Please explain the factoring in of this "dynamic energy" and also the velocity had been accounted for in the fact that the falling bit was known to have been accelerating at 64% g.
a mass in motion can ONLY express the energy that it has by slowing down. Where is the energy transfer in order to do the work of pulverizing tons of material ( etc..... )
have you seen the demo with billiard balls? one ball is stationary and one is in motion and the one in motion strikes the stationary ball and sets it in motion, while the previously moving ball stops. this is energy transfer, in the case of the WTC towers "collapse" for the falling mass from above to do any work at all, such as pulverizing mass quantities of material and ejecting it, this requires energy and the only energy available is the motion of the falling stuff, therefore slowing down of the "pile driver" ..... now do you see?
They were slowed to 64% of g and you completely buy it that a skyscraper could "collapse" at 64% g because of fire & damage from an alleged aircraft crash.?
so in the fall at 64% of g, the mass above is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is below it, and would have to slow down or stop, in order to express more than that. physics .....
So I for one am willing to leave it up to the random lurker. You people decide if you want to accept the fact that something falling at 64% of g, only expresses 36% of its weight against whatever is under it. Look it up, its basic physics 101...... and it proves beyond any doubt at all that the towers had to have been demolished by explosives, or at least some additional source of energy be that from black magic, or some energy beam weapon. whatever.....
and are you certain that you are properly applying "F=MA" in terms of "acceleration" the function is to be more properly defined as deceleration in that the moving mass, upon encountering resistance will experience deceleration in the process of expending energy. ask your friendly local physics professor.
I have. The force applied by the descending mass was many times greater than the resistance it encountered. Yet it was sufficient enough that the towers did not fall at full FFA.
So your assumption is: that the less than FFA downward acceleration is to be accounted for by the fact that the mass was so great, that if only took 36% of the application of said mass to accomplish not only the destruction of each and every level of the tower on the way down, but pulverization & ejection of tons of material(?) is that it?
No, that's incorrect. 36% does not enter into the equation at all. Why do you keep trying to force it in? It's senseless. The full amount of the mass times the rate of acceleration equals the force applied to each individual floor as it was encountered. The mass grew as more was added on the way down. Thus the force increased and the resistance per floor became less and less. Physics.
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True David Ray Griffin Jones, Steven E., 2006. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" In Griffin and Scott, eds., 2006. Heller, David, 2005. "Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center," Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm). Hoffman, Jim, 2003. The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center, Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October 16 (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html). _____, 2004. Your Eyes Dont Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html). _____, 2005. Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century, 911 Research, August 21 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html). Hufschmid, Eric, 2002. Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11thAttack. Goleta, CA: Endpoint Software. Killough-Miller, Joan, 2002. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel, WPI Transformations, Spring (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html). King, Jeff, 2003. The WTC Collapse: What the Videos Show, Indymedia Webcast News, November 12 (http://ontario.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7342&group=webcast). Lavello, Randy, n.d. Bombs in the Building, Prison Planet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html). Meyer, Peter, n.d. Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?, Section 3 of The World Trade Center Demolition and the so-Called War on Terrorism, Serendipity (www.serendipity.li/wtc.html). _____, 2005b. WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High, Arctic Beacon, June 24 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm). Griffin, David Ray, 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink). Glanz, James. 2001. Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated, New York Times, November 29. Bollyn, Christopher, 2001. Some Survivors Say Bombs Exploded Inside WTC, American Free Press, October 22 (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/ Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html). Baker, Jeremy, n.d. PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7, Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm).
