this is ridiculous
by that logic any sliver left standing at all results in an infinite time of collapse
please do not come at me with ludicrous attempts to deviate from the obvious
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
not sure who did this calculation but whoever it was
never listen to him ok
free fall speed works out to 9.1 seconds according to numerous sites
so lets check it
the simple formula is 33 ft pr sec pr sec
so in the first second the thing falls 33 feet
in the second it falls an additional 66 ft
and so on till terminal velocity is reached
assuming a vacuum and thing didnt fall in a vacume
terminal velocity depends on a number of factors but
basically its determined by the formula D-mg=0
D= drag
m= mass
g= g=9.81m/s^2
and D is a function of speed and varies for any given shape and mass
in a lot of cases this would be determined experimentally
point being at some point things would stop accelerating and a "terminal' velocity is reached
for the sake of arguement lets go with say 230 ft/sec which is the terminal velocity of the basic rock
next thing it to determin how long it takes to reach terminal velocity
33' in the first sec
an additional 66' ft/sec in the second sec for a ttl of 99'
99' ft/sec in the third second for a ttl of 198'
132 ft/sec in the fourth second for a ttl of 330'
165 ft/sec in the fifth second for a ttl of 495'
198 ft/sec in the sixth second for a ttl of 693'
231 ft/sec in the seventh second for a ttl of 924
231 ft/sec in the eighth second for a ttl of 1,155
231 ft/sec in the ninth second for a ttl of 1,386
the building at an average of 1,365' tall should take aprox 9 seconds to fall in a vacuum
the fall time was maybe a few seconds slower than free fall
basically dam close to free fall speeds
arguing this point is tantamount to denying newtons laws of gravity
to produce this data and then argue that, the fall was at much less than free fall speeds in a blatant deception
and I am immediately suspicious of the veracity of this poster or group of posters or any group who do not call ******** on the statement
guessing the buildings height rather than expressing the actual data was also a big red flag
did you mention that guy was a professional
hardly
the next bit of flawed math is that the assumed free fall was 90 m/s
it actually works out to about 70 m/s or 230'/sec and that not until after 700'
the next major flaw in the calculation of KE is the assumption that the buildings core and other structural components were not tapered
we know from the blue prints that the core columns started out at ~5 inches thick 18x36 section and tapered to ~ 1/4 inches thick with a constant section
so the center of gravity for a cone of consistent proportions and any dimension is ~ 1/4 its height
not 1/2
again significantly reducing the assumed KE of this posters calculations
did you mention professionals
please
having screwed up these two simple and obvious parameters I am forced to conclude that this poster is again not taking an objective look at these figures but instead possibly following an agenda
another less obvious consideration is the simple fact that the trade center basement was 7 floors bellow ground
again scewing the numbers in favor of a lower ttl KE
110 floors above ground
7 bellow
117 ttl
and divide that by the average center of ttl mass
which brings us to consider not a 55 floor drop as average mass motion but instead 22.25 story drop as measured from ground level or 280'
117/4 = 29.25 - 7 = 22.25 for the average center of gravity with an average velocity of 154 ft/sec
basically everything about this guys calculation is wrong so far
the next glaring blunder Im looking at is the assumed mass of the buildings
basically I just spent a few hours looking for a diffinative answer and no go
but given buildings of similar proportions
Empire State Building, NYC = 365,000,000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223,000,000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 174,500,000 kg
Ild say the estimate of the deniers of about 500,000,000kg is a bit high
something like 400,000,000kg is more logical although still an assumption and I hate assumptions
and there is wildly varying assumptions of the ttl KE of the buildings
FEMA gives 4 x 10^11 Joules while the Civil Engineering Magazine (put out by the ASCE) give the PE of one Tower as 3 x 10^12 Joules, or almost 10 times higher than FEMA. At the other extreme, Prof. Frank Moscatelli of Swarthmore College tells us the PE of one Tower was only 3.4 x 10^11 Joules.
which is why I prodded you with the question
another thing that demands consideration is the amount of energy that it takes to pulverize concrete
but that is going to have to wait for another time in this discussion
for the sake of arguement lets go with say 425,000,000 kg or 992 080 180 lbs pr building
which calculated with the average v of 154 ft/sec gives me a KE of 43,163,980,900 foot lbs of energy or
140 tons of TNT
based on
from physics fact book
one ton of TNT is equal to 4.184 × 10^9 joule (J).
ok the guy got one thing right so far
the value for one ton of TNT
pretty grim actually cause any fool can look it up
although its late
Im schnockered
and I certainly could have screwed up somewhere along the line myself
maybe when Im sober Ill see some glaring error but so far I think Ive pretty much kicked the BS back to oblivion
real question is
now how much energy does it take to pulverize one cubic foot of concrete and how many cubic feet of concrete were there in the WTC
averaging a number of sources I get a value of 425,000+ cubic yards and I think I might be conservative at that
next question is was there re-mesh or fiber and what was the psi of the mix
from university of Texas
high strength structural concrete has a compression strength to 6,000 psi
at 46,656 cubic inches pr cubic yard and 6,000 psi thats 279,936,000 inch/lbs of energy it takes to pulverize one yard of typical high-strength lightweight concrete
and there were 425,000 yards or ~119,000,000,000,000 inch/lbs of pressure required assuming the entirety of the concrete was pulverized
which it wasnt
next I need to convert a unit of pressure measured in inch/pounds to a unit of force measured in foot/pounds
basically convert all elements of the equation to a common denominator which is feet and lbs
pressure is force/area so to convert to force I believe its a simple multiplication of pressure by 144 to get to ft/lbs
dam Im hammered
I should have gotten that in about a split second and it bend my mind and Im still not sure
dam thats one huge number kids
17,136,000,000,000,000
so
lets pick a value for the amount of the concrete pulverized
and while Im at it lets be generous about it
say
25%
so divide 17,136,000,000,000,000 ft/lbs by 4 and I get
4,284,000,000,000,000 ft/lbs
and how much ttl energy did I say was in the building
say
43,000,000,000 ft/lbs
or roughly 1/100,000 the energy required to pulverize just 25% of the concrete
ok I did something wrong
the number should not be that high
Ill look at it again when Im sober
no time to go over the rest of that letter Travis but
thats the kind of **** I can sink my teeth into
way to go
JUST DONT GIVE ANY OF THESE FOOLS MY E MAIL
peace
B
