What laws of physics support the official hypothesis of the WTC collapses?

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas
What laws of physics support the official hypothesis of the WTC collapses?

Continued from here, which was nearing its 100 posts and had reached an impasse. It seems a more focussed discussion is in order.

In the thread before the last one, I had asked Pants-of-dog what laws of physics support the official collapse hypothesis, the Bazant/NIST "crush-down, crush-up" theory. After much delay, and not until the next thread, Pants finally mumbled something about

Quote:

Conservation of mass and conservation of momentum are the two main ones.

When asked to explain how these laws are used in the NIST/Bazant hypothesis, he could only provide a vague explanation:

Quote:
Conservation of mass tells us that the upper block does not magically disappear into thin air. So, once it started falling, all the mass had to go somewhere. Using the law of gravity, we know it went down. Using the law of conservation of momentum, we know that as it went down, it imparted energy to the lower floors.

The NIST/Bazant hypothesis describes an alleged upper block of storeys (not verified by the video evidence) that "crushes down" through the larger, intact building (with the layer of rubble in betwen helping it) then gets "crushed up" at the end by the very pile of rubble that had been helping it crush the rest of the building, all in the space of 13 seconds. This drawing by Anders Bjorkman helps us to visualize this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you doubt the accuracy of this drawing, you can view Bazant's own picture in Fig. 2 on page 22/29 of his last revision, found here.

The Twin Towers were constructed with 240 perimeter structural steel box columns and 47 larger core box columns, ranging from 36"x16" to 52"x22", forming a dense core structure which, alone, comprised 25% of the total area in the buildings' horizontal span.

The NIST supporters have not successfully addressed four gaping flaws in their theory:

1) a step-by-step explanation of events after the collapse initiation

2) evidence of the existence of the upper blocks through the collapse progression

3) an example of top-driven gravitational collapse (although they've tried!) and/or the law of physics that would explain it, and

4) math that accounts for what actually occurred, rather than what is hypothesized, and that is supported by accepted physical principles.

Pants-of-dog has now begun the discussion about the laws of physics that supposedly explain the crush-down, crush-up hypothesis: the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of momentum. We await a more specific explanation of this.

Pants-of-dog has asked us/me to explain how the NIST/Bazant crush-down, crush-up theory violates Newton's First and Third laws.

jas

I know some of us are getting a bit tired from these discussions, too, so I don't expect this thread to necessarily move as quickly as the others have. I could be wrong, of course, but I may not be posting as much myself.

al-Qa'bong
Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:
What the NIST has done is to artfully dodge known laws of physics in their explanations of collapse of three heavily insured white elephants in New York City and only two of which were hit by planes on 9/11:

Crocket Grabbe wrote:
Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed: "Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST's numerous volumes of study."

These scientific principles are a fatal flaw for the NIST Committee's explanations for the building collapses, as expounded in my Journal of 911 Studies Letter on January 29, 2008 [url=http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/207-the-audacity-of-hope-rest... for 9/11 Truth[/url]

Please provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. Thank you.

Fidel

What the NIST has done is to artfully dodge known laws of physics in their explanations of collapse of three heavily insured white elephants in New York City and only two of which were hit by planes on 9/11:

Crocket Grabbe wrote:
Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed: "Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST's numerous volumes of study."

These scientific principles are a fatal flaw for the NIST Committee's explanations for the building collapses, as expounded in my Journal of 911 Studies Letter on January 29, 2008 [url=http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/207-the-audacity-of-hope-rest... for 9/11 Truth[/url]

The guvmint guys' theories only work in their minds and in the minds of non-truthers everywhere. They can't reproduce them in a lab or point to real world precedents for it happening. These were the worst building collapses and engineering failures in history, and it's clear to 900 independent engineers that bipartisan war criminals in Washington have deliberately avoided a legitimate investigation due to ulterior motives underlying deep state politics at the heart of what was a false flag covert inteligence operation on September 11,  2001.

Fidel

What do you think you've dodged answering for the last several threads? Do you think I just make this stuff up on the fly? Of course you can't answer. And neither has NIST or Bazant or his partner in the artful dodge answered the questions of more than 900 independent professionals with over 25,000 years of combined experience, Frank Greening.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

What do you think you've dodged answering for the last several threads? Do you think I just make this stuff up on the fly?

I have yet to see any evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. Please provide it now. Thank you.

Fidel

Pants you haven't answered any of my questions or a single one of the questions of more than 900 independent engineers for truth. So how can we take you seriously? You've demonstrated that you don't understand highschool trig, so how can you possibly begin to understand the harder stuff? And we're still waiting for your quantum theory of collapse btw. Remember that one? Pfff!

Pants-of-dog

We are all aware of your opinion of me. Somehow, you find time to retype your imagined criticisms, but you are still unable to provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.

Fidel

It's merely my opinion that you don't understand highschool trig or when to use the calculus. You could be a really good guy otherwise for all I know. You shouldn't take my opinion of your math ability or your lack of so personally. But if you want to continue this charade that you know what you're talking about, you'll have to step it up some.

Pants-of-dog

Please provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. Thank you.

Fidel

The evidence is in the video footage of the collapses of three buildings, two of which were hit by planes piloted by amateur Cessna pilots who dominated NORAD air space for nearly two hours on 9/11. And the evidence is in the eye witness testimonies of first responders. NIST itself has published evidence that contradicts their own fall guys' wacky theories.

In case you haven't realized it yet, 'dog, there are trained physicists and engineers who have examined evidence that was not removed and carted away from a federal crime scene prematurely.

But I'm done showing you math that you either don't understand or refuse to comment on.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

The evidence is in the video footage of the collapses of three buildings, two of which were hit by planes piloted by amateur Cessna pilots who dominated NORAD air space for nearly two hours on 9/11. And the evidence is in the eye witness testimonies of first responders. NIST itself has published evidence that contradicts their own fall guys' wacky theories.

In case you haven't realized it yet, 'dog, there are trained physicists and engineers who have examined evidence that was not removed and carted away from a federal crime scene prematurely.

But I'm done showing you math that you either don't understand or refuse to comment on.

This is not evidence. This is merely claims of where evidence might be found.

Please provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. Thank you.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. Thank you.

Could you please explain first how your model correctly uses these two laws? We have been asking this question for two threads now.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. Thank you.

Could you please explain first how your model correctly uses these two laws? We have been asking this question for two threads now.

I do not really care.

Please provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts any law of physics. Thank you.

jas

We've already provided that evidence numerous times over, Pants. This thread is to discuss what laws of physics actually support the theory you are defending. Your continuing silence suggests that the theory is not supported by any known laws. Can I conclude this, or are you prepared to provide a defence of your theory?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

We've already provided that evidence numerous times over, Pants.

Please provide a link. Thank you.

jas

I'll provide an explanation, if that's what will get you talking. What part of our argument are you having difficulty with? And do you also agree to provide a definition of conservation of mass and conservation of momentum and then apply those principles to the theory you are defending? If not, I suggest you stop posting in this thread.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

I'll provide an explanation, if that's what will get you talking. What part of our argument are you having difficulty with? And do you also agree to provide a definition of conservation of mass and conservation of momentum and then apply those principles to the theory you are defending? If not, I suggest you stop posting in this thread.

As I said several threads ago, I will provide any explanation you want after you provide the evidence I ask for.

Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a law of physics.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

I think it's possible that Pants might actually be a spam bot.

Spam bots can not dance with the same inherent elegance that I do.

And they probably use contractions.

Please provide etc...

Fidel

I think it's possible that Pants might actually be one of the NSA's experimental bots put out to spam social forums around the internet. There are several obvious clues. As in, the lights are on but no one's home.

Fidel

lol! They screwed up, because we know some fifth graders smarter than this spam bot.

Pants-of-dog

Let me guess.

The new deflection will be that since I am a spambot, there is no reason to provide me with evidence.

 

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a law of physics.

I will provide an explanation. I will not get into a discussion about that explanation until you show how your theory is supported by the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of mass.

jas

Actually, I suppose we could just start with the law of conservation of mass, if you are saying that this explains the gravitational collapse.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a law of physics.

I will provide an explanation. I will not get into a discussion about that explanation until you show how your theory is supported by the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of mass.

Please note that I have asked for evidence, not just an explanation.

Please provide the evidence. The explanation of the evidence is something you'll have to throw in for free.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please note that I have asked for evidence, not just an explanation.

Please provide the evidence. The explanation of the evidence is something you'll have to throw in for free.

This just means that you'll never explain your conservation of mass and momentum because your understanding of physics is such that you don't recognize evidence. The fact that you believe in crush-down, crush-up without providing any explanation of it demonstrates this. Even now, I think you believe you've provided an example of a top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself. This shows that you don't understand physics sufficiently to evaluate evidence.

So I may just have to start a discussion of your laws without you.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please note that I have asked for evidence, not just an explanation.

Please provide the evidence. The explanation of the evidence is something you'll have to throw in for free.

This just means that you'll never explain your conservation of mass and momentum because your understanding of physics is such that you don't recognize evidence. The fact that you believe in crush-down, crush-up without providing any explanation of it demonstrates this. Even now, I think you believe you've provided an example of a top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself. This shows that you don't understand physics sufficiently to evaluate evidence.

So I may just have to start a discussion of your laws without you.

You are not going to provide the evidence, are you?

Fidel has decided I am a spambot, and you have decided that I would not understand anyway.

If the two of you spent as much time looking for evidence as you do finding reasons not to show me any evidence, you would have finished this several threads ago.

jas

As we've alrady pointed out ad nauseum, Newton's Third Law rules out a gravitational pull of one object through its larger counterpart because the intact bulk of the building provides more resistance (force) against the descent of the alleged upper block than gravity can overcome. Bazant's math does not account for this resistance, nor for the various other energy losses that would occur.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

As we've alrady pointed out ad nauseum, Newton's Third Law rules out a gravitational pull of one object through its larger counterpart because the intact bulk of the building provides more resistance (force) against the descent of the alleged upper block than gravity can overcome. Bazant's math does not account for this resistance, nor for the various other energy losses that would occur.

That is wrong. Newton's third law only talks about equal and opposite forces. It does not discuss net forces. If the net force is strong enough to pull one object through another, then it doesn't matter what the equal and opposite force is.

Your evidence is wrong. Please try again.

jas

The net force has been shown by Ross and Chandler to not be enough. You won't accept this, however. Which is why we had to show you in other ways, such as asking you to provide evidence of a top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself. You failed to do so.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

The net force has been shown by Ross and Chandler to not be enough. You won't accept this, however. Which is why we had to show you in other ways, such as asking you to provide evidence of a top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself. You failed to do so.

I already know how both Chandler and Ross are wrong. Chandler is making the exact same error you just made, and Ross mistakenly assumes that the upper block does not tilt.

In other words, they are wrong. Which means you have provided no evidence. Please try again.

Green Bone

Gravity--duh!

To paraphrase a South Park episode, a bunch of pissed-off Muslims slashed the throats of airline pilots, flew the jets into the towers, the heat of burning fuel weakened the steel support members of the floors, and four inches per square foot of concrete and steel went "plop!" onto the floors beneath them, which gave out and triggered a chain reaction that brought the towers straight down and killed about 3,000 people.

I'm amazed that tinfoil hat discussions like this keep going on. Al Qaeda, assisted by fire and gravity, murdered three thousand people, plain and simple. You don't need a PhD in physics to explain this.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I already know how both Chandler and Ross are wrong. Chandler is making the exact same error you just made, and Ross mistakenly assumes that the upper block does not tilt.

I have already pointed out to you that tilting does not change the fact that the upper block needs to absorb the impact before it can "impart any energy" to the intact portion of the building. Tilting may change the force balance but does not change the fact that load would have to be absorbed first beore it can crush anything. As an aside, I haven't seen any evidence that the upper block in WTC1 tilts significantly.

jas

Green Bone wrote:

To paraphrase a South Park episode, a bunch of pissed-off Muslims slashed the throats of airline pilots, flew the jets into the towers, the heat of burning fuel weakened the steel support members of the floors, and four inches per square foot of concrete and steel went "plop!" onto the floors beneath them, which gave out and triggered a chain reaction that brought the towers straight down and killed about 3,000 people.

It's interesting that you need to quote from a cartoon. Very apt, in fact.

Please provide evidence of the existence of the upper block through the collapse progression. Thank you.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I already know how both Chandler and Ross are wrong. Chandler is making the exact same error you just made, and Ross mistakenly assumes that the upper block does not tilt.

I have already pointed out to you that tilting does not change the fact that the upper block needs to absorb the impact before it can "impart any energy" to the intact portion of the building. Tilting may change the force balance but does not change the fact that load would have to be absorbed first beore it can crush anything. As an aside, I haven't seen any evidence that the upper block in WTC1 tilts significantly.

This makes no sense.Why would it need to "absorb impact" before imparting energy? It doesn't.

Now that we understand that your objection has nothing to do with physics, please provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts any law of physics. Thank you.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

This makes no sense.Why would it need to "absorb impact" before imparting energy? It doesn't.

I'm sorry, but this shows why you don't understand physics enough to evaluate evidence.

If the upper block does not absorb the impact first before hitting anything else, what energy does it have to crush? When you hit a hammer against a nail, the hammer must absorb the impact first before imparting the force to the nail, otherwise the nail will pass through the hammer as if it doesn't exist.

jas

.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

This makes no sense.Why would it need to "absorb impact" before imparting energy? It doesn't.

I'm sorry, but this shows why you don't understand physics enough to evaluate evidence.

If the upper block does not absorb the impact first before hitting anything else, what energy does it have to crush? When you hit a hammer against a nail, the hammer must absorb the impact first before imparting the force to the nail, otherwise the nail will pass through the hammer as if it doesn't exist.

Repeating your weird asertion does not make it any more true.

I suggest you go and find a website that explains the physics of your assertion.

jas

From NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE

Quote:
Thus Dr. Bazant's argument that all of the energy would be concentrated into overcoming the columns on the uppermost storey of the lower section cannot be true.

It is impossible for all of the energy of the falling section to act on only the one topmost storey in the lower section, since the very act of transmission of the energy to that storey, dictates that all of the storeys in the upper section will come under load and consume energy 

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

From NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE

Quote:
Thus Dr. Bazant's argument that all of the energy would be concentrated into overcoming the columns on the uppermost storey of the lower section cannot be true.

It is impossible for all of the energy of the falling section to act on only the one topmost storey in the lower section, since the very act of transmission of the energy to that storey, dictates that all of the storeys in the upper section will come under
load and consume energy 

Repeating Ross's incorrect assertion doesn't make it any more correct either. In order for the energy to be transmitted to the lower storeys as Ross assumes, the upper block would have needed to land exactly and perfectly on the columns of the lower block.

Since this didn't happen, we know that Ross is obviously wrong.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

In order for the energy to be transmitted to the lower storeys as Ross assumes, the upper block would have needed to land exactly and perfectly on the columns of the lower block.

Since this didn't happen, we know that Ross is obviously wrong.

No, you are wrong. You don't understand the principle. Which means you actually don't understand Newton's Third Law.

In order for anything to crush anything else, it must, as a material thing, be able to first absorb the energy of the impact or collision in order to impart any to the other object. Both objects are doing this.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

In order for anything to crush anything else, it must, as a material thing, be able to first absorb the energy of the impact or collision in order to impart any to the other object. Both objects are doing this.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

jas
Pants-of-dog

That is not evidence for your claim. Please try again.

jas

It's actually common sense, if you spent five seconds thinking about it.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

It's actually common sense, if you spent five seconds thinking about it.

This is also not evidence.

Please provide evidence that an object must absorb impact before transferring energy to another object.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

That is not evidence for your claim. Please try again.

Please show how this and Ross's article are not evidence for this claim.

jas

Please show how this and Ross's article are not evidence for this claim.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Please show how this and Ross's article are not evidence for this claim.

They make no mention of absorption of impact occuring before energy transferral.

 

jas

Gordon Ross wrote:

Thus we can see that, in reality, the energy of the falling upper section of the tower would not be utilised to crush only one storey of the tower, but would in fact be distributed throughout the upper section as well as storeys in the lower section. Energy would be absorbed over many more storeys than the first impacted storey of the lower section. This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction. To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down - crush up" theory.

from NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE

Pages

Topic locked