9/11 Calculated Collapse

Hello again from g210,

(for ATS note: you deleted my password and i've not given an email addess on my old g210 account so I had to create this new account)

Following the discussion new Video: 9/11 Mysteries:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I saw the question pop up again about the collapse time and whethere it matters if it was 10sec or 16sec.

Personel I believe yes it does because the collaps will not be world slower than free fall.

The video talks about a free fall time and compares it with a calcuated time of over 1 min!
I have no idea how they calculated this, but I started my own calculation based on momentum conservation.

And this is the result:







Note that I only invested a short time to calculate this and it might have faults.
It's a simple matlab program with a simple physical model as base.
I can post the code here later if interested.

As base and for quick initial values I took this:
%references: www.911-strike.com...
%en.wikipedia.org...

Uncerain I am about this values but this is what I took for the simulation:
TotalMass = 750000000; kg
TotalConcrete = 600000000; kg
The difference = Steel !?

But now to the graphic:

If my model is not completly wrong, (big if!)

Then based from observation with we know that most of the concrete became powdered.

In the two graphics this means we are in the range of the red circles.
The total collapse times (roof to ground) for the tower higly increases in this range.
(-> The powdering drags energy from the collapse and is pushed outside where it can not contribute to the collapse anymore )

The towers collapse time for the almost complete concrete to pwoder converstion as seen, then would have taken 14sec (South Tower) and 16sec for the North)

Did the tower fell that long? I don't know.
But the problem I see is the very low required Energy Value of 0.15kwh/ton in order that almost all of the concrete could have been converted to dust:

if I read this correct www.911-strike.com...
this low value not only is factor 10 weaker than what they see as normal concrete value but also would generate powder of 6mm diameter particles. But with 6mm diameter this is no poweder anymore and doesnt fit with what we have seen.


If I check about the green circles:
there we have the 'normal' energy value for converting concrete to dust with 60um pdiameter particle:

The tower fell with 12.5sec and 13.5sec pretty fast and certainly closer to what we have seen in the video (some may disagree and say it took longer but check the nist report they have even shorter times).

All fine that's the solution right?

NO! Because then we had 85% concrete of the building not in powder left!
That contradicts with the observation.

So conclusion:
Still with the precondition my model/calculation was not wrong:

Eighter you can match the observated collapse time of the tower but not the concrete left or you can match the concrete left but not the observed collapse time.
(next to that in second case the required energy value for converting concrete to powder is much to low as I understand it)

But NOT both.
Yet we observed both (fast collapse time, and almost no concrete left!)

g210

Adjusted my calculation with data I have found on the net;

TotalSteel = 96000000; %[kg] 96'000ton
TotalConcrete = 703400000; %[kg] 700'000ton

So we now have a little more concrete and a little less steel.

Special the amount of steel is very importand. So if someone can confirm this value that would be fine.

(The Final NIST report about the wtc has as close as no data inside, boy and that should be a report? 300 pages nothing)

Anyway this makes the first posted graphs not that correct anymore. specially the concrete left has increased by the same required crushing energy. (double the concrete precent left of the red circles). The time doesnt change so much for thsi red points. But because we have observed less concrete left you would need to shift the red dots more to the left and that way the collaps time increases.
-> less steel, less always present mass and energy.

I made new graphics this time Collapse time in function of concrete left.
Both of this values are directly observable in the videos ..more or less.

Also I improved the model with the known wtc-steel structure. This you can see in the dashed line.
-> Whereas in the wtc block above the plane impact point we always have the whole steel for the impact it's a little different with the block belowe the plane impact point. The perimeter walls are blown outside and the core itself will not contribute to the pancake collapse. The trusses however contribute to the collapse.
I used the calculation steel distribution of thewebfairy.com... for this.
whereas of course I took the whole 96kton (means including the missing 32k)





from this graphics (specially from the north tower one) you can see
that the collapse time increases a lot when you want to have less than 10% concrete left. (and 10% is much, everone speaks of much less concrete left i read values of 1%)

Here we have it again in even more extrem form:
You can only match the collapse times or the concret left.

No more displayed in the graphic but I have plottet it for me: the required energy to crush concrete had to drop another factor 3 in order that the tower is even able to convert almost all it's concrete into powder. We are now speakign about a value 0.05kwh/ton!

That's what others told already and I somewhat confirm this with my own calculation now:

Additional energy is required to convert almost all of the concrete of the tower into powder. The tower itself does not have that energy.
Also only that way you can match the observerd collapse time with the observed concrete left.

I see no way out of this. except my 96'000 ton steel start value is wrong.
The rest is given through physical law.

(still preconditioned I didn't do a fault in my calculation)



[edit on 30-9-2006 by g210b]

Here are the required energy to crush concrete in function of concrete left after the collapse. (An addition to the 2 gprahics of my second post)






like you can see the value for less than 10% concrete left after the collapse is so far below what is seen as a normal value for required energy to convert concrete into powder that it's impossible. The Towers could never have produced that amount of powder next to that if they were able to the collaps time rises up to 20 secodn for the north tower (by takeing into account the wtc steel structure)

Also not that we have absolut lower bound for the collapse time and this si by 100% concrete left:

12.3 sec for the south tower
13.4 sec for the north tower

this are physical limits that can't be by passed.
(contradicts with the faster time the nist gave for WTC1 and WTC2 collapse)

in the next post I will print the matlab program code
so you can check it and use it for your own experiementatons.

it's simple based on momentum conservation.

If you see anything wrong with my calculation than let me know.

(the program are 2 Files: WTCCollapseAnalysis.m and WTCCollapseFunction.m)
start it with: WTCCollapseAnalysis

can't post it's too much code for the post limits

So I upladed it to here:
rapidshare.de...

sorry, it's a german sharehoster so i need to guide you, but it was the fastest at hand.

1) click on the link:
2) scroll down and click the Free button at the bottom right (in the table)

next you see something like:
'Kein Premium-User. Bitte (a picture) hier eingeben:

3) enter the letters or numbers you see there in that feld to the right
4) click on the download button just below that.

g210

Thanks for going to all the trouble with this, yes you are right, the pancake theory does not hold up. It should have been at least 100 seconds for the towers to collapse, not 8.4. But, because we just want to believe truths that are not disturbing our daily lives, this really does not matter Jackall to John Q.

Thanks again for some fine "grundlichkeit".

And before any official explanation believers start throwing FEMA/NIST reports in my face: The PANCAKE MODEL CANNOT BE REBUILT AND SIMULATED INTO AN ACCURATE COMPUTER MODEL. And there is no official explanation for the WTC 7 destruction.

"Why is that?" you may ask...

Don´t tell anyone else I said this, but ehh, ....the official explanation is false.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Truth4hire]

Is there any way you can summarize your calculations for those of us without the program?

Octave is a free MatLab clone, you can redo the calculations with it:
www.gnu.org...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Is there any way you can summarize your calculations for those of us without the program?

I suggest to download the programm and try to read the code.

Matlab is a simple to understand program language, with exception of the ':' char

All you need to know is that expression like this:

for t = 1:100,
end

is a loop where t is counts from 1 to 100 in step of 1. The rest should be readable.

or v(3:5) means element 3 and 4 and 5 of the variable v.
or v( means all element of v.

A summary of the core:
As explained it is based on momentum conservation

First of all you need to see that I splitted the tower in a 3 body/mass system:

1) The MoveingBlock-Mass, thats total mass (includes everything) of the tower above the plane impact, and this gets reducted 1 floor for each step of collapse.

2) The CollapseZone-Mass, initial Mass of 1 floor, but collects the mass of +1 floor form the MoveingBlock Mass (as long as there the moveing mass has floor lefts) + 1 floor from the 'fix standing' Mass for each step of of collapse.

3) The Fix-Standing-Mass wheras in each step of the of collapse only 1 Floor Mass is included in the crash calculation.


The core/heart is a loop over the count of Floor's from the plane impact zone 'down' to ground. Each Floor is one step of the collision.

In the loop I calculate 3 thing.

First:
The Time it takes for the Moveing-Mass to fall down 2! Floors and it's endspeed.
The Time it takes for the CollapseZone-Mass to fall down 1 Floor and it's endspeed

Formula: %s=a*t*t/2 + v0*t
%t = -v0/a +/- sqrt(((vo/a)*(v0/a)+(2*s/a));

Second:

The Momentum before the Crash with the One Fix Floor. (= mass * endvelocity of MoveingBlock and mass * endvelocity of the CollapseZoneMass)

The speed after of the MoveingBlockMass + CollapseMass + 1 Floor
after the collision (velocityAfter = Momentum / (TotalMassOfAllBodysInTheCollision))

Note: it's a tripple nonelastic collision we calculate. It doesnt play a role which of the 2 bodies hit first and which as last..this is the end condituin after all 3 hit each other.

Third:
Now that we have the spee dbefore the collision and after we can calculate what energy of the collision became free.

EkineticBefore = (m1*v1^2) / 2 + (m2*v^2) /2
EkineticAfter = mTotalAfter * vAfter^2 / 2

EnergyLose = EkinBefore - EkinAfter;

This energy is the energy that usually becomes convertet into heat energy or into (steel) bending or into pwdering concrete.

In my model I used 100% of this energy to convert concrete into powder.
(there is a factor in the program you can set CollisionEnergyUsedForPowderingFactor = 1; %1= 100% of the free energy will be...)

The powder Mass I then subtract of the concrete part of the CollapseZone-Mass.
since the most part will be blown outside of the building. (there is also a factor)

And this is the end of that loop and all said becomes repeated for every floor left till down to the ground.

One speciall thing is that I only know two mass typestill now: steel and concrete. And everything is eighter the one or the other. Only concrete will be crushed, steel not.

An expansion I did to see in my second post (the dashed lines) is to take into account the steel structure of the tower.

In every step of the collaps I do not add the full steel of one floor anymore but a well calculated Factor of it that takes into account that the core steel as well as the perimeter wall steels of the Fix-Standing-Mass do not add to the collapse. (the perimeter walls got blown outside and the big core steel does not cut and add steel floor by floor. So only the trusses really contribute. Howver I dashed that line because of course someone might see this different,The Factor is a parameter you can set.

One Problem I see I have open is, that my total concrete mass of about 700'000tons I took for the towers could be about factor 2 too large.

(the concrete density of the concrete in the towers seems to be less than normal, and indicates that the mass is more likely 460''000ton than 700'000ton, at least i found some pages with concrete mass in that range.)

There is a lot contradicting information on the net regarding the conrecte. And somewhen I have to do more research to find a correct value.

Factor 2 does of course have impact of the result, but will not kill the general result, that alot energy is missing and the tower collapse time would be too long.

But if the total concrete in the tower is about factor 10 less it would become a close thing and an even more carefully examination/calculation need to be done.
(->introducing of additional, not crushable mass and crusable mass others than concrete and steel)

Thank's for the interesst.

I did the calculation mostly for myself because I am interesstet into the collapse but thought others might be interesstet to.

First hand it was the total collapse time that was most interessting to me. But after analysing the result I saw that it is rather an energy problem of the obseved powdering.

It's even thinkable that the collapse of the north tower would have stopped after the MoveingBlock-Mass was used off, because the speed after initial gain slows down again when you have high powdering. But to know this you would need to calculate the impact energy a floor can hold.

g210

edit: p.s.almost forgot, in the programm code this comment is wrong:

perimeterwall : floorsystem : core 563 : 1210 : 477

right is:
perimeterwall : core : floorsystem 563 : 1210 : 477

coded it is the right way.





[edit on 2-10-2006 by g210b]

analyse /simulation with of greenings datas :
docu: 911myths.com...

posted in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 9-11-2006 by g210b]

Nice work. It replicates what the truth scholars are saying, but that does't matter - anyone here can check what you've done and try to disprove it... though I think this is a thread those interested in upholding the official story will avoid.

Howard Roark, where are you now? I could use a good laugh watching you try to debunk this....

Originally posted by g210b

The towers collapse time for the almost complete concrete to pwoder converstion as seen, then would have taken 14sec (South Tower) and 16sec for the North)

Did the tower fell that long? I don't know.

Yes, the North Tower took almost EXACTLY that long. This is like an analytical triangulation at this point. LOL Two videos from two vantage points helped me calculate out the collapse time of the north tower (WTC 1) to 16 seconds. And now your model is estimating a 16 second collapse.

Thank you very much for sharing your work. It's phenomenal and I look forward to reading more of it. Keep it coming!

Note:
The program file (zip) is no more accessable on rapied share. I will check about this weekend to get a free webspace for me where I can put that file up.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by g210b

The towers collapse time for the almost complete concrete to pwoder converstion as seen, then would have taken 14sec (South Tower) and 16sec for the North)

Did the tower fell that long? I don't know.

Yes, the North Tower took almost EXACTLY that long.
....

Thank you very much for sharing your work. It's phenomenal and I look forward to reading more of it. Keep it coming!

thank's. I am glad if my work is any helpful.

I hope it inspires some to do their own calculations with their own modell too. Nothing is as valueable as something you calculated self.

So far my own study of the numberous videos lead to 12sec till 13sec observated collapse time for the north tower. But it's of course a problem to determine this out of a video where you can't really see the last importand seconds of the collapse because of the dust.

there is one new interesting file where you can see that at least after 10 second there is still as much as the front building height left to collapse. (also the audio is interesting) but not much more. I did not analyse that video further. I estimated my 12sec till 13sec from other videos earlier. But I think it would fall into that range also in this video. But there is really a big uncertain in such an observation.


preview.tinyurl.com...
byway the audo is strange in that video..
(somewhere I believe on youtube was the same video with a better quality and a different audio.)


Byway you could observe the collapse zone speed in the videos where you have a close view from bottom up of the tower after the tower has collapsed to the half already. The collapse zone speed will behave constant or slightly increasing, both could be well extracted out of the videos if anyone care and with that information you can do a very accurate extrapolation that will give you the best secured 'observed' total collapse time. But this is a work.

(something FEAM/NIST should have done for sure. )

Only thing is trying to explain this to an average person. Their minds close at even the slightest amout of super technical jargon. "Free fall" now thats one concept most can understand.

Interesting coming across this post because I was thinking about it earlier. Do you realize they probably would have gotten away with it had they just allowed a chunk of the building above the impact points to collapse or break off. It would have made it alot harder for the 911 truthers to start a case on it.

Unfortunately more folks bought the story than didnt.

The official 911 story isnt true period. It's a no brainer and there is more evidence that points to this than just the collapse.

have a new file location:

my WTCCollapseAnalysis V1.2 (Matlabprogram)
can be downloaded here:

four.fsphost.com...

v1.2 presettings:
- 96kton steel
- 460kton concrete
- 50kton additional payload (new since v1.2, and a rough guess by me)
+ greenings steel buckling/bending and elastic's lose (CollisionEnergyUsedForPowderingFactor set to 0.3881);

also reworked the text in the graphics a little.

Still the same results:

physical hard limits (without demolision help not breakable) selfcollapsing time:
-> 12.3 sec for the south tower
-> 13.4 sec for the north tower

times with 5%(south) and 7% (north) uncrushed (not powdered) concrete left
-> 13.8 sec for the south tower (+1.5 sec with including the WTC steel structure)
-> 15.3 sec for the north tower (+1.5 sec with including the WTC steel structure)
but not archiveable without additional energy how it seems.

According to my model(v1.2), concrete would need to convert almost completly into powder with an required energy value of 0.064kwh/ton (0.23J/gram) only to have about 6% percent uncrushed (not powdered) concrete left. That is very very less.
(greenings 'normal/used' value in his doc is 1.6J/gram, others 'normal' value are again factor 4 higher)

Also the large selfcollapse time of almost 16.8 sec (north tower 6.7% left with WTC steel structure) is a problem because at least my observation indicates a collapse time of about 12.5sec for the north tower but with a large uncertainity.

ok I know no news, all already said. just wanted to point out the points again to show the problem of this results again.

g210


[edit on 11-11-2006 by g210b]

with an input of:

Haroki

in this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it seems that the 460kton isnt correct after all and it could be 70kton.

if so then this changes everything and a 'missing energy' argument can not be hold.

a re-run of the simulation you find on page 2 of that thread

conclusion if concrete

reply to post by magnito_student


The jackasses could have gotten away with it oops, they HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT, thanks to the P.T.Barnum Principle, "Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Let's put it this way. They could have fooled everybody if they had just rigged the charges differently, i.e. to simulate a chaotic collapse. They would have left a lot more grey area for people to fumble around in. (Maybe that would have left too much evidence of method.)

But hey, that's what happens when you do things by committee. There was no real "artiste" with final say on this op.

Just had another thought. I wonder if Silverstein actually underwrote some of the costs of this operation, i.e. if the demolition actually functioned at some level, as a contract to the government, and if he insisted on a global "down to the ground" collapse.



[edit on 20-11-2007 by ipsedixit]