posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 10:35 PM
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Recently it seems to me that 9/11 Conspiracists have retreated to a point where they discuss only the "physics" of the collapse of the WTC towers.
They brush aside the discussion of a grander conspiracy because the mechanics of the tower collapse are inherently suspisous. Any other argument is
trumped by the fact that the towers cannot - simply cannot - have collapsed in the manner that they did.
So I would like to hear, in brief precis, why the collapse is impossible. Describe to me why, in simple terms, it cannot have happened without
explosives.
We are dealing with two simultaneous factors. The Conservation of Momentum and the fact that the towers had to hold themselves up against gravity.
Therefore they had to get stronger and therefore heavier toward the bottom. In addition to handling the wind so the bottom had to cope with the
sway.
Suppose you had 109 masses floating in air one above the other all 12 feet apart. They are held up by magic in this thought experiment. Most of them
will not move until they are hit from above. Suppose the top 15 start falling and eventually the 15th hits the stationary 16th. The velocity of
both masses change due to the conservation of momentum. The falling one slows down and the stationary one speeds up. The new velocity is determined
by
m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 +m2) * v3
m1 is the falling mass v1 is the impact velocity. v2 is zero because m2 was stationary. So if m1 and m2 are identical then v3 will be half of v1.
But if m2 is heavier than m1 then v3 will be less than half of v1.
So the double mass m1+m2 continues down but now mass 14 is gaining on it from behind. So either it hits 17 first and slows down more or gets hit by
14 from behind and speeds up. So this is what my Python program simulates. If all of the masses are identical then the total collapse takes 12
seconds with NO SUPPORTS TO BE BENT OR BROKEN.
But if the masses get heavier toward the bottom then the conservation of momentum slows everything down more so discussing this for TEN YEARS without
having accurate distribution of steel and concrete data is complete nonsense. So depending on your assumptions about distribution of mass this
MAGICAL COLLAPSE with no supports could take up to 15 seconds. So why do we have EXPERTS saying the buildings came down in ranges from 8.4 to 11
seconds?
But what happens when you add supports that must be crushed from above. That crushing requires energy. The only source of energy supposedly is the
kinetic energy of the mass falling from above. So the falling mass has to lose energy and therefore slow down in order to break the supports in
addition to accelerating the stationary mass. That is what this model is about.
www.youtube.com...
But then everybody complains about the paper and I have to explain the square cube law and it is just simpler for most people to BELIEVE whatever they
prefer.
The bottom line is that there is no way the top of the north tower could have enough energy to make all of that mass come down that fast. But then I
must be a liar since I point out the fact that we don't have the exact data on the distributions of steel and concrete. So why haven't all sorts of
experts been demanding it for TEN YEARS? Where is the engineering school that has built a physical model that can completely collapse due to the drop
of its top 15% on the rest?
What engineering school has even mentioned trying?
9/11 is a scientific travesty.
You can't even accurately compute the potential energy of the building without knowing the steel and concrete on every level.
psik