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

Originally posted by GenRadek
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.

I was asking IrishWatchman about a computerized collapse time based on only the conservation of momentum.

I get 12 seconds for constant mass. But that means no supports must be destroyed by mass falling from above. So even 30 seconds is ridiculous if supports strong enough to hold the mass under static load must be crushed to allow the whole thing to come down. This entire 9/11 business is incredibly STUPID. It should have been resolved in 2002.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So even 30 seconds is ridiculous if supports strong enough to hold the mass under static load must be crushed to allow the whole thing to come down.

Why would the supports have to be crushed? They only need to be broken (which takes milliseconds) in one place to be completely taken out of the support equation. Sorry, your not making any sense.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

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

Why do you people assume that explosives would've sped up the collapse??

What's the evidence for that?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

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

Why do you people assume that explosives would've sped up the collapse??

What's the evidence for that?

Why don't you do some physics and quit worrying about the psychological bullsh# of assumptions?

psik

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Why do you people assume that explosives would've sped up the collapse??

What's the evidence for that?

Because they would take away the resistance?

The evidence is the lack of slowing of the collapse due to resistance.

To make each floor collapse takes energy. Each impacting floor would reduce the Ke, thus slowing the collapse.

To overcome resistance and maintain a accelerating collapse, the resistance had to have been removed ahead of the collapse wave, or somehow Ke was increased in the falling mass. If you can explain what increased the Ke, without the use of an outside energy, you should contact NIST and let them know you figured out what they couldn't, or deliberately didn't explain.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So even 30 seconds is ridiculous if supports strong enough to hold the mass under static load must be crushed to allow the whole thing to come down.

Why would the supports have to be crushed? They only need to be broken (which takes milliseconds) in one place to be completely taken out of the support equation. Sorry, your not making any sense.

The official story is that the portion of the north tower came down on what was holding it up. If you want to use some word other than crushed that is fine with me.

You are of course also free to explain what could destroy supports strong enough to hold 90,000 tons of static load in milliseconds.

Apparently you can just say things and expect to be believed.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why don't you do some physics and quit worrying about the psychological bullsh# of assumptions?

psik

Isn't that what you're doing, though? You are focusing on your psychological need to have data, and without the data you want, you feel free to make as many assumptions as possible, and assume that the supports must have been crushed in order to fail. This is, of course, absurd, but don't tell your brain that. It's got too much vested in a conspiracy to give it up now.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


It's simply impossible that the supports would land exactly on each-other in a manner that would crush the supports in the way you suggest. Both towers were observed to be leaning when they collapsed. That means that it wasn't a straight-down crushing of supports.

reply to post by ANOK


Why on earth should the collapse slow when every second meant an increasing dynamic load from above ?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The official story is that the portion of the north tower came down on what was holding it up. If you want to use some word other than crushed that is fine with me.

How about broken? How long does it take to break a column once its overloaded? Hours? Weeks? Days? Months? Minutes? Milliseconds? I'm going with milliseconds. I've broken things before. Doesn't take very long. SNAP! That's it! Once broken it is no longer offering support or resistances.

You are of course also free to explain what could destroy supports strong enough to hold 90,000 tons of static load in milliseconds.

90,000 tons of load under acceleration.

Apparently you can just say things and expect to be believed.

By people in the real world who have actually had the rare experience of seeing something break.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Why on earth should the collapse slow when every second meant an increasing dynamic load from above?

Can you prove the first impacted floor could not have held the load of the falling block? If it couldn't hold the load, should it instantly fail the second it goes over it's load handling capacity? Or should there have been some slowing of the falling mass as Ke was used to cause the floors connections to fail? After losing Ke, should the whole falling mass continue to slow, as resistance became harder to overcome? Or should Ke continue to increase regardless of resistance, and loss to other work that was obviously done?

BTW 'dynamic loading' really means nothing, the physics remain the same. You just think it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

reply to post by ANOK

Can you prove the first impacted floor could not have held the load of the falling block?

Yes.

If it couldn't hold the load, should it instantly fail the second it goes over it's load handling capacity?

Yes. There's no "grace period".

Or should there have been some slowing of the falling mass as Ke was used to cause the floors connections to fail?

Nope.

After losing Ke, should the whole falling mass continue to slow, as resistance became harder to overcome?

Nope. As the collapsed progressed the mass increased and the "resistance" remained the same.

Or should Ke continue to increase regardless of resistance, and loss to other work that was obviously done?

The "resistance" was the same throught the structure for the purpose of the collapse, the buildings were designed uniformly.

BTW 'dynamic loading' really means nothing, the physics remain the same. You just think it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why don't you do some physics and quit worrying about the psychological bullsh# of assumptions?

psik

Isn't that what you're doing, though? You are focusing on your psychological need to have data,

ROFLMAO

Requiring data to get the correct solution to a physics problem is a psychological need?

The only alternative is not solving the problem. What idiotic rhetorical sophistry.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why don't you do some physics and quit worrying about the psychological bullsh# of assumptions?

psik

Isn't that what you're doing, though? You are focusing on your psychological need to have data,

ROFLMAO

Requiring data to get the correct solution to a physics problem is a psychological need?

The only alternative is not solving the problem. What idiotic rhetorical sophistry.

psik

Look, a guy asked whether explosives would really speed up the collapse, and you responded by saying that he was focusing on his psychological need for information. I told you that you have a psychological need for particular data, and it seems like a very similar situation here.

Isn't anyone sick of all this speculation yet? Folks on this side of reality, claim all of these facts and evidence. BUT, not enough to make its way into a court? Not enough to actually get a "credible person" NO, not a fold up and disposable scientist, that loathes the USA....

"people heard explosions" - "It fell at free fall speed" " Metal doesn't melt at that temp"... blah blah blah!!!

"Building 7 was untouched" - really? Missing nearly an entire load bearing wall means untouched now....

"No plane hit the Pentagon" ---- BWHAHAHAHAH BWHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAHAA Ok, so the HUNDREDS of witnesses saw....... what exactly?

Super Illuminati agent : "So we are going to shoot a missile at the pentagon, during RUSH HOUR and we will tell the hundreds of people it was a plane."

Super Illuminati agent 2: "That sounds good. Remember to turn the hologram projector on in NY."

How did they plant the explosions? Where is all the evidence of explosives? Instead of making the facts fit and "explosion" theory.... Let the facts tell the story.. Oh, wait, you don't like that story. It contains ZERO conspiracy points. And god knows, there is a conspiracy in EVERYTHING, and heaven only lets you in, if you have 500+ conspiracy points at death.


Keywords: Holograms - energy weapons - Missing gold - Drone - laser weapons - Mossad - Van - explosives - dancing Israelis - planted evidence - lack of logic - thermite - Delusional.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

ROFLMAO

You seem to be rolling of the floor quite a bit - do you have a problem you want to talk about?

Requiring data to get the correct solution to a physics problem is a psychological need?

Yes, when the data is well known and irrelevant and when you simultaneously insist you don't want it and need it.

The only alternative is not solving the problem. What idiotic rhetorical sophistry.

Or....the problem's been solved and you don't like the solution - which is a psychological, not physical, problem on your part.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why don't you do some physics and quit worrying about the psychological bullsh# of assumptions?

psik

Isn't that what you're doing, though? You are focusing on your psychological need to have data,

ROFLMAO

Requiring data to get the correct solution to a physics problem is a psychological need?

The only alternative is not solving the problem. What idiotic rhetorical sophistry.

psik

Look, a guy asked whether explosives would really speed up the collapse, and you responded by saying that he was focusing on his psychological need for information. I told you that you have a psychological need for particular data, and it seems like a very similar situation here.

He didn't ask if explosives would speed up the collapse. He said:

Why do you people assume that explosives would've sped up the collapse??

He is asking about an assumption therefore he is dealing with states of mind. I was simply saying deal with the physics and figure out what should happen without explosives. If it could not happen then that resolves any questions about assumptions.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


That makes sense. I apologize for the rudeness of my posts.

So, if we can't find the data, what do we do from here? It seems like getting upset on a message board isn't helping a whole lot.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

That makes sense. I apologize for the rudeness of my posts.

So, if we can't find the data, what do we do from here? It seems like getting upset on a message board isn't helping a whole lot.

The problem is with our engineering schools. They have already made asses of themselves by not demanding the data. But after TEN YEARS they will look ridiculous for talking about it now. But 9/11 can never go away because physics cannot change.

I built a model which demonstrates what I think should have happened even if a collapse started. But I don't think one should have, certainly not in less than two hours.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by MobiusUnleashed
Isn't anyone sick of all this speculation yet? Folks on this side of reality, claim all of these facts and evidence. BUT, not enough to make its way into a court? Not enough to actually get a "credible person" NO, not a fold up and disposable scientist, that loathes the USA....

"people heard explosions" - "It fell at free fall speed" " Metal doesn't melt at that temp"... blah blah blah!!!

Courts don't make judgments about physics. Just because it can be determined that airliners could not have destroyed the buildings does not even necessarily tell us what did. But considering that the vast majority of steel got disappeared within a few weeks makes a more detailed analysis a bit difficult.

But the fact that this issue has been obfuscated for TEN YEARS certainly says some interesting things about this society that I never would have believed 11 years ago.

psik