(Part2) 911 Simple Physics Structural Failure Vs Demolition

(Part 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_j1jAv1j3U
The mathematical formulas used here are not the proper way for obtaining a real figure but they are based on assumptions in order to obtain a value fore the absolute minimum time needed for the collapse process.

the Assumptions are:
* That the intact structure below the impact zone will not arrest the falling structure above it and will allow it to continue the collapse.

* That the intact structure below the impact zone will behave like a fluid allowing the falling structure above it to flow through it but only providing it with an average resistance force equal to the weight above the crumbling zone at any instant... (this is a reasonable assumption because the structure is designed to support the static load of the weight above it at any point throughout the length of the building so it will provide at least that force before it gives up or breaks)
obviosly the real resistance force from the intact structure below will be alot more until it passes the elastic region and the plastic deformation then fructure but this calculation can give us the absolute minimum time needed.

The proper way to do this is to use strain energy methods and you will find that the collapse will be arrested and not allowed to continue.

911 WTC twin towers New York USA Bin laden freefall speed controlled demolition structural failures melting steel pancake theory crushing crippling buckling shear failure
speed of fall projectile reopen911.org 911 truth movement WTC 9/11 9-11 September 11th Physics World Trade Centers conspiracy theory terrorism terrorist suicide hijacking CIA silverstien inside job illuminati speed velocity acceleration Newton's laws of motion Newton's second law mass gravity fire weight resistance force reaction force kinetic energy gravitational potential energy conduction convection radiation heat transfer heat capacity

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 911
• WTC
• twin
• towers
• New
• York
• USA
• Bin
• laden
• freefall
• speed
• controlled
• demolition
• structural
• failure
• melting
• steel
• pancake

[nevillechamberlain1]

The author of this video talks about the structural supports "melting instantaneously". That is a moronic statement, and no one ever stated that the supports melted before the collapse.

He obviously doesn't have a clue about the design of buildings, and he assumes that steel retains all of its strength until it melts. If that was true, even old time blacksmiths could never have formed iron and steel objects.

DUMB!!!

[shorty40merza]

@nevillechamberlain1 melting instantly is the optimistic assumption in favor of the official theory.. we know its not true but even if you make that false assumption it still doesn't add up. instant melting is the only way you can get full speed and gravity acceleration , if it loses mechanical properties gradually then it would be slow.

and no one said steel retains its mechanical properties until the melting point

[TimReed22222]

@shorty40merza "instant melting is the only way you can get full speed and gravity acceleration"

Can you explain what, precisely, you mean by "full speed"? What speed is that, and how do you know it was attained?

[shorty40merza]

@TimReed22222 if some thing gardually looses its mechanical properties it will slowly sag and give way gardually.... the only way you can get full speed equal to the speed due to gravity (free fall) is for some thing to vanish instantly . 

[Interview1998]

Your interest in physics is very cool, it is nice to sit down and attempt to explain how something happened using calculations. But , I have a simple observation. The fires are fed by jet fuel, shouldn't the energy of the burning fuel be included into your equation. Isn't it a force? Sure it is. Also if there was more than one floor initially damaged, say 10 floors of superstructure, that would increase the energy and speed of collapse. Yes?

[shorty40merza]

@Interview1998

answer question 2 ) yes if 10 stories suddenly give way then definitely that would make a faster collapse and a bigger kinetic energy at impact to be used to destroy the intact structure below

[shorty40merza]

@Interview1998

hello . there are forms of energy, heat energy, gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. the heat energy does not contribute to the gravitational or kinetic... at the start the gravitational is 100% and kinetic is 0%, then the gravitational converts to kinetic as the motion speeds up. when the height = 0 then the gravitational is zero too and kinetic is 100% , the spot heat is totally another story unrelated to the motion of the failing structure.

[nevillechamberlain1]

@shorty40merza

Your analysis is assuming a static load (no movement or collapse) and not a dynamic load from the kinetic energy release from the upper part of the building impacting the lower structure. An example:

Your coffee table will support the weight of a 180 lb man, but if that man jumps on it from 6 ft above, the coffee table will collapse.

You didn't take into account the kinetic energy release in your calculations.

[TimReed22222]

@shorty40merza But the towers DIDN'T fall in free fall! That is a myth that was disproven long ago. Search "north tower hoboken", view the first video and time it yourself; that video shows the north tower taking at least 20s to come down - more than twice the time of free fall!

So if free fall is not true, what have you got left?

[GalaxyCatchupTV]

@nevillechamberlain1 ok chill out. we don't see you making any interesting videos like this. grow up.

[jimhemstreet]

23 people got a D in physics

[marek0086]

@nevillechamberlain1~ i cant believe there are people out there (who have studied this!) who still believe the official story! It was an inside job!.... even a semi-retard could come to that conclusion!.... the evidence is overwhelming!