The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

When the twin towers collapsed they went from skyscraper to nothing in under 9 seconds. I'm using exactly 9 seconds as margin for error.
Using a formula we can determine how high a building would have had to be to collapse in 9 seconds by the pull of gravity.
Using the formula found on http://www.hazelwood.k12.mo.us/~grichert/sciweb/formulas.htm
You can look down to freefall from rest. It gives two constants there. (V1 = 0.0 m/s) meaning Initial velocity is 0 meters per second. That is constant in anything not moving. (g = -9.8 m/s2) This means gravity is accelerating something towards the ground at 9.8 meters per second per second.

Using the Formula in the third column we are going to determine the displacement of The twin towers. Displacement is a distance with a direction. This case the direction is down (assuming we don't know the towers are ~380 m tall).

The formula from the site is "Dx = 0.5(gDt2)". Dx would be displacement, Dt would be time. The 2 on the end is supposed to be superscript meaning squared you can even check the site if you want. Now I will list the variables i know.

G = -9.8
Dt = 9

Now to do the hard work.

Dx = 0.5(-9.8(9)2)
Dx = 0.5(-9.8(81))
Dx = 0.5(-793.8)
Dx = 396.9

Amazing isn't it? The building would have had to be 396.9 m tall to free fall to ground in 9 seconds exactly. I didn't use the exact time as I don't know what it is, but I am within 20 m of the height of the towers. Now popular mechanics for kids or whatever it is called claimed the towers collapsed due to fire and pancaked due to the fire. Well how can you pancake and freefall? There is a serious conflict here. When a building pancakes, The ceiling collapses on the floor below which crushes everything inside the floor, but that slows the fall speed as the floor below is stronger and absorbs some of the speed. Their claim that it pancaked is to fool kids who the show is designed for. They can't use physics on the show as kids won't understand it. They interview scientists instead, with no proof claim that. I have proven what I stated and the collapse of the towers NEEDS to be re-investigated.

 

Wow. This is a joke.There are many other determining factors that cause it to collapse, and many things in this 'proof' are full of error, and inconsistency. All you people who say this might as well say that pigs can fly, because it is just as true as the twin towers being a conspiracy.

 

Yay. I like your evidence.

Makes me angry

 

Do you perhaps want to add some reasoning to your argument? Because you didn't say where the error was, you just said there was one. Fail.

 

Whats inconsistant? I didn't say anything about the cause of its collapse, I proved that it never pancaked it Freefell to the ground. I really don't see any errors could you point them out to me?

 

You have no idea what you are talking about do you. What he says makes perfect sense. Unless the formula is too hard for your tiny brain... even though its basic to say the least.

Think about it. Pancaking DOES slow things down. Each time a floor collapses it hits the next one slowing down slightly. HOWEVER the more floors that have collapsed the less resistance it will meet as the pressure down on the floors is getting steadily more as the weight goes up.

 

MEANING:

The floors were ALREADY destroyed for it to have fallen that quickly..

Is that lamen enough? lol

 

Dang, well I guess your idea works better

 

Well wat if there was bad construction? lol....also i've seen somewhere that it was the heat that actually helped it collapse quicker because it was melting the metal work away (kinda weird seeing that it would have to be reallly hot to do that)

 

Read this


I think that it's quite obvious..

 

Enough with the WTC conspiracy bullshit. Even if you could prove it wrong, whos gonna do anything about it?

Nobody.

 

Hmm, Hundreds of videos say it did 'pancake' and thousands if witnesses seem to say so, But then again, true, A single elementary school equation proves countless witnesses and videos wrong. THEN AGAIN we can't really use 'pancaked' as a scientific motion. But when a plane hits it, it obviously wouldn't 'pancake' right away, because a jumbo jet colliding with it, is going to put somewhat of a lean to it, but it did 'pancake' to a degree.

And also, gravity isnt the only determining factor, ex: Wind, Force of plane, building structure,. Just to list some.

 

This is a joke, and what is with all the stupid 9/11 conspriacies. Four planes driven my muslim extremists crashed into the two towers. The towers gave out under they're own weight from the damage. So everyone can stop thinking this is some huge conspricy because it's not. Most of the things that have been proven wrong is because George Bush wanted to conver it up because of the connections he had to Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden. Got it.

 

This topic inst actually about the bullshit 'conspiracy'. But the conspiracy theory's are just things dumb ass democrats try to pull off to put republicans out of order, But the only place the fake conspiracy's affect people is forums where morons dispute it, like this. There is no conspiracy.

 

i dunno bout this, but i jsut say a show on history channel called "metals" or somethign liek that and it talked of steel losing 50% of its strength when it is heated above 1000 degrees F, this is what would have caused the pancake and made it appear as a freefall, i think, as i am not certain.

 

The 2nd tower, which did collapse in 9 sec, did in fact pancake and free fall at the same time. The momentum of 28 stories (total about 40 stories) falling on the supporting structure below (the other 12 stories), which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum, so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

 

....

Why is everyone so against the conspiracy?

You simply feel safer by saying it didn't happen? Or is it your innate stupidity that prevents your understanding of the obvious..

Yes, 1000's of witnesses said they saw it pancake.. But my friends, look at the videos.. oh, and ask the 10's of 1000's that saw explosions..

I'm sorry, but it is OBVIOUS that they were demolished.


Now, I will cleanly state that maybe.. JUST MAYBE... it was demolished IN CASE of such a circumstance. BUT that would mean that TONS of explosive material was set up throughout the entire WTC buildings..

And what about WTC building 7? it wasn't even harmed.. yet they demolished it.


It's just so DAMN obvious. that I don't understand why people would try and argue.

But hey, it's your fantasy. And no, the democrats didn't come up with this.. in fact, I remember something about a guy from the republican party leaving a couple of weeks after the 9/11 "attacks"..

Hmm? Conspiracy? NAH..never .. Please it's america.. Where our soil is the cleanest around and our denial is greater than our stupidity!

 

Not enough evidence. This has already been talked about. So this thread is useless.

If you search long enough for a particular answer, you'll find it... whether it is true or not.

 

blame annex ...

Yeah, it's like trying to find a particular number.. You'll begin to notice HUNDREDS of the same number everywhere and your brain will cramp..

But to this it is quite obvious.

 

it happened over how many years ago, and they are going to build new ones, whats the point of adding more and more threads on the world trade centres...??? just to cause some agruements??