Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Corvette / March 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
schoenfeld.one@gmail.com - 13 Mar 2008 09:17 GMT
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9)  and
(1.10)  for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed).  A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

    1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

    2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

    3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

    4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.

Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

   distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

    [1.1]    t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

    [1.2]    T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

    [1.3]    m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

    [1.4]    v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)

which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

    [1.5]    m_k  u_k  = m_(k-1)  v_(k-1)

Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
    [1.6]    (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)

Solving for the initial velocity u_k

    [1.7]    u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)

Which is a recurrence equation with base value

    [1.8]    u_0=0

The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor.  Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

    [1.9]    WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
        where
            u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28)      ;/ u_0=0

Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

    [1.10]    WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
        Where
            u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28)      ;/ u_0=0

REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ", http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.

> g :: Double
> g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
 _H - the total height of building
 _N - the number of floors in building
 _J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)

> cascadeTime :: Double -> Double -> Double -> Double
> cascadeTime _H _N _J  =  sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k<-[0..n]]
>                       where
>                         j = _N - _J
>                         n = _N - j
>                         h = _H/_N
>                         u 0 = 0
>                         u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h )

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

> wtc1 :: Double
> wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.

> wtc2 :: Double
> wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77
Johnnie In The Billows - 13 Mar 2008 12:38 GMT
This posting doesn't rhyme.

Please rephrase so it rhymes.
Al Dykes - 13 Mar 2008 14:24 GMT
>WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
>By Herman Schoenfeld
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9)  and
>(1.10)  for details.

Right!

It *was* a man-made, top-down demolition. It started from the top and
a Islamist pilot of a hijacked 757/767 caused it.

In this video, Jowenko, a demolition expert, eplains wht WTC1 and 2
WERE NOT caused by demolition explosives:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
  http://jowenko.nl/

Signature

Meet the Creators of "Loose Change"   http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5jWvu4tR8

Meet the Scholars for 9/11 Truth      http://youtube.com/watch?v=T6fe9YlHQwA

Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars   by Ray Rivera  http://rayrivera.net
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007   Sad.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo

Les Jamieson and others of  NY911Truth.org  disparages the FDNY
  http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ny911truth.orgmembersdisparagethefdnyatg

How famous Truth Movement people repond  to unfortunate truths that
show them for what they are
  http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
 http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

Anyone that hasn't seen WTC's Ground Zero in NYC and the "Truth
Movement" kooks that hang out there should look at the first three
videos. The others should be required viewing by anyone that has an
opinion about 9/11 and WTC or has never been to NYC.

Here's an interview in which Jowenko says that WTTC7 could only fallen
as it did with massive preperation
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=

This video shows demolitions and preperation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnqHLoa-ml8

Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3  7 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&feature=related

Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 2 of 3  (7 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&feature=related

Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 3 of 3 (8 minutes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8110131148229700505
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
   - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

barnegatdx - 13 Mar 2008 15:06 GMT
Controlled Demolition?

- Rubbish . . .

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070612152114.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html
BDK - 13 Mar 2008 16:12 GMT
In article <5870b4a1-0c71-4861-b066-484eaa62c6c2
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, schoenfeld.one@gmail.com says...
> WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
> By Herman Schoenfeld
[quoted text clipped - 143 lines]
> > wtc2 :: Double
> > wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77

No. It was the Romulans. Using holgraphically enhanced disruptors to do
the initial damage to the buildings, then they used their special
tractor beam to shove the towers down. WTC7 was a "lucky hit".

Or, it was the two planes that flew into them, and the fires that came
as a result.

BDK
Venger - 14 Mar 2008 00:10 GMT
> WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
> By Herman Schoenfeld
>
> In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
> accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
> towers.

Truthers suck. Big time.

Venger
Jose - 19 Mar 2008 01:25 GMT
Your theory might be a bit more convincing, if Bin Laden hadn't taken credit
for it.

Oh yeah that's right, Bin Laden is merely and American fiction.  He does not
really exist, the CIA sends in tapes made by half of a co-joined twin.  The
other half hides in the White House, which is why we never see Bush and Bin
Laden together in public.  They are both halves of the same guy.

But did you really know, that the Japan really nuked itself and made it look
like we did it?  Did it to get world sympathy and America aid dollars.  You
know how much better they are at electronics and all that.  Think about it,
if we had really built the bomb Halliburton would have had a no bid
contract, and the cost overruns would have been staggering.  Not to mention
it would have taken two planes to carry it.

Jose

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.