An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

What he is saying that unless all your components of a working model have similar ratios of strengths/mass etc to the object being modeled then the results wont be correct.

For example a flat sheet of paper across a gap will hold nothing, fold it into a shape below like this it will hold more



Still the same material but now the properties are different, that why I asked about your model each component does not have the same relationship of strength/mass etc of the components it represents in the towers!

Thats why youtube is full of videos like yours that well prove NOTHING!

The objective is not to have the SAME RELATIVE STRENGTH because we don't have the data to do that with. Why don't we have the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. Doesn't the amount of steel have something to do with the strength?

But with my model I could determine the maximum STATIC LOAD a paper loop could handle. Therefore I could make the structure AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still hold the STATIC LOAD for THREE DAYS. Then I did the drop. IT ARRESTED!!!

So let's see you build a self supporting structure that can totally collapse and damage components in the process. No house of cards rubbish. Because you have a serious problem if you CAN'T DO IT. No engineering school has done it in NINE YEARS but then they don't even talk about trying.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Then I did the drop. IT ARRESTED!!!

Yeah, it "arrested" because THERE'S A FRIGGIN' BROOM HANDLE IN THE MIDDLE!!!!

Tell you what, take the damn broom handle out of the middle, drop them washers and see if everything stays nice and neatly stacked on top of each other. Or if every thing goes flying like it did on 9/11.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Then I did the drop. IT ARRESTED!!!

Yeah, it "arrested" because THERE'S A FRIGGIN' BROOM HANDLE IN THE MIDDLE!!!!

Tell you what, take the damn broom handle out of the middle, drop them washers and see if everything stays nice and neatly stacked on top of each other. Or if every thing goes flying like it did on 9/11.

Horsesh!t! You just need another bull# excuse.

I have done the potential energy calculations and computed the energy required to crush a paper loop. They match almost exactly.

www.rationalskepticism.org...

It is only the potential energy that can be obtained by falling through empty space that matters.

So it is only the potential energy of the portion above the impact falling 12 feet that matters. Multiplying the mass by the height of the intact portion is nonsense. The Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11 is based on brain dead physics.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


That still ignores the fact that the tower did not collapse as a "block on block" crush-down. It was far less... organized and neat. Plus, mass wasn't held together during impact. It had plenty of places to go and as we can see from video footage anywhere of the collapses, the mass certainly decided to go places.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Horsesh!t! You just need another bull# excuse.

I have done the potential energy calculations and computed the energy required to crush a paper loop. They match almost exactly.

The problem is the buildings weren't crushed! They came apart violently, which is the same thing that would have happened to your little model if you hadn't stuck a broom handle in the middle.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Horsesh!t! You just need another bull# excuse.

I have done the potential energy calculations and computed the energy required to crush a paper loop. They match almost exactly.

The problem is the buildings weren't crushed! They came apart violently, which is the same thing that would have happened to your little model if you hadn't stuck a broom handle in the middle.

They came apart violently,

Now that is a REALLY FUNNY thing to say. Supposedly the impact and fire caused the top of the north tower to fall straight down. But what could cause the lower portion of the north tower to DO WHAT YOU JUST SAID?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


It's because the tower is not made of solid blocks... Is it really that difficult for you to grasp?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It's because the tower is not made of solid blocks... Is it really that difficult for you to grasp?

Are you saying my paper loops that got crushed in my model were SOLID BLOCKS?

Try figuring out when your accusations are REALLY DUMB.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It's because the tower is not made of solid blocks... Is it really that difficult for you to grasp?

Are you saying my paper loops that got crushed in my model were SOLID BLOCKS?

Try figuring out when your accusations are REALLY DUMB.

psik

Yes, I am saying they are solid blocks, in that the blocks are completely even all around and are impacting a rigid surface. You are completely forgetting the dynamic nature of a building during a collapse such as on 9/11. The steel complex was not only damaged (thus not uniform), but even the slightest variation in angle would make one section of the structure impact the structure below with a far greater force. Then, you forget that the steel can a did lose its integrity with the steel around it. Bolts were ripped out and concrete was exploding. That makes things non-uniform and again, make your test highly flawed, as all it proves is Newton's laws about every action having an equal but opposite reaction in a situation in which there are little to no other factors playing a role. It is literally a 1 vs 1 collision in your model, whereas the WTC had a million different collisions and reactions happening at the same time.

In short terms, your model is highly flawed IF you are trying to prove that the WTC couldn't have continued collapsing. It, in fact, proves absolutely nothing in regard to 9/11.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It's because the tower is not made of solid blocks... Is it really that difficult for you to grasp?

Are you saying my paper loops that got crushed in my model were SOLID BLOCKS?

Try figuring out when your accusations are REALLY DUMB.

psik

Yes, I am saying they are solid blocks, in that the blocks are completely even all around and are impacting a rigid surface. You are completely forgetting the dynamic nature of a building during a collapse such as on 9/11. The steel complex was not only damaged (thus not uniform), but even the slightest variation in angle would make one section of the structure impact the structure below with a far greater force. Then, you forget that the steel can a did lose its integrity with the steel around it. Bolts were ripped out and concrete was exploding. That makes things non-uniform and again, make your test highly flawed, as all it proves is Newton's laws about every action having an equal but opposite reaction in a situation in which there are little to no other factors playing a role. It is literally a 1 vs 1 collision in your model, whereas the WTC had a million different collisions and reactions happening at the same time.

In short terms, your model is highly flawed IF you are trying to prove that the WTC couldn't have continued collapsing. It, in fact, proves absolutely nothing in regard to 9/11.

You live in a TOTAL DELUSION of physics.

The structure more than two stories below the impact area was undamaged. For the mass above to bring down what was below it would still have to

ACCELERATE THE MASS!!!

There is no getting around that FACT. But that mass was still supported by the intact structure below. Therefore kinetic energy of the falling mass would be expended doing the necessary destruction. IT WOULD SLOW DOWN. So level by level it would eventually slow to a halt. Since it did not SOMETHING ELSE HAD TO BE INVOLVED.

The paper loops in my model demonstrate the effect perfectly. So all of the structural engineers not talking about the quantity of steel on every level and the amount of energy necessary to crush that steel structure are bullsh!tting us with their silence.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Does an individual need a PhD in physics and a masters degree in structural engineering to figure out that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above? That means the designers must know that weight to figure out how much steel to put on every level and adding more steel means that lower levels must support it. So the distributions of steel and concrete are very important to skyscraper design and will be important to analyzing the result of an airliner impact and any supposed collapse.

psik

No, but have you figured out the problem with making a model and expecting it to act the same as something full size?

Hint: It has to do with ratios.....

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You live in a TOTAL DELUSION of physics.

The structure more than two stories below the impact area was undamaged. For the mass above to bring down what was below it would still have to

ACCELERATE THE MASS!!!

There is no getting around that FACT. But that mass was still supported by the intact structure below. Therefore kinetic energy of the falling mass would be expended doing the necessary destruction. IT WOULD SLOW DOWN. So level by level it would eventually slow to a halt. Since it did not SOMETHING ELSE HAD TO BE INVOLVED.

The paper loops in my model demonstrate the effect perfectly. So all of the structural engineers not talking about the quantity of steel on every level and the amount of energy necessary to crush that steel structure are bullsh!tting us with their silence.

psik

You forget that the loads that the tower was exerting during collapse were dynamic, and gravity was able to continue playing a role in overcoming the various supports because of the weight and sheer force being exerted by the collapsing material. Your paper loops do not demonstrate this at all. They demonstrate a loss of energy in an environment in which there is a block landing on another block, which is not what happened in the towers at all.

Have you remembered yet that horizontal supports aren't meant to hold up vertical stress? Because first off, once the collapse began, horizontal supports became bombarded by vertical stress. A LOT of vertical stress. This stress is way more than any horizontal support could take, and naturally, they collapse. Then, the potential energy plus the added mass of the newly collapsing floor is exerted on the floor below, and not evenly either. This results in a continuous collapse that doesn't stop until there is enough resistance to halt it, from the earth (and the growing pile of debris of course).

Honestly, I cannot understand how you could be seeing that your weights on paper could possibly demonstrate the forces involved at 9/11. Yes, if the floors fell and didn't lose any integrity, and impacted the vertical columns only, you would see your model's results. Unfortunately, believe it or not, buildings are never that stable.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Full Size collapse



Floor removed structure collapses REAL LIFE SIZE NOT A MODEL!!!



So CAN IT HAPPEN ??? WELL CAN IT WHO's PHYSICS is WRONG!!!!

See Jim Fetzer is NOT a PHYSICIST, ENGINEER and KNOWS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION!

You also think you undestand the physics in this BUT you dont either, if you car broke down would you go and see a mechanic or a philosopher, Jim's PHD is in the philosophy of science and after what he has posted here we can all see as a subject at univesity that is a waste of tax payers money!!!

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Now that is a REALLY FUNNY thing to say. Supposedly the impact and fire caused the top of the north tower to fall straight down. But what could cause the lower portion of the north tower to DO WHAT YOU JUST SAID?

Huh? The lower portions of both towers were violently deconstructed by the downward movement of the upper portions. Have you ever actuallly seen the videos of what happened on 9/11? It doesn't sound like it. You keep insisting everything was crushed. In that case all they would have needed to clean up were brooms and a vacuum cleaner.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Now that is a REALLY FUNNY thing to say. Supposedly the impact and fire caused the top of the north tower to fall straight down. But what could cause the lower portion of the north tower to DO WHAT YOU JUST SAID?

Huh? The lower portions of both towers were violently deconstructed by the downward movement of the upper portions.

Is that what CRUSHED means?

The only thing a falling heavy mass could do to whatever was below is CRUSH it.

Now if it was VIOLENTLY DECONSTRUCTED then doesn't that mean something else had to be involved? Mere CRUSHING would not hurl tons of material 600 feet away into the Winter Garden. You want to play word games and have your cake and eat it to. Phenomenon occurred which cannot be explained by the top portion falling but you want to CLAIM the mere fall of the top portion was responsible just by saying the Magic Words VIOLENTLY DECONSTRUCTED.

ROFL

Physics does not have Magic Words. Why isn't everybody demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers? That helps determine what happens with physics.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


WHAT ABOUT THE VIDEOS ABOVE YOU seemed to have ignored whats up!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

WHAT ABOUT THE VIDEOS ABOVE YOU seemed to have ignored whats up!

I'm supposed to comment on Veirnage bull# every time somebody that can't figure out the obvious about physics brings it up?

Yeah it's a BUILDING and it's a GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE.

How tall is the building? does it have a STEEL FRAME? Don't skyscrapers have to have steel frames BECAUSE THEY ARE SO TALL? How is the mass distributed in the 250 foot building versus a 1360 foot building?

What percentage of the building is being dropped on the rest through what percentage of its height? Those things affect the amount of kinetic energy involved as the height affects the amount of energy necessary to crush a level. For the north tower 13% supposedly fell through less than 1% to crush 86%.

That video looks like 45% falling through 10% to crush another 45%.

DO THE GRADE SCHOOL MATH!

If all you can think of is building, gravity and collapse then you can't understand the problem.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Believe it or not, there is more to a collapse than mere crushing. I know you won't believe it, but we'll keep arguing until you at least admit that there was more than "A lands on B and crushes it" with regards to the Trade Center collapses.

Yes, knowing the tons of steel and concrete per floor would be nice. But your CAPS LOCK yelling about it every post isn't going to make it magically appear. For now, we're focusing on the physics involved in the collapse, not the specific amount of everything. The fact is that there was more than just crushing going on, and NO! THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE HAD TO BE SOME EXTRA CONTROLLED FACTOR GOING ON. That is a completely unfounded supposition and I'm getting sick and tired of repeating this crap day in and day out.

reply to post by psikeyhackr



The point of the videos was to SHOW that a top down collapse could bring down the buildings YOU dont know how much damage was done to the towers due to the impact, the fuel exploding and then the fires YOU dont and WE don't SO YOU CANT rule out what we are saying.

NOW is that in simple enough terms for even YOU to understand.

Just what are they going to do if someone persents them with the exact amount of steel and concrete in the buildings?
Iguess they will just modify their theory.