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: 356
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 # 11.
#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.
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. "
#12. To: valis (#11)
Ok, thanks, valis - I thought that's what she meant, but it's good to have confirmation :)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#11. To: mehitable (#10)
I think (probably because of a lack of science background) that I am either missing something here or misinterpreting something
Replies to Comment # 11.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.