I'm not entering a debate here, I just have one simple question.

If you are a member of what is collectively known as the "Truth Movement" can you tell me if you believe that the twin towers fell faster than freefall?

I'd prefer a simple yes or no answer.

EDIT to reframe question in red

No. Seriously, how stupid can those questions get?

Unless you have a point to raise I would prefer a simple yes or no answer.

Do you use the JREF forum at all?

I gave you a simple answer. I haven't been on JREF forums for a long time.

Of course not faster then freefall... Its nearly freefall some guys here say its freefall but thats untrue.. Its nearly freefall and sure as hell not faster then freefall.

Got your answer?

honestly of you want to split hairs then no not free fall, but extremely close.


9.8 seconds is freefall, you can record the Twin tower times yourselves because you guys love split hairs the times average out at above 9.5 and below 10.00

WTC 7 did fall faster than free-fall though

Yes, WTC7 fell faster than freefall.

Parts of the building do fall faster than free fall speed. Their is a big cunk of concrete and steel that fall 6 seconds from the top all the way down. Its as if it was catapulted (hence bombs in building).

OK, I didn't realise the No. at the beginning was your answer, sorry about that.

I think I will need to reframe the question anyway to suit my research.

Actually freefall from the top of the towers would be 9.15 seconds.

The acceleration g = 9.8m/s^2.

Could you keep it to the Twin Towers please.

I think maybe I should have done a poll instead.

I am only interested in people's individual opinions on the Twin Towers.

its no opinion young'n its fact

I don't say or support "faster than freefall".

However if you believe and support the official story do you believe and support this statement......

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds."

--- 9/11 Commission Report page 305


That's damn close to freefall and would mean the South Tower collapsed with basicly no resistance.

its a 0.2 second difference

no none of the buildings fell faster than freefall. nothing falls faster than freefall. if it is falling faster than free fall then it has thrust. if it has thrust it's not in freefall.

thats why we call it a " PERFECT " demolition, excellent point there

Myke has a pic from a hollywood movie that shows what it might

have been like without the demolition, go to forum ,upcoming events,

" armageddon " pic is 7th reply from top . know you want a simple answer

this is not a debate, and I'm not a physics major, but I can subtract 1998

from year of 911. you do the math, need YUR opinion,

glad YUR back, used to work for structural engineers as a draftsman years ago



If you are a member of what is collectively known as the " truth movement "

can you tell me if you think pic from Armageddon had anything to do with 911 ?

I don't agree with your logic.

An object with enough additional "downward" thrust to overcome the "upward" thrust would fall faster than freefall so saying that nothing can fall faster than freefall is false.

Your assertions do not equate.

Darn I started debating!

if an object is exerting thrust it isn't falling.

free fall
–noun
1. the hypothetical fall of a body such that the only force acting upon it is that of gravity.

fall /fɔl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fawl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, fell, fall·en, fall·ing, noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to drop or descend under the force of gravity, as to a lower place through loss or lack of support.

I think the point he is raising is that the question is retardedly stupid...

Yea so if the WTC collapsed in about 9-10 seconds (let's say 9.5 seconds for the sake of argument)(Don't forget g=9.8 m/s^2). That means (V0 = 0 m/s, V9.5 = 93 m/s.
93 / 2 = 47 m/s) that the towers were about (9.5 X 47 = ) 447 Meters tall, Give or take 34 meters?

According to Wikipedia The towers were 417 meters tall. You do the maths. The towers came down at [B]NEAR Freefall/[B] speed.
My answer is No, they did not come down FASTER than Freefall speed.


IT--

Yes indeed.

What WB meant was this: if the fall is affected by any other force than gravity it is not free anymore, as the meaning of free regarding this is to be free from other forces.

If you throw a rock from a roof down to the ground the rock won't (couldn't) fly "faster as free fall", but will take less time than would be required in freefall.

Free fall has no speed.

A rock thrown down from a roof will gain less speed than one just dropped from let's say a plane in cruising altitude.

WB, just noticed that you already explained the meaning of free....it means free.

:lol:

Exactly, the building wasn't in free fall. It was in thrust. It was in thrust because it was going down faster than freefall.

In what way is the question retardedly stupid?

actually to me it looks like it takes the body of the towers 12-13 seconds to collapse while it took a random slab of concrete 9.7 to hit the ground. That cant be considered the collapse time if the towers were not fully collapsed yet.

Simple inaccuracies like that are what makes our truth movement so unbelievable. Watch videos and time it for yourselves and you will see it actually takes about 13 seconds which is still rather fast considering but it still differs from what truthers preach in the streets!

I really wish people would stop listening to other so called facts when they can just as easilly watch the tape and see other people are stupid and cant be trusted.

this video i believe shows it best....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=15...earch&plindex=1

If anyone can show me a better video of the collapse sequence in regards to timing how long it took please show me. I am looking for different angles of its collapse.

Just to reiterate the OP question...

If you are a member of what is collectively known as the "Truth Movement" can you tell me if you believe that the twin towers fell faster than freefall?

I know that you all you pseuds want to demonstrate how learned you are or aren't but it was a simple enough question. I didn't ask if the towers fell in free fall, or if they fell near freefall.

A simple yes or no answer from relevant people is all that is required. :rolleyes:

In the case of the North Tower, the building started "collapsing", and actually sped up its descent toward the earth.


See here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xo7t3XQ2PbM

No.

Oh snap.

I think most people are relying on the quotes in my signature for the official conspiracy theory numbers so who is stupid and can't be trusted (in general)? Coincidence theorists.

How do you making something in a free fall fall faster than a free fall without interupting a free fall?

am i dumb?
or does free fall accually mean an object falling freely without resistance.

No... i do not think the twin towers fell faster than free fall speed...

do you need to reiterate your question to get the anwser you want? :P