The Physics of 911

No.


err... no!


The core beams had been heated enough to weaken their strength significantly. We've been through all this already. Do you ever pay attention to anything I say? Do you ever update your copy-paste material? Am i posting to a machine, or to an amnesiac?

The problem with that explanation for the collapses is that the heat damaged upper block would have been destroyed as it contacted the lower intact and unheated lower core structure and perimeter columns.

Yes. And now I'm hearing you attempting to convince me that the core columns below the impact zone were subjected to enough heat to cause them to lose the battle with the upper block that was subjected to much fire damage. That's not logical.

Beyond that, the law of conservation of energy dictates that the upper block of the North Tower would have been subjected to a visible jolt as it descended, but video of the collapse shows no jolt and no slowing down at all as it met with the lower intact core structure. When a falling body hits another falling body, two things happen. The lower body is moved, and the upper body is slowed. Here is a video that clearly shows that the upper body was not slowed down in the least. Watch the antenna. This means that either the lower structure was removed, or that the laws of physics were violated. Which do you believe to be the case here. Your "The core beams had been heated enough to weaken their strength significantly" is not an explanation for what was observed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

And the South Tower, whose upper block fell over the edge, leaves you with nothing to cause its collapse, unless you want to hold on to your idea that the floors dragged down the core structure and perimeter columns even though those structures were designed to support the floors, and not the other way around.

I'm trying to tell you that since there is no precedent for this scenario, your contention that the explosion--one of three--is the building "cracking open" is unfounded.

The explosion also coincides with the tower beginning its collapse. In that respect, you are correct--if it looks like a duck and definitely sounds like a duck, maybe it's a duck.

Ahhh, but you see Olly feels entitled to make assumptions based on observations only.

If anyone else attempts to do the same thing, then they are lunatics or fringe dwellers or conspiracy nutters.

He's kind of "special" in that respect. Rides the special bus to daycare.

Do you return the favour? That would be a flat NOPE!.

It's a perfectly good explanation for me, but maybe you have a better one?

Bt the same token, there is no precedent either for a skyscrapper exploding. Your contention that the noise heard when the south tower breaks up was an "explosion" (ie due to the ignition of some explosive material) is therefore unfounded.

Not every noize is "an explosion". This to me was the sound of the structure breaking.

The sound from a loud explosion is a simple shockwave across low frequencies, a big boom which you can feel in your own chest. In contrast, a metalic structure cracking would emit a much more complex sound, with lots of different wavelengths (harmonics). Get us a frequency profile of that sound and we can easily see if it's a "boom" or a "crack".

That's for sure. There are, however, many examples of what an explosion sounds like. And that was an explosion. You were asked to provide an example of a building cracking open and sounding exactly like an explosion. But you found none. Therefore, your claim that a building "cracking open" sounds just like an explosion is based on nothing but your own claim.

No, it's based on listening to the sound. It sounds not at all like an explosion. Your own claim that this was an explosion is based on absolutely nothing.

Again, you are comparing the explosion that was heard to a building cracking open when you can provide no examples of a building cracking open. So the truth is that you imagine that the explosion clearly heard just before collapse was the building "cracking open.

Yeah, right, based on nothing but the explosion itself. Here have another listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMPN66FHwY&t=1s
10:55 mark.

Yes, nothing.

You are attempting to convince me that the core columns below the impact zone were subjected to enough heat to cause them to lose the battle with the upper block that was subjected to much fire damage. That's not logical.

Beyond that, the law of conservation of energy dictates that the upper block of the North Tower would have been subjected to a visible jolt as it descended, but video of the collapse shows no jolt and no slowing down at all as it met with the lower intact core structure. When a falling body hits another falling body, two things happen. The lower body is moved, and the upper body is slowed. Here is a video that clearly shows that the upper body was not slowed down in the least. Watch the antenna. This means that either the lower structure was removed, or that the laws of physics were violated. Which do you believe to be the case here. Your "The core beams had been heated enough to weaken their strength significantly" is not an explanation for what was observed.

You imagine it's a explosion. In truth it is not, just a loud sound. But not all loud sounds are created by explosives.

Hold it! I am certainly not attempting to convince you of anything. That would be very foolish.


Which do you believe to be the case?

Indeed. By now it is apparent that you have no intentions of addressing this:

The law of the conservation of energy dictates that the upper block of the North Tower would have been subjected to a visible jolt as it descended, but video of the collapse shows no jolt and no slowing down at all as it met with the lower intact core structure. When a falling structure hits a stationary and intact structure, two things happen. The lower will move, and the upper structure will be slowed. The video below clearly shows that the upper structure was not slowed down in the least. Watch the antenna at the 30 second mark. This means that either the lower structure was neutralized, or that the laws of physics were violated. Which do you believe to be the case here. Your "The core beams had been heated enough to weaken their strength significantly" is not an explanation for what was observed.

I do not believe that laws of physics were violated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

Glennn: Here is a video whose audio clearly picks up the sound of a huge explosion.

Olivier: No, that was the sound of the building cracking open.

Glennn: Have you ever heard the sound of a building cracking open?

Olivier: No.

Glennn: Oh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMPN66FHwY&t=1s

So what do you believe happened to them towers?

How to get rid of a denier? Ask him what he thinks happened. He knows how easy it'll be for you to shoot down his version of events, so he will run away.

All these types can do is criticise other people's view. They can't propose knowledge, only disparage it.

I've already told you that I don't know what the physical causes were. I only know what the observable effect was. This thread concerns the physics of what happened on 9/11. You are implying that if I don't know who did it, how they did it, and why they did it, then the physical anomalies mean nothing and need not be addressed. That's a ridiculous idea. Now let's get back on topic and pick up where we left off.

You've declared that the explosion--which can be heard at the 10:55 mark on the video below--was the sound of the Tower cracking open. However, you've never ever heard the sound of a building cracking open. You see your problem there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMPN66FHwY&t=1s
10:55 mark.

Next, the law of conservation of energy dictates that the upper block of the North Tower would have exhibited at least a visible jolt as it descended, but video of the collapse shows no jolt and no slowing down whatsoever as it met with the lower intact core structure. When a falling structure hits a stationary and intact structure, two things happen. The lower structure will resist, and the upper structure will be slowed or arrested. The video below clearly shows that the upper structure was not slowed down in the least. Watch the antenna at the 30 second mark. This means that either the lower structure was neutralized before the upper structure descended, or the laws of physics were violated. Which do you suspect is the more likely explanation? Your "The core beams had been heated enough to weaken their strength significantly" is certainly not an explanation for what was observed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
30 second mark.

The South Tower, whose upper block fell over the edge, leaves you with nothing to cause its collapse, unless you want to hold on to your idea that the floors dragged down the core structure and perimeter columns even though those structures were designed to support the floors, and not the other way around.