New York City activist

July 16, 2009

The force exerted by the falling part?

In the Truth Action forum, “Truthmover” posted Looking beyond the hype – Bilderberg docs on Wikileaks. Truthmover’s take on these documents is entirely sane — no “New World Order” scaremongering, just a reasonable interest in knowing what the rich and powerful are up to.

But then “dicktater” chimed in with quotes from David Icke and links to sites such as “Conspiracy Central.” Several of us objected.

Eventually “dicktater” responded with a totally off-topic post about WTC demolition claims, apparently in an effort to claim that I am more of a “kook” than David Icke because I’m not inclined to believe in the WTC demolition hypotheses. I’ve decided to respond here, rather than in the Truth Action forum itself, (1) to avoid further derailing the thread, and (2) because I’m not sure whether YT would welcome debate about WTC demolition theories in the Truth Action forum.


Unfortunately, I cannot watch streaming video, so I can’t respond to the videos he posted. But, below one of the videos, “dicktater” posted the following:

The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower of the World Trade Center) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building. [I want to acknowledge the work of Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti who have been engaged in similar measurements by other means and have reached similar conclusions.]

What??? “The force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section?” The force that the falling section exerts on the lower part is one heck of a lot more, not less, than its weight. Try the following two experiments:

  1. Gently rest a brick on top of your foot.
  2. Break the brick up into small pieces, then drop the pieces on you foot, all at once, from a height.

Which hurts more?

I suspect that “dicktater” may be misrepresenting whatever Tony Szamboti might have actually said. Szamboti is a mechanical engineer, and I cannot imagine him making such an obviously ridiculous claim, although he might be mistaken on other things.

Advertisements

7 Comments »

  1. Diane, the fact of the matter is that 100% of the top section should have been resisted by the lower portion of the building. Period. In fact, not only 100%, but 20 times that weight should have been resisted by the lower portion of the building as it was for 30 years before that. There is no logical reason why suddenly on 9/11, the lower portion of the building could no longer hold up the top section that did not weigh any more than it did before. Again, basic high school physics. The force that the falling section exerts on the lower part is one heck of a lot LESS than the 20 times that weight that the lower part of the building should have held up.

    And, in fact, you can clearly see in the videos that the lower portion of the building DID IN FACT HOLD UP the top section just fine, right up until a series of violent explosions began to destroy and cut through all the columns in SYMMETRICAL fashion. Frankly, Diane, you are ridiculous the way you pretend to accept the absurd explanations of Professional Debunkers that don’t remotely conform with basic high school physics, NOR DO THEY COMPORT WITH THE VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN THAT QUITE CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE PROFESSIONAL DEBUNKERS ARE LYING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BUILDINGS.

    Steel and concrete and office building contents do not just suddenly explode themselves and blow up in perfect symmetrical fashion, dismantling a skyscraper in a matter of seconds for no reason at all. I think you know what the reason is, Diane, but you have a hidden agenda that is all too transparent.

    You are a waste of time. How anybody remotely interested in the full truth about 9/11 could still take you seriously at this point is beyond me.

    Comment by nanothermite — July 19, 2009 @ 3:39 am | Reply

  2. nanotthermite wrote:

    Diane, the fact of the matter is that 100% of the top section should have been resisted by the lower portion of the building. Period. In fact, not only 100%, but 20 times that weight should have been resisted by the lower portion of the building as it was for 30 years before that. There is no logical reason why suddenly on 9/11, the lower portion of the building could no longer hold up the top section that did not weigh any more than it did before.

    It doen’t WEIGH any more than before, but, once the collapse began and the upper block began moving down, the force it exerted on the lower part was a lot more than just its weight.

    Again, basic high school physics.

    Did you actually take physics in high school? Any physics in college too?

    And, in fact, you can clearly see in the videos that the lower portion of the building DID IN FACT HOLD UP the top section just fine, right up until a series of violent explosions began to destroy and cut through all the columns in SYMMETRICAL fashion.

    Given how huge the building was, one would expect even a natural collapse to be accompanied by the appearance of a “violent explosion” of air (containing smoke and dust) being pressed out. One would also expect all that moving air to fan the flames, resulting in red, orange, or yellow flashes. Only bright white or blue flashes would suggest explosives.

    Again, I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude on Steven Jones’s thermite research. But the common intuitive mechanical arguments for WTC demolition are NOT valid.

    You are a waste of time. How anybody remotely interested in the full truth about 9/11 could still take you seriously at this point is beyond me.

    If you think I’m a waste of time, then you don’t have to spend time posting comments on my blog. If you do choose to continue posting comments on my blog, cut out the personal flaming and focus on the issues.

    Comment by Diane — July 19, 2009 @ 12:19 pm | Reply

  3. This is bringing up the issue of STATIC and DYNAMIC loads.

    The people trying to get us to BELIEVE that the building could collapse want us to think that once the collapse started the static load capacity was exceeded and a kind of avalanche effect occurred with more and more mass accelerating downward and continuously exceeding the load capacity below.

    That is a bunch of oversimplified pseudo-physics nonsense. Even if the top 10% of the north tower started to collapse it would have to do two things.

    #1. It would have to break the supports that were holding the masses below.

    #2. It would have to accelerate that mass faster than gravity could do it.

    Both of those would require energy and the only source is the kinetic energy of the falling top portion. Therefore that top portion would SLOW DOWN. Since every skyscraper must get stronger and heavier going down the top portion would have been stopped. The fact that it was not IS PROOF that something else was involved in the destruction of those buildings.

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.0

    My video does not demonstrate it but the top of the north tower would cruch itself in the process of crushing the stationary portion below. So 14 stories would be falling on 95 stories. Even if we generously gave the falling portion a 3 to 1 advantage that would still leave 50 stories of the south tower standing. Since nothing was standing something other than the planes had to be involved.

    Our engineering schools are culpable in letting this nonsense drag on for EIGHT YEARS by not pointing out the need to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers to even begin analyzing these events.

    Our psychologists and psychiatrists need to be brought in touch with the reality of Newtonian physics. Most of America needs a session on the couch.

    Comment by psikeyhackr — August 22, 2009 @ 5:10 pm | Reply

  4. Oops!

    {{{ Even if we generously gave the falling portion a 3 to 1 advantage that would still leave 50 stories of the south tower standing. }}}

    That should have been “50 stories of the NORTH tower standing.”

    Comment by psikeyhackr — August 22, 2009 @ 6:26 pm | Reply

  5. There is a YouTube video called:

    Gravitational Collapse onto Cumulative Supports

    It is an experiment that anyone can do and the parts only cost about $20.

    It uses washers 2 inches in diameter that weigh 1.7 oz each stacked on a 3/4 in diameter dowel that is 4 ft tall. The washers are separated by cylindrical loops of paper 1/2 an inch tall. Single loops can only hold about 12 washers so double and triple loops are used further down. I didn’t think of it at the time but since single loops are “so strong” they could be weakened with a paper punch.

    But anyone that is sufficiently interested can build this structure so that it can support itself for a few days and then try to make it collapse by dropping the top portion on the lower.

    Of course if it cannot be made to collapse then what would that say about WTC 1 and 2?

    psik

    Comment by psikeyhackr — March 20, 2010 @ 4:06 pm | Reply

  6. New York Inactivity continues.

    http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html

    Comment by psikeyhackr — June 21, 2011 @ 9:16 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: