reply to post by Alfie1
1. Freefall from the height of a WTC Tower is 9.2 seconds.
2. The towers fell in about 15 seconds. Everyone has seen the videos.
3. For the moment, let's assume that the structural strength of the Towers is ZERO - all the tiny particles of steel, glass, concrete, etc. are just
magically hanging in place ...but let's also assume that they do possess normal MASS, and that no material begins to fall until it is impacted from
above, just as in the actual Tower collapses.
4. It takes energy to push stationary mass out of the way or to set mass into motion. If a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the moving
object is slowed down while the stationary object is sped up and total momentum is conserved. This is simple physics and is known as The Law of
Conservation of Momentum. It works in all directions, even in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull.
5. Using mathematics or computer programs, it is fairly simple to calculate how many extra seconds, over and above freefall time, can be attributed to
overcoming the static inertia of a WTC Tower's mass. That extra fall time is about 5 seconds (see notes below).
6. So absolute freefall is 9.2 seconds; adding 5 seconds to this number gives us a collapse time of about 14 seconds due to mass alone and Newton's
Laws, while ignoring any effects of structural strength whatsoever.
7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time will be required to overcome the immense strength of the
towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to
bits as well and pulverize all the concrete and other materials to fine powder. All of this work takes energy that is only available from
gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.
8. However, we are already certain that the total collapse time can be no less than around 14 seconds due to Newton's Laws alone. Yet, overcoming the
steel infrastructure's strength can only INCREASE the total collapse time still further - by many more seconds, if collapse even takes place at all.
Yet the towers fell through themselves as if they had hardly any structural strength.
9. Do you believe that the steel infrastructure's strength was no stronger than the surrounding air. No? Well, there you go: a gravitationally-driven
collapse is absurd.
10. Even if you assume a collapse time of 20 seconds, this is like saying that the Towers' strength fell apart easily, like wet toilet paper; hardly
any resistance at all. The Towers' structural strength was designed to support its mass by a safety factor of several multiples.
Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC Tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second! -- all those immensely strong core
columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework. How much energy does it take to do that? Humongous amounts of energy!
But, as you have seen, you have only a second or two delay time at the very most that you can attribute to the effects of structural strength because
the Towers actually DID fall in about 15 seconds.
It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?
NOTES:
(1) A mathematics formula by Dr. Kenneth Kuttler, Pg. 6 (last one on the page)
www.journalof911studies.com...
(2) Dr. Kuttler's straight-forward calculation was written about WTC7 but the formula can be applied to the Towers simply by changing the variables
(such as number of floors).
(3) It turns out that the greater masses found at the bottom versus the lighter masses at the top of the buildings have little effect on the overall
delay time due to Newton's Laws and overcoming static inertia (assuming ZERO structural strength).
(4) This puzzle also assumes that ALL of the building's mass was concentrated in the downward vertical direction, ie. none of it was blown outwards
as occurred in reality. Obviously, if less mass were concentrated downwards because it was blown outwards, it could NOT have participated in the
forces acting on the undamaged infrastructure below, and theu the total collapse time due to overcoming static inertia would have to be even greater.
So this assumption favors the official story.
(5) There have been computer programs written to calculate the effects of overcoming mass static inertia also, but I could not locate them quickly.