Tuesday, September 26, 2006

9-11 Mysteries

I believe James has already mentioned this film, but it's remarkably well-produced and incredibly poorly researched. I just wanted to point out one quite ridiculous error that demonstrates clearly that the film's producers are not up to speed.

The Space Cadet announcer says (about 35:30), "The camera recorded multiple explosions in the towers. Here is the South Tower Record. Then, the building fell."

If you watch the movie at this point, they do indeed show the supposed times that the producers of 9-11 Eyewitness claim Rick Siegel's microphone picked up explosions just before the collapse of the South Tower (of course what he probably picked up was wind noise, since microphones much closer to GZ did not hear these "explosions"). But it's amateur hour, as the building shown collapsing is the North Tower; you can tell by the antenna atop the building. The other building has already collapsed.

Nice job, Brad! Your disinfo check from my bosses at the New World Order is in the mail!

24 Comments:

At 26 September, 2006 14:21, Blogger MarkyX said...

They also mention that the building went faster than gravity.

 
At 26 September, 2006 14:32, Blogger CHF said...

Good lord.

What exactly IS the "speed of gravity" anyway?

 
At 26 September, 2006 14:43, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

Pretty much all physicists think that gravity travels at the speed of light. That has not been measured, but everyone will be surprised if the answer turns out otherwise.

 
At 26 September, 2006 14:50, Blogger AndyUts said...

What exactly IS the "speed of gravity" anyway?

The acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, or 32.2 ft/s^2.

I find it hilarious they think it fell faster than gravity because of 'controlled demolition'. Don't they watch any actual demo tapes on TV? Rigging a structure with explosives doesn't make it fall faster.

 
At 26 September, 2006 14:54, Blogger Manny said...

Pretty much all physicists think that gravity travels at the speed of light. That has not been measured, but everyone will be surprised if the answer turns out otherwise.

I'm not sure that's true. I think there's another school of thought which maintains that gravity has no speed, that is just "is" as a warp in spacetime. Which is to say that its effect is instantaneous.

Unfortunately for either party, creating enough new matter from energy (which has no rest mass) is problematic. So yeah, a measurement is not forthcoming anytime soon.

 
At 26 September, 2006 15:13, Blogger Alex said...

I think the point he was trying to make, Andy, is that gravity doesn't have a speed per say. Gravity is a force, not a speed. So saying that something fell "faster than the speed of gravity" is a misnomer. The way it should be phrased is "the buildings accelerated faster than could be accounted for by the force of gravity exerted by the earth", or something along those lines. Saying "faster than the speed of gravity" makes the individual making that comment seem rather silly, even if you discount the fact that they're trying to claim that the laws of physics were in on the conspiracy.

 
At 26 September, 2006 16:12, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Or as we discussed earlier, the buildings fell at "near free fall "time".

TAM

 
At 26 September, 2006 16:19, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Ummm, Richard Siegel claimed to have recorded pre-collapse explosions in both towers.

 
At 26 September, 2006 16:32, Blogger shawn said...

Good God Almighty! Explosions during raging infernos?

Well, I never!

 
At 26 September, 2006 16:39, Blogger Alex said...

It's the first controlled demolition in history where the explosives were set off at random intervals spread out over more than half an hour :)

 
At 26 September, 2006 17:03, Blogger Triterope said...

To say "the building" took X amount of seconds to fall is ridiculous anyway, because the building was breaking into many smaller pieces on its way down. Any analysis of what "the building" did would require an operational definition of some sort.

Furthermore, the base was obscured by smoke, making it difficult to visually confirm when exactly the falling stopped.

And what the hell is this supposed to prove, anyway? Even controlled demolitions can't violate the laws of physics. So what would that prove if it did? Space aliens did it?

 
At 26 September, 2006 20:44, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

Oh, for the love of God, these conspiracy fantasists need to learn BASIC PHYSICS!!!!!.

Gravity is a force that induces an acceleration, not a static speed!

If you're talking about the propogation of gravity, then yes, that has a speed. Currently, it's accepted to be the speed of light (source).

If these people would think instead of just parrot factoids they found on the internet, they'd realize that what they're trying to say was that they believe the rate of the building's collapse was happening faster than it could if it were merely being accelerated by gravity. Which implies that it was being propelled. Which does not support their painfully misinformed controlled demolition theory because an explosion imparts an acceleration for the duration of the explosion only, which would only have a duration on the order of milliseconds! That's not propulsion for the duration of the collapse, so it would have to have been powerful enough in those few milliseconds to radically accelerate the entire mass at a noticable rate. And if it was indeed that powerful, so much so that it provide an actually noticable advantage in downward velocity to the whole mass so that it did reach the ground measurably faster than it would have in free fall, then 1. How in God's name did they contain things so we didn't see any evidence of this accelerative explosion, and 2. How in God's name did they hide the explosives? We're no longer talking enough explosives to merely undermine the structure. We're talking enough energy to radically accelerate the entire mass of the collapsing structure! Forget the massive amount of C4 it would take just to undermine the load bearing sections, how the hell much more would that take??!!

And they're telling us that those outward poofs they point out in their numerous videos are proof of these massive accelerative explosions?? These huge demolitions which are powerful enough to accelerate the mass of an entire floor of the WTC??

There are so many internal contradictions and outright falsehoods in their fantasies... and then they try to tell us that the NIST report is a lie... Christ...

 
At 26 September, 2006 21:10, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

Whoops. Addendum. The speed of gravity propogation being equal to the speed of light is a proposition, not a settled and agreed to fact. So I misstated when I said "currently accepted". It's not; it's still being debated. In fact, the link I provided is about the debate, not about the speed being accepted fact.

Oh, and Manny: Instantaneous effect regarding gravity, or any force in general, is something that bugs physicists. This link has a paragraph in the introduction about how and why that notion bothers them. Although Einstein was referring to Quantum physics when he uttered this line, generally physicists look askance at "spooky action at a distance".

 
At 26 September, 2006 22:15, Blogger Alex said...

That raises an interesting question (which is also totally unrelated to this topic, but nonetheless...). It's widely accepted that nothing in the universe could travel faster than the speed of light. If gravity truly does propagate faster, then perhaps faster-than-light travel is dependant on continued study of how gravity functions.

 
At 26 September, 2006 22:38, Blogger default.xbe said...

it really depends on what "gravity" really is, a particle, a wave, a particle behaving as a wave, if its any of those the "faster than light" limitations apply

however, if you see it as a curve in space/time that is simply percieved as a force, then propgation speed really doesnt apply


i wish i knew more about quantum physics...

 
At 27 September, 2006 10:23, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

however, if you see it as a curve in space/time that is simply percieved as a force, then propgation speed really doesnt apply

No, the propagation speed is prefectly compatible with the curvature-of-space-time model. If you think of the classic bowling ball on a rubber mat analogy, if you have two bowling balls start rotating around each other, that will cause propagating ripples in the rubber mat, so that a distant observer won't sense the ripples until sometime later.

 
At 27 September, 2006 15:13, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

I am so sorry to have participated in a thread hijack, but since we're this deep into it already :)

"In the rubber sheet analogy, if the small target body is at rest on the side of a dent caused by a source mass, it will remain at rest forever until some force acts. The rubber sheet analogy works in our imaginations only because we instinctively imagine gravity under the rubber sheet, with its pull providing a meaning to the concept of “downhill”. But without pre-existing gravity, the small body has no cause to accelerate, either on the rubber sheet or in the geometrical interpretation of GR. The causality principle is violated.

So how do real forces propagate? The field interpretation still provides the best answer."


link

So, there are problems with the newly classic "gravity is a distortion of space" model as well. Even given all we know, we still seem to be in a sort of Dark Ages of physics knowledge, unfortunately.

Back on topic (sorrysorrysorrysorrysorry for deviating): I couldn't make it through that video. Any work that still throws around the steel melting canards and thermite lunacies aren't interested in the truth.

 
At 27 September, 2006 17:43, Blogger Triterope said...

Elmondo (and others), thanks for the physics lesson. It was most informative.

 
At 30 September, 2006 09:10, Blogger Thomas said...

i wish i knew more about quantum physics...

It was Schrödinger's cat ;-)

 
At 12 October, 2006 08:48, Blogger The Rooster said...

Why are you talking about the "speed of gravity" and the speed of light? This simple fact of the matter is that the building fell at the same speed as the loose concrete around it. This means that the floors below the ones which had already fallen were offering no resistence. It's that simple.

 
At 10 November, 2006 12:20, Blogger No Hassle Loans said...

Has anybody tried this Hoodia Diet Pills. I heard of the Hoodia Weightloss pills. Here is the Pure Hoodia Diet Pills or the Phentramine diet pill

 
At 23 January, 2007 15:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Faster than the speed of gravity"...you’re right, let's trash this video and put our heads back in the sand... But the questions still remain... How did these buildings fall as fast as a bowling ball...Then How can the pan-cake theory even be considered? Wouldn't you of thought that the support steel below would have slowed the rate of descent? Physics Anyone? It's obvious to many who understand physics and who are not afraid to consider something other than the official story that some other forces beside “Jet Fuel” were at work, aiding the collapses. What about Building 7, Anyone? Also why was all the WTC debris shipped to China, Anyone? Wouldn’t you think that “we” would have kept the debris around here to look for clues on how fire alone could have done what up until 9/11 was deemed impossible? Evidence which would of helped us improve future building designs? Why wasn’t this done? Finally, can we really trust our government...Where’s an Indian, Let’s as him…

 
At 23 January, 2007 15:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, since I misspelled "ask" my comments are probably endanger of being ignored as well?

 
At 05 December, 2008 00:40, Blogger luccy said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home