Re: NIST neglects Law of Conservation of Momentum in explaining the WTC tower near-free-fall collapses on 9/11

Bryan Hussein Olson presented the following explanation :
Mike E. Fullerton wrote:
No the authors have neglected nothing. It is NIST that has neglected the law of conservation of momentum by not explaining how the huge mass of the building provided virtually no resistance at all to the upper part of the building.

The NIST team had an understanding of physics. Mike, if you even knew high school physics, you would know that a building in Earth's gravity is not a closed system; it is acted upon by an outside force, and thus conservation of momentum does not apply.

Kook physics in action folks: the law of conservation of momentum does not apply to non-closed systems (which is pretty much everything). In non-kook reality, although momentum conservation in non-closed systems is not 100% accurate because of resistance forces such as friction and air resistance, the law of momentum is still extremely good for providing accurate estimates of speed and for analysing collisions, such as whether a building fell down or was brought down by controlled demolition. This is because the contact forces of collisions are very large compared to any resistance forces. In the case of the WTC the force of gravity pulling down the detached part of the building is equal to the force of the Earth pulling upward!

So it comes to this. You have two theories, pancake collapse and pile driver) supporting the official story that violate the laws of physics. You have the controlled demolition theory which does not violate the laws of physics.

No Mike; once again we have you pretending to know what you do not, and talking about subjects you do not understand. Say, how's the water-powered car running?

Typical kook projection and misdirection.

--
Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading