Originally posted by Muaddib
Another of the theories in which some people keep claiming something else happened at the WTC is proved to be false, and now we get two people trying
to come up with some lame excuses, which do not make any sense, trying to prove to themselves and anyone dumb enough to believe that "if the towers
went into PERFECT freefall all by themselves, THEY WOULDN"T MAKE A SOUND, AND THERE WOULD BE NO DUST CLOUD."....
This topic is now officially going into the world of la la land.
muaddib, if i was wrong about this, howard would have called me on it right away. his response to this is, "i don't agree with those
calculations", not, "that is bad science".
i'll go through it again, because if you're going to continue all your super successful "debunking", LOL, you will need to understand this simple
physics law. the law of conservation of energy.
can you make a sound without moving? if you stopped eating, would you be strong? can you blow a puff of smoke out of your lungs without moving?
can a car with no gas be driven away? does gas push a car? are you getting this? you need to convert energy from one form into another in order to
the amount of work required to bring a tower down instantly, is far greater(over time) than the amount to bring it down slowly.
if the towers stood for twenty thousand years, the rain would do this work.
if the towers fell at the same rate as the acceleration of gravity, that would be perfect freefall. so, muaddib, once again, for every decrease in
the time of the collapse, there is a greater energy requirement over time.
the reason a tower all of a sudden falling all by itself would make no sound, and have no puff of smoke, is because 100% of the energy available would
be converted from gravity into motion.
every time there is a crash, the energy to create that sound comes from the same source as the energy of collapse, ie. gravity. everytime a piece of
concrete is pulverized(and the more complete the pulverisation, the greater the energy requirement), there is less energy available. for every air
pocket between floors that is resisting the downward cascade, the fall should be slowed. for every metre of distance something is thrown from the
towers, there is less energy available to speed the collapse.
do you understand yet? the potential energy from gravity is like the gas, and the towers are like a car. the faster you drive the tower into the
ground, the faster you burn your gas. so, if these towers did indeed fall at near the rate of acceleration due to gravity, and they made a dust cloud
that big, and they made a loud noise, AND THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL IN THE BASEMENT FOR WEEKS AFTERWARDS(it takes a great deal of energy to melt steel),
......it would be like getting into a dodge viper with a gallon of gas in it, and driving at 160 mph from NY to LA.
there has to be a massive external source of energy to account for all the work that was done(work in the physics sense, my little messiah of
do you understand the law of conservation of energy, now? because all the physicists in la la land understand it.
[edit on 29-6-2005 by billybob]