See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: MECHANICAL ENGINEER: WTC 'PANCAKE COLLAPSE' WOULD HAVE TAKEN 96 SECONDS, NOT 10
Source:
janedoe0911
URL Source: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Published: Mar 6, 2006
Author: Judy Wood, Phd
Post Date: 2006-03-06 03:40:40 by valis
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: MECHANICAL, ENGINEER:, COLLAPSE
Views: 208
Comments: 18
"...To illustrate the timing for this domino effect, we will use a sequence of falling billiard balls, where each billiard ball triggers the release of the next billiard ball in the sequence. This assumes pulverization is instantaneous and does not slow down the process. It reality, this pulverization would slow down the “pancake” progression, so longer times would be expected." 
Analysis by Judy Wood, Phd
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#10. To: valis, all (#0)
Could someone with a scientific background please summarize this - I understand the assertion about the number of seconds but what would be the conclusion beyond this about the reason for the collapse? Is this author aruing against any controlled demolition? Is she arguing that the buildings collapsed because of the planes? Is there yet another reason for the collapse? I think (probably because of a lack of science background) that I am either missing something here or misinterpreting something.
#11. To: mehitable (#10)
Well, look at it this way: There was no pancake collapse. If every floor crashed into every floor below it, etc, it would have fallen 10x slower. I believe her conclusion goes something like this: "So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone. Did we see this? I believe it's pretty clear in some of the videos. The "wave" of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence. Realizing that, for example, the 40th floor needs to start moving before any of the upper floors have "free-fallen" to that point, why would it start moving? There was no fire there. And, if anything, there is less load on that floor as the upper floors turn to dust. "
The video 9/11 Eyewitness describes this very well. The buildings fell at a rate of speed, equal free fall in a vacuum. Had they collapsed in the way the govt describes, it should have taken far more time. When a building is set with explosives, by professionals, as in a demolition, it will fall at this rate of speed, there is no other way. The video also describes the direction the debris flew is indicative of a demolition. There were even large pieces of metal stuck into the sides of the building next to the WTC, like arrows. This includes WT7, the 3rd building owned by Larry Silverstein that collapsed that day. He is even on video tape saying that he told them to "pull it" (WT7), but he later tries to say that's not what he meant. It only had a couple small fires, but it too fell at a rate of speed that is only explained by a demolition.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Replies to Comment # 10. I think (probably because of a lack of science background) that I am either missing something here or misinterpreting something
#17. To: mehitable (#10)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.