Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
delphi_ote said:
Then you don't have any evidence. Please read this report:
911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf (link removed because I can't post urls - bunker)
The analysis doesn't get any better than that.
Click to expand...
Hello delphi_ote,

At the risk of sounding foolish, I must admit that I am greatly bothered by the free fall issue. I am so bothered, it has actually kept me up some nights. For the past two months or so, since I found out about this problem, I've been searching for a detailed analysis which might explain the physics behind it. When I saw the paper you referenced and how excited you were about it, I thought, finally, this must be my answer. As I read it, I got the feeling that, yes, this is a truly objective paper, but, unfortunately, I see a major problem with it. I'm totally open to the idea that I'm wrong, and if you can tell me what I'm not seeing, I will forever be in your debt, because until this free fall problem goes away, I'm a nervous wreck.

The problem is this: Page 13, paragraphs 4 and 5, and page 14, paragraph 1
Let’s now consider the beginning of the 1st sage of the collapse of each tower. For WTC 1 we will take as an example 14 floors, and for WTC 2, 29 floors impacting the floor below with a maximum velocity of 8.6 m/s. It follows that the kinetic energy on impact was ½ x 14 x (510,000,000/110) x (8.6)^2 joules = 2.4 x 10^9 J for WTC 1, and the K.E. was ½ x 29 x (510,000,000/110) x (8.6)^2 joules = 5.0 x 10^9 J for WTC 2. If we assume 50 % of this energy was available to crush concrete, we have 1.2 x 10^9 J available for WTC 1, and 2.5 x 10^9 J available for WTC 2. This is sufficient to crush the concrete on the impacted floor to 175 um particles.

Consider now the newly formed mass of (14 + 1) floors of WTC 1, and (29 + 1) floors of WTC 2, impacting on the floor below. Because of momentum transfer, the impact velocities are slightly lower than the 8.6 m/s impact speed for the first floors hit: 8.1 m/s for WTC 1, and 8.3 m/s for WTC 2. The maximum kinetic energy prior to impact is ½ x 15 x (510,000,000/110) x (8.1)^2 joules = 2.3 x 10^9 J for WTC 1, and ½ x 30 x (510,000,000/110) x (8.3)^2 joules = 4.8 x 10^9 J for WTC 2. This is essentially the same result as the previous impact calculation and the kinetic energy released is therefore also sufficient to crush the concrete on the impacted floor to 175 um particles.

However, if we continue this method of calculation to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, impacts on successively lower floors the kinetic energy increases substantially. For example, for the 5th impact of the less energetic WTC 1 collapse, the kinetic energy is about 1 x 10^10 J which is sufficient to crush the concrete on the impacted floor to sub-20 um particles.
Click to expand...
The problem I run into is between the last two paragraphs. That is, I think there is something missing between them. In the first one quoted, he calculates the total kinetic energy available for each initial impact: 2.4 and 5 Gigajoules for towers 1 and 2, respectively. In the second, he calculates the total KE for the second impacts. He states that the impact velocity for each falling mass has now decreased. The falling mass decelerates upon impact, exactly as one would expect. He calculates the total KE, and it is now less than the first impact. We can surmise that this means that the increase in mass, 14 floors + 1, is not sufficient to cause the available KE to rise after impact. The decrease in velocity is too much to make up for.

My question is how then can he make what I would consider a leap in the next paragraph: "However, if we continue this method of calculation to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, impacts on successively lower floors the kinetic energy increases substantially." He states that for the 5th impact of WTC1, 14 + 4, the total KE is now 10 Gigajoules. If we plug this value into the formula, we get a value for impact velocity of 15.5 m/s, or nearly double the second impact. (Please check my math for that value.) Why would he choose not to show the calculations that get us here?

8.6 --> 8.1 --> X --> Y --> 15.5?

Help. :confused: :(
 
delphi_ote said:
Dang. Not the cold fusion guy I thought it was.
Click to expand...

Oh, he was deep into that nonsense. Perhaps not as bad as Pons & Fleischmann, but he was well into it.

Now of course he's been telling his followers that he was one of the first to debunk P&F. Yeah, rigght.
 
delphi_ote said:
Why indeed did Christ visit American?
Click to expand...
You don't wanna go there. A lot of people believe that Christ visited America and other religious things, and it would be a mistake to conflate the two disagreements. Keep to the science, and let the religionists keep to the religion. You certainly wouldn't want the other side to start discrediting structural engineers simply because they also believe, for example, that they consume the literal body and blood of Christ every Sunday.
 
"a LOT slower" = anything from 7 seconds, to it not collapsing at all and any combination inbetween, such as partial structural collapses.

Green chillie, red chillie.... meh. Ever tried scotch bonnets? :jaw-dropp

senorpogo... if that was directed at me I did actually mention libraries in my post. :p
 
bunker said:
Hello delphi_ote,

At the risk of sounding foolish, I must admit that I am greatly bothered by the free fall issue. I am so bothered, it has actually kept me up some nights. For the past two months or so, since I found out about this problem, I've been searching for a detailed analysis which might explain the physics behind it. When I saw the paper you referenced and how excited you were about it, I thought, finally, this must be my answer. As I read it, I got the feeling that, yes, this is a truly objective paper, but, unfortunately, I see a major problem with it. I'm totally open to the idea that I'm wrong, and if you can tell me what I'm not seeing, I will forever be in your debt, because until this free fall problem goes away, I'm a nervous wreck.

The problem is this: Page 13, paragraphs 4 and 5, and page 14, paragraph 1
The problem I run into is between the last two paragraphs. That is, I think there is something missing between them. In the first one quoted, he calculates the total kinetic energy available for each initial impact: 2.4 and 5 Gigajoules for towers 1 and 2, respectively. In the second, he calculates the total KE for the second impacts. He states that the impact velocity for each falling mass has now decreased. The falling mass decelerates upon impact, exactly as one would expect. He calculates the total KE, and it is now less than the first impact. We can surmise that this means that the increase in mass, 14 floors + 1, is not sufficient to cause the available KE to rise after impact. The decrease in velocity is too much to make up for.

My question is how then can he make what I would consider a leap in the next paragraph: "However, if we continue this method of calculation to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, impacts on successively lower floors the kinetic energy increases substantially." He states that for the 5th impact of WTC1, 14 + 4, the total KE is now 10 Gigajoules. If we plug this value into the formula, we get a value for impact velocity of 15.5 m/s, or nearly double the second impact. (Please check my math for that value.) Why would he choose not to show the calculations that get us here?

8.6 --> 8.1 --> X --> Y --> 15.5?

Help. :confused: :(
Click to expand...
Remember that gravity is still accelerating the mass as it falls between floors. That seems to be the missing fact in there. I have to go to class right now, but we can work out the exact math for this later if you're still nervous. I'd be more than happy to help.
 
Graham S1 said:
"a LOT slower" = anything from 7 seconds, to it not collapsing at all and any combination inbetween, such as partial structural collapses.

Green chillie, red chillie.... meh. Ever tried scotch bonnets? :jaw-dropp

senorpogo... if that was directed at me I did actually mention libraries in my post. :p
Click to expand...
Now we know why these guys are so adamant! They are part of the Government coverup!
Eating Scotch Bonnets without a tinfoil hat on is dangerous. The SB's lower your natural resistance to the governments mind-control rays.
Hatch Green Chilis are raised in New Mexico, 75 miles downwind from the first Nuclear bomb test site, and a short distance from White Sands Missile range, 201 miles down-river from Los Alamos Labs.m The modified soil from all the tests causes interference with the mind-controlrays, making you impervious
 
I haven't read all 18 pages, so forgive me if this has been asked and answered.

Why all the focus on WTC7? If you expect me to believe that it was a gov't conspiracy, I'm going to need a reason why the gov't would destroy WTC7 hours after the twin towers fell. What is the point? I would imagine that most, if not all, of the public would feel just as horrified at the events of 9/11 if WTC7 was still standing. If forced to give a thumbnail summary of what happened that day, would anyone even include it?

No, I think it far more likely that if fell because of what happened to the twin towers next door.
 
Thanz, you're making sense. That goes against the whole spirit of this thread.
 
delphi_ote said:
Remember that gravity is still accelerating the mass as it falls between floors. That seems to be the missing fact in there. I have to go to class right now, but we can work out the exact math for this later if you're still nervous. I'd be more than happy to help.
Click to expand...
Because of momentum transfer, the impact velocities are slightly lower than the 8.6 m/s impact speed for the first floors hit: 8.1 m/s for WTC 1, and 8.3 m/s for WTC 2. (Original italics)

Is this a mistake on Dr. Greening's part? The concept of momentum transfer indicates that the mass is giving up kinetic energy in order to cause the stationary floor to collapse. In this paper, Dr. Greening cites a figure of 629 MJ to cause a single floor to collapse, although he uses a figure of 1 GJ in his calculations to be safe, I assume.

2.4 GJ of KE is available for the first impact of WTC1. That seems clear. Using the lower figure of 629 MJ to cause the first collapse, it seems there is plenty of energy to get the job done. The energy absorbed by the impact is 26.2% of available KE. However, according to Newton's Third Law of Motion, it seems undeniable that the available KE is being applied to both the impacted and the impacting floors. If one floor is absorbing this energy, the other floor must do the same, so that brings us to 1.258 GJ being absorbed, or 52.4% of available KE.

Yes, I am still nervous. :boggled:
 
Thanz said:
I haven't read all 18 pages, so forgive me if this has been asked and answered.

Why all the focus on WTC7? If you expect me to believe that it was a gov't conspiracy, I'm going to need a reason why the gov't would destroy WTC7 hours after the twin towers fell. What is the point? I would imagine that most, if not all, of the public would feel just as horrified at the events of 9/11 if WTC7 was still standing. If forced to give a thumbnail summary of what happened that day, would anyone even include it?

No, I think it far more likely that if fell because of what happened to the twin towers next door.
Click to expand...
Having hashed a lot of this out on the Loose Change forum recently, I can tell you there are different angles of speculation about the motive for 7: a) hiding evidence, b) insurance money, c) audacity. a & b are the main ones I've heard. c I really only heard once (I think Alek suggested it).

But they'll admit that they're just speculating about the true motive. The point is, they'll continue, for reasons x, y, and z it must have been a controlled demolition, and therefore they demand a criminal investigation.

There's so much focus on it because: a) the official accounts of what happened to it are inconsistent and inconclusive, b) in the videos it looks a whole lot like controlled demolition, c) the fire and damage visible in the pictures and footage doesn't look like enough to take it down (even though I've never seen a shot of the south side, where the extensive damage is supposed to have been), d) WTC 6, which is closer to where the North tower stood, sustained significant damage and yet remained standing. The slightly less credulous stopped using argument d after I pointed out the fact that 6 is 1/4 the height of 7 and has a larger footprint, giving it a much more stable height/width ratio, and the fact that 6 wasn't burning.

Essentially, there's so much focus on 7 because it's the one event from that day that has the most convincing imagery and the most legitimate mystery.
 
Graham S1 said:
My evidence is the speed at which it fell. If there were no explosives/accelerators, it would have been a LOT slower.

Yours?
Click to expand...

From The Nova interview I posted a link for earlier.

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom