Re: Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account

[Jay Ref]

Re: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3267

Moved here due poster's previous warnings.

[spiv]

Truth, in my opinion, simple maths does show the official 9/11 story to be a lie. Physics demonstrates it to be a lie. The problem is, most people have not studied physics, and have little or no understanding of it.

There are some simple equations which have long been accepted by physicists, which are taught in schools (at least they were in my time) and these are based upon classic mechanics. One of the fundamental incontrovertible laws of physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be changed from one form to another, i.e. potential energy (such as the top of a building of a World Trade Centre tower) being converted to kinetic energy (such as that top part of the tower crashing down in a fall to earth).

Imagine someone throwing a stone from the top of one of the Twin Towers, and imagine, just for a second, that the Twin Tower was in a vacuum. The stone would have fallen in a very defined way, accelerating towards the centre of the earth by gravity, such that we can calculate that it would hit the ground in a certain number of seconds. Now this assumption relies on the fact that there was no air in the way.

But if there was air, then this would slow the drop of the stone a little, and so it would take longer to fall. Imagine that, instead of air, the stone was dropping through treacle. The rate of descent would be further slowed, and so the stone would take far longer to fall.

Well, now put this thinking to the top of the World Trade Centre tower. That had a certain amount of potential energy when it was sitting at the top of the tower. But it did not fall through air, or treacle, it fell through many tons of concrete and steel. The only way this could have fallen, without any other sources of energy, in approximately the same time as a stone thrown off the top of the tower, was if it had infinite mass (and hence infinite momentum), or if the lower floors had zero mass (and hence zero inertia). Now we know that this is impossible, the whole building had finite mass. We also know that the materials in both towers were pulverised, which, in itself, would have used up a tremendous amount of the potential energy of the falling top of the building, thus slowing it. Even if the steel in the lower floors was weakened, each lower floor would have offered some resistance to the falling upper floors. If each lower floor slowed the falling top by, say, ¼ of a second, then the fall must have taken longer, but, of course, it didn’t, we are all witness to how long it took to fall.

If one studies closely the films of the falling Twin Towers, it does appear that the upper floors fall down onto the lower floors. Not all the floors seem to start falling together. So, by my reasoning above, the top just could not have fallen to earth in approximately the time it takes a stone to fall to earth, at least, not without some other energy source which is added to each lower floor just as the upper floors reach it.

This fact alone makes 9/11 a lie. Something else had to be in the equation, as the simple laws of Newtonian physics were not abided by that day. It is clear that the 9/11 Commission seem to have no grasp of basic physics.

A very good explanation, with some simple maths, can be found at http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml and the author has put across the point far more eloquently than ever I can.

Something else had to be added to the equations. Now suppose (and this is all my own speculation to try to explain how I saw the buildings fall) starting from the top and working the way down the building at preset split second times just as upper floors would have been reaching lower floors, modern computer programs triggering explosive charges could, just at the correct instant of time, be what would be required. But, I emphasise, that is my own speculation, I don’t know if that is what was added. All I can say with any certainty is that the fundamental laws of physics just cannot be ignored, not even by a technologically advanced country such as America!!

[Jay Ref]

[spiv]

Jay Ref, as is not uncommon with your usual twaddle, you have completely missed the point.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So what energy has ejected sideways all that steel and concrete in your photograph? I'm intrigued, do tell.

[Jay Ref]

[Jay Ref]

[spiv]

Excellent work, Jay Ref, well done, very good. So a lot of the kinetic energy was used upon impact of each floor in pulverising the concrete and steel and ejecting it, quite violently and far from the look of your photograph. Thank you.

Now, remember, energy is not created or destroyed, but can be converted from one sort to another. If much of the kinetic energy of the floors above is used in the pulverisation of the concrete and steel of the floor below, then would that not have slowed the velocity, and possibly reduced some of the mass, of the descending upper floors?

[wepmob2000]

As the upper floors descended, their mass increased as they 'collected' floors below, (the WTC not being a solid body). If the gain in mass was greater than the loss of kinetic energy then velocity or kinetic energy could have remained constant or even increased.

Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared.

[spiv]

So tell me, were the floors 'collected', or were they pulverised? Jay Ref seems to think they were pulverised. I am intrigued.

[Jay Ref]

[wepmob2000]

Probably a mixture of both, but largely 'collected' (for want of a better term), until they finally finished their descent, bulkheads and structural members might have caused some pulverisation and violent ejecta, but perhaps more than 90% of the volume of the WTC was after all air. You would expect the most violent release of energy to occur when the mass finally hit the ground (as shown by the huge cloud of smoke and dust).

[Jay Ref]

[spiv]

OK Wepmop, so the structure of the floors came down and were pretty much intact when they hit the ground, you say. Very interesting. That's fine. So each of the "intact" floors had inertia. We assume quite a bit if they remained "intact".

Now, remember, energy is not created or destroyed, but can be converted from one sort to another. Suppose that the inertia of each floor checked and slowed the above floors by a little bit. Reasonable assumption, is it not? Or are you now going to tell me that your "90% intact" floors had zero inertia. I am intrigued.

[wepmob2000]

Eh? 90% intact? Err, don't remember saying that, oh well must be getting old.

No, (very) approximately 90% of the WTC's buildings volumes would be air, with relatively little to check the descent of the upper floors (which simultaneously would increase somewhat in mass. The reduction in kinetic energy upon impact with inert lower floors would almost certainly be at least counterbalanced by the increase in mass (remembering the equation above). Therefore velocity would remain reasonably constant (until impact with the only truly solid object in the mass's path - the ground).

[Andrew Johnson]

JayRef

If you continue to break our request to post your OCT support in Critic's Corner and refer back to links in the main forum, then your account will be locked.

We have politely asked you to do this several times and I have explained it is like having a smoking and non-smoking area. Stay in the designated area (unless you have "given up smoking", so to speak), or you will be barred.

Thank you.

[spiv]

Sorry Wepmop, I understand you now. So each floor, as it was hit from above, remained intact, fine.

So, thinking about this, the instant just prior to the upper floors hitting the next stationery floor, the upper floors would have had kinetic energy calculated by the formula 1/2 x mass x velocity squared. And in the instant just after them hitting the floor, they would have a combined kinetic energy of 1/2 x (Mu + Ml) x velocity squared, where Mu was the mass of the upper floors, and Ml was the mass of the lower floors.

Now unfortunately your physics is in error, as these two equations, thinking in terms of 'instants of time', must be the same, because energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the only way I can get the two equations to balance is if the velocity is reduced. Let's say Vu was the velocity of the upper floors just prior to impact, and Vc was the velocity of the combined floors the instance post contact.

Then 1/2 x Mu x (Vu)^2 = 1/2 x (Mu + Ml) x (Vc)^2 so therefore as (Mu + Ml) > Mu, it follows that Vc has to be less than Vu, does it not?

So each floor must have slowed the fall, and I have not even taken yet into account any resistance of the steel supporting columns and ties supporting the concrete floors which would, of course, slow the upper floors further. But, of course, I forgot, they were so weakend by the raging fierce heat of the burning plane fuel that they had no resistance, even though that heat was not raging and fierce enough to deter the firefighters going up the building, or the people seen standing at the damage hole where the plane hit.

Therefore the floors, using Wepmop's scebario, pancaked down, with the velocity of the upper floors slowing down fractionally as they hit each lower floor, before continuing with their acceleration under the force of gravity. So let is say that each floor slowed down by 1/4 to 1/2 a second the descent of the upper floors. In other words, the time the upper floors took to get to the next lower floor through the 90% air (thank you for this Wepmop) would have been 1/4 to 1/2 a second later than if a previous floor had not been in the way.

Now say 80 floors behaved in this way (if I recall around 20 floors started to fall first on one of the towers). As each floor would have resisted by say 1/4 to 1/2 a second, that would mean the the collapse of the building would have taken 20 to 40 seonds to get through those 80 floors, would it not Wepmop?

Now my problem is, I saw the building fall much quicker than that. So I am puzzled, Wepmop, exactly how long did you see it take to fall?

[blackcat]

Don't forget it all turned to dust as well.

[spiv]

It is Wepmop, in his postings above, who has told me that the floors remained intact, and that is what I am basing my hypothesis on.

Now you are telling me that "it all turned to dust". So unless you are meaning upon impact with the ground, then the argument seems to be going round in circles. If "it all turned to dust" during descent, then would there have been little kinetic energy left at some point in order to collapse down on the floors below? After all, wepmop has told me that 90% of the towers was air, so the velocity of dust would have been, one would assume, quite slow? If so, would it not have taken much longer than even my 20 - 40 seconds?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so I'm having a hard time understanding how the kinetic energy of dust could make concrete floors below collapse fairly quickly. Perhaps you could enlighten me please. I am intrigued.

[blackcat]

Look at the evidence left at ground zero. Relatively little concrete chunks from about 80 floors (each tower) which were undamaged by fire or impact of planes. The vast majority was turned to a fine powder - consistent with the use of explosives and utterly inconsistent with falling or being impacted from above.

It is tedious to keep having to repeat the blatantly obvious which is that the towers were blown up by explosives. If the shills were banned we could move away from all this dross - it isn't as if they believe the official fairy tale themselves anyway.

[spiv]

Couldn't agree with you more Blackcat.

No matter what the lies, intimidations and obfuscation, there is no one, not even someone as powerful as that war criminal Bush, who can ignore the laws of physics!!!

Haven't heard from Jay Ref or Wepmop yet, so I assume they are American? Yup, that would explain it, no doubt staunch Republicans, or even worse, 9 to 5 government men sent to obfuscate!!

[scubadiver]

[Jay Ref]

[spiv]

Gawd Jay Ref, with Bush as President, Blair as Prime Minister and you in the army?? No wonder the world is going to ratsh*t, is it?

[Jay Ref]

[spiv]

How about this you idiot.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Shake.html

[Jay Ref]

[Jay Ref]

[Jay Ref]

[Mooter]

[Jay Ref]