Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition

An argument against controlled demolition debunkers have raised is that the WTC did not collapse at free fall rates. It is well known that a free fall drop from the height of one of the Twin Towers would be about 9.2 seconds. I except that the Towers took closer to around 15 seconds to collapse, so to the layperson like myself the addition of a few seconds doesn't seem to make a huge difference. However, debunkers have noted it does in fact make a very big difference. They point out that in order for an object to free fall in 15 seconds, it would have to be dropped from a height more than twice that of either Tower.

I have decided that this argument is invalid because it assumes that controlled demolition causes a building to fall at free fall. This is hardly ever the case. However, this particular argument gave me an idea on how to figure out if the rate of the Towers' collapses was consistent with demolition.

A free fall drop of 15 seconds would be from a height of approximately 3617 feet. The Towers were approximately 1368 feet tall. 3617/1368 = 2.64
Therefore, a 15 second free fall drop would be from a height approximately 2.6 times higher than either of the Towers. Now let's do this with buildings that are all known demolitions.

15 story building. 155 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 3.1 seconds.



Its actual fall time was about 6.25 seconds. How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in that amount of time?



629/155 = 4.05
A 6.25 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.

30 story building. 380 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.86 seconds.



A free fall drop in 7.375 seconds would be from a height of about 875 feet.



875/380 = 2.3
A 7.375 second free fall drop would be from a height of over twice that of this building.

31 story building. 376 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.83 seconds.



A free fall drop in about 10 seconds would be from a height of about 1640 feet.



1640/376 = 4.4
A 10 second free fall drop would be from a height over 4 times higher than this building.

24 story building. Approximately 288 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 4.23 seconds.



A free fall drop in 8.4 seconds would be from a height of about 1139 feet.



1139/288 = 3.95
An 8.4 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.

20 story building. Approximately 240 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 3.86 seconds.



A free fall drop in 6 seconds would be from a height of about 590 feet.



590/240 = 2.45
A 6 second free fall drop would be from a height about 2 and a half times higher than building.

So, to summarize:

(15 story building) 629 ÷ 155 = 4.06 About four times higher

(30 story building) 875 ÷ 380 = 2.3 About two and a third times higher.

(31 story building) 1640 ÷ 376 = 4.4 Almost four and a half times higher.

(24 story building) 1139 ÷ 288 = 3.95 Almost four times higher.

(20 story building) 590 ÷ 240 = 2.45 Almost two and a half times higher.

And for the Towers:

3617 ÷ 1368 = 2.6 About two and a half times higher.

It was seem that, based on the debunkers' own arguments, the Towers evidently did fall in time intervals that would be considered consistent with buildings brought down with controlled demolition. But this is extremely problematic because:

a) Both of the collapses started from the upper sections of the buildings, not the bottoms.

and b) Supposedly no explosives were used to bring the buildings down according to the official story.

The only other example of a steel structured building collapsing from top-down due to fire is the partial collapse of the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. This building was a 13-story structure that burned for over 7 hours. A section of its facade collapsed from the fire. Here's how long it took to collapse.



10 seconds for 13 stories to partially collapse. (13 stories equals approximately 160 feet) How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in 10 seconds?



About ten times taller.

In conclusion, the rate of fall of the Twin Towers appears to be consistent with the rate of fall for buildings brought down with controlled demolition. At the same time, their fall rates are inconsistent with the rate in which other steel framed buildings have fallen top to bottom from fire. So ask yourself, "what is more likely to have destroyed the buildings? Fire or explosives?" You decide.

Update:

This is extremely problematic in the case of Building 7.

47 story building. 610 feet tall. Free fall time would be 6.1 seconds.

See: Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7



A free fall drop in 6.6 seconds would be from a height of about 701 feet.



701/610 = 1.1

A free fall drop of 6.6 seconds would be from a height less than 100 feet shorter than the height of Building 7. In other words, NIST would have us believe that fire accomplished something that even explosives don't always accomplish.

Debunking Joseph Nobles: Freefall Speed

This is a response to the AE911Truth.Info page titled "Freefall Speed." Here, I will examine the arguments made by Joseph Nobles and see if they are justifiable.

The Difference Between "Speed" and "Acceleration"

The first point Mr. Nobles makes is one I happen to agree with. It is clearly more appropriate to say "acceleration" rather than "speed" when discussing the issue of free fall. However, I have often felt that trying to determine if the WTC fell at free fall acceleration is in itself somewhat misleading. If we are trying to establish whether or not the buildings were controlled demolitions, then the question really should not be "did the buildings fall at free fall?" The question should be "did the buildings fall in time intervals consistent with controlled demolitions?" That of course begs the question of whether or not buildings destroyed through controlled demolition fall in free fall. More on this will be discussed below.

Rate of Collapses

Mr. Nobles features this photo to demonstrate how the debris coming off from the Towers is falling faster than the Towers themselves.

While the debris is certainly falling faster than the actual collapse, the wave of the destruction appears to be keeping up with the majority of the debris. David Chandler has outlined this characteristic of the collapses very accurately.




What's more, the rate of fall for some of the pieces of steel has itself been shown to be a smoking gun.

It has already been established that the total time for the Towers to come down was approximately 15 seconds in either case.

Mr. Nobles then presents this video to demonstrate that Building 7 actually took close to 16 seconds to collapse.



This is an issue that has been addressed several times already, but many debunkers still think the fall of the east penthouse invalidates the idea that WTC 7 was a demolition. I myself have already shown the collapse of column 79 and the penthouse is problematic enough. And it is not impossible that roof elements can collapse in a demolition before the main structure.



Sure, there was a much shorter gap between the two events than with Building 7. But clearly the idea of sections of the roof falling in a demolition before the main structure is not unheard of.

Oddly, Mr. Nobles refers to the main structure of WTC 7 as a "portion" of the collapse. That makes it sound like it was a very small part of the building that collapsed. The east penthouse could be more accurately described as a "portion."

Measurements of the Fall Rates

Mr. Nobles attempts to demonstrate that the rate at which the buildings fell has already been well accounted for by several sources.
He first cites a statement made in NIST's FAQ on the WTC, ignoring the fact that nowhere in NIST's report do they explain the actual total collapse of the buildings.
As 911research.wtc7.net points out:

NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd:

-It requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.
-It ignores the fact that most of the rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.
-It is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.

Mr. Nobles then cites the work of Bazant et al. He refers to Bazant's work as providing "more rigorous calculations" and that his papers have been published in "respected scientific journals." However, several refutations to Bazant's work have been written over the years. Two refutations have even been peer reviewed and published in the same journal Bazant's papers have been published in. Those can be viewed here and here.

Although Mr. Nobles portrays NIST and Bazant as having explained that "the acceleration of their descent was not mathematically unusual," there are phenomenons in the collapses of both buildings that neither NIST nor Bazant account for.
One of which is the instant acceleration of the upper section of WTC 1. Debunkers have yet to provide any rational explanation for this event.
Another phenomenon is the disintegration of the upper section of WTC 2 as it collapsed. 911research points out that:

"It is clear that that the top section itself must be disintegrating. Otherwise the top section would have extended far into parts of the building that are clearly as yet unaffected by the collapse."

And video evidence confirms this.

Mr. Nobles makes some mention of the fact that portions of the cores of both Towers remained standing after the collapses. However, video evidence shows that the remaining core of the South Tower included neither north nor west columns.

And there was hardly anything left of the North Tower's core.



Despite Mr. Nobles' claims to the contrary, the rate at which the Towers fell is greatly at issue.

The Fall of WTC 7

Mr. Nobles lastly attempts to refute many arguments made about the collapse of WTC 7. Mr. Nobles believes that the main structure of WTC 7 also did not fall in 6.5 seconds. He features this diagram to illustrate this point.

I've never particularly liked using pictures to track the fall of any of the buildings. I feel that the videos speak for themselves.




Mr. Nobles makes quite a remarkable statement in regard to the collapse of the building.

"As shocking as it may be to our inexperience in large buildings falling, this is how quickly buildings of this size fall when they begin to collapse."

Oh really? If that's the case Mr. Nobles, then why did these buildings, all known controlled demolitions, take as long and even longer to fall than Building 7? Considering the fact that all these buildings are shorter than Building 7 and supposedly fire, not explosives, brought Building 7 down.



Controlled demolition clearly doesn't always cause a building to fall at free fall.

Finally, Mr. Nobles attempts to explain the period of free fall Building 7 underwent in its collapse. And like all other debunkers, he attributes this to the alleged buckling of eight of the lower floors. I recently demonstrated in two previous posts that these claims are clearly unfounded.

Conclusions

Mr. Nobles has clearly not explained the collapse anomalies of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Nothing will ever accurately explain what happened to those buildings until a new investigation is finally launched. One thing is for sure though: fire cannot cause a steel framed building to fall at the incredible rate at which the WTC fell in. The only example of a top-down progressive collapse initiated by fire is one in which a 13 story building took 10 seconds to partially collapse.

Because it can Never be Repeated Enough: 9/11 Experiments: Collapse vs. Demolition

Any theory that does not match experiment is wrong. It doesn't matter what the computer models predict, how much funding is behind it, what the experts say, or what everyone "thinks". Nothing can fool the laws of physics.




http://www.sott.net/articles/show/210712-Because-it-can-never-be-repeated-enough-9-11-Experiments-Collapse-vs-Demolition

Remember: only the truth about 911 will stop the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Related Info:

The Conservation Of Angular Momentum In Action...

Distorted Tilt Confirmed

Debunker Verinage Fantasies are Bunk!

The Physics of WTC 7