[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', 'I') did. You basically ignored it, so this isn't really a debate at all. ...

[Armageddon]

lighthouse, the only thing you added to this entire debate is a formula on how fast the building collapsed, which is basically irrelevant due to the fact that there explosives places at different levels that can alter the speed at which an object is brought down. . You have added nothing and also fail to acknowledge credible evidence proving explosives were detonated at the lower levels by many eyewitnesses, which in fact you are not one of.

[Armageddon]

wtc 7 came down at free fall speed, towers 1 and 2 did not imo. They had detonators at different levels, which caused it collapse at the bottom, and also the top. Too many eyes were watching for it not to be done this way. They had to make it appear it was coming down from the top because of the planes hitting it there, but the thermite at the base made the entire buildings collapse quicker.

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('armegeddon', 'l')ighthouse, the only thing you added to this entire debate is a formula on how fast the building collapsed, which is basically irrelevant due to the fact that there explosives places at different levels that can alter the speed at which an object is brought down. . You have added nothing and also fail to acknowledge credible evidence proving explosives were detonated at the lower levels by many eyewitnesses, which in fact you are not one of.

[Armageddon]

I think it is irrelevant due to the fact that explosives would alter the speed.

[Armageddon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('armegeddon', 'l')ighthouse, the only thing you added to this entire debate is a formula on how fast the building collapsed, which is basically irrelevant due to the fact that there explosives places at different levels that can alter the speed at which an object is brought down. . You have added nothing and also fail to acknowledge credible evidence proving explosives were detonated at the lower levels by many eyewitnesses, which in fact you are not one of.

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('armegeddon', '
')
How can I have a debate with you when you ALREADY twisted what I said. I said wtc 1 and 2 may NOT have come down at free speed due to the variables I listed above. Wtc 7 did collapse at free fall speed.

[dukey]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y suggestion is we start with the question:

Did the buildings come down in freefall speed?

[Armageddon]

I dont know the formulas , but you can see it came straight down just like any typical emploded building that you have seen many times. ( wtc 7 ) It had zero resistance

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukey', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y suggestion is we start with the question:

Did the buildings come down in freefall speed?

[dukey]

you can download the video off the website
then just play it on your mac
http://video.stage6.com/245557/1050833.divx
its just a renamed .avi file ..
http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/
divx for mac It's worth it the quality is 10x than youtube crap

With much reluctance i agreed with lighthouses maths. I misunderstood what you were doing with the final speed .. my bad And also wondering where you got the figure of 13 seconds from. But anyways moving on.

The figure 9.2 is the speed an object would fall in a vacuum. Objects in real life would always fall a little slower due to wind resistance. I'm not sure on the exact relationship but wind resistance is the reason objects reach terminal velicity as the force of gravity gets counteracted by wind resistance and acceleration stops but speeds remains constant. Hm somewhat offtopic

Back to the video, its just gob smacking that the building would fall THAT quickly. Ie around 10 seconds. It is almost as if it fell out the sky with nothing holding it up. It crashed down into the path of most reistance, countering what seemed to be very little/no reistance offered by the building below whilst huge amounts of concrete/steel gurders are being thrown horizontally.

[Armageddon]

only if you admit that they could not "pancake " ? Pancaking is not a viable answer either.

[Armageddon]

pancaking would have most definitely taken longer due to the resistance. That cannot be debated.

[dukey]

the pancaking theory is pretty much impossible. The building simply fell too quickly.

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukey', 'T')he figure 9.2 is the speed an object would fall in a vacuum. Objects in real life would always fall a little slower due to wind resistance. I'm not sure on the exact relationship but wind resistance is the reason objects reach terminal velicity as the force of gravity gets counteracted by wind resistance and acceleration stops but speeds remains constant. Hm somewhat offtopic ...

[dukey]

watch this video ..
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _waves.mpg
its quite interesting

That look like pancaking to you ?

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukey', 'w')atch this video ..
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _waves.mpg
its quite interesting

That look like pancaking to you ?

[dukey]

I was curious for my own benefit ..
just how much of a difference air resistance would make
what speed do sky divers reach before they hit terminal velocity ?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example, the terminal velocity of a skydiver in a normal free-fall position with a closed parachute is about 195 km/h (120 mph or 54 m/s).

[kokoda]

My review of "Loose Change: second edition"

This is just a quick first impression review ... I may go into more depth later.

Their theory is elaborate and complex.

At the beginning of the video they list a series of events dating back to 1962 ... all of which purport to lead up to the attack on the world trade center.

However they fail to mention several other events that I consider to be crucial.

A big deal is made of the fact that in 1997 and 2000 a couple of anti-terror documents were released depicting the WTC in crosshairs on the cover. Why should that be surprising or significant? The WTC was a high profile US terror target. The producers conveniently forget to mention is that in 1993 the WTC had already been a target of a terrorist attack.

They also failed to mention several other plots by terrorists to use aircraft a weapons to attack buildings and cities.

In 1993 the Egyptian government uncovered a plot by a Sudanese Air Force pilot to crash a plane into the US embassy.

In 1994 by the Algerian Armed Islamic Group ( associated with Osama Bin Laden) hijacked a jetliner and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel Tower.

In 1995 Philippine police uncovered a plot to Hijack an American Passenger Jet and dive it into CIA headquarters. The ring leader was turned over to US officials. It was subsequently found that he planned to hijack or destroy several aircraft simultaneously.

In 1996, as a result of these and other incidents, US federal officials began to look seriously at the prospect of terrorists using aircraft to attack US buildings. It should not be surprising that they conducted a number of military exercises based around that contingency.

Good investigative journalism looks at all the evidence, analyzes it, and presents conclusions based on that evidence.

Bad investigative journalism looks only at evidence that supports its case, ignores the rest ... and fills in the gaps by using speculation.

“Loose Change” is an example bad investigative journalism. It fills in some of the gaps using pure speculation ... the sort of stuff you would expect to find in a “James Bond” movie.

We are to believe that the attacks on the WTC were made by robot controlled cargo aircraft. Over 250 passengers were spirited away and presumably either being held in detention ... or worse. We are expected to believe that their last minute telephone calls were faked using technology that could almost perfectly imitate the voices of the “missing” passengers and ... the list goes on.

No clear motive was given for this elaborate conspiracy. Just some reference to a single line in a neo-con document in which it refers to a Pearl Harbor event. A whole lot of other things were thrown into the mix ... insider trading, insurance scams, gold theft ... I guess if your main motive is so weak then you have to muddy the waters a little. They forgot to mention any peak oil stuff ... maybe they will include that in the third edition.

The rest is nothing new ... just the usual speculation.

[NEOPO]

Oh joy - all this lighthouse so you can come to the very same conclusion that they did in loose change "Near free fall speed".
If ya wanna get technical a good technician could actually remove or add frames from film/video to extend or decrease the time shown and a bunch of other neat "tricks".

Pigeon hole bullshit is exactly what this is and Kokoda's review pffft a joke at best....
Very lame - very weak.
Wow huh? talk about a fucking waste of time.
9 seconds? 10 seconds? 11 seconds?
Yeah lets talk about the angle of the cut on that beam and not the fact that most of the steel was shipped to where? china? WTF....

So they could have made the movie 4 hours long and it still would have gotten this much exposure?....gimme a break.

1:30:00 is a real stretch for most people unless they are being "entertained".

Bad investigative journalism as opposed to what? show me the good investigative journalism please.

What loose change proposes comes from the play books of the CIA.
This stuff is too good to be fiction.
Using fake planes, radio controlled et al.
Nope - none of it fiction.
And even though you think more relates to it and I agree - there is still a time format and viewer attention span to consider.
You are simply against it or you are not thinking yet at this point I STILL do not know which is the case.

"a quick first impression review" well isn't that special....

Good luck and good night.