Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne

The buildings had mass, but its momentum was 0.000 and its kinetic energy was 0.000.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That shows you fail to understand the equal opposite reaction law, as you insist only the plane could put a force on the building.

What is wrong with what he said? He didn't say that only the plane could put a force on the building. You're just talking yourself in circles here. The building had no momentum nor kinetic energy. If you knew anything about physics, you wouldn't say otherwise.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK
What you have been saying is the force of the plane on the building increases, but not the force on the plane.

Exactly where and when did I said that... Truther ?

Right here, 'OSer'...

Originally posted by waypastvne

The buildings had mass, but its momentum was 0.000 and its kinetic energy was 0.000.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That shows you fail to understand the equal opposite reaction law, as you insist only the plane could put a force on the building.

OH this ought to be amusing.

Please tell us Great Truther If the buildings momentum was NOT 0.000 and its kinetic energy was NOT 0.000

Then what was the buildings momentum P=MV ___?___ (please fill in the blank)

And what was the buildings kinetic energy 1/2 x m x v^2 ___?___ (please fill in the blank)

And how does having 0.000 momentum and 0.000 kinetic energy cancel out the equal opposite reaction law.

Seriously.... Do you have perpetual motion machines on Tuther World ?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
You see psikeyhackr made his card and washer model NOW can he prove that the mass of the falling washers and the resistance provided by his card tubes is exactly in proportion to what they represent in real life, I will answer that for you NO!

Now this is the hilarious contradiction. It is the same crap from Ryan Mackey.

He will talk about the scale of a model but then he doesn't demand that the NIST supply the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level. You can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers without that information.

Since I was building a real physical model of small size I could test the components myself. The model is AS WEAK as I could make it. That is not how skyscrapers are designed. So the issue of proportion to the real building is irrelevant because if it was in proportion then it would be stronger than I made it.

So don't insist that a model be to scale unless you also insist that the NIST supply more data. What was the weight of steel in the horizontal beams in the core at every level?

psik

No you are just showing what a clown you are YOU say that you need to know the steel mass etc to do proper calculations YET you DON'T need to know the relevant strengths for your model.

doh!

I am not insisting that the model is to scale I am INSISTING that the relevant forces between YOUR model components are to scale GOT IT NOW!

As you dont seem to be able to comprehend

IF your washers represent the load pushing down does the RESISTANCE of your card tubes PUSHING back have the same ratio as the load PUSHING down at 9/11 to RESISTANCE PUSHING back like I have said many times if you cant prove that your model is BS!!!

OH by the way just work out the impact force for for even part of the falling mass YOU dont need the info you think you need! I KNOW YOU AND ANOK like to AVOID that question!!!

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

For fire to have caused complete collapse of the towers, there would have to have been more than fire on the few floors above the impact point, regardless of how hot you think the fire/steel could have got in an hour.

You can't make the claim that losing X amount of strength would cause automatic failure, unless you know the pressure that component was able to withstand before failure. Do you know what that was?

Even IF 100% of the steel, that was in contact with heat failed, it could not cause the unaffected steel to also fail.

I have shown you that the fire was not consistent, that steel that WAS in direct contact with fire, in fact in the area the plane impacted and exploded, was no longer in contact with fire, and in fact cool enough for someone to stand near. Which is consistent with reality as we know it.

So explain again how fire caused the collapses? And no please not the sagging trusses nonsense, that can be debunked in one sentence...A truss sagging from heat, can not also create a pulling force. That sentence is easily explained with common sense science. A hint, steel expands when heated. Think about it.

Who says its only the fire, plane impact,fuel explosion then the fire!

You say even IF 100% of the steel, that was in contact with heat fail etc SO do you know what was going on in the towers I will asnwer for YOU NO!!! so guess what it cant be ruled out!!

You DON'T KNOW no one does what areas were affect and by how much, you claimed fire couldn't reach the required temps but I have shown it could! who says the fire would have to affect the areas at the imapct point to cause real problems YOU dont know.

Right now seems a good time to ask you and psikyhackr a question.

You two seem to think this is a simple 2 mass physics problem so here is a question.

If you had rented some office space say in the North Tower say on the 95 floor and you moved in say 250 people with desks,computers,file cabinets etc etc who much of that LOAD would the floorslab on level 94 be subjected to.

IF you answer NONE give your reasons why
IF you answer SOME give your reasons why.

The question is will you two answer?

Originally posted by ANOK
Because the concrete had more mass than the plane, and no matter how fast the plane was going the plane would still be more damaged than the wall. It doesn't matter if there was a hole in the wall, the plane cold not have continued on and also make a hole in an even thicker wall (the core).

'Silly truther', how about ignorant OSer?

So when a truther throws a 500g rock against a 5kg window, the rock will be damaged more than the window. Or when a truther is shot the bullet will be damaged more than the truther. This truther physics is really amazing. Potential energy pushing up, motionless mass with momentum and kinetic energy, levitated mass without potential energy, etc etc. Anything is possible.

So, Anok, I am still waiting for you to apologize for accusing me of lying. And while at it show the quotes where I am wrong about physics. You wouldn't want to spread false information about people now would you? Or do you think that spreading false information is perfectly fine when it is done in the name of truth?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
Because the concrete had more mass than the plane, and no matter how fast the plane was going the plane would still be more damaged than the wall. It doesn't matter if there was a hole in the wall, the plane cold not have continued on and also make a hole in an even thicker wall (the core).

'Silly truther', how about ignorant OSer?

So when a truther throws a 500g rock against a 5kg window, the rock will be damaged more than the window. Or when a truther is shot the bullet will be damaged more than the truther. This truther physics is really amazing. Potential energy pushing up, motionless mass with momentum and kinetic energy, levitated mass without potential energy, etc etc. Anything is possible.

So, Anok, I am still waiting for you to apologize for accusing me of lying. And while at it show the quotes where I am wrong about physics. You wouldn't want to spread false information about people now would you? Or do you think that spreading false information is perfectly fine when it is done in the name of truth?

edit on 1-11-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I have to seriously consider Anok is an official dysinfo agent. He uses their M.O. all the time. You nail him down and he acts like you don't exist or that he doesn't have to reconsider his hypotheses, he just goes on to the next one nitpicking minutiae as if it changes the big picture.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
You see psikeyhackr made his card and washer model NOW can he prove that the mass of the falling washers and the resistance provided by his card tubes is exactly in proportion to what they represent in real life, I will answer that for you NO!

Now this is the hilarious contradiction. It is the same crap from Ryan Mackey.

He will talk about the scale of a model but then he doesn't demand that the NIST supply the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level. You can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers without that information.

Since I was building a real physical model of small size I could test the components myself. The model is AS WEAK as I could make it. That is not how skyscrapers are designed. So the issue of proportion to the real building is irrelevant because if it was in proportion then it would be stronger than I made it.

So don't insist that a model be to scale unless you also insist that the NIST supply more data. What was the weight of steel in the horizontal beams in the core at every level?

psik

No you are just showing what a clown you are YOU say that you need to know the steel mass etc to do proper calculations YET you DON'T need to know the relevant strengths for your model.

doh!

What are you talking about?

The description of my model under the video on YouTube specifies the weights of the washers. Therefore anyone can compute the total weight every paper loop must support all of the way down the model. So on what basis are you claiming that you do not know the strength? I also specify the amount of energy required to crush a paper loop. So the energy required to crush double and triple loops can be computed.

So where has anyone specified the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the core of the WTC in the last TEN YEARS?

So the only way you can dispute my model is to LIE? It is not CARD and washer, it is PAPER and washer and anyone that wants to can duplicate it and do whatever measurements and calculations they want. The point is that it supported its own weight for three days and was AS WEAK AS I COULD MAKE IT. So if everyone that tries to duplicate it deliberately makes it as weak as possible what is the point of talking about strength? HOW MUCH VARIATION IS THERE IN PAPER?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So the only way you can dispute my model is to LIE? It is not CARD and washer, it is PAPER and washer and anyone that wants to can duplicate it and do whatever measurements and calculations they want.

And broomstick. You forgot to mention the huge broomhandle that ran up the center of all the washers - you know the big thing that kept your "model" from collapsing and looking like the World Trade Center tower collapse.

The point is that it supported its own weight for three days and was AS WEAK AS I COULD MAKE IT.

So what? As weak as you could make it? So what is that in terms of capacity? 100%? 500%? 4000% 5%? No clue? That's why your model is irrelevant.

So if everyone that tries to duplicate it deliberately makes it as weak as possible what is the point of talking about strength? HOW MUCH VARIATION IS THERE IN PAPER?

No wait - you don't know how much variation there is in the strength of paper yet you claim to have made it as weak as you could? So - you really have no idea what your model represents except itself.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So the only way you can dispute my model is to LIE? It is not CARD and washer, it is PAPER and washer and anyone that wants to can duplicate it and do whatever measurements and calculations they want.

And broomstick. You forgot to mention the huge broomhandle that ran up the center of all the washers - you know the big thing that kept your "model" from collapsing and looking like the World Trade Center tower collapse.
weak as you could? So - you really have no idea what your model represents except itself.

Yeah, you need to find something to make a big deal about to ridicule the model since you can't come up with any physics to rationally criticize.

The wooden dowel was standing before the collapse and afterwards. IT DID NOT MOVE. It's mass did not change position therefore it contributed no energy to the phenomenon of the model. Something had to hold the top portion until it was dropped. And the model is so weak that it cannot stand up straight without the dowel. Does anyone build skyscrapers that weak? The WTC withstood 100 mph winds.

All you can come up with is rhetorical trash to play mind games on dummies.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Yeah, you need to find something to make a big deal about to ridicule the model since you can't come up with any physics to rationally criticize.

The wooden dowel was standing before the collapse and afterwards. IT DID NOT MOVE. It's mass did not change position therefore it contributed no energy to the phenomenon of the model. Something had to hold the top portion until it was dropped. And the model is so weak that it cannot stand up straight without the dowel. Does anyone build skyscrapers that weak? The WTC withstood 100 mph winds.

All you can come up with is rhetorical trash to play mind games on dummies.

psik

Hey. You made the model. It's the right of anyone to be able to critique it. The fact is, it did not reflect any fundamental principle of the tower collapses.

The first major issue is that you are assuming that the core columns will simply crush down on top of each-other with no movement to the sides or interaction with any other forces. Your broom handle prevents any movement to the sides.

The second major issue is that due to the mass not being able to be chaotic, as it was in the towers, the weight can only go in the one direction, the most resistance. This leads to an arrest in energy. In the towers, the mass had lots of places to go, and took out all the weakest connections, notably the horizontal connections, since after the towers fell, the core remained standing, uncrushed.

So, your model is invalid, is it not?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Yeah, you need to find something to make a big deal about to ridicule the model since you can't come up with any physics to rationally criticize.

Yeah, sorry, I'm fresh out of "physics". Maybe I'll pick up some on the way home. Face it, if you took the broomhandle out of the middle of your little model then when you dropped your washers and paper loops you would end up with a mess of washers and paper loops all over the floor which, of course, would look suspiciously like the result of the World Trade Center tower collapse.

The wooden dowel was standing before the collapse and afterwards. IT DID NOT MOVE.

Of course not. Its a wooden monolith in the middle of your structure.

It's mass did not change position therefore it contributed no energy to the phenomenon of the model.

Who cares about the energy?!?!?! It kept your model from acting like a building. Why? Because buildings don't have huge monolithic supports running in the middle of them!

Something had to hold the top portion until it was dropped.

Huh?

And the model is so weak that it cannot stand up straight without the dowel.

Or is it that your such a poor model maker that you can't even stack paper loops and washers? I can build a house of playing cards that's 3 or 4 feet high without using big broomhandles for support, only the friction of the surface of the cards as connectors.

Does anyone build skyscrapers that weak? The WTC withstood 100 mph winds.

How do you know how weak the "model" was? You openly admitted that you have no clue about the how strong or weak the material was that you used!

All you can come up with is rhetorical trash to play mind games on dummies.

Sorry, its called logic and I can't help it if your physical and rhetorical models fail to prove anything.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Well that's amazing. a 12 foot thick reinforced (probably heavily) concrete wall designed specifically to resist impact from airplanes came through an impact with a small jet almost unscathed. Amazing. What does that prove again?

Oh right this proves that no planes crashed on 9/11.

Oh the humanity!

It shouldn't matter what it's made of...you guys keep yammering that all it takes is enough velocity and even a chicken mcnugget can cut through anything else.

So come on, tell us how fast the jet would need to go to cut through the concrete!

All it takes is more speed in your world, so how fast?

Originally posted by septic


It shouldn't matter what it's made of...you guys keep yammering that all it takes is enough velocity and even a chicken mcnugget can cut through anything else.

So come on, tell us how fast the jet would need to go to cut through the concrete!

All it takes is more speed in your world, so how fast?

You have heard of "kinetic energy projectiles", correct? What do you think they do to knock out satellites? I do not know how fast the jet has to go to get the penetrating ability, but its definitely much faster than 500mph.

reply to post by septic

You're right, In our world (the real world) there is nothing that is indestructible. given sufficient kinetic energy, the block in the movie would shatter. Sorry, I don't have a magic calculator that will tell me how much would be required to shatter the obstacle. To even begin an analysis it would be required to know the composition of the block, which none of us even have. Even then it is complicated, and would require experienced engineers to get a likely figure.

But if you want, you could loan me your Truth Calculator. That enabled you to conclude that the airplane would bounce off the twin towers (but of course there weren't any planes, right?). Then I could do a simple comparison of masses of the two objects and learn everything there is to know about engineering and physics without being able to discuss it intelligently. I wish I had one of those gizmos, or a stack of washers and paper strips to solve all my technical questions.

reply to post by GenRadek

You have heard of "kinetic energy projectiles", correct? What do you think they do to knock out satellites? I do not know how fast the jet has to go to get the penetrating ability, but its definitely much faster than 500mph.

I'll give you a hint...

You'd have to roll up all the parts of the jet into a tight and very dense projectile which would focus all it's energy on a very small area. Without reconfiguring the jet to try to make the jet go fast enough to pierce the concrete, even the air resistance would rip it apart.

reply to post by septic


If you roll up all the worlds ignorance in your head, you can smash through any argument or evidence.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Once again for THE HARD OF LEARNING can you show that the forces in your model are to the same ratio as the forces in the 9/11 event. WELL CAN YOU?

IE Is the crushing force of the washers and the resistance of your paper tubes in proportion to the crushing force and the resistance of the towers in the 9/11 event.

IF YOU CANT PROVE THEY ARE YOUR MODEL IS BS!

NOW since YOU always go on about how you cant find out the info of mass etc of the steelwork for the towers HOW can you make an accurate model! IS THAT NOW CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU!!!!!!

But you can work out forces due to impact just use the mass of the concrete slabs that we have a good idea about and see what kind of force it would generate. SO why wont you and ANOK look at that or do we already know WHY

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Once again for THE HARD OF LEARNING can you show that the forces in your model are to the same ratio as the forces in the 9/11 event. WELL CAN YOU?

Since you can't accurately specify the tons of steel and concrete on every level of the towers then the answer must be NO.

But was the WTC designed and constructed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE? Even a magical collapse of the 1360 foot tower of 109 masses takes 12 seconds to collapse with constant masses with no supports to be broken. So how did the towers come down in less than 18 seconds with the falling mass having to crush/dislocate all of the supports below?

This 9/11 business is idiotic with the NIST not even specifying the total for the concrete.

People that can't build a collapsing model need to come up with excuses to disqualify one that does not collapse. The nation that put men on the Moon should be laughed at for the next 1000 years. The physics profession has made a fool of itself by not resolving this in 2002. Where were they demanding distribution of steel and concrete data back then?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
with the falling mass having to crush/dislocate all of the supports below?

This only has to happen in truther fantasy world. In the real world it is proven beyond any doubt that not all the supports failed. The only supports essential for the collapse to progress were the floor connections.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Since you can't accurately specify the tons of steel and concrete on every level of the towers then the answer must be NO.

Yippee!!! He finally admits his broomhandle, paper loop and washer toy is meaningless.

But was the WTC designed and constructed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

Huh???

Even a magical collapse of the 1360 foot tower of 109 masses takes 12 seconds to collapse with constant masses with no supports to be broken. So how did the towers come down in less than 18 seconds with the falling mass having to crush/dislocate all of the supports below?

Because it doesn't take very long for something to break once it has reached its breaking point. Milliseconds. Real people understand this. They've seen things break in real life. They realize it doesn't take hours. That's why they do things like cover their face and eyes when they are putting an object under stress, because they know its going to snap faster then the speed of sound.

This 9/11 business is idiotic with the NIST not even specifying the total for the concrete.

Total what - cost? color? size? weight? volume? specific gravity? By the way its in the report should you ever choose to read it.

People that can't build a collapsing model need to come up with excuses to disqualify one that does not collapse.

Actually we can, just don't see a reason too. I mean, its not like they need to build a paper airplane every morning to test the theory of heavier than air flight. There's just some things people know.

The nation that put men on the Moon should be laughed at for the next 1000 years.

Go right ahead, may I suggest you do your laughing outside a certain government installation located at Parris Island, South Carolina.

The physics profession has made a fool of itself by not resolving this in 2002. Where were they demanding distribution of steel and concrete data back then?

Why would they need that information? You resolved the issue in 2001 without it.