9/11 Science Club: Mass Does Not Accelerate as it Accumulates, It Can Only Slow Down

[ManFromUncle]

By James_Madison_Lives at Daily Paul

The central, reasonable intuition that the official 9/11 story uses to seem plausible is that as mass accumulates, it accelerates. The official NIST report describes the suggested collapse mechanism no further than the initial stages. This avoids having to address this basic contradiction in the laws of physics. But shills for 9/11 promote the idea that as floors collapsed, the mass of concrete and debris accumulated and therefore went faster and faster, that is, accelerated. Greater speed would impart greater kinetic energy, therefore crushing the structure beneath it. There is only one problem with this hypothesis. It is absurd.

Up until Galileo, it was assumed that a 100 pound cannon ball would fall faster to the ground than a 10 pound cannon ball. Galileo said no. Dropped from the same height at the same time, they would fall at exactly the same acceleration. Minus negligible differences in air resistance for the two objects of different size, Galileo was right.

So great a thinker was Galileo that NASA named an interplanetary spaceship after him.

In fact, Galileo said that, in a vacuum with no air resistance, even a feather would drop at the same acceleration as a 100 pound cannon ball. Experiments in vacuum tubes have proven him right.

Similarly, different masses of concrete would accelerate toward Earth at exactly the same speed. As floors collapsed, it would not go faster and faster, whether the steel was "soft" or not. The idea that the steel was heated to the point of malleability is itself absurd, but even this premise can be granted and it would make no difference to the argument. The resistance of 80 floors of steel and concrete, then, could only slow any falling mass, not make it go faster.

This is not to say that it is not reasonable to assume it would. Opponents of Galileo in the European academies argued this vigorously. But in the end Galileo was right. All objects of any weight, falling through thin air, fall at an acceleration of approximately 10 meters per second, per second. This means that for every second an object falls, another 10 meters per second is added to its speed. So if an object falls for 3 seconds, at that point it is going 30 meters per second.

The demolition line of the Twin Towers accelerated downward. The explanation of defenders of the official story is that mass was accumulating, thereby going faster, thereby gathering kinetic energy to break structural supports. But Galileo showed it would not have gone faster. Therefore kinetic energy would not have been gained, but lost as the mass met resistance. Given any significant resistance, the mass of concrete would have decelerated and stopped. The official story requires the overturning of Galileo.

[youtube]Z789eth4lFU[/youtube]

[youtube]ndFXXasM6ZE[/youtube]

Demolition charges detonating
[youtube]uxB7R-z6E1I[/youtube]

10 Minutes with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
[youtube]K1_RiK2ouqA[/youtube]


The real 9/11 report, the Toronto Hearings (NIST invited to participate and debate but it declined.) Here at Amazon.com


Colorado PBS Runs 9/11 Film Sponsored by 9/11 Families: Experts Reject Official Story, Present Evidence of Demolition

Military Officers Question 9/11

"What we know and don’t know about 9/11," by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan.

Firefighters for 911 Truth

Pilots for 911 Truth

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

911Research.net

"Who Did It? Technology of Autopilot/Remote Flight on 9/11, Motive, Means, Opportunity"

"911 Case Closed: Aerial Photo Shows Towers Were Exploded Outward, Did Not "Collapse"

The Easiest Way to Understand 9/11 Was a Demolition: Free-Fall

911: Shock and Awe Master Deed. Prosecute Giuliani.

Galileo

 

[keith99]

By James_Madison_Lives at Daily Paul

The central, reasonable intuition that the official 9/11 story uses to seem plausible is that as mass accumulates, it accelerates. The official NIST report describes the suggested collapse mechanism no further than the initial stages. This avoids having to address this basic contradiction in the laws of physics. But shills for 9/11 promote the idea that as floors collapsed, the mass of concrete and debris accumulated and therefore went faster and faster, that is, accelerated. Greater speed would impart greater kinetic energy, therefore crushing the structure beneath it. There is only one problem with this hypothesis. It is absurd.

Up until Galileo, it was assumed that a 100 pound cannon ball would fall faster to the ground than a 10 pound cannon ball. Galileo said no. Dropped from the same height at the same time, they would fall at exactly the same acceleration. Minus negligible differences in air resistance for the two objects of different size, Galileo was right.

So great a thinker was Galileo that NASA named an interplanetary spaceship after him.

In fact, Galileo said that, in a vacuum with no air resistance, even a feather would drop at the same acceleration as a 100 pound cannon ball. Experiments in vacuum tubes have proven him right.
.......

Bolding mine.

In a vacuum. Air resistance is not negligable. Also in a vacuum any object falling accelerates. It does NOT start falling and stay at the same speed.

It seems 911 truthers do not get basic physics.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Bolding mine.

In a vacuum. Air resistance is not negligable. Also in a vacuum any object falling accelerates. It does NOT start falling and stay at the same speed.

It seems 911 truthers do not get basic physics.

Agreed.

We're talking about the force of gravity here:

The acceleration in this case is independent of the mass of the object in this case because all of the mass in question is being affected by the force of gravity, in each case we're looking at it overwhelming the structural strength of the floor below.

g = 9.8 meters per second^2

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The demolition line of the Twin Towers accelerated downward. The explanation of defenders of the official story is that mass was accumulating, thereby going faster, thereby gathering kinetic energy to break structural supports.

This is so wrong it makes my head hurt. Gravity does accelerate things - you, me, the 9/11 tower. Everything.
F=ma, so assuming the mass was increasing but acceleration was constant, the force goes up.

But Galileo showed it would not have gone faster. Therefore kinetic energy would not have been gained, but lost as the mass met resistance. Given any significant resistance, the mass of concrete would have decelerated and stopped. The official story requires the overturning of Galileo.

This could only have been written by someone with zero knowledge of how structures and forces in those structures work. Sounds like the work of Landscape Architects and Sales Engineers for 9/11 truth.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

Interesting ... the physics of 9/11

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The idea that the steel was heated to the point of malleability is itself absurd, but even this premise can be granted and it would make no difference to the argument.

Like the Bay Bridge fire which caused a freeway collapse - it's a conspiracy!!!!

 

[Cjwinnit]

F=ma, so assuming the mass was increasing but acceleration was constant, the force goes up.

F = m (dv/dt) + (dm/dt) v.

If mass doesn't change then dm/dv = 0, hence f = m (dv/dt) or f = ma.

When mass decreases, as it does in a rocket as it burns fuel, then the acceleration increases as the mass is lost (assuming the force from the rocket engine stays constant - we have to take into account the increasing velocity of the rocket creates increasing counter-force wind resistance on the rocket so the acceleration increase isn't uniform as it would be in a vacuum, but for our purposes it illustrates the point).

When mass increases, as in an avalanche, the acceleration decreases as the mass increases (as it accumulates more snow as it falls).

Here's where you're wrong though. The avalanche (or the 9/11 tower in your case) doesn't slow down - it merely increases it's speed at a lower rate of acceleration. Just because it's acceleration decreases doesn't mean it slows down. It speeds up, but not at a uniform acceleration.

It speed doesn't slow down - it's acceleration does.

Interesting ... the physics of 9/11

His physics wouldn't have passed "A" level

 

[Cjwinnit]

NASA Ares I-X Rocket Launch Wed, 28 Oct 2009 - YouTube

2:34 - Launch.
3:22 - Mach 1 (T + 48)
3:44 - Mach 2 (T + 70 or "Mach 1" + 22)
4:24 - Mach 4 (T + 110 or "Mach 2" + 40)

As you can see the time from M1 to M2 is shorter than launch to M1. If it were accelerating uniformly then those times should be the same. Ditto for M0 to M2 and M2 to M4.

 

[cow451]

OK, Mr. 4th-grade Physics expert, let's do a little experiment. I'll let a feather be dropped on my head from a distance of ten feet. You, meanwhile will let a cannonball be dropped on your head from a distance of ten feet.

Then, we'll talk about it some more.

 

[Btodd]

OK, Mr. 4th-grade Physics expert, let's do a little experiment. I'll let a feather be dropped on my head from a distance of ten feet. You, meanwhile will let a cannonball be dropped on your head from a distance of ten feet.

Then, we'll talk about it some more.

I think he may have already tried this experiment.


Btodd

 

[seeking Christ]

No need to be nasty, but the physics have been misapplied in the OP. The main premise is faulty. The "official explanation" doesn't depend on the concept stated. Instead, the structure got exposed to conditions it was never designed to endure. It seems even Bin Laden didn't really design his success either, but just got lucky. I'm not sure if the towers falling straight down can be attributed to design or luck, but clearly it would've been more damaging if they had toppled over.

 

[true2theword]

granted a huge weight of ten or so floors can be seen exploding the floor below one floor at a time all the way down, my only question is why is each floors resistance to the ever increasing weight seem none existant.

and if what was happening actually occured shouldn't there have been a stack of pancaked floors at the bottom of this mess, but there were no floors stacked infact there were no slabs of concrete, seems illogical that this did not occur, if in fact the towers fell in this pancake method

 

[cow451]

granted a huge weight of ten or so floors can be seen exploding the floor below one floor at a time all the way down, my only question is why is each floors resistance to the ever increasing weight seem none existant.

and if what was happening actually occured shouldn't there have been a stack of pancaked floors at the bottom of this mess, but there were no floors stacked infact there were no slabs of concrete, seems illogical that this did not occur, if in fact the towers fell in this pancake method

If you read up a bit, you will know that the "pancake theory" was discarded as evidence was examined.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

 

[true2theword]

If you read up a bit, you will know that the "pancake theory" was discarded as evidence was examined.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

what?........is this a copy and paste job from the nist report?, the towers fell and everyone witnessed it, it started at the impacted floors and came collapsing down floor on top of floor, whats this bunch of nonesense you posted? it fell like an accordian, and now some strange bunch of verbage is thrown together to discount why the floors disinigrated into powder

 

[trunks2k]

what?........is this a copy and paste job from the nist report?, the towers fell and everyone witnessed it, it started at the impacted floors and came collapsing down floor on top of floor, whats this bunch of nonesense you posted? it fell like an accordian, and now some strange bunch of verbage is thrown together to discount why the floors disinigrated into powder

The pancake theory was that the floors failed progressively - as in an entire floor fell onto the floor below it with the combined weight weakening the structure and initiated the collapse. Instead, NIST found that the floors around the impact were heated and started sagging, causing the support on the perimeter of the floors to be pulled in, eventually breaking. THAT is what initiated the collapse.

Once the collapse is initiated, that's a TON of kinetic energy just smashing things to bits.

 

[Skaloop]

Once the collapse is initiated, that's a TON of kinetic energy just smashing things to bits.

Several hundred thousand tons, actually.

 

[true2theword]

The pancake theory was that the floors failed progressively - as in an entire floor fell onto the floor below it with the combined weight weakening the structure and initiated the collapse. Instead, NIST found that the floors around the impact were heated and started sagging, causing the support on the perimeter of the floors to be pulled in, eventually breaking. THAT is what initiated the collapse.

Once the collapse is initiated, that's a TON of kinetic energy just smashing things to bits.

if it were only the collapse of the towers to be disputed, I might have bought into the cover story, but there are so many circumstances that have never been addressed, I think a reinvestigation is required, even the police tapes on 911 reveal a moving truck with a mural of an airliner crashing into the towers, these men were caught then released after the truck they were driving exploded

 

[seeking Christ]

If you read up a bit, you will know that the "pancake theory" was discarded as evidence was examined.

This wording is misleading. In many places the report you linked (very helpful btw!) mentions floors collapsing sequentially. Whatever the distinction is, I think most people would use these 2 terms to mean roughly the same thing. So this wouldn't be a satisfying answer to the question asked, why weren't there several floors of concrete found at the base? The answer to that would lie in the subway system, underneath the towers. Quite a complicated mess, especially when you consider what areas were submerged by hurricane Sandy.

 

[true2theword]

This wording is misleading. In many places the report you linked (very helpful btw!) mentions floors collapsing sequentially. Whatever the distinction is, I think most people would use these 2 terms to mean roughly the same thing. So this wouldn't be a satisfying answer to the question asked, why weren't there several floors of concrete found at the base? The answer to that would lie in the subway system, underneath the towers. Quite a complicated mess, especially when you consider what areas were submerged by hurricane Sandy.

and what has the areas Hurricane sandy submerged have to do with it?

 

[Btodd]

if it were only the collapse of the towers to be disputed, I might have bought into the cover story, but there are so many circumstances that have never been addressed, I think a reinvestigation is required, even the police tapes on 911 reveal a moving truck with a mural of an airliner crashing into the towers, these men were caught then released after the truck they were driving exploded

Oh, good grief, not the 'mural van' story again. Yeah, the perpetrators thought it would be a good idea to paint a mural of an airliner crashing into the Towers and parade it around the city on the day the planes crashed into the Towers. Makes perfect sense.

Kinda like Oswald having a t-shirt printed of an assassin shooting Kennedy that he could wear around after he fled the scene of the crime.


Btodd