How long is it going to fall?

Nearly as fast as it would fall through air?

Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself nearly as fast as it would fall through air? (When only force available is gravity?)

You need to be no expert in physics or structural engineering to answer this question. And you also need no expert to tell you what the answer is. All you need is a little bit of common sense.

Undamaged part of the WTC1 under the impact zone was approximately 5/6 of whole tower. Photos of impact zone of WTC1 can be found here to check that there is only 1/6 of the tower mass above the impact zone. Use sky lobby as a reference point. See also this picture and this video.

How long it really took for WTC to come down?

See this video for approximate measurement of time it took for WTC2 to come down. See seismic record for more accurate times of leveling WTC1/WTC2 (it was really about 10s, virtually free fall speed).

How this photo was done

WTC 1 tower photo on the right is from It has been retouched to show whole height of the tower.

I've created this graphic and I'm putting it here, with hope it will be possibly useful for other people and helps to open more eyes. If you want psd source, it's available here.


I hereby secede from all individuals greater age 6 who will not comprehend this and downgrade their bio rating from homo sapiens sapiens back to homo sapiens. I consider this an act of extremely good will.

interns < internets

Thank you

If this pic opens just one person's eyes, it was worth the effort.

That's the spirit!

Gratz for your prisonplanet plug! Well deserved, I might say. A mighty fine example of how a picture and a few words can convey more meaning than 10.000 pages signed by academics. Simple, yet effective. The way to go :-)

PS: I hope you don't find this condescending, but I'm really fond of the way slavic native speakers tend to omit articles. That is to say please don't ever stop omitting articles. I'm sincere.

interns < internets

Nicely done.

We need more of these simple common-sense explanations to counter the widespread FALSE “common-sense” conclusions — such as that fire can weaken steel beams just enough to cause total free-fall collapse, or that short debris piles must mean exotic weapons made steel and concrete disappear into thin air, or that non-decelerating plane tails prove absence of planes.

PS to bruce: Loved your explanation of happy atoms in your reply to Ningen:


This got to, really didn't expect something like this.

Show "Wow" by JamesB

Care to explain why?

I'd be interested in hearing your well thought out explanation.

I'd also be interested in hearing you explain the concept of conservation of momentum in relation to the towers collapse.

In other words, I'd like to hear you explain how it's perfectly normal for a building to "collapse" at 10 floors per second.

10 floors gone. ONE second passed.

Come on, Jimbo, don't be shy

I know it's not as fun as the "Holocaust denial" dog and pony show you MC at your dis-info blog(now dirrected at our Rosie), but you can give it a go.

BTW: when you're done with that, why did Patrick tell me that the fake "nico" and the fake "Pat" come from the same place? He just made that up, didn't he?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

response from Steven Jones

I thought this might be useful for Steven Jones, i.e. for his presentation, so I've sent it to him. Here is his response. He asked me to post it here:

I like it! See also the graphic and discussion in the Letter by Frank Legge:

JAYWEFFERS where are you?

Funny............ very little opposition!

How about it JamesB?

anything to say?........(besides gravity and Judy Wood are stupid)?

ever seen this?

a failed demolition..

head up, eyes open, fist clenched


..hilarious! What are you going to do but laugh when your demolition fails? Shake your fist impotently?


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

But when it succeeds...

do you dance on top of a van across the river?

Awright, let's not go there...


That is more like 1KG 2KG 3KG 4KG 5KG and 6KG on the bottom.

Bottom core colums were more than 4 inc. 100 mm thick, in the middle 65 mm, on the top only 20-30 mm thick.

So the top floors were much lighter than the lower floors.

Great point, The same applies to the exterior spandrel plates...

In fact, the column plates at the base of the two towers were 16 times thicker than at the top (0.25 inch versus 4 inch).

Fema quote from Building Performance Document

Best wishes

Good point...

and another stake to the heart in the "pancake" collapse:

The LIGHTER floors were supposed to CRUSH the HEAVIER lower floors?


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Glad to see PP picked this up

Similar arguments (and image) can be found here (Near the very end)

And a short, (much more recent piece) here:

updated version

To be even more understandable and closer to reality, here is a little modification.

Additional consideration

Great analysis!

It should be noted, howerver, that the top part was also totally destroyed - at the same near-free fall speed.

So the top section is supposed to have crushed everything below itself - and itself too! Isn't this a contradiction in itself?