If the twin towers were left burning, could they soon collapsed?

I personally have. And members here who are part of one of the truth movement organizations (I don't remember which one) state that organization has been trying to get the data for some time now. (I think they are taking some type of legal action if I remember correctly).

Yes it does track actually. If you take the resultant damage of their model, and the resultant thermal gradients of their model - the towers shouldn't have collapsed. That makes their "theory of why they collapsed" - for crap. Of course, they do employ such misleading twists as "creep made things a whole lot worse" and hand-waving like that.

Analyzing bark on a tree seems a massive waste of time, and energy without first looking at the forrest.


Which top section would hit the ground first?


According to physics, in a perfect vaccum it should have AT LEAST taken 100 seconds for ANY of the 3 Buildings to fall.

I don't want to side track anything here but why do you suppose it is that no other personel that peer reviewed the process and conclusions seem to have a problem with it? It seems like such a complex mix of forces involved that the two basic effects..damage and heat.. may only be a thumbnail of all the things involved. Why should it be assumed to be their requirement to explain every bit of it to whoever asks and then by doing so set precedent?

As far as you know has anyone asked a specific question about the math involved in the report and asked for clarification instead of asking for all million + bits to 'do our own investigation'? It just makes sense to not release the info to be tampered with. How would that work anyway? People taking over the facilities to run their own processes?..Make copies of everything to pass out to anyone who asks? How much would that cost? How many man hours? How many personel to guard the samples from exchange or tampering?....It just doesn't make sense.

What does make sense would be to address specific problems with the methodology or math and ask for clarifications.

NO IT WOULDN'T. And there have been too many instances on this board, in this thread alone, that the calculations have been done to show that a mass falling from about 1300 feet will take 9 seconds, for it to be repeated here. For Pete's sake, you did the calculation yourself not a handful of posts ago.

Now you're just being silly.

[edit on 7-30-2006 by Valhall]

Vushta,

I agree. I have not been able to get a single response on the questions I have submitted (including whether I can get accurate dimensions for columns, and such). I hope some one from one of the truth groups will answer you, because it seems to me they have talked about asking specific questions and not getting any response either.

Originally posted by The Last Prophet
Analyzing bark on a tree seems a massive waste of time, and energy without first looking at the forrest.


Which top section would hit the ground first?


According to physics, in a perfect vaccum it should have AT LEAST taken 100 seconds for ANY of the 3 Buildings to fall.

Did you hit the 0 one too many times?

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by The Last Prophet
Analyzing bark on a tree seems a massive waste of time, and energy without first looking at the forrest.


Which top section would hit the ground first?


According to physics, in a perfect vaccum it should have AT LEAST taken 100 seconds for ANY of the 3 Buildings to fall.

Did you hit the 0 one too many times?

Originally posted by The Last Prophet
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity


Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7


Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

I don't know did you? Seems we independently (along with everybody else who knows how to use Newtonian equations) came up with the same answer.

Are you saying you're wrong the first time?



[edit on 7-30-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
Vushta,

I agree. I have not been able to get a single response on the questions I have submitted (including whether I can get accurate dimensions for columns, and such). I hope some one from one of the truth groups will answer you, because it seems to me they have talked about asking specific questions and not getting any response either.

Thanks Valhall.
I wonder if one could contact one of the people involved in the peer review of the original investigation and get a clarification?

Not knowing the scope and content of what one could imagine is asked of them, they could have a sort of 'dump it' file for requests. This would be kind of believable and understandable to an extent. They probably get some long rants in their mail bag.

Well, one of the comments made by other members who are connected with the truth organization stated that the NIST response to their group's request for the data was "We are not obligated to share any data with anyone" and we're not going to, basically.

I have an extreme problem with that response. They were paid with U.S. tax dollars. I personally feel I have purchased access to that data and they in no way have ownership of it.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, one of the comments made by other members who are connected with the truth organization stated that the NIST response to their group's request for the data was "We are not obligated to share any data with anyone" and we're not going to, basically.

I have an extreme problem with that response. They were paid with U.S. tax dollars. I personally feel I have purchased access to that data and they in no way have ownership of it.

I understand what you mean and I understand the other position also.

Think of the precedent set by releasing data and evidence. If there were judgement made against...someone..for..something, and the facilities or personel that was involved in the investigation or NIST itself released all data pertaining to whatever case, to anyone who asked to 'check it out and maybe run some of our own tests' that would open the doors for anyone to contest the judgements against them. A lawyers field day.

Also, if in fact it is policy to not release information, who is going to bite the bullet and release it? It would have to be someone with the authority TO release it. I imagine there is paper work and authorization required to remove evidence..who signs the papers..etc? Just too damn complicated with too much potential of crippling the ability of an organization to function.

This does not equal a 'cover-up'

No, I don't think it equals a cover-up either. But what it does equal is a situation where their conclusions, which don't seem to match their published models, can be questioned and those of us who would really like to get the science of the matter - can't!

It's aggravating, and it's also the reason that five years later we're still arguing all this amongst ourselves and no closer to resolution.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Still in denial I see........

who me? I know what I'm talking about and I know who ran 911 and they will be found out that is certain. What will happen to that little country when it happens I do not know.

Besides I don't know why the 'truth movement' focuses on the buildings anyways since I think they are the weak link in all of this. There is far more proof in the circumstances surrounding the pre and post events that indicate the coverup and the actual perps of this 'staged event' for mass public consumption.

It is not PROFITABLE to diss the system in the search for truth and that is the real point I want to make at this time.

Those seeking PROFITS will be careful to not disturb the 'order' that the brotherhood has installed.

Originally posted by Valhall
No, I don't think it equals a cover-up either. But what it does equal is a situation where their conclusions, which don't seem to match their published models, can be questioned and those of us who would really like to get the science of the matter - can't!

It's aggravating, and it's also the reason that five years later we're still arguing all this amongst ourselves and no closer to resolution.

That is a frustrating part of any bureaucracy. Trying to peel the onion just burns your eyes.
I wonder how feasible it would be to contact someone that worked on the investigation via email and see if there can be some clarification about the process or math involved in the methodology?

The time of 9.2 seconds is based on free-fall in a vacuum. Remember, Manhattan is at sea level on earth, not in outer space, though some might disagree on the latter point. Taking into account the air resistance at sea level, it appears that the towers indeed fell at near free-fall speed. There's a straightforward discussion of the issue at 911blimp.net... Here's an excerpt:

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity


Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7


Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

Originally posted by The Last Prophet
According to physics, in a perfect vaccum it should have AT LEAST taken 100 seconds for ANY of the 3 Buildings to fall.

It should have taken roughly 100 seconds if momentum was transferred from each hypothetical "pancaking" floor to the next, and each floor began accelerating from 0 to X on its own. If pancake theory were very accurate, then yeah, the collapses should have taken that long.

The image you're posting doesn't suggest transfers of momentums as per pancake theory, though. You might want to make that clear in your posts, or your info could easily be interpretted differently, as suggesting something incorrect (ie, that the caps falling through air from the same height should have taken 100 seconds).

[edit on 31-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
It should have taken roughly 100 seconds if momentum was transferred from each hypothetical "pancaking" floor to the next, and each floor began accelerating from 0 to X on its own. If pancake theory were very accurate, then yeah, the collapses should have taken that long.

If you're referring to Judy Wood's "billiard balls" calculations, then I believe her calculations are in error.

Her example which produced the ~100 second time assumes that as each floor strikes the one below it the upper impacting floor comes to a complete halt, and the lower impacted floor accelerates under gravity starting from a velocity of zero, effectively meaning that the collapse stops entirely and then starts again at every single floor. This is not based in reality at all, and will obviously produce ridiculously inflated times.

At the end of her paper she brielfy mentions momentum, which is on the right track, but then she neglects to do the calculations with conservation of momentum factored in, and she further assumes that all of the momentum from the impacting floor is transferred to the lower floor, and the upper floor therefore still stops completely(!). But collisions between solid objects accelerating under the same force vector (in this case gravity) will be so close to perfectly inelastic that they can reasonably be considered such for the sake of simplified calculation. In a perfectly elastic collision, the objects "stick" together - momentum is conserved and a new velocity for the "combined" object can be calculated if the object masses and velocity at collision are known. I've done the calculations assuming inelastic collisions with conservation of momentum factored in, but assuming zero resistance from the structure, and I get a little over 14 seconds:

blog.abovetopsecret.com...


Gordon Ross did a much more in-depth analysis and he claims to show the collapse woudn't have progressed very far at all:

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...


Bazant & Zhou in their paper, Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple
Analysis, stated the same thing, assuming that the upper floors were destroyed as the lower floors were:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

I could be wrong, but as I see it, Wood's calculations are useless.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
If you're referring to Judy Wood's "billiard balls" calculations, then I believe her calculations are in error.

Her example which produced the ~100 second time assumes that as each floor strikes the one below it the upper impacting floor comes to a complete halt, and the lower impacted floor accelerates under gravity starting from a velocity of zero,

That was her "worst case" most exagqerated scenario. Kind of like the NIST did, she "tweaked" some numbers to show the severe upper limit in that scenario. Not plausible or possible, but the extreme upper limit if all of the KE MUST be used to "break" the support structure of the next floor prior G making it begin to move.

She later goes on to make more realistic calculations in her article.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It should have taken roughly 100 seconds if momentum was transferred from each hypothetical "pancaking" floor to the next, and each floor began accelerating from 0 to X on its own. If pancake theory were very accurate, then yeah, the collapses should have taken that long.

My mistake with the last sentence there, which I will retract.

Thanks WCIP.

Edit: Also thanks for that, Slap Nuts.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
She later goes on to make more realistic calculations in her article.

Where? I don't see any.

Case 1 is free fall in vacuum.

Case 2 is "stop-start" free fall at every 10 floors.

Case 3 is "stop-start" free fall at every floor.

Case 4 is "pre-emptive failure" collapse trying to "catch up" with free fall.

And her entire paper is based on the erroneous collapse time given by the 911CR, as well as the premise that the duration of the seismic signals from debris striking the ground equates to collapse time, thereby giving times of 10 and 8 seconds for WTC2 and WTC1 respectively. She's saying with Case 4 that, in order for WTC1 to collaps in about 9 seconds, blah would have to happen, when the fact is the collapses took roughly 15-18 seconds (by my reckoning), so the premise is completely moot.

To disprove the pancake theory using these type of calculations, you need to show what should have happened if it were an accurate model, momentum taken into account (and resistance from the structure, as Ross attempts) and then compare that to what did happen. Instead she goes about it ass forward.

JM $0.02c





[edit on 2006-7-31 by wecomeinpeace]

I believe her middle ground... while totally over simplified "start stop every ten floors" makes a basic case for the length of time the pancaking would take to occur. Some of the momentum is conserved BUT much KE is lost in order to "break" the resistance of the undamaged structure.

I do not think what Judy was trying to do in that article is give a full and exacting scientific overview of all of the energies involved. I believe she was trying to introduce those with little to no knowledge in physics to some simple physics.

1. Kenetic energy is required to start the next floor moving because it is intact.
2. Not all of the momentum will be conserved because of the lost KE in #1.
3. This should have slowed the descent considerably from what we observed.
4. The only energy available at the onset was G.

She even leaves out all of the KE lost in pulverizing cement, ejecting "stuff", crushing the contents of the offices, etc.

I think Judy was just trying to use examples to make a point that the fall times MAKE NO SENSE. I do not think she was trying to do any exact science.