The Physics of 911

Please explain how the conservation of energy dictates a jolt (hint: in the Physics taught in Universities... it doesn't).

The physics here is horrible.

Please explain how the lower intact core structure represents a cause without an effect. Explain that if you would.


You've offered nothing in the way of explaining how the lower intact core structure had no effect on the descending upper block.

Olivier, 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.

No. my point is simply you don't have another hypothesis to explain what happened. Until you produce one, I will stick to the standard hypothesis, which appears unproblematic to me. I saw two planes hitting two towers, followed by two huge fires, followed by two towers collapsing from the very same points where they were hit by the planes, and I concluded that there is a cause-to-effect relationship. I read many articles and papers supporting this with data and hard science, with none of the telltale signs of fake science which abound in "truthers" papers (vague language, quotes without attribution, lack of methodology section, etc.).

If you want to convince (or anyone really) to abandon the standard theory, you will have to come with a better explanation for what happened. A rival theory that makes sense. It's not enough to express some vaguish feelings that the standard theory ain't working... especially as you express these feelings in almost undecipherable giberish language copy-pasted ad nauseam.

This is not a comparison of hypothesis'. I've just shown you a problem with the physics of the event. You've offered nothing in return. Perhaps you missed the problem that was put to you. I'll repeat it:

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.

I've bolded the pertinent point. If you disagree with it, then explain why you disagree with it.

There is a third possibility: your understanding of the laws of physics is incorrect. And a fourth one: you can watch a video 100 times and only see what you want to see.

Which explains why most Americans weren't even aware of WTC 7, or the demolition video of that happening.

By the way, what do you mean by "neutralized". To me that's similar to: "The core beams had been heated enough to weaken their strength significantly".

You are the one making ridiculous claims about Physics. I am just an amused onlooker to this carwreck... But I wanted to point out that the claims made about the conservation of energy and Newton's third law have nothing to do with the concepts with the same name studied as part of real Physics.

[quoteThere is a third possibility: your understanding of the laws of physics is incorrect. And a fourth one: you can watch a video 100 times and only see what you want to see. ][/quote]
That's not an argument or an explanation.

You're implying that the core structure below the impact zone was fire damaged. By neutralized I mean offering no resistance. I don't know what you think you're seeing in the video below, but everyone else is seeing that the antenna is not meeting with any resistance. I'll let you come to the conclusion of what that means.

No, this is what I'm saying:

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?

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

Now instead of just waving your arms as a way to assure us that the intact core structure below the impact zone would have no effect on the descending upper block, explain how physics dictates that the core structure would have no effect. Take your time.

Glenn,

I am wondering how you decide which scientists to believe and which scientists to discount. There are 99% of scientists who say that the collapse of the World Trade Center was consistent with being hit by two airplanes. There is a small number of renegade scientists (less than 1%) who believe that in 9/11 conspiracy theories.

For some reason you are choosing to go with the renegades.

In contrast, about 97% percent of scientists believe that humans use of fossil fuels is leading to significant climate change that poses a significant threat to natural ecosystems. There are a few renegade scientists who believe that global climate change is a hoax?

Do you go with the renegades in this case?

It seem to me that if you reject the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in one instance, basing your argument on the consensus of the scientific community in another ruins your credibility.

It us pretty easy to show that the claims about Newton's Third Law and the Conservation of Energy made on this thread are completely bogus.

Made up science isn't science.

I believe this is nonsense. Please explain how you understand the conservation of energy and why it "dictates" that the upper block would have exhibited a visible jolt.

I think you are just incorrectly throwing around physics terms without having a clue of what they mean. If you want to explain your point in terms of conservation of energy, I am listening. Real physics interests me (fake physics.... not so much).

This is an appeal to authority. Besides, I asked you to explain how it is that the upper block descended upon the lower intact core structure and yet met with no resistance from the lower intact block. You saw that the antenna dropped with the upper floors without slowing down. That means it met with no resistance when the resistance was obviously there. Explain that.

Ok I watched the video. And I want to point out a couple of things.

1) The claim that the structure "will be slowed" is wrong. The entire system is acting under gravity meaning that the center of mass of the system will be accelerating (speeding up). If there was no resistance, the antenna would be accelerating at 32 ft/second/second. If it is going at a constant speed, then it is being resisted. (If you don't believe this, just think about what happens when you drop something. It doesn't drop at constant speed).

I am not making any claims here other than the point that your understanding of the Physics involved is simply wrong.

You won't accept this because you have your story set. But your basic points about Physics are incorrect. Any high school student would understand this.

2) You are making up the part about the jolt. I don't know what you mean by "jolt" but other than stating it is true, you haven't shown any reason that it is true.

3) You are are looking at a YouTube video. It is a 2 dimensional video of a 3 dimensional structure collapsing. It is ridiculous to think that you could even make any meaningful measurements from this video. The actual dynamics going on at that point are complicated, the outside of the building you see interacts with the inside of the building you don't see... although they don't necessarily drop at the same rate. The point being that you can't really make scientific measurements from just a YouTube Video... which is why these exercises are ridiculous to anyone who really respects science.

Of course, you aren't even trying to make measurement... you are just choosing to see in the video what you want to see.

I looked at the video a couple of times. I am not going to speculate what the measurements would be. The antenna looks like it is falling at a fairly constant rate (meaning that the resistance it is experience is equal to the force of gravity) but that seems unlikely to me, and I don't have data to make this case either way, nor would it prove anything.

But you are making up "physics" rather than using real physics.

I suggest that you review that video of the collapse I provided. Put a marker on your computer screen right at the base of the antenna. Then once the antenna begins to drop, count the seconds it takes for the top of the antenna to pass your marker. How many seconds do you count?

Ok Glenn, I will play (this once, only because you are a little more polite than Camlok). My caveat is that making measurements from a YouTube video is ridiculous from a scientific standpoint... but I will play anyway.

Will we be using the real laws of Physics on this little exercise? Let's start with Newton's second Law (F = ma) and the formula for motion under constant acceleration (d = V0t + 0.5at^2). The acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 m/s^2... and we will have to make an estimate for D.

But if there is not constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 in the video... will you accept that your theory is blown?

OK, let me do as you ask (max goes and views the video carefully......)

... I am back. The collapse starts between 0:30 and 0:31. I lose the top of the tower in smoke at about 0:35, but it looks like the top would have hit my cursor between 0:35 and 0:36. I would say the collapse takes between 5 and 6 seconds. I also note that the tower isn't falling straight, it is turning a bit as it falls. By the end of this interval it has tipped 5-10 degrees.

Please continue.

Now how far will an object fall in four and a half seconds?

Under freefall, from rest... 99.225 meters.

I counted 5 to 6 seconds. Why did you change that to 4.5 seconds?