You gotta LOVE IT when truthers attempt to make original statements based on their "unique" (read: "ludicrous") understanding of physics.
A recent example:
Uhhh, wrong.
Gravity is exactly what provided 100% of the force that caused all 3 buildings to collapse.
Therefore, "gravity done it."
And your statement is 100% wrong.
No, it does not.
See "terminal velocity".
Another statement that is 100% wrong.
"Pulling one thing thru another" at some "rate" defines a velocity.
Gravity doesn't pull anything at any velocity.
Another statement that is 100% wrong.
Perhaps you think that your statement is correct if you say you meant "acceleration".
Nope. You'd still be wrong.
Gravity doesn't pull anything at any acceleration, either.
Gravity is a force.
A force is not a velocity.
A force is not an acceleration.
Proof:
Gravity was pulling down on every portion of the towers for 30 years with exactly the same strength it did on 9/11 during the collapse.
And even tho gravity was exerting its force, the acceleration & the velocity of all those parts was zero.
Conclusion:
Gravity pulls on things. It does NOT, however, pull at any velocity or any acceleration.
No "building" fell "at free fall" for any portion of any time on 9/11.
Some PIECES of buildings fell near, at or (for a brief period) slightly higher acceleration than free fall.
No accelerations of any pieces or parts on that day are inexplicable, mysterious or suspicious.
Wrong.
"F = m a" describes precisely every single interaction of every single atom, molecule, gas, liquid, solid, planet, sun, black hole, etc. etc. etc. in this universe.
It also describes exactly, precisely, the motion of every single atom, dust bunny, bolt, weld, chair, desk, column, portion & whole of both the upper block & the lower block. At every instant of time from 1970's when the buildings were built until … today.
Being the luminous bulb that you are, you'll note that extensive time interval includes the time duration of the collapse of the building. During which the upper block of the towers was crushing down the lower block of the tower.
A time interval in which "F = ma" exactly, precisely described every single interaction.
Nobody with a brain believes that any "upper building [sank] thru any lower building at free fall acceleration".
Wrong. The upper block DID "sink thru the lower block" (more precisely, crushed the lower block) due to gravity. Uniquely due to gravity. Solely due to gravity.
Completely, utterly, ludicrously, laughably wrong.
The short answer is that the "m" in that equation can mean anything that a careful, rigorous, knowledgeable wielder of that equation wants it to mean.
That said, using the entire mass of the building for "m" will give you wrong answers in virtually every calculation that I can think of. Any use of the entire mass of the tower in any conservation of momentum, conservation of energy or failure analysis will give you a wrong answer.
The one, the only, calculation (that I can think of) related to the collapse that requires the use of the total mass of the towers is the calculation "how many dump trucks are going to be needed to clean up this mess?"
Gloriously wrong.
During collapse, there are millions of different forces acting between millions of different parts & pieces, all of them different. You haven't the slightest clue how to even DEFINE those forces, much less how to calculate them.
You don't understand squat about all of this, do you?
If you restrict the conversation to only one force acting on the upper or lower block, then the ONLY force that makes any sense is the "net force" on each component.
The net forces on the upper & lower parts involved in the collision are completely different.
Early on, the acceleration of the upper block was about 2/3rds G. Therefore, the net force on that block was about 2mg/3 during this interval. This includes the net forces on all the pieces of the upper block, including those pieces that were at the collision interface.
At the same time, the net forces on the bottom block, away from the crush interface, was ... zero. Because it was not moving, not accelerating.
[F = ma. If "a" is zero, then F is zero.]
Pieces of the lower block at the collision interface accelerated abruptly from zero velocity to a high and then higher velocity (as the upper block built up speed). Therefore, the net force on those pieces (during that short acceleration phase) was significantly greater than the net force on the corresponding piece on the upper block that hit it.
As soon as that dislodged piece of the lower block matched velocity with the rest of the upper block's mass, then it too had a net force acting on it equal to its acceleration (i.e., the upper block's acceleration) divided by its own mass.
Eventually, the upper block reached terminal velocity. From this time until it hit the ground, the NET force on the upper block, and every piece attached to it, was zero. [F = ma. At terminal velocity, a = 0. If a = 0, then F = 0.]
Meanwhile, the forces on the dislodging (i.e., abruptly accelerating) pieces of the lower block at the collision interface were very high.
But, for the same reason shown above, the net force on the parts of the lower block that were removed from the collision interface remained zero.
F = ma.
If a is zero, then F is zero.
If a is high, then F is high. (for a given m, of course.)
Nothing in all of the above violates any of Newton's laws.
Clearly you simply don't understand them.
A recent example:
Uhhh, wrong.
Gravity is exactly what provided 100% of the force that caused all 3 buildings to collapse.
Therefore, "gravity done it."
And your statement is 100% wrong.
No, it does not.
See "terminal velocity".
Another statement that is 100% wrong.
"Pulling one thing thru another" at some "rate" defines a velocity.
Gravity doesn't pull anything at any velocity.
Another statement that is 100% wrong.
Perhaps you think that your statement is correct if you say you meant "acceleration".
Nope. You'd still be wrong.
Gravity doesn't pull anything at any acceleration, either.
Gravity is a force.
A force is not a velocity.
A force is not an acceleration.
Proof:
Gravity was pulling down on every portion of the towers for 30 years with exactly the same strength it did on 9/11 during the collapse.
And even tho gravity was exerting its force, the acceleration & the velocity of all those parts was zero.
Conclusion:
Gravity pulls on things. It does NOT, however, pull at any velocity or any acceleration.
No "building" fell "at free fall" for any portion of any time on 9/11.
Some PIECES of buildings fell near, at or (for a brief period) slightly higher acceleration than free fall.
No accelerations of any pieces or parts on that day are inexplicable, mysterious or suspicious.
Wrong.
"F = m a" describes precisely every single interaction of every single atom, molecule, gas, liquid, solid, planet, sun, black hole, etc. etc. etc. in this universe.
It also describes exactly, precisely, the motion of every single atom, dust bunny, bolt, weld, chair, desk, column, portion & whole of both the upper block & the lower block. At every instant of time from 1970's when the buildings were built until … today.
Being the luminous bulb that you are, you'll note that extensive time interval includes the time duration of the collapse of the building. During which the upper block of the towers was crushing down the lower block of the tower.
A time interval in which "F = ma" exactly, precisely described every single interaction.
Nobody with a brain believes that any "upper building [sank] thru any lower building at free fall acceleration".
Wrong. The upper block DID "sink thru the lower block" (more precisely, crushed the lower block) due to gravity. Uniquely due to gravity. Solely due to gravity.
Completely, utterly, ludicrously, laughably wrong.
The short answer is that the "m" in that equation can mean anything that a careful, rigorous, knowledgeable wielder of that equation wants it to mean.
That said, using the entire mass of the building for "m" will give you wrong answers in virtually every calculation that I can think of. Any use of the entire mass of the tower in any conservation of momentum, conservation of energy or failure analysis will give you a wrong answer.
The one, the only, calculation (that I can think of) related to the collapse that requires the use of the total mass of the towers is the calculation "how many dump trucks are going to be needed to clean up this mess?"
Gloriously wrong.
During collapse, there are millions of different forces acting between millions of different parts & pieces, all of them different. You haven't the slightest clue how to even DEFINE those forces, much less how to calculate them.
You don't understand squat about all of this, do you?
If you restrict the conversation to only one force acting on the upper or lower block, then the ONLY force that makes any sense is the "net force" on each component.
The net forces on the upper & lower parts involved in the collision are completely different.
Early on, the acceleration of the upper block was about 2/3rds G. Therefore, the net force on that block was about 2mg/3 during this interval. This includes the net forces on all the pieces of the upper block, including those pieces that were at the collision interface.
At the same time, the net forces on the bottom block, away from the crush interface, was ... zero. Because it was not moving, not accelerating.
[F = ma. If "a" is zero, then F is zero.]
Pieces of the lower block at the collision interface accelerated abruptly from zero velocity to a high and then higher velocity (as the upper block built up speed). Therefore, the net force on those pieces (during that short acceleration phase) was significantly greater than the net force on the corresponding piece on the upper block that hit it.
As soon as that dislodged piece of the lower block matched velocity with the rest of the upper block's mass, then it too had a net force acting on it equal to its acceleration (i.e., the upper block's acceleration) divided by its own mass.
Eventually, the upper block reached terminal velocity. From this time until it hit the ground, the NET force on the upper block, and every piece attached to it, was zero. [F = ma. At terminal velocity, a = 0. If a = 0, then F = 0.]
Meanwhile, the forces on the dislodging (i.e., abruptly accelerating) pieces of the lower block at the collision interface were very high.
But, for the same reason shown above, the net force on the parts of the lower block that were removed from the collision interface remained zero.
F = ma.
If a is zero, then F is zero.
If a is high, then F is high. (for a given m, of course.)
Nothing in all of the above violates any of Newton's laws.
Clearly you simply don't understand them.
Last edited:
