It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by tezzajw
You're quite right - seems I didn't look at my notes and also mixed units as well.
As for the height used in the calcs, I used the height of the zone where collapse started (the impacted zone) which was about 80% of the building overall height (330m for WTC2) and 90% (370m WTC1) so the actual freefall times from those zones (sqrt(2h/a) is 8.2 secs for WTC2 and 8.7 secs for WTC1. The actual collapses took at least 150% of those times to reach ground level so, for WTC2, 330m was traversed in ~12 secs which is an average speed of 27.5m/sec so my average kinetic energy figure 0.5mv^2 for 100000 tonnes isn't too far out at around 40 gigajoules.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
...the acceleration for a mass falling 330m in 12 seconds amounts to...
Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Neon Haze
I'm keen to see your reasoning there
To me, the 20-odd floors above where the WTC2 collapse commenced fell as an intact section that broke apart on the way down. If only we could see through all that dust.
Originally posted by Neon Haze
I might also add there appears to be a severe lack of De-Bunkers showing their faces here...
I would like to ask the debunkers....What's wrong?? Having a hard time to come up with a subjective argument against the cold logic of physics???
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Next, please read this paper written by Dr. Frank Greening. (FDF format)
911myths.com...
This detailed paper goes into detail about the hows and whys of the collapse.
Originally posted by cashlink
I rest my case!
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The towers did not fall at free fall speed. "near" free fall is often the term used.
Originally posted by wolf241e
The more that I hear this kind of evidence, the more I can't believe that many people simply don't believe it.