Quote from Haroki:
Huh? I said that 6.5 seconds IS disputed. It is shown that the ENTIRE collapse took more than 6.5 seconds. More like 13-15, nobody is able to give an exact time since it is obscured.
No the Main building structure (north wall as you put it) takes 6.5 seconds to fall to the ground. This can be seen on any CNN, FOX, BBC footage, as well as in your's.
You're also ignoring the fact that when, as you agree, the penthouses - which were supported by interior columns - collapsed through the roof, that THAT is concrete evidence that the interior columns were no longer doing their job. Namely, not supporting the structure. So yes, the resistance is "very close to zero at the time the above floor collapses on it."
[/B]
47 steel columns were disturbuted thoughout the building, not just under th penthouse ... hell what do you think was holding up the perimiter of the building! But yes, the main columns were blown out first by thermite, this is the only way to get a building to collapse ino on itself. That's a fact!
This the main point:
Therefore, as I said before, when your expert says that the "resistance" that should have been provided by these columns should have been sufficent to slow the collapse, his hypothesis is incorrect, since these interior columns have collapsed. The conclusion is that he needs to redo his math. Because yes, it fell that fast, "as if the thousands of tons of structural steel didn't exist" because while they existed, they weren't giving the "resistance" needed to validate your expert's hypothesis since they had already collapsed - internally, as shown by the penthouses's collapse into the interior of the building. If anything, they were just another load that the remaining, fire weakened columns needed to support. Capiche?
[/B]
Again, the perimiter steel supports were in place and should have provided resistance after central columns were blown out. So sorry Haroki, but thousands of tons of concrete and steel just don't "get out of the way" unless they are exploded out of the way.
And where did you get the notion that as "mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases" idea is correct?.
[/B]
The floor demolished from the ground up, you can see this is as the top floor are still intact as they approach the ground. As each floor from the basement up collapses there are less floors above it bearing down so yes what i said was correct. The force (weight) from above was decreasing and this shoudl have resulted in a deceleration, not the acceleration taht can be seen in any of the footage.
Think this through with me - if you were to drop something heavy, like say a bowling ball from a roof, and an EXACTLY same sized (which would give the same air resistance during the fall) volleyball at the same time, which would hit the ground first?
[/B]
Your question has nothing to do with it. However assuming that the volleyball occurs no extra aerodynamic drag they should fall at the same speed.
Force = gravity * mass
The force of gravity is greater on the bowling ball than
on the volley ball, proportional to their mass.
This means that if the bowling ball has twice the mass of the volleyball it will be pulled toward
the earth with twice the force.
However, as the acceleration is proportional to the force
divided by the mass. This means that the bowling ball will be accelerated
twice as slowly as the volleyball given the same force. So in order for the bowling ball to move
at the same rate as the vollleyball, the bowling ball must be submitted to twice the force. And this is exactly
what the force of gravity does.
I have a question for you. Take the top floor of building 7 and drop it from the same height as the original building 7, how long to hit the floor? Roughly 6 seconds. Now what happens if we put steel structures and concrete below that top floor and drop it again, how long? Well considerably longer than 6 seconds, how about "it aint going anywhere fast"!
Capiche?
Perhaps you need to do a little studying:
[/B]
Actually, you still don't answer why building 7 met no resistance even round the perimeters to fall in 7 seconds. I think you need to do some studying of the FACTS yourself Haroki.
Heard of probabilities?
what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).
Please, no more High School physics question, try to focus on the issues, you keep weaseling out of answering the question.
