"Al Dykes" <adykes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fuvhk5$14e$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <48133f98$0$11625$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Reggie <Reggie501@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/latest-news-at-a-glance/911-news-at-a-glanceB
>>
>>BC Anchor Who Re****ted on WTC7 Collapse Early Agrees There May Be a
>>'Conspiracy'
>>
>>Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11--
>>at first-- but then recalls the situation when it is described in
>>detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who re****ted the
>>collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in
>>the background.
>>
>>"A lot of eyebrows were raised," We Are Change re****ters point out in
>>summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including
>>a number of engineers.
> The whole world knew that WTC7 was about to collapse. The poor BBC
> news reader made a mistake and said it "had collapsed" instead of
> "about to collapse". Jeesh.
CNN made the same "mistake." Looks like they read the script too soon -
> The inevitable collapse of WTC7 was in local TV news on the afternoon
> of 9/11. I saw it, myself. See [7], below.
Inevitable? Then how come several buildings with far worse damage remained
standing, including the Deutchbank building, which recently survived yet
ANOTHER extensive fire without any collapse?
I SAW building 7 collapse on live TV. Controlled demolition by explosives,
no doubt about it!
> k00ks love to - -
Ah, yes, when all else fails, the desperate deniers and coverup ****lls
always resort to adolescent name-calling. Poor frustrated childish minds!
> Nobody that was an eyewitness to the WTC7 collapse can say there was
> anything unusual about the way it collapsed.
I saw it on live TV, and I am an engineer. And I say CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
BY EXPLOSIVES!
And more im****tant than my personal opinion, the inviolate LAWS OF PHYSICS
say the same:
SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos
of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.
In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September
11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that
day
goes beyond the pale."
We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
that's "beyond the pale"!
Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and
the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?
The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to
as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane
crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate
everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this pur****ted (all physical evidence
was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts:
* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel
core
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to
do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a
simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform
a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
How Gravity Acts:
Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
anything sup****ting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per
second
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago,
heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling
at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.
Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is
falling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has
fallen
16 feet.
Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
high-school physics book:
* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
And
* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =
1/2
x G x T x T)
So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
Checking Our Work:
We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,
using
conservation of energy.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely
changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy
in
a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is
converted
into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough
to
shatter or even pulverize concrete.
In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water
stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic
energy.
The equation for potential energy is:
* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x
H)
The equation for kinetic energy is:
* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has
a
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x
144
= 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared =
1/2
x 9216 = 4608
So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.
Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an
independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of
energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as
will
a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pu****ng a lot of air out of the way in
order
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational
potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate
of
32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet
per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.
This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall
equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the
air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration
upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is
maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the
person
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
A Quick Recap:
Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.
Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start
by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.
Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just
over
200 mph.
But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
ground.
Observations from 9/11:
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Re****t, we are told, in the
government's
"complete and final re****t" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote:
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
not lie about this.
But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the
air.
This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands
of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
core columns, had successfully sup****ted the mass of the tower for 30
years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way
of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the
upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more
than
10 seconds!
What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could
not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
physically impossible!
Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
Never mind what happened to all the sup****ting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total
amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in
close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and
glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to
have
done all these things at once.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So
WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
Conclusions:
In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure
of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions
can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official
myth
of 9/11.
The Bottom Line:
The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane
impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you
to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.
The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.
Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
---------------------------------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
|
