Refutation of the pile driver theory - WTC-1 and WTC-2

Moderator: Moderator

Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Refutation of the pile driver theory - WTC-1 and WTC-2

Postby Pia Kahn » 5 months 2 weeks ago (Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:51 am)

According to the pile driver theory, WTC-1 and WTC-2 both totally collapsed due to the forces of gravity. The detabilized upper section acted as a "pile driver" and drove the lower section into the ground.

Given, Newton Thirds law of motion, for every "action", read force, exterted from one body onto another body, the other body exerts and equal and opposite force. Thus, the same force that is acting from the "pile driver" onto the rest of the tower is exerted onto the pile driver itself. If the downward forc crushes the lower part of the building, then the equal and opposite upward force must crush the pile driver at the same rate. Thus, the upper section of the WTC-7 should have been completely crushed and after that the collapsed should have stopped. Well, this is not observed. But, Chandler actually measures the forces acting between these sections of the building. This can be deduced from the resulting acceleration that is observed.

This theory is refuted using simple physics in the following paper written by David Chandler. Let me quote one decisive passage:

"Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the
interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the
lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we
have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is
significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of
only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building
to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above
it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to
90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than
the supposed "pile driver," suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work. "


More physical arguments are contained in the article:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... OfWTC1.pdf
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Return to “The 9/11 Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest