What Happened to the Planes? 911 and Logic

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You mean high school students who leave out information. Breaking pieces lose requires energy. You are claiming there is only a gain from breaking them loose. If the loss is greater then the gain then you are talking nonsense.

psik

You just can't admit that you lied.

Or can you?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You mean high school students who leave out information. Breaking pieces lose requires energy. You are claiming there is only a gain from breaking them loose. If the loss is greater then the gain then you are talking nonsense.

psik

You just can't admit that you lied.

Or can you?

You mean you can't figure out what SHOW means?

I built a physical model and made a video. You did WHAT?



It has been TEN YEARS. Where has anyone or any engineering school built a self supporting model where the top 15% or less can come close to completely destroying the supporting structure below and do damage in the process? Not some house of cards sliding apart nonsense.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I built a physical model and made a video. You did WHAT?

And yes, thank you - it is hilarious!

It has been TEN YEARS.

Almost 11.

Where has anyone or any engineering school built a self supporting model where the top 15% or less can come close to completely destroying the supporting structure below and do damage in the process?

Nowhere. Want to know why? Because its nonsensical. And irrelevant. Like building a model every year to test whether or not water runs downhill.

Not some house of cards sliding apart nonsense.

In other words, no models that prove you're wrong. Got it.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You did WHAT?

psik

I proved that you have lied.

Protest all you like, but there's only a choices:

1- you lied

2- you're wrong

Originally posted by hooper
Not some house of cards sliding apart nonsense.

In other words, no models that prove you're wrong. Got it.

I cast a shadow in your presence.

No models that fail to absorb energy due to damage during the collapse. A house of cards can be rebuilt with the same cards. I shudder imagining the people who can be impressed by your posts.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I shudder imagining the people who can be impressed by your posts.

psik

Actually you SHOULD be.

After all, didn't you for years proclaim that the upper part of the towers had zero PE?

Didn't OWE (and everyone else) over at Greg's forum have smack you repeatedly over the head for you to get that you were abysmally wrong?

And yet, despite this, you still believe that you understand physics? Delusional, brah...

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You did WHAT?

psik

I proved that you have lied.

Protest all you like, but there's only a choices:

1- you lied

2- you're wrong

LOL, you demonstrate that you don't know the meaning of SHOW and then accuse someone of lying.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I cast a shadow in your presence.

That's because the truth shines so brightly.

No models that fail to absorb energy due to damage during the collapse.

So that's the only choice in your reality? Either something can absorb all energy or no energy? I kind of see why you're confused by the physical world and how it works.

A house of cards can be rebuilt with the same cards.

So?

I shudder imagining the people who can be impressed by your posts.

I bet you do a lot of shuddering.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I shudder imagining the people who can be impressed by your posts.

psik

Actually you SHOULD be.

After all, didn't you for years proclaim that the upper part of the towers had zero PE?

Didn't OWE (and everyone else) over at Greg's forum have smack you repeatedly over the head for you to get that you were abysmally wrong?

And yet, despite this, you still believe that you understand physics? Delusional, brah...

The equation for Potential Energy is Mass * Gravity * height.

But that equation assumes that gravity can cause the mass to accelerate without inhibition through the distance height. Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE. The tops of the towers did not have empty space beneath them. They had steel strong enough to support their static load.

It becomes a Semantic problem with the word POTENTIAL. Physics is incapable of giving a damm about semantics.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But that equation assumes that gravity can cause the mass to accelerate without inhibition through the distance height.

No it doesn't.

Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE.

So if I drop a 10 pound rock from 100 feet into water the rock stops at the surface of the water and all the energy disappears because it was no longer engaged in empty space? Better yet - according to you that formula only applies to a objects in a perfect vacuum.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But that equation assumes that gravity can cause the mass to accelerate without inhibition through the distance height.

No it doesn't.

Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE.

So if I drop a 10 pound rock from 100 feet into water the rock stops at the surface of the water and all the energy disappears because it was no longer engaged in empty space? Better yet - according to you that formula only applies to a objects in a perfect vacuum.

Actually you are correct, the formula is only truly accurate in a vacuum. But in most cases where people bother using the formula the difference caused by air resistance is not enough to matter.

The reason I decided to go along with the potential energy crowd on Urich's board was because in order to accurately compute that supposed potential energy we have to have accurate information on the amount of steel and concrete on every level anyway. I care about the data not the potential energy. But where is the NIST supplying that information? Where is Richard Gage talking about it?

If you had two identical bowling balls at 60 feet the potential energy should be the same. But if one ball had panes of glass mounted under it every five feet then the ball would have to break glass every 5 ft as it fell. That would take energy. That would slow the ball down. So the kinetic energy of each ball would be different when they hit the ground and they would not arrive at the same time if dropped that way.. And the thickness of the glass would affect the outcome also. So just using the Potential Energy equation in every circumstance and expecting it to be relevant is nonsense.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


The equation for Potential Energy is Mass * Gravity * height.

But that equation assumes that gravity can cause the mass to accelerate without inhibition through the distance height. Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE.

That's just wrong. I think you simply made this up.

reply to post by psikeyhackr




The model is not evidence of anything, It doesn't even resemble the towers superficially, and it was carefully contrived such that neither the "columns" (which you represent being wider than tall) nor the structure as a whole can exhibit buckling failure - thanks to your mastery of using dowels to support models against lateral forces.

Sigh.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


The equation for Potential Energy is Mass * Gravity * height.

But that equation assumes that gravity can cause the mass to accelerate without inhibition through the distance height. Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE.

That's just wrong. I think you simply made this up.

Isn't the Potential Energy equation related to the work equation?

PE = m * g * h work = F * d

m * g is the weight of the object and is a force. If the force is applied over a distance then work is done and that work becomes the kinetic energy of the mass.

Curious how you can be smart when you want and accuse me of making things up when you want to imply I am wrong about something simple.

psik

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The model is not evidence of anything, It doesn't even resemble the towers superficially, and it was carefully contrived such that neither the "columns" (which you represent being wider than tall) nor the structure as a whole can exhibit buckling failure - thanks to your mastery of using dowels to support models against lateral forces.

Sigh.

The model was never intended to "resemble" the towers. It is not about appearances it is about the physics. It is a gravitational collapse which is what is claimed to have happened to the towers. Ryan Mackey explains modeling in the longer video. Is his explanation too difficult for you?



Why don't you watch his entire Hardfire episode for educational purposes?

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE.

That's just wrong. I think you simply made this up.

Curious how you can be smart when you want and accuse me of making things up when you want to imply I am wrong about something simple.

psik

The part you made up is "Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE."

Hope that clarifies.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


The model was never intended to "resemble" the towers. It is not about appearances it is about the physics.

It is a gravitational collapse which is what is claimed to have happened to the towers

Models, by definition, bear some resemblance to what they represent.

You can say it's about the physics, and that it is a gravitational collapse, but then you still have to grapple with the substance of what I said:

To be perfecty clear: Your model gets the physics wrong, because it models the vertical elements of the tower in a fashion that prevents buckling failure. It is totally irrelevant to the subject of building collapses.

Therefore, I wonder why you keep posting it on a nearly daily basis, attempting to turn every thread into a discussion of your same video.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Curious how you can be smart when you want and accuse me of making things up when you want to imply I am wrong about something simple.

psik

The part you made up is "Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE."

Hope that clarifies.

Potential energy exists when a force acts upon an object that tends to restore it to a lower energy configuration. This force is often called a restoring force. For example, when a spring is stretched to the left, it exerts a force to the right so as to return to its original, unstretched position. Similarly, when a mass is lifted up, the force of gravity will act so as to bring it back down. The action of stretching the spring or lifting the mass requires energy to perform. The energy that went into lifting up the mass is stored in its position in the gravitational field, while similarly, the energy it took to stretch the spring is stored in the metal. According to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed; hence this energy cannot disappear. Instead, it is stored as potential energy. If the spring is released or the mass is dropped, this stored energy will be converted into kinetic energy by the restoring force, which is elasticity in the case of the spring, and gravity in the case of the mass. Think of a roller coaster. When the coaster climbs a hill it has potential energy. At the very top of the hill is its maximum potential energy. When the coaster speeds down the hill potential energy turns into kinetic. Kinetic energy is greatest at the bottom.

en.wikipedia.org...

They invariably ASSUME that nothing interferes with the restoring force. If a mass is not free to fall over the distance over which the supposed potential is being computed then what is the significance of the calculation. The mass will not reach the presumed velocity because the force will not be free to act over the height put into the equation.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

They invariably ASSUME that nothing interferes with the restoring force. If a mass is not free to fall over the distance over which the supposed potential is being computed then what is the significance of the calculation. The mass will not reach the presumed velocity because the force will not be free to act over the height put into the equation.

The potential energy is transformed not only into kinetic energy, but also into work done in the act of bending steel, crushing concrete, shattering glass, etc. The difference between the velocity achieved, and the velocity achieved if no resistance were encountered can be assumed to be work done overcoming the structure below.

reply to post by YetSharkproof

First, there is a bright white flash. That is not consistent with footage of Flight 11 and 175 impacts, but indicates some defensive weapon in action.

So what weapon is that?

Same thing was observed in video of United 175 - oxygen tanks for the pilots are housed in nose just under the
cockpit floor