Another factual, articulate rebuttal of the government's 9-11 conspiracylies
in [Physics]
|
Prev: MYTH: 'Obama admin turned down foreign assistance' (and other Right-Wing Noory Distortions)
Next: A critique of Einstein’s 1920 lecture on the ether.
From: Henry on 7 Jul 2010 15:14 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20039 "However, when NIST finally issued its WTC 7 report in 2008, it did not affirm either element in the twofold explanation that had been proffered by Popular Mechanics. With regard to the first element, NIST said: "Fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7." With regard to the second element, NIST said: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 [the North Tower] had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." This second point means that, contrary to what Popular Mechanics had claimed it would say, NIST actually asserted that WTC 7 was brought down by fire, at least primarily. In NIST's words, the collapse of WTC 7 was "the first known instance of the total collapse of a [steel-frame] tall building primarily due to fires." In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST � rather amazingly - admitted free fall. Dividing the building's descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds." NIST thereby accepted Chandler's case � except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics. Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion." In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance (to make a considerable understatement). If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even if for only a fraction of a second, this would have been a miracle � meaning a violation of physical principles. Explaining one of the physical principles involved, Chandler said: "Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls, and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy � the energy of motion, and we call it "free fall." If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there will be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower. In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building." "That was what Sunder himself had explained, on NIST�s behalf, the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one "that has no structural components below it" to offer resistance. But NIST then in November, while still under Sunder's leadership and still defending its fire theory of WTC 7's collapse, agreed that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by "gravitational acceleration (free fall)." Besides pointing out that the free fall descent of WTC 7 implied that the building had been professionally demolished, Chandler observed that this conclusion is reinforced by two features of the collapse mentioned above: "Particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn't build up gradually. The building went from full support to zero support, instantly. One moment, the building is holding; the next moment it lets go and is in complete free fall. The onset of free fall was not only sudden; it extended across the whole width of the building. The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width. The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed . . . simultaneously, within a small fraction of a second." -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |