9/11 Conspiracy Math

[DPDarkPrimus]

There was a letter published in the local newspaper recently wherein the author claimed that the collapse of the WTC as the 9/11 Commission stated happened violates the laws of physics. He then goes on to supposedly prove this mathematically. Of course, it has to be bullshit, but I'm not very good with numbers, so I thought maybe the rest of you would get a hoot out of this, and possibly reveal the flaws in his math so I could send a response letter.

Here's the letter in it's entirety:

Simple algebra debunks official story of 9/11

Ever had someone tell you 9/11 wasn't what you thought? Thought they were crazy, right? Actually, it is simple to prove the event wasn't what it seemed. Two laws of nature were broken during the World Trade Center buildings' fire-induced gravity collapses based on the collapse story of the 9/11 Commission. Engineers, science and mathematics academics take note: The buildings collapsed at the rate of free fall in a vacuum. This means the mass at the top of the buildings fell through the mass below without even slowing down (even air would slow it). There was no momentum transfer to the mass below the collapse zone (the part that was not moving) which would slow down the rate of fall, or more likely, stop it completely. Think of it like hitting a bridge support crush zone head-on with your car, not slowing down, and hitting the support at full speed. What would be the purpose of having the crush zone?

Two simple algebraic forumulas show that the collapse times are impossible without an additional energy source. First, time equals two times the square root of distance divided by acceleration due to gravity (free fall in a vacuum is 32.2 feet per second squared). In the case of the World Trade Center, this was 9.22 seconds. The towers' average collapse time was nine seconds. Second, conservation of momentum where M1 (first mass) times V1 (speed of object M1) plus M2 times V2 equals M3 times V3. If the velocity of the second object is zero, this means the speed of the combined objects must be less than object M1, meaning it slowed at impact with M2 (the bottom of the building). The speed of collapses violated the laws of nature.

Russell Gerst
Cedar Rapids

[Darth Wong]

So ... he believes that the conspiracists somehow found a way to violate the laws of physics?

Normally, when one comes up with a result that makes something appear to violate the laws of physics, one immediately rechecks one's work or one's figures in order to make sure that one did not fuck up. Obviously, this guy is much too confident in his own infallibility to do that.

[Kuroneko]

Obvious concerns: (1) How accurate is the 9-second figure and what does the "average" refer to (average story or average between the tops of the two towers--the latter would make sense, but then there is no apparent contradiction)? (2) How high was the rubble; his calculation does not take it into account if the top of the building is considered. (3) It's not established that the external frame of the building should appreciably slow down the collapse until the very end. For all the talk about momentum, it's quite clear that the ground did slow down the collapse on impact.

[fusion]

So ... he believes that the conspiracists somehow found a way to violate the laws of physics?

Normally, when one comes up with a result that makes something appear to violate the laws of physics, one immediately rechecks one's work or one's figures in order to make sure that one did not fuck up. Obviously, this guy is much too confident in his own infallibility to do that.

Hey, either it is a good day for scientist or a bad day for the people inside the world trade center.

[DPDarkPrimus]

So ... he believes that the conspiracists somehow found a way to violate the laws of physics?

If I understand the letter correctly, he's saying that the collapse of the WTC as stated in the 9/11 Commission Report is impossible.

[Stark]

No, he's saying 'The speed of collapses violated the laws of nature.' That's retarded: I'd go out on a limb here and say maybe, just maybe, there's a flaw with his numbers or method.

[Hawkwings]

Where'd he get an average collapse time of 9 seconds from? Watching the videos, the second tower is at about half height at 9 seconds after the collapse starts.

[Magus]

He says very clearly:

Two simple algebraic forumulas show that the collapse times are impossible without an additional energy source.

His clear purpose is to imply that extra forces were at work here besides what was included in the official report.

Doesn't make him any more right, though.

[K. A. Pital]

The numbers are most likely incorrect. The buildings fell quite fast indeed, but "breaking the laws of physics"? WTF? That's clearly bullshit. I would assume the idea this guy is considering, is that the building was artificially demolished, but he went too far or either didn't understand his own argumentation (the argument about the fast falling of the towers most likely was coined by someone else and is present in a more coherent form, I'd google on it). Also, I didn't see him showing the mass of the WTC top calculated, even roughly, without which, I would assume other calculations are meaningless.

[Raxmei]

Other analysis of this event that I've seen concludes that the fall took two seconds longer than freefall. It was supposed to take about eleven seconds, not nine. How did this guy get his numbers, watching the video with a stopwatch?

[Darth Wong]

Other analysis of this event that I've seen concludes that the fall took two seconds longer than freefall. It was supposed to take about eleven seconds, not nine. How did this guy get his numbers, watching the video with a stopwatch?

Probably. The funny thing is that he seems to think that this "additional energy source" (which he probably assumes to be the explosives from a controlled demolition) would have hastened the collapse, but unless he thinks that these shadowy conspiracists put hundreds of downward-firing rockets on top of the building to drive it down faster, that doesn't make any sense.

[Azazal]

This is a very common CT-nut claim. Funny thing is, ask them for the math they did, and you will never get an answer. Reason why, none have ever done the math, they're just parroting Alex Jones, the head nut case. He has long been screaming free fall, but has never shown his proof. The other funny thing, if you watch the collapse, you can clearly see debris thrown clean of the main collapse, falling at free fall, well ahead of the main collapse.

More info here - 911 myths

[Surlethe]

Here's a question for him: if the building really was falling at free-fall speed, then why did debris ejected during the collapse fall more quickly than the building itself?

That aside, IIRC from an Australian engineer's take on it from the days immediately following 9/11, the dynamic load of the building's top accelerating down is an order of magnitude greater than the load-bearing capability of the steel. My own back-of-the-envelope calculations (for what they're worth) show that the force of the falling portion of the building is at least twice as great as the upward force normally exerted by the support columns.

[Mange]

There was a letter published in the local newspaper recently wherein the author claimed that the collapse of the WTC as the 9/11 Commission stated happened violates the laws of physics. He then goes on to supposedly prove this mathematically. Of course, it has to be bullshit, but I'm not very good with numbers, so I thought maybe the rest of you would get a hoot out of this, and possibly reveal the flaws in his math so I could send a response letter.

Here's the letter in it's entirety:

Simple algebra debunks official story of 9/11

Ever had someone tell you 9/11 wasn't what you thought? Thought they were crazy, right? Actually, it is simple to prove the event wasn't what it seemed. Two laws of nature were broken during the World Trade Center buildings' fire-induced gravity collapses based on the collapse story of the 9/11 Commission. Engineers, science and mathematics academics take note: The buildings collapsed at the rate of free fall in a vacuum. This means the mass at the top of the buildings fell through the mass below without even slowing down (even air would slow it). There was no momentum transfer to the mass below the collapse zone (the part that was not moving) which would slow down the rate of fall, or more likely, stop it completely. Think of it like hitting a bridge support crush zone head-on with your car, not slowing down, and hitting the support at full speed. What would be the purpose of having the crush zone?

Bullshit. The towers did not collapse in free fall. Has this person even seen the collapse of the towers? If the buildings collapsed in free fall, how come steel beams and other debris outpace the collapses?

Two simple algebraic forumulas show that the collapse times are impossible without an additional energy source. First, time equals two times the square root of distance divided by acceleration due to gravity (free fall in a vacuum is 32.2 feet per second squared). In the case of the World Trade Center, this was 9.22 seconds. The towers' average collapse time was nine seconds.[/quote]
Bullshit again. The picture is obscured (for obvious reasons) but the vertical progression took 12 to 18 seconds (and even longer for the core).

Second, conservation of momentum where M1 (first mass) times V1 (speed of object M1) plus M2 times V2 equals M3 times V3. If the velocity of the second object is zero, this means the speed of the combined objects must be less than object M1, meaning it slowed at impact with M2 (the bottom of the building). The speed of collapses violated the laws of nature.

Russell Gerst
Cedar Rapids

Yada, yada, yada. When using BS figures, that is.

[K. A. Pital]

My own back-of-the-envelope calculations (for what they're worth) show that the force of the falling portion of the building is at least twice as great as the upward force normally exerted by the support columns.

So what does this mean, for the crash mechanism? Did they fall faster than they should in reality, or not?

[Surlethe]

My own back-of-the-envelope calculations (for what they're worth) show that the force of the falling portion of the building is at least twice as great as the upward force normally exerted by the support columns.

So what does this mean, for the crash mechanism? Did they fall faster than they should in reality, or not?

No, it just means (given my limited knowledge of material mechanics) that additional explosives aren't required to explain the collapse, and that the support columns shouldn't have been expected to produce "lots" of resistance to the collapse in progress.

[R. U. Serious]

The author of that letter is a moron, he is conflating many different things and adding in his own "creativity", not sure whether his intention is to mock the conspiracy theorists, or whether he himself is actually that stupid (as often, satire and reality are too close together to know the difference).

The "original" argument that he is referring to is the collapse of WTC7, as described here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... apse2.html

Building 7 collapse
This 9.6-second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.
Links: video, sequence

Unless the sequence-photos/times are manipulated, the numbers seem to be in that rough ballpark...

[Mange]

The author of that letter is a moron, he is conflating many different things and adding in his own "creativity", not sure whether his intention is to mock the conspiracy theorists, or whether he himself is actually that stupid (as often, satire and reality are too close together to know the difference).

The "original" argument that he is referring to is the collapse of WTC7, as described here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... apse2.html

Building 7 collapse
This 9.6-second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.
Links: video, sequence

Unless the sequence-photos/times are manipulated, the numbers seem to be in that rough ballpark...

The collapse had in fact already started by the time this video started (as evidenced by the penthouse). The collapse was, despite what the conspiracy loons are saying, asymmetrical.