It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What has kept any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse?
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
What has kept any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse?
I assume from your use of this constant refrain that you have contacted every engineering school, on a regular basis over the last ten years, and determined that they have not built such a model or are you assuming that because they have not posted all their projects on youtube for your convenience that no school has?
So our engineering schools have created a problem for themselves by not solving a simple Newtonian Physics problem that should have been solved in 2002. But how can they solve it now without admitting that they have allowed bullsh# to go on for a decade?
So our engineering schools have created a problem for themselves by not solving a simple Newtonian Physics problem that should have been solved in 2002. But how can they solve it now without admitting that they have allowed bullsh# to go on for a decade?
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
So our engineering schools have created a problem for themselves by not solving a simple Newtonian Physics problem that should have been solved in 2002. But how can they solve it now without admitting that they have allowed bullsh# to go on for a decade?
Or....you don't like the solution. Or.....you are smarter than the entire engineering department at Purdue. But to the question, besides your singular attempt to contact one school you have never established that no school has built the model you describe. Just thought we would get that settled before it went much further.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
What has kept any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse?
I assume from your use of this constant refrain that you have contacted every engineering school, on a regular basis over the last ten years, and determined that they have not built such a model or are you assuming that because they have not posted all their projects on youtube for your convenience that no school has?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well considering how easy it was for Purdue to put their simulation on Youtube then why would any school that built a physical model that could collapse not advertise the fact?
You can assume that it has been done if you want.
psik
Originally posted by Varemia
You, though. You just keep making claims and pointing to your "weak" model as if it not being able to stand on its own is evidence that it is a proper model of the towers' compression mechanism. Just because it is a self-supporting model that couldn't collapse doesn't mean another self-supporting model can't. That's just dishonest.
You also seem to assume that the entire model must be crushed in order to facilitate a complete collapse. This is also not true in relation to the towers, because as is clearly visible from the debris pile, there was a significant amount of debris that wasn't crushed or particularly broken. It simply had its bolt connections snapped off or sheared off.
Now think about that for a second. Wouldn't a more accurate model allow for buckling and point breaking? Without many of the aspects that allowed for the tower to collapse, you have inadvertently strengthened your model beyond anything reasonable. This is why you are wrong, and hopefully I've made the case clear. I know you have a knack for ignoring people and then laughing at them.
Bolts are used in construction when great strength is required or when the work under construction must be frequently disassembled. Their use usually implies the use of nuts for fastening and, sometimes, the use of washers to protect the surface of the material they are used to fasten. Bolts are selected for application to specific requirements in terms of length, diameter, threads, style of head, and type. Proper selection of head style and type of bolt results in good appearance as well as good construction. The use of washers between the nut and a wood surface or between both the nut and the head and their opposing surfaces helps you avoid marring the surfaces and permits additional torque in tightening.
But the towers were built far stronger than the model right? If a model weaker than than the towers could not completely collapse, then logic would suggest a stronger one also wouldn't. That is called deduction, and is part of the scientific process.
Originally posted by hooper
No, that is called making assumptions and is a very important part of creating logical fallacies.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by hooper
No, its not an assumption, it is a logical deduction. If you understand physics you would understand why.
That is how testing is done. Make a model, and if it works the way it is required to, then you will know if you build it to be more redundant then it will logically be stronger.
Nope, you are assuming the model is weaker than actual. Prove the model is weaker. Don't forget that silly model had a huge broomhandle rammed down the middel. If you understood basic science you would understand that you have to prove both sides of the equation. Prove the model is weaker. Don't foregt to factor in the broomhandle.
I think you will agree the towers were build to be far more redundant than Psik's model?
I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?
Originally posted by hooper
I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by hooper
I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?
My, how observant you are.
A pity you can't comprehend the square-cube law.
psik
Originally posted by ANOK
Obviously far more energy going on there than gravity. It takes far more energy than gravity to bend massive steel columns like that. Bolts did break, but the energy level was far beyond what was needed to do that. Where did that energy come from? Not gravity that is for sure. You could drop one of theses lengths of steel from the top of the towers, and it will not bend like that when it hits the ground.
Originally posted by WASTYT
Gravity is not energy, it's a force.
Although no definite or universal rules can be given , if a factor of safety needs to be determined or established, the following circumstances should be taken into account in its selection:
When the ultimate strength of the material is known within narrow limits, as for structural steel for which tests of samples have been made, when the load is entirely a steady one of a known value a factor of safety should be adopted is 3.
Originally posted by hooper
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by hooper
I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?
My, how observant you are.
A pity you can't comprehend the square-cube law.
psik
Please, please prove how you resolved your model with square-cube law by inserting a broomhandle in the middle. This is getting pretty funny. While your at it you keeping telling everyone that you made your model "as weak as possible" when are we going to see proof of this statement.
Originally posted by waypastvne
So tell me Truther, exactly what kind of energy did they use to bend that core column ? Did they use thermite or explosives ? Where were the planted in relation to the bend ?
Since the dowel didn't move it is totally irrelevant to the collapse.
But the paper loops are so weak that the dowel has to be there to keep the washers and paper loops from falling over.
But the paper loops were still strong enough to support the static load and arrest the dynamic load.
But supposedly this skyscraper that could withstand 100 mph winds and hold its static load could have 90+stories completely collapsed by 15 stories in less than 30 seconds.
Yeah the physics profession needs to explain not demanding distributions of steel and concrete in 2002 and letting this crap drag on and on.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Since the dowel didn't move it is totally irrelevant to the collapse.
Except it stopped the collapse.