It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Because the fractional conversion of energy to heat is even smaller for
subsequent impacts, a rapid self-sustaining total collapse of the towers is an inevitable consequence of first order momentum transfer theory.
Hence it is theoretically possible for the
WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
- An analysis of the energetics of the WTC collapse events has shown that the kinetic energy of the aircraft collisions and the subsequent gravitational energy released by the descending blocks of floors were quite sufficient to destroy the twin towers in the manner observed. The use of explosive devices in either of the two towers is not necessary to explain the collapse events and is considered to be highly unlikely.
- The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations.
- The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. If shorter times are to be physically achieved they must involve an unknown additional source of energy acting in a downward direction. Such a source of energy does not appear to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers.
- The kinetic energy of the collapse events was sufficient to crush the WTC floor concrete in both towers to particles 100 m in diameter, or smaller, which is consistent with the observed WTC debris particle size distribution.
- From a consideration of the strength of the WTC columns, and the effective area of support they provided, it is demonstrated that the conditions necessary for the initial floor collapse were initiated by the aircraft impact and made irrevocable by the subsequent eccentric loading of the core columns. It is therefore suggested that the total collapse of both towers would have occurred even without the jet fuel fires.
www.911myths.com...
Clearly, if NIST’s computer model is essentially correct, the Twin Towers collapsed (or fell over!) at ridiculously small downward displacements and tilt angles, and were inherently unstable as soon as they were struck by aircraft. This raises serious questions about the design and construction of the Twin Towers. However, a more reasonable assessment would be that NIST’s computer model is highly inaccurate, and therefore of no value in explaining the demise of the Twin Towers.
www.911myths.com...
The chemistry of molten aluminum has also been reviewed and the corrosive and highly reactive nature of this material highlighted. It is shown that molten aluminum readily undergoes violent explosive thermite reactions when dropped into slurries of lime, gypsum or rust – materials that were present in great abundance in the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2, a place where fires raged and aluminum was being heated above its 550 C
melting point on the morning of 9-11.
Dr. Greenings paper did provide a scientific look into the collapse of the buildings by providing detailed calculations and referenceces. However here's where he went wrong....Those of you that may not understand chemistry nor physics or math for that matter would take his word as bond due to his qualifications. And that is normal as this is the man's life and it is what he does. However having carefully looked over his paper on the collapses, I noticed a fundemental flaw...He made a major assumtion that bascially ended up with missrepresented results.
Searching for the actual values of the twin tower masses, you'll get 500, 000, 000Kg from many sites. However, none of these sites tell you where this figure was taken from. If you were to read the 2002 fema and nist reports, you would get 200, 000, 000kg for each tower. So I ask the question...where does Greening and others that support his position get this figure from?
Before i go into the more acurate figures I wanna point something out to each of you. There are buildings taller than wtc....made of concrete and steel that do not even weigh in 500, 000 tonnes.
Empire State Building, NYC = 365, 000, 000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223, 000, 000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg
Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.
Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.
Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)
Both twin towers were built to be as light yet rigid as possible so as to withstand the extreme forces of the 100 + mphs. The buildings load was carried 60% by it's core and 40% by it's perimiter steel columns. The perimiter carried the lateral load to resist the wind whereas the core carried the gravity load.
Now check this....the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower.
The Aluminium panels were reported at 2 million kg
The wallboards were at 8 million kg
Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.
More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures.
Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it.
Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.
When we populate the buildign with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is added.
As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.
The sears tower was larger and taller than either tower and it is also a tube within a tube steel building yet it weighs less?
John Hancock is 100 stories and is built as tube within a tube just like the twin towers composing, of steel, aluminium and glass, yet it clocks in at 384, 000, 000kg. (live load included). And the building was not built of light weight steel like the twin towers so it was in fact heavier.
WTC is similar to John Hancock in terms of it's concept so it's fair to consider the two buildigns will be close in mass value. In any mathematicaly equation if one variable is off by just a mere fraction this throws ur result off. Greening was off by 200 million kgs....so his values for the k.e. and g.p.e. would undoubtedly give us those high values with such a large mass.
What upsets me guys is not enough detailed information on the towers construction is widely distributed....and the only figures we can really work from are fema and nist....bc the buildings plans and structural elements are deamed national security. If they have nothing to hide then why cacn't independent scientists get copies of the buildings designs? They are already destroyed and they won't be used again so why the secrecy?
"You make some very good points and I will try to address them as best I can. First let me say that the article you are quoting was written a while back and I have done some other stuff since then that adds and expands on my original work. That original work was therefore a first attempt to see if the Towers could theoretically have fallen by a pancake collapse. The answer appeared to be YES! But as I looked at more videos and read some of the stuff I am sure you have also read, I now say that the collapse of both Towers was more complex than my simple model, as I will explain in a moment. First, on the mass of the Twin Towers, I have recently done some checking into that and I see quite a spread in values.... Some references simply give the potential energy, which implies a mass through the equation 1/2Mgh, (factor of 1/2 because average height fallen is h/2)...... For example, FEMA give the PE of one Tower as 4 x 10^11 J which implies a mass of 196, 000, 000 kg, but the May 2002 issue of Civil Engineering Magazine to be found at ASCE.ORG gives the PE as 3 x 10^12 J implying a mass of 1, 472, 000, 000 kg! The figure I used, and I think it was similar to the value quoted by Profs Eager, Bazant and Kausel ( all engineering profs who have written articles on 9-11) is somewhere between the FEMA and the ASCE.ORG number, let's say about 500, 000, 000 kg....... But I would really like to see a detailed breakdown of the mass, because I am not sure if any of these numbers are correct!"
Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
so of course his new concept of "natural" thermite reactions causing a "natural" controlled demolition is meant to help save himself from his initial conclusions that apparently he even believes to be false!
Originally posted by Valhall
See, this is why we're having a bit of problem here. Anybody that says something you don't agree with you try to totally discount their voice by pulling a rabbit-outcha-butt.
That won't work here, Trizzle.
It won't work. You can't go about making baseless claims against people just because their theory doesn't match yours.
We don't do that here.
"First let me say that the article you are quoting was written a while back and I have done some other stuff since then that adds and expands on my original work. That original work was therefore a first attempt to see if the Towers could theoretically have fallen by a pancake collapse. The answer appeared to be YES! Butas I looked at more videos and read some of the stuff I am sure you have also read, I now say that the collapse of both Towers was more complex than my simple model, as I will explain in a moment. First, on the mass of the Twin Towers, I have recently done some checking into that and I see quite a spread in values.... Some references simply give the potential energy"
We note in concluding this Section that the values for tc given above represent the calculated values for the time of collapse of the WTC towers neglecting the energy required to crush or otherwise destroy the support structure of each floor. This energy, which we will call E1, is considered in detail in Section 4.2. For now it is sufficient to note that the collapse times calculated without allowing for E1 are already in reasonable agreement with the observed collapse times. This suggests that E1 is relatively small compared to the kinetic energy associated with the falling blocks of floors;
A comparison of these Q values with the initial kinetic energies, Ti (WTC 1) and Ti (WTC 2), shows that a relatively small fraction of the available energy, (6.7 % for WTC 1 and 3.3 % for WTC 2), is converted to heat by the first impact of the upper blocks of floors. Because the fractional conversion of energy to heat is even smaller for subsequent impacts, a rapid self-sustaining total collapse of the towers is an inevitable consequence of first order momentum transfer theory.
For the general case of n floors collapsing we define a collapsing mass Mc :
Mc = n mf ……………………. (1)
where mf is the mass of one WTC floor, assumed to be 1/110 the mass of an entire WTC tower, namely mf = (510,000,000 / 110) kg 4,636,000 kg
We have re-calculated the descent velocity after the impacts on every floor and determined a revised collapse time that now includes the effects of the energy lost in crushing the support structures.
Previously (E1 = 0) tc = 12.6 sec
Revised (E1 = 0.6 109 J) tc = 12.8 sec
The smoky appearance of the jet fuel fires suggests that the flames
inside each tower were fuel-rich and therefore probably below 850° C.
In addition, the structural steel was heated indirectly and almost certainly never attained a temperature above 600° C. Nevertheless, some (~ 20 %) loss of strength is to be expected for steel heated to 550° C, a temperature that may have been reached by some WTC core columns.
The safety factor for collapse of the 80th floor is now only a little over two, but apparently still sufficient to sustain the building almost indefinitely. However, the damage to the twin towers was asymmetric so that the post-impact gravity load above the impacted floor was no longer uniformly distributed.
An analysis of the energetics of the WTC collapse events has shown that the kinetic energy of the aircraft collisions and the subsequent gravitational energy released by the descending blocks of floors were quite sufficient to destroy the twin towers in the manner observed.
The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations.
The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. If shorter times are to be physically achieved they must involve an unknown additional source of energy acting in a downward direction. Such a source of energy does not appear to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers.
The kinetic energy of the collapse events was sufficient to crush the WTC floor concrete in both towers to particles 100 m in diameter, or smaller, which is consistent with the observed WTC debris particle size distribution.
From a consideration of the strength of the WTC columns, and the effective area of support they provided, it is demonstrated that the conditions necessary for the initial floor collapse were initiated by the aircraft impact and made irrevocable by the subsequent eccentric loading of the core columns. It is therefore suggested that the total collapse of both towers would have occurred even without the jet fuel fires.
Now consider the 80th floor of WTC 2 after the aircraft impact. About 20 % of the support columns have been destroyed and another 10 % may have been buckled to some degree.
Originally posted by Valhall
And as a follow-up, and this is a very serious enquiry did your "physics student" take the time to also re-run the calculations done by Dr. Greening?
It appears to be, according your expert - the "physics student" - we're sitting at 300,000,000 kg, so, the equations are there...please, tell us how much the analysis changed. (Hint - I'm betting there's not a single equation with anything other than a first-order mass used in it). Quick, you can use your TI on this one!
There's a really serious and important reason I want your "physics student" expert to come back and give the changes to the final numbers on this for me - beins I'm just a poster on a discussion board.
There's some other numbers I'd like to check your expert "physic student's" nubmers against.
Originally posted by Valhall
You can't go about making baseless claims against people just because their theory doesn't match yours.
We don't do that here.
Originally posted by Valhall
Yes! I said OUTCHA-BUTT!
You just accused this professor of LYING...With no evidence! OUTCHA-BUTT!
That's what I call that.
Can you please provide me the new numbers for the analysis with your "expert's" numbers? This is very important. I have some numbers I would like to check now that I have an expert that can help me.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Valhall
You can't go about making baseless claims against people just because their theory doesn't match yours.
We don't do that here.
Howard does that here.
Have you not seen his thread on Steven Jones?
But, that's ok, right? Because Howard's on your side? After all, that thread's 3 pages long, and I never saw a single complaint from any mod or etc. on that thread.
so of course his new concept of "natural" thermite reactions causing a "natural" controlled demolition is meant to help save himself from his initial conclusions that apparently he even believes to be false!
Originally posted by Valhall
This is very important, so don't brush me off. I need Lyte Trizzle's expert to re-run the equations with the lower mass, because it will EXTEND the time to collapse on the Tower. I see that Dr. Greening has calculated (erroneously but that's been caught due to Lyte Trizzle's expert! THANK GAWD) that WTC 1 fell in just under 13 seconds.
Well, the change in mass is going to cause all of the impact energy equations to be lessened, and with the big ol' acceleration due to gravity equation being dependent on mg - well, that's lessened. So I want to know how long the time to collapse is extended.
Now, I respectfully request that Lyte Tizzy's expert review the equations with the lowered mass of 300,000,000 kg for each tower and tell me how much it extends the collapse time so that I can verify my work.
A member of the TRUTH MOVEMENT surely couldn't have a problem with that, now could they?