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.

 

Building Collapses in Rio

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So do you think that these horizontal beams in the core were designed to carry the whole building above it? Or do you think they were designed to keep the core columns from buckling (by giving lateral support) and to carry the weight of the floor inside the core?


It is not a matter of what they were designed to hold. It is a matter of bending and dislocating them would require energy. The only source of energy would be the kinetic energy of the mass falling from above. IT WOULD SLOW DOWN!!!

Eventually it would STOP!

That is what my model demonstrates.

We are supposed to believe 15 stories could destroy 90+ stories and do it in less than 30 seconds when Newton's 3rd Law means the 15 stories had to be crushing themselves at least as fast as they destroyed the structure of the mass below.

RIDICULOUS! And then everybody doesn't expect to be given accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

psik




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
How long will this go on for I wonder?


Newtonian Physics will never change. Gravity is going to keep working that same way all over the planet.

There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall.

How long are we going to have bad physics education?



Harvard graduates can't explain what causes winter and summer.

ROFLMAO

Psychologists say that 75% of the population scores below 111 on the IQ tests.

psik



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is not a matter of what they were designed to hold. It is a matter of bending and dislocating them would require energy. The only source of energy would be the kinetic energy of the mass falling from above. IT WOULD SLOW DOWN!!!

Eventually it would STOP!


Another concept you don't seem to grasp is lower acceleration than g. You seem to think that when there is resistance, it means mass is slowing down. But gravity is accelerating the mass. So you need to demonstrate that the resistance of these beams is enough to slow down the mass more than gravity is accelerating it.



That is what my model demonstrates.


Yes, your model shows a situation where the resistance is too great. But as you have already agreed, your model has nothing to do with the WTC.


We are supposed to believe 15 stories could destroy 90+ stories and do it in less than 30 seconds when Newton's 3rd Law means the 15 stories had to be crushing themselves at least as fast as they destroyed the structure of the mass below.

RIDICULOUS! And then everybody doesn't expect to be given accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

psik


You incredulity is not really an argument, don't you think? You also seem to think that a "crushed" floor can not crush another intact floor. For no reason. Fantasy bro, pure fantasy. Thats is the world you live in.
edit on 3-2-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is not a matter of what they were designed to hold. It is a matter of bending and dislocating them would require energy. The only source of energy would be the kinetic energy of the mass falling from above. IT WOULD SLOW DOWN!!!

Eventually it would STOP!


Another concept you don't seem to grasp is lower acceleration than g. You seem to think that when there is resistance, it means mass is slowing down. But gravity is accelerating the mass. So you need to demonstrate that the resistance of these beams is enough to slow down the mass more than gravity is accelerating it.



That is what my model demonstrates.


Yes, your model shows a situation where the resistance is too great. But as you have already agreed, your model has nothing to do with the WTC.


We are supposed to believe 15 stories could destroy 90+ stories and do it in less than 30 seconds when Newton's 3rd Law means the 15 stories had to be crushing themselves at least as fast as they destroyed the structure of the mass below.

RIDICULOUS! And then everybody doesn't expect to be given accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

psik


You incredulity is not really an argument, don't you think? You also seem to think that a "crushed" floor can not crush another intact floor. For no reason. Fantasy bro, pure fantasy. Thats is the world you live in.


Newton's law dictates that two levels would have to be crushed simultaneously But no one is computing and reporting the amount of energy for each level. The potential energy of my model is less than the amount of energy required to crush all of the loops. I would have to raise the dropped portion 12 feet to collapse the whole thing. So the potential energy of the WTC would have to be greater than the energy needed to crush it for a complete collapse to occur and the Potential Energy cannot be computed accurately without the distributions of steel and concrete.

So back in a circle of not being able to do good physics without good data.

Once the horizontal beams impact the collisions will never stop. the columns will be bent and twisted wreckage will accumulate between the two colliding portion. Because of the safety factor that has to be put into buildings and the strength that must be incorporated to hold the structure against the wind the strength of the lower structure HAD TO BE GREATER THAN GRAVITY.

So what is stopping you from building a model that can completely collapse?

All you can do is TALK.

psik



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





We are supposed to believe 15 stories could destroy 90+ stories and do it in less than 30 seconds when Newton's 3rd Law means the 15 stories had to be crushing themselves at least as fast as they destroyed the structure of the mass below.

RIDICULOUS! And then everybody doesn't expect to be given accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

You refuse to accept that if the weight on floor 90 exceeds its absolute limits, the floor will fall. Then that same weight plus 1 floor will be placed on the floor below.
You act like these floors were stacked on top of each other. When the reality is closer to the floors being attached to the inside of a big silo.

And it's time for you to stop the whining for the distribution of steel and concrete.
You have been provided with several links over the months of inceasant whining, that give you the data you crave. It's time for you to do something with it.

All the experts agree that the fire doomed the buildings and the total amount of steel and concrete is irrevalent.

Now you need to show us how much steel and concrete would be needed to allow the building to survive the fire we saw. Or conversely at what quanity of steel and concrete on each floor is too little for the building to survive the fire.

Stop your whining and hand waving and do something!



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





We are supposed to believe 15 stories could destroy 90+ stories and do it in less than 30 seconds when Newton's 3rd Law means the 15 stories had to be crushing themselves at least as fast as they destroyed the structure of the mass below.

RIDICULOUS! And then everybody doesn't expect to be given accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

You refuse to accept that if the weight on floor 90 exceeds its absolute limits, the floor will fall. Then that same weight plus 1 floor will be placed on the floor below.
You act like these floors were stacked on top of each other. When the reality is closer to the floors being attached to the inside of a big silo.


I say LEVELS and you say FLOORS. I don't know when you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core or when you are including what is in the core. When I talk about the weight of steel I am including the core.

It is not my fault that you want to ignore data that we don't have. So at best we can't resolve the problem. So BELIEVING the building could collapse is nonsense. We just know it was destroyed but not by what.

psik



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
But the entropy, and more specifically the changes in entropy implied by BAZANT'S MODEL very much can be.

Good enough. That will do, and you just said it can be done. OK, do it. Let's see it. A chance to put your money where your mouth is. Let's see a number.

But please, do start with Bazant's paper and not your idea of what it might say if you read it, as translated into slash characters. Bazant's mechanics are best represented by his equations of motions, not some abortion of a Schaeffer's stroke.


The only thing I ever asked was if BAZANT'S FALLING SOLID BLOCK MODEL implies a decrease in entropy.

You didn't ask, you proclaimed. Then allegedly proved a violation. Now you're asking?


I believe it does.

Awesome.


BAZANT'S MODEL IS NOT A COMPLEX EVENT. If anything it is a gross oversimplification.

Sure enough. All the same, you've never read it and wouldn't understand it if you did.


If the falling block model implies a decrease of entropy then the model itself is invalid regardless of the math that follows.

Consider the premise...




While we're at it, what is the problem to solve? Can you state that?


I am trying to establish whether there is a rigorous way to determine definitively if extra assistance outside of planes and fire was required to produce the the collapse as observed.

Thank you for stating the problem which you perceive to exist. Nothing is stopping you. I'm not stopping you.


If you think that you can answer that question just by defining the observation ever more closely then a lecture on affirming the consequent is very much warranted.

YOU'RE the one who committed that error, stop trying to fob it off on me in the hypothetical. YOU actually did it.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Readers will note that the request to back up slurs with concrete examples was ignored.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





I say LEVELS and you say FLOORS. I don't know when you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core or when you are including what is in the core. When I talk about the weight of steel I am including the core.

It is not my fault that you want to ignore data that we don't have.

The floor trusses are attached to the steel beams in the core.
When a floor, any floor, gives way, the downward angle of the trusses combined with the weight of the concrete will torque (twist) the steel beams of the core.
Twisted core beams will not support the 15 floors of core and trusses above.

Distribution of steel and concrete is irrelevant. You have been told this by many people. You just can't seem to understand it.
That's the problem with this consp[iracy. They can't understand simple physics and conclude it's a conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I say LEVELS and you say FLOORS. I don't know when you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core or when you are including what is in the core. When I talk about the weight of steel I am including the core.

It is not my fault that you want to ignore data that we don't have.

The floor trusses are attached to the steel beams in the core.
When a floor, any floor, gives way, the downward angle of the trusses combined with the weight of the concrete will torque (twist) the steel beams of the core.


What is your evidence for that?

How do you know the bracket won't break loose completely before the beam is significantly deformed?

Are you saying the truss connections were stronger than the solid beams in the core? And the columns got thicker and stronger further down the buildings while the truss connections were the same because the floors were the same except for the mechanical.

psik



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





How do you know the bracket won't break loose completely before the beam is significantly deformed?


Oh please.
If all the connections fail then the exterior columns will be pulled inward. Building lost.
If only the center of the trusses buckle then the beams will twist. Building lost.
If the connections at the columns fail then the beams will twist. Building lost.

Once any part of the core beams become twisted then the mass of 15 floors will twist the remaining core beams on the way down.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





How do you know the bracket won't break loose completely before the beam is significantly deformed?


Oh please.
If all the connections fail then the exterior columns will be pulled inward. Building lost.
If only the center of the trusses buckle then the beams will twist. Building lost.
If the connections at the columns fail then the beams will twist. Building lost.

Once any part of the core beams become twisted then the mass of 15 floors will twist the remaining core beams on the way down.


The truss connections only had to support the weight of a single floor slab and its live load. At the 15th LEVEL from the top of the building the columns had to support the weight of 15 floors. The horizontal beams kept the columns from bending. The further down the building you go the greater the strength of the core relative to the truss connections.

psik



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





The horizontal beams kept the columns from bending.

When will you realize that there were no horizontal beams? They did not exist! The design did not use them!
And that was the problem with the design. That's why no new sky scrapers will use that method of construction ever again.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





The horizontal beams kept the columns from bending.

When will you realize that there were no horizontal beams? They did not exist! The design did not use them!
And that was the problem with the design. That's why no new sky scrapers will use that method of construction ever again.


Well, I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to jump in and defend psikeyhacker's quote that you are disputing.

There were horizontal beams in the WTC 1&2, but they were located only in the core area surrounding the elevators and toilet rooms. It's pretty much accurate to say that the horizontal beams (and also the composite slab and truss system) prevented the columns from bending,but we would usually say "buckling" rather than bending.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We are supposed to believe 15 stories could destroy 90+ stories and do it in less than 30 seconds when Newton's 3rd Law means the 15 stories had to be crushing themselves at least as fast as they destroyed the structure of the mass below.


You just put in one sentence what takes me a paragraph to try to explain lol.


If people can't understand that then they never will. If they do understand that then they need to explain how they account for that. The question we've been trying to get them to answer for how many years now?



edit on 2/3/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If people can't understand that then they never will.


That is probably correct. Making


If they do understand that then they need to explain how they account for that.


a pointless exercise.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The horizontal beams kept the columns from bending.

When will you realize that there were no horizontal beams? They did not exist! The design did not use them!
And that was the problem with the design. That's why no new sky scrapers will use that method of construction ever again.


Well, I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to jump in and defend psikeyhacker's quote that you are disputing.

There were horizontal beams in the WTC 1&2, but they were located only in the core area surrounding the elevators and toilet rooms. It's pretty much accurate to say that the horizontal beams (and also the composite slab and truss system) prevented the columns from bending,but we would usually say "buckling" rather than bending.


Holy Smokes! I think I am gong to pass out from the shock.

Watch the Purdue simulation about the CORE and they show the horizontal beams.

www.youtube.com...

So plenty of people either believe nonsense or will lie to support their position.

psik



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You incredulity is not really an argument, don't you think? You also seem to think that a "crushed" floor can not crush another intact floor. For no reason. Fantasy bro, pure fantasy. Thats is the world you live in.
edit on 3-2-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


We could throw around the words "gullibility" versus "incredulity" until hell freezes over.

It does not change the fact that various SCIENTISTS and EXPERTS have not been demanding accurate steel and concrete distribution data on the towers for the last TEN YEARS.

The Conservation of Momentum is incapable of giving a damm about all of this verbal bullsh#.

psik



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by snowcrash911
 




But whether you start with the model or the formalism either is worthless if it fails to predict novel events in reality.



That's just the thing. That 'novelty' you're talking about. How can anything new ever be established if it requires precedent first? Can you answer that one Darkwing? Thank you.


Good question. You can't. That is why the scientific method is the standard and not mathematical formalism alone.

Google: Dilek Arli: THE PARADOX OF ANALYSIS (ON THE POSSIBILITY OF AN INFORMATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTS)


There's fifteen minutes of my life I'll never get back.

You linked me to an incoherent, English language-challenged screed by a student of Maltepe University, an illustrious institution in the vicinity of Istanbul with a rich academic past, founded in 1997.

I can only recommend people read it themselves if they want to be thoroughly and definitively convinced of the futility and hollowness of Darkwing's critique. Other than that, please don't bother.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by IrishWristwatch
 


Gah! The forum ate my enormous post...

I will do a quick recap.

First if you are sincere in your affirmations of the principles outlined above I apologize, I am not going to quote-mine old conversations.

That is a good start at least so we all agree on the basic principles, if you don't mind I will save those responses for future reference though.



Good enough. That will do, and you just said it can be done.


I have been trying to convince you of just this point for more than a year now and that is the best you can muster?

Still, it is a start.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the elevator speech version of the violation implied in Bazants model:

There is nothing in the laws of mechanics that makes perpetual motion machines impossible. The reason they don't work is because they violate the second law of thermodynamics, not mechanics.

In real systems once the useful energy of a component is used it cannot be used again. When the falling indestructible block passes through the building in Bazant's model it gains useful energy which is dissipated when the block itself is destroyed.

At the first impact there is insufficient useful energy to destroy the block, the block consumes the building, gaining in useful energy as it does so. When it reaches the bottom there is no more useful energy to gain, so where does the additional useful energy to effect the transition from solid unbreakable rigid block to frangible collapsing body come from?

All you have is the block now, but in order for the block to be broken it must be subjected to a larger impact than each previous impact required to break each successive floor on the way down.

You could move the transition up, but once the unbreakable block starts breaking it must progressively lose capacity to destroy the remaining structure, so slowing the collapse.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

You ask what I want from you Irish?

I want you to commit to a model.

You have your observations, and they are not getting any more precise. The idea that there is some level of precision in measurement that will grant you insight is grand fallacy.

I want you to move on to the next step in the scientific method: Postulate a theory and test it.

Even if there is more accurate data to be gained simply interpreting historical data as being caused by gravity is not scientific. You have to pick your position BEFORE you start to measure and look for data that FALSIFIES your position.

Once the measurements are in you cannot use those measurements anymore to test your theory.

You may be wrong, but that is the risk. Sitting on the sidelines and sniping at everybody else's ideas while you refuse to commit yourself to a position is a cop-out and sheer intellectual laziness in my opinion.

[for the record, some of best friends are engineers
I don't have a problem with engineers, just with engineers who think that the world conforms to the simplifications they are exposed to in their training. I am fundamentally agnostic, using inscrutable jargon in the form of equations does not grant you access to any special knowledge (and may not be as inscrutable to the lay public as you might hope)]
edit on 4-2-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join