More Distortions from Steven Jones and DRG

      I have some more facts that the 911 “Truth” Movement doesn’t want you to know.

     If you go here, you’ll see some problems with claims by Steven Jones, particularly this quote from point 5 of said source: “I conducted simple experiments on the “pancaking”
theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete
floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers’ collapses!”

     Anyone with an ounce of common sense, which automatically eliminates “truthers,” can see the problem.  In order for Steven Jones to drop a block of concrete, he’d have to be able to pick it up.  Notice he doesn’t specify the size of the concrete blocks he uses, but we can safely assume that, since Steven Jones was able to lift said concrete blocks up to 12 feet before dropping them that they were just a tad smaller than the floors of the Twin Towers.

     The floors of the Twin Towers had an area of 40,000 ft² (source), which is just under one acre.  It seems to me that an acre of concrete is going to be considerably heavier than a block of concrete and will do far more damage when falling.

     Oh, and Steven Jones neglects to mention one other tiny detail, while the floors of the Twin Towers may have been about twelve feet apart, in order to accurately figure out the potential energy of the upper floors of the north and south towers, one must ake their COMBINED mass into account. Hint: That means the upper floors of the Twin Towers would have MORE potential energy than the block of concrete being dropped 12 feet.  Any physics book will tell you that potential energy is energy stored in an object that can become kinetic energy and the equation for potential energy is PE = mass(gravity)(height), or PE = mgh.      Now, if we go to Ryan Mackey’s paper “On Debunking 911 Debunking,” we see on pages 46-47 that David Ray Griffin cites Charles Thurston, who compares the WTC collapse to an erector set.

     However, Ryan Mackey points out the problem with Thurston’s statement with the following quote on page 47 of  “On Debunking 911 Debunking: ”  Thurston includes two photographs of structures that toppled over rather than collapsed, as if to suggest that the WTC Towers should also have toppled over.  What Thurston apparently fails to recognize is that his photographs are of concrete structures approximately ten stories tall, and that the taller a building is, the less likely it is to topple intact.  This is because the angular momentum required to topple the structure scales as the square of its height, while the ability of a column to withstand such bending decreases with the square of its length.  As a result, a 100-story building toppling over would experience 100 times as much stress as a 10-story building, and columns would be 100 times less able to resist buckling.”

Advertisements

Posted March 14, 2008 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

%d bloggers like this: