Naked eye is everything to the Truthers, because they never deal in actual science. And apparently you read that stuff and bought into it., or you would not have been here arguing the points you were arguing.
I didn't buy into anything. How many times do I have to repeat myself in that I only had the info of 10 seconds. As soon as I was given the data that the 10 second time was incorrect, I had the CORRECT data and that solved my question. The fact that the 10 second data was incorrect and it took longer for the towers to fall proved the point I was making that there had to be some resistance, which other posters were ignoring or offering false information. You know, bricks are not slowed by glass, then not enough to make a difference. The first question I asked was......."so how about an explanation in layman's terms explaining how the towers fell at a freefall rate?" I was asking that question while working with the incorrect 10 second collapse time data. Here's the answers to my question of ""so how about an explanation in layman's terms explaining how the towers fell at a
freefall rate?".............
1. "The fuel went all the way to the lobby. It burned from almost to the top to the bottom.
2. "I just explained it.The metal beams heated and expanded. They became like hot wet noodles. The outer vertical beams spread out and the inner floors had nowhere to go but down."
3. "F=ma Google it. Structure is weakened by fire. Floor above collapses on floor below since the floor below was weakens it couldn't support the mass above. Now instead of one fooor falling you have two on to the floor below. That floor is also weaker due to fire and can't support weight of two floors collapsing above. It's a domino effect explained by simple physics. The mass keeps getting bigger and bigger meaning force keeps getting bigger and bigger, thus the entire building collapsing."
4. "The floors directly where the plane crashed and fire started were weakened. The fire did spread I don't know how far down the building, but once it starts coming down the mass falling continues to increase as does the acceleration. This means the force coming down continues to increase more than likely exponentially with the increasing mass."
In terms easier for you to understand. Once it started coming down nothing would stop it PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION
5. "There's nothing stopping it once it gets moving. drop a brick through a window. It doesnt slow down. Once the main support structure is compromised it no longer functions properly."
6. "The floors were not load bearing, the outer frame was. It didn't take much mass to start pancaking the floors."
7. "aviation fuel. Put this in a perspective you might understand: someone dumps a whole quart of varnish on a counter top just beneath the poor quality cabinet you just hung. The varnish will burn through the bottom of the cabinet until all the heavy contents dump straight down. Additionally, the fire will burn through the counter top, so now you have your recycled cool whip and butter containers in a melted goo pile all the way down to the floor.
that help?"
8. "Now put 20 cabinets filled with four inch thick concrete, some steel, and a bunch of shit on fire and drop it on the counter top. Repeat with 40, then 80, then 100 and you start to get the idea. Also weaken the base cabinet sides attached to the counter top by flying a plane through them at 500 mph."
9. "No. I said that based on the force the resistance of the floor below wasn't enough to stop the load from above. The fire was t localized to one floor or area. The plane exploded on impact sending jet fuel all over the place starting fires all over the building, not just at the impact site.
I swear you are being intentionally dense in this conversation just because. It really isn't that difficult"
10. "Good Lord. The outers supporting beams were weakened and then when the floors above starting going down it was like folding up an accordion."
11. "The force was so large that the floor underneath the collapse wasn't strong enough to slow it down enough to make a difference.
And yes the glass would slow the brick but you wouldn't be able to tell just by watching it with the naked eye"
Now, finally at this point my question was answered by being given the needed data.....
12.
"They did not collapse at "free fall rate". To your eyes it looks like "free fall". It was approximately two seconds longer than "free fall" (this can be learned from many studies available on line.)
There is your resistance"
Until that point at which you gave me that information,
not a single poster had answered my question of ""so how about an explanation in layman's terms explaining how the towers fell at a freefall rate?" Every single attempt to answer the question was an attempt to persuade me that the freefall rate was possible because there was not enough resistance to prevent the freefall rate. Until you gave me the data in #12 above, every single answer provided was incorrect. Every single one of them. And I'll repeat: The fact that the 10 second data was incorrect and it took longer for the towers to fall proved the point I was making that there had to be some resistance.
Next time, how about you morons answer the real question that was asked, not an imaginary question. MORONS.
