What Happened to the Planes? 911 and Logic

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I said the potential energy depends on the amount of EMPTY SPACE under the mass.

And you would be wrong.

PE depends on a height above an end point. It's usually considered to be ground level...

Greetings, Fluffaluffagous. Since you were just linked to the 9/11 Forum for something else, please enjoy another link to the forum:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

A moment's perusal will show you you're doin' what's been done before - to no avail. May as well cut your losses now. That was quite a while ago, and it was an entire thread devoted to keeping the "PE=0" spam in one place.


Ciao.

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I said the potential energy depends on the amount of EMPTY SPACE under the mass.

And you would be wrong.

PE depends on a height above an end point. It's usually considered to be ground level...

Greetings, Fluffaluffagous. Since you were just linked to the 9/11 Forum for something else, please enjoy another link to the forum:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

A moment's perusal will show you you're doin' what's been done before - to no avail. May as well cut your losses now. That was quite a while ago, and it was an entire thread devoted to keeping the "PE=0" spam in one place.


Ciao.

Yes, OWE. I know.

It takes a special kind of intellect to claim that PE was zero.....

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So the Kinetic Energy of the impact is determined by the "supposed" fall through empty space not the distance above the ground.

psik

I said this on the 14th. Nothing has changed.

"PE depends on a height above an end point. It's usually considered to be ground level, and in this case would be appropriate since the question at hand is whether or not there was enough PE to cause a collapse all the way to the ground as was observed.

Empty space between the 2 points you're referencing would merely mean that all of the PE could be converted to KE. Nothing more. "

KE depends on velocity, given that mass remains unchanged. 100% of PE available between 2 floors will be converted to KE if there is a freefall drop.

If there is some resistance, and if it falls at 90% of FFA, then velocity will be less.

If there is more resistance and the result is a fall of 80% of FFA, then velocity will be less than in the 90% case.


NOW........

A simple exercise.... Take an imaginary set of columns, load them to 1/3 axial load capacity, then assume a drop of 12'...

At what %age of FFA would the columns be able to halt the collapse?

Simple physics.

Give us an answer...

After watching Tupac Shakur's hologram performance from last night, I am scratching my head....

Tupac's Hologram's Performance

Its blazing on the internet, and creating conversations about the technology that the gov't has had for a long time

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So the Kinetic Energy of the impact is determined by the "supposed" fall through empty space not the distance above the ground.

psik

I said this on the 14th. Nothing has changed.

"PE depends on a height above an end point. It's usually considered to be ground level, and in this case would be appropriate since the question at hand is whether or not there was enough PE to cause a collapse all the way to the ground as was observed.

So how can that be computed if the amount of energy to collapse each level is not known and how can that possibly be computed if the amount of steel on each level is not known?

This just goes to believing what you see and not questioning if it makes any sense.

You are implying that the question can be answered by only addressing one side of a two sided coin. The mass that fills that space the rest of the way to the ground will be absorbing that kinetic energy imparted by the fall through 12 feet of EMPTY SPACE. From then on if the crush energy exceeds any gain from reduced height then the mass will slow down. So just calculating PE to the ground is nonsense.

Can supports strong enough to hold the static load possibly take so little energy to crush?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The mass that fills that space the rest of the way to the ground will be absorbing that kinetic energy imparted by the fall through 12 feet of EMPTY SPACE.

True.

What happens when a level is set into motion though?

Does it or does it not add KE back in?

From then on if the crush energy exceeds any gain from reduced height then the mass will slow down. So just calculating PE to the ground is nonsense.

No it's not.

You are either lying about that or too dumb to know otherwise.

Can supports strong enough to hold the static load possibly take so little energy to crush?

psik

They can hold, typically, 2-4x the static load.

But what crushing are you talking about again? Crushed columns? I see virtually none.

So why are your panties in a bunch?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The mass that fills that space the rest of the way to the ground will be absorbing that kinetic energy imparted by the fall through 12 feet of EMPTY SPACE.

True.

What happens when a level is set into motion though?

Does it or does it not add KE back in?

Multiple things happen.

Newton's 3rd Law of Motion means that the bottom of the falling portion begins being crushed just like the top of the stationary portion. So Kinetic energy is used up in the process of crushing both. The Conservation of Momentum means getting the stationary mass moving so that also slows the falling portion.

So if we do not have a decent idea of the amount of energy needed to collapse individual levels of the core then the discussion is nonsense. It is just a matter of what people want to BELIEVE.

That is why I originally despaired of building a physical model to do a gravitational collapse of the towers. A really good model of the building would be very expensive and time consuming and cannot be done without accurate data anyway. That is why I only try to demonstrate the physical principles. But the paper loops in my falling portion get crushed just like those being impacted. And the amount of EMPTY SPACE Potential Energy correlates quite closely with the damage done to the paper loops. But my falling mass completely stops long before complete collapse of the structure. A better model would be bigger and heavier and each individual level designed to be as weak as possible. My washers are still too light in relation to many of the paper loops just below them.

So why hasn't someone built a physical model that can completely collapse, if that is possible?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So why hasn't someone built a physical model that can completely collapse, if that is possible?

Crush or collapse? You like to use those two words as if they were synonyms, but they're not. I can stack a bunch of wooden blocks and with very little energy cause them to collapse. But the amount of energy required to crush is a whole other thing.

And don't tell me its semantics - its more than that. It's very important. What you want to say is how much energy was required to achieve what was observed on 9/11/2001. You think the magic answer is to know the exact weight and location of every component of the building system. The answer to those questions can generally be found in a report that you refuse to read. Its moot question anyway because unless you can tell the exact extent of damage suffered by each of those components, knowing their weight is meaningless.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So why hasn't someone built a physical model that can completely collapse, if that is possible?

Crush or collapse? You like to use those two words as if they were synonyms, but they're not. I can stack a bunch of wooden blocks and with very little energy cause them to collapse. But the amount of energy required to crush is a whole other thing.

So you can make a big deal about the vagueness of language. I am so impressed.

My structure consists of washers and paper loops. There is EMPTY SPACE inside and outside of my paper loops within the outer radius of the washers. Your comparison to wooden blocks is nonsense.

In order for my structure of washers and paper loops to collapse, Individual loops must be crushed. The washers will not crush with any weight that I have.

So come up with some more word games to muddy the issue.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So you can make a big deal about the vagueness of language. I am so impressed.

Language is not vague, just the users.

My structure consists of washers and paper loops. There is EMPTY SPACE inside and outside of my paper loops within the outer radius of the washers. Your comparison to wooden blocks is nonsense.

Didn't compare it to your silly performance art. But the analogy stands. Crush something and causing a construction to collapse are two different things. Completely. And by the way, there is NOT empty space inside your loops. Unless in your world a big broomhandle qualifies as EMPTY SPACE.

In order for my structure of washers and paper loops to collapse, Individual loops must be crushed.

No, in order for your silly art project to collapse all you would have to do is take out the big broomhandle in the middle that was holding it all together. All your little arts and craft model proved was that if you drop a metal washer on a piece of paper the paper may bend. We kind of all knew that long time ago.

The washers will not crush with any weight that I have.

Really? Go buy some more weight.

So come up with some more word games to muddy the issue

Sorry, its your poor choice of words that is casuing the issue to be muddy. You claim your little model didn't "collapse" because of some stringent application of Newton's Laws. You always ignore the big stick holding everything together.

reply to post by smyleegrl


Considering they were able to make two of the largest buildings in the world filled with people disappear in broad daylight and get away with it probably wasn't much trouble to disappear a few planes filled with passengers too.

People who think the Hologram Planes Theory is nonsense are not able to explain how it is nonsense.

For example, all I keep reading from them is that "the planes were real...because people saw them". Excuse me, but isn't that what a hologram is- a realistic visual??

We all saw Tupac perform Sunday night...a hologram Tupac..

By now it should be obvious that the buildings were dynomited/bombed. Because of that, there was no need to crash real airliners to bring the buildings down.

Remember how Building 7 fell? NO PLANE....however, it fell (imploded) in the same manner that Towers 1& 2 did.

My guess is that the 3rd plane experienced technical difficulty/ computer glitch.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
People who think the Hologram Planes Theory is nonsense are not able to explain how it is nonsense.

For example, all I keep reading from them is that "the planes were real...because people saw them". Excuse me, but isn't that what a hologram is- a realistic visual??

We all saw Tupac perform Sunday night...a hologram Tupac..

By now it should be obvious that the buildings were dynomited/bombed. Because of that, there was no need to crash real airliners to bring the buildings down.

Remember how Building 7 fell? NO PLANE....however, it fell (imploded) in the same manner that Towers 1& 2 did.

My guess is that the 3rd plane experienced technical difficulty/ computer glitch.

If it's obvious only because of the incessant repetition of a theory that never had any evidence to begin with, then the entire truth movement is based on crap. Sorry, but that's the truth.

reply to post by FoosM


thanks FoosM....you made it concise, and very clear....that is what I have surmised, over the years, as well....I was a United Flight Attendant....and all the baloney they spewed made no sense....I was also in Pittsburgh, that fateful day, and knew to watch the local news....they had reporters at the scene, in Shanksville, to report that there was a huge explosion IN THE SKY, and plane parts, and people parts were strewn over a 10-12 mile path...including chunks in a farmer's pond.....anyway....I knew they lied immediately, because of that...those "early" reports were never seen again....nice job, and thanks!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The mass that fills that space the rest of the way to the ground will be absorbing that kinetic energy imparted by the fall through 12 feet of EMPTY SPACE.

True.

What happens when a level is set into motion though?

Does it or does it not add KE back in?

Newton's 3rd Law of Motion means that the bottom of the falling portion begins being crushed just like the top of the stationary portion. So Kinetic energy is used up in the process of crushing both. The Conservation of Momentum means getting the stationary mass moving so that also slows the falling portion.

Yes to all this.

So if we do not have a decent idea of the amount of energy needed to collapse individual levels of the core then the discussion is nonsense. It is just a matter of what people want to BELIEVE.

We do have a decent idea.

You believe we do not.

But the paper loops in my falling portion get crushed just like those being impacted.

Columns weren't crushed. You fail.


You also failed in responding to my question:

What happens when a failed level is set into motion after the collisions?

Does it or does it not add KE back into the equation?

You know it does, right? that's why you didn't answer, right?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
You believe we do not.

But the paper loops in my falling portion get crushed just like those being impacted.

Columns weren't crushed. You fail.


You also failed in responding to my question:

What happens when a failed level is set into motion after the collisions?

Does it or does it not add KE back into the equation?

You know it does, right? that's why you didn't answer, right?

Every individual columns does not have to be crushed but the STRUCTURE created by the vertical and horizontal steel in the core has to be crushed.

What happens depends on the VELOCITY and how much velocity depends on how much energy is lost crushing the structure. The people who BELIEVE complete collapse could happen must also BELIEVE that little velocity is lost by the falling mass and that the stationary mass is easy to accelerate. But the math in my Python program is so simple that it cannot be disputed. 12 seconds is the minimum collapse time even without having to crush the core structure. So you need to explain why almost no energy is lost doing that crushing.

That is a complete physics delusion.

Of course admitting to BELIEVING in the Impossible for TEN YEARS is a problem in itself.

TEN YEARS and not a single engineering school in the world can build a physical model that can completely collapse but we are supposed to believe that they can train people to design skyscrapers.

But then they spend TEN YEARS not talking about how the steel and concrete must be distributed in skyscrapers.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Every individual columns does not have to be crushed but the STRUCTURE created by the vertical and horizontal steel in the core has to be crushed.

Or, it could... you know, break/shear. Crushing is just one way to destroy a structure. It is not the be-all end-all of methods for collapse.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Every individual columns does not have to be crushed but the STRUCTURE created by the vertical and horizontal steel in the core has to be crushed.

Or, it could... you know, break/shear. Crushing is just one way to destroy a structure. It is not the be-all end-all of methods for collapse.

Whatever, that will still require the application of energy and that energy has to come from somewhere. I am not spending my time coming up with every word to cover every possible option.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Whatever, that will still require the application of energy and that energy has to come from somewhere. I am not spending my time coming up with every word to cover every possible option.

No, not "whatever". Different types of deformation require different levels of energy. You also assume that all elements were deformed and unless you can catalog for us exactly the type and level of deformation suffered by every element in the collapse then you are doomed to making erroneous generalized statements about Python programs and weight distribution and Newton's law and conservation of this or that. Once you can prove exactly what happened to every element then and only then can you work backwards and try to prove that there was insufficient energy in the collapse to cause those deformations.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Whatever, that will still require the application of energy and that energy has to come from somewhere. I am not spending my time coming up with every word to cover every possible option.

No, not "whatever". Different types of deformation require different levels of energy. You also assume that all elements were deformed and unless you can catalog for us exactly the type and level of deformation suffered by every element in the collapse then you are doomed to making erroneous generalized statements about Python programs and weight distribution and Newton's law and conservation of this or that. Once you can prove exactly what happened to every element then and only then can you work backwards and try to prove that there was insufficient energy in the collapse to cause those deformations.

But if you can't even tell us the tons of steel on each level in the core then it doesn't make sense to make a big deal about the different amounts of energy for different types of deformation because you don't have the data anyway. You can just use words to talk vague bullsh#.

psik