How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing.
You are confusing acceleration with velocity. Not gonna say it again.
Where am I confusing it. Still haven't found that part.
how do you calculate free-fall
9.8m/s2
With simple algebra.
Except it's not as simple as you as a fitter might think.
http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224830797And
http://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/air_resistance_formula/85/Those are the basics only. Of course that's far from applicable at the WTC 1/2/7 scenario.
Your s = 1/2 a*t^2 formula is early highschool-skillset...
I'm pretty sure I know more about physics than you do
You assume too much.
If we wanna get real fancy we can plot change of acceleration using calculus.
But I am sure you knew that.
This is why people roll their eyes at you.
As I mentioned I've studied engineering for one year. So it happens that I've had calculus 8h/week, linear algebra 3h/week, mechanics 6h/week all those for one year. And you know, that was some real shit, not s=1/2 at^2... , integration, differential calculus, vector spaces, differential equations etc. Of course I do have some physics, too at my current major but that is, in comparison, some easy shit.
I'm actually really interested in seeing your "plot change of acceleration using calculus"
NIST calculated a 2.25 second fall at 9.8 m/s2.
You still seem to have reading comprehension problems. I quote myself, so you might re-read and understand
"
It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration. They even used the words "
essentially in free fall", "
estimation" and "
negligible support" making it very clear that those are
approximations and not absolute values."
What this means (so you might understand
) : There, of course, WAS structural resistance. But given the possibilites of calculating the actual collapsing speed and the supposed free fall speed and the resulting inaccuracies, it can be said that it was
neglible.
What in the world is this? On object will always fall into the path of the least resistance... This is all a demo is, manipulating mass and removing resistance. Why do you think the number one issue with a demo is making the building fall into itself...it's hard, not easy...And certainly not natural.
When was the last time you cut down a tree and it fell into its own foot print? Seen failed demos? What happens? they either don't collapse, fall over a direction, or partially collapse.
If I am drunk and fall over, I am going to fall forward or backwards, not vaporize into my own foot print.
Oh dear...Have you even read my answer concerning that? Or did you just not understand? Read again:
"Thats wrong. Physics says that gravitational froce points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need a great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.
For it to slide to one side that force might be due to a leaning ground; but if the ground is rectangular to the force of gravity, this force is 0 since m*g*cos(90)=0."
You have some
major knowledge gap concerning physics and (bio)mechanics. It would take too long to explain that all. Plus you wouldn't even try to understand it anyway.
Poll