lost-apathy writes:
Your argument does not make any sense.
1. I'm talking about the rate at which the building fell. It doesn't matter what the end distance is. We just replace 158 meters with 226 meters for both the examples of the building falling and the object falling. It is still the same rate at which it is falling. And if so it's still only about a 1 second difference from freefall speed even if we do include your obviously irrelevant argument. Seriously 52 floors in 7 seconds? that means that every second there were 7.4 floors taken out through a domino effect. The pancake theory is just utter hogwash, which is the official story. If you watch a video of it it is obvious that the resistance for all 54 floors was taken out at the same time, just like when they do a demolition.
I have seen several demolitions and see no merit in your argument.
First any slowing down of a free fall would tend to happen more toward the bottom end of a building, the taller the building the more pronounced the deceleration. However, the actual rate of fall toward the base was obscured by dust. How do your sources account for a rate of fall toward the base when such a rate was completely obscured? Are your sources claiming superman vision?
Second the very structure of the buildings were such that the weight was primarily carried by exterior walls rather than interior pillars in order to maximize floorspace. A brilliant idea that did not foresee the massive energy a modern airliner filled with jet fuel would impart upon the external steel framework, which easily led to melting. For such a building design, the exterior would easily achieve a near free fall acceleration due to gravity.
The physics I have seen used in proposing the normal explanation is quite solid IM(somewhat professional)O.
Third, it appears to me that you have a great desire to promote a rather elaborate conspiracy theory that would require a level of sustained secrecy that has never been observed in history. Such a scenario violates not just Occam's razor, but also my direct experience in people keeping secrets, both within the field of military intelligence and in my personal life. I think it is you who may benefit from some use of critical thinking rather than your present audience. An excellent start would be to examine the data to hypothesize a conclusion instead of starting with an 'infallible' conclusion and then trying to twist all evidence in support.
I find it funny that you seriously think that by giving me some useless information, it instantly debunks everything I said. You need to present to me scientific explanations of why this happened and back it up with logic and science.
You are the one making the assertion of a massive, unnoticed, and virtually impossibly still secret conspiracy. The burden of providing any evidence to support your hypothesis is upon you, not your detractors. Besides, as Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
But of course the people who respond on this thread probably have no degree in anything, and havnt even taken classes in physics.
You are not only obviously ignorant of the education level of the
average person in this forum, but are now resorting to insults as if you are somehow unconsciously aware you are unable to logically respond to their criticisms.
Besides, such a put down is somewhat an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. If it were not, you should be accepting my reasoned observations as gospel as my 367 semester units of college in obtaining four undergraduate and graduate degrees are mostly comprised of coursework in engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences.
{ABE} I also strongly suspect that a controlled demolition would have left a different seismic footprint than a point demolition. Were all the seismologists within a few thousand miles/km in on the conspiracy?
Edited by anglagard, : left out exterior building free fall
Edited by anglagard, : add mathematics, obviously implied, but someone unfamiliar with the other two fields may require a measure of enlightenment.
Edited by anglagard, : add space for grammermetrical purposes
Edited by anglagard, : clarity
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
™ Version 4.2