No, that's in the "Three Experiments Challenging SRT" thread. It's not quite as funny, the way he went about it, though.
9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
No, that's in the "Three Experiments Challenging SRT" thread. It's not quite as funny, the way he went about it, though.
psikeyhackr
Why should it? Anyone who understands physics knows from the start where the center of gravity/center of mass is and how it will remain where it is unless moved by some force. Since the force of gravity was the only such force the center of gravity remained centered on the footprint during the initiation of collapse even as it tilted and fell. Biologists don't often discuss the moisture conditions of fish skin for the same reason, fish are wet, it's a given. It would take the energy of a small atomic bomb to get the top to topple off to the side.
In High School(or equivalent)physics classes throughout the educated world! Matter in motion remains in motion until acted on by a force, matter at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force. The matter of the top rotated and tilted around it's center of gravity, not at the hinge...
...the failure of a wall(and likely the core as well)on one side caused that side to drop, instantaneously this introduced a torsion force through the center of gravity, causing the top to go in the direction of the failed wall and the bottom to go away from the failed wall, THIS SHEARED ALL COLUMN TO COLUMN CONNECTIONS IN THE CORE COLUMNS and outer walls(connections without which there was ZERO vertical strength or resistance)and then that center of gravity came straight down(due to gravity)and THEN the various collisions among the debris(forces again)tended toward the side(as the top hat frame largely missed the core, unlike in tower 1).
It's obvious that you have no understanding of the effects of scale on how materials behave. Those buildings had a footprint of one acre or so. Gravity is measured at 32ft/sec/sec no matter if you are talking one inch or a thousand feet. Our EXPERIENCE with materials(which is what we base our understanding on, mostly)is with a scale of inches, feet, yards at most. But just like the dog sized ant is barely capable of moving, large structures are fragile things. As designed they carry their loads(live, wind, earthquake, etc)with a safety margin somewhat less that two. Fire safety standards specify a time the building can withstand a standardized fire on one portion of one floor, usually one or two hours, so the people can evacuate, as fires bring down buildings all the time, even steel framed ones. And the structure was not capable of "hinging" the top off to the side, moving that center of gravity that far in that short a time would take a tactical nuke's equivalence of energy, energy generated by gravity that would have to be applied and absorbed by the structural members of the top and bottom 'points' of the hinge. Those members were woefully inadequate to do so, they failed and the top rotated around it's CG, which continued straight down, as seen in the above photo and diagram.
Neverfly
As a frequenter of breakfornews, psi has been exposed to the "concrete core" non-sense of christophera. You are correct that the Towers had no concrete reinforced steel core, but there were light weight cross beams between the columns on all floors with floor pans and 6 inches of structural weight concrete on the little of the core not taken up by elevator shafts. That NIST used the shorthand "core" to describe the very different concept of the core columns leads many in the "Troother" movement to confusion. For instance, the only vertical walls in the core area were made from foam panels, not concrete, the concrete in the floors served no purpose other than stopping the people from falling through(except in the mechanical floors)and there was ZERO steel reinforced structural concrete in either tower above ground level(there was a lot of it below that).
Grumpy
Why should it? Anyone who understands physics knows from the start where the center of gravity/center of mass is and how it will remain where it is unless moved by some force. Since the force of gravity was the only such force the center of gravity remained centered on the footprint during the initiation of collapse even as it tilted and fell. Biologists don't often discuss the moisture conditions of fish skin for the same reason, fish are wet, it's a given. It would take the energy of a small atomic bomb to get the top to topple off to the side.
In High School(or equivalent)physics classes throughout the educated world! Matter in motion remains in motion until acted on by a force, matter at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force. The matter of the top rotated and tilted around it's center of gravity, not at the hinge...
It's obvious that you have no understanding of the effects of scale on how materials behave. Those buildings had a footprint of one acre or so. Gravity is measured at 32ft/sec/sec no matter if you are talking one inch or a thousand feet. Our EXPERIENCE with materials(which is what we base our understanding on, mostly)is with a scale of inches, feet, yards at most. But just like the dog sized ant is barely capable of moving, large structures are fragile things. As designed they carry their loads(live, wind, earthquake, etc)with a safety margin somewhat less that two. Fire safety standards specify a time the building can withstand a standardized fire on one portion of one floor, usually one or two hours, so the people can evacuate, as fires bring down buildings all the time, even steel framed ones. And the structure was not capable of "hinging" the top off to the side, moving that center of gravity that far in that short a time would take a tactical nuke's equivalence of energy, energy generated by gravity that would have to be applied and absorbed by the structural members of the top and bottom 'points' of the hinge. Those members were woefully inadequate to do so, they failed and the top rotated around it's CG, which continued straight down, as seen in the above photo and diagram.
Neverfly
As a frequenter of breakfornews, psi has been exposed to the "concrete core" non-sense of christophera. You are correct that the Towers had no concrete reinforced steel core, but there were light weight cross beams between the columns on all floors with floor pans and 6 inches of structural weight concrete on the little of the core not taken up by elevator shafts. That NIST used the shorthand "core" to describe the very different concept of the core columns leads many in the "Troother" movement to confusion. For instance, the only vertical walls in the core area were made from foam panels, not concrete, the concrete in the floors served no purpose other than stopping the people from falling through(except in the mechanical floors)and there was ZERO steel reinforced structural concrete in either tower above ground level(there was a lot of it below that).
Grumpy
Déjà vu.
Wasn't it discussed a page or so back how he ignores the clear and obvious refutations of his outlandish ideas and then re-injects them into the topic a short time later as if it had some merit?
I appreciate this indepth clarification because I lacked the knowledge to properly write one out. Been poring over the prints but they are scanned copies and ... yeah... some of the print is hard to read. I posted a couple screenshot images above...
And the joke is quite good. Please, continue with your most excellent entertainment! I loved your contention that paper rings and washers on a spindle was JUST LIKE the WTC. However, we haven't heard about nanothermite, loose change, or stealth holographic cruise missiles yet. And don't forget how the hole in the Pentagon is the wrong size, and that you can't make phone calls from airplanes. Will you be getting to those next?
Grumpy, even though it is continuously ignored to the one(s) who need to read it, thanks for the very concise and detailed info you post. You have more resilience than most. Lots of good science there.
The biggest illusion is how solid the towers appeared, when in fact they were mostly air. And like you said, once a failure occurred, the loads shot past what the rest of the building, damaged or not, could hold. Gravity wins.
The biggest illusion is how solid the towers appeared, when in fact they were mostly air. And like you said, once a failure occurred, the loads shot past what the rest of the building, damaged or not, could hold. Gravity wins.
Good science!!!
ROFL
Mass has inertia the center of mass does not. Where is the center of mass of a horse shoe? It is inside the curve and no mass is actually there. The center of mass of the top 30 stories could have been in an elevator shaft for all we know. Mass remains where it is unless moved by some force. A single concrete slab outside the core was 600 tons. So in order for the top portion to rotate and the center of mass to remain stationary the lower portion had to move in the opposite direction so some force had to cause the rotation. What force could make opposite ends move in opposite directions? You claim gravity could do that?
If you turned a bicycle upside down and attached a weight to one side of a wheel then gravity could make the wheel rotate. That is how water wheels have worked for centuries. But something has to hold the center of the wheel in place. But you are saying the bottom of the 30 stories was broken loose to move horizontally so what could hold the center of mass in place. Great insane physics Grump and then these people want to agree with it. ROFLMAO
The power of the 9/11 religion.
What are you saying that force was to cause the rotation? In addition more than 200 columns had to be sheared for the lower portion to move horizontally 20 feet in a couple of seconds. What did that? The impact of the plane 50 minutes earlier only moved the structure 15 inches.
So tell us what caused the rotation while keeping the center of mass in place.
The matter of the top rotated and tilted around it's center of gravity, not at the hinge......the failure of a wall(and likely the core as well)on one side caused that side to drop, instantaneously this introduced a torsion force through the center of gravity, causing the top to go in the direction of the failed wall and the bottom to go away from the failed wall,
Why would the bottom move away from the failed wall? The intact wall would act as a hinge point and the mass above would tilt away from the intact wall. But that would move the center of mass horizontally.
Oh, you just claim it is true and it must be so because YOU said it.
A dog sized ant would have no lungs. It would not be able to breath. The ant's method of taking in oxygen would not work at that scale.
Oh yeah, tell us where a steel framed building came down due to fire other than on 9/11.
But shearing 283 columns to rotate 30 stories was so easy. No tactical nuke required. YEAH RIGHT! LOL
And where is you supporting information that the cross beams were "light weight". So when there is no information you just CLAIM it is whatever you want.
I don't see any point in responding quickly since it will just give me more absurd things to respond to.
psik
So now you understand scale?
Thye ant business involves the motion of individual molecules. I think bringing up animate examples in relation to the WTC problem is idiotic.
psik
You would bet on it because you are still confusing energy and power. I am addressing energy. You seem to mean to say 90% of the energy of the jet fuel was not converted. Meaning what? That it simply ceased to exist? Can you explain that without violating the laws of nature, namely, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed?
Who's not getting it? I'm the one that asked you to address it. I've opened with the energy delivered. Now, all you need to do is to explain where the energy went, since it can't simply disappear.
What are you talking about? The metal was at its fatigue temperature. Are you going to talk about metallurgy now? And as for the concrete, I have a challenge for you: find the word that describes the loss of cohesion between molecules of concrete when they become hot. Use that word in a sentence and you'll be one inch closer to understanding what it means.
You are pretending to treat this scientifically. As you see from my energy calculations the energy content of the fuel is substantial in comparison to the kinetic energy of the crash. If anything you should get excited by the progress you've made in learning some basic science . . .
. . . even if the science drags you, kicking and screaming, all the way back to your school days.
psikeyhackr
Like all analogies they fall apart if taken beyond their point, and the point is it's ALL about molecules and scale, not whether a dog sized ant is viable. This applies across the spectrum from mountains to flowers. All molecules are the same size, whether they are part of an ant or a steel beam 36 feet long in one of the Towers. And things made of those same molecules have different properties depending on the size of the structure they are part of. I have a steel measuring tape that will hold it's own weight perpendicular to the floor for 30 feet. If we scale that tape up so that the thirty feet are three hundred the structure would not stand a chance of remaining purpendicular while supported only on one side(as my tape will do). The difference is all down to scale effects of material properties and gravity.
The center of mass is a COORDINATE in a vector diagram. A solid object can be described by the center of mass in math equations.
The initial movement was caused by the sudden failure of the floors in the fire zone, dropping the east side(gravity), this introduced a torsion that was applied through the center of mass. This caused the rotation. As the computer diagram and photo shows, the bottom went inward at the failure point, the top went outward toward the failure point, and the center of gravity remained centered on the footprint as the whole top dropped straight down(the connections in the core columns and walls having been sheared by the rotation).
By the way, the total energy released in Tower 1's collapse(in heat, deformation and shaking the ground) was equivalent to that of the Hiroshima bomb(in heat, blast and radiation). Tower two was slightly less.
Both buildings survived the damage of the initial impacts. Had nothing else happened the buildings would likely still be standing.
[video=youtube;_MRSr1MnFuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk&feature=related[/video]
Grumpy
Like all analogies they fall apart if taken beyond their point, and the point is it's ALL about molecules and scale, not whether a dog sized ant is viable. This applies across the spectrum from mountains to flowers. All molecules are the same size, whether they are part of an ant or a steel beam 36 feet long in one of the Towers. And things made of those same molecules have different properties depending on the size of the structure they are part of. I have a steel measuring tape that will hold it's own weight perpendicular to the floor for 30 feet. If we scale that tape up so that the thirty feet are three hundred the structure would not stand a chance of remaining purpendicular while supported only on one side(as my tape will do). The difference is all down to scale effects of material properties and gravity.
The center of mass is a COORDINATE in a vector diagram. A solid object can be described by the center of mass in math equations.
The initial movement was caused by the sudden failure of the floors in the fire zone, dropping the east side(gravity), this introduced a torsion that was applied through the center of mass. This caused the rotation. As the computer diagram and photo shows, the bottom went inward at the failure point, the top went outward toward the failure point, and the center of gravity remained centered on the footprint as the whole top dropped straight down(the connections in the core columns and walls having been sheared by the rotation).
By the way, the total energy released in Tower 1's collapse(in heat, deformation and shaking the ground) was equivalent to that of the Hiroshima bomb(in heat, blast and radiation). Tower two was slightly less.
Both buildings survived the damage of the initial impacts. Had nothing else happened the buildings would likely still be standing.
[video=youtube;_MRSr1MnFuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk&feature=related[/video]
Grumpy
psikeyhackr, every single one of the "truther" claims have been debunked time and time again. Thing is, it's one thing to be ignorant but at some point that crosses over to become sheer stupidity. And you've made it crystal clear in this thread that you crossed that line a long time ago. What a pity - a waste of a mind. <shrug>
... Oohh... I don't know...
Don't be too hard on him. He is most excellent entertainment.
Not if he can't come up with new material.
By your definition there would be no moments of inertia and the universe as we know it would come apart.
And what happens there? All of the mass rotates around that point as the shoe is thrown like a Frisbee, demonstrating moment of inertia.
No, the center of mass would be very nearly the center of mass of a solid prism of the same size and shape.
Maybe so, maybe not. It depends on the system or model being referenced. In the case of the WTC - just before the crash - the forces in each tower were acting to constrain the structure against motion. Such forces are commonly called static forces. You can learn more about this by studying Statics.
If I understand your statement, then no, one rotates with respect to the ground and the other rotates hardly at all, since it is anchored to the ground. But in the event of contrary motion, you have even more evidence against your conspiracy theory. This says the upper portion went into unconstrained torsion first due to the crash, then presented an opposite torsion to the portion below which failed for the reason of the dynamic torsion above, not necessarily because of statics. This could be easily modeled if you'd like to disprove your claims.
You're assuming the frames of large structures are not all being constrained against torsion, which is ludicrous.
You've ignored all the static forces in the frame. As it fails, the constraints against torsion disappear, and it will rotate. The opposite is true: an absence of rotation would indicate a controlled demolition. This should be one of several alarms going off in your head, telling you that the conspiracy theory is entirely founded on false assumptions and a lack of science.
You own the claims. The rest is science. Yes, thanks to gravity tall buildings are in static torsion. The anti-torsion elements prevent gravity from succeeding. (More precisely the structural engineers prevent gravity from succeeding.) When those elements fail, the torsion is unconstrained, so the structure twists as it comes apart.
This is much easier to simulate than the pancaking you were attempting with washers and paper. You can easily disprove your torsion claims by building a toy model that uses string tensioners to prevent torsion from toppling four tall metal rods joined at the top. Hit the structure with a torch, and as the strings pop the torsion will be unconstrained, and your model will fall with a twist.
After that you can switch sides and put up a video proving that the conspiracy theory is bogus.
Now that is a brilliant accusation. I presume you can find people dumb enough to believe it.
psik
I have been accused of being a truther.
I have said many times that the NCSTAR1 report does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.
So suppose you tell us the number and provide the quote, the page and the link for that information in the NIST report.
psik
I'm not about to waste ANY of my time on your idiocy! Plenty of people here - and probably others as well - have patiently walked you through each and every nonsensical issue you've raised.
I've already spent more effort on this than you are worth. There's an accurate saying: "Ignorance can be corrected, stupidity is forever."
So you adopt the stupidity of making an accusation that you will not verify on the basis of the excuse that you won't waste the time.
I have the NCSTAR1 report on DVD and have searched it many times. I have said for years that the total for the concrete is not there. Lots of dummies have said it is there but curiously not a single one has specified the amount and provided the quote and specified the page. I agree stupidity is forever. But you cannot satisfy your own challenge therefore you demonstrate the stupidity.
But in three places the NIST report where they admitted that they needed to know the distribution of weight of the tower in order to analyse the motion of the building due to the aircraft impact. So how can they get that information if they don't even know the total weight. I demonstrated that mass and its distribution affected the impact response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
Grade school physics.
psik
- Status