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.

 

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 31
20
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The point of this magical collapse is that it comes down in the minimum possible time with NO KINETIC ENERGY LOST doing any DESTRUCTION. So since the real building had to incur destruction to the supports it would have to take significantly longer to come down. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST says it comes down in less time than my magical simulation. The point of my Conservation of Momentum simulation is to show why a real collapse could not possibly happen in that time.

I've already explained why this is entirely false, but you also get 'NO KINETIC ENERGY' wrong. We're talking about inelastic collisions here, and so there is an inherent energy loss. The only other solution is that masses bounce.


So you are LEAVING OUT WHAT I actually SAID.

I said there was not Kinetic Energy lost DOING DESTRUCTION.

My magical conservation of energy model is not taking into account energy losses due to floor connections being broken off or columns being bent. It is just mass hitting mass with no compensation for supports. That could not happen in a REAL BUILDING.

So how did a real building come down so fast?

psik




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


And as I told ANOK, the collapsing mass is under a constant acceleration due to gravity. The equal and opposite reaction is a pulse on impact where both objects have the same force magnitude (ie pushing the wall and the wall pushing back). But as we can see, just pushing on a wall is one thing, but you can break through the wall with a sledgehammer, and still have an "equal and opposite" reaction in regards to the forces on the wall and sledgehammer. But as we see, the wall has a hole in it, and the hammer is whole. ANOK doesnt understand that equal and opposite only refers to the forces on the two objects at the moment they touch. I can stand on a floor board and the floor pushes up on me with the same force I am standing on it. But as we know, I can also fall through the floorboard if it is too weak. Sure I had the same forces, but as we see, I broke through the floor. Same forces, but not equal and opposite reaction. My leg didnt break as the floorboard broke. (although you can twist it in the fall
)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
It looks like I might have included a basement level in my figures and had a few shorter floors, although the sources of information seem rather confused. Some indicate floor #40 was 14ft high, some indicate 12ft. I'll see if I can find any authoritative source in the NIST report but I'll make sure that I clean up the floors before I run the program again.

edit: According to www.sharpprintinginc.com... these are the floors I have incorrect (other than basement floor)

#40: 14' not 12'
#43: 14' not 12'
#67: 16' not 12'
#76: 14' not 12'
#77: 12' not 14'
#78: 14' not 12'
#106: 14'4" not 14'6"
#109: 11'8" not 10'
#110: 15'4" not 16'

Please let me know what you think of these changes. Finding a source with definite details is quite tricky, but it won't change the results much.


Well it is certainly curious how you got exactly 1368 feet in total height with these "mistakes".

But we are still both getting about 12 seconds for a minimum collapse time for this "magical" collapse without supports having to be broken, so what is your point? As far as I am concerned you have merely demonstrated mine but somehow think you can talk people out of coming to the obvious conclusion. The real building could not come down that fast as a result of a top down gravitational collapse.

That should have been obvious to the physics profession in 2002. So how long shall the idiotic crap go on?

And then they are going to supposedly teach STEM in the United States.


psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by exponent
 


And as I told ANOK, the collapsing mass is under a constant acceleration due to gravity. The equal and opposite reaction is a pulse on impact where both objects have the same force magnitude (ie pushing the wall and the wall pushing back). But as we can see, just pushing on a wall is one thing, but you can break through the wall with a sledgehammer, and still have an "equal and opposite" reaction in regards to the forces on the wall and sledgehammer. But as we see, the wall has a hole in it, and the hammer is whole. ANOK doesnt understand that equal and opposite only refers to the forces on the two objects at the moment they touch. I can stand on a floor board and the floor pushes up on me with the same force I am standing on it. But as we know, I can also fall through the floorboard if it is too weak. Sure I had the same forces, but as we see, I broke through the floor. Same forces, but not equal and opposite reaction. My leg didnt break as the floorboard broke. (although you can twist it in the fall
)


In the first sentence you talk about constant acceleration.

Then you talk about a sledge hammer. But that sledge hammer changes velocity with every impact.

And in my magical collapse model the velocity of the falling mass changes with every impact. Even exponents data shows that. But that model is "magical" There are no physical supports that must be broken.

psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So you are LEAVING OUT WHAT I actually SAID.

I said there was not Kinetic Energy lost DOING DESTRUCTION.

You get so much wrong I am just trying to make sure that we are on the same page here. Case in point, you continue to ask the same exact question I have already answered.


My magical conservation of energy model is not taking into account energy losses due to floor connections being broken off or columns being bent. It is just mass hitting mass with no compensation for supports. That could not happen in a REAL BUILDING.

So how did a real building come down so fast?

I answered that at least 3 times so far in this thread. Here is my answer again:


In reality, it didn't have to. Here we're making it accelerate every possible bit of mass in the towers downwards, with no upper section rigidity to minimise velocity loss.

No matter how many times you say it was a minimum time, it wasn't a minimum time.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious how you got exactly 1368 feet in total height with these "mistakes".

Not really as I knew that was the resultant height. I extrapolated the heights from data available, I just hadn't noticed the extra floor in there. Simple enough.


The real building could not come down that fast as a result of a top down gravitational collapse.

I answered that for the fourth time or so in the previous post. I can quote my answer again if you'd like.


That should have been obvious to the physics profession in 2002. So how long shall the idiotic crap go on?

Despite your continued delusion, you are not a physics expert.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The point is you want to throw around a NAME with AUTHORITY when you can't explain squat.

psik


I notice that for you to be able to say this, you intentionally snipped off my discussion of Newton's third law of motion, and you also intentionally snipped off my explanation of how Newton's third law of motion explains how the building collapsed. Most notably, you haven't explained why the aforementioned material doesn't prove you've done nothing but post junk physics here. In all the months and months you've been posting here and after all your Youtube videos, doesn't it tell you something that I shot down everything you said in one single post? It's obvious I did, otherwise, you would have torn it apart.

Plus, you haven't told us where you first learned about "conservation of momentum". Was it in a college physics class? Was it from a web site that some instructor set up to teach physics? Was it from a library book? I myself am a computer professional so I can certainly tell you where I first learned about the OSI model of networking.
edit on 31-5-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The point is you want to throw around a NAME with AUTHORITY when you can't explain squat.

psik


I notice that for you to be able to say this, you intentionally snipped off my discussion of Newton's third law of motion, and you also intentionally snipped off my explanation of how Newton's third law of motion explains how the building collapsed.


Either one of us is STUPID or one of us is LYING.

I have a physical model that demonstrates Newton's third Law of Motion.

I drop 4 washers separated by THREE intact paper loops onto 29 washers with as many paper loops.

The loops in my falling stack are damaged just as loops in the stationary stack are damaged. That takes energy. It comes from the Kinetic Energy of the falling masses which are slowed down and stopped. Action and Reaction.

So build a self supporting model that will completely collapse. What is stopping you? But if the Laws of Physics don't allow it then all you can do is TALK.

www.youtube.com...

Ryan Mackey blathers about math too but then uses the conservation of momentum when the supports would not allow a mass to move without giving results different from the conservation of momentum.

psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious how you got exactly 1368 feet in total height with these "mistakes".

Not really as I knew that was the resultant height. I extrapolated the heights from data available, I just hadn't noticed the extra floor in there. Simple enough.


The real building could not come down that fast as a result of a top down gravitational collapse.

I answered that for the fourth time or so in the previous post. I can quote my answer again if you'd like.


That should have been obvious to the physics profession in 2002. So how long shall the idiotic crap go on?

Despite your continued delusion, you are not a physics expert.


So where is your physical model that can completely collapse oh physics EXPERT?

psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   


just as psik trys to portray....but heck....experimentation means nothing....watch and learn.....

oh yes...this too refutes Bazant......So keep on quoting more lies....

the tactics that the OS uses

I don't like what i am hearing
I will attack their character.

I wont watch that vid...It is presented by a truther.

I wont read that paper...was written by a truther.

WE the OS have nothing to prove....we only have to wait for truthers to present.

when logic goes out the door...then we resort to lies.

one gets tired of it.....so i just wrote another email to bazant...waiting for reply....good thing i have letter head from the company i work for.



oh yes....crocket...published and reports are peer reviewed

but of course...just more truther nonsense.....because we all know as of 911 there are now physics that work only for the OS.....and then there is everyday physics that works for everyone else.

CRocket

jornal of 911

shall we look at his bio......I know the character assassination will follow.


Crockett Grabbe (web/pen-name SeaLane Gray) received his PhD in Applied Physics from Caltech in 1978, having received Bachelor of Science with Highest Honors and Master's degrees in Physics from the University of Texas. He is an experienced scientist who does research & consulting in applied physics (particularly plasma physics), as well as writing and speaking on physical science and technology-related issues, including the current-events issue of the World Trade Center collapses on 9/11. This is in spite of adversities he has had to tackle: Crockett recovered from first a large pituitary tumor, and later a cerebral hemorrhage, receiving several disabilities from both experiences. Despite these traumas he has overcome several barriers and become a productive and respected scientist, writer, and speaker -- having published over 100 scientific papers and 9 books (4 for the general public and 5 for scientists), and about 25 other general articles.

Crockett has just moved his business SeaLane Research and Consulting down to Austin, TX from Iowa, where he was a research scientist (for 29 years) at the University of Iowa, and consulted and trained with American College Testing and other businesses in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. He has spoken at places across the country from California to New York, in several European countries, and in Israel and Canada. He is a member of the National Speaker's Association, the American Physical Society, the International Union of Radio Science, the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers and the Texas Writer's League. He has been honorarily profiled for several years in Contemporary Authors, Writer's Directory, and Who's Who in Science & Engineering.


oh right there aren't any people who know what they are talking about.

It is so good to see that the OS team in here has these credentials.....I have been honored to attend his lecture in Canada while i was in uni.

before 911....he was talking on physics for an engineering lecture...a brilliant man.


edit on 023131p://f43Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)


oh yes me favorite one.....your grammar or spelling is bad....therefore what you say doesn't count

and no need to prove this tactic....just ask Exponent.
edit on 023131p://f45Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
1) Creative compartmentalization

2) Social Discrediting of whistleblowers

3) Group think (also the "Sheeple" effect)

4) The false flag pretenses designed to be so full of holes that people feel stupid to ask questions, because there are so many factors unaccounted for. Then if a questio n is asked, its up to whoever is on the spot to give some "confines of national security" blurb.

5) the "Us and Them" approach to tyranny, ie, we (the west) were just attacked by them (the east) lets band together and squash them.

6) Having truth in plain sight, and then correcting others with fake experts or doctored documents.

There are many othe flagrant examples, but I grow weary of thinking of manipulation for self gratifying causes.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
 


Either one of us is STUPID or one of us is LYING.


Actually neither is true- one of us simply wants to explore the events of 9/11 regardless of where it leads us, and the other simply wants to spam the forum with junk physics. Case in point- your model demonstrates Newton's third law but it doesn't remotely model how the towers collapsed because it's already pointed your model doesn't even remotely resemble the design of the towers.

If you're big on Newton's third law then here's a video for you-



If we don't know the mass of the balloon, does this mean it's impossible for the bowling ball to break the balloon? Or does it simply mean the bowling ball has the force to overcome the resistance of the balloon regardless of what mass of the balloon actually is?


So build a self supporting model that will completely collapse. What is stopping you? But if the Laws of Physics don't allow it then all you can do is TALK.


If you can't even refute the Newtonian physics I'm discussing then what's the point of building models you can't refute? The model would only reenact the same Newtonian physics I'm discussing.

edit on 31-5-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If we don't know the mass of the balloon, does this mean it's impossible for the bowling ball to break the balloon? Or does it simply mean the bowling ball has the force to overcome the resistance of the balloon regardless of what mass of the balloon actually is?


Definitely appears to be leaning in the STUPID Direction.

Was that balloon tested to see that it would support the bowling ball under static conditions?

The World Trade Center was supposed to stand up indefinitely and did so for 28 years.

I spent hours testing paper loops to determine how strong they were to see that they were as weak as possible but still strong enough to hold the load. I intended to leave my demonstration model standing for a week. The first night two loops collapsed so I changed the number of triple loops at the bottom from three to five. I then left it standing for three days before I shot the video.

That balloon nonsense is a definite demonstration of someone not being smart enough to evaluate physics, junk or otherwise.

The mass of the balloon was irrelevant to the breakage. It was the mass of the air inside which determined the volume at that temperature which affected the pressure and whether the weight of the ball would create sufficient over pressure.

psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


How are you discussing Newtons 3rd law with your balloon video?

The ball obvioulsy has far more mass than the balloon, not too mention the ball is solid and the balloon is a thin soft skinned bag of air.

The force on the balloon and the force on the ball is still equal, those forces are always equal.

The difference is the MASS.

Drop the balloon on the bowling ball and see what happens. The balloon cannot impart the same force on the ball, as the ball can on the balloon.

If you dropped a bowling ball on a bowling ball, or a balloon on a balloon what do you think would happen?

Drop a floor on a floor of similar mass, or drop 15 floors on 95 floors of similar mass. (in fact it is well known the cores mass increased towards the bottom of the building, so the core was also collapsing against increasing mass.)

The ONLY thing that you have to argue against this is claiming it was 15 floors falling on one floor, and the floor just impacted joins in and suddenly it becomes 16 floors falling on 94, 17 on 93 etc. Which is just ridiculous because that hypothesis ignores the 3rd law, and conservation of momentum. Because we know that floors were crushed and ejected horizontally during the collapse. If they weren't there would be a stack of floors in the footprint, there simply is not enough energy in a gravity fed collapse to both break connections, and destroy the floors. A pancake collapse has that name for a reason you know, no floors in the footprint you have no 'pancakes'.

Where did the energy come from to do that? Ke cannot increase, without an outside force, against resistance. (gravity is an inside force)


In the following descriptions, the only forces doing work upon the objects are internal forces - gravitational and spring forces. Thus, energy is transformed from KE to PE (or vice versa) while the total amount of mechanical energy is conserved. Read each description and indicate whether energy is transformed from KE to PE or from PE to KE. Click the mouse to check your answers.

www.physicsclassroom.com...


Collisions and Kinetic Energy

Idea: Momentum is conserved for any isolated collision, but kinetic energy is usually not. Kinetic energy can be converted into thermal energy and internal elastic potential energy (because of deformations).

theory.uwinnipeg.ca...

The Ke is converted into other energy, deformation, sound, heat. The only way the collapse could have been complete is the resistance was removed, or the Ke was increased, by an outside force, i.e. explosives of some kind.


edit on 5/31/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



Here you go, genius:





This cannot explain columns bowing inwards for minutes before collapse.


There is absolutely zero evidence for this in videos of the collapses or in the debris. It is a core component of your hero Bazant's theory, so you must defend it. And your right, it would not be consistent with a controlled demolition, if it were true.




This cannot explain the lack of high volume coordinated detonations


Let me use a quote from one of your hero's papers if I may:




The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front.


www.civil.northwestern.edu...&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

Of course the "load booms" he is trying to explain away using the sonic booms of ejected air couldn't possibly be high volume coordinated detonations could they?




This cannot explain the missing truss seats from exterior columns


Does your theory that you come up with yourself in your infinite wisdom explain the truss seats as being "missing"? I am not sure any theory could explain them being "missing". Did they dematerialize? Did they turn to dust? Were they stolen? At least my theory gives what could be a possible explanation. They were melted in a super high temp thermite reaction and were found in molten pools under the buildings weeks later, as reported.




This cannot explain the early penthouse collapse in WTC7


Cutting charges removed core columns causing penthouse to sag as controlled demolition initiated. My theory explains it just fine.

I hate to break it to you but you are not as intelligent as you claim to be. You may very well be educated as you have stated. You are obviously very proud of yourself. Unfortunately an education only imparts knowledge. You, my fine sir, completely lack wisdom. Wisdom is never attained with an expensive education. Wisdom is not shoved down someones throat. Wisdom only comes with experience and an open mind. By reading your comments it is pretty clear you are here to stroke your ego, not impart wisdom as you imply. If I were to suddenly agree with everything you say you would not consider me an equal. You see yourself as head and shoulders above everyone else on this forum, intellectually speaking. You are here to beat everyone over the head with your particular worldview. I don't even see you supporting your fellow os'ers since you consider your self superior to them as well. In fact the only equal in your eyes is your precious Bazant. Don't you find it funny that he claimed to have figured out how the buildings collapsed within 2 DAYS. He was able to form his hypothesis along with supporting documentation and get it all coherently down on paper to be published on SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2001! And lets not forget that he had nothing concrete to base his assumptions on other than a couple videos. Either he is the smartest person in the history of human kind, or he was working on this prior to 911. Realize I wrote this knowing your tactic of picking 2-3 points out of a lengthy post that you feel gives you the best shot at making someone look stupid. Go for it, buddy!

The truth is I don't expect you to believe my view of events on 911(another one, there's 2!). I like to post on threads to see what kind of reactions I get. Don't get me wrong, I believe everything I say. What I have found to be the case 100% of the time, is that people start the name calling as their position gets more suspect. You don't have to call someone stupid or ignorant if your points are strong. They speak for themselves. Wise people can see the attacks for what they are. So go ahead and wail away, last chance. I can only be called stupid so many times before I begin to lose interest.

P.S. I am kind of curious why GoodOlDave hasn't joined the party. He enjoys calling people stupid almost as much as you do. I have posted enough times were he should have piped in by this time. What are you waiting for?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Either one of us is STUPID or one of us is LYING.

I have a physical model that demonstrates Newton's third Law of Motion.

I drop 4 washers separated by THREE intact paper loops onto 29 washers with as many paper loops.

The loops in my falling stack are damaged just as loops in the stationary stack are damaged. That takes energy. It comes from the Kinetic Energy of the falling masses which are slowed down and stopped. Action and Reaction.

But you have no stage where gravity can accelerate a 'floor'. Gravity does not scale, and so your reduced scale model also reduces the effects of gravity. No wonder it won't completely collapse.


So where is your physical model that can completely collapse oh physics EXPERT?

I never claimed I was a physics expert, just that you weren't. What sort of phenomena being demonstrated would actually satisfy you? Bear in mind that there must be 12 feet between floors, so the maximum demonstrable is a 3 floor block if you have 24 feet height available in a workshop. I don't.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
WE the OS have nothing to prove....we only have to wait for truthers to present.

when logic goes out the door...then we resort to lies.

one gets tired of it.....so i just wrote another email to bazant...waiting for reply....good thing i have letter head from the company i work for.

You keep invoking your experience, the company you work for, yet you've not demonstrated your intelligence once. You repeat old long debunked facts, but refuse to listen to argument. What exactly are you here for if you just want to post things without being contested?


oh yes....crocket...published and reports are peer reviewed

Oh really? Where?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by scully222
Here you go, genius:

No need for compliments



There is absolutely zero evidence for this in videos of the collapses or in the debris. It is a core component of your hero Bazant's theory, so you must defend it. And your right, it would not be consistent with a controlled demolition, if it were true.

Excellent. This is the classic picture used to show the bowing, what excuse will you use?




Let me use a quote from one of your hero's papers if I may:
...
Of course the "load booms" he is trying to explain away using the sonic booms of ejected air couldn't possibly be high volume coordinated detonations could they?

No, they occur near the end of collapse. Controlled demolitions have explosives going off before collapse.


Does your theory that you come up with yourself in your infinite wisdom explain the truss seats as being "missing"? I am not sure any theory could explain them being "missing". Did they dematerialize? Did they turn to dust? Were they stolen? At least my theory gives what could be a possible explanation. They were melted in a super high temp thermite reaction and were found in molten pools under the buildings weeks later, as reported.

The debris studies show that at the impact zones the most common failure mode was that the bolts tore out of the clips. Below the impact zone, the clips were primarily bent downwards or sheared off entirely:
Bent:

Sheared:



Cutting charges removed core columns causing penthouse to sag as controlled demolition initiated. My theory explains it just fine.

Why would any controlled demolition target a single column 6 seconds before the rest of the building, and how did they hide the noise? There were videos running at the time and even the smallest charge should have registered as a deafening clap at that range (1km or so).


I hate to break it to you but you are not as intelligent as you claim to be. You may very well be educated as you have stated. You are obviously very proud of yourself.

I never had an expensive education, I'm not well educated or particularly intelligent. What I have is an excellent memory for lists of facts and their interconnection.


If I were to suddenly agree with everything you say you would not consider me an equal. You see yourself as head and shoulders above everyone else on this forum, intellectually speaking. You are here to beat everyone over the head with your particular worldview.

I don't think this is fair. I have no particular bias against you. If you abandoned ideas I consider to be irrational then I would have no reason to believe myself to know better than you.


I don't even see you supporting your fellow os'ers since you consider your self superior to them as well. In fact the only equal in your eyes is your precious Bazant.

Normally people claim NIST, but whatever man, I have no particular loyalty to some of these sources, they are just extremely highly reputed and have produced excellent work. I cite 'truthers' that have done the same, Gregory Urich being a prominent example.


Don't you find it funny that he claimed to have figured out how the buildings collapsed within 2 DAYS. He was able to form his hypothesis along with supporting documentation and get it all coherently down on paper to be published on SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2001! And lets not forget that he had nothing concrete to base his assumptions on other than a couple videos. Either he is the smartest person in the history of human kind, or he was working on this prior to 911.

Or... He didn't actually have much information, but came up with a limiting case. He used approximate values that would mean the tower is very unlikely to collapse, and calculated the rest from there. If you think he was working on it pre 911 then I don't know what to tell you, I consider the extending of 'in on it' to everyone who provides challenges as one of the most irrational theories, so I won't agree with that.


Realize I wrote this knowing your tactic of picking 2-3 points out of a lengthy post that you feel gives you the best shot at making someone look stupid. Go for it, buddy!

I prefer wrong, not stupid. I pick bits out of posts as I have only 600 chars left at this point.

Lets leave it at that for now, we can discuss my posting style if you wish but I think you've made a couple mistakes on the questions above.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The ONLY thing that you have to argue against this is claiming it was 15 floors falling on one floor, and the floor just impacted joins in and suddenly it becomes 16 floors falling on 94, 17 on 93 etc. Which is just ridiculous because that hypothesis ignores the 3rd law, and conservation of momentum. Because we know that floors were crushed and ejected horizontally during the collapse.

You can't just claim 'this ignores 3rd law' without proving it. The principle is not '15 falls flooring on one floor, 16 floors falling on 94, 17 on 93'. It is '15 floors falling on one floor', '14 floors and 1 rubble layer falling on 1 floor' and so on.


If they weren't there would be a stack of floors in the footprint, there simply is not enough energy in a gravity fed collapse to both break connections, and destroy the floors. A pancake collapse has that name for a reason you know, no floors in the footprint you have no 'pancakes'.

There were actually a few sections where floors were compressed, but you're still making the mistake of thinking that Bazant's limiting case represents anything like a realistic model of collapse. In reality the floors were so weak that virtually no columns needed to be crushed for a complete collapse. Obviously they did not contact in parallel.


Where did the energy come from to do that? Ke cannot increase, without an outside force, against resistance. (gravity is an inside force)

What the heck does "Gravity is an inside force" mean? If a floor fails, there is a 12 floor gap between it and the next floor. Gravity will accelerate anything without support at identical rates. I can calculate the actual impact energy for you, if you'd like.


The Ke is converted into other energy, deformation, sound, heat. The only way the collapse could have been complete is the resistance was removed, or the Ke was increased, by an outside force, i.e. explosives of some kind.

What sort of controlled demolition uses explosives to increase KE? None, they use it to sever columns and induce the collapse. Gravity does the rest.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So either one of us is STUPID or one of us is LYING.

I have a physical model that demonstrates Newton's third Law of Motion.

I drop 4 washers separated by THREE intact paper loops onto 29 washers with as many paper loops.

The loops in my falling stack are damaged just as loops in the stationary stack are damaged. That takes energy. It comes from the Kinetic Energy of the falling masses which are slowed down and stopped. Action and Reaction.

But you have no stage where gravity can accelerate a 'floor'. Gravity does not scale, and so your reduced scale model also reduces the effects of gravity. No wonder it won't completely collapse.


So where is your physical model that can completely collapse oh physics EXPERT?

I never claimed I was a physics expert, just that you weren't. What sort of phenomena being demonstrated would actually satisfy you? Bear in mind that there must be 12 feet between floors, so the maximum demonstrable is a 3 floor block if you have 24 feet height available in a workshop. I don't.


Well if our engineering schools can do this:

www.youtube.com...

Then why can't they build models much bigger and heavier than mine.

That is why I wrote the Python program. But of course you say that is irrelevant even though no energy is used up bending or breaking anything so somehow a real building that had to break things came down in slightly less time than our computer simulations could. There is no question, one of us is obviously stupid.

And regardless of what the truth is the physics profession has put itself into a peculiar position by not demanding accurate steel and concrete distribution data on the buildings from official sources. Not even talking about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower is damn strange.

Considering that the maximum possible velocity of an object dropped from the top of the WTC is only 300 ft/sec the maximum error I can have with impact positions with my time base at 1/1000th of a second is 0.3 feet. Since the highly questionable data for the impact masses will cause more variation than that making a big deal about the code is silly unless it is giving absurd results. We are both getting about 12 seconds.

You are stuck defending the position that the real building could do that in just a collapse though you can't specify how much energy is required to snap loose a floor or crush 12 feet of core.

Arguing about this for TEN YEARS without demanding accurate steel and concrete distribution data is stupid from the get go especially since the NIST admitted that it was needed on page 40 of report 15-D. So shouldn't all of the physics experts have figured that out at least that?

Of course if people just BELIEVE what they are told then they won't ask awkward questions.

www.youtube.com...

psik
edit on 1-6-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join