posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:06 AM
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Suppose you had 109 masses floating in air one above the other all 12 feet apart. They are held up by magic in this thought experiment. Most of them
will not move until they are hit from above. Suppose the top 15 start falling and eventually the 15th hits the stationary 16th. The velocity of
both masses change due to the conservation of momentum. The falling one slows down and the stationary one speeds up. The new velocity is determined
m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 +m2) * v3
m1 is the falling mass v1 is the impact velocity. v2 is zero because m2 was stationary. So if m1 and m2 are identical then v3 will be half of v1.
But if m2 is heavier than m1 then v3 will be less than half of v1.
So the double mass m1+m2 continues down but now mass 14 is gaining on it from behind. So either it hits 17 first and slows down more or gets hit by
14 from behind and speeds up. So this is what my Python program simulates.
Does your Python program re-accelerate - due to gravity - the falling mass during the 12' of air space between floors?
If all of the masses are identical then the total collapse takes 12 seconds with NO SUPPORTS TO BE BENT OR BROKEN.
1- the ext columns weren't impacted by the falling debris, and so it wasn't accelerated and as such should be dropped from the Python program
2- core columns show little evidence of being bent much. It was a common truther claim - for years - that many of the core columns were cut cleanly
into 36' lengths to make trucking easy, and that this was their "proof" of cutter charges. Breaking at the welds is the obvious reason that they were
in these lengths, and as such, your Python program should account for the difference in "using up" momentum, since I believe that weld breaking is
easier. THEN, you must attempt to quantify broken vs bent columns, AND give some reason as to why you believe in your quantification that they were
bent/broken in the collapse vs impact with the ground vs bent in the pile after heating.
But if the masses get heavier toward the bottom then the conservation of momentum slows everything down more
Well, since the ext columns should be removed from the equation IMHO, and you haven't quantified the core columns yet, NOR explained how or why core
columns should be accelerated since it violates the visual evidence of the "spires", then I'm pretty sure that the slowing isn't as much as you
But what happens when you add supports that must be crushed from above.
You shouldn't add much if accuracy is your goal.
The only source of energy supposedly is the kinetic energy of the mass falling from above.
So the falling mass has to lose energy and therefore slow down in order to break the supports in addition to accelerating the stationary
About the only supports that would add up to anything at all would be breaking the floor connections. Accelerating the stationary mass would be
limited to floors again. "X" out the ext columns. Corrrect for the core columns.
But then everybody complains about the paper and I have to explain the square cube law and it is just simpler for most people to BELIEVE
whatever they prefer.
I believe that a model such as yours fails in an important point - there isn't 12' between floors to allow enough time and distance to re-accelerate
the falling mass.
The bottom line is that there is no way the top of the north tower could have enough energy to make all of that mass come down that
And you say this mainly cuz of your Python program results?
I think it has serious flaws.
But then I must be a liar since I point out the fact that we don't have the exact data on the distributions of steel and concrete.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)