Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Free Fallin' Again

An emailer named Nick McKenzie sent in this analysis. Because Blogger will not take superscripts, I have indicated them with a ^ symbol, so when you see s^2, that means s squared:

I am Canadian so I know the mesurements and my equations in metric, not imperial.

Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s^2.

The WTC stood 415m tall (south tower, the one mentioned in the video) and had 110 floors. Each floor was therby around 3.772m tall. (415/110) Since the aircraft hit around the 80th floor, we will measure the speed from there. the 80th floor was around 301.76m high (3.772 x 80).

So- total displacement= 301.76m
initial velocity=0m/s
time=around 10 seconds. (time suggested in loose change)

d=iniv(t0 +1/2a (t^2)
301.76=0(10)+1/2a(102)
301.76=0 +1/2a(100)
3.0176=1/2a
6.0352=a

Therefore the tower fell with an acceleration of 6.0352m/s^2, around 3.8m/s^2 slower than freefall speed.

Lets find time instead.Given list same as above except lets put 9.8 for acceleration and solve for t.

d=iniv(t) +1/2a(t^2)
301.76=0(t) +1/2(9.8)(t^2)
301.76=4.9(t^2)
61.584=t^2
7.84=t

Therefore, if the WTCs had fallen at freefall speeds they would have fell in 7.84 seconds, almost 2 seconds off from Avery's doctored tape that attempts to prove the towers fell at freefall speeds.


Let me point out here that I am still uncertain how anybody can look at the WTC videos and pinpoint the exact time the towers stopped falling. As we have discussed, the heavy parts the debris field falls faster than the towers themselves. In addition, much of the dust and stuff falls slower than the towers, resulting in the buildings themselves being obscured.

45 Comments:

At 24 May, 2006 13:24, Blogger undense said...

I have one small nitpick about about the calculation figures. The calculation considers the height of the fall from the 80th floor to ground level. The towers did not fall to ground level. As each floor pancaked on top the other a pile of debris was formed and the actual fall stopped well short of ground level. With that consideration factored in, it's even more apparent that the towers were not in "free fall."

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:27, Blogger MarkyX said...

It's pretty sad that we even need to bring this up. The evidence is right there in video showing debris going faster then the building.

Proof that public education does not work.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:47, Blogger LT said...

Well, I can see the problem quite clearly. Sir Isaac Newton is in on the conspiracy...

 
At 24 May, 2006 14:03, Blogger caguile said...

I have a problem with this calculation. It calculates the time required for the 80th floor to hit the ground. There would still be 30 floors that haven't hit yet. I realize that the collapse began on the 80th or so floor, but the 110th floor began falling at about the same time and must be considered in the calculation no matter where the collapse began. The towers were 110 stories tall, and all 110 of those stories fell.

I get a free fall time of 9.2 seconds. I agree with Pat that it is very difficult to decide when the towers stopped falling, and I don't find any of the conspiracy theories plausible.

 
At 24 May, 2006 14:34, Blogger BG said...

Markyx,

I was under the impression that public education was working....(meant ironicly)

Wow, thanks for your knowledge. I'll add that to my list of things that need to be fixed.....

Your comment adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

 
At 24 May, 2006 14:47, Blogger BG said...

If anyone cares about using the best scientific analysis related to Controlled Demolition, rather than just bashing Loose Change, this article (The Case for Controlled Demolition by Judy Wood) might be some to look at.

 
At 24 May, 2006 14:56, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, except the towers didn't fall from the roof all the way to the ground, so it a false premise to begin with.

What exactly is Judy Wood's academic credentials btw? She specializes the stresses of dentistry.

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~woodj/

The sad thing is, she is the closest thing the "Scholars" for 9/11 "truth" actually have to a specialist in building collapse.

 
At 24 May, 2006 14:59, Blogger Alex said...

She makes a very basic mistake within the first 2 minutes BG. She says:

"Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becomes pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed by (a) pulverizing the the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either."

Ofcourse, she ignores the fact that the impacting floor has the kinetic energy of the 30 floors above it which are all falling as one unit. As such it would make sense for the impacting and receiving floors to sustain damage and eventualy "pulverize", while the receiving floor breaks free from it's supports.

Her analysis works fine if you assume that the buildings fell by collapsing from the very first floor. In such case she'd be 100% right. Except the buildings DIDN'T collapse from the top floor. They collapsed from about two thirds of the way up. That fact alone makes her model irrelevant.

 
At 24 May, 2006 14:59, Blogger Alex said...

Damn you James, you beat me to it.

 
At 24 May, 2006 15:24, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 May, 2006 15:29, Blogger BG said...

And besides, she may be an ME who specializing in Dentistry, but she wears one cute little "Gilligan" hat.

 
At 24 May, 2006 15:30, Blogger BG said...

Alex, James,

I think the point is, and correct me if I'm wrong, even if her caluculations are off by 50%, there's still a huge discrepancy between how long it should have taken and how long our best estimate of elapsed time is.

And granted, you may say that the building didn't fall all the way to the ground (which I agree with) and you may say the collapse didn't start at the top, which in itself is admitting the the top was "blown off by demo forces", and if you look at her calculations, you will see that the calculated time estimated to be required are still twice as long as a fair estimate of how long it took.

I know I'm engaging in this discussion, so I should be willing to hash out the details or keep my mouth shut.

Yet, to me, even tho I think the analysis is valid making the point it proves, this isn't something that I think is a slam dunk one way or the other.

However, I do think if the physical evidence, that still resides at the Deutsch Bank building, were impounded (fragmented bone parts etc.), and subjected to scientific review, that could yield important details.

Let see, what chance do you see of that happenning?

3:24 PM

 
At 24 May, 2006 15:54, Blogger Rousseau said...

As a student of politics I am cosistently amazed at how well this indoctrination operates. True or not, the sheer revulsion to the claims (if completley unfounded and rediculous as claimed on this site, an extensive and well thought out site dedicated to debunking it is also ridiculous)provides sound evidence of well trainded minds fine tuned by the American education system. If I made a movie claiming that the world was flat, would a web site be needed to debunk it? I don't know if the guys are totally right but my studies in politics makes me far more atuned to the claim that individuals can and do act with a reckless abandoned to achieve what thay felt would validate them personally, for whatever reason. It as if you all beleive that our leaders are some kind of special people not prone to the destruction, lies, and folly that permeates that records of political leaders thoughout the ages. It is important to note that Maciavelli (a great theoriticain of power) noted that essence of power is in its absence.
He advised the Prince to take advantage of humans' natural inclination to want to believe their government is good and proper. He felt that this passion could be readily manipulated and harnassed at the discretion of the ruler for his advantage. All of the speculation on both sides results in the "market failure" due to the assymetry of information. Machiavelli, hundreds of years ago was atuned to this very crucial fact, that ambilivalence resulting from incomplete information will generally lead to docile aquessence. In sum, this hole process involves psychology as much as the "material facts" invoked by bith sides.

 
At 24 May, 2006 15:55, Blogger undense said...

She would impress me if she could show the calculations of how the mass of 30 stories of the trade center collapsing 12 feet could have been halted by the structural integrity of the 80th floor.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (which, btw, one of my long-time friends who is an actual rocket scientist is on his way over shortly and we are going to discuss this subject, amongst others) to know that the WTC towers were never built with that sort of necessity in mind and that once the collapse began, nothing was going to stop it.

That's why the CD theory is so ridiculous. If this truly were a conspricay, demolition charges wouldn't be necessary in the first place. Trained pilots could fly those planes into the precise spots to bring down the towers because the government would have the building plans and would know its weaknesses.

(I love a conspiracy working against a conspiracy. There a sort of poetry in that.)

 
At 24 May, 2006 16:22, Blogger Nick said...

I am the one who made these calculations. I see your points about how they didnt fall all the way to the ground, but if indeed they didnt fall all the way, it would only help our argument.

The south tower did start falling from around the 80th floor, checking any video will confirm this.

And one COULD calculate the force that the top 30 floors exerted on the bottom 80 floors of the tower using the main equation that came from newtons second law. (F=ma)
Force (F) equals mass (m) times acceleration (a).

The loose change viewers guide at the begining of this blog states that the top floors weighed around 200 million pounds. I will use this to get a rough estimate. I will also use my 6.0352m/s^2 as the acceleration. Mass will now be in kilograms.

So
F=(90 718 474)(6.0352)
F=547 504 134.2848 N

So the top 30 floors put an estimated 547 504.1342848 kN of force on the bottom of the towers. Anyone who knows a anything about physics will tell you that is a heck of a lot of force.

 
At 24 May, 2006 17:33, Blogger shawn said...

Rousseu (who obviously is sympathetic to the CIs) is now spamming threads with the same message. If you're a student of politics, you need a big fat F.

About the "free fall", all's you need is pictures of the collapse. Debris falls faster than the tower. No need to do any calculations.

 
At 24 May, 2006 17:37, Blogger ScottSl said...

"I think the point is, and correct me if I'm wrong, even if her caluculations are off by 50%, there's still a huge discrepancy between how long it should have taken and how long our best estimate of elapsed time is."

No the point is ole Judy thinks the floors should actually stop falling in mid-air. Then start again from zero velocity.

LOL!!!

 
At 24 May, 2006 18:17, Blogger srice555 said...

Christ! What part of "almost at free fall" do you not understand?

9.2 ~ 10

 
At 24 May, 2006 18:19, Blogger shawn said...

Christ! What part of "almost at free fall" do you not understand?

9.2 ~ 10


If you're defending the CIs (conspiracy idiots), it has to be free fall to be of any mention.

 
At 24 May, 2006 18:25, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 May, 2006 18:31, Blogger Alex said...

“I think the point is, and correct me if I'm wrong, even if her caluculations are off by 50%, there's still a huge discrepancy between how long it should have taken and how long our best estimate of elapsed time is. “

According to......? The fact that you THINK they should have taken longer to fall in no way represents evidence that they should have fallen slower. And her starting off with flawed numbers/assumptions means that the end result will be meaningless.

”And granted, you may say that the building didn't fall all the way to the ground (which I agree with) and you may say the collapse didn't start at the top, which in itself is admitting the the top was 'blown off by demo forces' “

It's only evidence of “demo forces” if you've already made up your mind that explosives were used. To the rest of us it's evidence that the structure around the impact zone of the aircraft was weakened enough that the force of the 30 floors above it was sufficient to buckle the supporting columns and start the collapse.

”Yet, to me, even tho I think the analysis is valid making the point it proves, this isn't something that I think is a slam dunk one way or the other. “

How is the analysis valid if she starts off with a flawed assumption? If you took that approach to science, I could prove to you that water flows up hill. All I'd have to do is assume that gravity is a localized phenomenon, and that somewhere there's a hill on which gravity is reversed. Start off with an invalid assumption and you can “prove” (mathematically even) absolutely anything, no matter how impossible it may be in practice.

”However, I do think if the physical evidence, that still resides at the Deutsch Bank building, were impounded (fragmented bone parts etc.), and subjected to scientific review, that could yield important details. “

Whose scientific review? Hundreds if not thousands of scientists and experts have already analyzed the wreckage at the scene, but, unfortunately, your buddy N-Sync has shown us that they're all in on the conspiracy to take over the world, so their analysis doesn't count. So what do you propose? Keep getting different scientist to examine the wreckage until one of them finally says “aha! This proves Bush is the Anti-Christ!”?

 
At 24 May, 2006 18:35, Blogger Pat said...

Let me point out again that at 35:22 they show the collapse of the building without the timer, but if you watch the Google video timer, it certainly appears as if the time is quite a bit longer than 10 seconds--I'd guess 15 is a little short. BG, did you notice her estimated time for the WTC 7 collapse? What's up with that? Eighteen seconds?

 
At 24 May, 2006 18:39, Blogger shawn said...

Let me point out again that at 35:22 they show the collapse of the building without the timer, but if you watch the Google video timer, it certainly appears as if the time is quite a bit longer than 10 seconds--I'd guess 15 is a little short.

You're absolutely correct. I mentioned in another comment that they start their timers after the collapse starts and each "second" is actually longer than a second.

 
At 24 May, 2006 18:41, Blogger BG said...

Alex said...
Hundreds if not thousands of scientists and experts have already analyzed the wreckage at the scene

Here's where you show just how completely, absolutely, unbelievable ignorant of the facts you are.

 
At 24 May, 2006 18:44, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

Since no one ever proposed a "pancake theory" or any other theory to explain WTC7, I think it was a mistake to apply any treatment other than just saying it was a classical bottom up CD, with the except for the Penthouse, which they blew about 2 seconds before the rest.

 
At 24 May, 2006 19:17, Blogger Alex said...

Feel free to enlighten me BG. Let me guess, you were personaly present at all times and you saw every piece of wreckage be flown to china and turned into cheap MP3 players.

 
At 24 May, 2006 19:30, Blogger BG said...

alex,

This article is a good starting place (
9/11: Cold Case>
)

There is been zero work done by any sanctioned body to determine if there are clues that would explain the explosive force that created the dust and the debris (including body parts) that has some force that would spew them in the air and travel laterally onto rooftops and floors of buildings near and far.

 
At 24 May, 2006 19:44, Blogger BG said...

The full article talks about bone fragments among the debris.

From NYC

Razing of Downtown Tower Should Pause, Regulators Say

May 13, 2006, Saturday
By DAVID W. DUNLAP (NYT); Metropolitan Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section B, Page 5, Column 1, 304 words
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 304 WORDS -Federal and state regulators asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation yesterday to stop work on the former Deutsche Bank building opposite ground zero. An inspector from the Environmental Protection Agency witnessed the removal yesterday of debris from the building that had not been properly cleaned, said Mary Mears, a...

 
At 24 May, 2006 19:46, Blogger BG said...

I found the rest of the article:

"This was certainly not the first time," she said. "Now that it appears to be a pattern, we feel compelled to ask them to stop work until we can fix the problem in general."

Deconstruction of the 41-story former bank tower at 130 Liberty Street is not set to begin until next month. The current work involves abatement of asbestos and other hazardous substances.

Besides the federal agency, the state's Department of Labor and the city's Department of Environmental Protection are monitoring the project.

"We agree with the regulators that we need to adhere to the highest standards on this sensitive job," said John P. Gallagher, a spokesman for the development corporation. "However, we need to obtain greater clarity regarding what is and isn't considered full compliance with these standards, and have asked for a meeting at the site with the regulators on Monday."

The development corporation owns the building and is overseeing the demolition.

Yesterday's debris largely involved floor tiles from around the 35th floor. Work had already stopped for the day by the time the regulators made their recommendation.

Cleaning work is performed within sealed areas before the debris is taken downstairs. Ms. Mears said there were at least three prior occasions when inspectors required that debris bins be returned for further cleaning.

Last month, the rooftop cleanup was halted after a fragment of asbestos-containing material was found in the ballast. Hundreds of small fragments of human remains have also been found on the rooftop.

 
At 24 May, 2006 20:13, Blogger Alex said...

Oh, I see what you're going on about. I was talking about evidence from ground zero being studied, whereas you're complaining that evidence from the bank has not been looked at. Well, I don't know, I never got a PhD, but I'm pretty sure that the materials from the bank wouldn't expose any clues that wouldnt allready have been gathered from the mountain of evidence at the actual WTC buildings. I'm gudessing the government feels the same way, and isn't willing to spend more millions of dollars just so conspiracy theorists can accuse them of faking more results.

Oh, and this part gave me a good giggle:

"There is been zero work done by any sanctioned body to determine if there are clues that would explain the explosive force that created the dust and the debris (including body parts) that has some force that would spew them in the air and travel laterally onto rooftops and floors of buildings near and far."

Now maybe you're one of those intelectual types who has never done the least bit of physical work in his life, I don't know. However, I just finished removing about 4 tons of concrete from my back yard, and I can tell you from experience that "explosive force" is not required in order to "create dust and debris.....that would spew them in the air and travel laterally onto rooftops and floors of buildings near and far". After about 4 hours of work with a concrete saw, sledgehammer, and jackhammer, I had a 4 ton pile of small and large chunks of concrete, and a nice layer of dust covering the entire back yard, and part of the neighbouring properties. Took about an hour with a garden hose and broom to clean up the dust alone. Now, I'm a pretty strong guy, but I doubt that I could generate as much force using a sledge as the WTC's top 30 floors could while being powered by gravity, so if I could create that much dust using kinetic energy and only 4 tons worth of concrete, I can just imagine how much dust would have been generated by the collapse of the WTC buildings.

 
At 24 May, 2006 20:30, Blogger ScottSl said...

"Since no one ever proposed a "pancake theory" or any other theory to explain WTC7, I think it was a mistake to apply any treatment other than just saying it was a classical bottom up CD, with the except for the Penthouse, which they blew about 2 seconds before the rest."

I see you've never read the NIST report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

 
At 24 May, 2006 21:18, Blogger Chad said...

"With The Exception Of..."

That should be the title of every future conspiracy theory book ever published.

You can debunk till the cows come home, but all they need to do is find (or make up) one miniscule shred of "evidence" and use that to say, "All that may be true... with the exception of..."

And the conspiracy will live on. (And so will the t-shirt sales, right Dylan?)

 
At 25 May, 2006 06:25, Blogger BG said...

Alex,

I'm stating the obvious here....

Your backyard concrete cleanup is an analogy that has no bearing on the CD's that made sure a huge number of people died on 9/11. In addition, it made sure Silverstein Partners could collect full loss recovery on his insurance contract without much fuss. Without the CD, can you imagine what a albatross being the 99 year leasee would be of a damaged but not destoryed building complex?

Do you realise how much more profitable it was to have these three building destoyed rather than partially hit!?

Is that what bin Laden, and Al Qaeda was doing to hurt America: enrich Silverstein Partners by several billion dollars?

 
At 25 May, 2006 07:04, Blogger Rousseau said...

Shawn, I posted my comments in several areas because I think it is germane to all of the debates. Interesting that you had to note who you thought I was sympathetic to and dismiss me rather than address my arguments. I think I was fairly clear that the conspiracy theorists are stuck in a conceptual vacuum, as we all are. Maybe start with addressing this logical dilema.

1. The movie and its directors are crazed conspriacy theorists who spew nonsense.

2. Thus, people are either, sensisble and understand this, therefore do not need extra info contained in this site, or they are crazy like the film makers and are beyond help as they will be attached to any small shred of inconclusive evidence.

how does it follow then?

3. Therefore we need to spend a huge amount of intellectual effort to construct an extensive project to debunk what is clearly crazy and illogical to all reasonable people????

All of the talk of logic on this site should compell to at you consider this inconsistency. My challenge is to engage in a discussion outside of the petty bickering that permeates the argument from both sides.

 
At 25 May, 2006 07:12, Blogger undense said...

Alex,

I hope you replaced that concrete in your backyard with the well-known and pervasive Exploda-Crete so the next time all you have to do is push a button. It will potentially save you many hours of physical labor.

 
At 25 May, 2006 08:05, Blogger James B. said...

That is an idiotic argument, they would have suffered no loss had there been no plane crash in the first place. Why would they take all this risk just to break even? Besides, the buildings would have had to have been demolished, the tops were leaning for God's sake. WTC7 had a huge freaking hole in the side and was making creaking noises. They were structurally unsound.

 
At 25 May, 2006 08:20, Blogger BG said...

New topic, sort of.

Take a look at this animated gif, made from vidoe of 9/11.

http://www.911truestory.com/ntower.gif

I really don't think you contention that the collapse didn't start at the top matches the evidence.

 
At 25 May, 2006 08:21, Blogger BG said...

James B,

The analysis have never been about whether wtc 7 was or was not structurally sound.

Those of us with some integrity have not said that it was impossible for wtc 7 fail. We have said the video evidence of the fall shows a CD.

 
At 25 May, 2006 08:23, Blogger BG said...

About wtc7:

I beg you, look at the Evidence

 
At 25 May, 2006 08:28, Blogger undense said...

Take a look at this animated gif, made from vidoe of 9/11.

http://www.911truestory.com/ntower.gif

I really don't think you contention that the collapse didn't start at the top matches the evidence.


I don't know what you're looking at, but that animated gif only bolsters the claim that the collapse began at the 80th floor. What you are apparently misunderstanding is that means the structural failure occured there and that's what initiated the collapse. The gif also vividly demonstrates that the collapse resulted as a failure of the core column structure which had the primary responsibilty for supporting the gravitational load of the building.

 
At 25 May, 2006 08:42, Blogger Alex said...

"I hope you replaced that concrete in your backyard with the well-known and pervasive Exploda-Crete so the next time all you have to do is push a button. It will potentially save you many hours of physical labor."

I wish! But, you see, I don't have a time machine, so it's impossible for me to travel 40 years into the future and find out whether or not the "Silverstein Partners" will buy a 99 year lease for my back yard and insure it for $2 billion dollars.

BG, that was your weakest conspiracy theory yet. How can you spew something like that and then claim with a straight face that you're objectively trying to look at the facts of 9/11?

As for the animated gif, undense answered you fairly well, so I'm just gonna reply to that one with: "what he said".

 
At 25 May, 2006 09:02, Blogger ScottSl said...

"About wtc7:

I beg you, look at the Evidence"

Killtown repeats the same phony charge about the squibs. If you look at a higher res video you can see than in fact there are none.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

Futhermore you can look at the other videos, they (like the higher rez video at 911 myths).
show no squibs either.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/

I stated this already in another post
The penthouse went down because of the interior failing. The NIST report explains this.
Futhermore the building tilted backwards and to the south where the damage was.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

Best Scott

 
At 25 May, 2006 09:10, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 25 May, 2006 09:11, Blogger ScottSl said...

In all fairness, I should point out the final report won't be out until Dec.

Best Scott

 
At 25 May, 2006 09:25, Blogger undense said...

Another painfully obvious consideration, if you actually use the smallest bit of gray matter, is that there is absolutely no reason to demolish the penthouse. It provided no support whatsoever to WTC7 and demolishing it would have no effect whatsoever on the building coming down.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home