psikeyhackr (psikeyhackr) wrote,

Physics, Psychology and the 9/11 Decade

By the 10th anniversary of 9/11 the 42nd anniversary of the Moon landing will have passed.  Newtonian physics will be 324 years old.  Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published on July 5th of 1687 and the first Moon landing was July 20th of 1969.  How can the major events of 9/11 not be fully explained by September 11th of 2011?

Jonathan Kay with his book, Among the Truthers, does the same thing as Penn and Teller with their television program.  They associated 9/11 Truthers with faked Moon landing conspiracy theorists.  Kay has a flying saucer abduction and an Illuminati pyramid portrayed on the cover of his book along with the twin towers and an airliner.  He is implying that questioning 9/11 puts the questioner into the same category with UFO nuts.  What does the media have most people thinking about 9/11 and skyscrapers regardless of the physics?

Getting to the Moon was Newtonian physics.  Isaac Newton could have done the calculations for the project 300 years ago.  The physics of an airliner crashing into a skyscraper and that skyscraper being collapsed straight down by the portion above the impact can't be more complicated than getting to the Moon.  But all skyscrapers must accomplish certain tasks before they can be hit by airplanes.  Skyscrapers must hold themselves up for their entire height therefore every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above.  So the designers must determine how much steel is necessary to accomplish that, which means the amount of steel increases down the height of every very tall building.

The cores of WTC 1 and WTC 2 had 47 columns.  The 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report by the NIST says the cores supported 53% of each building's weight.  But since most levels were 12 feet high that meant there were 564 feet of vertical steel in each level of the core.  But there were horizontal beams connecting the columns on each level of the core also.  The cores were 136 by 86 feet.  Since the columns were not in an even 6 by 8 minus 1 array the arrangement must have been more complicated but the layout of the beams is never shown by any official source.  The horizontal steel should still consist of about 6 times 136 feet plus 8 times 86 feet, which comes to 1504 feet of steel.  So on every level of the core there should have been about 2.5 times as many feet of horizontal steel as there were of vertical steel.  But how much did it all weigh?

The steel in the columns was as little as 1/4th of an inch thick at the top of the towers but as much as 5 inches thick at the bottom.  In addition to greater thickness the box columns were longer and wider than the H-beams at the top.  But how much did the thickness of the horizontal steel beams change down the building?  That is another unknown we have to live with after ten years.  But why are we living with it?  Why weren't physicists and structural engineers demanding that information and telling everyone within weeks of 9/11?

Regardless of who destroyed the towers or why, an analysis of the physics would require accurate information about the state of the buildings before the impacts.  The NIST admits in three places that information on the distribution of weight in the towers is necessary to analyze the impact.  But then they didn't do that analysis.  They had empirical data.  They measured the deflection and oscillation of the south tower with recordings from a digital camera up to the 70th floor because the vertical columns on the outside of the building created a moving pattern with the pixels in the camera.  The skyscraper deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor even though the plane impacted at the 81st.  It must have moved about 15 inches at the impact level.  After the impact the tower oscillated for approximately four minutes in progressively smaller deviations.  So how could the bottom of the upper portion completely break loose and move horizontally more than 20 feet 50 minutes later?  Where was the center of gravity?  Where was the center of rotation?  What was the moment of inertia?  Where are the physicists asking about that?

What happened in New York on 9/11 was so unique and phenomenal one would think physicists would be fascinated and never let go of it until it was resolved.  But that appears to not be the case.  If anything there seems to be a deafening silence on the part of most physicists.  Consequently we have had nearly TEN YEARS of rhetorical and psychological nonsense.  We have the Orthodox 9/11 Religion versus the Heretical 9/11 Psychosis.  On the one hand 1360 foot skyscrapers collapsed straight down in less than 18 seconds and this miracle is supposed to be believed even though accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete are not provided by official sources so the conservation of momentum can be reasonably analyzed.  IT'S A MIRACLE!  On the other hand shadow government agents used holographic planes to teleport explosives into the buildings with particle beams.  Or were they mini-nukes?  IT'S A TINFOIL MIRACLE!

But this is the nation that put men on the Moon.  The Empire State Building, which is only 3 miles from Ground Zero, will have its 80th anniversary this year.  What kind of electronic computers were used in 1929 to design a building that is still among the top 20 tallest in the world?   IBM had its 100th anniversary this year but there were no electronic computers in 1929.   Regardless of who or why or how it should be possible to definitively determine if NORMAL AIRLINERS could destroy buildings 2000 times their mass in less than TWO HOURS.  But no, we are treated to pictures of flying saucer abductions and can't even be told how many tons of steel were on each level within 5 stories of the airliner impacts.

Purdue has given us a computer simulation which they claim is scientific.

But the core columns do not move in that simulation when the plane impacts.  This contradicts the behavior which the NIST documents for the south tower.  Is Purdue telling us that the conservation of momentum is unscientific?  The effect of mass and its distribution on a vertical flexible body can be easily demonstrated.

Then there is the effect of impacts from above on self supporting masses.  The north tower was hit by the plane at the 95th floor.  So there were 15 stories above that point and 94 below. 

A simple simulation would be to remove the simulated levels 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Let simulated gravity take its course. The bottom of the falling 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph.

The levels get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up.  Even at a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as extremely unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing.  That destruction would require energy.  The only source is the kinetic energy of the falling 15 stories.  They would slow down.  Completely eliminating 5 stories is more destruction than the airliner impact and fires could have accomplished. So if that simulation comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is with this nonsense that has been going on for approaching TEN YEARS?

Grade school kids could build that and test it to their hearts content.  Computers must be told how to compute physics and it must be coded perfectly or else they can get it wrong.  Real models cannot escape real physics.  The problem with small models is being too strong in relation to their own weight because of the square cube law.  Engineering schools that charge $100,000 for four years of education should be able to afford to test larger models.  Where is the engineering school that has built a physical model that can completely collapse?  Maybe they don't find 9/11 interesting.

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about psychology.  But this nearly ten year 9/11 phenomenon is extremely psychological.  What do psychologists know about Newtonian physics?  It is much older than Sigmund Freud.  If the physics dictates that the towers could not collapse straight down then physicists should have figured it out long ago.  If the physics makes it possible then they should have explained it in detail long ago.  But wouldn't that involve having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers?  So where are the physicists demanding the information?

But if the planes could not possibly have caused that much destruction and the majority of people around the world believe that they did, then the physicists have created a problem for themselves with their years of silence and the media has created a problem with its years of noise.  How do they expect to teach physics for the next 1000 years?  Do they really just want to pretend that Newtonian physics is extremely difficult and expect everyone else to just believe what they are told?  But 9/11 has been a catalyst for war and people with the credentials to supposedly explain this nonsense have allowed the chain reaction to engulf other countries.

Can this go on for another ten years?

There are a couple of amusing things about this fantasy event however.  There are two science fiction novels written before 9/11 which contain incidents which are easily comparable to 9/11.  One is Flag in Exile by David Weber from 1995 and the other is Komarr by Lois McMaster Bujold published in 1998.  Weber's book has a dome collapse which is supposed to appear to be due to incompetence or corruption even though it was actually sabotage.  There is significant discussion of computer simulations which eventually uncover how the sabotage was done.  Komarr has a collision between a spacecraft and a huge satellite.  Again there are computer simulations which uncover peculiarities that cannot be explained by "classical physics".  Though not deliberate sabotage there was an unknown technological factor added by unknown individuals.  But in these fictional universes the mysteries are solved in days or weeks not years.  Weber's book also involves a propaganda campaign about the event so a psychological factor is incorporated into the plot.

So if airliners could not cause that much destruction then 9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century and the physics profession has a serious problem. 

Can their silence make it go away?
Tags: 9/11, decade, media, physics, psychology, terrorism, war, wtc

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened