You've got that backwards. Each floor falling, crushes the floor below,
which initially IS at rest (stopped)
and has to accelerate from a stop. It's not like it can magically go from
standstill to the speed of the impacting
floor in zero time. Newton's laws of motion, and conservation of energy
apply. So, each floor MUST accelerate
from it's own standstill. The billiard balls are just a way of
visualizing this. And an accurate one.
The buildings had to obey laws of physics, no matter the cause of their
fall. This means that one or the other
of those theories applies. In fact the NIST themselves proposed and
defended the pancake theory until very
recently when it became clear that the math and physics could not be
reconciled with this theory and the
time it took to actually happen. Their new theory does not fit the
observed events.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: gacrowell@micron.com
  To: piclist@mit.edu
  Subject: RE: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.
  Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 13:05:22 -0700



  That document (BilliardBalls) looks pretty superficial to me. Looking
  at figures 5 and 6, which use the 'billiard ball' theory to determine
  'minimum time for collapse' times of 30-90 seconds, they appear to
  make
  the assumption that as each floor collapses, the entire upper
  collapsing
  structure *stops*, and the next floor (apparently with everything
  above
  it) then begins to fall from zero velocity; i.e., no momentum
  transfer
  at all. It appears that she is claiming that all of the energy of the
  falling upper floors is consumed in pulverizing the concrete and
  causing
  the next floor failure.

  This appears to be a much more thorough analysis:
  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

  It would be interesting to reconcile these two papers in detail.

  Gary


  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On
  > Behalf Of Mark E. Skeels
  > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:15 AM
  > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
  > Subject: Re: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.
  >
  > From the page:
  >
  >
  > "The World Trade Center Towers as Bio-inspired Structures:
  > Characteristics of their Design and Demise
  >
  > This work was presented at the 2006 Society for Experimental
  > Mechanics Annual Conference
  > Adam's Mark Hotel St. Louis, Missouri USA June 7, 2006
  > by Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering "
  >
  > http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
  >
  > Mark
  >
  > Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
  > > James Newtons Massmind wrote:
  > >
  > > >> Others have said that the weight of the top floor would
  accelerate the
  > >> lower floors and account for the rapid fall. That is an
  interesting
  > >> point, which may very well be correct. I don't know. I would
  love to
  > >> hear from someone who does. >> >
  > > If it falls from the top, the weight of the top ceiling crashes
  on the
  > > floor below. There it "shares" its energy and momentum, and both
  continue
  > > to fall, however slower as if there were no floor below. And so
  on. To fall
  > > nearly like free fall, I'm pretty sure the whole steel frame has
  to crash
  > > at nearly the same time (between all floors). >
  > > >> However, from all the videos, it is very clear that it started
  falling
  > >> from the bottom, not the top. If fires heated the steel, why
  wouldn't
  > >> the top have fallen first?
  > >> >
  > > Maybe because the load is much higher at the bottom, and a much
  lower
  > > temperature is needed to soften it to a point where it gives in?
  But even
  > > then, in order to fall in a time that's close to free fall, the
  whole steel
  > > frame has to give in at nearly the same time. Which may be
  possible.
  > >
  > > Gerhard

-- 

Search for products and services at: 
http://search.mail.com

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist