Thursday, November 11, 2010

Fell Into Its Own Footprint

You point out 9 valid items that were anomalous in the demolition of one of the WTC towers. And then you come up with the following conclusion:

“Can all of this rule out explosives? I would say so. … I am utterly satisfied that the rest of the collapse is pure physics and requires no further help.”

Your comments about the tilted section falling back demonstrates an error in your understanding of about Newtonian physics. One of Newton’s laws says that once an object is in motion, it will stay in motion until some outside force acts upon it. Those upper floors tilting due to asymmetric failing support underneath and gaining angular momentum is believable. According to Newton’s laws, they should have continued to tip over and as a multi-story mass fallen outside the path of greatest resistance and creamed neighboring buildings.

You imply that the top section stops its angular momentum and falls back into line to continue the destruction through the path of greatest resistance. Where did the energy come from to stop that momentum and achieve this?

You talk about “immense pressure behind [the outer shell bursting outwards]“, yet can’t seem to rectify that if strictly Newtonian physics were at play, the energy needed for this observation combined with the energy used to arrest the angular momentum means that the collapse could not proceed at near gravitational acceleration.

Moreover, it is known that the structure at any arbitrary height h will be stronger than the structure at any height greater than h. For the sake of discussion, if height h had n floors above it and given more Newton laws about equal and opposite forces, those top n floors could destroy themselves into n floors below height h. Not only should the collapse have stopped at 2n floors (if not before), but also the destruction of each floor should have slow the collapse of 2n floors as something that even lay-people, the 9/11 Commission, or NIST could not use the phrase “at free-fall speed” to describe.

Additionally, when energy is consumed in pulverizing the mass of 2n floors and those crumbles of mass fall (or are ejected) outside the tower’s structure, that mass is no longer available to be used as a cohesive unit to destroy even more of the remaining tower.

All bets are off if additional energy sources are added.



When I observe the tilting upper n floors, I see its angular momentum being arrested due to the mass being turned to dust. The additional energy source that got (as you observed) “the outer shell bursting outwards” had spherical force lines that also acted on pulverizing the n floors above height h while it pulverized n floors below height h. The latter has been described as a collapse wave that was faster than gravitational acceleration.

I contend that the additional energy source were several milli-nukes per tower, each designed with limited yield and targeted characteristics. Such low-yield devices (below 1-kton) are technically harder to design and implement, and are more likely to fizzle. Moreover, when used in sequence with other nukes, nuke fracticide can occur which leaves tell-tale unspent nuclear fuel fizzling around.

Limey, your statement that “the rest of the collapse is pure physics” is really only true if nuclear physics is included in your definition of pure physics.

Newtonian gravitational physics (which seems to be your premise) cannot explain the foundry-level hot fires that burned under the rubble for weeks; it cannot explain the disappearance / vaporization of building content and mass; it cannot explain the unique and anomalous damage to vehicles that were not in the path of falling and burning debris. Milli-nukes can. Look up what an electrical magnetic pulse (EMP) could do when it slipped out through the window slits of the towers.

In fact, milli-nukes can explain not only the initial cover-up with the help of the media, but also why new conspirators (e.g., cheer-leaders) in leadership and media joined the OGCT after the fact to keep the cover-up in place. Public revelation of 9/11 being a nuclear event could, would, and should inspire some Thomas Jefferson rebellion towards the goal of establishing our govt anew. So it really does boil down to national security: as in, job security for those in leadership and its agencies.

Proof of my contention.

If Dr. Judy Woods website is good for nothing else (and few DEW conclusions), it has plenty of pictures of damage of vehicles to prove EMP.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles.

In particular on the first link, look at the sequence starting with Figure toast2a to toast4. It shows a parking lot at some distance from the collapsing towers and the cloud of dust rolling in. Then it shows fires starting to burn in various vehicles, but not all vehicles and not paper or other non-metallic debris.

By all means, give Dr. Judy Wood’s website a through exploring to observe the many pictures she amasses. Ignore her conclusions and the titles of pages of where the pictures are found; look for the nuggets of truth that are the pictorial evidence.

Limey wrote:  
“The speed of the collapse reinforces for me the previous assertion that the weight of the top drove the rest of the building down almost as if it wasn’t there.”

Here’s where I amend your statement.

“The speed of the collapse was due to the weight of the top driving down, because the rest of the building (in terms of internal structure) in fact wasn’t there and was timed to be taken out mere milliseconds before the top drove through its space.”

No comments: