Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

reply to post by -PLB-

ANOK : Why don't you explain what conservation of momentum means, and we can then discuss who knows basic physics?

-PLB- : Conservation of momentum means the total momentum of a system remains constant.
Yes or no question: Do you think this applies to the models we use for building collapses?

That's the broadest definition possible.

Let's first define momentum :
It's the quantity of motion of a body, where momentum of a moving body is defined as :
"The product of mass and velocity of a body is called MOMENTUM."
Momentum = mass x velocity, P= mV
It is a vector quantity. Momentum is always directed in the direction of velocity.
The unit of momentum is in the S.I system in kg.m/s or Ns.

Consider two bodies of mass m1 and m2 moving initially with original velocities O1 and O2.
Total momentum before collision = m1.O1 + m2.O2
Let after collision their velocities become v1 and v2.
Total momentum after collision = m1.v1 + m2.v2
Then, according to the law of conservation of momentum :
m1.O1 + m2.O2 = m1.v1 + m2.v2
The momentum remains conserved, i.e., the momentum that is lost initially is equal to the momentum gained afterwards.


A few other conservation of momentum - definitions wordings :

1. A principle stating that the total linear momentum of an isolated system remains constant regardless of changes within the system.

2. The principle that the total linear momentum in a closed system is constant and is not affected by processes occurring inside the system

3. The principle that the total linear or angular momentum in any isolated system is constant, provided that no external force is applied.

4. A conservation law stating that the total linear momentum of a closed system remains constant through time, regardless of other possible changes within the system.

5. When some bodies constituting an isolated system act upon one another, the total momentum of the system remains constant.

6. Total momentum of an isolated system before collision is always equal to total momentum after collision.

7. The principle that, when a system of masses is subject only to forces that masses of the system exert on one another, the total vector momentum of the system is constant. Since vector momentum is conserved, in problems involving more than one dimension the component of momentum in any direction will remain constant. The principle of conservation of momentum holds generally and is applicable in all fields of physics. In particular, momentum is conserved even if the particles of a system exert forces on one another or if the total mechanical energy is not conserved. Use of the principle of conservation of momentum is fundamental in the solution of collision problems. See also Collision (physics) ; Momentum.

Read more: www.answers.com...

My Italic emphasize is meant for the upwards and sidewards ejections of rubble seen in the two tower collapses.
Nr 3 is bolded since the whole picture changes when external forces are introduced, like explosives, which would introduce a lot of extra energy (velocity).

Please proceed with your debate, I already showed you the extra energy introduced, it's all in my seismic thesis, the huge energy (amplitude) peak in front of the smaller global collapse peaks in my WTC 7 seismic chart.
Btw, this debate has been exercised numerous times over the years here at the ATS 9/11 and General forums ad infinitum, use ATS Search.
I'm however interested to what consensus you two, ANOK and -PLB- will come.

REFERENCES for a Conservation of Energy and Momentum debate,
pro or contra explosives :

1. CONTRA www.debunking911.com...
Title: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition.

LT : One thing is sure, the towers did not fall at free fall speeds, not by far. Already early on I have shown that it took more than 20 seconds for each Twin Tower to fully collapse.
But I also showed the preceding peaks in the seismic records, indicating additional energy bursts, usually called explosives.

2. PRO www.911blimp.net...
Title: Free-Fall Physics article FAQ:

3. PRO physics911.net...
Title: Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

4. CONTRA www.jnani.org...
Title: Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

5. PRO 911debunkers.blogspot.nl...
Title: The Conservation Of Angular Momentum In Action...

Originally posted by -PLB-
Conservation of momentum means the the total momentum of a system remains constant. Yes or no question: Do you think this applies to the models we use for building collapses?

Hmmm let's finish that definition shall we...

The total momentum of a system remains constant provided that no external forces act on the system.

Further Mechanics Tutorial 2 - Conservation of Momentum

Why did you miss out half the definition PLB? You gotta get up a lot earlier mate...

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

Momentum Conservation Principle

Your statement is only part of the definition. You would have failed electrical engineering school with that answer.

The law applies to everything, but only if it's correctly stated.

Next you'll be trying to claim there were no external forces, like friction and resistance.

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by -PLB-

 

My Italic emphasize is meant for the upwards and sidewards ejections of rubble seen in the two tower collapses.

"when a system of masses is subject only to forces that masses of the system exert on one another, the total vector momentum of the system is constant. Since vector momentum is conserved, in problems involving more than one dimension the component of momentum in any direction will remain constant."

Keep in mind that this applies to the sum of the components of momentum of all of the masses, not to each individual mass. Take for example the game of pool: essentially a two dimensional system with multiple masses. Imagine for a moment a game of pool played on an enormous table such that the balls will, in effect, never hit the rails (this is for the sake of simplicity). At the beginning of the game 10 balls are arranged in triangular formation at one position, and the first player knocks the cue towards them. At this moment the cue has momentum in the x direction, and the stationary balls have zero momentum. The system of all the balls also has momentum in the x direction. Then the cue strikes the foremost ball, and the balls go in all directions. What conservation of momentum tells us in this situation, is that even though the balls are going each in different directions, the sum of the momenta in the y direction is zero, and the sum of the momenta in the x direction is the same as the momentum of the cue before it first struck the other balls.

The fact that some of the balls are moving in the y direction is not evidence by itself that some other force was at play than that imparted by the cue stick. And the same goes for the momentum of the individual components of the collapsing towers.

Why else did you think I made that italic text? To make exactly that clear to the debaters.
When ""masses are subject only to forces that masses of the system exert on one another"", I should have made that bolded-text in my above post. That was the situation in the WTC's before the three collapses.

I stay with my seismic evidence, that proves for WTC 7 without doubt, that the seismic signal of the penthouse denting (Cianca photo of that event and its timestamp) arrived in this WTC 7 collapse seismogram at the 24 sec position :

WTC 7 collapse :



AGAIN, explain to me those first group of signals of 22 nm/s, which indicate an event effectuating a MUCH stronger force on the NY upper crust, then the following TOTAL collapse of a 47 story building !
Illogical is the word, if we don't introduce an EXTRA FORCE !

Can you imagine anything else than a big energy releasing event, which we normally connect to explosive forces?

I would also advice you to read this full link about collisions :
www.answers.com...
Since your example on a billiard table is in one dimension (a table) and the WTC collapse was in three dimensions, while both have an extra time dimension of course.
You also have to take into account if there was a mixture of elastic and inelastic events taking place, then the latter delivers HEAT resulting from the lost mechanical energy.

the total mechanical energy after an inelastic collision is ordinarily less than the initial total mechanical energy, and the mechanical energy which is lost is converted into heat. However, an inelastic collision in which the total energy after collision is greater than the initial total energy sometimes can occur in classical mechanics. For example, a collision can cause an explosion which converts chemical energy into mechanical energy.

Read more: www.answers.com... Collision.
www.answers.com... Billiard collisions.
www.answers.com... Perfectly inelastic collision.

ANOK, torsion also played a role.

Originally posted by LaBTop
I stay with my seismic evidence, that proves for WTC 7 without doubt, that the seismic signal of the penthouse denting (Cianca photo of that event and its timestamp) arrived in this WTC 7 collapse seismogram at the 24 sec position :

If that's true, there should be some confirmatory evidence of some kind of absolutely enormous explosion four seconds before the penthouse collapse. There isn't. You've probably interpreted the seismic data wrongly. What else can I say?

Also, your argument in this post has nothing to do with conservation of momentum. What's going on here?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by -PLB-
Conservation of momentum means the the total momentum of a system remains constant. Yes or no question: Do you think this applies to the models we use for building collapses?

Hmmm let's finish that definition shall we...

The total momentum of a system remains constant provided that no external forces act on the system.

Further Mechanics Tutorial 2 - Conservation of Momentum

Why did you miss out half the definition PLB? You gotta get up a lot earlier mate...

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

Momentum Conservation Principle

Your statement is only part of the definition. You would have failed electrical engineering school with that answer.

That is not the definition of conservation of momentum, it is a condition for the law of conservation of momentum to be true. In previous post I have already explained this in detail to you, so if you had paid any attention in the past, you would not have post this reply.

The law applies to everything, but only if it's correctly stated.

This is where you show your complete lack of understanding in basic physics. The law only applies to systems that meet the condition you came with just above.

Question: does this condition apply to the system "collapsing building"?

The fact you are ignoring my other question kind of indicates you are struggling. So Good luck.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Please proceed with your debate, I already showed you the extra energy introduced, it's all in my seismic thesis, the huge energy (amplitude) peak in front of the smaller global collapse peaks in my WTC 7 seismic chart.
Btw, this debate has been exercised numerous times over the years here at the ATS 9/11 and General forums ad infinitum, use ATS Search.

Where do you think this extra energy came from and why?

I'm however interested to what consensus you two, ANOK and -PLB- will come.

We never will. This debate is already going on for years, and it is exactly the same every time.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by LaBTop
I stay with my seismic evidence, that proves for WTC 7 without doubt, that the seismic signal of the penthouse denting (Cianca photo of that event and its timestamp) arrived in this WTC 7 collapse seismogram at the 24 sec position :

If that's true, there should be some confirmatory evidence of some kind of absolutely enormous explosion four seconds before the penthouse collapse. There isn't. You've probably interpreted the seismic data wrongly. What else can I say?

Also, your argument in this post has nothing to do with conservation of momentum. What's going on here?

I'll first answer your last remark :
May I ask you what YOUR conservation of momentum post has to do with the opening post?

What I offer however is irrefutable evidence that explosives were used on 9/11. That's a real effort in trying to end the petty 9/11 arguments. And that's the title of this thread.


Your first remark is based on a totally wrong idea.
To bring such a 47 stories high building down, you need no absolutely enormous explosion.
I posted in my latest thread a video where you can hear that ultra low frequency sound a few seconds before WTC 7 collapsed.
And I posted a page back already that HE explosives can be muffled enormously by WATER. And that white STEAM as seen just before and in all collapses, evolves from such muffled explosions.

Didn't you found it curious that when the WTC's collapsed, you saw floors that just a second ago emitted immense amounts of BLACK soot loaded smoke, exploded in perfect ring shaped WHITE smoke emitting floor exteriors, and that one after the other, downwards through all the plane impacted floors that were already totally burned out. And that most of the huge WTC water tanks meant for the whole towers, were situated on the top double-floor mechanical floors? And the rest of them in the other two double-floor mechanical floors? These mechanical floors were reinforced enormously, they should have halted or delayed a gravitational collapse, they did not at all.
And the mechanical floor in WTC 7 was situated just above the CONED electrical station, where the whole building was build over. And there were also huge water tanks. And from these lower floors did the WTC 7 collapse initiate, says NIST.

Title : WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Video with huge ULF explosion sounds picked up by microphones from camera's that are not particular equipped to record such ULF sounds.

What else can I say?

What about : ""Sorry, I seem to need to read up some more"".
Try starting to read my seismic and thermobaric-bombs posts.
Use the ATS Search : seismic "LaBTop" - thermobaric "LaBTop"

Originally posted by LaBTop
What I offer however is irrefutable evidence that explosives were used on 9/11. That's a real effort in trying to end the petty 9/11 arguments. And that's the title of this thread.

Without these alleged large explosions showing up on actual video/audio evidence, your irrefutable evidence is reduced to your laymen opinion on seismic records. Which isn't worth anything in my book.

Your first remark is based on a totally wrong idea.
To bring such a 47 stories high building down, you need no absolutely enormous explosion.

Your whole argument is that a huge explosion was recorded in the seismic records. If you are going to use that as evidence, there must have been a huge explosion, irregardless of the fact that you don't need huge explosions to take down buildings.

I posted in my latest thread a video where you can hear that ultra low frequency sound a few seconds before WTC 7 collapsed.
And I posted a page back already that HE explosives can be muffled enormously by WATER. And that white STEAM as seen just before and in all collapses, evolves from such muffled explosions.

Just so you know, building 7 was not underwater. Are you suggesting that huge water tanks were installed around the explosives to muffle the sound? So that regular cameras can't detect them but seismic records can? Are you really suggesting that? I mean really?

reply to post by LaBTop


LaBTop, where in all of the eyewitness accounts of WTC7 is this massive explosion prior to collapse?

In every account I have seen, read or heard, people said it just fell. No explosion!

reply to post by LaBTop

I'll first answer your last remark : May I ask you what YOUR conservation of momentum post has to do with the opening post?

That's not an answer, it's a question. My post was in direct response to your own, so If I was off-topic, so were you.

I thought you were going to start a discussion of possible conspiracy interpretation of events based on conservation of momentum, so I took the time to point out that sideways ejection of debris does not necessarily imply a force other than gravity at work. I stand by the illustration that I provided.

Nevertheless, your next post seems to have changed the topic entirely.. totally abandoning discussion of Conservation of momentum and focusing on the seismic record of the WTC7 collapse.

What follows is just me trying to understand where you're going with this...

Now it seems the question has returned to the abscence of evidence for the massive explosions that you've postulated. I've got to question the idea that the explosions were muffled by water. Presumably this means that the explosives were located in the water tanks on the service floors of the buildings...

You're claiming that much of the energy was dissipated in the transformation of water to steam... escape of which you claim immediately preceded all three collapses. I'm not familiar with this argument, but if a large amount of water is instantly converted to steam in a confined space, that should produce a tremendous pressure, followed by a big bang, as the water tanks explode, right? And the damage done to the building structure done by this explosion initiates the collapses?

reply to post by ANOK


Maybe you missed the basic physics question, so here it goes again: does the condition "no external forces act on the system" apply to collapsing buildings? It is a yes or no answer so should take no longer that 10 seconds to answer.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Without these alleged large explosions showing up on actual video/audio evidence, your irrefutable evidence is reduced to your laymen opinion on seismic records. Which isn't worth anything in my book.

-PLB-, if you are such a scientifically schooled expert on seismic subjects, I REALLY would like to hear you crushing my WTC 7 Cianca photo-anomaly seismic thesis, expressed in this and its following posts at page 3 of my thread HERE.
It won't hurt to read all 3 pages, neither.

Use your superior knowledge of seismology subjects.
I deduct that you have such superior wisdom, from the condescending tone of your above post.

It's perhaps difficult or impossible to understand by you, but I REALLY would like to be proved wrong on my thesis. Then I would be at ease with politics and capitalists their greed again.

I sadly enough don't have much faith that you would succeed to convince me of any wrong conclusions, which are quite simply based on basic-school calculus rules.
Subtraction and Addition.

Your whole argument is that a huge explosion was recorded in the seismic records. If you are going to use that as evidence, there must have been a huge explosion, irregardless of the fact that you don't need huge explosions to take down buildings.

No, I said that a huge additional energy event took place before the east penthouse roof dented, the initiation event from the total collapse of a 47 stories high rise. And that in most peoples minds, this would be explosions.
Thermobaric explosions have ultra low freq. sound-prints. An immense belly feeling impression, ears are not really picking it up from 4 blocks away. At the periphery lines set around WTC 7 by FBI, NYPD and other agencies.

LaBTop : I posted in my latest thread a video where you can hear that ultra low frequency sound a few seconds before WTC 7 collapsed.
And I posted a page back already that HE explosives can be muffled enormously by WATER. And that white STEAM as seen just before and in all collapses, evolves from such muffled explosions.

Just so you know, building 7 was not underwater. Are you suggesting that huge water tanks were installed around the explosives to muffle the sound? So that regular cameras can't detect them but seismic records can? Are you really suggesting that? I mean really?

Well, you seem to have forgot, or not read up on the famous wall breaching units, posted by me in the biggest thread on ATS. They entered the Pentagon C-Ring by blowing that round hole in its corridor wall with such a device. Basically a plastic shield with a thick rim filled with water, and behind that water ring, detonation cord is laid in, in an shallow molded inlay. The water muffles the sound quite a bit, and directs most of the explosive energy to the opposite direction of that water filled ring molded in that plastic shield.

And, I repeat again, all bottoms from all WTC escalator shafts were flooded with water, you could have known that from all the witness accounts in the NIST reports. Some of them nearly drowned in them, Willy Rodriguez saved two of them with an aluminum ladder. I read all NIST's 11,000 pages a few times over the years, did you? And all other available material. And a lot of normally unavailable records.

So yes, really, I am suggesting that water-shields in whatever form were used to muffle the HE or TB cutter charge explosions. And when TB's were used, the strong second stage vacuum sucking effect of the right directional models would muffle the sound also immensely, that's the reason for their peculiar ULF sound-print.

reply to post by -PLB-


Damn it, man, yes, but only when no external forces interact with such a natural, gravitational collapse.

I'm gonna prove to you in the next posts, that 9/11 was an row of collapse events, with external forces added.

When you three posters above, would have clicked my last above link, and clicked through at each mention by me in other threads about ULF sounds recorded just before WTC 7's collapse, you would have ended up at this link, which account is now deleted :
XXXXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No surprise to me at all anymore, I am quite sure that rows of 9/11-Clean-up agency-departments are actively cleaning the whole INTERNET from National "Security"-dangerous material.
At the moment I watched it, posted it and linked to it here at ATS, the above video was still available.
And the sound was much better audible than in the start of this other video I found today :

Audio of Explosion Just Before WTC7 Fell. Uploaded on Sep 5, 2010.
www.youtube.com... (11:53 min)
A muffled, low-frequency "boooom" can be heard just a few seconds before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls :



This is exactly the same ULF sound that Rick Siegel recorded in a sequential row of them, right before the South and also before the North Tower started their collapses.
He was continuously video taping the events at the Twin Towers from across the Hudson River, about 1.2 km away on the end of a Pier. He started taping from some moment after the second plane flew into the South Tower. He has taped all day continuously.
His videos were big forums news years back, but then everybody began to steal his footage and he got seriously pissed off on the whole 9/11 movement. He thought he could make big bucks by selling his video tapes for 30 bucks or so a piece. He did not understand that 9/11 should not unfold as a sell-able event, I suppose.

You can hear for each Tower the rows of ULF sounds coming to his video camera's microphone. He made quite some good footage from what he taped, with a lot of additional, by physics examples supported commentary. Well done, and I would have spend the money on his disks, if they would have been available where I lived at that time.

Does anybody who bought his HD disks still have them at hand? Since I have an idea how to use his footage to clock the real times for the collapses.
He had a little radio hanging from his tripod, and you can hear every half hour and full hour, the radio network's atomic clock sound signal, so we can count seconds back and forth from these very precise signals in his videos.
Since he said and you can hear that he never put his radio, nor his video off, only to switch video tapes two times.
Rick did not send his material to big networks their editing rooms. As all the others did, and their material ended up in the hands of NIST who corrected their time stamps.
Let's see if his taped collapse initiation times were comparable to NIST its corrected times.

See for that, page 3 from my WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments thread. NIST has over the years several times corrected its officially accepted event times for 9/11. So it will be nice to be able to do our own research on Rick Siegel's original CD or DVD disks.

I'll now post some more evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job.

WHAT A GRAVITY-DRIVEN DEMOLITION LOOKS LIKE. Uploaded on Aug 16, 2010.

www.youtube.com... (4:46 min)
NIST likes us to believe that all three WTC collapses were gravity driven.
However, a gravity driven building collapse graph ALWAYS starts as a down sloping graph line that depicts a given chosen point on the building (f.ex. a reflective point on the roof line) while it is descending in the collapse, and when the pile-driver portion of the building impacts the still standing portion of it, the graph line changes ALWAYS to an up sloping line, caused by the deceleration effect resulting from that still standing portion.

The official story is that the North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed due to gravity. This has been critiqued in an analysis by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, and in a related analysis by David Chandler (both in the Journal of 9/11 Studies). The Balzac-Vitry demolition in the above video was a true gravity-driven collapse. The same analysis that was applied to the World Trade Center collapses is here applied to this known demolition, with contrasting results. The WTC North Tower collapse resulted in a constant down sloping graph, while the French gravitational collapse resulted in a down sloping and then up sloping graph.

This analysis supports the conclusions of both papers referred to above: the North Tower of the World Trade Center was not a natural, gravity-driven collapse.

Since it doesn't show that telling "knick" in its fixed-point path graph (The constant downward acceleration graph by David Chandler).

YOUTUBE CHANNEL = DavidChandler911
Check all his videos, he's made the best 9/11 ones available now.
His new DVD: "9/11 Analysis" is now out.
Go to : www.911speakout.org... .

Originally posted by LaBTop
-PLB-, if you are such a scientifically schooled expert on seismic subjects.

I am not. So I will rely on experts instead. Not on anonymous people on fringe internet forums.

Your idea is just too silly to me. Get it published in a respectable peer reviewed journal, and I may take another look at it.

9/11 WTC Detonations Finally Revealed. Uploaded on Sep 4, 2010.
Video produced by our own ATS member "BoneZ". MUCH RESPECT, Matt.
www.youtube.com...

The clip of the collapse in this video was recently released by NIST to the International Center for 9/11 Studies under the Freedom of Information Act in response to a lawsuit that the Center filed against NIST.

We can now hear some of the actual detonations occurring in one of the WTC collapses.

To learn more, visit the following websites:

www.ae911truth.org...
firefightersfor911truth.org...
stj911.org...
911blogger.com...
911truthnews.com...

If you hear this clear sequence of detonations at the onset of this collapse, and still keep defending the official NIST standpoint, then I really petty you. Even more after you hear that man telling you that he heard all these boom boom booms.
And then you are able to hear the same boooms from an official demolition.

I would like to add, that when you listen to an official hydraulic-demolition using a mid-floor removal from a building in France, The Balzac-Vitry demolition :



that was planned and executed to let gravity do the real work after the mid-floor columns were hydraulically shattered, and then listen very careful to those demolition sounds, you do not hear that typical sequence of booms like you heard during the by BoneZ offered high-explosives(HE)- and WTC demolitions.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Damn it, man, yes, but only when no external forces interact with such a natural, gravitational collapse.

No external force in a gravitational collapse? Hmm, from the top of my head, I can think of one. Can you?