You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #15: Here's the original question from the report [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Here's the original question from the report
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

It appears they are answering the question, but slipping that little tidbit in about the first panels to hit the ground makes a big difference. Upon more careful reading of their statement, they never do answer the question has to what the total collapse times were.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -The Laws of Physics canetoad  Sep-15-06 01:44 AM   #0 
  - How did you determine that the collapse times were nearly the same? ( nt )  Make7   Sep-15-06 02:10 AM   #1 
  - Wow, a whole 2 seconds difference between the two collapses  DoYouEverWonder   Sep-15-06 04:10 AM   #12 
     - "times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground" nt  greyl   Sep-15-06 04:12 AM   #13 
     - Here's the original question from the report  DoYouEverWonder   Sep-15-06 04:49 AM   #15 
        - Look at the pics  vincent_vega_lives   Sep-15-06 10:51 AM   #24 
           - Well you better let the folks at NIST know that they didn't  DoYouEverWonder   Sep-15-06 03:24 PM   #41 
           - I don't disagree with that statment  vincent_vega_lives   Sep-15-06 03:37 PM   #42 
              - You can run rings around yourself logically  DoYouEverWonder   Sep-15-06 03:40 PM   #43 
                 - Its pretty simple really  vincent_vega_lives   Sep-15-06 03:44 PM   #44 
           - How  tenseconds   Sep-16-06 04:53 AM   #45 
     - That small a difference?  canetoad   Sep-15-06 05:24 AM   #16 
  - They're cool.  greyl   Sep-15-06 02:11 AM   #2 
  - I said irrefutable chaps. Next............  canetoad   Sep-15-06 02:35 AM   #3 
  - Like Yosemite Sam wears? nt edit:  greyl   Sep-15-06 02:43 AM   #4 
  - You ignored  canetoad   Sep-15-06 03:07 AM   #6 
  - Bullshit.  greyl   Sep-15-06 03:30 AM   #7 
     - Not for your education, for sure  canetoad   Sep-15-06 03:40 AM   #8 
        - You can't be serious. I gave an answer.  greyl   Sep-15-06 03:45 AM   #9 
           - Very fukken serious mate  canetoad   Sep-15-06 03:49 AM   #10 
              - Please see post #1. nt  greyl   Sep-15-06 03:54 AM   #11 
              - No play anymore.  canetoad   Sep-15-06 04:18 AM   #14 
              - It's the common language of OCT'ers (Official Circle Talkers)  Nozebro   Sep-15-06 10:22 AM   #22 
  - figures  tenseconds   Sep-17-06 09:48 PM   #56 
  - Why must the conventional (correct) explanation be "irrefutable", but  MervinFerd   Sep-15-06 07:55 AM   #19 
  - what makes the conventional correct?  mirandapriestly   Sep-17-06 02:12 AM   #51 
  - Irrefutable Chaps  cherokeeprogressive   Sep-17-06 02:15 AM   #53 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Sep-15-06 02:49 AM   #5 
  - Don't hold your breath. It's not going to happen. OCT'ers won't do it.  Nozebro   Sep-15-06 10:25 AM   #23 
  - no free fall  tenseconds   Sep-17-06 09:46 PM   #55 
  - Why don't you ask some structural engineers?  Anarcho-Socialist   Sep-15-06 06:07 AM   #17 
  - Talk to actual experts? People who actually know the field? WOW!!!  MervinFerd   Sep-15-06 07:52 AM   #18 
  - tower hit second 'fell' first  savemefromdumbya   Sep-15-06 09:36 AM   #20 
  - First tower to fall was hit at a higher speed, study finds.  greyl   Sep-15-06 09:45 AM   #21 
     - "[W]as moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair"  Ezlivin   Sep-15-06 11:40 AM   #25 
     - The plane wasn't flown beyond its limits, obviously.  greyl   Sep-15-06 11:50 AM   #26 
     - No, you have that backwards.  OldSiouxWarrior   Sep-15-06 12:25 PM   #27 
     - Plus, I think he's talking about Flight 77, not  greyl   Sep-15-06 12:34 PM   #28 
     - I took it from his quote  Ezlivin   Sep-15-06 12:56 PM   #31 
     - Ah, my quote? D'oh! nt  greyl   Sep-15-06 01:02 PM   #33 
     - No.  tenseconds   Sep-16-06 04:58 AM   #46 
     - You overlooked something  Ezlivin   Sep-15-06 12:55 PM   #30 
        - They were somewhat skilled and chance explains the rest.  greyl   Sep-15-06 01:05 PM   #34 
        - Hani Hanjour  tenseconds   Sep-17-06 09:54 PM   #57 
        - See post # 32  OldSiouxWarrior   Sep-15-06 01:36 PM   #36 
        - The jets obviously hit the towers, hence it is equally obvious the  Goldilocks   Sep-16-06 08:46 PM   #48 
           - jets  tenseconds   Sep-17-06 09:56 PM   #58 
     - That article was not reporting on 767's or 757's.  Make7   Sep-15-06 12:59 PM   #32 
     - So they can estimate the planes' speeds, but they can't tell  mhatrw   Sep-15-06 01:31 PM   #35 
     - The more accurate our measurement of speed,  greyl   Sep-15-06 01:36 PM   #37 
        - LOL! ( n/t )  Make7   Sep-15-06 01:57 PM   #38 
     - That is actually wrong  savemefromdumbya   Sep-15-06 02:49 PM   #39 
        - Actually provide an argument. nt  greyl   Sep-15-06 02:52 PM   #40 
  - because that's the way jesus wanted it  leftofthedial   Sep-15-06 12:54 PM   #29 
  - That IS the prevailing mentality, isn't it? eom  mirandapriestly   Sep-17-06 02:14 AM   #52 
  - irrefutable  LARED   Sep-16-06 05:14 AM   #47 
  - I think something went wrong with the plan  mirandapriestly   Sep-17-06 02:07 AM   #49 
  - Tell me why a few seconds makes a difference  mirandapriestly   Sep-17-06 02:10 AM   #50 
  - They aren't very good at ANSWERING anything and when they do, you  Nozebro   Sep-17-06 10:04 PM   #59 
  - RE: The Laws of Physics  Make7   Sep-17-06 09:39 PM   #54 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC