Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse

Dear All,

I invite everyone reading this to disprove basic Physics and Chemistry I (and many others) have presented regarding the collapse of the World Trade Centre towers.

Please look at this:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collap...of%20Towers.swf

Then consider if NIST is/are correct http://www.physorg.com/news3686.html.

[[ Due to website access problems, I have mirrored this file here]]:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ad.johnson/Co...of%20Towers.swf
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.johnso...of%20Towers.swf

People can disagree with me for sure, but please point out the error in my Physics if you are going to do so.

Thanks for reading.

Andrew Johnson
UK

your error is mostly not in your basic physics. However several issues you glossed over are that while steel melts @1500, you completely failed to include in your pseudoanalysis the huge number of accelerants AND, more specifically, insulators - namely asbestos - that were present on every floor. I know b/z I was in those elevator shafts, b/z I knew several people in the elevator union who were able to get me in - obviously several years before this bullsh&t occurred. At any rate, the temperature could have easily climbed to 1500 and higher. Secondly there were significant amounts of medical-grade oxygen on those planes. Since you disclaim the videos, you definitely didn't see the 2nd, 3rd, quat. explosions that occurred after the primary plane impact. While you may know basic physics, your combustion chemistry skillset is obviously poor.

Most of your error is in your accretion of "evidence". How could you not have viewed the videoclips from the many different angles that were presented?

Furthermore, my dad was standing at the window watching when the 2nd plane hit, since he worked on Water St. He watched the fkn plane fly right into it - firsthand. I grant that oftentimes eye-witness testimony is skewed, but it's quite obvious you're just a complete idiot. My friends died in that heinous tragedy and several others who, by sheer happenstance, were late that day (my dad went in early) saw the whole thing, and made it out alive. You do a gross disservice to your own countrymen/women who died.

-angrily spinning solids.

Hi,

I realise what I am saying is "wild" - as included on the first slide. My wish is not insult or offen anyone but to get to the truth of the matter.

It is important, especially here, to distinguish between basic science, politics and emotive issues.

Yes, there were plenty of witnesses, accelerants etc. But recorded firemen's testimony said the fires were mostly out when they had got to the floors.

http://www.nbvfd3.org/nbvfd3_wtcaudio.html

It is most important everyone is really careful when considering this issue.

Please think clearly. I have been called many things - and doubtless will be called many more. Whether you call me unskilled, an idiot, unpatriotic, disrespectful to victims etc does not change the laws of motion. It is these issues that must be focused on. And, in this academic forum. I hope that that is the prime focus.

I am NOT trying to be clever or adversarial. If you can provide information or corrections, refinements I will be very happy to receive them.

Thanks for reading.

Andrew

Please don't tell me to think clearly. I am, despite my anger. You have not addressed my pointing out your flaws in both your physics/chemistry and basic logic.

Please view these videos.

I used the videos to disprove your "times" you derived. Your calculations are theoretically correct, but empirically false, since standard 1-d physics are obeyed in the videos.

Sorry, which videos did you mean? There are rather a lot there. I have seen some of these before and they do not seem relevant to the data I have presented.

What is your timing for the collapse of the towers, if that is the error you are highlighting?

If you have a time, please post the resulting collapse time as a comparison to the one I gave, then we are working from the same hymn sheet.

A number of news clips (like the ones you posted) that I have watched from Fox and CNN have witnesses describing explosions before the collapse - as do the firemen here (not Fox news or CNN, by the way):

http://www.911wideopen.com/videos.htm

Anyway, I am talking about Science, not news coverage. Let's focus on the collapse time - give me your own analysis based on the correct time of collapse.

Thanks

Andrew

The reason why I posted the videos is that you claim on your website that the towers didn't get hit by planes. Rather, they were taken down by some explosions or some non-plane nonsense - unless Ive completely misunderstood you.

ss

Sorry - that's not what I meant - which slide is not clear? I mentioned the official story on the 1st slide.

My slides didn't say "planes never hit" - I said they weren't the SOLE cause of the collapse (obviously the planes contributed something to it).

Can you word my explanation more clearly, so that I can adapt my slides?

Thanks

Andrew

Right, I have changed one of my slides (14).

"The Towers were demolished with explosives (after the planes hit) because:"


Thanks for the correction.

Maybe the planes carried explosives, after all there were terrorists in there.

And saying that since steel melts at 1500 degree and that the fuel burns at 800 degree, the steel couldnt have melted and the floor couldnt collapse is non sense, because it is WELL KNOWN that steel's resistance decreases with temperature. As the official story said; it decreased ENOUGH. It doesnt have to melt.

EDIT:
And for the basic physic used in there. just wow. All of their argumentation reside on their calculated value of how long it took for the building to collapse which, they calculated at, 10s and 8s. I would like to know how exactly they calculated it since, I came up with 22s. Not the same number as they have???? How can that be?? well, maybe there is more than one object that felt, and depending on which object you calculate the falling time from, you get different results. Thats why computer models are used, because there are much more objets that one could ever hope to model with just one equations. Such models require 100 of man hour to complete and hundreds of thousands of dollars. If simple physic was enough, do you think ANYONE would use such models? And such models are used everwhere, in every field of science and engineering. The answer is no.

You apparently have some basis in physics. You, however, are at a dangerous stage, one at which you think you know enough to reach a good/valid conclusion. My advice, which I know you won't follow, is to shut up until you get a degree.

I am sorry, I don't agree - the steel *does* have to melt. If it didn't, and it only softened, as I said on my slides, this would increase the resistance and thereby we would not have seen the measured close-to-freefall collapse time.

This is regardless of the exact temperature that steel melts at. The fires were not burning strongly (more smoke than flames, for example) when the towers collapsed.

Thanks for your comment.

Please read my edit of the above post - which i did at the same time as you replied.

Hi,

Can you advise me about what analysis you used to come with the 22 second collapse time please? I would interested to know the calculation you used.

I don't regard what I said as "dangerous" - it is, as far as I can tell, truthful. Would you please advised me how you calculated the 22 second figure you mentioned, so that I can check it against my own sources.

Obviously there have been several studies of the Towers' collapse that we have heard about on the news. There have been at least 2 documentaries as well. It does seem weird to suggest that they should have missed or not applied basic physics. However, looking at the video evidence and not resorting to sophisticated computer models still leaves basic questions of physics unanswered. This is what I have tried to focus on and I encourage others to do the same.

I gained a joint degree in 1986 from Lancaster University (in the UK). My degree was 7/9 computer science and 2/9 Physics. I didn't get a particularly high grade (and I don't mind admitting this). As mentioned above, my personal standing, grade of degree, level of intelligence, tone of communication etc does not affect the laws of motion which I feel I have applied correctly to the "falling bodies" scenario, which the twin towers are 1 example of.

Thanks for your comments.

Andrew

Yes and resorting to sophisticated computer models answers these questions. Thats engineering 101. And even though it is great that you have a degree, it unfortunatly is in the wrong field to analysis a building collapse. The field would be structural or mechanical engineering. Not science. Having done both, the difference is flagrant, but in my experience, scientists often believe they are just as good as engineers to perform these analysis. And unfortunatly, aren't. (I apologize for my spelling, english isnt my native language).

OK - If you are happy with those computer models, then I have no need to make further comments to you personally regarding this.

For myself (and possibly others), I am still asking someone to point out the actual error in the Physics I used. If the computer models are right, then the Physics I used must be wrong - so it should be simple enough to point out the actual error(s). This is why I addressed this forum.

Thanks

Andrew

basic physic always tells the truth. What lies are the assumptions and the conclusions being made. One assumption that you have made is that the resistance of the lower floors provides a significant increase to the total time a building takes to fell down.

Show that the presence of lower floors is significant to the total time requiered for the building to collapse, and then you will have a more solid case. This will have to be done for a system of N particle where N is extremely high and must take into account ductile, resistance at high temperature properties of ciments and steel. It must also take into account angle of fall (if upper mass is tilted or not) and the time requiered by the majority of the mass to fall (as opposed to the external "walls") and must be done for a structural design similar or identical to the world trade center.

Im not trying to "put sticks in your wheels" but truthfully, every problems of consequence in engineering comes down to computer models.

One person who provided an analysis of the failure using basic physic only (and note that what he calls basic physic is much more advance than isolating t in r=.5at^2+vt+c) came to the conclusion that aircraft alone is enough to explain the collapse of the world trade center. This paper is one of the most quoted papers relating to the collapse of the world trade center, mainly because it was one of the first to be published. (it appeared much sooner than computer models did. and the author even states in his paper that his conclusions could be off by factors of 2 or more... a thing he won't know until computers models has been made).

What he does, is he approximates the structure to provide the most optimal resistance to failure allowed by the design, and shows that even if everything was optimal (never is in practice) the building would have still collapsed (using only the damage done by the aircraft to explain it).

Altought this paper does not address explicitly your question, it is still a uncontournable read for anyone interested in the science of the collapse of the WTC, and does provide the closest peer-reviewed analysis to your question, i believe you are likely to find.

An online copy can be found here
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE
By Zdenek P. Bazant, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou

happy reading