Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neutronflux

You might want to refresh on your basic physics, because you just made a mistake out of simple ignorance trying to be cute.

WoooW!

This will make my colleges chuckle

Thanks for the advice... I'll look into that one

an acceleration of one G UPWARDS is a positive value.... oppsee your mistake...

You wanted to play Mr Technical, but you don't know the most excepted symbol for the gravitational constant (G) from (g) the symbol most widely used for the value of gravitational acceleration.

I repeat, it's the contextual reference that you seem to miss... Coupled with quite a large dollop of arrogance that I somehow made a CHERRY comment

But back on topic.... The thread has been derailed enough with this!

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I mean woooo. Only if your colleagues knew that somebody referenced the defined value of acceleration due to acceleration.

And double wooo wooo, you don't know the difference between the symbol for the gravitational constant and the symbol for gravitational acceleration.


And triple wooo wooo wooo, you made a funny by trying to define the gravitational constant in terms of positive or negative by using the wrong symbol.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I mean woooo. Only if your colleagues knew that somebody referenced the defined value of acceleration due to acceleration.

And double wooo wooo, you don't know the difference between the symbol for the gravitational constant and the symbol for gravitational acceleration.


And triple wooo wooo wooo, you made a funny by trying to define the gravitational constant in terms of positive or negative by using the wrong symbol.

I don't know the difference??

Now they will laugh for certain!

I'm going to bed...

a reply to: Korg Trinity

What do they call you, don't know your symbols Korg.

Always getting the gravitational constant confused with gravitational acceleration... got old Korg.

Remember when the symbols were mixed and it looked like Korg was defining positive and negative gravitational constants....,

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

What do they call you, don't know your symbols Korg.

Always getting the gravitational constant confused with gravitational acceleration... got old Korg.

Remember when the symbols were mixed and it looked like Korg was defining positive and negative gravitational constants....,

You wouldn't believe that it could happen...

Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter

NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because a Lockheed Martin engineering team used English units of measurement while the agency's team used the more conventional metric system for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday

Now I really am going to bed!

Night!

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neutronflux

You might want to refresh on your basic physics, because you just made a mistake out of simple ignorance trying to be cute.

WoooW!

This will make my colleges chuckle

Thanks for the advice... I'll look into that one

an acceleration of one G UPWARDS is a positive value.... oppsee your mistake...

Here is you misusing the symbol for gravitational constant so it's not forgotten Mr. Technical.

And why would your colleges want to know about you being on a conspiracy site if they are not here already?

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: pteridine

What did you expect it to do?

Given there wasn't enough energy in the collapsing part to overcome the resistance of the bottom part, the collapse should have undergone deceleration.

And this deceleration would not be uniform either, given that a collapsing structure is a chaotic system, we would expect the plot to be all over the place.

In essence you would expect roughly the North tower collapse to come to a halt at around floor 60-70 and the south Tower collapse to cease all together at roughly around floor 38 through 48.

You make a bad assumption about the energy and the resistance to collapse. Note that because of the construction, each floor has about the same resistance to collapse as the floor above it, regardless of position. Only the machinery floors are somewhat stronger.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neutronflux

You might want to refresh on your basic physics, because you just made a mistake out of simple ignorance trying to be cute.

WoooW!

This will make my colleges chuckle

Thanks for the advice... I'll look into that one

an acceleration of one G UPWARDS is a positive value.... oppsee your mistake...

Just so this cherry is not forgotten........

You don't know he invented anti gravity buildings.

a reply to: dragonridr

I didn't know this was the vector forum. I was only referring to the rate of acceleration as defined by g. There was no reason to imply I was trying to say the towers accelerated from earth?

Sorry. Rant over.

Having been educated many years ago the understanding shown by some on here is farcical to say the least what is more worrying is the level of misunderstanding shown by the members of AE 911.

So lets see if we can make things clearer & simple for even the REALLY bad phyicists on the 9/11 truth side that keep banging on about Newtons Laws.

First this collapse OBEYS it fully it's just these IDIOTS and that's what they are are looking at what happens in totally
the wrong way and seriously if these guys are teaching anywhere they should be SACKED

Here is a FLOOR SLAB truss connected to the wall column tree at the truss seat.



The floors are about 42,000 sq feet just over 200 x 200 feet. Now a simple question to those that still question what happens in the collapse what part of the STRUCTURE will be IMPACTED by THE BULK of the falling debis when the collapse starts the 42,000 sq ft floor slab or the thin ring of columns that make up the outer wall and inner core.

To make it simple enough that even Korg should understand.



So at the FIRST slab below the impact area is impacted by the falling debris the STRUCTURAL component that has to RESIT THE LOAD is the TRUSS SEATS.

The MASS, POTENTIAL energy or any other BS they spout DOES not CHANGE THE STRENGTH of the slab or its connections the one inch thick thruss seat and its bolts can only support the load they were designed to take and applied safety factor.

It's JENGA on a massive scale a house of cards. Once a floor slab is removed it falls adds to the mass impacting the next and so on it really is that simple a bit like members of AE911. There is also a limit to the vertical height of a steel component when unsupported. The Twin towers were a SYSTEM core took the bulk of the dead load, the walls the bulk of the wind load the floor system tied it together.

To give an idea how flimsy the floor system looks work on one floor not complete and next floor trusses being installed.



Now look at the pic I posted in the OP of the Empire State Building.



Thicker concrete on a STEEL BEAM.

Also at the time of construction they did not look at THERMAL loadings due to fire in any great detail assumptions were made and fire protection added.

Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire as an actual load on the structural frame. What are we doing as an industry to allow this to happen? Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for

More here if YOU can actually be bothered to read something not from a conspiracy site.

What is structural fire engineering

Here are some images taken of debris

Compacted slabs & debris

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: pteridine

What did you expect it to do?

Given there wasn't enough energy in the collapsing part to overcome the resistance of the bottom part, the collapse should have undergone deceleration.

Given that you've stated that you don't know how much energy there was I don't see how you can assert this

a reply to: wmd_2008

Flimsy is the word alright - the floors in those towers were only rated to carry their own loading (static + dynamic with an appropriate safety factor applied), they were never intended to hold the building up. It was far more than office chairs etc falling, the broken sections of core columns from above the impact zone would go through those floors like bullets through sheets of paper and once the floors were smashed there was no stabilising connection between the core and walls so they buckled and broke up. There are plenty of images of parts of the core in particular remaining erect swaying around for some seconds after the collapse had passed before their welds and bolted connections failed. Had the core columns been manufactured as solid single pieces of steel the outcome would have been far different.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

Who's the confused physician now? Heal yourself!

Couldn't care less about A&E and their peanuts, compared to growing 'defense' budgets for mil-ind-complexes in this Total War on everything. Get a fricken grip, Fallujah is worse than Hiroshima.
At this point it doesn't even matter if it really was 'structural failure', which turned the West into one global condescending police state.

Your whole premise is utterly flawed due to it's focus on a perceived threat which is none, at least not as long as one doesn't have any qualms with the truth. Do you?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

This thread is about STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING and the IMPACTS not politics so you know what to do

a reply to: wmd_2008

Which is why I thought, that a comment from a real structural engineer has to be in the thread. Just to let you know who you'd have to sue in case your assessment is correct, which it is not.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I have had enough dealings with structural engineers before and after this event and have still to find one that thinks the way he does or others among architecs for the truth. Looking at how Dick Gage looks at the collapse they dont consider the floor construction. plain and simple look at the pictures of the truss seats then it might even click with you then again ........

a reply to: wmd_2008

Pictures? You've mentioned the fire in the WTC, the one that started an investigation into it's structural engineering and you've seen Skillings comment on all that now. You know... the guy who did that job back then. I don't care what you deal with, but if you wanna piss on his work you should at least try to put something up, dude.

Also, you keep saying that the floors pancaked down and yet NIST found no evidence for their "fire weakened steel" theory. Do you sit on another microstructrual analysis of said steel or what's your "irrefutable" evidence, effing pictures? Ok, gotta admit I've expected a tad more from you after our other chat in the explosive thread.

I'm out, have at it and take care!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

So NO comment on the truss seats typical of people like you, it was expect that's why I put then again at the end of the last post. Pancaking floors why not have caused the initial failure after all anybody who has really look at this has seen the video of the bowing walls but they CERTAINLY ripped the building apart after the mass above fell, bye you won't be missed

a reply to: wmd_2008

So NO comment on the missing evidence for your theory? Where are the fire weakened trusses?

You have Skillings comment on the issue but yet you prefer to run with a fairytale in utter denial of his assessment. Why? There was a big fire and a new investigation into the structural engineering, that's exactly your topic!
But instead of researching this part and debating details you chose to ignore the only trail in support of the hypothesis you keep pushing; structural failure after impact and fires, precisely what should have been covered in the structural engineering.

That's actually pretty funny! I could keep trying to lead the horse to the water, but now I realise that the horse is just a confused donkey and not half as thirsty for the truth as I am. Cherry? No Whip? Yes!