Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check?

[gpond]

Free-Falling Bodies
Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie
Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check


http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

What do you math/physics enabled posters think of this guy's analysis?

What is wrong with his math or reasoning?

(Thanks)

He gets into the math about half way down the page. (And it is pretty basic stuff.)

This is only part of the article:

Conclusions


In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conservedHowever, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC collapses fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The purported "gravitational" collapse (video (http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html)) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within 1 second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

[lhslancers]

I refuse to believe a govt led by Bush and Cheney would put American citizens in harm's way. :censored:

[Blue_pill_envy]

I wrote this a while back. If I may, I’d like to re-post it here. I’ve been told by a couple of people that it helped them understand some of what didn’t happen on 911.

…………………

I believe it’s possible to prove…..beyond any doubt that the world trade towers were demolished…..using some type of explosive.

There are two tools needed for this proof:

Tool # 1: A watch that can count seconds.

Tool # 2: A means of viewing one of the many free copies of a video showing the collapse of either WTC towers…….. one or two…..….it doesn’t matter which one.

But first…..we must agree to something.

We must agree that the basic laws of physics must be observed for every second of that Tuesday morning…..on 911. After all, all the other seconds on planet earth must and have obeyed these laws. (this is where people do a fast fade…..to a lot of people, being asked to obey the laws of physics is like asking a stranger on a beach if they’d like a drink……some do and some don’t.) What the “some don’t” crowd don’t understand is……you have absolutely no option. It’s here that they are deciding weather they want to live on planet earth or not. For people that don’t want to live on planet earth, I say…….have a nice trip…..and be sure to say hi should you ever return.

The laws of momentum and the conservation of energy can be used to prove the case that a very large amount of energy must have been added to the WTC towers in order for them to “collapse” in the manner that was witnessed by the world…..in other words…..it can be proven that explosives were necessary to do what was done.

[Important note: Jet fuel has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. You can assume any miraculous properties of jet fuel you want…..in fact, let’s just say instead of jet fuel, it was a big pile of dynamite. Deal? Jet fuel can have no significant bearing on this proof.]

Back to the proof.

Let’s say you were standing on top of one of the towers……and another guy that looks just like you….. was standing off to the side of the building….hanging in mid air. So we’ve got you standing on the roof of a tower, and the other “you” is somehow levitating in mid air…..off to the side…… without a building below him……..so I can finish this sentence…..

Now the collapse begins……and at the precise moment you begin to fall……the other “you” begins to fall…..and remember, he doesn’t have a building below him…..so in a few seconds, he’s going to be doing about 120 miles an hour…..that’s as fast as anything can free fall on planet earth……can never go faster without adding energy…….never…….under any circumstances.

You on the other hand, are standing on the roof. When one of the floors below you fails…..you begin to fall. The top portion of the building, must fall down on top of the lower part of the building. The top part of the building (where you are), has a weight….and because it’s moving, it has momentum. The upper floors fall down on the building sitting below.

We are told that the upper floors fell down on the building below, setting off a chain reaction causing each floor to collapse down upon one another.………one at a time….….until the roof where you are standing, hits the street below…..or comes as close at it did on 911.

Energy was needed in order to start the chain reaction. (A lot more than available, but that’s another story).

That energy had to come from the falling upper section of the building. That energy must be subtracted from the momentum of the falling upper floors……..therefore, after the upper floors made contact with the building below, that upper section MUST lose momentum. After all, the upper floors just gave up a lot of energy in order to get the chain reaction started. The mass of the upper floors is still there…..it doesn’t lose any weight by falling 12 feet…..the only thing that CAN change is the speed at which it is falling.

This is not debatable. Momentum=(mass)(velocity). The Mass (the weight) of the upper floors doesn’t change. That only leaves speed (velocity). You and the roof will slow down because you have encountered a great resistance…….the steel building below.

What does that mean?

It means that the roof you are standing on must hit the ground after the “other you”. …....because the you on the roof is traveling at a slower rate of speed…..because you keep bumping into all those dam floors that are below. And your twin……the guy without the building under him,…….. goes straight down doing about 120 miles per. This is as fast as any free falling object can fall…..your twin hits the ground in about 10 seconds……..but not you, because you’re falling slower……..because you MUST fall slower…..because of all those floors you keep bumping into.

Using a watch, you can look at one of the videos of the towers falling, and measure how long it took, you would see it takes about 10 seconds for the roof to hit the ground.

It is impossible for anything to fall down upon itself and fall that fast. And remember, we’re talking about a steel building.

It would be physically impossible for you and roof to hit the ground in 10 seconds……remember……. you and the roof lose speed every time you hit another floor below……and nothing on planet earth could reach the ground in less than 10 seconds……not even your twin doing the swan dive.


Therefore, some (enormous) amount of energy must have been added, in order to remove all of the floors from under the roof (and you).

So what’s it going to be……you want to live on planet earth or what?



..

[gpond]

Well, worth the repost.

[lhslancers]

Well I watched that stammering idiot in the school room. Supposing he knew then the whole deal basically as I see it is to ram the Patriot Act up our collective arse. Yes?

[Halophyte]

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times.


This assumes the mass of the falling object is the same for the entire distance.

Not so for a collapsing building.

As the towers fell from top to bottom the mass grew exponentially, mass overcomes resistance with its momentum.

A fixed mass that is in motion tends to remain in motion at the acceleration velocity of 1 g - a mass that exponentially grows while in motion will require exponential resistance to remain under the acceleration velocity of 1 g.

This is a common fallacy in calculating the "free fall" theory.

His simple model of fixed mass falling is simply wrong.



Once the towers began to collapse its static mass is converted to kinetic energy of moving mass and that overcomes its remaining static mass.

Once they began to fall, its remaining mass underneath could not stop the collapse.

.

[gpond]

As the towers fell from top to bottom the mass grew exponentially, mass overcomes resistance with momentun.
I'll play pretty if you will. Deal?

So let me offer truly the tiniest of critiques to your statement. Might it not be more accurate to say that "the falling mass grew arithmetically", instead of exponentially? A tiny little point.

Secondly, isn't there a cost to velocity for mass to overcome resistance with that momentum? Again, the smallest of quibbles.

What say you of my queries? :chat: :call: :coolbeer:

[Halophyte]

I'll play pretty if you will. Deal?

So let me offer truly the tiniest of critiques to your statement. Might it not be more accurate to say that "the falling mass grew arithmetically", instead of exponentially? A tiny little point.

Secondly, isn't there a cost to velocity for mass to overcome resistance with that momentum? Again, the smallest of quibbles.

What say you of my queries? :chat: :call: :coolbeer:


Arithmetically ?

I'll go along with that, gpond.

I'm willing to bet it's a parabolic curve, a parabolic curve would cancel out resistance by mass.

EDIT - If the curve is at or rises above 2:1 ratio it canceles out mass, if its at 45 degree plot (2:1 ratio) it will show us a free fall velocity, under 45 degrees (under 2:1) ratio, it will show the amount of resistance of the remaining static mass, as it fell.

Pretty interesting, I might have to plot the fall and chart its mass.

This could be fun but will take a few hours.



Nevertheless, his math is flawed by its application.

.

[wrs]

You are proving yourself more ignorant each time you type. First of all let's just consider the North Tower and the top 20 floors. Whatever their mass, when they finally do crush the 90th floor and cause it to begin falling, they only add 5% to the total mass since the top 21 floors are probably all close to the same mass. Now when you add the next floor, the 88th floor you have only added 4.76% to the falling mass. By the time you get down to the 80th floor you are only adding 3% to the total mass. So Halophyte, how is it that you can be so stupid? The incremental addition of mass to the falling mass at each floor is dropping not increasing.

The rest of your statements are so confused I can't even laugh, it's just gibberish without meaning, where do you come up with such nonsense? For example:

A fixed mass that is in motion tends to remain in motion at the acceleration velocity of 1 g - a mass that exponentially grows while in motion will require exponential resistance to remain under the acceleration velocity of 1 g.

What for example is an acceleration velocity? In case you werent aware, velocity is distance travelled per unit of time and acceleration is change of velocity per unit of time. The two are not the same and to speak of an acceleration velocity is just nonsense. You can speak of the velocity of a body under acceleration which may be non-zero but it also may be zero. A body will tend to remain at it's current velocity or at rest unless acted upon by a non-zero resultant force. That is Newtons first law of motion and also dictates the static design of buildings.

Now as to your ridiculous conclusion:


Once the towers began to collapse its static mass is converted to kinetic energy of moving mass and that overcomes its remaining static mass.

Once they began to fall, its remaining mass underneath could not stop the collapse.

This is utter nonsense because mass isn't converted to energy, you are an idiot. Mass is the same no matter where it is, at the top of the building or on the ground. What is converted to KE is the Gravitational PE of the mass that has non-zero velocity. In any collision between two masses we must satisfy the following relationship called the Conservation of Momentum Principle:

M1*V1 + M2*V2 = (M1+M2)V3

In this case M1 is the mass of the upper 20 floors V1 is their velocity when they impact the bottom 90 floors. M2 is the mass of the 90th floor. After enough columns and supports are broken, the 90th floor begins to move downward. So initially we have zero velocity in the 90th floor and hence we rewrite this as

M1V1 = (M1+M2)V3

Now here is why the conservation of momentum is so important. In this case M1+M2 is greater than M1 and hence V3 must be less than V1. Thus when the top 20 floors hit the 90th floor and subsequently break it off and then move it forward, the final velocity of the two must be less than the impact velocity. That of course is not what we saw at all and this of course contradicts your bullshit.

[PatColo]

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times.

.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

@Halo,

Could you please remind the lurking masses why you don't put your Big League Engineering Skills (BS for short) to work in collecting your

MILLION BUCKS??? (http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

Let's imagine that your concern with channeling your valuable engineering time towards more industrious use as outlined above, is due to your concern that Walters/reopen911.org may welch on their proposal (a scenario we have some experience with around here! (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=28859&highlight=silver)).

Let's imagine you're fixated on defending the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0393326713/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-0246106-2288917?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155) purely out of academic pride.

In this case, why don't you devote your labors to publicly critiquing such peer reviewed academic works as :

- Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html)
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.

- The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.

- Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm)
by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

And lastly Halo,

I've noticed that your thorough & exhaustive assessment of the reason(s) for the abrupt, symetrical, free-fall-speed collapse of the 47 story steel-framed HOUSE OF SPOOKS, AKA WTC-7, on 9/11 afternoon, perfectly agrees with the similarly thorough & exhaustive assessment of WTC-7's collapse by the Zelikow 9/11 Whitewash Commission Report. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0393326713/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-0246106-2288917?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155)

As we're all aware, the Zelilkow 9/11 Report duly gives taxpayers the fullest possible accounting of the events of 9/11. So the fact that your assessment of the strange collapse of the House Of Spooks (WTC-7) agrees so perfectly with the assessment of same by this utterly thorough, landmark/definitive gummit report on 9/11... is cause for kudos to you. :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

But I must ask:

Did YOU get YOUR WTC-7 assessment directly from the Zelikow Commission Report, or did THEY get THEIR WTC-7 assessment directly from YOU?? :adore: :adore: :adore:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net