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

Discussion in '9/11' started by Munkle, Mar 29, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

1. ### MunkleActive Member

Joined:
Nov 24, 2012
Messages:
352
81
Trophy Points:
28

Premise, official story: a few floors at the top collapsed, starting a
chain reaction in which the collapse of each additional floor made the
total mass heavier, and driving it faster and faster toward the ground.
This is why the towers fell at virtual free-fall acceleration (virtual
as in 'very close to.') Free fall acceleration is the speed any object
falls through thin air to the ground. It is 10 meters per second, per
second (for every second an object is falling, it goes another 10 meters
per second faster. So a baseball falling for 3 seconds attains the
speed of 30 meters per second.)

Problem: Things that are heavier do not go faster than things that are
lighter, discounting negligible differences in air resistance. In a
vacuum, even a feather and a bowling ball would fall at the same speed.
The towers "fell" at the same rate as they would have fallen through
thin air. But steel, even soft steel, is thousands of times denser than
air.

Therefore, mass does not accelerate as it accumulates. In fact, it can
only go much slower than free-fall acceleration as it meets resistance.
This is common sense and what would have happened on 9/11 if the upper
floors of the towers had collapsed. The upper floors would have met the
resistance of floors below them, slowed down, and stopped. The mass
could not have fallen through steel at the same speed it would fall
through thin air.

There are many things wrong with the official story. You've heard them
all by now. Wrap your mind around this iron law of Newtonian physics, proven by Galileo,
and you will see that the collapsing mass could not have gone faster as
the mass got heavier. Therefore the official explanation for how the
towers disappeared so quickly is false.

Congratulations. You are no longer a dumbed-down American. You know
what the rest of the world which gets a science education in high school
knows: that the official 9/11 story is impossible. Not suspicious.
Not full of questions. But flat-out, physically IMPOSSIBLE.

By the way, the debate over whether heavy things fall faster than light
things has been going on since Aristotle. Galileo settled it. Galileo
also settled that the Earth goes around the sun. That's how far into
the Dark Ages 9/11 has taken us.

Proof that all objects of different weights fall to the ground at the same speed

Ball and feather race in a vacuum

9/11 story problem: Which 15 story block will hit the ground first?

On 9/11 they both hit the ground at virtually the same time!

-If the 15 story section is falling at free fall speed ...

-All of its gravitational potential energy is converted to Kinetic Energy (movement)

-It is not available to do the work of "crushing" the building below!

-It would have to slow down in order to do any other work, i.e., "crushing 80,000 tons of structural steel below.

2. ### ScottWell-Known Member

Joined:
Aug 17, 2008
Messages:
5,602
925
Trophy Points:
113
3. ### BlasphemerWell-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 2, 2011
Messages:
2,404
53
Trophy Points:
48
This is such a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) argument. Heavy buildings should fall at freefall speed or very close to it. After some amount of falling mass accumulates on upper levels, it crushes the support under it. The resistance of the floors below does not depend on their mass (why should it??), it depends primarily on their structural strength, which was already insufficient at the beginning of the fall. So thats why freefall speed makes complete physical sense.

4. ### cjnewson88Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jan 18, 2013
Messages:
1,133
31
Trophy Points:
48
First:

They towers did not fall at "near" or "virtual" free fall. They fell at 60% of free fall. If I earned \$60,000 a year, but told you I earned "near" \$100,000 a year, you'd call me a liar. 60% free fall is not "near" free fall. Fix that one first.

Second;

Heavier objects do not fall faster, correct, but no one said they do. Heavier objects do fall with far greater kinetic energy meaning the structure below has to have an ability to arrest a tremendous amount of kinetic energy landing in about a 8th of a second. You're telling me 1 floor of the WTC can stop the weight of 30 floors falling on it? Nope, I'm afraid not. Read FAQ number 12 here.

Third;

The best way to see if the building was being affected by the resistance of the lower section is to look at the acceleration of the top section. Now the top section continued to accelerate for most the collapse. Does this mean it's encountering no resistance? Absolutely not. What you need to look at is the rate at which it is accelerating. And people have shown that the rate at which the top section is accelerating decreases significantly as the building falls. See here.

Forth.

Again, you have not proven anything here. You are trying to reason "here is why the building cannot fall without explosives" but that is not evidence of explosives. You are in effect falling into the same line as every other conspiracy theory; make your case, expect everyone else to debunk you. Now, I have fallen for that to a limited extend above, however I will no longer. If you want to prove explosives were used, provide evidence of explosives. Who planted them. How. Why. Paper trail, documents, photographs, evidence. You need to provide that in order to prove there were explosives. Anything else is just conjecture.

5. ### MunkleActive Member

Joined:
Nov 24, 2012
Messages:
352
81
Trophy Points:
28
"Heavy buildings should fall at freefall speed or very close to it"

Remind me again why buildings should fall? Last I checked they were built ot stand. They are vastly overengineered to do so, and the WTCs had a maximum live load factor of 5X. That means five times standing room only on every inch of every floor. The actual factor was probably much more.

Let's start there, then we'll get into the rest of your balony.

6. ### MunkleActive Member

Joined:
Nov 24, 2012
Messages:
352
81
Trophy Points:
28
You can track a piece of debris falling through air in this video and see that the demolition line more or less keeps pace. That's free-fall, and it matters not if it is 60 or 80 %. Steel is 8,000 denser than air, even in a "clay" state, and so your factor is off by several orders of magnitude. It could have been nowhere close to freefall speed, nevermind 60, 80, or 100%. Tell me it went 1/1000 of free-fall and you'd have an argument that wasn't mere quibbling.

Yes, the official "pancake" theory requires the mass to become irressistable as it accumulates, "punching" its way through all resistance. But there is no punch. Energy is expended as work is done crushing a few floors. A few floors might have gone down, but the upward static resistance, represented as a vector pointing upward, would have been far more massive. In no magic world does 30 floors crush 80 floors. The frame must be cut in a precise sequence downward to match the acceleration of the falling pieces, precisely what we see and hear here:

LOL.

Convenient they shipped 99.5% of the steel evidence, which would have borne signs of explosives and evidence of cutter charges, off to China to be melted in record time. If I wanted to, I could rest my case right there.

7. ### cjnewson88Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jan 18, 2013
Messages:
1,133
31
Trophy Points:
48
Adhere to the sources linked and my final point. You want to prove controlled demolition, prove it. I'm not here for conjecture.

8. ### LoneStrSt8New MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Jul 14, 2011
Messages:
9,012
33
Trophy Points:
0
How could they have done that?...they had people looking through every piece of debris for remains .

And nothing was 'shipped off to china in record time....it sat at fresh kills for at least as long as the cleanup.

9. ### AlphaOmegaWell-Known MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
Messages:
28,747
4,821
Trophy Points:
113
Exactly. You would need thousands of floors to calculate the resistance (slower than free fall). There simply isn't enough floors to even begin the calculation. It fell exactly as it should have.

10. ### JangoNew Member

Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
Messages:
2,683
16
Trophy Points:
0
1) The U.S. sells billions of dollars worth of scrap metal to China. Take any former industrial hub the U.S. had and you'll find dudes going into abandoned facilities and ripping out anything of worth. They then sell their wares to scrap yards. The scrap yards then sell their scrapheap to other countries, mostly China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0619/China-puts-up-a-green-wall-to-US-trash
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/13/b...-metal-keeps-us-scrap-dealers-scrounging.html

2) Has ANY word ever leaked out from China about anything suspicious about the scrap metals they got? Or how about the guys doing cleanup at Ground Zero? Or the scrap yard workers/owner?

11. ### ScottWell-Known Member

Joined:
Aug 17, 2008
Messages:
5,602
925
Trophy Points:
113
How about the testimonies of experts?

ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version)

I know these two below are about building seven but you pro-official version posters mainain that building seven didn't fall because of controlled demolition either.

Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org

The Death of Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about 9/11 WTC 7 Building 7

The info in this video below looks like pretty good proof to me.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
(2:40:20 time mark.)

It could have been done.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
(3:26:45 time mark)

There are plausible scenarios.

9/11 False Flag Conspiracy - Finally Solved (Names, Connections, Motives)

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/new-american-century/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-wa...st-reserves-of-minerals-and-natural-gas/19769

This is pretty lame. If there is a crime scene, our not knowing who committed the crime doesn't make the crime go away.

12. ### LogicallyYoursNew Member

Joined:
Aug 13, 2013
Messages:
2,233
5
Trophy Points:
0
Just more BULSH in light of the fact, you have no real evidence. Even the controlled demolition trade rag, Implosion World, says you have it all wrong. You people are laughable...worse, you marginalize the lives of those who died and those who worked to save lives with your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) fantasies.

13. ### cjnewson88Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jan 18, 2013
Messages:
1,133
31
Trophy Points:
48
So you're admitting you have no actual real, conclusive evidence of controlled demolition? I already knew that. But it's nice to see it admitted.

14. ### RonstarWell-Known MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Jun 19, 2013
Messages:
93,465
14,684
Trophy Points:
113

Oh yes, 9-11 Truth is for dummies!!!!

15. ### ScottWell-Known Member

Joined:
Aug 17, 2008
Messages:
5,602
925
Trophy Points:
113

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
(2:40:20 time mark.)

...doesn't make that evidence go away. You seem to be trying to mislead those viewers who don't have time to click on the link and look at it. All I can do in this case is ask the viewers who don't have time to look at it not to be swayed by rhetoric and withhold judgement until they can actually watch the footage from that video that has the evidence. I wouldn't even call it evidence. I'd call it proof.

16. ### LoneStrSt8New MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Jul 14, 2011
Messages:
9,012
33
Trophy Points:
0
The only one misleading here is YOU scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c.....the evidence of that is 'crushing'

17. ### Object227Well-Known Member

Joined:
Aug 21, 2010
Messages:
3,950
148
Trophy Points:
63
Gender:
Male
Ok, so here we go again.

The claim is that the Towers fell at free fall speed (false) into their own footprint (also false).

Only an extremely gullible paranoid or a person trying to be deceptive is going to claim this BS.

The typical 911 truther wants us to think that the towers were demolished by controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was hit by a disguised missile (forget that all the evidence proves that 4 hijacked commercial jets were the weapon of choice). One could easily suspect that these typical 911 truthers were serious dupes, patsies or posers used to persuade the public that 911 truthers are, in a word, NUTS.

Here's a conspiracy theory that works just fine since it fits the facts we know:
The US govt recruited and trained 19 middle eastern men to hijack commercial jets to fly into the buildings on 9/11.

Simple enough.

So why sell us on a whacky theory that all the facts clearly disprove? What is the point?

18. ### RonstarWell-Known MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Jun 19, 2013
Messages:
93,465
14,684
Trophy Points:
113
Yes, 9-11 Truth is for Dummies.

19. ### n0spamNew Member

Joined:
Jan 21, 2014
Messages:
485
0
Trophy Points:
0
Consider this if you will,
in order to completely destroy a building on purpose
the engineers examine the structure and then design a plan
and have explosives precision placed in the building to be
set off in a controlled timed manner, if this process has an
error, more than likely the building will not be completely destroyed.
Note the events of 9/11/2001, the towers + WTC7 were completely
destroyed, by what? unfocused energy from alleged airliner crashes
& fires? how was that done?

20. ### StndownBanned

Joined:
Mar 25, 2014
Messages:
889
2
Trophy Points:
0

You'd have to ask the US government specifically how it occurred, as only they know the entire story. False flags are quite common throughout history.

21. ### RonstarWell-Known MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Jun 19, 2013
Messages:
93,465
14,684
Trophy Points:
113
9-11 Truth is for dummies?

who knew?

22. ### LoneStrSt8New MemberPast Donor

Joined:
Jul 14, 2011
Messages:
9,012
33
Trophy Points:
0
Only where the government is a party....they had NO reason to 'blow up' the towers...

23. ### n0spamNew Member

Joined:
Jan 21, 2014
Messages:
485
0
Trophy Points:
0
Your speculation as to alleged lack of motive,

have a nice day

: )

24. ### HannibalNew Member

Joined:
Aug 17, 2009
Messages:
10,624
13
Trophy Points:
0
Why do you believe everything the Government tells you?

Don't be silly: look at the evidence. Only the Dummies think 'inside job'.

Joined:
Jul 14, 2011
Messages:
9,012