• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Physics Loonies

rebel said:
What utter crap!

If I throw a ball to the ground it will go faster than freefall. Nobody is claiming the towers fell faster than freefall.
Click to expand...

You're not claiming it, but many CTists have.

That's the point.
 
rebel said:
Name one of these arguments.
Click to expand...

One of the most obvious and egregious is Judy Woods' claim that the falling towers had negligible kinetic energy. That's something that most people would realise has to be false.

Failure to realise just how much energy was present in the towers is almost mistake #1. Ironically, it's a very, very easy calculation to make, within a reasonable margin of error. It's the failure to appreciate this that leads to so much else - the expectation that the towers would fall slowly, and silently, and that nothing would be expelled from the windows, and that there would be no dust.
 
The nice thing of F=ma is that also the formula of kinetic energy follows from it, potential energy, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, reaction forces, angular momentum, in fact all mechanics. The only thing to add is F=mg following directly from F=GmM/r^2, that's all there is for non charged particles. But applying it in the proper way is sometimes very difficult even for some very simple looking problems.
 
Glenn B said:
Originally Posted by rebel
What utter crap!

If I throw a ball to the ground it will go faster than freefall. Nobody is claiming the towers fell faster than freefall.
You're not claiming it, but many CTists have.

That's the point.
Click to expand...
Uhm, not that isn't the point. The point is that "faster than freefall" is technically mixing terms, because "faster" is a term applied to velocity, and freefall is an acceleration. I do, however, think that Dr Adequate is being a teensy-bit over pedantic about that. The current C theory is that the building falls at freefall, consequently all the floors must have been pulverised before it fell.... you know, I can't even carry on typing it because it makes so little sense.

Dr Adequtate, When you get around to animating that falling building thing, don't forget to add "clunkety-clunkety" to the soundtrack.
 
Larry Lovage said:
The current C theory is that the building falls at freefall, consequently all the floors must have been pulverised before it fell.... you know, I can't even carry on typing it because it makes so little sense.
Click to expand...



Actually that's not entirely true. One feature of the 9/11 CTers is a thing I like to call "Theory Creep" - that being over time their theories and claims shift to their favour.

In regards to the time of fall, the initial CT claims were that the buildings fell in "practically free fall" (as in slightly longer, but not much longer). Many of them even cited correct collapse times ~15 seconds, they just didn't appreciate that even a couple of seconds longer equates to a significant difference.

For example, I believe if you double the height of the towers the free-fall time is only a few seconds more. So 15 seconds for collapse is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than freefall. CTers just didn't get that.

But then that wasn't enough, so they started playing with the ACTUAL collapse time - reducing it down to free fall times AND EVEN FASTER.

Finally, they are at the next logical (?) step, that of manipulating the expected free fall time. As we saw, we've had expected freefall figures for the height of the towers being as long as 42 seconds, which is simply ridiculous - a 42 second freefall would cover over 8600m - 20x the height of the WTC! (Yeah, okay, that's assuming no air friction, but hey, they said free fall!). (And at the end of that 42 seconds the material would be travelling at a cool 1,470 km/h!).

So when you put it all together, the end result of their new theory is:

The WTC towers collapsed much faster than freefall from the top of the towers with no air resistence would take - depending on theories, anything from twice as fast to four or five times as fast.

And of course that's not even bringing into account the astute observation of many JREFers that debris falling off the towers falls to the ground FASTER than the main building collapse.

The entire theory creep thing can be seen in many aspects of the 9/11 CTs from NORAD to UA93 to stolen gold to collapse times and so forth...

-Gumboot
 
Gumboot, do you realize as a debunker what a collapse time over 15 seconds means ? That means that the energy to detach a floor is about 2.1GJ (if we use the graph from his wtcreport.pdf), for wtc1, for wtc2 it then should be even much more because of the massive upper block.
 
rebel said:
Nobody is claiming the towers fell faster than freefall.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume "nobody" in this case implies "rational" because there are _plenty_ of people out there claiming that they fell "faster than freefall". They even say ridiculous and ignorant things like "faster than freefall once you take into account air resitance" which is, scientifically, like saying "faster than freefall once you take into account the price of microsoft stock".
 
einsteen, you seem to have that backwards - as if the bigger something is that lands on a floor, the less energy it would have to detach it. The larger energy comes from the larger mass, not from the amount of energy required to detach the floor below. You've just demonstrated simultaneously why the floors did not withstand the mass of either WTC1 and even less so WTC2, and the reason WTC2 fell first.
 
rebel said:
What utter crap!

If I throw a ball to the ground it will go faster than freefall.
Click to expand...
NO. FREEFALL IS NOT A VELOCITY.

The phrase "faster than freefall" doesn't mean anything.

Nobody is claiming the towers fell faster than freefall.
Click to expand...
So, you're a liar as well as a fool.


Please refrain from personalizing the debate... there are other ways to illustrate points without doing that.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rebel said:
If I throw a ball to the ground it will go faster than freefall.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm going to have a try here.

What does it mean to fall? Well, what it means on Earth is that an object under the influence of the Earth's gravity will be pulled towards its centre of mass if it is not impeded in its journey. Now if that object started at rest then it has a velocity of zero right? Are you saying that at the instant that object is able to fall that it goes from zero velocity to 'free-fall' velocity?

If you are then there is just one simple question to ask.

What is that velocity? State it in any units you like, miles per hour, meters per second - whatever. If 'free-fall' is a speed then what is that speed?

Confident with that value? Okay good, now to the experiment.

I assume you are happy that the time it takes an object to fall to the ground is a relationship between the distance to the ground that the object has to travel and the speed at which it is travelling (fixed in your world). The relationship being precisely stated as distance x time = speed. So an object travelling at 10m/s will take 1s to travel 10m. Good? So you would agree that to travel 5m would take 0.5s? Okay?

Take a nice fat object that won't be affected by air resistance too much (like a cannonball). Drop it from 10m up. How long will it take to hit the ground? Drop it from 20m up. How long will it take to hit the ground?

You will find that reality will disagree with you if you are confident that 'free-fall' is a velocity.

ETA: Here's a teaser for you:

Drop a ball from 20m, when the ball is 10m from the ground drop another ball from 10m. Which ball hits the ground first?
 
Last edited:
Screw metres per second! I wanna see this calculated in furlongs per millennium! Or leagues per month!
 
Larry, of course a larger mass will give a faster collapse (Greening's first stage of collapse) but this means, if the time is 15 seconds for both towers then this would imply that the so-called E1 factor of Greening would be much higher to compensate for that.

Dr Rickman,

forgot about the faster-than-freefall, it's not worth it...
 
rebel said:
What utter crap!

If I throw a ball to the ground it will go faster than freefall. Nobody is claiming the towers fell faster than freefall.
Click to expand...

In the Hustler article, second page:

Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer, has observed that even objects in free fall, encountering only air resistance would require at least 12 seconds to hit the ground, which means that the buildings were actually destroyed in a speed faster than freefall.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom