Thread by @cirnosad

9/11 Thread #2
MAJOR correction on the required energy for a mechanical wave to bring down the WTC:
The unit conversion didn't quite work, k50 should have been 0.008cm.
The result was accidentally right so I didn't cross-check it, 156kT. By this model it would be 6MT minimum.
/🧵

https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1833937814641340837

This result is wrong for major physical (and even legal) reasons, whereas 150kT would be dead on correct for the energy yield of the device itself.

What would be required for the building is a LOT less and I can explain why briefly without spoiling my future thread/formulation.

1. The Kuznetsov model was mainly made for blasting rocks, usually through embedded compact charges & within a larger confined area.

The majority of the energy is wasted at simply translating the rock out of its position.

[Though "our" device will have its own "inefficiency"]

2. The rock and metal grains are very different. Rocks have superstructures on top of the grain, whereas structural steels has much smaller domains and no larger structure.
Once the binding energy of the bonds across the grain is surpassed, getting plume is energetically cheaper.

3. While the mean radius of the plume particles was around 80um, the WTC still had many chunks fall off, which is likely if a domain no longer transmits the mechanical energy if it's isolated by completely pulverised particles.

How likely as a %? This needs to be modelled.

4. The wave pulse will travel through the WTC for many cycles before the structure gives in. At a height of 417 meters -12/110 floors (371.5m) and a speed of sound of 3230 through metal (ignoring nonlinearity, fracture speed etc.), the wave would go through 4.3 cycles each second

That means the initial energy will be recycled around 50 times.

How do I know? Well, believe it or not, the activation of the device/physics package that created this wave generated a seismic signature which we can recover from this video. We care only about the duration: ~12s.

[As a reminder, waves propagating in a medium like metal would not be emitted into the air with much power for the same reason as you can't hear what's happening inside water.

Actually it's way more contained because metal is almost 8 times as dense]

Albeit, the initial high energy pulse would decay over the course of the 12 seconds, furthermore, the building geometry would somewhat disperse the wave, until there is cancelation. The moment this happens, the building will begin to "bulge", as it has been pulverised.

You can see this when you see plumes shooting outwards from the building even before it collapses.
But the most likely point to fail is the point of discontinuity in the structure: the cut through the top, which will not get pulverised as it cannot transmit the wave efficiently.

You can see that not only does this one fall, it also tilts a little bit. I must confess the art students outdid themselves.

Of course, everything below this falling "crown" while seemingly solid from the outside, has been pulverised at the grain level. It cannot hold that load.

[Further Aside: The art students also outdid themselves by taking this "hanging man" tarot card shot. Of course the hanging man, chooses to do this to himself and is under no real threat, a reference to Odin & more.

The "photo" on the left was not taken on 9/11. Figure out why.]

Taking all of these points together, the 6MT figure is off by a magnitude order, which still makes the model *somewhat* useful to at least discount other methods of achieving this kind of tower collapse.

The real figure is likely 150kT, taking into account recycling, grain etc.

There is other evidence for this figure that will have to wait for a future thread, after the background material has been thoroughly covered.

My apologies for the calculation error, please correct any material you have been sharing. Forgive your Physics-Baka! /End