Angular momentum of south tower

pdoherty76

Banned
P
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
571
Prof Steven Jones says that the top portion of the south towere tilted 27 degrees but then stopped. He posits that the angular momentum couldnt suddenly cease unless the centre of mass disappeared.

Sounds reasonable. Do any of you know of a debunking for it?
 
pdoherty76 said:
Prof Steven Jones says that the top portion of the south towere tilted 27 degrees but then stopped. He posits that the angular momentum couldnt suddenly cease unless the centre of mass disappeared.

Sounds reasonable. Do any of you know of a debunking for it?
Click to expand...

Citation to page/paragraph in Jones' paper please.
 
havent got one. i saw him saying it in a lecture. should i produce a black hole link to send u through time to the lecture theatre?
 
Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Northwestern University. Combined plastic shear resistance of columns could not sustain the horizontal reaction from the tilting, yield hinges developed top and bottom of columns, and thus the top portion of the tower began its downward motion. Movement was primarily vertical at that point.
 
i wont pretend to understand that but i get the jist. jones points out that nist only studies up to the point of collapse initiation. if thay had studied further then this question might not have arose
 
pdoherty76 said:
ok its page 32 of http://www.tyrannyalert.com/sej.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you for the source.

The relevant section
We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
Click to expand...

Obvious problems I see are that:
* Jones does not provide measurements, or sources, indicating the amount of rotation.
* Jones appears to be stating that the upper 34 floors pulverized in their entirety. He does so again without showing analysis or providing sources to support this assertion.
* Jones does not state that the upper floors were rotating and stopped. Rather, he states that the upper floors were rotating and then pulverized.
 
A quick glance at the link and I thought the website said "tranny alert."
 
If you understand the forces involved, once a mass as large as the upper third to two-fifths of the WTC towers falls ten feet, then you'd understand why NIST only studied up to "collapse initiation". Any further study would have been superfluous.

The momentum of the upper tower structure only needed to overwhelm the joints of the floor directly below it. The upper part is like a massive pestle, and the lower parts of the building is like the mortar against which each floor in turn was ground into dust and shreds. The term "juggernaut" was invented to describe the kinds of forces unleashed when "collapse initiation" begins in structures like the WTC towers.
 
We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?
Click to expand...

A point we have made over and over again is 'How can we explain this behavior with explosives? Explosives are a poor choice to pulverzie material and the amount needed to 'turn the block into powder' would be so loud eardrums would be blown out for almost a mile around. No such sound was reported.

In fact, Jones is wrong. The block does not 'turn into powder'. It falls into the cloud of debris being formed underneath it.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
* Jones appears to be stating that the upper 34 floors pulverized in their entirety. He does so again without showing analysis or providing sources to support this assertion.
Click to expand...

i think jones is saying that the only way the momentum could stop is if it was pulverised.
 
i think jones reasoning is flawed to be honest.

but as always im still confused by all the pulverised concrete in general

i wish i was a structural engineer
 
If the floors below were truly pulverized then nothing could have stopped the angular momentum. What would be there to resist the torsional force?
 
Last edited:
kookbreaker said:
A point we have made over and over again is 'How can we explain this behavior with explosives? Explosives are a poor choice to pulverzie material and the amount needed to 'turn the block into powder' would be so loud eardrums would be blown out for almost a mile around. No such sound was reported.

In fact, Jones is wrong. The block does not 'turn into powder'. It falls into the cloud of debris being formed underneath it.
Click to expand...

can u show me a calculation for the amount of explosives and the sound it would make?
 
I think this illuminates the general uneducated stance concerning CD that Cters have. Demo charges are relatively small charges which sever steel which has had a substantial amount of its cross sectional area removed by torch cutting.

CTers assume that in CD, the explosive do most of the work to destroy the builiding, when in reality, the explosives only facilitate vertical progression. The weight of the building does most of the work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom