"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:WB3qj.552492$kj1.416671@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
>
>
>
GREAT post! Now let's see what the American sheeple say. The amazing
thing is, people who may disagree with you don't have any true facts!
Anyway, I'll copy & paste & send it to everyone I know. THANKS!
|
