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 psikeyhackr
One would think such a problem would attract physicists like a magnet.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
One would think such a problem would attract physicists like a magnet.
Magnets attract only ferrous metals, not physicists.
NO!
How do TEN YEARS go by without physicists and structural engineers getting specific about the center of mass of the top 29 stories of a skyscraper. How many buildings around the world are bigger than those 29 stories were? One would think such a problem would attract physicists like a magnet. But it is closer to being a forbidden subject.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
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 wmd_2008
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
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
Right psik why don't you look at the impact forces of this what scares you about them, we have info on the concrete mix for the floor slabs we know the area and we know the thickness so we can get a good indication of the mass.
Its works out at somewhere around the 700 ton mark.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by psikeyhackr
What have actual structural engineers and/or other physicists said about your model and theory of the wtc collapse?
Just out of curiosity...
When did these actual structural engineers explain how the top of the south tower tilt/rotated 22 degrees in a couple of seconds while pointing out the location of the center of mass of those 29 stories? How could they compute the center of mass without knowing the distributions of steel and concrete.
My model is just part of the demonstration of dereliction of duty on the part of said structural engineers for the last 10 years.
This is grade school physics. They need to explain why they haven't addressed simple questions.
This exposes the need of experts to keep people ignorant to maintain their status. The Conservation of Momentum is simple enough for 7th graders and 3rd graders should have no trouble building and testing my model.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is the FLOOR outside of the core. The core above the impact zone had to come down on top of the stationary core below. You have NO EVIDENCE that the floors outside of the core became detached from the core. You want to do calculations on something you have no evidence occurred. And then you don't want to know the amount of steel on every level of the core. Or the perimeter columns.
psik
Originally posted by wmd_2008
So if that all drops as you want to claim PUT that mass in the calculator work out the possible impact value and then stfu about steel distribution!
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 say 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.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by wmd_2008
So if that all drops as you want to claim PUT that mass in the calculator work out the possible impact value and then stfu about steel distribution!
But you can't do that without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete.
Just taking the mass of the falling sections, without knowing what weight (pressure) undamaged connections can handle, then you can't make that calculation and expect it to be correct.
You need to learn about FoS.
Do you know what pressure the truss connections were able to handle? Or the combined pressure handling of the combined components, the structural capacity?
(FoS is measured in PSf or PSi, the amount of pressure a component can handle, beyond its structural capacity, before failure)
But you can't do that without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete.
Just taking the mass of the falling sections, without knowing what weight (pressure) undamaged connections can handle, then you can't make that calculation and expect it to be correct.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
But you can't do that without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete.
Just taking the mass of the falling sections, without knowing what weight (pressure) undamaged connections can handle, then you can't make that calculation and expect it to be correct.
Then here's a little secret that people of science and engineering often employ. The estimate. Its a real neat way to test a hypothesis. Here's what you do - estimate what the steel and concrete "distribution" would have had to have been in order support the observation. Then look at the known information (the NIST report's list of steel and concrete on each floor) and see if its a reasonable estimate.
So tell us - based on your calcualtions what would the steel and concrete "distribution" had to have been?
Originally posted by piles
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
But you can't do that without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete.
Just taking the mass of the falling sections, without knowing what weight (pressure) undamaged connections can handle, then you can't make that calculation and expect it to be correct.
Then here's a little secret that people of science and engineering often employ. The estimate. Its a real neat way to test a hypothesis. Here's what you do - estimate what the steel and concrete "distribution" would have had to have been in order support the observation. Then look at the known information (the NIST report's list of steel and concrete on each floor) and see if its a reasonable estimate.
So tell us - based on your calcualtions what would the steel and concrete "distribution" had to have been?
it would still be inconclusive
Originally posted by ANOK
.
.
.
You need to learn about FoS.
.
.
.
(FoS is measured in PSf or PSi, the amount of pressure a component can handle, beyond its structural capacity, before failure)
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by wmd_2008
So if that all drops as you want to claim PUT that mass in the calculator work out the possible impact value and then stfu about steel distribution!
But you can't do that without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete.
Just taking the mass of the falling sections, without knowing what weight (pressure) undamaged connections can handle, then you can't make that calculation and expect it to be correct.
You need to learn about FoS.
Do you know what pressure the truss connections were able to handle? Or the combined pressure handling of the combined components, the structural capacity?
(FoS is measured in PSf or PSi, the amount of pressure a component can handle, beyond its structural capacity, before failure)
Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
In the aviation industry we use a load factor of 1.5..... I wonder if thats 1.5 pounds per square inch or 1.5 pounds per square foot. I better look it up it might make a difference.
Anock man up and answer the KE / momentum question.
Did Anock really add two safety factors together to get a higher safety factor ? I missed it can someone link me to it ?
Originally posted by wmd_2008
OH and by the way YOU CANT ADD FOS together to get a higher value!