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

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
One would think such a problem would attract physicists like a magnet.

Magnets attract only ferrous metals, not physicists.

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.

YAWN

reply to post by psikeyhackr

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.

Seriously, what's the problem that they're all supposed to be attracted to? I think you would want to calculate the center of mass if it was important to predict what's going to happen, but you really don't need to predict anything here, it already happened and all you have to do is watch the remainder of the video. There's not a problem here. Now if you want to sit down and do some calculations that prove that what was observed was not possible then go right ahead. But other than that - will there's nothing to resolve.

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.

Now there are plenty of calculators on physics sites to work out the impact forces so why don't you use one to confirm your theory or would that be a bad idea.
So as I have said before for structural fixings engineers are happy with a FOS of 3, so 700 tons add 100 tons for the trusses and decking so that's 800 times 3 is 2400 then lets be generous and round that upto 3000 tons I can't be fairer than that.

Now if the falling mass generates less than 3000 tons we should be ok any problems with that?

Now since you and ANOK are obsessed with the laws of motion you have to work out the energy the falling mass has just before impact.

Now it becomes a work done equation so we have to have an idea about how far the mass travelled before the impacted floor gave way.

Now since there is evidence of the angle seats being sheared a good starting point would be the thickness of the angles don't have the exact size to hand but I will be generous again and say 50mm or 0.05 mtr.

The floor height was 12 ft or 3.6 mtrs so here is a link work it out for yourself just use one floorslab so 700,000kg of falling mass and see what it would generate.

www.livephysics.com...

The answer will be given in Newton so divide by 10 for kilograms or 10000 for tons once you have seen the load for one floorslab may be you will think again!!!!!

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.

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 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.

Time and time again I imagine. It's been 10 years. Just because you can't find the answers on the net in some forum or on some 9/11 conspiracy site doesn't mean these issues haven't been addressed already. Why are you asking these questions as if every legitimate engineer in the world is keeping info from you?

Is it more reasonable to assume its because they're all in on it, or because it's been addressed already and/or is completely irrelevant?

My model is just part of the demonstration of dereliction of duty on the part of said structural engineers for the last 10 years.

Has it been reviewed/critiqued by your peers? What do they say about it?

This is grade school physics. They need to explain why they haven't addressed simple questions.

So you want an explanation for the lack of answers to questions that you're unable to answer yourself. If it's that simple then why aren't you able to work through it on your own? I'm fairly confident that the info you seek can be figured out given what we already know about the interior of the WTC. So gather up the info, put it in paper and present it as a theory. Just like the NIST did.

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.

So then, maybe you should just ask the 3rd graders to help answer your questions for you.

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

LETS look at the North Tower HIT mid elevation high up were the core steel was thinner you see the drop in the videos if the core steel dropped a floor onto the bottom part of the core you would then have 15x700 tons of concrete plus the hat trusses plus the steelwork for the top 15 floors oh and the mast.

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!

You claim NOT enough in the upper part to destroy the towers so show us that it cant!

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)

reply to post by ANOK

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.

I knew this would be amusing.

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

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

And what was the buildings kinetic energy KE=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.

The math on this one is real easy. Give it a try.

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)

If this is true, then aren't you jumping the gun by saying that the tower collapse was impossible? You yourself just said that we must have all this information in order to come to a calculated conclusion.

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 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 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

So what you're implying then, is that even armed with these figures for estimates of weight distribution ANOK and psik still wouldn't be able to show how it was impossible for the towers to collapse the way they did.

Is that right?

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)

Wow Factors of Safety has a couple of common usages, but amazingly, none of them are measured in PSF/PSI. (pounds per square inch/foot)

Looks like another case of Truth Engineering.



When are you going to start looking stuff up before you post?

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 ?

reply to post by PhotonEffect


yup
while its unlikely that one tower would fall, and more unlikely that two towers would fall, we need to make an assumption, an asumption is inconclusive

if the tower was going to fall it is more likely that it would have fallen almost instantly after the plane hit, however it took quite a while for it to fall, the way it fell suggests there was serious structural damage beneath the point of impact (like 30 floors below aprox where the plane hit) and this structural damage must have been on serveral floors..

and both towers share this in common..

it looks to me, like explosives were used, there are reports of explosions before the collapse, (witnesses described as bombs going off within the two towers)

i'm not a demolition expert though... i just don't understand how two planes could do that with two buildings...

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)

Did you read this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

OH and by the way YOU CANT ADD FOS together to get a higher value!

A chain is only as strong as the WEAKEST link!

I talk to engineers on an almost daily basis re FOS, when I test fixings for engineers,YES I get involved in a practical side of this type of application UNLIKE YOU!, for a metal fixing used in a structural application in the UK a FOS of 3 is enough to keep an engineer happy, for fixings that have plastic plugs they want a FOS of 7.

If you look at the forces the falling mass can generate you KNOW what they hit will FAIL! THATS POINT OF LOOKING AT THE IMPACT!

I ASKED you and psik this, so gives us an answer IF you can, if you rented an office on the 95th floor of the N Tower put 250 people on it with all there office equipment desks etc from the load on the 95th floorslab would the 94th floorslab be subject to any load from that.

IF no load say why!
IF you think there would be a load say why!

Lets see how well you understand the construction of the buildings! I wont hold my breath!

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 ?

Here you go

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ANOK at his best if you dont know make it sound plausible

Originally posted by wmd_2008

OH and by the way YOU CANT ADD FOS together to get a higher value!

I really would like to see that, can you link it ?

That's almost as funny as Rob Balsamo's 11.2 Gs.


ETA

Thank You !!!!!!!! That Was Delicious

reply to post by wmd_2008


i'm surprised that on a truther forum, the truthers are on the defence

come on truthers your hurting a true truthers reputation here, do it for all us truthers out there...

tbh im surprised anybody believes ten years on that anybody but america did it..


if i assume that one floor collapsed on the 80th floor as a result of the plane hitting, and 30 floors above fell as a result, then i would assume that the building would buckle. which then would lead to the building partial collapse..

i assuming but sounds more like what would happen to me..