Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And where did that specify the amount of energy required to break a floor loose?
Did you not read the article? Or is the math too complex for you?
That number was specified just after the last experimental calculation in table 5. The static load was 570 million Newtons. The engineering standard is to design for 3 to 5 times static load (1.7 to 2.9 billion Newtons). The first impact of one collapsing floor on the next was already 17.5 billion Newtons. Each subsequent impact was progressively larger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Did the portion of the core above the impact zone fall on the core below. What happened when the horizontal beams impacted each other.
Did you not read the article? Or is the math too complex for you?
In the order asked: 1) No. 2) They failed in turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
That is the thing about building a model. It would have to demonstrate what could actually happen not just be a bunch of TALK.
Did you not read the article? Or is the math too complex for you? That's exactly what this model does.
It is only one of many... all of which (surprise, surprise) agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Physicists and engineers in the 21st century can't build a model when they could do it in 1940 for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
Did you not read the article? Or is the math too complex for you? That's exactly what this model does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Now does that mass include the core or not.
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Because if it includes the core didn't the upper core have to fall on the lower core.
No. As the floors failed in turn, the core lost all lateral support and failed subsequently on their own. Remember... the photographic evidence proves that the core failed subsequently to the floor failures, not simultaneously.
Did you not read the article? Or is the math too complex for you?
That number was specified just after the last experimental calculation in table 5. The static load was 570 million Newtons. The engineering standard is to design for 3 to 5 times static load (1.7 to 2.9 billion Newtons). The first impact of one collapsing floor on the next was already 17.5 billion Newtons. Each subsequent impact was progressively larger.
Did you not read the article? Or is the math too complex for you?
A newton is a measurement of FORCE not ENERGY.
Energy would be Force times Distance also known as WORK. Breakage would require the loss of energy by the falling mass which would slow the falling mass.
That is the trouble with 9/11. People leaving out information that hurts their argument and so many people being too ignorant to notice the missing information.
That is the nice thing about physical models. They cannot escape REAL PHYSICS.
The math games are about people proving they are smart when in actuality they are lying.
And that is the relevant metric for determining whether or not the design capacity of the WTC was exceeded. Force... not energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Energy would be Force times Distance also known as WORK. Breakage would require the loss of energy by the falling mass which would slow the falling mass.
And all of this is explicitly accounted for in the model... since as it points out, the falling mass would also be gaining energy as it fell along with additional mass. As a result, there is (and the numbers are unambiguous and incontrovertible) a net gain of both energy and force as the WTC towers progressively collapse.
It is apparent that you simply do not understand the physics.
As a result, the rest of your post stands nakedly exposed as pathetic hand-waving.
You keep insisting that the official explanation is incorrect, despite having absolutely no credentials, background nor education in the fields of neither physics nor structural engineering.
This is why nobody is taking your silly questions seriously.
If you were to provide any evidence whatsoever that the kinetic force and resulting fire of a couple 767 airliners striking the WTC at over 500 MPH was not enough to bring the towers down, it is very possible that others may sit back and start to consider your theory possible. The problem is that this is not what you are doing. You are merely asking everyone still reading this thread to provide proof as to how it was possible, then calling them liars when they do. This is the same kind of flawed logic that caused Darwin to be labelled a heretic for suggesting that man and ape share a common ancestor.
Thermite did not bring the WTC down. Secret government ops did not bring the towers down. Alien death rays shot by David Icke's space lizards did not bring the towers down. 767 airliners hijacked by Islamic terrorists and flown directly into the WTC was what brought the towers down. And unless you can provide some kind of physical evidence that refutes that, rational people are going to continue to ignore this kind of foolishness as delusional nuttery.
I almost overlooked this gem:
Hey genius, you do understand that thermite is not an explosive by any stretch of the imagination, don't you?
Talk about being "totally ignorant."
the only thing is see that you're expert in; is projection
i also suggest you actually try reading my posst before opining on them!
And that is the relevant metric for determining whether or not the design capacity of the WTC was exceeded. Force... not energy.
The design capacity of one LEVEL can be exceeded but energy would be used up destroying it and there would be 89+ more levels to go. So where did the ENERGY come from to destroy all of them?
That is why I want a model of 15 levels dropped on 90. I already did a collapse model.
The force required to collapse the top level was applied. But energy got used up in the process. So the collapse was arrested over multiple LEVELS but there were more LEVELS left intact than destroyed. No math required for the demonstration but it can be computed.
It takes 0.118 joules of ENERGY to crush a single paper loop. I didn't bother computing the newtons. I don't care.
The design capacity of one LEVEL can be exceeded but energy would be used up destroying it and there would be 89+ more levels to go. So where did the ENERGY come from to destroy all of them?
The same exact place the energy came from to destroy the first level: Gravity.
It's all there in the model I presented you with. I can present it, but cannot make you understand it.
The net force (and net energy) increases for every incremental floor destroyed.
The same exact place the energy came from to destroy the first level: Gravity.
It's all there in the model I presented you with. I can present it, but cannot make you understand it.
The net force (and net energy) increases for every incremental floor destroyed.
So build a physical model that can support itself and completely collapse due to dropping the top 15% onto the rest. If the physics works as you say why should it be difficult?
You can TALK forever and claim there is mathematical justification, but a real physical model depends on REAL PHYSICS and is incapable of giving a damn about TALK or Mathematics.
A Tacoma Narrows bridge model was built in 4 months but a WTC 9/11 collapse model hasn't been built in TWELVE YEARS. Funny that! All we get is TALK and pseudo-mathematics.
psik
Last edited by psikeyhackr; 02-27-2014 at 11:16 AM..
So build a physical model that can support itself and completely collapse due to dropping the top 15% onto the rest. If the physics works as you say why should it be difficult?
The suggestion you make here betrays a level of ignorance so profound that one can only be amused. It does however go some way to explain your consistent cluelessness in this thread. Here... let me give you a short primer on the affects of scale.
Experiment 1: Take two animals; a mouse and an elephant. Take them both to the top of a three story building and push them both off.
Notice which one scurries away unharmed, and which one breaks every bone in its body.
Experiment 2: Now, to make it even more accurate a comparison... also scale the distance dropped along with the size of the animal. Your average mouse is about 2 inches tall... while a full grown male African elephant can reach 13 feet (156 inches). So now drop the mouse that same three stories (about 30 feet) and the elephant from the equivalent height (2,340 ft).
Notice which one scurries away unharmed, and which one is reduced to puddle of blood, flesh, sinew and fragmented bone.
Gosh... they are both mammals. They are both constructed of the exact same materials and one is arguably just a scaled down version of the other. And yet the physical forces of their experience is completely different resulting in no harm to one and a massive "structural failure" of the other in circumstances that are otherwise identical.
Smart people already understand why this is so, and why your proposal is so excruciatingly stupid. But since you do not, I will explain it further.
When scaling things up or down in size, different characteristics scale at different rates. So (for example) if you make a mouse twice as large, you may only have increased its length by a factor of two, but you have increased its volume (and consequently its weight and mass) by a factor of 8. If you triple its length, you have increased its volume (and consequently its weight and mass) by a factor of 27. And since the strength of a load bearing member (think leg bone for an animal, supporting column for a building) is a factor of cross section (size squared) while the weight it must bear is a factor of volume (size cubed) a "physical model" of the sort you propose is useless.
In short, you have demonstrated again that you are incompetent to even discuss the subject of the physics of 9/11. You should probably devote your efforts to subject matter more amenable to your strengths. Physics is not among them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
You can TALK forever and claim there is mathematical justification, but a real physical model depends on REAL PHYSICS and is incapable of giving a damn about TALK.
As we have just seen, you would not recognize real physics if it bit you on the face.
I have presented you with the mathematical model that completely explains the collapse of the WTC towers. Stop running away.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 02-27-2014 at 01:01 PM..
I have presented you with the mathematical model that completely explains the collapse of the WTC towers. Stop running away.
What you claim is a mathematical model does not incorporate the ENERGY required to collapse levels. That is the BS we have been getting for ages. The steel columns had to get thicker down the building so the energy required to collapse them would increase. And the remains of The Spire did not account for all of the core so the upper part of the core had to come down and much of the core in the spire was gone.
So that mass had to have been forced down IF IS WAS THE RESULT OF COLLAPSE.
What you claim is a mathematical model does not incorporate the ENERGY required to collapse levels.
That is as stupid an assertion as can possibly be made. It again betrays a complete vacuum of understanding regarding basic physics and the relationships between energy, force, motion, mass, matter, weight, or dynamic loads and static loads.
The energy required to collapse any level is completely accounted for by comparing the dynamic force of the falling upper section to the design capacity of the section it is impacting. If the former exceeds the latter, collapse will occur. And as the model shows, the former exceeds the latter for every single floor from the point of aircraft impact all the way to the ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
That is the BS we have been getting for ages.
And yet in all those ages, you still don't understand it. Perhaps you should spend your time in the quilting forum. That's about your apparent speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
The steel columns had to get thicker down the building so the energy required to collapse them would increase.
Insert "Duh" here.
You leave out (I would normally say "conveniently," but by now I can only assume "ignorantly") that the mass from above is also increasing with ever floor as the mass of the most recently destroyed floors are added to the sum total of those above it. Absolutely yes, the energy required to collapse each subsequent floor wold increase. And yes, the energy available to collapse each subsequent floor does exactly that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
And the remains of The Spire did not account for all of the core so the upper part of the core had to come down and much of the core in the spire was gone.
I don't think you know what the spire was. It had essentially nothing to do with the core and had no load bearing function whatsoever. It was simply attached to the hat truss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
So that mass had to have been forced down IF IS WAS THE RESULT OF COLLAPSE.
You are now babbling completely incoherently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
