Humint Events Online: The Power of the "Billiard Ball Example"

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

The Power of the "Billiard Ball Example"

Truly a must-read essay.

33 Comments:

Anonymous said...: Thanks for posting.; 10:33 AM
spooked said...: Sure, my pleasure!; 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: looking at clips of the 2 towers being rapidly rendered into dust from the top down i knew instinctively that something wasn't kosher, but not having the math/engineering background to figure it out i could only point at them in dismay.
prof. wood's BILLIARD BALL example spelled out for me in black and white (color!) what i was unable to convey to others.
ms. howard's addendum to prof. wood's BBE is well written and an important aspect in it's own right. very good for you ms. howard!; 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Spooked,

The problem with the model is that if you drop more than one floor (using the same assumptions or a set quantity of energy required to both pulverize and get the next floor to buckle), you will actually get free fall times.

Of course, nobody in the "truth movement" wants to hear this, but hey... what's good for the movement supersedes all.

-Rick Rajter; 2:35 PM
Anonymous said...: rick, it seems to me as if the BBE has addressed your point already - see: case4, where she has the balls dropping at every 10 floors. what i gather from that section of the model is that in order for the top floor to make the ground in the time allotted, the supports for the lower floors would have to be removed somehow ahead of the upper floors landing on them. if i'm wrong about the conclusion that section (case4) makes, i hope someone will clarify that for me.; 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: James,

I assume you actually mean case 2? Case 4 is the controlled demolition scenario.

Regardless, here is the problem. Case 2 and 3 cannot be true simultaneously. Think of it this way. If there is a large sliding glass window, and I walk into it and barely break it, coming to a complete stop. Will it also bring me to a complete stop if I'm moving at a dead sprint?

Alright, so what if running into it at a dead sprint is the required energy. Well, then walking into it will not damage it at all!

So it's one or the other.

Now, case #2 or #3 can be adjusted to have multiple floors dropping at the beginning, giving near free fall speeds. Think about it. If you run through a glass window and it barely stops you... what's going to happen when you hit the next, and the next? Absolutely nothing.

NOTE: I know the buildings fell by controlled demolition. I'm not supporting the official story. I just think the billiard ball model is way overrated and doesn't actually refute the official version (due to it's lack of multiple floors dropping).

Cheers; 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...: run through a glass window and it barely stops you... what's going to happen when you hit the next, and the next? Absolutely nothing.

what do you mean by barely? that the 1st window drains some of your energy before you hit the next window? if that is the case then wouldn't each window drain your energy a little more until the energy is gone or the process of running thru windows gets slower and slower? or do you mean that the window barely stops you from making it to the next window?

model is way overrated and doesn't actually refute the official version (due to it's lack of multiple floors dropping)

due to the model's lack? or due to the actual tower's lack of multiple floors dropping? it seemed to me that the actual floors were dissolving just a tad slower than the collapse wave which would prove that there were not actually multiple floors dropping onto the floors below anyway. doesn't it?
i think that her model does refute the official version for that very reason, but it's entirely likely that i just don't see what you're saying. have you emailed her with your critique? if you are correct then she would have no legitimate reason for not at least discussing it. right?

by the way, i think the good for the movement superceding all mindset can go jump off of a tall something. the movement makes it's own bed and i (hopefully)won't lie in it.; 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I stopped reading when I got to this point:

"Graduated from University of Texas at Austin, 1971, summa cum laude
Major: classical languages; minor: music (flute)"

We've only been asking for structural engineers since Prof Jones first started spewing his bilge.

When are you truthers ever going to give us one?; 7:25 PM
Anonymous said...: moron - prof woods is better than one and even if she were a simple escalator repairman her work speaks for itself. your sword of nonsense is more than a little dull.; 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...: but let's assume for a moment that you have sharpened your sword somewhat and that a strutural engineer had actually made the leap of understanding that it would take to compose that billiardball example - what would you say then?; 8:16 PM
spooked said...: Rick and Dr. Wood have gone back and forth quite a bit over the billiard ball thing. It's a major point of contention, which is why Ginny wrote her article.

I'm not clear on:
1) whether Rick actually read the linked piece
2) why Rick thinks he understands the physics and engineering better than Dr. Wood
3) whether Rick thinks the top thirteen floors of WTC1 really can break off and crush the remaining tower structure at close to free fall speed.; 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Spooked,

Simply put

1) Yes
2) I'm majoring in field heavily linked to physics. I don't claim to be "better"
3) If there was one failure point at WTC1, all the floors above it would fall simultaneously and hit the next floor no?; 9:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Spooked,

If you could answer me the following question, I would be much obliged.

When WTC1 began collapsing did it begin falling from the very top or from the impact zone?

Cheers; 9:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Know what, nevermind. The demolition is so obvious it defies description. However bad the model may be, i guess it's at least pointing at people to look at it.

But still, ugh...; 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...: oh that's what that was all about? the top 13 floors of wtc1?
rick, you actually have the temerity to go back and forth with prof. wood? my friend, if she hasn't agreed with you by now that should tell you something - no offense but i'm not going to discard her billiardball model in favor of your glass window and it barely stops you model.; 9:49 PM
Anonymous said...: dude you've truly got some stones if you have been holding your own even slightly with her - right or wrong, kudos to you rick!; 9:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Holding my own? It hasn't really been a debate. It's just others forcing me to shut up "for the good of the movement".

So yeah, imagine 110 evenly spaced glass floors. There are 3 options when dropped upon the top one. I either a) don't break it b) smash through it losing a little speed or c) barely break it after coming to a complete stop before continuing on.

In case a), my collapse stops.
In case b), I have near free fall speeds
In case c), the collapse progresses in the start stop 96 second collapse that Professor Woods claims.

I believe a), Woods also believes a) but models c). The problem is b and c are so close that only a 20% increase of kinetic energy switches the timeing from c to b (free fall).

Anyway... more important things to do; 10:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Anybody who listens to Rick is being misled.

He's doing here what he's been doing incessantly for months -- dogging the Billiard Ball Example like he was being paid to discredit it. One technique he uses is to change the subject from what the BBE is actually, legitimately doing and then attack it on completely irrelevant grounds -- i.e., on what it’s NOT doing (and doesn’t need to do) -- so as to tie up in concocted detail and junk science anyone foolish enough to engage with him.

This is a TECHNIQUE guys!! He's trying to disempower you at the same time he’s working to disempower the BBE!!

As soon as he saw there was something here about the BBE he could attack, he came right over to keep on doing it.

He CLAIMS he's a supporter of 9/11 Truth. But if you watch his BEHAVIOR, you'll see that he's doing everything he can to distract people with endless blah, blah, blah so that they don't do useful work.

Seems his latest ‘thing’ is talking about crashing through glass! Really!!

PLEASE DO NOT BE TAKEN IN BY THIS GAMBIT!

The beauty of the BBE, as I explained, is that you don't need to be a structural engineer or successful at school work to understand the issue. You just need to be able to follow the simple, irrefutable logic of a well-constructed thought experiment to see that the WTC buildings could not have come down from 'pancaking' and gravity in the time they did.

Think of the BBE as a Ninja way to prove the main point -- i.e., the OCT lies!!

It certainly isn't the ONLY way to make the case; there are numerous other elegant and effective ways to do it. We need more of them.

But throwing up a fog of so-called 'expertise' does not happen to be one of them. See my last section: “WHY, INDEED, DO THE OCTers NEED TO DESTROY THE BBE?”

Anybody who is serious about getting the word out about 9/11 Truth (or to understand what it is) needs to quit allowing themselves to get tangled up in knots with Rick Rattler, who is quite clearly not what he makes himself out to be.

You want another opinion on the Billiard Ball Example? Here’s a nice one:

http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/03/judy-woods.html

See what ‘damien’ has to say down in the comments. People who have a sound grounding in Newtonian mechanics have NO PROBLEM with the BBE.

Rick claims to have the appropriate background and talks a blue streak like he’s oh-so knowledgeable, but it’s a scam.

Once again, please don't allow yourself to be taken in.

Ginny; 11:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Ginny,

Emotional pleas and appeals to authority?

Check out the 25 rules of disinfo
http://www.matriots.com/bh/25.html

and btw, I come to this site often for spooked's excellent analysis of the flight 11/175 analysis. I just happen to see this same ole same ole posted again.; 11:47 PM
Anonymous said...: btw Ginny, if the model is so "solid", why does Judy evade debate when she can't answer the simple questions I just posed to spooked?

BTW. The tower couldn't have collapsed. Duh. And even if the failure initiation could have occured, it would have stopped after several floors.

Ya hear that? STOPPED. And yet I somehow support the official story? Your undying support for Professor Wood's model is bordering religious faith.; 11:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Nope.

It comes from understanding!

Are you trying to be some kind of gatekeeper for me? ;-))

Ginny; 12:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Certainly not. Who would ever want to claim responsibility for you :)

btw. In your letter, you contradicted the BBE

There's this huge 'stack' of floors, and what gets them moving, one by one, from zero velocity is that they're struck from above. There's this chain reaction, and the minimum time in which it can occur is DEFINED by Newton's irrefutable Law of Gravity.

Actually, that is what the explanation says. But in the strict visualization, the balls pass by one another.

BTW, how many floors began falling when the collapse initiation started for WTC1 and WTC2?

Greening claims 14 and 29. What does Judy use? :)

I can't wait for the dead silence...; 12:46 AM
Anonymous said...: When good argument fails, do insults work for you?

Please re-read my post above. We're onto you.

Ginny; 1:36 AM
Anonymous said...: "I can't wait for the dead silence..."

Hmmmm. Must be a shift change.

Ginny; 2:20 AM
Anonymous said...: ms. howard my dear, ms. doe's BBE speaks for itself and your addendum to it was fine indeed!
but there's really no need for you to worry about anyone on this of all blogs to be taken in by any menacing disinfo actions.; 3:46 AM
Anonymous said...: moron - prof woods is better than one and even if she were a simple escalator repairman her work speaks for itself. your sword of nonsense is more than a little dull.

That's like saying a gynecologist can do brain surgery becuase he (or she) is a doctor.

You're an idiot.; 6:19 AM
spooked said...: It seems to me as though for both WTC1 and WTC2, the top sections broke off and started downward. This improbability of this event, is of course, a large reason why people think there had to be demolition.

As far whether the billiard ball model starts with a collapse at the same place as WTC1 (97th floor) or WTC2 (79th floor), is a legitimate point-- though ultmately, I think it doesn't matter since ALL the floors still have to collapse down.

Overall, I think the argument is something like this:
1) the collapse should never have started because it required too much column weakening at one specific time
2) even if the collapse started, it shouldn't have progressed to a complete collapse (either the collapse should have stopped or the top section should have fallen off the side asymmetrically)
3) even if the collapse did start and did progress, the timing was WAY too short.

Dr. Wood's model addresses this last point. I think the overall idea is that her model is conceptually easiest to grasp, and thgerefore is a good tool for the general public. Moreover, as far as I know, other mechanical and structural engineers have not had a problem with her model. Definitely some people have a major problem with her model or "example", and it is not entirely clear why.; 9:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Spooked.

I completely agree with bullet point 1) and 2). The problem with number 3 (if you assume no columns and only conservation of momentum or energy), you can go from 96 seconds to 12 seconds with only a 20% fluctuations in the initial kinetic energy.

Am I making mountains out of mole hills? Perhaps. But from a strictly modelling standpoint (which is what I and my entire research group essentially do... nothing but theoretical modelling of various phenomenon), this represents an instability.

Therefore, Professor Woods explanation of the collapses is completely solid. But using the BBM as the "proof" is where I cringe... because it is true only for extremely narrow set of parameters that needs to be set for EACH "case"

That is my whole point. I'll leave this thread for now, having already presented my case. Thanks for not censoring.

Cheers; 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: James --

I admit I haven’t carefully followed the discussions here. Just noted that someone seemed to at least start engaging Rick. That was the basis of my comment -- intended more for visitors who might show up and be confused.

However, I’m glad to know the group here is common-sense and reality based!

Must say -- Spooked is a paragon of calm, unflappable reasoning.

With respect to Rick, what I’m really interested in is his modus operandi. Take what’s below as just for the record:

If you look at Ricky’s last post, you’ll see he continues with the gobbledy-gook. After claiming that I unreasonably base my view on ‘authority’ alone, what does he do?

Claim it for himself!!

_____________________________________________________________________
…“from a strictly modeling standpoint (which is what I and my entire research group essentially do... nothing but theoretical modelling of various phenomenon)….”
_____________________________________________________________________

Apparently, we’re to be awestruck with the mystical ‘expertise’ of his ‘entire research group’ -- whoever they are and whatever that means.

And the real issue is simple mechanics, taught in high school!

What a joke!

Here’s another technique. It’s become clear he’s not having the desired effect; so he’s backing down -- seeming to agree:

______________________________________________________________________
“Am I making mountains out of mole hills? Perhaps.”….

“Therefore, Professor Woods explanation of the collapses is completely solid.”
______________________________________________________________________

But he’s STILL going to continue backhandedly to sow doubt, based on distortions of the BBE, in combination with his own junk science:

______________________________________________________________________
“But using the BBM as the ‘proof’ is where I cringe... because it is true only for extremely narrow set of parameters that needs to be set for EACH ‘case’”
______________________________________________________________________

First of all, the BBE isn’t a ‘proof’; it’s a disproof, and Rick knows that. Moreover, a major point of the BBE is that you can change all kinds of ‘parameters’ -- e.g., how about hollow out everything in between every 10th floor -- and you STILL can’t get the towers down in 10 seconds.

Finally, Rick says he’s leaving. A common pattern he’s established is that he makes the promise -- and then he comes back to try to grab the ‘last word’ yet again.

We’ll see.

Ginny; 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...: If the billiard ball model is so bulletproof, then it should be easy to find a structural engineer to support it.

Find the nearest university and call thier Civil Engineering faculty. There's nothing stopping you.

Unless you're afraid of the truth, that is.; 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: sword of nonsense - if you think that one of your structural engineer fools can discredit the BBE then you should get one of them on it post-haste!
there is nothing stopping YOU.
------------------------
anonymous:
But from a strictly modelling standpoint (which is what I and my entire research group essentially do...

dude, if that's what you guys do then you should make a model/example of your own that you feel would be more accurate rather than trying to get prof. woods to change her BBE - by your own words you have no excuse man!
-----------------------
ms. howard:
With respect to Rick, what I’m really interested in is his modus operandi.

i find it most likely that rick is just what he says; part of a group that models examples - he has said that he disbelieves the official version of collapses - anything beyond that is up to his modelling agency to model, right?
ginny, quit sweating it!; 1:49 PM
Anonymous said...: One fatal flaw with the billiard ball theory is that the various floors are
assumed to be independent of each other, until one happens to impact the next.
But this does not hold, as all the floors were supported by the same set of
outer steel columns. It is entirely possible that deformation of that steel
column structure precedes the arrival of the falling concrete floor above.
That in turn makes it possible for the floor below to fall slightly earlier
than it would be smashed into by the floor above. In other words, the "steel
column distortion wave" could easily travel faster than "free falling concrete
wave".; 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: as all the floors were supported by the same set of
outer steel columns.

i have read that all the floors were supported for the most part by the 47 inner core columns. here's a nice photo of some:
photo; 2:01 AM

Humint Events Online

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

The Power of the "Billiard Ball Example"

33 Comments:

Post a Comment

Previous Posts

Recommended Reading

Interesting and/or Useful 9/11 Sites

Archives

My Other Blogs

Some of My Findings Regarding the Attack on the WTC South Tower

More 9/11 Links (Note: I present a wide variety of 9/11 sites here for the purposes of diversity. I leave it up to you to judge their content.)

General 9/11 Sites

9/11 Activism

9/11 Specialty Sites

Sites that question 9/11 (who views on 9/11 may differ greatly from those presented here)

Good Intro Books to Alternative 9/11 Truth

Blogs, News Sites and Miscellaneous Links

Interesting Mainstream Articles on 9/11

Miscellaneous Items of Interest

Peak Oil and Sustainability/Environmental Sites

The Official 9/11 Story IS a Conspiracy Theory!

Statement of Principles