I am just after some clarification......and wondered if anyone can help me with this?
It is often said that to believe the official story is to believe that 2 laws of physics were broken
I am 100% decided of the need for an independant investigation and fully appreciate the absence of a body providing momentum for a straight down collapse and at free speed was a missing but i wouldn't knwo where to start in relating this back to someone who thinks they understand physics and doesn't understand why i say that 2 physics laws were broken
Can anyone detail the scientific view of this, is it equation based and how can it be applied here against the official story?
Thanks in advance
The falling towers and the 2 broken laws of physics
Moderator: Moderators
Stuart, there is lots out there if you google 9/11 simple physics for example.
For instance -
Free-Falling Bodies
Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
YouTube - (Part2) 911 Simple Physics Structural Failure Vs Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecmQegzMJQE
A favourite (humorous) example of mine is -
9/11 Physics: "You Can't Use Common Sense"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M&feature=related
For instance -
Free-Falling Bodies
Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
YouTube - (Part2) 911 Simple Physics Structural Failure Vs Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecmQegzMJQE
A favourite (humorous) example of mine is -
9/11 Physics: "You Can't Use Common Sense"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M&feature=related
-
kbo234
- Validated Poster
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:51 pm
- Location: Croydon, Surrey
- Contact:
The simplest way to describe the ways these 2 laws were broken is to start with the fact that the collapses were at free-fall speed. Some will determinedly try to argue with you and deny this, but they are government apologists full-stop.
The truth does not matter to these people.....only discrediting your argument.
The official NIST collapse time of the south tower is 9 seconds. The time for a body to fall from 417 metres (the height of the tower) to the ground experiencing NO air resistance is 9.22 seconds
[figure derived using the formula distance = 0.5 x acceleration due to gravity(9.81 m/s^2)) x time of fall squared ]
Therefore one might claim that the South tower came down faster than free-fall (a claim not worth making because these times are necessarily approximate.....however if bunker-buster-type explosives were used that create local vacuums after exploding, such a reality is not impossible because the downward force would then exceed the weight of the floors ....like they were being 'sucked' down)......
......the point is that all 3 towers collapsed at very, very close to free-fall speeds whichever way you try and spin it.
Given this, concerning:
1) The Law of Conservation of Momentum:
Without going into masses x velocities, this law basically expresses and reflects the reality that if any moving body collides with a stationary body (of whatever mass), the moving body will and must be slowed down by the collision.
.....Can you run through any obstacle, however slight, as if it was not there? No, the moving object is always slowed down.....always!.....
......except on 9/11......!
......falling floors impacted on (supposedly) stationary floors and experienced no deceleration whatsoever.
This is our first violation of a fundamental law of physics.
2) Law of Conservation of Energy:
At free-fall speed any GCSE student should be able to tell you that ALL gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of motion of the falling (accelerating) body. So....
......while falling, all the gravitational energy was converting into kinetic energy.......so.......where did the energy come from that pulverised hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete etc in the two tall towers into dust (actually, particularly small particles of dust)....
........before the buildings hit the ground!
Where could the energy to do this possibly have come from?
There was no energy available. It was all being used up in the fall......
.......only explosives can possibly explain these two anomalies.
The explosives provided the energy to pulverise the buildings and....
.......the explosives destroyed supporting columns holding up floors before anything fell on them. There could have been no floor-on-floor impacts during those collapses.
In fact the destruction of these columns must have occurred at a significant length of time before theoretical impact because the top floors would already have been traveling at high speed and if a support was taken out too late there would still have been large impacts between floors.
However, you look at it......and remember, there is shedloads of other evidence for this......all three collapses were controlled demolitions.
Anyone who says different is either a credulous fool who has not looked at the evidence.....
......or a liar....(whatever their reason).
The truth does not matter to these people.....only discrediting your argument.
The official NIST collapse time of the south tower is 9 seconds. The time for a body to fall from 417 metres (the height of the tower) to the ground experiencing NO air resistance is 9.22 seconds
[figure derived using the formula distance = 0.5 x acceleration due to gravity(9.81 m/s^2)) x time of fall squared ]
Therefore one might claim that the South tower came down faster than free-fall (a claim not worth making because these times are necessarily approximate.....however if bunker-buster-type explosives were used that create local vacuums after exploding, such a reality is not impossible because the downward force would then exceed the weight of the floors ....like they were being 'sucked' down)......
......the point is that all 3 towers collapsed at very, very close to free-fall speeds whichever way you try and spin it.
Given this, concerning:
1) The Law of Conservation of Momentum:
Without going into masses x velocities, this law basically expresses and reflects the reality that if any moving body collides with a stationary body (of whatever mass), the moving body will and must be slowed down by the collision.
.....Can you run through any obstacle, however slight, as if it was not there? No, the moving object is always slowed down.....always!.....
......except on 9/11......!
......falling floors impacted on (supposedly) stationary floors and experienced no deceleration whatsoever.
This is our first violation of a fundamental law of physics.
2) Law of Conservation of Energy:
At free-fall speed any GCSE student should be able to tell you that ALL gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of motion of the falling (accelerating) body. So....
......while falling, all the gravitational energy was converting into kinetic energy.......so.......where did the energy come from that pulverised hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete etc in the two tall towers into dust (actually, particularly small particles of dust)....
........before the buildings hit the ground!
Where could the energy to do this possibly have come from?
There was no energy available. It was all being used up in the fall......
.......only explosives can possibly explain these two anomalies.
The explosives provided the energy to pulverise the buildings and....
.......the explosives destroyed supporting columns holding up floors before anything fell on them. There could have been no floor-on-floor impacts during those collapses.
In fact the destruction of these columns must have occurred at a significant length of time before theoretical impact because the top floors would already have been traveling at high speed and if a support was taken out too late there would still have been large impacts between floors.
However, you look at it......and remember, there is shedloads of other evidence for this......all three collapses were controlled demolitions.
Anyone who says different is either a credulous fool who has not looked at the evidence.....
......or a liar....(whatever their reason).