MH370…

Exactly.

If the people who are quoting “freefall speeds” would like to go one step further, and explain what this PROVES ?

That would be greatly appreciated.

TJ asked for one piece of evidence that proves something other than the official findings.

The whole freefall/not freefall thing is NOT evidence of anything. It’s data, nothing more.

Working out the time an object takes to fall 1300ft (even with a margin of error for local air pressure) isn’t difficult.

As noted by others, the material ejected from the towers is falling faster than the top of the upper section. Next question (rhetorical): why isn’t the upper section falling at the same rate given that it’s already on the move and had several seconds to build up speed?

I know the above is a sideline. It’s the assertion that the towers fell at freefall speed therefore there was some extra mechanism (known only to those questioning the official version of events) allowing this to happen that I’ve issue with. Since the towers didn’t fall at the claimed speed why is there any need for the supposed extra mechanism?

1. There was a big plot to fly planes into the twin towers, terrorists were behind this. Conspiracy theorists believe that a huge network of USA political elites knew about it and either actively supported it or actively frustrated legitimate attempts to stop it. None of this is proven, there is no plausible evidence to suggest that a US conspiracy existed. If there is then none of the established investigative news outlets are interested in that.

2. two planes were flown into the twin towers – FACT

3. The towers both caught fire – FACT

4. Within a couple of hours both towers collapsed – FACT

5. The available evidence strongly identifies structural failure due to fire as the cause of the collapse. There is a significant amount of evidence to support this assertion. No plausible alternative theory for the collapse backed up by evidence has been provided.

6. Many theories have been put forward by conspiracy theorists, they are all highly implausible and do not stand up to practical scrutiny. For example the amount of people required to be in on any conspiracy to demolish the towers with explosives would be in the thousands, and be supported by physical evidence that hasn’t ever been provided.

7. There is not one single whistleblower who has publically said their were PART of a US conspiracy to demolish the twin towers.

8. The twin towers collapsed in a way that is consistent with structural failure due to fire. based on the expert review.

9. the towers did not fall at free fall speed – FACT

10. All available credible evidence points to the officially accepted historical record.

Anyway, there is literally no way this could have been a Government conspiracy.

It happened in SEPTEMBER for heavens sake. And not only that (as if that wasn’t enough!) it happened in New York!!

Just think about that, before typing out your conspiracy nonsense 🙄

Oh! Oh! Me sir! Me!

It was the invisible shift shaping lizards sir! It was them wot did it.

JHJ…are you seriously suggesting the towers were brought down to eliminate John P Oneil?…seems hard work, why not just car bomb him individually?…no government would go to that effort to take out a former FBI investigator…fair enough he was one of the first to ‘discover’ Al Qaeda and investigate (and link) the Saudi, Yemen and original WTC bombings but why leave his colleague Ali Soufan alive?…especially as he has been particularly scathing in his criticism of the CIA and says he could have prevented 9/11 if they’d released certain information to him?…in fact Ali Soufan is still alive and well, publishing books and is wheeled out for TV sometimes for debate on this matter…seems odd leaving him alive and taking out John P Oneil?

…or its just conspiracy theory horsecrap and John P Oneil was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Architects are generally not structural engineers. Most architects I know (I work with 20 odd) would not know one end of a beam calc from another..
I’m not a practising structural engineer but I can at least remember them from Uni.
So the word

is important because most architects take structural ratings and work with them rather than understanding it.
Is it possible that the forces on WTC7 due to impacts caused damage that was not measured – of course so, because it all happened so fast and then it fell down. It got smacked by some huge bits of material from the collapsing towers and then had a massive fire. If nobody was looking for conspiracy and were busy dealing with a world of shit, I can see why the investigators were a bit over zealous.
So the reality is that because the building did not meet some architects expectations maybe because the design codes were not meant for events of this type.

~Who are these qualified people then?

It’s also worth pointing out that a single positive or negative correlation is not PROOF of anything. Probability theory is a complex and very counter intuitive branch of science, and is misunderstood my most people.

For example:

STATEMENT: Last month someone was killed in a knife attack in my local town.
If the Police come and search my kitchen they will find my kitchen draws full of knives.

QUESTION: Did I murder the guy in town?

In this case, a positive correlation (guy killed with a knife, i own a knife) does not a PROOF make.

In the case of the WTC attack:

The WTC center employed approximately 30,000 people. If we include tourists and service personnel etc, the peak population of the WTC center was in the region of 50,000 people.

So, what is the probability that within those 50,000 people, we could find a suitable back story that could be erroneously used to justify a plot to destroy the towers?

I’d suggest that with a sample of 50k people, it’s not a possibility, it’s a certainty. Therefore using a single case (that ex FBI bloke) as PROOF of something is ridiculous

(and that’s before we get to the situation that any organisation capable of secretly destroying the twin towers to eliminate a single suspect could also have just sent a couple of guys around to his house, waited till he was alone, bundled him into a bag, into a van, tied a concrete block to the bottom and chucked him into the Hudson, never to be seen again, which seems like a rather cheaper and easier solution to me!)

Well, for example not all columns failed at the same time or cracks propagated faster in some concrete, not all steel was affected in the same way. Any kind of chaotic behaviour which might have resulted in differential effects across the tower.

@maxtorque – a (the) classic example of probability being counter-intuitive is “How big a group of people do you need for it to become more likely that at least two of them share the same birthday?”

Even with a finite number of options (365 if you disregard leap years) most people would guess at some very large number but the answer is 23.

thats because its in diego garcia…

edit: 😉 just in case…

Even with a finite number of options (365 if you disregard leap years) most people would guess at some very large number but the answer is 23

what is the percentage probability in that case? something like 50.01% I’ll wager?

how big does the group have to be to make the probability approach 100%

I missed out the 7 in that message, I meant WTC 7 at free fall speeds.

I said this earlier but it doesn’t matter what you do to a building, unless you hollow it out completely then turn all the structural elements to dust it won’t fall at free fall speed. Controlled demolition doesn’t do it, flying a plane into it doesn’t do it, setting fire to it then hitting it with a falling skyscraper doesn’t do it. Essentially to get a building to fall at freefall, you need teleporters to remove the inside, or rocket motors on the roof providing the exact amount of thrust to overcome the resistance of the building

@jonnyboi – correct. The question asks how big does the group have to be to make it more likely, not 100% certain.

[/quote]

Minor details in a large structure, which might have an impact on the exact point at which collapses begins, but it still collapses in the same manner, ‘downwards into it’s own footprint’.

You’ve still not put forward another manner of collapse or explained how it would happen and look, if you think it could collapse in another way then please explain how so….Back to the question.

If there’s another manner of collapse that you think is possible, please put it forward and explain it.

There’s only really 2 possible (and one impossible) scenarios

1 > structural failure initiates collapse, gravity + Mass means it collapses as observed, down and into its footprint (roughly)

2 > incomplete collapse, ie: bits of it collapse but not sufficient to progress and cause full structural failure, which would mean tower still standing but with a few small sections severely damaged <- clearly this didn’t happen, and is unlikely to in a building of that construction type, any partial collapse is likely to initiate a further collapse.

3 > it topples over <- this is the impossible one.

Are you suggesting something like a 4th option?

4 > large chunks break off and fall off in bits/top section falls off sideways? because this also is impossible, for reasons discussed on previous pages.

I can’t believe you are still going on this 🙂

This isn’t supposed to be adversarial. I put forward another mode of collapse, that of uneven failure rates.

The nature of chaotic behaviour is precisely that the results are not minor.

I understand that you are saying that given the way it failed, there was only one possible mode of collapse (though 100% is very unusual). But… uneven heat distribution, loading, pre-loading or other effects could have resulted in it failing in a different way. The ‘could have’ is the important bit here. You seem very definite that the actual outcome was the only possible one.