Re: NIST neglects Law of Conservation of Momentum in explaining the WTC tower near-free-fall collapses on 9/11

hhc314@xxxxxxxxx presented the following explanation :
On Nov 6, 1:12 am, Mike E. Fullerton <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-
techie.com> wrote:
NIST explanation for WTC tower near-free-fall collapses neglects Law of
Conservation of Momentum.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00...

The paper's point is expanded in these papers:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-Simu...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_W...
(section 9)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_init...

So isn't this the smoking gun? The official story regarding the 9/11
WTC tower collapses appears to violate the laws of physics. Demolition
by explosives OTOH does not violate the laws of physics. So which
theory does science dictate we reject?

--
Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.

Sorry Mike, 'that dog don't hunt'! You are totally off base,

Have you submitted your criticisms to the above peer-reviewed journals? Obviously not. I think we all know why.

Please explain what laws of physics are violated, since the identical
collapse mechanism seen on both tower is fully predicted by the
conservation of momentum. Do you even know what the conservation of
momentum law is? Obviously not.

I take that you never played with "Dominos" as a child, studied
physics in college, or the stregth of materials (which tells you how
the strengh of steel decreased under elevated temperatures), or what a
pancake structural collapse is? Ok, I'll explain the basics. (Would
you prefer I used the tipping domino explanation or the pancake
collapse explanation.) I since you evidently have not ever played with
tipping dominos, I'll use the pancake collapse scenario.

It's quite simple to grasp, without even understanding the math
involved. Picture an upper floor of a tall building, with no internal
supporting structures. As it is heated by fire, the steel support
holding it up will eventually fail, and it will shear from the
supporting outer walls, and being with a zero velocity and begin to
fall vertically under the influence of gravity. As it falls, it will
acquire a downward momentum with a magnitude equal to its gravity
acquired velocity and will strike the floor benearth with a momentum
of mv, where m is the mass of the floor, the "pancake" and v is its
gravity imparted velocity. When it strike the floor beneath, it will
impact with a momentum so great that it will shear the outer wall
support of the floor beneath, which will result in a double the mass
and ever increasing velocity (2m+at^2) striking the floor beneath
that. This chain reaction will take place with a complex speed
increase taking place as the structure is totally destroyed.

Nice try but that dog won't hunt. You, like NIST, leave out the _considerable_ upward force of the remaining building. Do you even know what this upward force is? Obviously not. With crackpot science, such inconvenient facts are consistently ignored. Unlike NIST you actually seem to believe one of the floors of each of the WTC towers had no internal supporting structures.

Now here is the catch. This is very close to the principle on which a
structure using explosive demolition methods are employed to raze. The
only difference is that with the WTC, heat caused the upper floor
supporting structure's failure, not explosive support beam weaking.
The external appearce of a structural collapse caused by either means
is essentially identical.

You obviously have no idea as to how large building demolitions work. They work by taking out the building supports floor by floor with explosives. This is how they deal with the considerable upward force and how demolished buildings thus realize near free-fall speeds. Even if ordinary office fires could cause massive steel support columns to fail (simultaneously) the whole building was not on fire.

I will completely ignore your sophomoric attempts below to derail this most serious topic by introducing completely irrelevant and fallacious arguments. The fundamental question at hand is if NIST's explanation violates the laws of physics. You have failed miserably at claiming it doesn't.

Now what rules out explosive implosion techniques becomes very clear
if you watch a documentary showing the preparations required to
implode a building by explosive means. Since watching these seems to
be a very popular spectator sport in Las Vegas, you'll will note that
in prepararation for the razing of a a building by explosive implosion
requires of weeks of building preparation for the final act, which
inolves cutting all of the non-essential support beams using cutting
torces, and the removal of reinforced concrete supports using jack
hammers. Now to you really believe that this could have been done in
office towers occupied by thosands of people on a 24/7 basis without
any single person working in the WTC towers notice that anything
unusual was going on? Seriously, this is so ridiculous a belief that
it is absurd! :-)

Nuff said about that conspiracy theory. I have a conspiracy theory of
my own, in that I wonder why none of the achitects, structural
engineers, and real estate promoters who were involved in the
construction of these 'death traps' of incompetent design never faced
civil charges for criminal neglegence. Why do you think that very few
high-rise structures of 50-floors or greater have ever utilized
uniform cross-section design, as did the WTC towers? Notice that ALL
of the high-rise towers that have withstood the test of time over
30-75 years have all employed tapered cross-section construction.

The consipiracy with the WTC is that a relatively inexperienced
archetect was allowed to construct towers containing thousands of
workers, and not one person in authority even raised a red flag.
Possibly because this has been swept up under the rug is because the
NY/NJ transit authority was heavily involved, and on their board sit
many well placed politicians. That's the only conspriacy that I can
truthfully associate with the WTC disaster.

There is no shortage of crackpot conspiracy theorists...It is sometime
a bit surprising to learn who of them are. Still, consider the
effects of mental illness, and what profits and politics lead some
other people to do.

Harry C.

--
Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.


.

Relevant Pages