Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy fact and I quit ATS - WTC7: perpetual motion scam and the easy physics

I find it difficult to find solid posts or threads on 9/11 which cannot be attacked and highjacked easily by the usual tactics of 9/11 specific debunking, derailing or using irrelevant arguments. I welcome debunkers and skeptics (can be quite a UFO skeptic myself ) but in many cases it's 'pick at straws and not answer or debunk the question or data' when 9/11 is in the spotlight. After reading the most recent 9/11 physics thread, with a general lack of physics equations, I figured I'll do a proper, easy to comprehend physics thread. I have been penning this for months in various forms but figured I'll cut straight to the chase instead.

I write this thread to hopefully provide an easy reference or method of writing a question to absolutely shatter debunkers of 9/11 truth once and for all - for to debunk this one, you need to debunk the very framework of the physical reality that surrounds us. I am not the first person to use this data methodology and many 9/11 official story doubters will understand this already.

World trade centre building 7 (WTC7);
WTC7 was a 47 story building owned by Larry Silverstien, occupied by various letter agencies and ENRON investigative records, which on september 11th 2001, fell at NIST admitted freefall. You can measure and confirm this for yourself off videos available. Free fall is a word used to commonly describe acceleration at gravitational constant, normally an average figure of 9.8ms-2. Nist admitted at least 2.2 second free fall occured, other data sources confirm most of the collapse sequence was freefall, a much larger figure than 2.2 seconds.
However to keep this official and simple, we'll use NISTs own 2.2 seconds. We have 9.8ms-2*2.2seconds which equals 23.716 meters of fall (d = 1/2 * g * (t^2)). In a bottom up collapse this translates to over 5 floors with 4 meters per floor height given. Over 5 floors, hundreds of steel columns, hundreds of desks, chairs, computers, cabinets, files, hundreds of tonnes of rebar concrete floor and other construction material, provided no resistance to the falling mass and were crushed in less time than it takes to read this italicised text!

A free fall collapse violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, merely changed from one form to another. To collapse at freefall you are using all the gravitational potential energy (potential energy from being raised above the earth in this reference) to accelerate downwards, leaving no energy left to bottom-up crush and pulverise 47 floors of rebar concrete and hundreds of interlinked steel columns supporting the structure.

To debunk this you need to do at least one of three things:
A) Show where the energy came from to simultaneously destroy each floor one after another, during the collapse sequence of the entire structure - it could not come from the falling mass without violating the law of conservation of energy. Diesel fuel, exploding UPS batteries, LPG cylinders and swamp gas do not pulverise entire floors and 47 story buildings of concrete and steel.
B) Prove that the resistance of the structure is zero. If so, how did it ever stand in the first place and/or what caused simultaneous zero resistance across the entire structure, floor by floor.
C) Debunk the law of conservation of energy.

It appears that WTC7 was a free energy or perpetual motion device when examining NISTs own data and findings.

edit for trimmed subject and epic 4am calculation fail.


[edit on 5/3/10 by GhostR1der]

Doesn't the extra energy come from the big planes smashing into the other buildings, causing their collapse, and debris & fire spray onto #7, sort of like trickle-down economics works



[edit on 5-3-2010 by Signals]

Originally posted by Signals
Doesn't the extra energy come from the big planes smashing into the other buildings, causing their collapse, and debris & fire spray onto #7, sort of like trickle-down economics works

Causing a complete and symmetrical collapse? No, NIST's explanation is just plain impossible. There might have been an asymmetric/partial collapse from damage to one side.

"This is seventh grade physics." -- Richard Gage

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Crito]

Originally posted by GhostR1der

However to keep this official and simple, we'll use NISTs own 2.2 seconds. We have 9.8ms-2*2.2seconds which equals 21.56 meters of fall.

Forgive me if i'm wrong but I think your math is incorrect. It has been a while since my physics classes, but gravitational acceleration @ 9.8 m/s^2 *2.2s would = 21.56m/s which is a velocity, not a distance.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b491cede05fc.png[/atsimg]

a (assuming freefall) = 9.8 m/s^2
v=?
v0 (initial velocity) = 0 m/s
t= 2.2s

Therefore, with the given parameters, you are solving for the final velocity of the building, which is dynamically changing throughout the fall.

If you want to find the distance covered by a free falling object use this formula. d=.5*g*t^2

So in this case
d=.5*9.8*(2.2)^2
d=23.72m

So it actually covered more ground then you calculated! Sorry, i'm a stickler for math.

-E-

P.S. Don't quite ATS though!
P.S.S. I am totally not a debunker, and I believe the OS is CRAP!

[edit on 5-3-2010 by MysterE]

Originally posted by GhostR1der
A free fall collapse violates the law of conservation of energy

If you can be convinced that somehow the laws of physics were violated that day then presumably you'll believe anything, including weird conspiracy theories. If you're unable to understand physics you probably don't have a solid foundation to respond to any kind of "debunking". Good luck.

And the straw man arguments begin...

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by GhostR1der
A free fall collapse violates the law of conservation of energy

If you can be convinced that somehow the laws of physics were violated that day then presumably you'll believe anything, including weird conspiracy theories. If you're unable to understand physics you probably don't have a solid foundation to respond to any kind of "debunking". Good luck.

Best of luck using ad hominem arguments to discredit the 9/11 scientific truth movement. Crazy al-Qaeda conspiracy theories just don't hold up to close scrutiny. That's why the public will never hear a word from the supposed terrorists and masterminds who had confessions tortured out of them.






[edit on 5-3-2010 by Crito]

reply to post by MysterE


Can't believe I did that dudu after proofing it many a time. This is why I should turn the computer off prior to 4am >_< to avoid mixing d=v*t and d = 1/2 * g * (t^2). Still turns out at over 5 floors (I was a filing cabinet out for being a dudu), plus it still violates the law of conservation of energy. Facts still stand!

I do wish truthers would stop talking about things " violating the laws of physics ".

It is trite and meaningless. If it happened on this earth it obeyed the laws of physics. Or perhaps you believe in the supernatural ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Or perhaps you believe in the supernatural ?

Well Dr Sunder , Head of NIST wants us to believe in PNENOMENA.

Isn't that a joke.

Originally posted by Crito
Best of luck using ad hominem arguments to discredit the 9/11 scientific truth movement.

Sorry, but maintaining a position that laws of physics were violated during 911 is a fundamental logical flaw which must be pointed out. If the basis on one's argument rests on impossibilities there is nothing to debunk.

reply to post by GhostR1der


Your totally right, felt kind of stupid when my results yielded approximatly the same answer!

Great thread!

-E-

Problem is that none of your calculations allow for the effects of air. Ask any skydiver.

Pack your bags.

Originally posted by Alfie1

I do wish truthers would stop talking about things " violating the laws of physics ". If it happened on this earth it obeyed the laws of physics.

You are absolutely correct. If you believe the official version of 9/11, then 9/11 did, in fact, violate the laws of physics.

However, seeings how you say that if it happened on this earth, then it did obey the laws of physics, then we have to look at what actually happened. Faithers believe the official version with blind faith and zero proof other than the investigating agencies' own word.

I do not believe in blind faith, nor do I believe that three buildings collapsed totally and completely on 9/11 by anything related to fires, unless you want to rewrite the laws of physics for the day of 9/11 only.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Problem is that none of your calculations allow for the effects of air. Ask any skydiver.

Pack your bags.

I don't believe air resistance (drag) would make a signifigant difference in this case. At least not enough to discount the point the OP is making. The more mass an object has the less the force due to the density of air would effect the overall downward force. It would be akin dropping a heavy object into water compared to a light object.

-E-

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I do not believe in blind faith, nor do I believe that three buildings collapsed totally and completely on 9/11 by anything related to fires, unless you want to rewrite the laws of physics for the day of 9/11 only.

The impact of 2 large jet aircraft moving at a relativly high speed might have had a little something to do with it. Unless of course you believe that they were holograms?

reply to post by GhostR1der


I'd like to chime in on this, if I may --- and it's not my field of expertise, but WTC 7 is the "Belle of the Ball" lately, it seems, so I'm interested, and trying to remain neutral.


en.wikipedia.org...

At 5:20:33 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 p.m. EDT the entire building collapsed completely

Now, we have all seen the iconic video, ad infinitum....and that is where the cries of "free fall" mostly derive, I think.

But, looking at that Wiki entry, I count the entire collapse sequence at 37 seconds. That would be ALLl the way down, every last bit, to the street.

In that video, we can't see the entire building, down to street level.

Ideas?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Thank you for describing the position that believers of the OS find themselves in. Funny isn't it?

But even if you ignore the logic of physics, you can always follow the money. Contributors to ex-president Bush's campaign have made HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them have become MILLIONAIRES A THOUSAND TIMES OVER. Yet none of the supposed 911 hijackers was from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1

I do wish truthers would stop talking about things " violating the laws of physics ". If it happened on this earth it obeyed the laws of physics.

You are absolutely correct. If you believe the official version of 9/11, then 9/11 did, in fact, violate the laws of physics.

However, seeings how you say that if it happened on this earth, then it did obey the laws of physics, then we have to look at what actually happened. Faithers believe the official version with blind faith and zero proof other than the investigating agencies' own word.

I do not believe in blind faith, nor do I believe that three buildings collapsed totally and completely on 9/11 by anything related to fires, unless you want to rewrite the laws of physics for the day of 9/11 only.

It would be interesting to hear your explanation of what laws of physics were violated that day. Also, how anything possibly could have violated the laws of physics on 911. Because, of course, none were. To base a position on such a claim is preposterous.

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Thank you for describing the position that believers of the OS find themselves in. Funny isn't it?

But even if you ignore the logic of physics, you can always follow the money. Contributors to ex-president Bush's campaign have made HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them have become MILLIONAIRES A THOUSAND TIMES OVER. Yet none of the supposed 911 hijackers was from Iraq or Afghanistan.

The laws of physics were extremely solid on 911 as they are every day. Sure, we could "follow the money" if we want to take our eyes off the ball and distract people towards whatever alternate theory you're pointing to. We could also follow the path of the planes and the radical goons that hijacked them, although that were make your conspiracy notions rather pointless.