Ok, that was killer
Dredging around a bit ago, I came across this:http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874
I thought it was an interesting article because of the short video toward the bottom.
9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
Ok, that was killer
Dredging around a bit ago, I came across this:http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874
I thought it was an interesting article because of the short video toward the bottom.
Neverfly
In addition, neither gravity nor the behavior of materials(specifically steel)scale. An ant can lift 100 times it's own weight, but if you scaled it up to much bigger than a small dog it wouldn't be able to crawl across the floor. That's why I pointed out that pasta reacts much like steel if you scale down the towers to a four foot model, the effects of a water spray on pasta is also analogous to the effects of fire on full sized steel. Proper calibration for gravity can be simulated by building two identical models and testing one to failure. Of course, in a four foot model the floor diaphragms are analogous to spider webs in strength and consequences to any collapse of the steel, and since we don't have trained spiders you could load the model to one half failure load(a safety factor of two, more than the towers had)and ignore the floors. Crude and incomplete, I know. But it will give the results psi claims have never been shown in a model that at least attempts to follow the science involved, unlike psi's pathetic attempt with washers and paper.
Grumpy
In addition, neither gravity nor the behavior of materials(specifically steel)scale. An ant can lift 100 times it's own weight, but if you scaled it up to much bigger than a small dog it wouldn't be able to crawl across the floor. That's why I pointed out that pasta reacts much like steel if you scale down the towers to a four foot model, the effects of a water spray on pasta is also analogous to the effects of fire on full sized steel. Proper calibration for gravity can be simulated by building two identical models and testing one to failure. Of course, in a four foot model the floor diaphragms are analogous to spider webs in strength and consequences to any collapse of the steel, and since we don't have trained spiders you could load the model to one half failure load(a safety factor of two, more than the towers had)and ignore the floors. Crude and incomplete, I know. But it will give the results psi claims have never been shown in a model that at least attempts to follow the science involved, unlike psi's pathetic attempt with washers and paper.
Grumpy
Now see, this is the difference between knowledge and understanding: I would never have thought of pasta.
Atomix seems to have posted twice and never returned.
Maybe someone taking him up on his offer was not something he actually wanted to happen...
That's static loading which has nothing to do with the collapse of the tower.
What was the energy transfer to the structure?
Yes, that's beautiful- it's as though he thinks several tons were gently lofted up there and set down all full of care and ginger-like.
What?:bugeye:
im overseas in another country
when i get talking with people they bring up 9/11 and as my opinion. i stay neutral
they proceed to tell me the story that bush gave was complete bullshit to them
i ask why
they say from what research they have done to many things dont add up
im overseas in another country
when i get talking with people they bring up 9/11 and as my opinion. i stay neutral
they proceed to tell me the story that bush gave was complete bullshit to them
i ask why
they say from what research they have done to many things don't add up
I'd suggest reading through this thread and many others like them which explain how the "research done" usually means looking at places like Alex Jones website, enterprise mission, loose change forum, godlike productions and every other conspiracy nutter haven where they invent "physics", "evidence" and "facts," that just don't exist in the real world.
What was the energy required to collapse a level of the core?
I demonstrated the effect of a dynamic load an static supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo
Where is your multilevel model that can completely collapse if it is possible.
psik
Now, that's a good question. How much potential energy was in the building?
ROFLMAO
If we don't have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings then that cannot be accurately computed. Anything else is guesses based on assumptions.
Skyscrapers have to be bottom heavy.
So why hasn't the physics profession been demanding that data for 11 years?
psik
You ignore anything that doesn't support your conclusions, repeatedly, even though everyone has seen me post the link to what you claim is not publicly available.
Maybe YOU don't have accurate data because you never bothered to actually get it. But NIST provides it- for FREE.
They didn't need to demand it for 11 years because they have it. Maybe you do not so you assume no one does. Hogwash. Red herring- again.
And clearly you know nothing about gravitational potential energy.
So one of us is a LIAR.
I have said plenty of times that the NIST does not specify the total for the concrete in the towers though they do it for the steel. Sources from before 9/11 say there was 425,000 cubic yards.
So what is stopping you from specifying what the NIST says in the NCSTAR1 report about that and provide a link to the source?
psik
http://wtcdata.nist.gov/index2.htm
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1234697 - has blueprints and photos of all aspects of construction
(If scrolling is too much, I have the blueprints in a .pdf I can send you.)
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101005
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101003
For an exact total of concrete- I'm not sure. That was 1968 and a lot of mods were done since then. Such as much, NIST felt comparisons were necessary.
The rounded off figures will have to do. If you want a truly exact figure down to the last pound and can't find one...
I call- Red Herring!
Seems your strongest tactic, eh?
The approximate figures are adequate. You're calling for some nitpicked version suggests that you're deliberately trying to chase something absurd in order to give the appearance of missing data.
psi, correct me if I'm wrong, as all the arguing back and forth about amount of concrete has lost your original point for me. Since you obviously don't think anything about the planes were a factor in the towers' collapsing, are you suggesting a planned demolition? I honestly don't know, even after going back and reviewing posts. You seem singularly obsessed about the whole physics of falling, but don't talk about your opinions, just that the accepted view is not possible.
Just wondering where you're coming from. Because no doubt, they did come down. And frankly, one way or another once started wouldn't greatly affect the final results as far as collapse.
Just wondering where you're coming from. Because no doubt, they did come down. And frankly, one way or another once started wouldn't greatly affect the final results as far as collapse.
Are you suggesting that physics can be defied just because people prefer not believing in a complicated conspiracy?
The steel has to hold up the concrete. The distribution of concrete must affect the distribution of steel. But this applies to every skyscraper in the world.
It is not my fault if you cannot deal with eliminating a negative. After 11 years the physics profession not resolving this is more important than who did it. If it is physically possible then physicists should have explained it within six months. We should not have had to wait years for the NCSTAR1 report.
109 masses floating in air would take 12 seconds to collapse if the top 14 fell on the lower 95. And that is if the masses are all equal. If the lower masses are heavier then the collapse time must increase. But that is just because of the Conservation of Momentum alone and any competent freshman engineering student should be able to write a computer program to simulate that. So if physical supports strong enough to hold all of the masses above must be broken from above then the collapse time must increase considerably.
But the north tower came down in less than 26 seconds.
So the physics Profession must explain how that could have happened without the supports being destroyed from below. But after 11 years how do all of the engineering schools explain not pointing this out years ago? That is the problem now. Conspiracies are irrelevant. But then how many people won't want to admit they have believed nonsense for years?
And then we can't even get accurate data on steel and concrete distributions down any skyscrapers anywhere in the world. The collapse defies the physics of ALL SKYSCRAPERS.
psik
After typing out all that gobbledygook, now read my post above- with links and complete and full blueprints- publicly available and - I can send them to anyone that asks as a .pdf.
After typing all the gobbledygook about how the towers must have been blown out from beneath:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk9uTjRNdVI
Watch how they fall from the top down.
Lastly: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
After typing all the gobbledygook about how the towers must have been blown out from beneath:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk9uTjRNdVI
Watch how they fall from the top down.
Lastly: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
In the heydey of my youth when boredom was the mother of invention, it was discovered that a VW Beetle could be rolled down a levee without doing much body damage. (The idea was take turns rolling a carload of friends to their pretended demise.) That's a little kinetic energy, but for all practical purposes, the dome was mostly subjected to static loading.
Compare this with dropping a VW Beetle from a cliff. That's what psi is missing.
Psi:
Flight 175 was at nearly cruise speed, about 245 m/s, when it crashed into the South Tower. I can simulate this by choosing a cliff high enough to push my Beetle over the edge, such that the car is hurtling at 245 m/s when it hits the ground.
Here's a reasonable high school science question for you to address. How high must the cliff be? I think when you come around to trying to put actual physics to work you'll see some of the errors in your thinking.
Here's an approximate answer to the question I asked before: how much energy was transferred to the structure? The kinetic energy of the airplane was approximately
E ≈ ½mv² = ½ (180,000 kg) (245 m/s)² ≈ 5.4 GJ.
This is the energy content of about 2,000 sticks of dynamite. It stripped the fire insulation from the floor trusses, and demolished the fire sprinklers, setting up the more destructive effect of the burning fuel.
The fuel on board was approx 38 kL. Jet fuel contains about 35 MJ/L. The heat content of the fuel tanks at the moment of impact was about
E ≈ (38 kL)(35 MJ/L) ≈ 1.3 TJ.
This is the energy content of about 633,000 sticks of dynamite.
If charges were laid, how many are you claiming there were? A million sticks of dynamite?
That's about a quarter of a million kg of plastic explosive. And both estimates are assuming perfect efficiency in detonation, otherwise you need more.
That's for WTC 2.
And you don't think that's enough explosive to bring it down?
No, I was just trying to clarify what your position was, since you don't talk about it as much as you harp on people not being obsessed with building miniatures. Like that would be more exact than computer models...but that's another argument. At least now I understand that you think demolitions were involved. But you apparently think that, and have this rant about engineers and physicists because you think...
Watching the many videos, you can see debris falling at freefall. You can see the dust cloud falling as well, slower than freefall. The build itself fell even slower. You can't count the first objects hitting the ground as the whole building.
Your models probably don't depict this, so you think there's some big problem.
I have some questions about the whole demolition problem, from logistics to tricking everyone who worked at the WTC, but I'd just like to see your reasoning of why you think the building's final collapse occurred at freefall speeds.
- Status