The conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur have been known for centuries…
The condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration…
The control that appears on the right in many of the animations is intended as a reminder of that, and also signals the beginning of a comparison…
We can know with certainty in some cases (like this one) what conditions exist beneath an object (or building) as it falls…
…even though we may not be able to see into the space beneath it as it does…
Buckled columns, whether one or a hundred, whether one at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) don’t just go from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they steadily decrease in strength while they buckle and that takes time.
The mechanism of buckling (a mode of natural progressive structural failure), whether caused by heat…
…or by overloading…
…absolutely cannot match or create the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur, it’s literally impossible. There is no such thing as structural gravitational acceleration…
Some force must be introduced to quickly remove all support from beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building seen in the video…
The progressive collapse of the building (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 on the left)…
…that essentially happens all at once…
…is clearly physically inconsistent with what we empirically know of natural progressive structural failure (defined as a time consuming process of individual/sequential/simultaneous failure involving one or a number of related structural components).
It’s a physical impossibility for the lower part of the asymmetrically damaged building (reportedly three core columns and nine perimeter columns)…
…to have naturally progressively collapsed in any way that could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically descending straight down through itself (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 circled below) at anything near gravitational acceleration for any period of time. The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical impossibility…
…and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure driven solely by gravity that can ever give rise to the conditions required for free fall to have occurred at any point during it’s descent…
The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical impossibility. Just as there is no such thing as structural gravitational acceleration, nor is there any known structural failure mode known as natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration…
There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity driven collapse of a steel frame skyscraper like this where one could say…
“Hold it… right there! That’s the point where all the steel columns and structural components that were supporting the building just a moment ago (with an area greater than that of a football field) will undoubtedly be found to be behaving in a manner very much like air (below left). It will take very careful calculation to tell the fall times apart during this free fall period of the ongoing progressive structural failure (below right)”…
For the 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet) that we know the upper part of the building literally fell at gravitational acceleration it cannot have been using any of it’s potential energy to crush the building contents, columns and other structural components beneath it and undergo free fall at the same time (as illustrated by this frangible impedance scenario)…
It’s physically impossible for the lower asymmetrically damaged part of the building to have naturally progressively collapsed in a way that could result in the upper part of the building actually accelerating as it descended symmetrically straight down through itself, through the path of greatest resistance (below right), and then, driven on solely by gravity, actually continue to accelerate so nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very careful calculation for any difference between the two to be detected. The scenario playing out below is an absolute impossibility…
Some other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building as it descended must be introduced to explain the observed rate of descent during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration.
For the 2.25 seconds that the building iliterally fell at gravitational acceleration, no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building was seen to be introduced from outside the building, and no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building is known to have existed inside the building as an element or normal function of its infrastructure.
For a load supported by a column to descend at gravitational acceleration, all support must be quickly removed, there’s absolutely no other way. It must be knocked out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized, etc.
Since no eight story tall boulders were seen rumbling through Manhatten that day that could have quickly knocked out all support…
…and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging for verinage (another form of controlled demolition) the night before that could have quickly pulled out the support…
…and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at it that could have quickly blown out all support…
…and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in the area that could have quickly vaporized all support…
…and no other force capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a normal function of it’s infrastructure (blue)…
…it naturally follows that whatever the other force was that must be introduced to explain the observed 2.25 seconds of descent at gravitional acceleration, it must have been introduced some time before the event, and unless someone can show how the other force that must be introduced either during or just before the collapse of the building was introduced from outside the building, or that it was already existing inside the building as a normal function of it’s infrastructure, the process of elimination really leaves only one possible explanation for the building’s behaviour.
Some energetic material powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration must have been physically transported inside the building some time before the event, it had to be brought in.
The explosion model is the only one…
…that can realistically match and empirically be expected to create the conditions that we know must have existed…
…beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds…
The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree) confirmed observation of a significant well defined period of gravitational acceleration…
…means that an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur…
The building was brought down by explosives.
The building was brought down by explosives.Oh no, not another one... Merge?
Delete. This has been hashed to death. Just throw out the dead horse.
I remain agnostic. I say let the debate go on. (Though Amelius, you should be aware that you are not in friendly territory, in making such a claim.)
I have three questions for Aemilius
- Id explosives were used why was there no trace of them found?
- Who would have placed them and why?
- Why bring this up again?
DM is right, the subject has been hacked to death and nothing you have shownhere offers any new evidence that explosives were used. I just wonder what your agenda is.
Annoying, isn’t it? OTOH, what if he’s right?
The building was brought down by explosives.Oh no, not another one... Merge? I don't care what you do. You can merge it, lock it, ignore it (preferred), delete it, hide it or anything else. You're not providing any organized empirically verifiable data (of your own or anyone elses) that supercedes my empirically verifiable analysis or refutes any aspect of it (or by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at). Meaningless one liners about nothing (with respect to the analysis) are useless for analysis. If you don't have anything on topic to say, go read something else like a normal person instead of interfering with the thread.
Delete. This has been hashed to death. Just throw out the dead horse.Why are you posting? Your not providing any organized empirically verifiable data either (of your own or anyone elses) that supercedes my graphical target system analysis or refutes any aspect of it (or by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at), just adding another meaningless one liner about nothing (with respect to the analysis).... If you don't have anything on topic to say, go read something else like a normal person instead of interfering with the thread.
I remain agnostic.Hah! There's no such thing as "Agnostic Physics".
I say let the debate go on.There is no debating the Law of Conservation of Energy.
(Though Amelius, you should be aware that you are not in friendly territory, in making such a claim.)That's fine, "friendly" isn't a requirement or necessary element of the scientific method.... it's a science forum. And just to be clear, I haven't made any claim or advanced any theory, hell I don't even have an opinion. What I have is an empirically verifiable scientific method driven graphical target system analysis and conclusion arrrived at by process of elimination. Do you even know what that is? And yet again, no organized empirically verifiable data presented (of your own or anyone elses) that supercedes my empirically verifiable graphical target system analysis or refutes any aspect of it (or by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at). And again, if you don't have anything on topic to say, go read something else like a normal person instead of interfering with the thread.
I have three questions for Aemilius 1. Id explosives were used why was there no trace of them found?The NIST didn't test for explosive residue.
2. Who would have placed them and why?Beyond the scope of the analysis.
3. Why bring this up again?.Because I want to.... it's a science forum.
DM is right, the subject has been hacked to death and nothing you have show here offers any new evidence that explosives were used.Just like the others, you're not contributing to the topic with any organized empirically verifiable data (of your own or anyone elses) that supercedes my empirically verifiable graphical target system analysis or refutes any aspect of it (or by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at). If you don't have anything on topic to say, go read something else like a normal person instead of interfering with the thread.
I just wonder what your agenda is.Physics.... it's a science forum.
Annoying, isn't it? OTOH, what if he's right?It's not about me being right or wrong, it's about the analysis being correct or incorrect. If it's causing anyone any cognitive dissonance though.... go read something else like a normal person instead of intentionally clogging up the thread with a bunch of meaningless useless irrelevant nonsense. So far, the analysis (and by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at) stands.... the building was brought down by explosives. That's just the way it is.
Just like the others, you’re not contributing to the topic with any organized empirically verifiable data (of your own or anyone elses) that supercedes my empirically verifiable graphical target system analysis or refutes any aspect of it (or by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at). If you don’t have anything on topic to say, go read something else like a normal person instead of interfering with the thread.
Search the archives, newbie. This subject has been beaten to death several times.
Search the archives, newbie. This subject has been beaten to death several times.Then why don't you simply copy and paste a coherent empirically verifiable refutation that breaks the analysis? If you don't have time or don't want to bother with it that's fine.... go read something else like a normal person instead of just posting meaningless content and interfering with the thread.
Just like the others, you’re not contributing to the topic with any organized empirically verifiable data (of your own or anyone elses) that supercedes my empirically verifiable graphical target system analysis or refutes any aspect of it (or by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at). If you don’t have anything on topic to say, go read something else like a normal person instead of interfering with the thread. What do you want? Scientifically verifiable data that your proposition is wrong? It isn't up to us to prove you wrong, it's up to you to provide evidence that you are right. Nothing you have provided here, despite the pretty colors, proves your theory correct. All you have presented is a theory (and not even a scientific one). When you have shown such evidence and when you can find professional scientists connected to respected scientific organizations that back your claim, let us know. Lois
Aemilius,
I think this all hinges on what reasonably counts as justification for belief that the collapse was physically impossible without further interference (for want of a better way of putting it).
Any conspiracy theory on this is highly improbable and so unless the evidence for the collapse being physically impossible is really good the conspiracy theories are probably wrong.
I don’t know anything like enough about physics to make any judgement on the physically impossible theory but there are lots of physicists in a better position to do so and as far as I know there is only a fringe minority who think it was physically impossible.
So I’m justified in believing the consensus is right on this.
Unless one is an expert physicist this is as much about philosophy (epistemology) as it is about physics.
Well put Stephen. You balance probabilities and account for the validity of a consensus opinion among experts. Amelius dismisses other opinions and relies on the lack of 100% provability. This is pretty much the gap between every reasonable person and conspiracy theorists everywhere, whether it be secret governments or should you eat bacon.
What Amelius really misses is, what’s he doing here? If he has valid analysis, why bring it to a general discussion forum? At least a physics forum. Really, it should go to a peer reviewed journal, but let’s not get far down that road.
Amelius - I for one appreciate the time you spent in your post. To my mind your post just adds to the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job. Unfortunately the time’s past when further discussion will do any good. Cheney and his ilk has gotten away with it. And as you’re seeing in this thread, for some reason otherwise rational people can easily be swayed to think wrongly once a label of “conspiracy” is effectively applied to something. In any other scenario they’d question the official story, and think they’re even being patriotic in doing so. But in this case that goes out the window. I suggest for your own sake you take this elsewhere, to a more specific forum, where there might be more open minds to discuss your material with.
Oh, and to top it off, the owner of WTC7 was Jewish. Nothing wrong with that at all, except if you try to insinuate that he was involved, you’ll instantly be charged with anti-Semitism.
I remain agnostic.Hah! There's no such thing as "Agnostic Physics".
I say let the debate go on.There is no debating the Law of Conservation of Energy.
(Though Amelius, you should be aware that you are not in friendly territory, in making such a claim.)That's fine, "friendly" isn't a requirement or necessary element of the scientific method.... it's a science forum. And just to be clear, I haven't made any claim or advanced any theory, hell I don't even have an opinion. What I have is an empirically verifiable scientific method driven graphical target system analysis and conclusion arrrived at by process of elimination. Do you even know what that is? And yet again, no organized empirically verifiable data presented (of your own or anyone elses) that supercedes my empirically verifiable graphical target system analysis or refutes any aspect of it (or by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at). And again, if you don't have anything on topic to say, go read something else like a normal person instead of interfering with the thread. ... "Science is a continuous challenge of common sense, and the core of science is not certainty, it's continuous uncertainty." Carlos Rivelli Hmm... that physicist sounds a bit agnostic to me. I don't care to see a debate about the Law of Conservation of Energy, as I probably wouldn't understand much of it. As to "an empirically verifiable scientific method driven graphical target system analysis and conclusion arrrived at by process of elimination", that sounds suspiciously like something that you personally may have come up with. It sounds impressive. But, I understand that the emperor's new clothes were also quite impressive. As to your mandate to go read something else "like a normal person", are you suggesting that your thread here is exclusively for abnormal persons? Or are you suggesting that my participation in this thread is abnormal? Either way, I will continue with this thread, for the time being. As to your assertion that you have made no claim, uh... you claimed that you have shown with certainty that explosives were introduced in certain floors of the towers, some time prior to the plane collisions, and that those explosives went off and caused the building to fall as it did. So, as I see it, you made a rather significant claim. Then you claimed that you made no claim. That's not good.
Doesn’t the whole analysis depend on him being right about the rate of the fall? Something that has been shown to NOT be free fall over and over?]Watch actual video, not this CGI crap.
Doesn't the whole analysis depend on him being right about the rate of the fall? Something that has been shown to NOT be free fall over and over?] Watch actual video, not this CGI crap.Good score Lausten! ~ ~ ~ "In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground. Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns. Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high. Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: www (dot) 911myths.com/WTCREPORT(dot)pdf" What about them apples Aemilius?
Amelius - I for one appreciate the time you spent in your post. To my mind your post just adds to the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job. Unfortunately the time's past when further discussion will do any good. Cheney and his ilk has gotten away with it. And as you're seeing in this thread, for some reason otherwise rational people can easily be swayed to think wrongly once a label of "conspiracy" is effectively applied to something. In any other scenario they'd question the official story, and think they're even being patriotic in doing so. But in this case that goes out the window. I suggest for your own sake you take this elsewhere, to a more specific forum, where there might be more open minds to discuss your material with. Oh, and to top it off, the owner of WTC7 was Jewish. Nothing wrong with that at all, except if you try to insinuate that he was involved, you'll instantly be charged with anti-Semitism.You could hardly hit a building in New York that isn't at least partly owned by a Jewish person. The WTC was owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, two state governmental entities. Even if it had been owned by a Jewish person, what would that have to do with a conspiracy to bring down the towers? In addition neither you nor anyone else has identified the so called conspirators. Who were they? I'd wager you have no more evidence for a conspiracy or who perpetrated it than you have that explosives were planted to bring the buildings down. You are living in a fantasy world. Everyone involved in a conspiracy had to know tha jets were going to run into the twin towers at the same time. Why would they think they had to risk their lives planting explosives? Wouldn't the jets do enough damage? Why would anybody want to bring down the WTC anyway? What was it supposed to accomplish? The only people who had a rationale were religious terrorists. Who else stood to gain? And what was gained? They created death, destruction and chaos in one small part of the country. Did it somehow damage the United States government or the US population? Could it have? There was absolutely no purpose in it except religious terrorism. Lois
Amelius - I for one appreciate the time you spent in your post. To my mind your post just adds to the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job. Unfortunately the time's past when further discussion will do any good. Cheney and his ilk has gotten away with it. And as you're seeing in this thread, for some reason otherwise rational people can easily be swayed to think wrongly once a label of "conspiracy" is effectively applied to something. In any other scenario they'd question the official story, and think they're even being patriotic in doing so. But in this case that goes out the window. I suggest for your own sake you take this elsewhere, to a more specific forum, where there might be more open minds to discuss your material with. Oh, and to top it off, the owner of WTC7 was Jewish. Nothing wrong with that at all, except if you try to insinuate that he was involved, you'll instantly be charged with anti-Semitism.You could hardly hit a building in New York that isn't at least partly owned by a Jewish person. The WTC was owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, two state governmental entities. Even if it had been owned by a Jewish person, what would that have to do with a conspiracy to bring down the towers? In addition neither you nor anyone else has identified the so called conspirators. Who were they? I'd wager you have no more evidence for a conspiracy or who perpetrated it than you have that explosives were planted to bring the buildings down. You are living in a fantasy world. Everyone involved in a conspiracy had to know tha jets were going to run into the twin towers at the same time. Why would they think they had to risk their lives planting explosives? Wouldn't the jets do enough damage? Why would anybody want to bring down the WTC anyway? What was it supposed to accomplish? The only people who had a rationale were religious terrorists. Who else stood to gain? And what was gained? They created death, destruction and chaos in one small part of the country. Did it somehow damage the United States government or the US population? Could it have? There was absolutely no purpose in it except religious terrorism. LoisThe owner being Jewish has nothing to do with anything. You missed my point, which was - if someone were to imply that the owner was involved, charges of anti-Semitism would spring up immediately. That was a warning to the OP. As for the rest, well you'll just need to do the reading yourself. Start with the Shock Doctrine, and then imagine the same technique applied to the US, then also read up on PNAC. Just because Cheney and his ilk are evil doesn't mean they're stupid. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman too. You'll quickly realize there ARE in fact groups of people out there working to undermine entire countries for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. In fact they use religious zealots as willing handmaidens. Do the reading.