Reply To: New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001


Home Forums Discussion Forum New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001 Reply To: New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001

#51721
Clark
Guest

Dave, yes, a smear campaign of false accusations of anti-Semitism was used against Jeremy Corbyn. It probably wasn’t very effective because in the 2017 General Election the Labour Party gained 30 seats and the Conservatives lost their majority.

Your 16:36 comment demonstrates that you don’t understand the arguments I have presented; you are still confusing g with free-fall, and have failed to grasp that buildings being demolished aren’t in free-fall and fall slower than g.

What I did with the Twin Tower collapses was to calculate the lower bound of the collapse time, taking momentum transfer between floor assemblies into consideration but not mechanical resistance, because the latter was beyond my expertise. The collapse times were well above this limit.

To check mechanical resistance, I worked backwards from estimated collapse times measured from video. By subtracting my result above I calculated free energy not expended in collapse itself, and found it to be ample to overcome mechanical resistance – it was equivalent to the energy of more than enough explosives to detach all floor assemblies from the vertical frame.

Thus the collapse times provide no reason to suspect explosives; the Twin Towers would have collapsed that fast without them.

A complete building collapse almost has to accelerate. If it were to decelerate it would stop, incomplete. There is a critical case of roughly uniform velocity, but it is unlikely, like a falling pencil landing upright, balanced on its end.

I doubt you understand the arguments above, though I doubt that will stop you either. But I did these calculations with simple O Level physics, so Twin Tower demolition theories just look silly to mechanical engineers, just as Node’s “just like flu” arguments must look silly to epidemiologists.