Dylan - In the history channel documentary, you're quoted as saying something to the effect of:

"You either believe the official theory, or you believe in the laws of physics"

I was wondering if you could elaborate, I've heard a lot of people claim that the OT defies the laws of physics, but no one seems to know which laws of physics were violated, and how.

I was hoping you could clarify what you were referring to, or correct me if I have incorrectly interpreted your statements.

Newton's first law of motion is often stated as

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Hence,the near free fall collapse speed of the Towers and WTC7 was a physical impossibility.

Consider the hypothetical experiment where you build a sealed tube 1300 feet tall
and you pull a vacuum on the tube removing all the air molecules.

If you then free fall from the top of the tube you will accelerate at about
9.80665 m·s−2 until you hit the bottom.

However, if you free fall from the top of a 1300 ft building in a standard atmosphere, you will accelerate to terminal velocity, about 120mph, as a result of the air molecules.

If air molecules slow a human body in free fall, consider the first law and the effect
of the floors below the point of collapse initiation. The floors below would have slowed the collapse.

Consider the floors below as objects at rest. The floors below would tend to remain at rest,
unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. The key point here is, considering the official version, overcoming the inertia of the floors at rest requires time, in a similar manner that overcoming the inertia of air molecules requires time.

The near free fall speed of the collapse of the buildings is inconsistent with the official version of events when we consider Newton's First Law.

"Near free fall" does not equal "free fall"

If the towers fell at free fall acceleration, then you'd have a case. But they didn't; they fell close to it. Also, there's no way to tell exactly when the collapse ended. So it fell slowly enough so that something had to be acting against gravity trying to bring it down (i.e., not free fall. Air resistance is negligible), and the only thing that could have been acting against the falling portion is the rest of the building, so whether or not the falling body "defied the laws of physics" depends on how much resistance it encountered. So the only way to find out is to analyze the structural integrity of the building, which is not high school physics anymore.

As long as there is some resistance applied, you can not prove that the OT and the laws of physics are mutually exclusive without serious analysis.

At what speed would the collapse cease to violate newton's first law? I assume you have done the calculations to support this, or you are quoting someone who has?

the data is much clearer with building 7 than with the towers as there is less dust.

to avoid variables like air resistance, terminal velocity, barometirc pressure and temperature on the day etc, an easy way to understand it is by comparing the collapse of wtc7 to another building that we know has been pulled by controlled demolition.

The pulled building we know has had its supports blown so is offering no resistance to collapse.

if it can be shown that wtc7 falls at the same rate as the pulled building, we know that wtc is offering no resistance. if it looks like a duck...etc

there is evidence i've seen to suggest that the collapse initiation of wtc7 actually fell faster than gravity and air resistance would allow implying the air was sucked out of the building at the start of the collapse reducing the air resistance, explosions? I haven't done my own calculations, I've just seen the data.

please don't refer to 'speed' which is a constant, we are dealing with acceleration which is a constant changing rate of speed. what is needed is the time and the distance (building height)

CD experts don't think it "looks like a duck"

Faster than gravity?!
Please post the relevant data!

But you've provided no data showing that the laws of physics were violated! The only way you can say that the laws were violated would be if the building fell at 100% free fall, or the building began to shoot up into space upon its collapse. THAT is a violation of the laws of physics.

But note that the building fell at NEAR free fall. As you well know, when a moving object encounters resistance, it does not stop completely. It may get slowed down a bit, but it doesn't stop completely. Think of a bat hitting a baseball. Yes, there's resistance, but the bat doesn't stop when it hits the ball, does it? It keeps moving.

Likewise, when the building began to collapse, we know for a fact that it fell SLOWER than free fall. This is a fact because the debris falling around the building (which encountered no resistance from any solids) fell faster than the building itself. Thus, SOME force was pushing back on the towers as they fell, slowing it down a bit.

Given these simple facts, no laws of physics were violated. The towers met resistance and slowed down as they fell. THEY FELL SLOWER THAN FREE-FALL SPEED! Call it "near free fall" or whatever adjective feels comfortable to you. It doesn't change the fact that it fell slower than free fall speed.

NOW, unless you had some data about the forces pushing up and down, or the momentum of the collapse, or anything like that, you can't possibly just throw out a blanket statement of "it violated physics" or "it did not violate physics". Generally speaking, it did not. The only way you can prove it did is if you get some data on the momentum of the building. Otherwise, you're just making crap up.

how do you account for the debris being ejected from all four sides of the wtc1 and wtc2, these ejections appear BELOW the debris falling around the buildings.

WTC 7 is the best example, because of the evidence available to establish the duration of the collapse.


The time for WTC 7 to collapse would have been significantly greater than what was recorded if in fact it had collapsed due to fire.




I don't have a number for you, simply a fundamental truth. Either you understand the concepts or you don't. Sometimes it really is as simple as that.

http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html
instead of acting like ELIZA on every single post of yours, go and prove it wrong.
i've seen it suggested but i have not verified the calculations, what i've seen was convincing but i would need to verify the data before subscribing to it.

LOL

So, in your world debate works like this:

Make a claim, but don't back it up
When someone asks you to back it up, request that they prove a negative

Sorry, charlie....it's your claim, you back it up, which means you post the data you're referring to in this paragraph:

Oh, and Jowenko doesn't think that WTC 1 and 2 were CD, got anybody else?

Do you base this claim on your own working knowledge of building collapses, or on someone else's opinion?

The reason I ask: If you don't know how much slower a fire/damage driven collapse should have occurred...how can you know that it would have been any slower than the speed at which it actually collapsed?

Do these ejections violate the laws of physics? If so, how?

its not my claim at all.

and it is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of science, all the data is out there, go do the science.

so you are saying that Demolition Expert Jowenko who has no ties to the US government is wrong then?

wtc1 and wtc2 were not classic controlled demolitions, they were exploded top down.

why are you asking for another one? these are tired (or should i say turd) arguments.

Why? The building was able to support itself until the moment of catastrophic collapse, when a fundamental support failed. After that, it was a quick chain reaction because each of the remaining supports, in sequence, was vastly overwhelmed.

Yep, either you understand the concepts or you don't. Very true.

But but but... Jowenko says that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed due to the airplane crashes and fires!

You have seen data that convinced you.
You have not made calculations off of said data.
You refuse to provide said data.
You claim that you are right.

Something looks amiss.

Then why are you asserting that it is right?

I'd go so far to say that, since he believes WTC7 was a CD but WTC1 and 2 were not, whatever he believes should not be used in debate over whether 9/11 was a conspiracy by either side.

please post the data jake

i'm not asserting its right, i would need to verify it.

then you'd be talking absolute bullshit then wouldn't you!

What fundamental support?

Where was it located?

On what floor did it fail?

I'm pretty sure he was implying a fundamental support as he said and not the fundamental support as you seem to have read it. He just saying that at whatever point, something failed that was catastrophic enough to start a chain reaction in which the remaining supports were unable to support the increased load. At this point, the building starts falling and the load only continues to increase on each support due to less and less intact supports.

I don't know where this came from. Why am I talking bullshit by saying that since Jowenko supports views of both the OCT and ACT that he can't be used as support for either side? I've never used his opinions thusly.

And that is a very key point. If such a fundamental support had failed in the manner described, a legitimate investigation would have located the specific supports that failed so changes to building codes and engineering standards could have been implemented.

Air pressure. There was, in fact, a great deal of air being pushed through the building. Take it from the firemen who were in the building when it actually collapsed.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/07/pitn.00.html

See? Two minutes of research can do wonders.

You should not dismiss the Law of Gravity,either.
According to the official version, an intact United 93 crashed into a field and the debris
from that crash traveled over eight miles in the wind. The debris remained airborne in a relatively light wind for over 51 minutes,according to these theorists.

Folks, use your common sense. You do not need an expert to tell you crash debris does not travel eight miles on the wind, over ridges and hills. You do not need an expert to tell you you have been lied to. All you need is your God given common sense.

Speaking of common sense, the 9/11 Commission included in an appendix of it's report online a picture of Ziad Jarrah's visa recovered from the crash of United 93. It was reported Ziad Jarrah was at the controls of United 93 after it was hijacked.

According to the pictures, they did not find the wings of the plane. They did not find the landing gear. They did not find the tail. They did not find any passenger seats. Yet they found a visa of the lead hijacker.

If that was not bad enough, officials reported they found a passport from one of the hijackers that crashed into the Towers near Ground Zero.

Hmm, common sense can be a dangerous thing for some folks. This is easily countered by the fact that a handful of people were actually in the twin towers when they collapsed, and they were pulled out of the wreckage ALIVE.

It is much more amazing to me that a human being could survive the collapse than a passport surviving the collapse. Controlled demolition or not, that was one hell of a collapse, and the fact that people survived is amazing. But it certainly puts your argument to rest. If human beings survive the collapse, why not a passport?

What debris traveled over eight miles? Where did you see this...source please.

On a complete collapse, how would you go about finding the possibly single start of the collapse? You could possibly looking for a single beam in a huge trash pile and it would seem very difficult to determine which one it was and where it was located. On a partial collapse or something, probably not hard to determine what started it, but on a complete, it would seem to be much more difficult. Why would you change building codes for all buildings because of something that happened on 9/11. What majority of buildings would be subject to falling debris that could cause it to collapse? There were so many things that happened on that day. There were many factors and variables that led to each collapse...it's not just about a skyscraper fire, it's not just about planes flying into a building, it's not about alot of things, it's about the culmination of all these events that led to the final outcome. "Truthers" look at things to "black and white" and don't see the "gray area" in things that happened that day. There's just no simple answer to it all.

PS-I don't know if you remember the Challenger explosion, but a patch off of one the astronauts sleeves was found on the ground intact and fairly pristine looking. It too was involved in a pretty big explosion, yet it survived in the same manner. Everything can't be explained...

how can debris eject from the tower 40 meters below debris falling in air, this would require debris falling through the building faster than it is falling through air.

stop the video at 21 seconds and look at the area below the mechanical floor (the dark band around the building)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...earch&plindex=8

height of 1 floor = 417/110 = 3.79m
width of wtc = 63m
acceleration due to gravity = 9.81

collapse initiates at 16 seconds, debris seeen coming from debris ejecting floor DEF at 21 seconds, time taken = 5 seconds

distance from mechanical floor to DEF in video= 22 units
width of wtc in video = 55 units

22/55 = 0.4 (DEJ = 40% of width)
so DEJ = 0.4*63=25.2m

= 6.6 floors (confirming my initial eye estimate of 6 floors)
assume 7 floors below mechanical which is floor 34

impact floor = 77
DEF = 34

distance travelled from collapse point to DEF = (impact floor - DEF) * floor_height
= (77-34)*3.79 = 162.97m

so the ejected debris has travelled 162.97 meters in 5 seconds

The distance that an object will freefall in a vaccum in 5 (t) seconds=
d = g * SQUARE(t)/2 = 9.81 (25)/2 = 122.63 meters

thus we see debris ejecting 162.97-122.63 = 40 meters closer to the ground than it should be according to the laws of physics, and this even assumes ZERO resistance passing down through the building.

Again with the common sense talk and the lack of using it! Whatever happened to doing a little research? Here's an excerpt from an article quoted in a blog:

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/9172.html

Now, there's all this talk about common sense...does common sense not tell you that lightweight, paper-like materials can blow indefinitely in the wind? Because that's what my common sense tells me!

Headspin, did you happen to notice my reply at 6:13? I've already addressed all of this. Air pressure caused these squibs.

air pressure did not cause the squibs. air is invisible.

besides, your claim has been debunked here
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf

This debate isn't very interesting when you just lay down a source and don't pull anything from it.

------------------------------------------------
http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/200...roddy0911p5.asp

A year after explosive discord, town still seeks harmony

Wednesday, September 11, 2002

SHANKSVILLE, Pa. -- As teams of security agents combed the hillsides to make the day's proceedings the safest act of public mourning in history, a town half-tired of being famous soldiered doing what towns do.

There was concrete to be laid on one end of town. The high school was in session. At an Amoco station that hasn't sold gasoline for three years, mechanic Bruce Grine stood beneath a rusting Chevy Cavalier and tried to jury-rig a series of bright silver clamps to a leaky rubber tube that was passing itself off as a fuel line.

"All day long -- week in, week out -- people come in askin' where the flight site is. Then, where the mine site is," Grine said. A rumble of propellers cut into the midday heat and an Air Force C-130 banked across the town, just through the tree line where the smoke from United Flight 93 had traced a line in the sky one year earlier.

"Yesterday we had hellycopters goin'," Grine said. "Security, I guess."

No one in town would have had cause to know that it was all practice to make sure the Air Force planes arrived in time to the national anthem during ceremonies today.

Before 9/11, Grine told people where he came from by giving them the distance from Pittsburgh. "Now you say Shanksville and everybody knows," he said. That is to say, they have heard of the town and have placed it somewhere in their internal map of civic history, but finding the actual place can still be tricky.

The region was settled in the 19th century, meaning the roads represent a compromise to the surrounding mountains. An outsider looking for something can easily get turned around. Even the locals are sometimes unaware of how close they are to a given point, and modern life leaves them unaware of such simple things as the wind currents.

The village of New Baltimore is a dozen or more miles by automobile but eight as the wind blows, which it was doing a year ago. Melanie Hankinson was at the church next to her home, transfixed before a television that showed the World Trade Center ablaze, when the man who sprays her lawn stopped by to tell her he was finding odd things in the weeds.

"He said there was a loud bang and smoke and then these papers started blowing through your yard," she said. "I said, 'Oh.' Then I went back to the TV." Then the parish priest, the Rev. Allen Zeth, told her an airplane had crashed in Shanksville.

For the next few hours, Hankinson gathered charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot's manual -- she remembers a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport -- and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports.

"And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.

"A couple more miles and it could have been here," Hankinson said. Those words have been spoken in straight lines emanating in every direction from the strip mine where Flight 93 rent the earth.

In Shanksville, people still wonder at how the unthinkable could have added another layer of hideousness had the plane crested the hillside and struck the high school. A few degrees more, added Grine, "and we wouldn't be here talking."

Instead, he was now talking with Brenda Sell, who despaired of getting one broken automobile back before she had to drop off the one she was now driving. Her family business constructed the chain-link fence around the now-filled-in crater where Flight 93 crashed. Beyond that, any commerce connected to the effort troubled her.

"I'm getting tired of people setting up little booths and selling stuff," she said. "It's the local people doing that."

True, said Grine. His brother is selling funnel cakes and lemonade near the crash site. Others are hawking T-shirts. At the Somerset exit of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, two enterprising women are peddling bouquets of "Freedom Flowers," some of which by now are no doubt crowding a makeshift memorial where, yesterday, such surviving families as could bear the weight stood on an old strip mine and looked down a hill at a chain link fence while airplanes rumbled overhead trying to get in time to the music.

As the building collapses, the columns get pushed, twisted, and essentially shattered. As they do that, the outer parts of the tower get pushed and warped as well, and the windows get blown out.

Also, HeadSpin, I'd appreciate if you'd explain why you had to call me full of it.

Edit: Yes, papers get blown by wind.

Post what data? I'm still waiting for you to post the data that makes this claim:

No, you misunderstand. The dust and smoke were squeezed out of the windows down low by the air pressure. This buildup of pressure didn't have to wait for the collapse front, because the collapsing building up above was like a piston in a cylinder, increasing the pressure throughout the building below. The increasing pressure moves at the speed of sound in air, without having to wait for debris to fall down to that level.

It seems like anytime I explain points like this, the response is to call me disinfo or a shill, so I'm waiting for it...

"Not only was there no way to compress the gas below, the floors were not air tight, enclosed containers either, which means that, even if the falling mass could exert a uniform downward pressure, it would not be contained. There were eight large air supply and return ventilation shafts located in the core areas of each floor.[7] There were also three stairwells running throughout the building, and over thirty elevator shafts at any given level. Any compressed air would have had to equilibrate with open stairwells and elevator shafts, and with any openings from these shafts to other parts of the building (i.e. vent ducts). Additionally, we know that the fire in the north tower in 1975 was spread by means of openings in the floor slabs, of more than one square foot area, used to transfer telephone cables.[8] All of these facts indicate that any pressurized air would be forced to equilibrate over large sections of the building, if not the entire lower section, and could not be contained on one floor alone."

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf

are you suggesting that floor 34 was airtight? how did people ever visit it?

Demolition expert Danny Jowenko is firm about wtc7 being a controlled demolition.

Jowenko says nothing about the collapse of wtc1 and wtc2 being casued by fire and impact damage as far as i am aware, if you have information that Jowenko says this, then post it. if you can't then its bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I...related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM...related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU...related&search=