9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

so the g at the top of the building was .0001 less than the bottom and that matters how LOL

- - - Updated - - -



omfg thats hilarious!
g1![/QUOTE]

Please.

You have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge specific to physics.

You cannot be counted upon to provide any reliable statements specific to this topic.

AboveAlpha

 

nah, you have actually.... you are off dragging nospam on another one of your red herrings

 

you have stated that its impossible for anything to have a constant rate of acceleration
64% of g ..... Please be so kind as to substantiate that claim.

 

Actually it can be applied TO ANY CONSTANT RATE OF FALL in Earth's atmosphere as due to the reasons I have already posted which substantiate the claim....WHICH IS ACTUALLY A COMBINATION OF NATURAL LAW EFFECTS....so not just for 64% rate of acceleration.

You can't say 64% of G as I explained previously as that means something else entirely.

AboveAlpha

 

so you are playing grammar nazi then

 

No.

I am saying it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the WTC Towers or even a single object falling to obtain a free fall rate of 32 feet per second squared or 64% that rate or 97% of that rate...etc...and for that rate to remain CONSTANT for any length of time in EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE.

This is because of the factors I have already listed.

#1. Inverse Square Law of Gravity.

#2. Air Resistance.

And in collapsing Structures...

#3. Interference of collapse due to materials making up the structure.

AboveAlpha

 

I forgot...

In the cases where a controlled demolition is taking place on an AIR TIGHT SEALED STRUCTURE....

#4. Resistance of Air Pressure Increase caused by explosive charges in confined spaces or between floors.

AboveAlpha

 

so you are dropping it from orbit then is that it? LOL

or do you "really" think you will have a measurable difference from 100 ft to ground. air resistance would be nearly constant in fact everything would be nearly constant, whats you point anyway? do you even know?

 

Why are you even bothering to post?

You don't contribute any PROVABLE FACTS to this Topic other than attempting to discredit LAWS OF PHYSICS!!

LOL!!!

If you have anything to post that actually has a basis in REALITY I would be more than happy to read it.

But just CLAIMING something is real without being able to provide VIABLE PROOF....is worthless.

AboveAlpha

 

whats your problem?

you are going off on some tangent who know where you will end up.

I pointed out that what you are making such a fuss about is (*)(*)(*)(*) you cant even measure with respect to the wtc and you rant about me trying to change the laws of physics... comprehension is key to understanding what I am pointing out to you.

 

That was just one of 4 issues that disproves the constant rate of acceleration during the fall.

AboveAlpha

 

oh?

Lets see it

 

typical ask for proof and they disappear

 

If saying 64% of G ( or g ) isn't the same thing as saying 64% of 9.8 m/s^2
Please enlighten me as to my error.

 

"G" is the Universal Gravitational Constant, approximately equal to 6.676048 x 10[SUP]-11[/SUP] Nm[SUP]2[/SUP]/kg[SUP]2[/SUP].

"g" is approximately equal to 9.80665 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]

 

n0spam, are you going to answer these questions?

 

To attempt to clarify.....

If there was say a viscous medium such as heavy oil
( or? ) in a tall column so as to allow your bowling ball
to be dropped into it, if the steady state resistance, that the
ball would encounter was 0.36 of the weight of said ball,
then the ball would descend at 64% of the acceleration of gravity.

if the resistance was less, the ball would fall faster,
and if the resistance was more, the ball would fall slower.

Does this express
what is going on 2 U?

 

I stand corrected ......

 

Are you KIDDING ME!!!???

What do you think I posted on post 182 and 183!!???

There is your proof!!!

You are making comments WITHOUT even reading what is being POSTED!!!

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Ahhh!

You had to bring this up after I just told them it was OK for him to use G or g? LOL!!!

BABY STEPS!!!

AboveAlpha

 

I appreciate INFORMATION, & I'm willing to be corrected
however, your previous posts simply made statements
such as its "impossible ........ " when in fact in the context of
your post, all you have posted is your opinion, if you have some
really solid evidence to provide a foundation for that " impossible ...... "
statement, that would be one thing, however, please note when the
statement is made that the towers fell at 64% of g, it is not to be taken
as this is PERFECT, if at any given sample of the descent one were to
measure 62% or maybe 66%, so be it the basic premise is there in that
the descent is characterized by acceleration and there is consistent acceleration
in that at no time do we observe a jolt in the process that would be indicative of
energy transfer from the falling mass to the bit below it.

 

Gamolon gave you the answer as I was trying not to get overly critical of using G or g....but as far as using one or the other one being a cap one not...they do have different meanings.

Remember that the Universal Gravitational Constant is specific to A...The Total Amount of Protons and Neutrons existing in all Atoms comprising an object or material falling.

B.....The Total Mass...ie...Total Number of Protons and Neutrons existing in a Celestial Body or Celestial Object or Material such as in Nebula....that is responsible for generating a Gravity Well.

C.....The Radius from the center of a Gravity Well of a Celestial Object or Body to it's Surface which allows calculations using the Inverse Square Law to determine g...NOT G.

AboveAlpha

 

don't get too hung up on details
given the mass of the earth & the height of the towers,
the inverse square law is kinda a moot point, don't you think?

 

Let me try to explain a little better.

I am NOT posting an opinion but I am posting a Proven Fact which is based upon the Physical Laws of the Universe or Multiverse.

Let me explain WHY...it is physically impossible for any rate of fall in Earth's atmosphere to be constant for ANY length of time.

There are a few reasons for this but you asked for proof so I will again detail one specific natural law that makes this impossible.

THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW OF GRAVITY.

Even if all the other three reasons I posted made this impossible did not even exist....because of the Inverse Square Law of Gravity any accelerating rate of fall existing as a constant for any length of time is impossible.

Why?

Because the further an object is away from the surface of the Earth the LESSOR the rate of fall....and as the object falls and get's closer to the Earth's surface the GREATER the rate of fall of an object.

Even though we say an object will fall constant toward the Earth at 32 feet per second squared that is not really true as first of all the object would have to fall IN A VACUUM thus not allowing air resistance to interfere with it's fall and even if the object fell from any height above the Earth's surface it's rate of fall would change and increase the closer it came to the Earth's Surface....THAT IS A PHYSICAL LAW OF NATURE and it is NOT my opinion thus that alone PROVES my statement.

Other factors as well exist such as I previously mentioned...Air Resistance and even THAT will not remain constant as the further away from Earth's Surface the less dense the atmospheric pressure which allows for a faster rate of fall....and as the object falls closer and closer to Earth not only will the air density become thicker or more dense...thus causing greater resistance upon a Falling Object the closer it falls to the Earth;s Surface.......

.....but as well....the CLOSER an object falls towards the surface of the Earth....the GREATER it's rate of fall will become as the rate of acceleration will increase ever closer to 32 feet per second squared.

Thus....

#1. The Inverse Square Law of Gravity PROVES anything free falling to Earth CANNOT obtain a constant rate of fall.

#2. Air Resistance being LESSOR the higher the altitude of a free falling object and the GREATER the air resistance becomes the closer to Earth's surface any free falling object becomes.

#3. Any Standing Structure in a state of Collapse must adhere to rules #1 and #2 but as well due to impossible physical nature of PERFECT UNIFORMITY....as such a thing cannot be achieved upon a MACRO SCALE...this means something as large as the WTC Towers were could NEVER be built in a completely uniform manner as such a thing is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY on a Macro Scale....and because of this any such buildings collapse could never be perfectly uniform thus can never obtain a constant rate of collapse.

#4. Explosive Air Pressure within a sealed air tight structure exists and will cause greater resistance against a structures collapse as well can never be uniform as the internal structure itself as to it's external construct can NEVER be uniform.

All 4 of these statements are based upon NATURAL PHYSICAL LAWS.

#1. Being the Inverse Square Law of Gravity.

#2. Being several physical laws as well as taking in... Avogadro's Number...as physical law into account specific to Italian physicist Amedeo Avogadro (1776-1856). Avogadro maintained that gases consisted of particles—which he called molecules—that in turn consisted of one or more smaller particles. He further reasoned that one liter of any gas must contain the same number of particles as a liter of another gas.

#3....Being Physical Laws specific to F=MA....Chaos Based Uniformity....Macro vs. Quantum Level Constructs as well as #1 and #2.

#4....Being a Physical Law specific to F=MA....and #3.

AboveAlpha

 

so tell me
what is the difference in the gravitational acceleration at say to be generous 1400 ft
as apposed to sea level?

I also must cite the uniformity of the "collapse" event in that it did descend
uniformly and if the acceleration at any given stage of the collapse event
could have been clocked at 62% of g or 66% of g, its really a moot point
because at no time during the collapse was any jolt observed that would indicate
a transfer of energy from the falling bit to whatever was under it.

 

so what it was clear what he was referring to.