( removed pending reorganization )

( removed pending reorganization )

(Aside to clocker bob...I did look at the materials you posted and compared them to the other study, but I ran out of time...I'll try to post something tonight...cheers, Phil)

clocker bob wrote:

cwiko wrote:I do believe that you've got my previous response mixed up with that of Bob's. I never once purported that our gov't was using alien technology or holding meetings with little green men. Please check back a page (maybe two) and get back to me.

earwicker wrote:I must admit I haven't gone and looked back but if you are not referring to reverse engineering etc then what do you think is happening in Area 51 - 2 whatever?

cwiko wrote: I think our gov't has probably recovered extraterrestrial technology (be it from a crash-landing or some other contact) and may be in the process (or already has been through the process) of reverse-engineering some of that technology.

Hey, cwiko, if you don't mind- if you're planning on changing position day to day, can you keep me out of it, and not lump me in with 'alien agenda' cooperation with earth governments, too? I don't recall making that claim.

Wow. I believe the phrase 'what we've got here is...failure to communicate.' is in order here. You asked me a question in response to my saying that I believe that there is probably some truth to the Area 51 rumors (I never did mention at this point that I thought reverse-engineering was taking place there, just that I thought there was probably alien technology or something to that effect there). Your question, as stated above, then followed. I expounded upon what I originally said by providing conjecture (no facts, no quotes and no stats) and that's all.

I'm not changing position, just elaborating after you asked me a question. I don't know where you got that I was 'lumping you in with alien agenda cooperation with earth governments' from, but you DID ask me a question relating to this.

Sorry for answering your question.

Edited to note that the above was mistakenly addressed to ClockerBob, when I intended it to Earwicker, whom I thought had been the person to send the provoking lines down.

Apologies to all, but Bob, Earwicker threw out a question earlier in this thread that you addressed. He then tossed that question to me after you had responded. I thought he had gotten your response mixed up with something I never said. Hence, my response.

*whew*

cwiko wrote:I'm not changing position, just elaborating after you asked me a question. I don't know where you got that I was 'lumping you in with alien agenda cooperation with earth governments' from, but you DID ask me a question relating to this.

Sorry for answering your question.

Actually, you're quoting Bob's post but the question your referring to (I think) was mine.
I ain't thinking bad things for you answering my question, I thank you for it (people often just seem to ignore them) but I do think you're a bit weird.

No offense though.

Earwicker wrote:

cwiko wrote:I'm not changing position, just elaborating after you asked me a question. I don't know where you got that I was 'lumping you in with alien agenda cooperation with earth governments' from, but you DID ask me a question relating to this.

Sorry for answering your question.

Actually, you're quoting Bob's post but the question your referring to (I think) was mine.
I ain't thinking bad things for you answering my question, I thank you for it (people often just seem to ignore them) but I do think you're a bit weird.

No offense though.

None taken, I've been called far worse than weird, trust me. Yeah, I finally figured out what was going on with this series of responses & edited the end of my above response to note this.

( removed pending reorganization )

clocker bob wrote:

cwiko wrote:I do believe that you've got my previous response mixed up with that of Bob's. I never once purported that our gov't was using alien technology or holding meetings with little green men. Please check back a page (maybe two) and get back to me.

You're saying that my reading comprehension is bad? Read the first two sentences.'my previous response mixed up with Bob's' followed by 'I never once purported that our gov't was using alien technology or holding mettings with little green men'. You are trying to distinguish your replies from mine, but in your effort to do so, you imply that I said our gov't was holding meetings with little green men, when I never said that either.

earwicker wrote:I must admit I haven't gone and looked back but if you are not referring to reverse engineering etc then what do you think is happening in Area 51 - 2 whatever?

cwiko wrote: I think our gov't has probably recovered extraterrestrial technology (be it from a crash-landing or some other contact) and may be in the process (or already has been through the process) of reverse-engineering some of that technology.

cwiko wrote:Wow. I believe the phrase 'what we've got here is...failure to communicate.' is in order here. You asked me a question in response to my saying that I believe that there is probably some truth to the Area 51 rumors

Earwicker asked you that question.

cwiko wrote:(I never did mention at this point that I thought reverse-engineering was taking place there, just that I thought there was probably alien technology or something to that effect there). Your question, as stated above, then followed. I expounded upon what I originally said by providing conjecture (no facts, no quotes and no stats) and that's all.

So on 6/18, you 'never once purported gov't was using alien technology', and then on 6/19, your conjecture led you to believe that 'the gov't was probably reverse-engineering alien technology'? So, it's not a case of your position evolving, it's a case of you not revealing your full opinion about what goes on at Area 51 when you first entered the topic?

cwiko wrote:I'm not changing position, just elaborating after you asked me a question. I don't know where you got that I was 'lumping you in with alien agenda cooperation with earth governments' from, but you DID ask me a question relating to this.

Sorry for answering your question.

Earwicker asked. Reading the first paragraph of yours that I quoted , the implication is clear that you are attaching me to theories about government cooperation with aliens- I'm just trying to clear up my position, for my own benefit, not really trying to give you a hard time.

Ok...I think we're almost there. I'm sorry to give off the wrong impression...I was directly referencing Earwicker's question when I first replied. He insinuated the 'little green men' meetings. I believe it WAS you yourself, Bob, that originally mentioned reverse-engineering for our own military gain as a response to Earwicker's question which he then directed at me.

I completely understand that Earwicker was the one with all of the original queries here. My fault for the whole communication breakdown.

I did not reveal my whole belief system as it pertains to Area 51 upon my first mention of it here as I was just originally trying to explain to you my skepticism in general (i also mentioned the kennedy assassination in that same post). Terribly sorry for wasting everybody's time.

In this post I want to compare the support I've seen so far for two theories as to why the towers fell at nearly free-fall rates. The first theory I'll call "the standard theory" in that it is the "official" and most popular view. In that theory each tower was hit by a jet with a nearly full load of fuel, and that alone led to the eventual demise of the towers. The second theory I'll call "the alternate theory" in that it is the less popular view. In this theory a jet hit each tower, but the towers must have been brought down by other significant factors, most likely independent explosives such as thermite placed and triggered by persons unknown (or speculated about).

(Note that *both* theories are conspiracy theories...they just differ in the accounts as to who the conspirators were, what their motives were, and what the logistics were).

Remember, again, that I'm just looking at the question of the rate of collapse of the towers. Backers of the alternate theory claim that the towers should have offered so much resistance to the falling mass that the collapse from jet impact and fires alone would have been significantly slower than what in fact happened. The rapidity of collapse, therefore, is evidence that additional charges must have been used to remove structural resistance, allowing the collapse to take place at near free fall time. Backers of the standard theory, on the other hand, say that a collapse at near free fall time is to be expected.

(Note that if the alternate theorists are correct, then the rapid collapse is likely proof of their theory. But if the standard theorists are correct, then the rapid collapse isn't proof of either theory. In that case both sides can claim a rapid collapse is consistent with their theory).

THE 2 MODELS - FIRST APPROXIMATION

The best scientific support I've found for the standard theory with respect to collapse time is F.R. Greening's paper found at http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf. At least for this post, I'm using as the best scientific support for the alternate theory with respect to collapse time the materials Clocker Bob has gathered in this thread above. I'm happy to consider that a provisional case if better support is found later. It looks to me like much of this is from Steven Jones, but with contributions from others as well.

It's worth noting that complex scientific models are frequently constructed by a process of successive approximation. One starts with the most dominating terms in the equation. Then additional terms, which make smaller and smaller corrections, are added. As a mundane example, you might begin a home budget by jotting down your costs for housing and a car. Then you might factor in other monthly bills like utilities and credit cards. Then weekly expenses for food. Then an allowance for recreation.

The models for both the standard and alternate theories proceed this way. First, both sides agree that *minimum* (i.e. in a vacuum) free fall from the tower's height can be calculated from standard physics as about 9.1 or 9.2 seconds.

Both sides also concede that the towers fell more slowly than this. Both sides concede that the exact collapse time is a bit fuzzy because it's hard to pinpoint when the collapse stopped. Greening (standard theory) uses seismic data to infer a collapse time of 12.8 +/- 2 seconds. The alternate theory materials mention the approximate time as 15 seconds, but note the 9/11 Commission gave the collapse time as 10 seconds. I think it's safe to call this agreement as to the actual collapse time. Greening calls it 10.8 to 14.8 seconds, and the alternate theorists quote 10-15 seconds.

Next both accounts create a first approximation model which basically assume that (1) as the falling mass proceeds downward it sequentially adds the mass of each floor it hits to its total and (2) loosening (collapsing) the floor hit requires *no* energy at all. Both also assume 0 air resistance, a similar point of initial collapse.

Significantly, both models allow for the conservation of momentum. When the larger moving mass meets the standing floor, it combines it with its mass, and must share its momentum. Thus the moving mass grows a bit in mass, and slows a bit in velocity. This happens over and over as the falling mass travels downward.

There are 2 differences in the first approximation models. Greening includes an additional time interval for the original falling cap (the tops of the buildings) to collapse once it has reached the ground. (This turns out to be 1 sec and 1.8 sec for WTC1 and WTC2). The alternate theory model allows for 30% of the mass of each struck floor to fall to one side and not be included in the falling mass being calculated with regard to conservation of momentum. They note, however, that this only adds 1 second to the total collapse time.

The results of these models turn out to be in close agreement.

Greening - WTC1 = 12.6 sec WTC2 = 11.5 sec
Alternate theory - 14 sec

These numbers are even closer if you remember that the alternate theory is expected to have 1 extra second due to the "30%-over-the-side" term present in their model and not in the Greening model. So far both models make essentially the same prediction, and are also within the agreed upon observed time of about 10-15 sec.

THE 2 MODELS - SECOND APPROXIMATION

Both Greening and the Alternate theorists agree that the first approximation models are missing 2 significant terms.

The first term is the energy expended collapsing the standing floors and breaking them loose. The first approximation assumed they were more or less floating in mid-air. The second approximation needs to account for the energy required to break the floors free in the real world.

The second term is the energy expended smashing the concrete (and other) structures into a fine powder. The first approximation assumed the floors were in pristine condition after they landed. The second approximation needs to account for the energy required to create the resulting fine powder upon impact.

Any energy used by the first new term in the model is energy that must be stolen from the kinetic energy of the falling mass. In other words, the more energy used to break floors AND other structures free, the longer it will take the falling mass to reach the ground.

Put most simply, the more resistance the floors present to the falling mass, the slower it will fall, and the longer the collapse time will be.

In addition, the model must leave enough kinetic energy (downward velocity and mass) available to account for the grinding of the concrete (and gypsum and other materials) into a fine powder.

Greening extends his first approximation model to include both of the missing significant terms, thus completing the much needed second approximation model. Rather than make a single approximation as to the energy required to loosen a single floor, he adds the term to the model as a *range* of possible values. This range should covers all reasonable estimates of the force required. Greening's model therefore also yields a range of values for the second term, the energy available for turning the concrete into powder. Greening compares this range to the calculated energy required and finds that it too is within limits.

And so Greening's second approximation model accounts for a range of floor breaking and concrete pulverizing values.

Given a reasonable estimate for the energy required to collapse one floor the estimated collapse time is only increased by .2 sec for WTC1 and .1 sec for WTC2. This may be counter-intuitive, but the math seems to be right. But even if the energy required to collapse a standing floor is 3 times the reasonable estimate, Greening shows an increase in collapse time of only .5 sec for WTC1 and about 1.1 sec for WTC2.

So, even if we are skeptical about Greenings estimate of the energy required to loosen a given floor, and multiply that by 3, here is the range of collapse times he predicts. (See Figure 2 in the paper)

Greening WTC1 = 12.8 - 14.1 sec WTC2 = 11.6 - 12 sec

Thus Greening's model, which only requires the aircraft collision and accounts for building resistance and the pulverizing of remains, predicts a collapse time which is within the observed behavior.

Now here is where things turn a bit grim for the alternate theorists. The alternate theorists built a good first approximation model and present quantified results. They also describe what would be needed to build a good second approximation model, and they actually agree with Greening as to the terms to be added.

But they never actually build a second approximation model or demonstrate the results they hypothesize.

They say:

The collapse of WTC1 took approximately 15 seconds to complete. Add air resistance, the mechanical resistance of the structure, the kinetic energy dissipated in the process of pulverizing the concrete, office furniture, and industrial carpet to average <60 micron-sized dust, and the final expected figure from gravitational "pancake" collapse would be much greater than 15 seconds.

But they don't *demonstrate* this. Greening extended his first approximation model and made it available for inspection.

So the ball seems to be in the alternate theorists court. They can either (1) build a second approximation model and crunch the numbers as they did with their first approximation model and show us the goods, or (2) they can dissect Greening's second approximation model and somehow show it to be erroneous.

Until then the standard theory doesn't seem to be in any danger on the basis of collapse time.

( removed pending reorganization )