Scientific Theory for Controlled Demo Thread.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

An interesting question:
why WERE they ejected with such force?
Get that from a CT site?

PS the relevant science journal
said NEAR free fall ... so a few bits
fall 200+ feet from the footprint
... that's "near" when you're
talking about such a tall building.
And why are they using
METRIC measurements?
Is this from some crackpot
place like Canada?

Do you not understand to force of air pressure? Several years back in YNP a large piece of granite fell from a high wall. The pressure wave from this alone snapped tree like tooth picks. Just the air alone did this, not debris from the rocks.

The journal qualified it's assessment very well, don't try to spin it into CD evidence.
In case you are unaware, scientist do use the metric system.

[slowhand]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

How can we discuss speed when
we are looking at a still photograph?
It's free falling with a few bits
being forcibly ejected like the man said.
Next picture.

The man says next picture!..I am glad you asked for that

This is a video, not a still photo of a building demolition..Notice that the whole building falls at the same uniform speed..As a matter of fact, the bulk of the building beats some of the debris to the ground

Also take note of the demo explosions..They are rather loud

Building Demolition..." target="_blank">Building Demolition...

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by slowhand

If you look at the right side of this picture, you will see a hunk of steel falling to the ground..Notice that the steel is way below the progress of the collapsing building..It will hit the ground long before the rest of the building, as well as the debris which is definately falling faster than the building..So,no way is the building falling at free fall speed

The pieces of steel aren't falling faster ... they just started falling from the point they emerged at after being ejected ... the other stuff started falling from farther up. Obviously distance comes into play here. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by slowhand

The man says next picture!..I am glad you asked for that

This is a video, not a still photo of a building demolition..Notice that the whole building falls at the same uniform speed..As a matter of fact, the bulk of the building beats some of the debris to the ground

Also take note of the demo explosions..They are rather loud

Looking at another demolition is irrelevant (as irrelevant as that other thread where they compare Mount St Helen's erupting to the WTC) ... and since we're talking about the towers ... plenty of people heard explosions ... firemen, rescuers, Willy Rogriguez, the man who died but told his wife on the phone about hearing explosions ...

[slowhand]

Originally Posted by voodoo

So it's falling a little less than free fall speed - big fucking deal - there's building under it.

A little less??..

Before the beef was about it falling at free fall speed..Now somebody points it out to you that its not a free fall speed, and now you do an about face and say its a "little less than free fall speed"..This isnt a fucking auction here ya know..

Free Fall Free Fall...Do I hear alittle less than free fall?..Going once!..Going twice!

Go back to bed

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by Denie

Do you not understand to force of air pressure? Several years back in YNP a large piece of granite fell from a high wall. The pressure wave from this alone snapped tree like tooth picks. Just the air alone did this, not debris from the rocks.

And your point is?

[sunflower]

Originally Posted by slowhand

A little less??..

Before the beef was about it falling at free fall speed..Now somebody points it out to you that its not a free fall speed, and now you do an about face and say its a "little less than free fall speed"..This isnt a fucking auction here ya know..

Free Fall Free Fall...Do I hear alittle less than free fall?..Going once!..Going twice!

Go back to bed

We have always said near free fall. But you guys won't answer - if freefall is approximately 9 seconds for each tower had they fallen in a vacuum, and both the 9/11 Commission report and NIST's report have the towers falling between 9-11 seconds, then what's that?

[slowhand]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

The pieces of steel aren't falling faster ... they just started falling from the point they emerged at after being ejected ... the other stuff started falling from farther up. Obviously distance comes into play here. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Boy wonder..If anything got ejected, it could only get ejected upward, and/or outward..Not down..To go down it would have to tear through the building..Duhhhhhhhh!!!

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by slowhand

A little less??..

Before the beef was about it falling at free fall speed..Now somebody points it out to you that its not a free fall speed, and now you do an about face and say its a "little less than free fall speed"..This isnt a fucking auction here ya know..

Free Fall Free Fall...Do I hear alittle less than free fall?..Going once!..Going twice!

Go back to bed

Nope. Denie's Metal Review ... something he obviously respects ... said NEAR FREE FALL ... if you guys can take A LOT as gospel then we can take NEAR as close enough for rock 'n' roll.

[voodoo]

t it's widest point, the damage can be seen to extend from column 5 to column 1 (the south west edge of the structure), and is in the same location as the south west corner damage shown in Fig. 2. Captain Chris Boyle's description of a 20-storey hole in the middle of the south face is refuted by this photo, which shows a quite intact facade in that region. The fact that Boyle's testimony described a 20 storey hole, and the damage to the south west corner reached approximately to the 20th floor, would suggest that Boyle either visually interpreted the location of the hole incorrectly at the time, or his later recollection from memory was incorrect, and what he saw was in fact the hole we see in this photo.

Anyone know where is the evidence alleging photographs were confiscated? That would be more powerful to me.

For a non-scientists - that type of evidence speaks louder to me.