wrote:

Its just quite sufficient for me to have realised as anyone else can that the top of the building can not hit the ground in free fall time going through the line of MOST resistance under gravity alone. To achieve that fall rate through the line of MOST resistance MUST mean that there were other forces in play.

So you are claiming that the towers fell too quickly to account for the energy required to smash successive floors and accelerate them to the fall speed. Which of the nearly infinite number of documents that troofers have generated actually demonstrates this? Remember that "free fall rate", or terminal velocity, I suppose, is not so easy to determine.

Your reference says:

Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air.

That is the explanation that your reference offers for why 10 seconds is too short a time for the collapse to have occurred without demolition. The author seems to have forgotten that each floor, once broken loose, is accelerated by the same force of gravity that the other floors experience. There is energy required to break the floor loose, and then there is the energy the mass of falling floors must provide to the new floor to accelerate it up to speed.* But that is pretty much it. It certainly is not thousands of times. I suspect it is not very much at all. Your reference implies that the building would fall over a period of minutes. Ridiculous!

* For example, if the falling mass consists of 100 floors, it takes only about 1% of its energy to accelerate the next floor up to speed.

LL, you do not understand what I write, so enough, and I am tired of your insults. Even more tired of your insulting behavior towards Ondelette. He is a smart guy, a lot smarter than me; pay attention to what he writes.

szm, so now you want to worry about the details? Not so simple, but remember that it does not take all that much energy to move mass horizontally. How does the energy to pulverize something like concrete compare with the energy to lift it 1000 ft? Think about it.

In the asymptotic case, a mass of many floors needs to accelerate the next floor up to speed. This does not slow it much. I do not think your calculation is right.

Consider this overly simple model to get an idea:

The top floor accelerates at g until it strikes the next floor. If it had a speed of v1 at impact, conservation of momentum gives (1/2)v1 after impact (overly simple, yes). The apparent acceleration is (1/2)g.

The top two floors accelerate at g until they strike the next floor. If we have v2 at impact, we have (2/3)v2 after impact. The apparent acceleration is (2/3)g.

In this way we get very close to g after a few floors.

On Sept 10, 2001, how could you have possibly planned for planes to be flown into our skyscrapers?

There also was that well-known plot involving that funny looking erector set tower in Paris. You know, those cheese eating surrender monkeys. Obviously, you would not want to pay any attention to some plot they uncovered.

Then there was the fact that the planes flying the flag of a certain mid-east country had reinforced cockpit doors for years. But we would not want to consider that. Too busy helping them out by giving them money to buy our weapons. And after all, we let them influence our foreign policy, and so we certainly would not want them to influence our airline safety rules.

One could go on, but no.

Who is defending the "official story"? If the physics supports the official story, then that is just the way it is. Facts apparently mean little to you guys. It is a cult, as Ondelette pointed out.

Lack of building code changes are only evidence against the official story if such practical changes exist.

And I thought your first post in this discussion was self-satire. Silly me.

Dragged during arrest, yes, but I missed the brutalization. Maybe that occurred later after the video?

(I do hope the guy sues.)

On the subject of thanks, thank you for answering the physics questions while I was out. (That old discussion was closed to comments before I had a chance to do this there.)

wrote:

Thus, Harman made the specious assertion that she would have been talking only to an "American citizen" when surveilled, in an effort to make herself look innocent, and the government spying suspicious, to an uninformed audience.

I missed the connection to the supposed "Foreign only" implication in FISA. I thought she was just engaging in the usual self-flag wrapping that politicians do, the kind of activity that keeps several Chinese virtual flag factories busy 365 days a year.