Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (13313)	8/13/2006 8:44:13 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Message 22716099

To: TigerPaw who wrote (13313)	8/13/2006 8:53:04 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

I don't see what anyone is trying to prove with these timelines anyway. I saw in one article that it said "freefall" was a dramatic signature of demolition, but why wouldn't a building that fell because it's column broke on it's own not fall at the same speed as building whose column was expolded? It's it gravity that determines the speed? Good questions. Free fall speed is the speed at which a body will fall through the air. You might recall that Galileo proved that all bodies, regardless of their mass fall at the same rate. That rate is the acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft/s/s. For a body to fall at free fall speed there would be nothing in the way to impede the fall. If columns were failing due to the weight above, they would have slowed the mass down due to the energy they would absorb during their failure. One explanation for the free fall speed is that the columns were cut by thermite reactions. These reactions could have been triggered by smaller "explosions" which would have acted as a "thermite match". You can read the rest of the professor's hypothesis here: physics.byu.edu