9/11 Experiments: Collapse vs. Demolition ~ Part 2 of 2

No description available.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• 9/11 experiments
• NIST
• Chandler
• jolt
• momentum
• collapse
• twin towers
• WTC 7

[studmalexy]

@kerryike this so called crush up is merely an optical illusion created by the fact that the building is 1.falling and 2, being destroyed by explosives.

the fact that constant acceleration was observed shows that there was little or no "crush up" since no deceleration was experienced;.

[kerryike]

I am very undecided about this and view both sides. However, the video of the collapse shown at 6:03 certainly does show "crush up". The height of the top part of the tower definately shrinks in height.

[cmbsmith24]

******* "I have few comments in regards to how if this was planned how did they get so many people to keep quite about it"

meant "I have few comments in regards to people saying if this was planned how did they get so many people to keep quite about it"

[cmbsmith24]

I have few comments in regards to how if this was planned how did they get so many people to keep quite about it. I'm not totally sure on this but I think the atom bomb was made in secrecy with about 60 000 people involved. I'm sure they all didn't know what they were making parts for but didn't ask questions because of the pay or told not to.

tbh, if I was a reporter I would just read what was given to me and ask questions off camera that they I don't loose my job, or die. dying sucks!

[Ahlywog]

@RobertMOdell Then do the experiment, record it with all pertinent information and post it on youtube. I honestly don't know why you keep pushing this "shock wave" business because it doesn't matter. We're not talking about a shock wave traveling at some approximation of g (which it won't, because shock waves do not accelerate) we're talking about the upper 3/4 of a building reaching some approximation of g for roughly 108 feet of it's decent.

[RobertMOdell]

@Ahlywog If you've watched a very high waterfall, you can see this in action: In the center of the falls, where there is water that accumulates behind other falling water, the speed of the fall approximates g. Whereas the edges of the fall are impacted by air resistance and fall much slower. A tower of cards would produce a shock wave that quickly approached g. The individual cards fluttering away would twirl in the air at slow speeds, but the core cards falling at ever higher speed.

[RobertMOdell]

@Ahlywog Yes, not EXACTLY g, but as the weight of the ever-larger number of falling cards increases in proporton to the strength of the card structure, the acceleration that resulted would become less and less impacted by the strength of the card structure. For cards, air resistence is significant at a mere 5mph. So the shock wave tends toward g and moves ahead of the actually falling cards! For large iron girders, not until over 100mph does air resistence become significant.at slowing them.

[Ahlywog]

@RobertMOdell A house of cards will never see g. the only way you can see g in the collapse of anything is dropping it with nothing beneath it but air. And, if you have a BS, you should know that THAT isn't even g. Free fall through air is not g. Regardless. A house of cards, even 20ft high, while incredibly difficult to put together, is certainly doable and I would actually like to see the results.

[RobertMOdell]

@Ahlywog Sir, I have a bachelors degree in science. I well understand the principles of mechanics and acceleration. A small scale experiment would be useful because it would show that in an accelerating collapse, it begins with low acceleration increasing but bound by the acceleration of gravity as it proceeds. In a decelerating collapse, it begins with low acceleration but then decelerates and stops. Build a house of cards 20 feet high. By the end, its collapse will be at (g).

[Ahlywog]

@stevenmonster No amount of poor construction can account for 108 feet of gravitational free fall in WTC 7.