Is Judy Wood's Billiard Balls example correct?

Question

I'm no physicist but I do have good common sense and Judy Wood's Billiard Ball example seems to make enormous sense to me. Am I wrong? Can someone refute her model using Billiard Balls and their free-fall speed of descent in a vacuum? If so, please give a detailed answer as to why her reasoning is faulty that, according to known laws of physics, WTC 1, 2, & 7 COULD NOT have fallen at the almost free-fall speeds that they did.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

That is "COULD NOT have fallen at the almost free-fall speeds that they did" with gravity alone.

Oh, and please consider the Law of Conservation of Momentum when providing your answer.

Answer 1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&q=video+of+twin+towers&hl=en

I like the theory of controlled demolition.

Answer 2

A combination of argument from incredulity and a Chewbacca defense. The billiard ball reasoning is unconvincing, especially the scenarios in which she assumes that each floor accelerates from zero at 1g. She asserts, with no supporting calculations or evidence, that the energy to collapse a floor is greater than the kinetic energy of the impact, so the fall must come to a dead stop at each floor. On the other hand, the NIST report states
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

In other words, applying the law of conservation of momentum, once it started falling, nothing was going to stop it until it hit the ground.

Another error in these fall-time assertions is the assumption that the major impact is the roof of the building hitting the ground. It makes more sense to assume it is the bottom of the floor above the collapse. The seismic records show the collapse event continuing for 15 seconds after the original impact, so it's not like it all hits the ground at the same time.

Wood has also neglected to consider that the impact of the falling upper stories would cause a shock load that propagates down the core much faster than the fall speed. The whole argument appears riddled with unsupported assertions and errors in reasoning.

Answer 3

Its a very flawed view of the collapse.

It makes a basic assumption that is fundamentally false - that is, that the collapse of a supporting element takes time and that explosives would reduce that time.

This is totally false. If you snap a piece of glass, the fracture travels at the speed of sound in the medium. This is faster than an explosion travels in air. Provided there is enough force to cause fracture, then there is no time penalty as one floor hits another - why would there be?

Whats more, lower floors are *not* falling from stationary - another assumption she makes. They are hit from above by a mass much greater than their own at high speed - this propels them down.

She needs to do some basic physics before indulging her conspiracy theory ideas.

Answer 4

Elastic: 2 rubber balls. Kinetic capacity is very almost thoroughly conserved. very almost no capacity lost to warmth, sound or deformation. besides the reality that it would desire to quickly replace shape it will return to the previous shape quickly. Inelastic: A lorry crashing right into a motor vehicle and not seperating from it. Kinetic capacity isn't conserved yet momentum is. thoroughly inelastic: additionally time-honored as completely inelastic, there is absolute conservation of kinetic capacity. Colliding partices stick at the same time. No loss by using deformation, friction, warmth, sound and so forth.

Answer 5

This conspiracy website is unusual in that it gives the evidence to refute the conspiracy theory in one of its own references.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

I guess she assumed that no-one would actually take the time to read it!

Answer 6

i think u can find help in

http://www.gadwood.com/index1.html

i hope this can help