Building Collapses in Rio

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


It's not my fault that you can't figure out the significance of your own gif. It has all 59 columns on one side.


Right back at ya. It took you a while, and now that you've responded it seems you still don't get it. ANOK resorts to seeing stuff move that isn't moving, in order to discredit it. Mull over it for a while longer.


You are saying the FIRE broke more than 200 columns in 55 minutes. That is what that tilt means and then don't insist on knowing the tons of steel in the vicinity of the break.

psik




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The JREF nitwits




Hmmmm....


psikeyhackr
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sol III
Posts: 470


470 posts..Would that not make you a nitwit too?


So you mean I believe in collecting data before jumping to conclusions?

How many physical models have you built to test the physics of 9/11?

psik



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The JREF nitwits



You called them nitwits... yet you were a member there for a while and then got banned... that makes you a nitwit too. Just sayin!



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The JREF nitwits

You called them nitwits... yet you were a member there for a while and then got banned... that makes you a nitwit too. Just sayin!


At least you demonstrate that your LOGICAL REASONING is truly phenomenal.


It at least shows I was banned by people who may be nitwits.

No comment about your making models to demonstrate the physics of 9/11 I see. That is curious, the nitwits on JREF did not produce any physical models either. Ryan Mackey just talked about modeling.

psik
edit on 29-1-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

At least you demonstrate that you LOGICAL REASONING is truly phenomenal.


It at least shows I was banned by people who may be nitwits.


No, you called the people that made the thread nitwits. You made no mention of the mods there being nitwits. I don't know why you were banned, nor do i care. You made a personal attack toward people that you were part of for a while.

Did I make a model? Hell no. Are you the one that put the plastic paper holders on top of each other amd tackled them? I really don't care if you did or didn't. Just let me know where or when your experiments were/are published...then I'll give them a look.
edit on 29-1-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


It's not my fault that you can't figure out the significance of your own gif. It has all 59 columns on one side.


Right back at ya. It took you a while, and now that you've responded it seems you still don't get it. ANOK resorts to seeing stuff move that isn't moving, in order to discredit it. Mull over it for a while longer.


You are saying the FIRE broke more than 200 columns in 55 minutes. That is what that tilt means and then don't insist on knowing the tons of steel in the vicinity of the break.

psik



psikey,

With all due respect man, all you've ever done it seems is moan about not having the actual hard numbers for the weight distributions of the steel and concrete for the upper and lower portions of the towers. Seemingly, you're argument has never wavered in all the years you've been yelling about this, across every forum on the net.. And this also seems to be your proof that some other force must've caused the towers to completely collapse...

I have to give you credit for staying the course..

But all that precious time and energy you've expended yelling and whining about not having these figures could have been used far more efficiently in perhaps, oh I don't know, coming up with estimates of the figures you so desire. There's enough credible information out there about the materials used to construct the towers, and how much of it (collectively), to derive good enough "estimated figures (with upper and lower limits) to support whatever it is you've been trying to say all of these years. Yet it seems you haven't done so-- why is that?

You keep hiding behind this argument and blaming all the physics experts and schools that in your view, and baffling enough, have paid no attention to this as if they're all in on it in some way. When are you actually going to figure it out for yourself?

You seem confident that you've found a glaring issue with supposed negligence by the physics and engineering community on this matter. Yelling about it is not going to solve the problem. Take the matter into your own hands and provide a sound hypothesis of what you believe happened (or couldn't have happened) based on the estimated figures for the weight distributions.

Otherwise, enough is enough already...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

No, you called the people that made the thread nitwits. You made no mention of the mods there being nitwits.


So you can't read either and interpret what you read the way you want.

I said:


The JREF nitwits have started a thread about building collapses in Rio and making comparisons to 9/11 based mostly on ridicule since they rarely say anything relevant.


I have no way of knowing whether the thread starter was a mod or not and would not care. How would you know whether or not he was a mod? I was just making a general statement about JREFers.

I then pointed out their lack of discussion of mass distribution of a 20 story building versus very tall building. Something under 300 feet would have a very different mass distribution than a structure over 1000 feet. It is the physics of gravity.

psik



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
psikey,

With all due respect man, all you've ever done it seems is moan about not having the actual hard numbers for the weight distributions of the steel and concrete for the upper and lower portions of the towers. Seemingly, you're argument has never wavered in all the years you've been yelling about this, across every forum on the net.. And this also seems to be your proof that some other force must've caused the towers to completely collapse...

I have to give you credit for staying the course..


What does respect have to do with PHYSICS.

I provided a link to a Python program simulation of a magical collapse based solely on the conservation of momentum showing that with constant mass down the structure that collapse would take 12 seconds. So if the mass increased down the structure it would have to take longer. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds. Some estimates are less than 10 seconds. But my simulation is based on NO SUPPORTS HAVING TO BE BROKEN.

Are we trying to solve a problem so everyone can understand the solution or are we talking forever for the sake of ENTERTAINMENT?

I THINK 9/11 IS SO SIMPLE IT IS BORING. I said it should have been solved in 2002, at least in determining if airliners could do it, and that the United States should be laughed at for the next 1000 years.

It is Newtonian Physics and the physics profession should have been talking about the distribution of mass in very tall structures in 2002. Look at the CN Tower in Canada which does not contain much empty space. But instead I have had clowns asking me to explain short buildings where the upper portion is wider than the lower portion and accusing me of having no comprehension of physics.

So the fact that this issue has gone on for TEN YEARS means there has to be a lot of stupid people talking about it. Now I am sure someone here will use that in their rhetorical games to accuse me of being one of them.

But that does not change the fact that the lower portion of all skyscrapers must support the mass above and therefore require greater strength which means more steel and therefore greater weight.

So that brings in the conservation of momentum for any supposed collapse.

I get complaints when I show my model but where is the physical model that can collapse completely while damaging the support components? Grade school Newtonian Physics is never going to change and will never go away so 9/11 won't either until the physics profession admits that normal airliners could not do it.

It is not my fault that all of the websites put this into conspiracy rubbish instead of physics. And then the websites claiming to be scientifically oriented do not demand accurate data either and none of them have built a model that can completely collapse. I was banned by The Naked Scientist Website also. So it appears that science has gone out of the window since 9/11. Scientists must be paid salaries also. But most of them just say nothing.

Then they want to talk about STEM education in the United States.


I guess science can be turned on and off depending on which way the political winds are blowing.

Physicists should stop talking about Galileo. They might be accused of hypocrisy.

Or is it hypocracy, Rule by Hypocrits.

psik

PS - I concluded in two weeks that airliners could not do it without accurate data but the reasoning was based on what skyscrapers had to do to hold themselves up against gravity and the wind. So I find it really curious that EXPERTS prefer to ignore that information including Richard Gage and his buddies. They are supposed to be BELIEVED just because they are EXPERTS. IBM did the same crap. All of their computers were von Neumann machines and hired him in 1952 but I never heard the term all of the while I was there. Experts need to keep other people ignorant to maintain their aura of expertise.
edit on 29-1-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





But that does not change the fact that the lower portion of all skyscrapers must support the mass above and therefore require greater strength which means more steel and therefore greater weight.


In this case the lower exterior walls and the lower core since there was no center support for any of the floors.




PS - I concluded in two weeks that airliners could not do it without accurate data but the reasoning was based on what skyscrapers had to do to hold themselves up against gravity and the wind.

No the fire did it.
Had there been no fire the structures would likely been salvagable.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
In this case the lower exterior walls and the lower core since there was no center support for any of the floors.


ROFLMAO

The floors were big square donuts.

Are you saying the core was not in the center of them.


psik



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by ANOK
The North tower also shows the same, top collapsing independent of the bottom, it just didn't tilt as much...


And there was a huge difference in the amount of tilt The south tower portion was double the height also. The additional 15 stories farther down would be heavier also.

The lack of interest in the tilted top portion of the south tower by the physics profession truly amazes me. Aside from the complete destruction of the buildings that tilted top is the most impressive thing about 9/11. People talking about floors pancaking in the south tower and ignoring that tilt are truly bizarre.

psik


The tilt alone is evidence that some other energy must have been involved. The only way the core could have been severed is by the planes, but there is no way a plane could punch through the steel facade, and still have the energy to punch though 47 massive steel box columns. Going through a box column is going through two steel walls about 2" thick, and two 2" steel walls edge on. There is just no way that happened.

So what caused the columns to be severed OSers?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
No the fire did it.
Had there been no fire the structures would likely been salvagable.


Then why shouldn't we know the amount of steel on every level to figure out how the fire could have gotten it hot enough in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

I say you have just decided to BELIEVE and don't need data to sustain your belief.

psik
edit on 29-1-2012 by psikeyhackr because: gram err



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





but there is no way a plane could punch through the steel facade, and still have the energy to punch though 47 massive steel box columns.


Uhh
here is a picture (3rd down) where a wooden plane going about 300 mph went through a steel deck.
Or
Maybe the Japs were in on it. Preparing for 911 60 years later.

You seem to underestimate the energy involved. Perhaps that's why all the worlds physics experts are not crying foul.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Oh dear another fail.

Japanese kamikaze planes were loaded with explosives, bombs, torpedoes etc. They were flying bombs, not empty passenger planes.

Not only that if you read the caption...


In addition, three bombs from these planes exploded inside the hull.

www.navweaps.com...

Not only that you missed my point about the plane losing Ke due to already hitting one steel wall, how did the plane gain Ke in order to punch through yet thicker steel?

Keep trying though, a physics class would help you...

edit on 1/29/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
You seem to underestimate the energy involved. Perhaps that's why all the worlds physics experts are not crying foul.


Many experts are crying foul. Just because some are not saying anything it doesn't mean they believe the OS. Have you spoken to them all?

Most professional have too much to lose by publicly getting involved in this debate. A lot probably don't give a damn either way.

It's again noted that you fail to address the points made as usual and appeal to authority. Where is your evidence all these physicists support the OS?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
This is where you make the mistake of assuming something you have no evidence, or precedence for.

You make the assumption that falling part are going to break what they are falling on.

You don't seem to take into consideration the laws of action/reaction, equal opposite reaction and conservation of momentum.

A lighter part is never going to cause a heavier part to break

Where is that 'law of physics' written? Citation?


I think you assume because the lighter part is falling and has momentum that it will break the heavier part, but it doesn't work that way.

Really?


The forces at impact on both parts will be the same, third law of motion, equal and opposite in direction.

Correct. That IS a law of physics.


So if the forces are equal, how can the smaller mass break the larger mass?

One simple answer is, when the force (= time rate of change of momentum) is sufficient to break both. Another is when the smaller part is more optimally loaded in contact and compression along the axis of incidence than the larger part. Another is when the smaller part has greater density than the larger part so the momentum transfer is localized to a region of the larger part. Another is when the smaller part is more sturdy than the larger part.


It can't, the falling mass would be resisted by the larger mass.

This is not true for the general case.


Simple basic physics.

False. Made-up armchair physics.

Newton's third law says nothing about equal and opposite destruction, or that smaller parts must be destroyed in collision, leaving larger ones intact.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Where is that 'law of physics' written? Citation?


Are you serious?

Study and learn...

csep10.phys.utk.edu...


One simple answer is, when the force (= time rate of change of momentum) is sufficient to break both. Another is when the smaller part is more optimally loaded in contact and compression along the axis of incidence than the larger part. Another is when the smaller part has greater density than the larger part so the momentum transfer is localized to a region of the larger part. Another is when the smaller part is more sturdy than the larger part.


Yes but we are talking about steel hitting steel. Please stay in context.


This is not true for the general case.


Again steel hitting steel, not a general case but a specific one.



Newton's third law says nothing about equal and opposite destruction, or that smaller parts must be destroyed in collision, leaving larger ones intact.


LOL the third law...


For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

If there is an equal reaction between objects colliding, then what is it that defines the destruction? Momentum?
No, because no matter the momentum the forces on both objects will be equal. So what is left? MASS! 10 tons of steel will not cause 20 tons of steel to fail.

If you think it's weak connections that failed, then why did the floors pull in columns when they sagged, and not just break the weak connections? If the connections were stronger than the columns, then why did the floors collapse in the first place?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I see these sorts of claims all the time and all they do is retard any progress in an argument. The claims are false and only appeal to everyday experience and knowledge is necessary to demonstrate it to be so.

In the matter of the reasons I gave as to why a smaller part can destroy a larger one, you can add another more important consideration: all impacts are local. Think about that. There is no such thing as an ideal rigid body in the real world. It matters not whether the top assembly in its entirety is larger or more massive than the bottom in its entirety, it only matters whether the regions in contact at collision can effectively arrest the motion. If they can't, if they fail, the failure propagates and motion continues until such point that some portions have sufficient capacity to arrest - if ever.

If the collision between two bodies is horizontal, reaction force from the impacted body slows the impactor incrementally. If it's vertical downwards, all yield displacement by the impacted body results in continued potential energy loss by both the impactor and the entrained (damaged) portion of the impacted body, which necessarily goes to the kinetic energy of the moving mass. Plus there is always the static weight of the upper part in addition to the impulse provided by momentum change at collision. Simple physics!

So let's consider what the contact surfaces might be in a downward descent of an upper "block" (the terminology is a strong indicator of the conceptual flaw at work here). Columns ends, which are the only load bearing surfaces capable of holding the static load, are hitting what? Columns ends? In your dreams! When you consider the total cross-sectional area versus the total column end area, for the most part you have column ends hitting one of two things, at least initially: 1) Floor assemblies and 2) air. The second you can see directly to be true for large spans of the perimeters.

Do you think the slabs are going to stop a column from punching through, either above or below? Do you think you could set the upper section gently on the lower with half the columns bearing on nothing and the other half bearing on floor diaphragms? Fat chance. Even less of a chance if the upper is in motion.

It doesn't matter that it's the smaller/weaker/lighter upper block against the larger/stronger/heavier lower block. That's a fiction. It matters that it was components against components.

If you can show that the towers would have stood no matter what sort of haphazard, Dali-esque assembly process was used - with column ends placed on floor slabs and so on - then you might have something (for the static case, not dynamic). Good luck.
edit on 29-1-2012 by IrishWristwatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by IrishWristwatch
 


But buildings are designed to hold themselves up many times over. FoS!

They are never built so a slight over loading would cause failure.

You can talk about what ifs all day long. Facts speak for themselves and when you put all the facts together in context with steel framed buildings the OS fails.

Not sure what you're on about with columns hitting columns on their ends? How would columns hit columns that way? How would a gravity fed collapse cause columns to break, in order for them to hit end to end? Steel would be resisted instantly if it hit another steel column that way. But there is no reason the columns would break from their own weight. They had successfully held their own weight for years. What severed the columns to begin with?

If the planes severed the columns why did NIST make up the sagging truss hypothesis? They should have just stuck with core failure. The core failing makes more sense, and fits better with the evidence. But of course who would buy that planes severed the core? NIST gave up on that one years ago, yet you OSers still waffle on about the plane.
I guess when you have no argument to begin with you have to use whatever you can eh?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Where is that 'law of physics' written? Citation?


Are you serious?

Yes I am.


Study and learn...

I have Bachelor of Science degrees in Physics and Mathematics and nearly 30 years' engineering experience. Do you?


csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Don't insult me with a citation to an introductory physical science syllabus. Read it yourself. Nowhere does the clause "equal and opposite destruction" or any close facsimile appear. Does it?


Yes but we are talking about steel hitting steel. Please stay in context.

If you insist the context be your imagination, I'm outta here. See what I wrote above.



For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Action-reaction in this context refers to action-reaction pairs, which are forces. See here.


The third of Newton's laws of motion of classical mechanics states that forces always occur in pairs. Every action is accompanied by a reaction of equal magnitude but opposite direction. This principle is commonly known in the Latin language as actio et reactio. The attribution of which of the two forces is action or reaction is arbitrary. Each of the two forces can be considered the action, the other force is its associated reaction.

Forces, not destruction, not anything else you care to plug in. This is why a physics degree is worth a lot more than your armchair, intuitive ideas of physics in this context.


The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

Wow, you can quote almost the same thing, but not understand it.


If there is an equal reaction between objects colliding, then what is it that defines the destruction?

In this case, it is the mechanical work done on the impacting objects.


Momentum? No, because no matter the momentum the forces on both objects will be equal. So what is left? MASS! 10 tons of steel will not cause 20 tons of steel to fail.

No, the answer is above.


If you think it's weak connections that failed...

I do think weak connections failed (what else could they do - resist?) but that's not all.


...then why did the floors pull in columns when they sagged, and not just break the weak connections?

I do not accept the NIST scenario of pull-in, partly because of this consideration. Additionally, work by Vlassis et al in the study of building CDs determined the survivability of the structure is primarily dependent on a quantity they call ductility supply, referring the ductile capacity of connections as they are the weakest link in the structure with respect to this parameter. By empirical observation, the researchers determined the maximum angle of rotation of seisimically qualified connections was 0.05 radians. In order for the NIST scenario to be true, the floor-perimeter connections would have to survive a much greater plastic rotation than is reasonably possible.

I favor (for WTC1 at least) core failure leading to perimeter overload via load transfer through the hat truss. Some very good (but informal) work has been done to show the early antenna motion is vertical creep and NOT tilt as generally presumed.





top topics
 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join