Sunday, March 3, 2013

9/11 Science Club: Mass Does Not Accelerate as it Accumulates

The central, reasonable intuition that the official 9/11 story uses to seem plausible is that as mass accumulates, it accelerates. The official NIST report describes the suggested collapse mechanism no further than the initial stages. This avoids having to address this basic contradiction in the laws of physics. But shills for 9/11 promote the idea that as floors collapsed, the mass of concrete and debris accumulated and therefore went faster and faster, that is, accelerated. Greater speed would impart greater kinetic energy, therefore crushing the structure beneath it. There is only one problem with this hypothesis. It is absurd.

Up until Galileo, it was assumed that a 100 pound cannon ball would fall faster to the ground than a 10 pound cannon ball. Galileo said no. Dropped from the same height at the same time, they would fall at exactly the same acceleration. Minus negligible differences in air resistance for the two objects of different size, Galileo was right.

So great a thinker was Galileo that NASA named an interplanetary spaceship after him.

In fact, Galileo said that, in a vacuum with no air resistance, even a feather would drop at the same acceleration as a 100 pound cannon ball. Experiments in vacuum tubes have proven him right.

Similarly, different masses of concrete would accelerate toward Earth at exactly the same speed. As floors collapsed, it would not go faster and faster, whether the steel was "soft" or not. The idea that the steel was heated to the point of malleability is itself absurd, but even this premise can be granted and it would make no difference to the argument. The resistance of 80 floors of steel and concrete, then, could only slow any falling mass, not make it go faster.

This is not to say that it is not reasonable to assume it would. Opponents of Galileo in the European academies argued this vigorously. But in the end Galileo was right. All objects of any weight, falling through thin air, fall at an acceleration of approximately 10 meters per second, per second. This means that for every second an object falls, another 10 meters per second is added to its speed. So if an object falls for 3 seconds, at that point it is going 30 meters per second.

The demolition line of the Twin Towers accelerated downward. The explanation of defenders of the official story is that mass was accumulating, thereby going faster, thereby gathering kinetic energy to break structural supports. But Galileo showed it would not have gone faster. Therefore kinetic energy would not have been gained, but lost as the mass met resistance. Given any significant resistance, the mass of concrete would have decelerated and stopped, as work was performed in crushing each successive floor, thus subtracting from the total amount of kinetic energy, not adding to it. The official story requires the overturning of Galileo.

Galileo Falling Bodies Demonstration

Galileo Falling Bodies Demonstration II: Ball and feather Drop in Vacuum

Which 15-story block will hit the ground first?  On 9/11, they both hit at the same time!
 If the 15 story section is falling at free fall speed ...
  •  All of its gravitational potential energy is converted to Kinetic Energy (movement)
  • It is not available to do the work of "crushing" the building below!
  • It would have to slow down in order to do any other work, i.e., "crushing 80,000 tons of structural steel below. (Source: NaderLibrary.com)


David Chandler's  Brilliant Explanation of Impossibility of Official Narrative

Twin Towers Demolition and Similar China Demolition Side-by-Side

1 comment:

  1. But surely, quite ASIDE, from facts about accumulated weight not gaining speed, accumulated weight would surely have to add to the pressure on remaining structure beneath, to crush, that, more quickly, than lesser weight. This, surely exposes the weakest point, in the official story, because the video evidence shows the top section falling at an EVEN, (freefall), speed, after the first second or so,

    ReplyDelete