The Physics of 911

So lets see what is happening here.

You are rejecting the judgement of the scientific community (more than 99% of it). You are latching on to a couple of dissident voices on the internet (including the less than 1% of credentialed scientists). I don't think you are claiming any ability in science (you didn't jump at the chance to do the calculations yourself in our discussion).

I am really really curious about what drives you to reject the scientific community? You claim it isn't politics... but there is some reason that you have chosen this particular set of beliefs. It isn't science.

The scientific community has been very effective over the past decades. You are typing on the internet, you likely use modern medicine and fly on airplanes.

That is a frustration to me (and it isn't just you Glennn). People use science when it suits them without much thought. But then they reject science whenever their political beliefs aren't supported by it.

Your appeal to authority is noted. But it doesn't address my post.

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--just shy of freefall. 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.

I am not appealing to authority, I am appealing to reality. If the view of science at the core of your believes contradicts the scientific community, you aren't being rational. We are going to keep going around in circles since every time I try to explain the science to you, you either ignore the point or make up new science. I gamely played your game by analyzing that video. It failed to show me anything new. I am not enjoying this any more.

I am interested in how you chose this particular conspiracy theory. You have done a good job at cherry picking information, pulling ideas and videos off the internet and creating a narrative for yourself.

But why this one? Did you have a conspiratorial view of the US government before 9/11 happened?

I was a little surprised that you don't believe that humans are causing global climate change. Do you believe the moon landings actually happened?

I would be very surprised if you are a creationist (please tell me if you are because that would be fascinating).

Again you've failed to address the points and questions in my post. And again, you've decided to characterize me as a conspiracy theorist.

Here's where we were. 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 no resistance to speak of.

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--just shy of freefall. But we know that that's impossible. And that's why you're not inclined to explain the mechanism by which such an impossibility could occur. And that why you've opted to try to portray me as a conspiracy theorist instead.

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.

You are a conspiracy theorist. That is a fact. The idea that the US government is hiding some dastardly plot involving planting explosives and possibly secret military technology in a plan that would have involved thousands of government agents to pull off is a conspiracy theory.

I am interested in why you have chosen this particular conspiracy theory.

You have your beliefs and you have built up a narrative that supports them. And you going to continue cherry-picking facts and making up facts to support your beliefs. Am I wrong about this?

It is clear that the science doesn't matter really in this discussion. I gamely analyzed your video, and I came up with the conclusion that there was resistance. That makes your last points rather moot. You haven't even really paid attention to the actual science I have interjected here.

There is interesting science here, there is a branch of Physics called kinemetics that is relevant. I would discuss this with you if I thought you were really interested in the science. I don't believe this is the case.

No, I'm someone who saw the antenna on the North Tower drop at virtually freefall speed. That means that it met with virtually no resistance. That means that somehow the intact core structure below was neutralized. In your mind, anyone who asks for an explanation as to how the antenna and upper block could pass through the lower block as if it wasn't there is a conspiracy theorist. So be it.

Anyway, Here's where we were. 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 no resistance to speak of.

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 as the upper block--just shy of freefall. But we know that that's impossible. And that's why you're not inclined to explain the mechanism by which such an impossibility could occur. And that why you've opted to try to portray me as a conspiracy theorist instead.

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

If you are going to answer this post by calling me names, I will repeat the question as often as necessary.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that you are right, and that indeed the core structure was "neutralized", whatever that means, so what? What does it prove?

This is the argument we have with every conspiracy theorist of any flavor. They make a claim that isn't true or isn't provable, and then they stick with it obsessively ignoring all other evidence.

- The Creationists do this (with arguments about irreducible structures in the eye).

- The anti-vaxxers do this (with arguments about autism incidence rates).

- The anti moon landing people do this (with arguments about waving flags, blinking stars and camera lighting)

- The ancient civilization on Mars proponents do this (with structures they say are faces and foundations from Nasa photographs).

- Now you are doing the same thing with this antenna. There are two planes, eyewitnesses in New York and Boston, the scientific establishment... you are ignoring all the evidence because you are obsessing over an antenna in a YouTube video.

You are behaving the same way that every conspiracy theorist behaves. You have an idea in your head that you are going to stick with in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

Olivier asks a good question too.

Sorry, but the video clearly shows that the antenna descended 360 feet in 5 seconds. We both know what that means, but you are dancing around the conclusion.

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

Let's try again.

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 no resistance to speak of.

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 as the upper block--just shy of freefall. But we know that that's impossible. And that's why you're not inclined to explain the mechanism by which such an impossibility could occur. And that's why you've opted to try to portray me as a conspiracy theorist instead.

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

Again, if you are going to answer this post by calling me names, I will repeat the question as often as necessary.

Glennn,

We don't buy your argument any more than we believe the Creationist argument that "science dictates" that an eye can't develop without breaking thermodynamics.

It is a standard argument from all types of Conspiracy Theorists. You state what "science dictates" and then explain how your conspiracy is supported by it. Conspiracy theorists are always making up science. That isn't how real science works.

You stating what "science dictates" is nonsense. Even real scientists wouldn't make such general claims. In science you back up your claims with math and actual science not random phrases you picked up from a Physics dictionary.

You are doing what every conspiracy theorist does. You have started with a narrative that you have a psychological need to believe is true. You are choosing just the "facts" that you think support your narrative and making up facts as you need.

No, you can't refute it. And on top of that, you're back to name calling again.

The video below clearly shows that the antenna descended 360 feet in 5 seconds. We both know what that means, but you are dancing around the conclusion.

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

So let's try it again.

The antenna descended 360 feet in five seconds. That's 30 feet shy of freefall. So 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 no resistance to speak of.

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 as the upper block--just shy of freefall. But we know that that's impossible. And that's why you're not inclined to explain the mechanism by which such an impossibility could occur. And that's why you've opted to try to portray me as a conspiracy theorist instead.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that the more damaged upper block would have been equally crushed as it met with the lower intact core. First of all, the lateral ejection of steel and concrete reduces the mass. Plus, the force of material ejection must be accounted for. Also, the pulverization of said steel and concrete is yet another energy sink. But in your mind, there was enough energy left over to cause a virtually freefall descent. Not even a jolt was observed as the antenna descended. Where did the energy to accomplish all that come from?

And again, if you are going to answer this post by calling me names, I will repeat the question as often as necessary. Maybe even more often.

You are absolutely correct. I can't refute what you are saying for the same reason I can't refute Creationists, or Moon landing deniers, or anti-vaxxers. You are making up your own science. There is nothing in the world I could possibly say that would change your mind about what you think this video means.

No one can ever refute a conspiracy theory. That is why we are still talking about this after so many posts. Now you may ask why I am still here talking to you (knowing that I will never be able to refute any argument you make). That is actually a good question.

It was Camlok that really pissed me off (which isn't your fault). The reason he believes the 9/11 conspiracy theory is pretty clear, his hatred of the United States is very strong... the 9/11 conspiracy theory pushes the right buttons for him.

I am a little curious about why you have jumped onto this particular theory. That is why I want to know what other conspiracy theories you accept.

Wrong. Anyone can see that the antenna drops 360 feet in 5 seconds, which is 30 feet shy of freefall, which shows that the antenna accelerated substantially as it descended. 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 indicates that the upper block met with no resistance to speak of.

You're pushing the idea that when the upper block starts to descend and makes contact with the lower block, the lower block just gives way and begins falling at the same rate as the upper block--just shy of freefall. But we know that that's impossible. And that's why you're not inclined to explain the mechanism by which such an impossibility could occur. And that's why you've opted to try to portray me as a conspiracy theorist instead, which you're still trying to do.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that the more damaged upper block would have been equally crushed as it met with the lower intact core. First of all, the lateral ejection of steel and concrete reduces the mass. Plus, the force of material ejection must be accounted for. Also, the pulverization of said steel and concrete is yet another energy sink. But in your mind, there was enough energy left over to cause a virtually freefall descent. Not even a jolt was observed as the antenna descended. Where did the energy to accomplish all that come from?

You are just proving my point Glenn.

"30 feet shy of freefall" is something you made up, not me. I said 5-6 seconds and the real time I used was 5.5 seconds. But even if it were "30 feet shy of freefall" as you say, it still wouldn't mean what you think it means. The very phrase is nonsensical. I did the calculation and I came up with a rough estimate that the average acceleration was 6 m/s^2. If you want to quote me... don't just make stuff up. An acceleration of 6 m/s^2 is what I what I actually said.

That is how conspiracies work. You are obsessing over one little detail (an antenna in a YouTube video) that doesn't even prove anything.

You still have answered big things like whether planes hit the towers (as lots of normal people witnessed) or how a conspiracy that would have required thousands of agents was pulled off with no one blowing the whistle.

This conspiracy theory looks a lot like every other conspiracy theory.

Yes it does. It means that that the upper block accelerated as it dropped, which is impossible since the core structure of the building would have offered a lot of resistance.  This indicates that the core structure of the lower part of the building had been neutralized.

The antenna did not drop at a constant speed. So, by your own admission, it wasn't being resisted. So, my contention is still that the more damaged upper block would have been equally crushed as it met with the lower intact core; and that the lateral ejection of steel and concrete would reduce the mass; and that the force of material ejection must be accounted for, too; and that the pulverization of said steel and concrete is yet another energy sink.

So why don't you explain how there was enough energy left over to cause a virtually freefall descent. Not even a jolt was observed as the antenna descended. Where did the energy to accomplish all that come from?

Explain how when the upper block starts to descend and makes contact with the lower block, the lower block just gives way and instantaneously begins falling at the same rate as the upper block.

Also, you're bringing up conspiracy theorists again. I've not mentioned anything about there being a conspiracy. You're just predisposed to believe that whoever asks any questions about 9/11 is a conspiracy theorist.

What you are saying doesn't make any sense to me. I don't feel like arguing it any more; you just keep saying the same thing over and over again.

It doesn't matter what I say. You know that I that I calculated an acceleration of 6 m/s^2 and that in my somewhat informed opinion I believe that that implies the "resistance" you insist doesn't exist actually does.

You tell me... is there anything I can say that will get you to change your narrative? Your understanding of Physics is wrong, I tried to explain this to you. You had no interest in the actual science, you simply changed the subject to explain to me why your narrative had to be correct.

I have argued with Creationists and Anti-Vaxxers and Moon landing deniers. I don't know exactly why I keep putting myself in this position... but this doesn't feel any different.

The upper block dropped and met with next to no resistance. The antenna shows that the rate of descent increased during descent. The antenna also shows that, despite the upper block's collision with the lower intact core structure, there was not so much as a jolt. When a falling structure hits a stationary and intact structure below, two things happen. The lower structure will resist, and the upper structure will be slowed or arrested. The video clearly shows that the upper structure was not slowed down in the least.

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

My contention is still that the more damaged upper block would have been equally crushed as it met with the lower intact core; and that the ejection of steel and concrete would reduce the mass that is dropping; and that the force of material ejection must be accounted for, too; and that the pulverization of said steel and concrete is yet another energy sink. Where did all the energy to accomplish this come from??

You haven't answered to any of this.

I think what he's trying to suggest is that part of the building disappeared.

So...New line of thought...

Alien transporter technology? Some sort of warp/tear in space? Miniature black hole? New technology that the government has been hiding?

If you're not a troll, you'll explain how the upper block passed through the core structure below without slowing down. I'm guessing you won't explain, which means . . .