The Physics of 911

It's a simple yes or no . . .

That's better. I am glad we are taking this slowñy.

The first statement you made was incorrect, the second was correct. For an instant, an object in freefall from rest will have a speed of 32 ft/sec

I asked you how far an object will fall in 4.5 seconds. You said 99.225 meters, which is approximately 328 feet. Correct?

Yes

You know that the antenna was 360 feet tall. Correct?

Right?

Yes Glenn. You said the antenna was 360 ft. All of this, we have already been through all this. My calculations stand.

Good. Now If an object falls 328 feet in 4.5 seconds, and the antenna dropped 360 feet in 5 seconds, what does that say about the rate of descent of the antenna? Did it accelerate during its descent, or did it descend at a constant rate?

Let me explain what is going on here. This is psychology, not science. You have a political belief and a psychological need to confirm it. So you are taking all the facts that confirm your beliefs, and ignoring any fact that refutes it. And when the facts can't be ignored, you are changing them.

You asked me to view video. You requested that I mark where the tower was, and how long it took the tower to fall. I thought this was amusing... so I did exactly that. I paused the video and put my cursor on the screen where the tower was. I then carefully ran through the video multiple times to try to estimate how long it took for the tower to fall its own length.

I came up with the answer of 5 - 6 seconds. I noted my observations and the issues with the smoke and the tipping (this is an important part of science). And I made my estimate without knowing what the answer would be. After you told me the length of the tower, I then calculated the acceleration and noted that there was what you are calling "resistance".

This isn't the answer you wanted.... sorry. But this was the answer I calculated based on measurements I took without knowing what the results would be.

Now you are coming up with this 4.5s figure (which I think is ridiculously low, but so be it). And voila! suprise! suprise! you are claiming that it confirms your belief just as you thought it would.

I am curious about how you came up with the 4.5s figure. I suspect that you moved your finger along that sky diving chart you linked to before to "calculate" the number you thought would be right... and then you willed the video to match your expectation.

This is, after all, about psychology more than it is about science.

You don't have to explain what's going on here. It's apparent that rather than answer my last question, you've decided to start to dance again. I'll repeat the question.

If an object falls 328 feet in 4.5 seconds, and the antenna dropped 360 feet in 5 seconds, what does that say about the rate of descent of the antenna? Did it accelerate during its descent, or did it descend at a constant rate as you have earlier proposed? It's not rocket science. If you don't care to answer it, then just don't. Perhaps you are unhappy with what the antenna's rate of descent obviously points to.

Not only am I not dancing.... I am been very extremely detailed and patient.

I gave the exact calculations I used; the equations and the numbers. I detailed the method I used to analyze the video and explained the difficulty of taking the measurements.

This is how science is done.

I told you... the equation is D = v0*t + 0.5a*t^2 (you can confirm this on any physics website). Since we are assuming this antenna starts at rest (v0 = 0), this simplifies to D = 0.5 * a * t^2.

To calculate the Acceleration based on time to fall a distance you can reorganize this to get the equation (A = 2 * D / t^2). I will let you do the rest of the calculations yourself but the answer for 5 seconds is 28 ft/s^2 ... which still indicates resistance.

The time I was using was 5.5 seconds.

What you are doing is starting with a political belief, and then searching for results that match your pre-existing beliefs (and making them up if you have to).

This isn't how science works (which probably explains why the vast majority of scientists view 9/11 conspiracy theories as nonsense).

So let's refine your answer to a firm positon. You are saying that the rate of descent of the antenna reflects the conclusion that it did not accelerate during its descent. Correct?

No, you could just go back and read what I said.

My rough estimate was that it accelerates at a rate of 6 m/s^2. This is significantly lower than the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 that it would be in freefall. A lower acceleration than expected suggests an upward force (i.e. resistance).

You're having a kneejerk reaction. In this entire thread I've made no mention of anything at all political. If you believe I have, then I challenge you to find it. And when you fail to do so, consider your propensity to falsely make a characterization of a questioner instead of just answering the question. I wonder what the psychological name for seeing what isn't there is.

This is about psychology, not physics.

You aren't going to accept any result other than the result you want to confirm your political beliefs, are you.

The antenna descended 360 feet in five seconds. That's 30 feet shy of freefall. So the answer is that the antenna accelerated substantially as it descended. Now, if the heat damaged upper block of the Tower met with the intact lower core structure--which was designed to support vertical loads--physics dictates that the energy required for the upper block to break up the steel below and pulverize concrete would absolutely be an energy drain. As such, this nearly freefalling of the antenna suggests that the upper block met with very little resistance. Whether you know it or not, you're pushing the idea that when the upper block started to descend and contacted with the lower block, the lower block just gave way and began falling at the same rate at the upper block. But we know that that's impossible.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that the more damaged upper block would have been crushed as it met with the lower intact core.

This is simply untrue.

This is the problem Glenn, you have started with a conclusion, that you apparently have some need to believe no matter what, and then you are running around making up facts to support it.

Making random broad statements like this is the antithesis of science.

If it isn't politics, why do you have a need to hold this particular rather unconventional belief?

Okay, so your response to my post is: That is simply untrue.

Well let me counter that with: That is simply untrue.

lol