(July 17, 2009 at 7:58 am)Pippy Wrote: The logic goes as follows. The buildings fell to the ground in a little over 9 seconds each. For something to fall at that speed it has to have almost no resistance, as is mathematically based on Gravitational law. That strongly, to me, contradicts the "pancake collapse" theory, since such a theory involves a lot of resistance as the floors make contact with one another. To see, as we all did, the building disappear into dust in such a very small time frame makes it almost impossible that a short burning kerosene fire could have had the observed effect on the structure. So I feel that it is a piece of logic, based on grade 9 science class, that shows that it literally could not have happened the way we are told it happened. See how I think I am trying to base my opinion on my best argument, not just rehashing the conspiracy videos. The best thing I read was about remember what you saw and how you felt on that day. And that reminded me of the awe I felt in watching the buildings fall. That I did not expect for that to happen at all, and that something about the event did not add up. Mostly the speed and level of destruction during collapse.This is just another example of the "truth" movement distorting the actual event. Yes, the debris from the tower (i.e. the cloud of dust and bits of metal ejected when the tower started to collapse) fell to the ground in 9 seconds.
Just one strong example, in my mind...
The actual towers took much longer, and video of the event can show this very effectively:
[youtube]qLShZOvxVe4[/youtube]
Perhaps you shouldn't base logic on 9th grade science, but actual science? Further calculations: http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy...peeds.html
It's just ridiculous that people can say they are being "scientific" and that it is "obvious" when they haven't even bothered to time the collapse themselves. They just do the calculation and say that the figure they calculated is the actual collapse time.
