Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You cannot buckle your knees and descend any faster than free fall.
You most certainly can, for the same reason you can lift your leg in the air and buckle it at your knee from there; because your muscles can exert the force needed to do so. If you use the force of those muscles to buckle your knees to drop to the ground, that additional force can accelerate your descent beyond that of the force exerted by gravity. It's for this same reason the pegs on those whack-a-mole games drop so damn quick; because it is not just gravity bringing them down, but also a mechanical force acting along with it.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
As I read what Kyle is saying I get [perhaps not well said, but understood] the following: Any force, however slight, that resists or increases the 'Free Fall' acceleration of a body will do so!
Exactly, it requires force to bend your legs, just like it requires force to squish a spring. Granted your legs don't take much force to bend when limp, but what little force that does take keeps your acceleration a bit below that of free fall.
Originally posted by: Number1
The concept that the building would have been set up for demolition prior to the attack is mindbogglingly ridiculous but this is what the OP is implying.
Rather, that is what the period of free fall acceleration implies. Of course the other possibility is that the building was rigged to come down after the attack, but accomplishing such a task so quickly would be ridiculously amazing, so having been set up for demolition prior to the attack is the far more reasonable explanation.
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
If the guy was going to blow up the building to make money...
I made no such claim, but rather provided a credible source on what the total insurance payout was to him and the Port Authority, in response to an unsubstantiated claim of losses. Yet, you respond with an unsubstantated claim of losses, and accuse me of making a claim I never did. Do you not recognise the absurdity in your conduct here?
Originally posted by: ElFenix
jump up in the air. now, jump up in the air and land on a piece of paper standing on edge. did you notice any difference in your rate of descent?
Of course not, which is exactly my point. An approximately 105 feet tall section of the structure which was WTC7 provided a resistive force comparable to that of a sheet of paper while it came down. This free fall acceleration is well documented and indisputable, while the claim that impact damage and office fires caused the near complete near instantaneous removal the resistive force which had previously allowed the structure to stand contradicts demonstrable physical reality.
Originally posted by: Number1
It's funny how a kid using big words he doesn't even know how to spell assumes he is more qualified to tell us how WTC7 fell then the US National Institute of Standards and Technology.
It's sad that:
1) You refer to a 33 year old man as a kid.
2) You take issue with words based on their size.
3) You attack the effect dyslexia has my ability to spell and proofread.
4) You obviously not only lack any semblance of understanding of Newtonian physics, but apparently also lack any interest in gaining any.
5) Your willful ignorance leaves you to put faith in whoever you consider most qualified to tell you how WTC7 fell.
6) Your willfully ignorant faith in authority leaves to believe that NSIT told us how WTC7 fell.
7) When confronted with the facts which disprove your position of faith, you reflexively shoot the messenger.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, they did consider many possible scenarios, and subsequently ruled them out because the evidence on the ground didn't back up those scenarios.
Rather, they ignored any evidence which contradicted the official conspiracy theory, and
dance around like sock puppets when confronted about it. But again, the free fall itself disproves the official story, and your quoting a summery which pretends otherwise does nothing to change this.
Besides, in the OP is a link to the NIST report on the free fall and a quote from it which provides a more detailed explanation of NIST's claims than the summery you provided, a link to that report I had previously provided being presented right in what you quoted. Your refusal to address the facts I've presented makes me feel like guy who
couldn't convince Verizon that $0.002 ? 0.002¢. Seriously, I wonder if I'd have better luck explaining what the rate of carbon decay explains about the age of matter to a bunch of Young Earth creationists.
Originally posted by: Vic
All conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 'truther' conspiracies, can be recognized by ONE single trait: they ALL violate Occam's razor.
Sure, impact damage and office fires cause the resistive force which had previously held WTC7 up to effectively vanish, just like David Copperfield's telekinetic powers cased the Statue of Liberty to vanish. I get it now, the simplest answer is always the correct answer!
Or, wait, that isn't really how Occam's razor works. I suppose I should be more cautious to avoid being mislead by the arguments of falsers.
Facebook
Twitter