9/11 Thought Experiment

...

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:14:04 +0100

Although your thought process is impressive, you are attempting to harness far too many variables into a series of 2 well defined equations for acceleration and velocity. There was far too much happening that day for those simple, concrete formulas to be applied in the forms you are using them. Derivatives and Integrals in grade school will always have a C that one has to take into account. Who in the world knows what C is as it applies to the buildings crumbling on 9/11? You have the general idea, but your 8th grade formulas for acceleration and velocity are only a grainy starting point. - site visitor

...

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:25:15 +0100

And what are you claiming C might be. Apparently you missed the point of the essay even though I put it in BOLD three times. In my thought experiment the bottom of the 84th level would hit the top of the 78th level at 44 miles per hour. But how much STEEL was on those level. That information should not be unknown. Those should not be variables. We should have had that information within SIX WEEKS of 9/11. There should be a table like this: [code] Steel Concrete Level Tons Tons 110 xxx xxx 109 xxx xxx 108 xxx xxx . xxx xxx . xxx xxx . xxx xxx 2 xxx xxx 1 xxx xxx -1 xxx xxx -2 xxx xxx -3 xxx xxx -4 xxx xxx -5 xxx xxx -6 xxx xxx[/code] There should be numbers for all of those xxx's. The people who designed the towers in the 60s had to know what they were going to put on every level and how much it would weigh. The towers stood for 28 years and survived 85 mph wind and were designed to take 150 mph. It is absurd to think the palnes could bring them down in less than 2 hours so you will have to come up with something better than C because we are already missing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE and my objective is to demonstrate that lack. umbra - umbrarchist

...

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:16:20 +0100

Looks like both of you are correct, just arguing about C from two ends of the spectrum. C is the main issue here. What in the hell makes up C? Is it tons of steel? Tons of concrete? Strength of steel below the 81 floor? Amount of debris hitting the lower floors at any given time? Very thought provoking essay, but there are too many unknowns to try and explain why there are 4 seconds difference between a classroom calculation and actual destruction. Did you guys ever find out what happened to building #7 that decided to fall later? It was not in the final published report. - jakelong

...

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:14:44 +0100

Did you guys ever find out what happened to building #7 that decided to fall later? It was not in the final published report. I like the, "it fell out of sympathy for the other buildings" explanation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlzlpnAr9_g umbra - umbrarchist

...

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:18:51 +0100

{{{ Very thought provoking essay, but there are too many unknowns to try and explain why there are 4 seconds difference between a classroom calculation and actual destruction. }}} I am not trying to account for a four second difference. I say there is no way those towers could collapse straight down in less than 18 seconds. The worst that should have happened is the portions above the impacts could have fallen down the sides of the buildings. Our engineering schools should have all been demanding tables for distribution of steel and concrete within a few weeks of 9/11. The can't be teaching people to design skyscrapers without teaching them how to figure that out and have the buildings stand. What kind of electronic computers were used to design the Empire State Building? umbra - umbrarchist