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.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The point of this magical collapse is that it comes down in the minimum possible time with NO KINETIC ENERGY LOST doing any DESTRUCTION. So since the real building had to incur destruction to the supports it would have to take significantly longer to come down. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST says it comes down in less time than my magical simulation. The point of my Conservation of Momentum simulation is to show why a real collapse could not possibly happen in that time.
I've already explained why this is entirely false, but you also get 'NO KINETIC ENERGY' wrong. We're talking about inelastic collisions here, and so there is an inherent energy loss. The only other solution is that masses bounce.
Originally posted by exponent
It looks like I might have included a basement level in my figures and had a few shorter floors, although the sources of information seem rather confused. Some indicate floor #40 was 14ft high, some indicate 12ft. I'll see if I can find any authoritative source in the NIST report but I'll make sure that I clean up the floors before I run the program again.
edit: According to www.sharpprintinginc.com... these are the floors I have incorrect (other than basement floor)
#40: 14' not 12'
#43: 14' not 12'
#67: 16' not 12'
#76: 14' not 12'
#77: 12' not 14'
#78: 14' not 12'
#106: 14'4" not 14'6"
#109: 11'8" not 10'
#110: 15'4" not 16'
Please let me know what you think of these changes. Finding a source with definite details is quite tricky, but it won't change the results much.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by exponent
And as I told ANOK, the collapsing mass is under a constant acceleration due to gravity. The equal and opposite reaction is a pulse on impact where both objects have the same force magnitude (ie pushing the wall and the wall pushing back). But as we can see, just pushing on a wall is one thing, but you can break through the wall with a sledgehammer, and still have an "equal and opposite" reaction in regards to the forces on the wall and sledgehammer. But as we see, the wall has a hole in it, and the hammer is whole. ANOK doesnt understand that equal and opposite only refers to the forces on the two objects at the moment they touch. I can stand on a floor board and the floor pushes up on me with the same force I am standing on it. But as we know, I can also fall through the floorboard if it is too weak. Sure I had the same forces, but as we see, I broke through the floor. Same forces, but not equal and opposite reaction. My leg didnt break as the floorboard broke. (although you can twist it in the fall )
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So you are LEAVING OUT WHAT I actually SAID.
I said there was not Kinetic Energy lost DOING DESTRUCTION.
My magical conservation of energy model is not taking into account energy losses due to floor connections being broken off or columns being bent. It is just mass hitting mass with no compensation for supports. That could not happen in a REAL BUILDING.
So how did a real building come down so fast?
In reality, it didn't have to. Here we're making it accelerate every possible bit of mass in the towers downwards, with no upper section rigidity to minimise velocity loss.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious how you got exactly 1368 feet in total height with these "mistakes".
The real building could not come down that fast as a result of a top down gravitational collapse.
That should have been obvious to the physics profession in 2002. So how long shall the idiotic crap go on?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The point is you want to throw around a NAME with AUTHORITY when you can't explain squat.
psik
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The point is you want to throw around a NAME with AUTHORITY when you can't explain squat.
psik
I notice that for you to be able to say this, you intentionally snipped off my discussion of Newton's third law of motion, and you also intentionally snipped off my explanation of how Newton's third law of motion explains how the building collapsed.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious how you got exactly 1368 feet in total height with these "mistakes".
Not really as I knew that was the resultant height. I extrapolated the heights from data available, I just hadn't noticed the extra floor in there. Simple enough.
The real building could not come down that fast as a result of a top down gravitational collapse.
I answered that for the fourth time or so in the previous post. I can quote my answer again if you'd like.
That should have been obvious to the physics profession in 2002. So how long shall the idiotic crap go on?
Despite your continued delusion, you are not a physics expert.
Crockett Grabbe (web/pen-name SeaLane Gray) received his PhD in Applied Physics from Caltech in 1978, having received Bachelor of Science with Highest Honors and Master's degrees in Physics from the University of Texas. He is an experienced scientist who does research & consulting in applied physics (particularly plasma physics), as well as writing and speaking on physical science and technology-related issues, including the current-events issue of the World Trade Center collapses on 9/11. This is in spite of adversities he has had to tackle: Crockett recovered from first a large pituitary tumor, and later a cerebral hemorrhage, receiving several disabilities from both experiences. Despite these traumas he has overcome several barriers and become a productive and respected scientist, writer, and speaker -- having published over 100 scientific papers and 9 books (4 for the general public and 5 for scientists), and about 25 other general articles.
Crockett has just moved his business SeaLane Research and Consulting down to Austin, TX from Iowa, where he was a research scientist (for 29 years) at the University of Iowa, and consulted and trained with American College Testing and other businesses in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. He has spoken at places across the country from California to New York, in several European countries, and in Israel and Canada. He is a member of the National Speaker's Association, the American Physical Society, the International Union of Radio Science, the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers and the Texas Writer's League. He has been honorarily profiled for several years in Contemporary Authors, Writer's Directory, and Who's Who in Science & Engineering.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Either one of us is STUPID or one of us is LYING.
So build a self supporting model that will completely collapse. What is stopping you? But if the Laws of Physics don't allow it then all you can do is TALK.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If we don't know the mass of the balloon, does this mean it's impossible for the bowling ball to break the balloon? Or does it simply mean the bowling ball has the force to overcome the resistance of the balloon regardless of what mass of the balloon actually is?
In the following descriptions, the only forces doing work upon the objects are internal forces - gravitational and spring forces. Thus, energy is transformed from KE to PE (or vice versa) while the total amount of mechanical energy is conserved. Read each description and indicate whether energy is transformed from KE to PE or from PE to KE. Click the mouse to check your answers.
Collisions and Kinetic Energy
Idea: Momentum is conserved for any isolated collision, but kinetic energy is usually not. Kinetic energy can be converted into thermal energy and internal elastic potential energy (because of deformations).
This cannot explain columns bowing inwards for minutes before collapse.
This cannot explain the lack of high volume coordinated detonations
The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front.
This cannot explain the missing truss seats from exterior columns
This cannot explain the early penthouse collapse in WTC7
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Either one of us is STUPID or one of us is LYING.
I have a physical model that demonstrates Newton's third Law of Motion.
I drop 4 washers separated by THREE intact paper loops onto 29 washers with as many paper loops.
The loops in my falling stack are damaged just as loops in the stationary stack are damaged. That takes energy. It comes from the Kinetic Energy of the falling masses which are slowed down and stopped. Action and Reaction.
So where is your physical model that can completely collapse oh physics EXPERT?
Originally posted by plube
WE the OS have nothing to prove....we only have to wait for truthers to present.
when logic goes out the door...then we resort to lies.
one gets tired of it.....so i just wrote another email to bazant...waiting for reply....good thing i have letter head from the company i work for.
oh yes....crocket...published and reports are peer reviewed
Originally posted by scully222
Here you go, genius:
There is absolutely zero evidence for this in videos of the collapses or in the debris. It is a core component of your hero Bazant's theory, so you must defend it. And your right, it would not be consistent with a controlled demolition, if it were true.
Let me use a quote from one of your hero's papers if I may:
...
Of course the "load booms" he is trying to explain away using the sonic booms of ejected air couldn't possibly be high volume coordinated detonations could they?
Does your theory that you come up with yourself in your infinite wisdom explain the truss seats as being "missing"? I am not sure any theory could explain them being "missing". Did they dematerialize? Did they turn to dust? Were they stolen? At least my theory gives what could be a possible explanation. They were melted in a super high temp thermite reaction and were found in molten pools under the buildings weeks later, as reported.
Cutting charges removed core columns causing penthouse to sag as controlled demolition initiated. My theory explains it just fine.
I hate to break it to you but you are not as intelligent as you claim to be. You may very well be educated as you have stated. You are obviously very proud of yourself.
If I were to suddenly agree with everything you say you would not consider me an equal. You see yourself as head and shoulders above everyone else on this forum, intellectually speaking. You are here to beat everyone over the head with your particular worldview.
I don't even see you supporting your fellow os'ers since you consider your self superior to them as well. In fact the only equal in your eyes is your precious Bazant.
Don't you find it funny that he claimed to have figured out how the buildings collapsed within 2 DAYS. He was able to form his hypothesis along with supporting documentation and get it all coherently down on paper to be published on SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2001! And lets not forget that he had nothing concrete to base his assumptions on other than a couple videos. Either he is the smartest person in the history of human kind, or he was working on this prior to 911.
Realize I wrote this knowing your tactic of picking 2-3 points out of a lengthy post that you feel gives you the best shot at making someone look stupid. Go for it, buddy!
Originally posted by ANOK
The ONLY thing that you have to argue against this is claiming it was 15 floors falling on one floor, and the floor just impacted joins in and suddenly it becomes 16 floors falling on 94, 17 on 93 etc. Which is just ridiculous because that hypothesis ignores the 3rd law, and conservation of momentum. Because we know that floors were crushed and ejected horizontally during the collapse.
If they weren't there would be a stack of floors in the footprint, there simply is not enough energy in a gravity fed collapse to both break connections, and destroy the floors. A pancake collapse has that name for a reason you know, no floors in the footprint you have no 'pancakes'.
Where did the energy come from to do that? Ke cannot increase, without an outside force, against resistance. (gravity is an inside force)
The Ke is converted into other energy, deformation, sound, heat. The only way the collapse could have been complete is the resistance was removed, or the Ke was increased, by an outside force, i.e. explosives of some kind.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So either one of us is STUPID or one of us is LYING.
I have a physical model that demonstrates Newton's third Law of Motion.
I drop 4 washers separated by THREE intact paper loops onto 29 washers with as many paper loops.
The loops in my falling stack are damaged just as loops in the stationary stack are damaged. That takes energy. It comes from the Kinetic Energy of the falling masses which are slowed down and stopped. Action and Reaction.
But you have no stage where gravity can accelerate a 'floor'. Gravity does not scale, and so your reduced scale model also reduces the effects of gravity. No wonder it won't completely collapse.
So where is your physical model that can completely collapse oh physics EXPERT?
I never claimed I was a physics expert, just that you weren't. What sort of phenomena being demonstrated would actually satisfy you? Bear in mind that there must be 12 feet between floors, so the maximum demonstrable is a 3 floor block if you have 24 feet height available in a workshop. I don't.