9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

This is specific to THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW OF GRAVITY.

LINK.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

This law demonstrates the REALITY that GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE.

Gravity is actually Space-Time Curvature.

AboveAlpha

 

You are picking nits,
my question is
WHY did the falling mass of the WTC, continue to accelerate
at 64% of G, when in order to do any work, ( that is crushing, pulverizing stuff )
it would have to slow down ( at the very least ... )

Please enlighten me if I'm OTL on this.

 

You have to stop saying 64% of G as that is saying something entirely different than what you want to say.

First of all the falling mass of the two towers did NOT either fall exactly at the same rate nor did they fall at a constant rate.

Since each tower was impacted at different levels by each plane as well neither impact was uniform each tower had a different amount of mass upon each top multiple floor levels from where each was impacted.

Because of this the tower with the greater mass or more floors above it's collapse point was able to obtain a greater amount of force impacting the bottom remaining floors.

AboveAlpha

 

OK, how would you characterize the rate of "collapse"?

I assert that in order to cause a transfer of energy
that is if its a falling object or a speeding car striking a tree,
the transfer of energy happens when the object either slows down
or stops, but in the absence of any slowing down of stopping, how
is it that there is any energy transfer at all?

 

Because of what I do I have watched the video of those towers collapsing MANY times as well I watched it happen LIVE.

If you watch the video you can CLEARLY see that the towers began to collapse a little bit at a time until about 5 to 10 floors in the area of the aircraft impact zone on each completely collapsed.

Each tower had a different number of floors in this zone and when they collapsed this allowed the mass above the remaining floors to structurally overload the remaining top floor that was left intact above those impact zones thus the pancaking effect occurred.

Because each tower had a different amount of mass collapsing above the remaining floors the rate of pancake collapse of the remaining floors of each occurred at different rate and those rates were NOT EVEN CLOSE to being 9.81 m/s2....nor were they even close to being the same rate.

AboveAlpha

 

l had asked straight out
how would you characterize the rate of collapse.

Now is 64% of G within the range that you would consider not even close to 9,8 m/s^2?

 

64% of G does not have any relation to what you are TRYING to say.

Nor did either tower fall at a consistent rate of 64% of 32 feet per sec squared.

You are giving me a head ache again.

Please read the physics books first.

AboveAlpha

 

so once again you post silly and over the top nit picking?

so what if he said G instead of g

for (*)(*)(*)(*) sake you either get it or you dont.

what a waste of text for what I presume was nothing more than a who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) typo. I use either version as well simply because I dont care. lol

and when someone says 64% it means averaged, this exactitude debunkers imply on one hand then grossly presumptive on the other matters is a constant source of hilarious comedy for me.

 

It doesn't matter if he posted g or G.

If you actually understood what I posted you would know that.

AboveAlpha

 

yeh I actually do understand what you posted which I why I am laughing about how silly that frivolous waste of text was. Its you who just missed the boat LOL

How does that saying go? Dont pull the splinter out of your neighbors eye before you pull the log out of your own?

 

Really?

So if you understood what I posted....why is the rate of free fall acceleration SLOWER at the altitude equal to the top of the once standing WTC Towers than it is at 50 feet?

AboveAlpha

 

Yeah...no answer from you?

That's what I thought.

AboveAlpha

 

yep looks like pretty close to g freefall to me

 

So you're playing guessing games now?

 

Do you even understand what you are posting?

If the downward descent was LESS than freefall acceleration like you claim, then what the hell slowed it down? Why wasn't it descending at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP], which is an unimpeded descent?

 

If I dropped two bowling balls off the top of one of the towers and deduced that one fell at freefall acceleration (9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]) and one fell at 64% of that (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]), what would that tell me?

 

The slower one would have to overcome resistance = to 36% of its weight.

- - - Updated - - -

What is the difference in acceleration of gravity at say 1000 ft vs sea level?

 

At an elevation of about 1000 ft, gravity is reduced by about 0.0001 m/s

 

So let me get this straight.

If I wanted to design something to resist a 16 lb. bowling falling at 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP], all I would need to do is make sure that whatever I designed is able to resist 36% of the bowling ball's weight, which is 5.76 lbs? Is that what you think?

Did the bowling ball falling at a slower rate encounter any resistance?

 

What is the difference in acceleration of gravity at say 1000 ft vs sea level?[/QUOTE]


This is EXACTLY what I am trying to get you to understand and for you to understand WHY that the further a falling object is away from the surface of the Earth the LESSOR it's rate of fall.

Google....INVERSE SQUARE LAW OF GRAVITY.

AboveAlpha

 

So we are expected to factor in something that is "0.0001 m/s "
HUH?

 

My point was to show you between the Inverse Square Law, air resistance....as well as how a structure would collapse be it due to a controlled demolition or collapse like happened to the WTC Towers....it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to have a constant rate of acceleration that is 64% of the rate of acceleration of an object falling to Earth.


AboveAlpha

 

so the g at the top of the building was .0001 less than the bottom and that matters how LOL

- - - Updated - - -

omfg thats hilarious!
g1!