The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: You've hybridized two

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: While it is true that that an (see in situ)

You've hybridized two

You've hybridized two separate arguments of mine in a very weird way. The anvil thing was a response to 'speed' vs 'force'.

And yes, it will lose some energy, but the speed may still increase continuously due to the accruing mass. Hence the tower didn't fall at free fall speed, but close to it.

Think of a train ploughing through thick sheets of concrete and the power transmitted by the engine increasing linearly as a function of number of such barriers destroyed.

The time taken to cover a certain distance will be a function of speed at time of first impact, number of concrete barriers/ metre, thickness of concrete barriers, initial power provided by engine, the parameter for linear increase in power and mass of the train.

Now, clearly, several scenarios arise, of which one is that the resistance is small compared to the force of the moving train and thus it takes only a little more time than if the barriers were not there at all.

Once you understand this analogy and acknowledge that it is possible for a building to fall at near free fall speed, you only need to plug in the figures in the NIST report or other sources that 'buy' the official version to reach a conclusion.