Physics of 9/11...

A couple interesting videos about the physics of 9/11...





Well, he is arguing physics and these are laws for a reason...

Interesting videos none the less and should be looked at and examined by all.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

No posts and the thread is "Under close Scrutiny due to Member demand?

Seems like if the topic is 911, there is some kind of problem.

I just don't get it. This is a conspiracy site, we know there are different opinions, but why is every one "Under Close Scrutiny"?

Thanks for the videos, every one I have seen always has interesting ideas and information, even ones I do not agree with.

Great videos, great proof. And he is right on the money all other arguments are moot when you look at it from a laws of physics standpoint. It was a controlled demolition no question about it! All other suggested scenarios defy the laws of physics and have no precedent in history!

The thread is under close scrutiny because of all the mud slinging that has gone on with 911 threads. The mods are just letting everyone know if your going to argue then do it politely and argue the evidence don't attack the messenger.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by hawkiye
Great videos, great proof. And he is right on the money all other arguments are moot when you look at it from a laws of physics standpoint. It was a controlled demolition no question about it! All other suggested scenarios defy the laws of physics and have no precedent in history!
[edit on 23-6-2010 by hawkiye]

I think most people rely on the actual analysis rather than videos. There is no evidence that any "laws of physics" were violated.

Read the final NIST report and show us where they missed any violation of the laws of physics. It would seem, given that the evidence, methodology, expertise, and the total lack of any uproar by physicists, forensic scientists, and structural engineers worldwide, that your claim is not supported.

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51

I just don't get it. This is a conspiracy site, we know there are different opinions, but why is every one "Under Close Scrutiny"?

Because of threads like this

Person A: I think explosives, airplane damage, and fire all caused the collapse of the twin towers.

Person B: OMG you're so stuipd! You're such a moron! You are a lunatic! You are delusional!

Person A: (cites experts and invesigations that support his theories)

Person B: Shut up you stupid moron delusional lunatic!

Person A: Can we put this tread under close scruitny please? I'm trying to discuss my theory. I'm NOT trying to discuss how people think i'm a stupid delusional lunatic!

Person B: [response removed because it contained nothing but personal attacks]

reply to post by jthomas


Not entirely true, there are many engineers that do not agree with the nist report. AE911truth.org has over 1200 engineers that have signed a petition to have a new investigation on the fact that the Nist report did not even look for evidence.

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by jthomas

 

Not entirely true, there are many engineers that do not agree with the nist report. AE911truth.org has over 1200 engineers that have signed a petition to have a new investigation on the fact that the Nist report did not even look for evidence.

Saying I want a new investigation that must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives. Is totally different than saying

It's IMPOSSIBLE that airplanes and fire caused the collapse of the twin towers.


Think about it like this. The president collapses and dies on live tv. In front of millions and millions and millions of people. There was no blood and was no gunshot. An autopsy is done and determines that he died from being set on fire even though millions and millions of people didn't see any fire.

A vast majority of the scientific community would agree that it was IMPOSSIBLE for a person who has not been set on fire at any point in his life to have died from being set on fire.

Because a vast majority of the scientific community agrees it adds a lot of strength to the theory that the president didn't die from being set on fire.

In this situation a vast majority of the scientific community agrees that it was not IMPOSSIBLE for the twin towers to have collapsed from airplanes and fire.

Only a few scientists, that i have found, who investigated the collapses believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE that airplanes and fire caused the collapse of the twin towers. Almost all of them can be found at this website:

physics911.net...

One thing I notice is that, when investigating the collapse of a tower that was hit by an airplane and then set on fire, they don't even ATTEMPT to determine how much damage was (or was not) done by the airplane impacts and fire.

If you read the warnin correctly, it says this FORUM is under scrutiny.

all threads in the 9/11 are like this.

wish i wasnt on limited bandwidth, or id watch the video.

any summaries of the issues and laws he spoke of?

reply to post by iamcpc


When you state that they dont even attempt to determine how much damage was done by the planes and the fire, are you talking about the NIST report or the people on the site Physics911.net?

Lets take into account the damage from the planes and the fire, and lets say that the damage was significant enough to cause structural failure where the planes hit. Now, I would expect some of the building to come down and fall away from the rest of the building, like the collapse started. But to have the entire remaining structure of the building literally dissenegrate beneath the point of impact is in my opinion hard to believe.

For any building to fall that way and at that speed, through the Path of Greatest Resistance, and at the speed at which all three buildings fell, seems to be 3 miracles that were not explained from the Reports that were published.

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Now, I would expect some of the building to come down and fall away from the rest of the building, like the collapse started.

Why?

reply to post by jthomas


Why? good question. When i saw the planes first hit my first reaction was that those buildings are coming down. But when they did come down i was confused at how they could have came down without any major structural damage below the point of impact. Even with the amount of weight and force that gave way at and about the point of impact, it seemed to crush everything underneath at a alarming rate of speed following the path of greatest resistance. This to me seemed impossible. Not only the crushing of everything but the speed at which it happened.

With no stuctural damage underneath the point of impact, there should have been major resistance to slow the collapse of the building, if not stop it entirely, at least for a moment if not forever. I expected the bulding to fall using the path of least resistance, which would have been around the rest of the building.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
any summaries of the issues and laws he spoke of?

He's describing the laws of momentum and how a top down collapse doesn't make any sense since a "jolt" wasn't measured during the collapse.

A "jolt" as he describes with an example is if you was to swing a bat and hit the ball there would be a momentary "jolt" when the ball struck the bat and a slowing down effect.

So, he is saying there should have been a momentary jolt where the speed of collapse should have slowed down when the top part of the buildings fell and collapsed on the undamged portion of the buildings. Instead, he is saying there was an accleration of the collapse when the top part met the undamged part of the buildings.

He also goes on to explain there should be some type of experiment done to explain any theory or hypothesis. He is saying that the whole NIST report on WTC 7 is supported by a computer model that can't be reproduced because the figures they used to tweak the modeling software have not been released.

Basically, he's asking anyone to show any "experiment" that would support the OS theory on the collapse of these 3 buildings.

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by iamcpc

 

When you state that they dont even attempt to determine how much damage was done by the planes and the fire, are you talking about the NIST report or the people on the site Physics911.net?

I'm talking about the physics911.net. Nist attempted to determine how much damage was done by the airplane impacts and fire.

wtc.nist.gov...

For any building to fall that way and at that speed

The speed of the collapse is one that has been debated.

911research.wtc7.net...

"The CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground. The following composite timeline combines timing estimates of collapse events from the CNN video and the PAL seismic record. It assumes rubble hitting the ground caused the large ground movement, and thus that the crumbling of the Tower prior to that caused only minor ground movement. Given that, the times from these pieces of evidence match up remarkably well. "

"Various pages on columbia.edu put the origin time of the signal at the source at 10:28:31, plus or minus one second. This is based on an estimate of 2 km/s travel speed for the S waves, which, given the PAL station's distance of 34 KM from the WTC, gives a travel time of 17 seconds.
10:28:23 Top of the North Tower starts to break apart
10:28:31 Rubble starts to hit the ground (start of big signal)
10:28:36 The heaviest rubble hits the ground (peak of big signal)
10:28:39 Most heavy rubble has reached the ground (end of big signal)"

www.journalof911studies.com...

says 16.6 seconds

www.911myths.com...

says 12.8 seconds

through the Path of Greatest Resistance,

Anok talks about this. It make sense to me to be an example of PROOF that something in addition to airplanes and fire caused the collapse of the WTC. I spoke with my physics professors, Steven Wilson and
Douglas Patterson about this. We, after estimating the weight of the top 30 floors of the WTC tower, determined that the falling top portion of the building had about 400 times the amount of force that the airplane had when it hit..

What would the WTC look like if each floor got hit with 3.9 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplanes? A big pile of rubble.

They explained that the building collapsed through the path of least resistance. How is that possible? How is the the path of the least resistance through the support structure? I started understanding after they explained to me.

When you have the top portion of the building accelerating downward at 8.9 m/s with X newtons of force and the suuport structure can only hold 1/10th X and the amount of force needed to cause the falling top portion to stop falling straight down and fall to the side is 1/5th X the path of least resistance involves crushing the support structure.

Think about crushing an aluminum can with a cinderblock. The aluminum can collapsed downward through it's support structure which is also the path of the least resistance. The force needed to cause the cinderblock to fall sideways and only partially crush the can is greater than the force the can will support.

and at the speed at which all three buildings fell

WTC 7 may have fallen too quickly. I don't know. Before I can say that the twin towers collapsed too quickly shouldn't we know how quickly they collapsed?

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by jthomas

 

With no stuctural damage underneath the point of impact, there should have been major resistance to slow the collapse of the building, if not stop it entirely, at least for a moment if not forever. I expected the bulding to fall using the path of least resistance, which would have been around the rest of the building.

I've shown, using my handy dandy free fall physic calculator:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

That, at free fall speed, the twin towers should have collapsed in about 9 seconds.

If they collapsed in 12 seconds or 17 seconds then there was tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons..... etc etc etc etc of resistance to slow the collapse of a building that size by even 1 second.

reply to post by iamcpc


And is there a caluculation that you can show the tons of resistance to seconds needed for total collapse? I ask becuase i dont know of one and that would be interesting if at all possible to see. It would probably be complicated, needing infomation like force, exact weights, tensil strenths, impact pressure, etc.

However i could be wrong, but it seems that the faster the time, the less and less resistance is needed, can i make that assumption?

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by iamcpc

 

And is there a caluculation that you can show the tons of resistance to seconds needed for total collapse? I ask becuase i dont know of one and that would be interesting if at all possible to see. It would probably be complicated, needing infomation like force, exact weights, tensil strenths, impact pressure, etc.

However i could be wrong, but it seems that the faster the time, the less and less resistance is needed, can i make that assumption?

Well with the only resistance was air resistance then the collapse would have taken about 9 seconds. Every second longer than 9.2 seconds that the colapse took is a clear indicator that X amount of resistance was present. (think about a bodybuilder who can bench press 500 pounds. His arms can present 500 pounds of resistance. Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it. His arms would collapse straight down. Just like a tower that can support X newtons of force trying to catch 10, 20, even 30 times that amount of force is going to go straight down.

believe there is a way to show the amount of resistance to seconds for total collapse. I don't know what it is. I will, yet again, ask my phsyics professors about this.

All I know is that if a building was hit by an airplane, set on fire, and then collapsed and I was hired to find out exaclty what went wrong inside of the building so that when we rebuild it this won't happen again my investigation would be pretty simple. It would start by finding out how much damage was done to the buildings by the airplane impacts.

That is a fundamental (and CRITICAL) step that many people (including every source presented on physics911.com) simply refuse to do.

And just so we are clear on what I believe. I believe that the damage caused by the airplane impacts and fire had something to do with the collapse of the twin towers. I believe that it is possible that airplane damage and fire caused the collapse of the WTC tower. I also believe that it is possible that something in addition to airplane impact damage and fire could have assisted with the collapse of the building.

But after all of my research, and a few question/answer sessions to my physics professors i know that neither theory is IMPOSSIBLE as some would leave you to believe.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Impossible is a strong word. The odds in my opinion are astronomical, as you may or may not agree.

It would be interesting to hear what you professor says.

Originally posted by dudly
Impossible is a strong word. The odds in my opinion are astronomical, as you may or may not agree.

It would be interesting to hear what you professor says.

Professors. There are two of them that I speak with. I will ask them how, mathmatically I would find the force of the resistance needed to slow the fall of 1 kg of concrete falling from 1300 meters by 1 second.

Your opinion that it is much more more likely that something in addition to airplanes and fire assisted with the collapse of the twin towers is one that i neither agree or disagree with as i'm still researching.

One thing that was mentioned, that I thought of, was that you could have something assist with the collapse of the twin towers that has nothing to do with thermite, explosives, death star energy beams, micronukes, or any of that other stuff.

Extra weight. I noticed, while leaving my building pallets full of printing paper. Nothing uncommon to see in an office building. One pallet of printing paper weighs a LOT. It's not uncommon to see a pallet or two where I work. I work in a building that is smaller than the WTC.

All someone would have to do to assist with the collapse of the towers would be to put 15 or 20 pallets of office paper on one of the top floors. 15 tons of weight according to:
manuelsweb.com...
is 13636 KG.

When that starts to fall it would add 133,632 newtons of force. That's one hell of a push! Maybe even more energy that would be present in explosives! Not to mention that it would be a LOT LOT LOT LOT easier to hide paper in an office building than to hide explosives (or micronukes, or thermite)!

If someone knew the planes were going to hit and wanted help the towers collapse all they would have to do is make sure that the weeks shipment of office paper was put on one of the top floors!

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by jthomas

 

With no stuctural damage underneath the point of impact, there should have been major resistance to slow the collapse of the building, if not stop it entirely, at least for a moment if not forever.

On what basis an authority would you think that?

reply to post by iamcpc


iamcpc, you deserve an APPLAUSE for this analogy:

(think about a bodybuilder who can bench press 500 pounds. His arms can present 500 pounds of resistance. Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it. His arms would collapse straight down. Just like a tower that can support X newtons of force trying to catch 10, 20, even 30 times that amount of force is going to go straight down.

Clear, cogent and concise, and perfectly phrased to be relatable to even the average person. It's what those of us who saw the collapses understand, and finally (hopefully) will quell the mantra first promoted by the 'conspiracy theorists': -- "Path of least resistance". THAT non-applicable term, in this event, has been repeated far too often.