

[Fainter]

87. Yes hack It Is A Semantic Argument, But "Propel" Undermines "OCTers'" Argument...

I understand the "OCTers'" argument that the rate of fall of the debris is faster than the collapse front of the towers and that "OCTers" assume the debris is falling no faster than the rate of freefall (hence the collapse front is proceeeding at a rate less than freefall), but "propel" implies an artificial boost in the rate of fall, an assist to the effects of gravity. Is this really what "OCTers" mean to imply? What then is the source of this additional propulsion, this gravitational assist? Explosives? I'm just saying "propel" opens up a Pandora's Box. Irrespective of the conclusion "OCTers" are trying to reach, the use of "propel" to describe the effects of gravity on falling debris invites more questions than it answers such as the notion that the collapse front is at freefall and the debris is descending at greater than freefall. Isn't this the kind of thinking you're trying to rule out?

BTW, this layman still considers the marginally less than freefall rate of descent of the collapse front to be suspicious. The whole argument over "freefall" is a semantic argument.

[Realityhack]

100. You are intentionally misinterpreting the meaning of a persons post.

Then claiming that your straw man represents everyone who thinks the collapse took place at anything slower than unobstructed free fall acceleration in air (ie. virtually the entire engineering community and every other rational person in existence).

You need a new argument.

[Fainter]

102. Gravity Attracts, It Doesn't Propel...

I'm not misinterpreting the language. It is your duty to make your meaning clear. But have it your way Burger King and be sure to have the last word.

[lovepg]

101. Do you mean faster dude???

[LARED]

62. The scary part is your not making a funny.

is that the buildings not only fell at freefall, but it actually fell FASTER then freefall. because freefall through a vacuum is even faster then freefall through air. That is why they use the term 'essentially' to mean approximately somewhere between freefall through air and freefall in a vacuum.

You really believe this.

You don't suppose you can show me where the NIST indicates this is what they mean?

[Realityhack]

80. That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

You are seriously claiming having seen footage of the collapses and having read the information from NIST that NIST is claiming that the buildings fell faster than the speed at which gravity would accelerate them downward requiring some kind of directional downward acceleration like a rocket attached to the uppermost pieces?

[Subdivisions]

39. So, are you saying that the 11-second and 9-second fall rates

are reasonable for this event?

[SDuderstadt]

7. "Truther Logic"...

"building section" = "building"

[rollingrock]

9. Building section = upper block

are you saying that the upper block above the impact point, by some feat of magic, reaches the ground before the lower block??

that is truly cartoonish OCT logic for you.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Show me where I said that, dude...

you might try debating things I've actually said rather than things you invent me saying.

BTW, how are you doing with that question about the implication of being a "NOC", or where you hoping we'd all just forget about it?

[rollingrock]

19. That is what you are implying

because in their FAQ NIST uses the term 'building section above' to describe the upper block above the impact point.

[Subdivisions]

31. Calling the poster out on an unrelated topic from another thread. Take it

to the other thread, dude.

[AZCat]

5. If you want to discuss technical topics...

it might be best if you first familiarized yourself with the language and concepts. Using a term like "freefall speed" is a big red flag to everybody else that you have not yet accomplished this.

[rollingrock]

10. 'Freefall' is what NIST uses to describe the collapse of the towers.

Are you saying that NIST doesn't know what the hell it is talking about? lol.

[vincent_vega_lives]

11. No they don't (n/t)

[rollingrock]

12. Yes, they do. /nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. Then explain why they say

"the buildings fell at what was essentially freefall speeds"

and did not say:

"the buildings fell at freefall speeds"

if they meant to say the buildings collapse velocity = freefall.

66mph is "essentially" driving at the speedlimit, but you are still breaking the law if the speed limit is 65mph.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. we might as well get the quotation right

Your "freefall speeds" makes more sense than the OP's "freefall speed," because you understand that free fall is acceleration -- there is no one "free fall speed." But NIST didn't use either phrase, as far as I know -- certainly not in the passage quoted.

[rollingrock]

18. What's the difference between freefall and essentially freefall?

please, help me understand this OCTer logic because I'm really struggling here to wrap my head around it. come on help a brother out here.

again, tell me in your words what's the difference between freefall and essentially freefall?

and if the NIST didn't mean to say the buildings fell at 'freefall' then why use the term at all in their official reports?? why don't they ever deny the premise of question 6 in their FAQs, which was essentially (there's that word again), 'how did the buildings fall at freefall speed?' they don't deny the premise of freefall in the question because in fact they agree with it.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Then why didn't they just say "freefall" rather than "essentially freefall"...

dude? Why did they use a qualifier? Ask yourself that question. Think about it hard.

I know you have a problem with nuance, but that's no reason to hold the rest of us back.

[rollingrock]

27. Again, the answer is

they use the term essentially to mean that the buildings fell somewhere between freefall and freefall in a vacuum. because the latter is what the FAQ question was about, and freefall in a vaccuum is even faster then freefall through thin air.

[Subdivisions]

33. In fact, all that is missing is vacuum. n/t

[AZCat]

65. Not true - see post #64. n/t

[Subdivisions]

32. Orwell's playbook, dude. Duh... n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. "the stories below... provided little resistance"

I don't see much point in bickering about how little is "little." I certainly don't think "little" means "no," but hey. Your OP purported to be about Bazant....

[Subdivisions]

34. "Little" is the difference between "freefall" and "essentially freefall"... Minus a vacuum. n/t

[rollingrock]

37. Indeed

Who writes these reports? Bazant sounds like he flunked out of high school physics.


In addition, the pile driver theory certainly won't explain the collapse of Building 7, since this structure wasn't hit by any plane. Nothing to act as the 'pile driver.' Duh.

[Subdivisions]

38. You think that's funny, go look for the post where someone says

that the upper block didn't need to stay intact long once the mass was in motion. There goes the piledriver theory.

[rollingrock]

40. Crush up, crush down

this is what kills me.

the idea that the upper chunk of the building remains intact until the every end when it reaches the ground. the notion that this upper block remains intact as it is crushing down the lower block.

which completely violates the physics law that 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.' the upper block cannot possibly remain intact because it is being destroyed just as much as the lower block due to the opposing crush up forces as it impacts the lower block.

So there's simply no way in the natural physical world that this upper chunk can remain intact on its way down unless they're talking about a Disney Pixar cartoon. To do so violates Newton's laws of motion.

[Subdivisions]

41. No matter how you cut it, the Laws of Physics do not apply to 9/11 without

EXPLOSIVES.

http://www.clipartheaven.com/clipart/signs/kaboom!.gif

[Bolo Boffin]

42. We have videos out there with the actual audio of the buildings collapsing

None have the sound of explosive devices.

We have the seismographic records of the buildings collapsing, all of which were sensitive enough to have captured the distinctive signature of explosive devices used to demolish buildings. Those signatures aren't there.

I think you need to check your understanding of the Laws of Physics.

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. Really?

On every floor? Like say 200lbs worth of TNT? Because that is how much MJ equivalent PE is released as KE when the top mass of the building begins accelerating downward.

Force is derived from mass * acelleration2.

[Subdivisions]

57. Not every floor. If your crush up/down theory is correct, then wouldn't the

KE be dissipated? And, if it is dissipated, wouldn't whatever is left of the mass then come to rest on top of what's left of the towers? And, if the KE is not dissipated by that point, wouldn't it dissipate as each floor impacts the next until it comes to a rest?

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. KE is adsorbed not dissipated

KE = 1/2M * V squared

Velocity is the major component in kinetic energy, and it squares every second.

The mass we are talking about is aprox 20% of 500,000 tons = 100,000 tons in motion. Even if 25% of each floor is "dissipated" with each crush the mass of the "piledriver" is still increased with each floor by 3,750 tons.

The building's structure is designed to resist PE not KE.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Why do you imagine that remaining intact is necessary for the piledriver to be effective?

Mass is mass is mass is mass.

[vincent_vega_lives]

50. Correct

Some mass is lost in the expulsion of the perimeter columns, and debris, but there is plenty of remaining to act as the "pile driver" and that mass builds as the collapse progresses.

[Subdivisions]

53. So, that's what you're going with, dude? Haha!

:rofl:

So, we've gone with you "OCT-o-bots" (the antithesis of "Truthers") from the upper block being concealed by the mushroom cloud coming off those collapsing buidlings to a crush down/crush up theory?

:rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. Are you fucking high or somthing?

Please point out where I have stated "the upper block being concealed by the mushroom cloud"

or STFU.

[Subdivisions]

58. STFU? Is that allowed? Ok, ok. So, YOU haven't said it. But others of

your fellow "OCT-o-bots" (the antithesis of "Truthers") have.

My apologies.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Perhaps you should link to these quotes

And perhaps we will discover that your comprehension has failed you yet again.

[vincent_vega_lives]

44. It didn't

It crushes up at the same rate as it crushes down. Real simple. The crushed floors add mass and momentum to the collapse.

The fact that the upper part of the building "crushes up" indicates there was resistance from the floors below. IF the upper block had remained completely intact, then that would indicate the floors below offered NO resitance and the collapse would have been progressed at free fall acceleration.

[rollingrock]

49. The mental gymnastics they use to spin the official tale

they must have some good comedy writers.
or really bad ones depending on how you look at it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. Comedy

1. The towers collapsed at free fall.

2. Only explosives on every floor could have resulted in the collapse.

3. The floors below would have prevented the collapse of the floors above.

[Realityhack]

84. No.

*You* sound like you should have flunked out of high school physics.

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. gee, that's deep

Basically what we have here (as far as I can tell) is NIST saying that the lower floors offered little resistance, and other folks saying that that's Obviously Wrong -- plus some handwaving about Bazant.

[AZCat]

64. Not really.

The difference has far more to do with conservation of momentum than any atmospheric drag.

[Realityhack]

83. What I don't get is...

how they can possibly claim that the buildings fell (accelerated downwards) FASTER that an object would fall in plain old air... because the floors below created a 'little' resistance.

How the hell does that thought possess work? Gee there was some resistance but not much... let me just change this negative to a positive... ooohhh look faster acceleration that free fall in air... and if I tweak it just right... still lower than free fall in a vacuum.

[SDuderstadt]

16. NIST isn't applying that to the entire tower, dude...

What I can't figure out is whether you actually realize that but you don't understand the implication, you realize that and understand the implication but dishonestly try to mislead people or you neither realize it nor understand the implication. If ignorance is bliss, you must be a very happy person.

[Subdivisions]

35. Insulting the poster. A violation of the civility rules. How about focusing on

the issue at hand, that being the manner in which the towers (ALL THREE OF THEM) fell, and not on what you think the mental capacity and comprehension skills of the poster, whom you don't know, is.

[AZCat]

63. "Freefall speed" certainly isn't what they use.

Please learn the difference between speed (the magnitude of velocity) and acceleration.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. Crush up

and that this upper chunk of tower was only destroyed at the very end, when it reached the debris pile and underwent a "crush up" reaction

occured at the same rate of crush down. So the section of the building above the collapse initiation point did not stay intact for long. It didn't need to once the mass was in motion.

[Subdivisions]

36. Hahahahahah! Yeah, right! Hahahaha! n/t

:rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

45. so are you saying the floors above the impact point

remained intact all the way down?

[Subdivisions]

46. Ok, let's start with your "crush up" theory...

Define "crush up" please.

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. Crush up

For each floor the upper block of floor decends, or crushes, one floor in the upper block is crushed starting at the initiation point.

So as the upper block decends, it accordians "upward" roughly at the same rate. If the block above is 20 floors, by the time it crushes 20 floors below it will be a mass of crushed floors.

[Subdivisions]

52. So, you're saying the wreckage of the 40 storeys in

your scenario, now being located, I presume, on top of the remaining 70-storey building, are now pressing down so fucking hard on the intact structure of those buildings that it crushes the remaining 70 storeys? Even subtracting the debris being cast up, out, and down, which is no longer in piledriver position?

[vincent_vega_lives]

54. Yes

It doesn't need to be "pressing down so fucking hard". If you uderstood Newton's 1st law of motion, you would understand why.

No debris is being cast "up". Look at the video, that "upward" debris motion that you see in the still photos, is ACTUALLY dust being drawn DOWNWARD by the collapsing mass! You NEED to watch the video.

Yes mass is being lost from each floor crushed, perhaps as much as 25%, but with each floor more and more mass is added to the "piledriver".

[zipplewrath]

70. Asymetric

There is an asymetric component to the destruction as well. The mass is increasing as the building falls. Each floor adds mass to the falling debris which all impacts on the floors below. Alternately, the structure below doesn't get particularly stronger (and in fact probably weaker). So as the building collapses, the structure below has a constant to reducing capacity to resist the falling mass, and the falling mass is increasing in quantity (and probably velocity as well, which means more released kinetic energy). Every notional number I've calculated suggests that once the first failures occurred, there was no way to avoid the total collapse. There was actually a critical paper written in the '60s predicting just such a failure of the building. They thought it would be from an out of control fire alone, not including initial damage. But the guys larger point was that ANY catastrophic failure high up in the structure would result in a total collapse of the building. The designers took the approach of supposedly preventing catastrophic failure. His criticism was that catastrophic failure couldn't be definitively prevented and so the risk always would exist.

[Fainter]

71. Got Linky? ("...actually a critical paper...") n/t.

[zipplewrath]

76. Unfortunately no

The issue of fire protection for the building was long and involved. Retro-fits of fire protection on most of the floors occurred over the years. Ultimately after the fact there was alot of finger pointing. The article to which I refer was very early and predated most of the retro-fits as I recall. It was a pretty dry paper, something from a technical journal, and was about the original design as constructed, not the one that existed in 2001. I look for it occasionally but there's so much stuff out there that post dates 1993 that I can never find it. In the end though no one should be surprised that fire was a major contributor, it had been a concern in that building since before it was built. Both fire sprinklers and additional insulation had been added since the original construction because of incidents that occurred over the years including a pretty bad fire. "Towering Inferno" was inspired by the WTC and reflected the concerns of some folks about their construction.

[Fainter]

88. I Can Come Up With Anecdotes All Day Long. Simply Not Good Enough. n/t.

[zipplewrath]

68. Layman's terms

I see alot of these discussions about the mechanical mechanism of failure of WTC 1 and 2 trying to argue over effectively "layman's" terms. These terms are going to have to be defined in order for them to be discussed.

What I know is this. The dominant mechanism of failure of the primary structure is one of classic column buckling. This is most easily defined as a rapid loss of load carrying capacity. When a column buckles it loses orders of magnitude of stiffness and load carrying capacity. The "distance" over which this occurs is very short. In columns of these lengths (about 20 feet long between each floor) the distance over which the columns would provide any significant resistence to motion would be less than about 1/4 of an inch. Do the math and one will see that that is precious little distance to apply any siginficant decelerating force. Over that many stories of collapse, it would be an insignificant amount of time between actual vacuum "freefall" and what actually happened. Potentially as short as a couple of frames of video. Really, one would need rather accurate definitions of the start time and point as well as the end time and end point to even define the difference between completely unrestrained collapse and the buckling failure of the columns. None of these things were point masses or rigid bodies so there is going to be some ambiguity here. There may be many questions about what happened before, during, and after this phenomenon. But looking at collapse rates just isn't going to provide much insight. Structures like these collapse quickly, that's just the way the mechanics work.

[vincent_vega_lives]

69. you mean not at the speed

of "clunkity-clunk, clunkity-clunk, clunkinty-clunk"?

:rofl:

[rollingrock]

89. 'Structures like these collapse quickly, that's just the way the mechanics work.'

Oh, really?

Then it should be no problem for you to provide some real world examples of a large steel structure that has ever collapsed at freefall...outside of controlled demolition or a Roadrunner cartoon. Show me the evidence! Put up or shut up.

[AZCat]

90. We have several examples.

WTC Towers 1 and 2, and WTC 7.



ETA - Obviously I don't support the whole "freefall" argument, as evidenced by my other posts in this thread and elsewhere.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

92. he-heh...

Forgive me my little joke. :)

Why do we need prior examples anyway? Can there not be a first time for something?

[SDuderstadt]

93. "Truther Logic"...

"Before the first jet flight, no jet had ever flown before so, therefore, jet flight is impossible"

[rollingrock]

94. Uh, no

that's not how science works. When an unprecedented event allegedly takes place, it has to be thoroughly explained. Controlled demolition is the only plausible explanation for the WTC collapses because the buildings fell in the manner of a controlled demolition. Unless you can show otherwise, there's no precedent for a building collapsing in the manner and rate of a CD...unless there was a CD involved.

[AZCat]

95. I think you're switching points.

You went from demanding prior examples to demanding the event be "thoroughly explained". Do you consider the NIST's attempts at explanation of the collapses to be insufficient? If so, why?

[rollingrock]

96. If that's too much to ask

I will settle for just one pre-9/11 example. Thanks.

[AZCat]

98. So - no criticism of NIST's work? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

97. The circular "Logic" of "Truthers"

"Truthers" are always claiming that since buildings like the WTC have never collapsed before, that proves they could not have collapsed other than "controlled demolition".

Let's extend that argument out a bit. Let's say I COULD provide an example of the same thing happening two years prior but none prior to that. Wouldn't that then mean that 1st occurrence could not possibly have happened? Or, does that simply prove that there can be a first time for everything?

[AZCat]

99. Yes, it is quite ridiculous. n/t