It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
A potential energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the MASS in question is free to fall the DISTANCE in question. That means the distance must be EMPTY.
You could compute the mass of the top 100 feet of Mt. Everest and multiply that by its height above Sea Level. But what would that mean in terms of reality? It would be nothing but a mathematical DELUSION.. The mass can't fall. All of the mountain is in the way.
The WTC towers stood for 28 years. Hundreds of thousands of people went in and out for years without the slightest worry about them falling down. What was their potential energy?
ZERO!
But that would not be empty space all of the way to the ground.
"Material was turning to dust hundreds of feet above the ground. How could potential energy computed relative to the ground cause dustification hundreds of feet up? "
I think EVERYBODY over the age of 12 is QUALIFIED to understand Newtonian Physics if properly explained. Why can't you.
Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by iamcpc
"more 100% un expert opinion. It was not empy space. That's why the towers didn't collapse at free fall speed. It was 95% air."
damn near...
Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by iamcpc
lol how do you get a star for that?
Yeah the The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.
That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.
Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by iamcpc
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.
Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by iamcpc
Yes it would and that's what makes the official story even more out of the question...
Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by iamcpc
It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.
The purported "gravitational collapse" (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.
The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
A potential energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the MASS in question is free to fall the DISTANCE in question. That means the distance must be EMPTY.
psik
Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by iamcpc
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
What about the gravitational collapse when I dropped a cinderblock on a pop can. The pop can collapsed downward through the path of the greatest resistance at nearly free fall speed.