Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
spiff
If you don't believe my link, research and come back here with what you believe to be true. I'm not about to go find the student that posted the PDF chart online and ask him "Yo dude, was this real?". That's ludacris.
I'm argueing that the WTC fell in freefall speed. I'm giving my opinion, backed up with research that I've come across, that it takes an object between 8.7 and 9.2 seconds to fall from the top of the WTC, to the ground below. You are not refuting my points, you're simply argueing that the research I've done is flawed.
If that's the case, find me the -correct- free fall speed for an object that was dropped from 1362 feet (or 1262 if you want to use the rubble pile as the "ground" level.
You will find that the correct speed is 8.7 to 9.2 seconds. If you hate my link so much, please find your own and come back here with it. You're avoiding doing this, because I think you've now realized that freefall speed of an object dropped from 1362/1262 feet is 8.7 to 9.2 seconds. You then realized that the WTC fell in 9.2 seconds. You cannot argue that point any further, but instead point to the "flawed research" to argue your points.
The research is not flawed and it takes 8.7 to 9.2 seconds for a free-falling object to hit the ground below from a height of 1362/1262 feet.
The Towers fell in free fall speed. Eod.
Why would you have to ask anyone? It was a "experiment was done by Columbia University" according to you. A experiment of of that nature sponsored by a university would certainly be available on one of the Science Department computer and accessible via the Internet.
An experiment done by a university is a whole lot different then an experiment done by a student as if it was for some undergraduate science class. It is even more implausible that the university would fund something like that or that the WTC or city would approve.
But really why does it even matter?
No one in this entire thread, including myself, has ever refuted the physics of a free falling object. No one. It means nothing. Point out where I or anyone else refuted that fact.
The graph that you are claiming was a Columbia University experiment does not prove in any way that the building collapse in free fall. The physics of a free falling object and whether or not the building actually collapse in free fall are not the same.
Do you not see that? Using your theory then what is the problem? Your justification has become that any building that collapses for ANY reason would drop in free fall because if you dropped an object from the top it would descend in free fall. If that were true then you would be arguing against your own point. Again the graph does not prove anything about the collapse.
If the experiment actually happened (although it is becoming more and more clear that it did not) then it shows actual data confirming the physics you presented in your first post and refuted by no one.
If the experiment did not happen and the data was fabricated the times shown are still close to the theoretical value and seem plausible.
The fact that a billiard ball did (if it happened) or would have (if fabricated) does not prove the building fell in free fall.
There can be no argument about that and no one is arguing about the general principles of an object in free fall except you.
What the graph doesn't prove is whether the building fell in the time you claim. That can't be refuted. Show me on that graph where it proves your position. Show me the post in which someone refuted the physics of a free falling object (that doesn't count posts thinking you are wrong about the time of the collapse). That is the key. It isn't the physics. It is whether your time for collapse is correct.
Therefore the graph only proves something that doesn't need to be proved as it is universally accepted.
You being someone with a Masters of Science certainly understands that. So if it doesn't help your position why post it and why post it as being performed by Columbia University?
The only logical reason is that you are trying to present the illusion of support for your position is shared by a respected institution of higher learning. By stating Columbia University it gives the appearance of reputable source supporting your claim (even though the link is for a site dedicated to conspiracy theory ideas). Since Columbia University supports your general object in free fall statement (again which is a universally accepted principal of physics) then by extension they must support your claim the building fell in free fall.
"Look Columbia University performed an experiment that supports my position that the building fell in free fall."
Even if that experiment did happen (which is unlikely) it doesn't support your claim.
The crux of the issue is how long did it take the building to fall not how long it would or did take a billiard ball to fall.
A common element throughout this thread is that anyone that isn't on your side will always provide flawed research. Since you are right and the information provided goes against your argument it therefore by definition must be flawed. On the other hand you will never provide flawed research.
There are 2 other certainties:
1) You will NEVER be convinced by anyone that your time is incorrect.
2) You will NEVER convince anyone that your time is correct.
Hot Forum Topics
){kind=link}