Prove to me this calculation is wrong:
(1/2) x g x t2 = (1/2) x G x T2 = (1/2) x 0.7 x g x T2.
Hence, t2 = 0.7 x T2, or (t/T) = (0.7)1/2 = 0.837. Or, T = 1.195 t.
First of all - some of your assumptions are wrong.
You got this 30% or 0.7g figure from your calculation that 30% of the available gravitational energy would be absorbed by the energy required to pulverize the building material into a "pyroclastic" state.
Problem is - the material wasn't pulverized to nearly as uniformly fine a state as you claim. And even if it were, it didn't have to be pulverized immediately (i.e., it could have been pulverized after the falling mass had picked up speed).
So right off the bat, you're assuming way too much energy is being absorbed by the pulverization.
Second, that 30% figure would not remain constant throughout the fall. If anything, it'd decrease. The more mass something has, the more momentum it has and the easier it can penetrate something else. (p=mv, where p is momentum)
Even without that formula, this principle should be fairly obvious from looking at any sort of impact. For example, a .22 round has less penetrating power than other rounds with similar muzzle velocities and material rigidity, merely by virtue of the fact that the .22 round has less momentum with which to overcome the obstruction.
As the building collapsed, the falling mass both accreted material and gained speed (due to gravitational acceleration). IOW, the falling mass picked up momentum as it fell, so it would have an
easier time punching through subsequent floors. Assuming your 30% figure is correct for the first floor (which it likely isn't), it would still be reduced with each subsequent floor.
The official media/government theorists may propose a figure of 30%, but Jim Hoffman (October 16th, 2003) actually calculates that:
- 111,000 KWH is generated by the collapse of each tower (mass = 1.97 x 1011 grams falling average of 207 meters)
- 135,000 KWH is needed to crush the concrete (9 x 1010 grams to 60 micron powder)
- 2,682,000 KWH is needed to create the dust cloud (this assumes a sufficient source of water or this figure increases dramatically)
which means that 122% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary just to pulverize the concrete (let alone create the dust cloud), that is, more energy was needed just to pulverize the concrete than was generated by the collapse.
I have no idea where he got those numbers from, and it's painfully obvious from the errors in this that you don't understand it either:
1.97 * 1011 g = 1991.67 g = 4.38 lb
9 * 1010 g = 9090 g = 19.998 lb
The numbers you provided add up to about 24 lb of concrete dust, which you claim required 246000kWh to pulverize. For a point of reference, the
average US home uses about 11,280kWh / yr. So, according to your numbers, the amount of energy you claim is required to pulverize a medium-sized bag of dust could power the average US home for the next 20 years.
That's absurd on its face. I could probably grind up that much dust by hand within a couple days.
Post your own mathematical findings so I can go over them with a Dr. in UCF the same way I inquired about my own calculations. We live in an educated age gentlemen, if I don't know how to do something, there is always someone with the ability, and the willingness to teach me.
Yes, and some of us are right here. You still haven't answered my question about the 75 lb dumbbell held at arm's length.
Post the math so it can be scrutinized. Prove my calculations wrong. If you prove me wrong I will conceded my point, and offer you an apology.
There's more to this than just plugging numbers into an equation. If you'd taken physics, you'd understand that the bigger challenge is determining the correct equation to use.
