You are addressing the wrong issue. The question isn't did it take 9, 10, 13, or 15 seconds to fall. We are not trying to determine if it fell at EXACTLY free fall speed.
That's exactly what I'm addressing Andy, and it did not.
This was a 90 story building. On the 78th floor, a plane hit. Below the 78th floor was 77 floors, undamaged, unheated, no fires, no broken supports or anything. Assuming the collapse started on the 78th floor, every lower floor... should scientifically speaking, put up some resistance... yes?
The WTC towers were 110 stories, not 90, with the roof level at 1,368 ft. above ground level, (have you done ANY research into this subject, or are you just regurgitating the CT garbage????).
The aircraft hit WTC 1 between the 93rd and 99th floors, damaging all 6 floors, and WTC 2 between the 77th and 85th floors damaging all 9 floors, so you're already operating under a severe misconception that the damage was limited to only 1 floor. The fuselage of a 767 is almost as high as 2 stories by itself, so even if it hit the buildings in "straight and level" flight, it would have still heavily damaged at least 2 floors, and that's not counting the tail, puts it's total height at about 54 ft., which means that when the tail hit, it would be striking a minimum of 6 floors (as it did when it hit WTC 1).
Further, we know from construction information, that lower floors were made from stronger, thicker, and more reinforced steel frames, than those above.
Obviously.
Nevertheless, let's assume not, and pretend the construction was horrible. Let us say that each floor required 0.5 seconds to collapse. 77 floors, times 0.5 seconds is... 38.5 seconds. Can you find any video footage anywhere, from any credible source, that shows the towers falling in over 30 seconds? No, not even close.
Go back and review your Newton, because your assumptions are faulty on their face. Using the basic rate of fall ("free fall speed"), IN A VACUUM, of 32ft. per second, SQUARED, if one were to drop something from the roof height if one of the WTC towers, again, in a vacuum, it would take 9.1 seconds to reach the ground, which it obviously did not.
Let's even say 15 seconds fall time. A 90 story building going from full height to flat in 15 seconds, is 0.16 seconds a floor. In a 6th of a second, is not even enough time for a floor above to land on the floor below.
Again, you fail to comprehend "free fall" velocity. It isn't a simple linear calculation, since the acceleration factor is SQUARED over time. For instance, if you went to the top of the Empire State building and dropped a brick, in the first second, it would cover a distance of 16 ft., but by 2 seconds it would have covered 64 ft., at 3 seconds it would have covered 144 ft., at 4 seconds it would have fallen 256 ft., and so on and so forth, and that's ONLY if it were falling in a vacuum, which obviously wasn't the case.
What this means is... either the towers were made out of metal the equivalent of pop cans, or the super structure was made from bambo shoots and mud thatch... or this is scientifically impossible.
No, what it means is that your assumptions are based on totally faulty logic, and an utter lack of understanding of basic physics. The assumption is based on "free fall velocity" which is a totally fictitious assumption because it was never in "free fall". It was impacting on all of the structures below it (pancaking) which momentarily retarded it's fall before being accelerated downward by the mass above it. If you really want to start having fun, then you have to start calculating for the mass, as well as the air resistance factors into the equation. Each of these calculations has to be done, floor by floor, calculating the velocity of the mass above as it strikes the floor below, the cumulative mass of all of the floors above (minus the mass that is still in free fall, minus the mass that is falling outside the footprint of the building itself, etc., etc.), the resistive force of the floor that is being struck, the air resistance, and so on, and so on, and so on.
I know that this is probably a waste of my time, but I'm going to post this
LINK of a structural analysis of the failure of the WTC towers. Perhaps if you'll take the time to study it, you'll see that all of this CT non-sense is just that, non-sense.
