Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: The Case For Controlled Demolition... |
 |
|
This is a little critique of a video posted on the 9/11 board here on the thread linked below - you might want to watch the video if you want to read my responses. The man giving the presentation is William Veale.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14141
| Quote: | | Those towers collapsed at freefall speed... |
Does anybody actually still believe this? I thought that most if not all of the truth movement accepted that the time of collapse was NOT freefall speed.
| Quote: | | ...not quite 15 seconds. |
15 seconds is nowhere near freefall speed, and longer than even than truth movement critics accept. The NIST report, for example, argues that the first pieces of debris from WTC2 hit the ground at 9 seconds, based in part of the seismic records on the day.
| Quote: | | The law of conservation of momentum would have predicted about 45 seconds had their been resistance to the collapse at each floor... but there was no resistance. |
This law of physics alone does not provide accurate collapse times for a start.
In the real world, conservation of momentum would help us to estimate a collapse time by dictating how the downward momentum of the gravity driven collapse would be affected by the resistance of the floors below. But even using this law, the actual expectation for a collapse time would be affected by a great many factors, not least the mass of the actual floors collapsing on the floors below.
The 45 seconds claim is utter nonsense, presumably estimated using the 'clunkety-clunk' billiard ball method debunked years ago - one of the main problems with this estimation is, ironically, that it doesn't take into account conservation of momentum. Lol - you couldn't make it up!
Veale then goes on to mention the point that these are the first 3 high-rise buildings to collapse through fire. But this is not the official position, which cites fire combined with damage, so he is attacking a straw man position that has nothing to do with the official theory.
| Quote: | | ...10 times the amount of dust that could be explained by the gravitational pull of a collapsing burning building of whatever size. |
Obviously this statement is near-gibberish. Given that these are the 'first 3 high-rise buildings to collapse through fire' how does he know the norm to estimate his '10 times the amount'? This is utter nonsense - I'd be amazed if Vease or anyone else could explain the '10 times'. The 'whatever size' comment shows how irrelevant real science is to his approach - rather than talk gibberish why not tell us the size of the building, and how much dust we should expect?
| Quote: | | The molten metal in the basements... can only be explained by explosives. |
The standard line of attack, but whenever the truth movement is asked to explain how this is only explained by explosives they seem to draw a blank. To give him some credit here, Vease is at least correct to say molten 'metal' and not steel - the accounts of molten steel at ground zero are definitely not supported by the thermal images he cites here, and seem largely groundless. Some metal was glowing orange at ground zero, and pockets of high temperature metal were found deep in the excavation - the challenge to the truth movement is to make any actual sense of these factors, and prove that they were not the natural conclusion of these unprecedented collapses.
If this is 'the case for controlled demolition' it is at best fatally flawed, at worst utterly groundless. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
