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

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

OK. Then why have you not done the simple equation? Show us. Let us see if we understand you. You should not need an engineering school like you said.

What simple equation are you talking about?

How many times have I said the we don't have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings? How many tons of steel and tons of concrete were on each level of the towers? But believers act like playing with equations when you don't have data to plug into equations is SO INTELLIGENT.

Even if the buildings were destroyed just by the airliners and fires to have discussed the subject for TEN YEARS and not have accurate data is REALLY STUPID!

psik

And by the way, Physics is not mathematics even though engineering schools make everybody do a lot of math as though mathematics controls physics. Various equations were selected because they conformed to the behavior of the physics not because the physics conformed to the equations.

I didn't do calculations to design my model I just made the loops as weak as I could to support the static load. I was pretty sure what would happen when I dropped the mass but I didn't really KNOW. But talking about 9/11 for TEN YEARS without the experts computing and reporting the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the towers is pretty absurd.

Of course if that energy was much greater than the potential energy of the towers then that would present a serious problem to any collapse hypothesis.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Purdue had the data. Ask them. I am sure they would be glad to help.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Purdue had the data. Ask them. I am sure they would be glad to help.

edit on 14-12-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

How do you KNOW what Purdue had? I pointed out what was wrong with Purdue's simulation. Curious how I have mentioned that lots of places and no one tries to refute it. But I emailed 3 people at Purdue, Chris Hoffman, Prof. Sozen and some guy with an east European name I can never remember. Professor Sozen would not respond and Hoffman told me to contact Sozen. So if anybody has accurate distribution of steel and concrete data they are not admitting it. So it is interesting that structural engineers aren't demanding and releasing it after TEN YEARS.

The 9/11 Religion must be maintained when it is nothing but grade school Newtonian physics.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


They culled the data. It is out there. It is not hidden. I take it you will start to bring up how much concrete was used and it cannot be calculated? Right.

Nice try to contact them but sorry, you did not refute their evidence in any way. It is also grade school physics that explains it but you cannot understand it. Strange....

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

They culled the data. It is out there. It is not hidden. I take it you will start to bring up how much concrete was used and it cannot be calculated? Right.

Nice try to contact them but sorry, you did not refute their evidence in any way. It is also grade school physics that explains it but you cannot understand it. Strange....

So you can just make up some bullsh# excuses for them and claim that they are right anyway even though you can't demonstrate that you actually understand anything.

How is it that the core columns don't move in the Purdue simulation and yet the NIST provided data demonstrating that the south tower deflected 15 inches on impact? And the south tower was hit lower down where the steel had to have been stronger and heavier. I guess it was SCIENTIFIC for Purdue to "CULL" the conservation of momentum from their simulation.

Excellent demonstration of the 9/11 Religion you are doing there.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

How is it that the core columns don't move in the Purdue simulation and yet the NIST provided data demonstrating that the south tower deflected 15 inches on impact?

Because its a simulation.

And the south tower was hit lower down where the steel had to have been stronger and heavier. I guess it was SCIENTIFIC for Purdue to "CULL" the conservation of momentum from their simulation.

No, they, unlike you, actually understand things like "conservation of momentum". I guess they should have used copy paper loops taped together, hardware store washers and a broomhandle to better prove their point. Besides - its all moot isn't it? I mean you were absolutely convinced within days after 9/11 that an airplane could have not caused the damage so why are you all worried about what Purdue shows in its simulation?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

How is it that the core columns don't move in the Purdue simulation and yet the NIST provided data demonstrating that the south tower deflected 15 inches on impact?

Because its a simulation.

ROFLMAO

Yeah, a really BAD SIMULATION which is claimed to be SCIENTIFIC by a supposedly PRESTIGIOUS UNIVERSITY.

colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...

The airliner had mass and velocity. That is momentum. How could the plane do severe structural damage without imparting its momentum to the tower? Skyscrapers sway in the wind. The building would have to move due to the impact. So whoever designed that simulation was REALLY DUMB.

That is the trouble with computer simulations they can only be as accurate as the creators are smart. So if they got something that simple completely wrong why even bother looking for more subtle stuff they may have gotten wrong?

That is the advantage of physical models. Real objects cannot escape the Laws of Physics. They present different problems, like the square-cube law, but they cannot do what is physically impossible like computer simulations.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Is the deflection of the building from impact ultimately important in modeling a "best-guess" at the possible damage an airliner could make? I guess I'm trying to say, would adding the deflection change the results a great deal?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Is the deflection of the building from impact ultimately important in modeling a "best-guess" at the possible damage an airliner could make? I guess I'm trying to say, would adding the deflection change the results a great deal?

You can trust the BEST GUESS by people who can't even figure out the airliner would make the building deflect and oscillate all you want. It would just be a matter knowing the distribution of mass and stiffness of the steel. But how could they compute the damage without knowing the thickness of the steel? So if they know the thickness of the steel then why don't they know the weight?

It sounds like they can't do it correctly without having accurate data but if they had accurate data then how could they get it wrong? But then that simulation doesn't really tell us anything except that an airliner hit the tower and did some damage. WE ALL KNEW THAT ALREADY! Where in Purdue's simulation data do they actually specify how many core columns were cut?

So all you care about is having some pretty pictures that you don't understand well enough to figure out when they are wrong. Then you want to make excuses for the error.

psik

reply to post by Varemia

Is the deflection of the building from impact ultimately important in modeling a "best-guess" at the possible damage an airliner could make? I guess I'm trying to say, would adding the deflection change the results a great deal?

Not in the Purdue model.

They were looking to find out why the floors collapsed.

Besides according to someone the building resisted with equal and opposite force. Therefore the plane must have bounced off. Ha Ha

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But how could they compute the damage without knowing the thickness of the steel? So if they know the thickness of the steel then why don't they know the weight?

Could it be that they knew all the data you are seeking and just couldn't be bothered with answering an email from some random person that appears to know nothing about the subject?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But how could they compute the damage without knowing the thickness of the steel? So if they know the thickness of the steel then why don't they know the weight?

Could it be that they knew all the data you are seeking and just couldn't be bothered with answering an email from some random person that appears to know nothing about the subject?

I am not really seeking the data. I am pointing out that YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE without having been supplied the data. And after TEN YEARS the experts you trust don't even bother supplying it and you don't know enough to demand it.

So after TEN YEARS it is more about psychology than physics. If airliners could destroy the buildings what reason could there be to not supply all of the data? Why can't they build a physical model that can completely collapse?

That is why it is the 9/11 Religion. Belief without even good evidence and accepting a computer simulation with STUPID FLAWS and not knowing enough to recognize the flaws.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I am not really seeking the data.

Liar. Then why do you keep asking for it. Strange way of not really seeking it.

I am pointing out that YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE without having been supplied the data.

There's a lot of things that I "believe" without seeking all the data. I don't have the time or inclination to consume tons of data. Show me why they would lying then maybe I'll ask.

And after TEN YEARS the experts you trust don't even bother supplying it and you don't know enough to demand it.

Or, the data has already been supplied and you're not smart enough to know it. I'm going with that one.

So after TEN YEARS it is more about psychology than physics.

Nope, its still physics.

If airliners could destroy the buildings what reason could there be to not supply all of the data?

Who says they haven't - you? Give me a break. You don't even know how to search a PDF file.

Why can't they build a physical model that can completely collapse?

Who says they can't?

That is why it is the 9/11 Religion.

Maybe on your side of the fence, but over here its all science and logic.

Belief without even good evidence and accepting a computer simulation with STUPID FLAWS and not knowing enough to recognize the flaws.

Or not knowing enough to understand that when a list of people living in Los Angeles doesn't include people living in New York the list is not flawed, the reader is.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I am not really seeking the data.

Liar. Then why do you keep asking for it. Strange way of not really seeking it.

I am satisfied that it ain't out there or whoever has it is not letting everyone know so it doesn't make sense for me to seek it anymore.

I am just trying to get people to notice its absence and the absurdity of not having it after TEN YEARS.

psik

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But how could they compute the damage without knowing the thickness of the steel? So if they know the thickness of the steel then why don't they know the weight?

Could it be that they knew all the data you are seeking and just couldn't be bothered with answering an email from some random person that appears to know nothing about the subject?

That's exactly what it is. Star for you.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But how could they compute the damage without knowing the thickness of the steel? So if they know the thickness of the steel then why don't they know the weight?

Could it be that they knew all the data you are seeking and just couldn't be bothered with answering an email from some random person that appears to know nothing about the subject?

That's exactly what it is. Star for you.

Well it is certainly curious that all of these EXPERTS can't program a magical collapse which is slowed down only by the conservation of momentum which takes 12 seconds to collapse with constant masses. But in a bottom heavy configuration takes even longer. But then they never raise the question of how much real physical supports that had to be crushed from above would slow things down.

So hen they don't explain how the whole structure came down in less than 25 seconds. So the nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world how the steel and concrete were distributed in buildings designed before 1969 but everyone is is supposed to believe an absurdity that these experts don't even try to explain in detail.

It is more like some people are supposed to believe they are stupid just because they are told they are stupid. Let us all bow down and worship the engineering schools that don't have to explain anything.

www.youtube.com...



psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious that all of these EXPERTS can't program a magical collapse which is slowed down only by the conservation of momentum which takes 12 seconds to collapse with constant masses.

I can.

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious that all of these EXPERTS can't program a magical collapse which is slowed down only by the conservation of momentum which takes 12 seconds to collapse with constant masses.

I can.

So what collapse time did you get?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


With a stopwatch and a couple of videos, I easily get 15-18 seconds of initial collapse, followed by another 10-15 seconds for the core "Spire" collapse.

Grand total time of total collapse runs about 28-30 seconds.