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.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well this is the second time I have posted it on this site and you can see from the date that it has been there for some time and you are the first person who has ever said it is not runnable. It is discussed on Gregory Urich's site and they never said any such thing.
I have copied down and tried both programs. I did get an error with the one at BreakFor News. The one on Urich's site worked fine with the data on BreakFor News. The Collapse time took 12.9 seconds.
I will have to see why one doesn't work. I haven't tried it in some time.
The collapse time takes 12 seconds with equal masses and up to 14 seconds if bottom heavy. But that is with no supports needing to be crushed or broken. So how could a real building that had to hold itself up come down in less than 25 seconds due to the top 15% falling on the rest? All of the people supporting the Official Story need to come up with excuses and maintain confusion and the Physics Profession needs to keep quiet.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by jlm912
3 out of 22 is more than a 10% difference of error. In regards to the total weight, you're essentially saying the outer structure was 10% of the gross weight, exponent? How confident are you in that inference?
That wasn't the inference. Lets pick Level 10 for an example. I used Gregory Urich's work as it is by far the most cross checked and consistent. At level 10, the external steel weighed 351,560kg or 351 tons. The total mass of this floor however, is 2,306,990 kg, or 2307 tons.
Therefore at level 10, the exterior structure occupied approximately 15% of the mass of that floor.
No Psik, it is not their fault, it is your fault. Your code is terrible and I don't mean that as a personal insult, I mean I would fire someone who produced it. It uses a 'timestep' but with no real understanding of how to use timestep simulations. Furthermore, there is no need whatsoever to use a timestep simulation, as all the parameters are known.
Originally posted by exponent
No Psik, it is not their fault, it is your fault. Your code is terrible and I don't mean that as a personal insult, I mean I would fire someone who produced it. It uses a 'timestep' but with no real understanding of how to use timestep simulations. Furthermore, there is no need whatsoever to use a timestep simulation, as all the parameters are known.
While you fix your code, I'll rewrite it. I'm busy for the next hour or so handling another big-ass cross compile, but when I am done I'll write what you intended to write and we can compare the results.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Weren't the core and the perimeter columns what supported the weight of ALL OF THE LEVELS ABOVE the tenth level? Doesn't all of that weigh a LOT MORE than the 10th level. The NIST report says the perimeter supported 47% of the building's weight. So if Urich took away 13% of the weight of the perimeter columns weight then wouldn't that have the effect of removing about 13% of the strength if that happened in the Real World?
So wouldn't making the bottom of the building weaker while making the top heavier increase the probability of collapse?
So changing the data changes the analysis and conclusions drawn from that analysis.
So shouldn't our SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS have been demanding accurate data TEN YEARS AGO?
If you want to cry about it and say you don't like my code be my guest.
Is something stopping you from writing a program from scratch to show my results are significantly in error?
You will notice I admitted from the start it was a kludge program that used a constant timebase, but we are talking about a time variation from 9 seconds at the minimum to 25 seconds at the maximum
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Weren't the core and the perimeter columns what supported the weight of ALL OF THE LEVELS ABOVE the tenth level? Doesn't all of that weigh a LOT MORE than the 10th level. The NIST report says the perimeter supported 47% of the building's weight. So if Urich took away 13% of the weight of the perimeter columns weight then wouldn't that have the effect of removing about 13% of the strength if that happened in the Real World?
No, in the real world the columns were mostly detached from the floor structure and each other, rather than being significantly affected. That's why you see huge sheets of columns detaching, because they surrounded a weak floor structure which was the 'path of least resistance' (to borrow a truther idiom).
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
OOPS!
I see in the REAL WORLD the Core Columns disappeared again along with the horizontal beams that connected those columns.
psik
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
OOPS!
I see in the REAL WORLD the Core Columns disappeared again along with the horizontal beams that connected those columns.
psik
Large quantities of core structure survived the initial destruction wave down the tower. This indicates that it did not provide significant structural interaction as it was surprisingly straight and well connected. Why are you still confused by this 10 years after the fact?
I read a bit of that thread in the other forum, and people were calling your code out on its dubious functioning within a page. What a shock that you immediately dismissed their criticisms. Do you appreciate that a timestep function is completely useless? Do you understand why? Why did you pick it?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I had to explain to them what I was doing. Every collapse simulation you see has the top block treated as a single unit. I treated 14 floors as separate units moving independently. Nobody had done that before. That is part of why I use a time base, to handle separate motion and separate collisions.
You people who think in the same rut presume everybody is either in that rut or stupid. But then you can't compute the energy required for floors to break loose from the core while you say the core was not involved in the collapse. Wouldn't breaking loose from the core have to slow them down?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
OOPS!
I see in the REAL WORLD the Core Columns disappeared again along with the horizontal beams that connected those columns.
psik
Large quantities of core structure survived the initial destruction wave down the tower. This indicates that it did not provide significant structural interaction as it was surprisingly straight and well connected. Why are you still confused by this 10 years after the fact?
I read a bit of that thread in the other forum, and people were calling your code out on its dubious functioning within a page. What a shock that you immediately dismissed their criticisms. Do you appreciate that a timestep function is completely useless? Do you understand why? Why did you pick it?
psikeyhackr, I think you might want to check your program. This is a plot of newvel versus Time for each collision:
Otherwise, collapse time during crush down phase is pretty close to 11.6 sec, seems to pass sanity check. I mean, it's better than in the ballpark, though how I'm not sure at the moment.
The other thing you might want to consider is allowing for something other than infinite compaction. You're quite a stickler for accurate figures, it's a pretty safe bet the debris layer was not zero thickness. Your fall is from the roof to the pavement. Running momentum only with zero stretch gives a crush down time of 11.6 sec, but with stretch = 0.2 (5x compaction) the time is only 10.37 sec.
psikeyhackr wrote:Are you thinking the upper block is all moving together.
Originally posted by exponent
Well yes I, as someone who reviews and checks the quality of code quite a lot, I feel that I can claim authority over whether your code is terrible or not.
Of course disconnecting floors from the core takes energy, but the time it takes is not a simple derivation. If you feel (and you clearly do) that you can estimate the time it takes to failure, please post your estimation and its basis.
..this comes from my sister.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by scully222
You keep referring back to a theory and claiming it as truth and evidence. Telling me which columns when and where is 100% based on the best working theory offered by the so-called experts.
No they're not 'so-called' experts. They are world renowned experts. Stop trying to diminish your opponents qualifications. It shows your position to be weak.
There is zero solid evidence to back up this theory only findings that could be seen as consistent with this theory. There is exactly as much solid evidence for controlled demolition as there is for the pancake theory, which is none.
Nonsense, just because you can write it on the internet does not make it remotely true. For example, if explosives were set off to remove each level, why is it that the truss floor seats are noticably absent? Why is it that the whole building was bowing inwards before collapse? Why is it that the Penthouse failed and windows at a low level smashed many seconds before collapse?
The 'official story' provides parsimonious explanations for these events. Your theory is 'well they might be evidence but i dont know'. That is not a superior theory.
The only difference is the pancake theory is more accepted. Acceptance is not evidence. Most people thought the earth was flat long ago, but acceptance did not make it true. The only evidence we have is 3 destroyed buildings and a lot of questions.
And years of reporting and understanding by the foremost minds in Structural Engineering. Reports accepted by the whole community of Structural Engineers, but dismissed entirely by you, because you don't want to believe it.
It's just absolute nonsense, you dismiss everything that disagrees with you, and then act as if you have a strong case because you've already ignored the actual answers. It's completely childish and ineffective. Explain one of those things I listed above in a way that is not matched by the 'official story' and I might be interested. If you cannot, you're admitting your theory explains less. Of course, you can't even tell me what type of explosive was used, so I don't hold out much hope.edit on 28/5/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My floating masses are held up by magic. It is a thought experiment simulated in a computer. No energy must be expended breaking or bending anything. But why does it still take so long just because of the Conservation of Momentum? Dr. Sunder is saying a real building came down faster than my thought experiment under physically impossible conditions. Code has nothing to do with it.
But I don't give a damn as long as it passed the sanity check. The trouble is the straight down collapse of a skyscraper does not pass the sanity check so let's see your code give a significantly different time than mine. 9 seconds is the minimum because that is free fall. If 12 seconds is the result with no breakage then how could a real building get anywhere near that?
I don't see what the upside is for you. So you can write better code that proves my point. Hurray for you.
Originally posted by scully222
Your "world renowned" experts are no smarter or more astute than the experts who are a part of Architects & Engineers for 911 truth:
www.ae911truth.org...
I view these over 1500 experts as true patriots and hero's considering the fact that supporting the truth movement at this time is in effect career suicide. Do you think this makes them ignorant or do you think they feel very strongly about their reasoning and theories?
All the items you listed above as being proof of the official theory are also consistent with a controlled demolition. There is no need to go point by point and second by second through each collapse when the cause was a controlled demolition since this has been demonstrated in the real world 1000's of times.
You claim to have "actual answers" when all you have is a cobbled together theory that can't be reproduced in a computer model let alone a physical one.
You claim that the official theory is accepted by the whole community of structural engineers but we have thousands who are part of AE911truth.org that disagree.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by scully222
Your "world renowned" experts are no smarter or more astute than the experts who are a part of Architects & Engineers for 911 truth:
www.ae911truth.org...
I view these over 1500 experts as true patriots and hero's considering the fact that supporting the truth movement at this time is in effect career suicide. Do you think this makes them ignorant or do you think they feel very strongly about their reasoning and theories?
I think the vast majority of them have said and approved nothing whatsoever. There are not '1500 experts' there. There are many experts in other topics, but last time I checked I found under 50 Structural Engineers, none with any published criticisms.
The experts I am talking about are for example Bazant, an ISI highly cited scientist who literally wrote the book on a lot of this structural paper. He is the person people cite when they talk about concrete breaking up, for example.
Trying to leverage a small group with no publications to their name and such ridiculous claims as micro-nukes in their personal statements, is not going to be effective. The ASCE for example has literally over 100,000 engineers on their rolls, and has not been calling for a public investigation.
All the items you listed above as being proof of the official theory are also consistent with a controlled demolition. There is no need to go point by point and second by second through each collapse when the cause was a controlled demolition since this has been demonstrated in the real world 1000's of times.
The fact is you have no answer to the points I raised, and so you have to weakly fall back on quoting AE911Truth's site. If you think you have a good explanation, explain the inward bowing of exterior walls. No demolition method can possibly cause this.
You claim to have "actual answers" when all you have is a cobbled together theory that can't be reproduced in a computer model let alone a physical one.
On the other hand, you literally had no answers and had to resort to copying and pasting from a site telling you what to think. Good job there.
You claim that the official theory is accepted by the whole community of structural engineers but we have thousands who are part of AE911truth.org that disagree.
Nope, find me 100 structural engineers on that list if you can.
I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm trying to force you to comprehend the ridiculousness of your posting. You literally ignored the questions I gave you and just copied and pasted from a third party website because you couldn't answer. Then you have the gall to suggest that your random questions (which are completely incoherent for reasons I can explain if I must) somehow override my questions and that I should answer yours first.
I don't think so. Realise your own failings and that you have no answers for the questions I posed, and we can talk. Otherwise you're just making yourself look ridiculous by copying and pasting the words of others as you have nothing to say.
Originally posted by scully222
You accuse me of trying to diminish your experts qualifications and tell me it weakens my argument. The you do the EXACT SAME THING.
You claim they have no published criticisms. WHO is going to publish them? Remember the career suicide statement? They are forced to release their findings on the internet, where you can ignore it.
Then you belittle EVERY ONE of the members AE911TRUTH.ORG. The ASCE engineers you mention above no doubt like having jobs. Public statements about 911 Truth would cause them to lose said job in today's climate.
A large percentage of them surely have doubts or disbelieve the entire OS. But of course that is impossible to prove without talking with every one of them off the record.
Pre-set charges on all support structure are set off in sequence down the length of the building. Support structure is effectively removed all the way to the ground and building falls at nearly free fall speed into its own footprint. What is left is a huge pile of debris. It really can be that simple in the real world.
You ridicule me for getting info from another site as if i can't think for myself. Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based on info from other people.
Then you essentially call me stupid and incoherent and belittle me again. I don't think you would be so unpleasant if you actually thought you were winning this debate. There is no need to paint other people as stupid.
Accepting the reality of the truth movement is the ultimate display of thinking for one's self. Too bad you can't admit that
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My floating masses are held up by magic. It is a thought experiment simulated in a computer. No energy must be expended breaking or bending anything. But why does it still take so long just because of the Conservation of Momentum? Dr. Sunder is saying a real building came down faster than my thought experiment under physically impossible conditions. Code has nothing to do with it.
I haven't actually checked your code yet, because I went to look into your floor positions and realised you just did 12 * 110.
Psikey. It is a decade after 911, you've been parading yourself around as an expert on the towers now for a long time, you claim that you need accurate values, but your own model here is hilariously inaccurate.
Your tower is 1308ft tall, 60ft short of the actual tower
Your tower weighs 168 kilotons, nearly 80 kilotons lighter than the above-grade weight
Not only that, but you use a timestep + overshoot model without even realising or compensating for it.
I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Do you really think this model provides any useful information whatsoever? Because I don't believe it does. I've produced my own list of floor heights that actually ends up at a roof (which you forgot about) that weighs the correct amount and is 1368ft high. I'll get to your python code shortly.