9/11 physics to end all questions

Off-topic
1 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOzH7oCS-G0

Now quite a long time ago I mentioned I had an equation, well more experiment, to show the impossibility of the way the buildings collapsed. This proves gravity could not have worked alone. It’s called the floating plate experiment. Now if you don’t believe me after this, you simply have too much of an emotional attachment to the event to see clearly. If you do believe now, i’ll be posting videos shortly on what to do from here on out. Just check back to the channel. I’ll try to do the vids today. Thanks for your time.

-Shaun Johanneson

2

Wah, Shaun, you are back!

Are you still riding?

3

I missed the bit where the video explained how long the tower actually took to fall, and how that compares with the results of this calculation.

I was also a little surprised to see it all on a whiteboard in the background in this age of computer reconstructions.

My own pet theory is that a swarm of bees was passing and suddenly remembered that, mathematically, they can’t fly, so they landed on the roof and their combined weight was enough to bring the tower crashing down.

4

ftfy.

5

I simply cannot think that you actually and seriously believe that your video has in any way proved that explosives were involved.

Incomplete initial data given. Too many assumptions, far too simplistic a view taken, too light on the simulations ( why not try to use the actual dimensions involved?) , too many factors completely ignored. Arguments not well presented. Using elementary schoolboy physics and a Lego construction kit building to “prove” this explosion theory is doomed to failure.

Had you just dropped a heavy item from the roof height and found by calculation that it hit the ground later than the top floor, then your use of Newton’s equations might have justified your conclusion.

Ridiculous

Nao

6

Nao, you’re among friends here. No need to beat about the bush and be shy. Just come straight out and say what you mean.:smiley:

7

OK Mike, apologies for my reluctant criticism, I should have been much plainer speaking. :roll_eyes: ( It can be as much fun evaluating and marking university physics exam papers as dealing with insurance claims.)

Now not beating about the bush: and simplifying for those who might not have the time to wander through the maths portrayed.
I believe Unifreak has just proved it would take longer to collapse the building, floor by floor, than if the top floor were just dropped from the same height through free air.
Which is exactly what we might have expected. Hitting other floors on the way down slowed the collapse. I then fail to see how he reaches his final conclusion.
If it had taken LESS time than that due to simple gravity, then acceleration due to explosives might have been an explanation.

Nao

8

Hey, I agreed with everything you wrote in your first post. I was being ironic.

The whole thing was rubbish. All it showed was that if you made the right assumptions, then each floor would slow down as it hit the next one.

As for explosives - the force would dissipate by the easiest route - which would probably be mainly horizontal.

The only way I can see explosives accelerating the collapse of the building is if they were timed to go off on each floor below the aircraft impact point, to start the structure collapsing more quickly than if it had had to wait for the “house of cards” effect…

I see sites on the internet saying that the Israelis put the explosives there. No doubt the Israelis were working in partnership with their Arab friends who flew the planes?

I think all these ridiculous conspiracy theories are planted by the authorities, because they want us to be paranoid.

9

+1

As far as I can see, the US government weren’t involved in 9/11. It just appears that way because they handled the whole situation so badly. Hanlon’s Razor seems particularly apt here:

“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

:roll_eyes:

10

Welcome back Shaun! I missed these little discussions. :slight_smile:

So I don’t get it. No surprise, eh? What I’m missing is what you’re trying to prove. That the buildings fell too slow, or too fast? Your mathematics seem to indicate the building should not freefall, but that it should fall slower than that. Is that the theory? Or did the buildings fall too fast?

If your theory is that they fell too slow, it would seem that you are omitting the fact that there’s a lot of concrete and steel inhibiting it’s path to street level. Of course it’s not going to fall at freefall speeds, why think it would?

If your theory is that they fell too fast, that’s the one I would be more likely to latch onto. A huge building, made of millions of tons(?) of steel and concrete, however constructed, shouldn’t be able to fall that fast. Granted any building is mostly empty space, but it’s also built not to fall down. How could it collapse so fast?

But your video seem to indicate that your plates fell slower than freefall (in a vacuum), and that this was a problem. Please explain.

While you’re at it, perhaps you could explain why, if you had the buildings wired with demolition charges, you would need to hijack four airliners? Why not just push the button to detonate the buildings, like they tried to do in 1993? A coverup? What’s it covering up? In any case, it seems to have been covered up pretty well, as there’s no evidence of any explosives used, no indication that key beams or columns were drilled to accept explosive charges, etc.

And while we’re at it with the questions, did you really think your video would end all questions? Was it done for a class? It kind of looks like it, but then it goes into exasperated sections where you get off the topic of the experiment.

11

I’m quite surprised at all the physics professionals here still not making any sense. I simplied for experiment to give the official story help! Do you realize this? It means my version would show the buildings falling as fast as they could, ignoring ALL structural supports. Remember how to plane hit only the top floors, and the fire was only spreading to the top floors? This is huge! No structural damage done below. My version is the best case for the official story, and it still doesn’t hold up. Obviously what happened in real life was impossible. Study the laws of gravity. You can’t fall to the floor in freefall time and still have energy to do anything else.

John Foss how is it possible you can misunderstand it? If gravity could not do it alone (the point was mentioned often) the buildings in real life fell too quickly. Much too quickly. Official story is about 11.2 seconds, free fall would have been about 10 seconds. That’s 11.2 % isn’t it? 6 plates falling only 6m fell in 14%. If I did many more plates it would cap at about 18% due to the increments of weight added to the falling mass would be of smaller percent there on out. (therefor the slowing down per contact would be less and less) 5 to 6, 20% increase, 20 to 21, 5 % increase. It would become more useless to do it over 8-9 times.

No physics experience + emotional attachment = complete denial or stupidity.

By the way, Not fully understanding how something works does not mean the explanation must then be magic or God. For the case of the bees, Who are you to say that humans must be so smart they understand everything, and everything they don’t understand must be God? Trust me, you’re not cleaver with the bees either, been there, kind of like a broken record with you religious folk. Emotional attachment… Never a good thing for science.

p.s. This was done for my own project, no school relations. A white board, because I did it at work, I’m a tutor for NDSU for physics and engineering classes. I can get my certification if you need the proof. lol. Go figure, someone tutoring phyics that beleives physics errors in the official story. I’m already more credible than you.

12

Way to win an argument. Which of us is supposed to have no physics experience? We both ride unicycles so we both have a lot. I don’t know the math side, and I will not argue with your equations.

But c’mon. Are you suggesting you are less emotionally attached to this than someone else? If so, what I see in your video must be described as really good acting.

Naomi obviously did. Who are the supposed physics professionals here, besides yourself? If you ask me, a non-physics professional, you simplified your experiment to the point that it’s not very meaningful. All it does is suggest the buildings should have fallen slower. I agree, it sure seems like they should have.

Like those bees. A religious argument? How about a science argument? Science says the bees can’t fly. But the annoying fact is that they can. We know this because they do it. Therefore, God isn’t necessarily mucking around with science, we just don’t understand the system in its entirety. Apparently the same is true with the collapsing towers.

Whatever you did prove with your equations, you did not prove why the buildings fell faster than people thought they should have. What is the official speed of a collapsing building of that design? Nobody knows. In this case, it seems faster than anyone would expect.

You offer us a bunch of physics equations, which brings you to the theory that the buildings fell too fast, then you insist there were bombs. Why bring science in at all?

And yet what happened in real life is what’s in these hotly contested videos. You’re starting to sound a big unhinged. :slight_smile:

But they didn’t fall in freefall time, correct? You said 11.2 seconds for what should have been 10? So how much did the twin towers weigh? Certainly enough to do quite a bit with that extra 11.2%.

And even if there were enough explosives down below, to create a controlled demolition as some suggest, how much could that have speeded things up? I think the “official” theory is that once the mass of the upper floors was allowed to collapse one floor, nothing was going to stop it. and the design of the buildings, with the central shaft and hard corners, offered little resistance to this type of force.

So if we both agree on all that, what we’re getting down to is the 11.2% vs. the higher numbers postulated by your non-breaking floors equations. Now make your floors out of sandstone or something similarly brittle, and see what happens then. Hard to calculate with clean equations? I can only imagine. You might have to do a real-life test. If someone did an accurate-enough test of this nature, it might start to prove something.

Yeah, maybe.

13

Signatures! Get your signatures!

Seems to me like 11.2% is within the margin of error for measuring this. When is a building fully felled? When the top its the ground? But this may never happen. It falls into its own pile of rubble. With all the smoke and dust and a pile of rubble, I think 100 people would hit the stop button on their stop watch at totally different times. There is no official time for this.

Long, long, ago in a galaxy far, far away a wise fish once said: “It’s a trap!”
If I argue anything you say, you’ll just say I’m emotional and am therefore unable to have a valid argument.
You might as well just “If you respond to what I say then you are admitting I am correct. Even if your response is to the contrary.” Lame.

I was wondering the same thing.
Did I miss a response for this?

You must have a passion for this. <cough>emotion</cough>

I actually believe this explosives idea is possible. But I haven’t been convinced. The math shown might be correct, but the formulas and numbers chosen may not be.
And besides all the math and physics, I just think it would be very difficult to detonate demolition explosives without it being seen in some way. A flash, dust clouds, glass or any horizontal projectiles.

It sounds like you think you must be right. I KNOW that you COULD be wrong… which means you ARE wrong that you must be right. Knowing that you are already wrong about something, takes away some credibility.

14

well we can see that can’t we? :stuck_out_tongue:

OK I never watched the video (really slow internet here) but I don’t really see the issue. It fell a bit slower than 9.81m/s^2 right? And there is an issue where?

It collapsed from the top right? If the substructure was blown wouldn’t the bottom collapse first? Or were there rocket engines in the roof pushing it down?

15

[Quote = mikefule}Hey, I agreed with everything you wrote in your first post. I was being ironic. [Endquote}

I know Mike, I know. Me too. :wink: After my little bit of fun with you at its start, my second post was mainly to say specifically that Unifreak had showed the fall had indeed been slowed down by the structure itself.

[QUOTE=unifreak7;1334329]
I’m quite surprised at all the physics professionals here still not making any sense. I simplied for experiment to give the official story help! Do you realize this? It means my version would show the buildings falling as fast as they could, ignoring ALL structural supports. Remember how to plane hit only the top floors, and the fire was only spreading to the top floors? This is huge! No structural damage done below. My version is the best case for the official story, and it still doesn’t hold up. Obviously what happened in real life was impossible. Study the laws of gravity. You can’t fall to the floor in freefall time and still have energy to do anything else.

The point you seem to either miss or disregard is that the your times show it took longer to fall than the freefall calculation. Your generalised calculation, clearly demonstrated that. The fact that it did so also shows that a source of energy was available for everything else. N.

John Foss how is it possible you can misunderstand it? If gravity could not do it alone (the point was mentioned often) the buildings in real life fell too quickly. Much too quickly. Official story is about 11.2 seconds, free fall would have been about 10 seconds. That’s 11.2 % isn’t it? 6 plates falling only 6m fell in 14%. If I did many more plates it would cap at about 18% due to the increments of weight added to the falling mass would be of smaller percent there on out. (therefor the slowing down per contact would be less and less) 5 to 6, 20% increase, 20 to 21, 5 % increase. It would become more useless to do it over 8-9 times.

This entire paragraph is such an imprecise use of mathematics terminology (especially coming from a physics tutor) as to be utter nonsense. Did you mean to say something like: “my simulated building took 11.2% longer to fall than it would have taken in pure freefall” ? Why do you even need to venture into percentages?

One other major thing to consider in all this is exactly how accurate the “official” timings are. This is not as easy as clicking a stopwatch when the horse’s nose passes the start gate. When did they click the button? When the first concrete hit the ground? When all had stopped moving?
How accurate was the click determining when the collapse first started? Both timings had to contend with smoke and dust obscuring the vision.

N.

No physics experience + emotional attachment = complete denial or stupidity.

QUOTE]

16

…and no. It is not 11.2% :roll_eyes:

17

Just to clarify about the bees not flying. The physicists who “proved” that bees can’t fly did so by making erroneous assumptions. They factored in the wing surface area, the mass of the bees, and the amount of power available, but then used calculations based on a different flying action - more similar to that used by birds.

So when I see and hear a physicist trying to impress me with a whiteboard full of algebra in the background, and telling me that he has made a number of false assumptions that support his opponents’ point of view, and that if I disagree with him then I must be “too far gone”, I am immediately sceptical. All it lacked was a white coat and some spectacles to give you credibility as a scientist.

Write it up properly, look at all the data instead of being selective, do some simulations, make direct comparisons with the existing footage of the real event, get it peer reviewed, then I’ll be impressed.

18

I think the argument Shaun is making is that the length of time the buildings reportedly took to fall to a certain height, while longer than for a free fall, is not as long as would be necessary if the upper portion of the building needed to accelerate the lower floors. Hence the belief that the lower floors where not stationary but already falling.

He states that his simplifications are okay because the material between floors and air resistance, if accounted for, would only slow the collapse farther, making the discrepancy between the reported rate and the model’s rate greater.

Please note that I am not offering opinions as to the validity of any statements in this thread. Just attempting to facilitate communication where I see it failing.

19

There are also simplifications that are not OK. One major assumption is that the floors all fell as if they were rigid plates, becoming an aggregated thicker plate at each lower floor stage. His calculations assume there was no penetration of one floor by the ones above as they fell. He assumes therefore that all the mass falls effectively in one lump, gathering more mass as it does so with each passing floor. It is highly possible, maybe even probable, that internal collapse began before anything was visible on the exterior. Certainly as the collapse progressed, mass from the upper floors would simply smash right through the lower floors. Right through floor structures designed merely to hold up furniture and people. Conservation of momentum would apply at each impact, but not all the mass would then be travelling at the same velocity. All of this make an accurate timing measurement, or any calculation of the time even more inaccurate. And if you are going to do a mathematical simulation, why not use figures close to the real values. The whole analysis is just not an engineering approach that is suitable to the event.

Buildings are designed to stay up. They are not designed to “collapse slowly”. Whilst one might think they should fall more slowly, the reality is that they did not, and to use such a simplistic approach to justify such thoughts is completely unrealistic.

Nao

20

Sarah Palin was the Governor of Alaska. What credibility does that give her?

One rests on one’s laurels when they’ve no other leg to stand on.