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: 109
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 # 18.
#1. To: All, *ARG List* (#0)
...
9/11 .. it's the science stupid!!
Here's a comment that was recently posted at ARG in response to this article, for what it's worth... I've looked into to the speed of callapse issue. In short my conclusions: 1) measurements of the collapse times are not accurate. The seismic data does help out much either. In reality the collapses lasted longer than many believe. 2) If you introduce a contant friction force in opposite direction of gravity as a resistance to losing structural integrity in the building. As if the buildings would collapse at half of normal gravity, the collapse would take 13 seconds. Just a little bit longer than mainstream media told us the collapses lasted and just 4 seconds longer than the 9 seconds it would take in free fall. 3) Total amount of potential energy stored in the building that would be released during collapse is about 1000 GJ and that is a lot. Enough to crush a lot of concrete. But because the structure was slowly crumbling under the load of the debris of the upper floors all this energy would not have been released in a very short moment what would have created one big peak in the seismic data. (Energy = Total mass * gravitational constant * height * 1/2) In those easy SI units: Mass = 510,000,000 kg, height = 417 m, g= 9.81 m/s^2 My conclusion is that however I find the mode of collapse very strange, not something I would have expected, but just looking as the speed of collapse will not give you any evidence of whatever. That doesn't mean I rule out the building got some help in collapsing with explosives for example, but just looking as the collapse speed will never prove your case. I wish some of the 9- 11 video makers would give less attention to the collapse issue and more to the foreknowledge, the myhtic history of Al Qaeda, the Israeli spyring. The FBI informants., the hijackers that turned up to be alive, etc. -- Now my real comment on the model presented on this website: Anybody making any analytic model of the collapsing building would have to make simplifications. But the simplifications in this model just go too far and this makes the outcome unrealistic. This model implies that the falling mass comes to a complete vertical stand still on every floor before making the next floor collapse and so on and so on. Maybe this somewhat realistic for the first few floors that collapsed, but it for sure isn't for the rest of the building. dorrell | 03.15.06 - 8:17 pm | #
There are no replies to Comment # 18. End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: valis (#1)
#18. To: Zipporah (#7)
Let met start by stating I am a mechanical engineer too.
Replies to Comment # 18.