http://www.usd.edu/~dstrong/collapse%20time.xls

If it asks for a password hit cancel. You might need to have excel to view it.

assuming the building had no support collumns or perimiter collumns, and no bolts connecting the floors to the perimiter collumns, and occurred no air resistance on the way down and had no dust pulverization (all of which would slowed the collapse) the towers still should come down slower than actually occured on 9-11.

A physics professor helped me set up this experiment. maybe this has been done before.

assume that 110 concrety slabs are magically floating in air 12 feet apart with the top one over 1300 feet. they stay floating until the instant they are impacted from above. They collapse straight down and the only thing slowing the collapse is the inertia of the floor being impacted. I assume no air resistance. The laws of physics say they can't come down faster than 14.68 seconds.

dantastic,

glad to see you getting a physics professor's input :) is he curious yet?

the physics analogy that gets me is this:

design a structure that is 20x taller than it is wide, can withstand a 500mph impact at its top, and can collapse vertically through itself in near freefall speeds from damage only inflicted at the top 1/5th of the structure.

the whole point of issue i thought was that the floors (not hovering in air) would provide massive resistance and prevent momentum from gaining.. if these things are hovering in these calculations then are they providing any resistance at all?

also, the other point is the force it takes to pulverise the concrete and then break the floor.. any momentum would be absorbed in the process to some degree..

feel free to post exactly what your calculating for these hovering floors in this calculation..

CB,

thanks for the notice.. interesting that he refers to the core as a sort of heat-sink which would dissipate heat quite well.. interesting point.

Hey Gix, interesting, I've only heard positive responses from people seeing LC2, this is the first time I've heard otherwise.

I've been debating between 911 EyeWitness and LC2 as being the best method of exposing this. Maybe for the older crowd, 911 Eyewitness is the way to go.

Opinions anyone?

hey sl,

I did three different sets of calculations. One for a collapse starting at the top floor, one starting at the 93rd floor and one starting at the 75th floor. for the 93rd and the 75th i assumed that all the above floors stayed intact (most unlikely) and all their masses acted in unison the entire way down, once that piledriver hit the bottom it magically loses unity and all slabs fall at the speed of gravity. I did it this way to put the bias on lower time.

i used an excel spread sheet. please examine the calculations i used.

for the top down i started and found the speed after 12 feet. i used the formula:

post velocity squared = initial velocity squared plus distance*64

for the first floor it is going 27.7 feet per second the instant before it hits the second. since they have the same mass, the speed is cut in half. then the 2 floors fall in unison starting at 13.856 and reach 30.984 before hitting the third floor, then the speed becomes 2/3'ds of what it was and so on all the way down.

to find the time on each floor i used took the final speed for each floor, for the first floor it was 27.7, and subtracted the initial speed, zero for the first floor, and divided that by 32.1

for the collapses starting lower in the building I did it the same but adjusted for the number of floors in piledriver section. once the piledriving section reached the bottom i simply let the whole thing fall un-impeded to put the bias for less time.

I was wondering how to model the collapse of the buildings starting at the 93rd and 75th floors, then i decided that it would come down the fastest if the whole top section stayed intact because all the mass of the top section would be bearing down on each floor, so thats how i did it.

I looked for your post but i didn't know which one was yours.

Gix and DHS,

Thanks for your comments because I think they are extremely important. Young people are not stupid, they just have shorter attention spans. If you try to 'turn on' young people with hip sound tracks but then include content that adds up to aliens enslaving the human race, you actually turn them OFF instead -- you saw this when you yourself realized that what came FIRST made the permanent impression, and now the SECOND event would have a much harder job.

Some people think that there could actually be a purpose behind the promotion of crappy material without evidence over the stronger and more well thought out stuff. If you want to destroy a movement, make it seem loony and nutty and everyone will leave to maintain their own dignity.

This is why only the strongest arguments made with the strongest evidence should be promoted in public. To me, people should consider a dividing line between what gets promoted publicly - mass selling DVDs, news interviews, speaking events - verses what 9/11 activists discuss on forums like this. Because when the questionable stuff that has no strong evidence (i.e, no concrete support outside of long distance blurry single frames from a camcorder) goes out to the public, not only is it used to trash researchers by the mainstream press, but it turns off a lot of regular people simply because it doesn't have strong evidence (ala x-files). And on top of that, only the people who think that aliens do exist, then flock to the 9/11 movement . . . and we're stuck with them.

Many people in the 9/11 movement don't like the idea of not promoting 'everything,' for many different reasons.

That's what the 'Big Tent' reference is in the paper . . .

From the article:

"Ultimately, the Big Tent approach can be expected to limit the 9/11 Truth Movement to those willing to digest hoaxes along with the real information. Inevitably, this will keep credible media and researchers away from the movement in order to distance themselves from what they might describe as laughable, or ideas which would negatively impact their careers if they were associated with them."

Very sad, but the very realistic outcome...

I think Jones is wasting everybody's time trying to show that conventional explosives and thermite can explain what became of the twin towers.

"conventional explosives" and "controlled demolition" comprise a limited hangout -- such things can probably account for what caused the collapse of the towers, but not what happened immediately afterward: unnaturally nano-fine dust particles (my testable hypothesis, which better fits the evidence, and which Jones has thus far mysteriously/steadfastly resisted considering/testing), humongous pyroclastic dust/debris cloud, molten metal found weeks afterward, and fires which burned for 99 days despite constant dousing with water. (Jones himself refers to metal glowing red-yellow hot 8 weeks after the event. If any of that sounds remotely "conventional" to you, like the results of a thermite chemical reaction, please explain it to me. Perhaps Professor Jones is now hard at work on some kind of "insulation theory" to account for it?)

That just happens to be the signature of what happens when a plasma is used to dispose of waste materials. (And surely if industry can harness such destructive energy in a reusable appliance, the U.S. military weaponized it long ago...) The highly unnatural, hugely exothermic, separate, destructive event occurred suddenly, just as the collapse reached the ground, as evidenced by the timing and placement of the formation of that pyroclastic cloud.
_______________________________________