Indeed they are... that's why nobody takes you seriously. The laws of physics laugh in your face.
9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
Indeed they are... that's why nobody takes you seriously. The laws of physics laugh in your face.
Exactly. And no matter how much you wish they were mutable to fit the latest conspiracy theory, they remain laws.
I know you won't get this but the problem is you cannot scale down the building and get the same results. For instance if you have a little twin tower and you had little people that were to scale, depending on the scaling they could jump off that little tower and not be hurt when they hit the ground. The point being just one of the big problems is mass is directly proportional with volume and not surface area.
See video above. Physical model that collapses completely in a manner very similar to the WTC.
Hilariously idiotic. The people are irrelevant. I am supposed to be impressed because you can do an inadequate job of explaining the square-cube law. Like engineers did not have to deal with that for decades before computers were invented.
Froude scaling was developed more than 100 years ago:
http://www.ivt.ntnu.no/imt/courses/tmr7/lecture/Scaling_Laws.pdf
They made a 1:200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that oscillated like the real thing. It was 54 feet long and built in a wind tunnel.
They did it in 4 months in 1940.
So scientists and engineers have made real idiots of themselves by not doing it for the north tower in 12 years. A 1:100th scale model of the north tower would be less than 14 feet tall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB008RAluyg
The model first appears at 2:45.
psik
If you have such a supposed understanding of this... then why did you attempt to make a model out of paper, knowing full well it would not act at all like the real thing? This stinks of intellectual dishonesty to me...
It is because I have an understanding that I did make the model out of paper.
As I have said before the intent was to make the model AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE relative to the static load.
But skyscrapers are not designed to be as weak as possible. So if a weak as possible model still could not collapse then what does that say about the absurdity of believing that the north tower could? Some people just can't comprehend the obvious once they have decided to believe nonsense.
If the collapse was possible then why haven't most engineering schools built models to demonstrate it by now?
In fact, how many engineering schools have even taken an official position on the subject? I don't know of any school that has announced an official opinion for the institution.
psik
And you are certain, without doubt, that you accurately portrayed the weight distribution, load bearing structures, and damage, (through explosion, impact, and fire) accurately? If so, compile everything together and submit it for review.
the floors of 1 & 2 were able to handle the static load of the floor.
i doubt if one floor could hold the weight of 2 or more floors.
what happens in your model when 2 washers are placed on one paper ring?
does the ring collapse?
in my opinion you must make the rings with holes.
this will model the true nature of the floor supports.
then there is the matter of the perimeter butt joints.
i'm just stupified that they are there at all.
By "floors" in 1 & 2 are you talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core?
That is why I say LEVELS. I am talking about a 12 foot height including the columns and beams in the core and the perimeter columns. So when I talk about the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every LEVEL, I mean all of that.
Every LEVEL must support the combined weights of all of the LEVELS above.
So each of my paper loops must support the weight of all of the LEVELS, i.e. Washers above.
psik
ROFLMAO
How can I accurately portray the weight distributions when I have said we don't have that information but we should have gotten it long ago? The NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers, much less the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every LEVEL.
psik
psikeyhackr
You need new lies, these are stale.
Every floor had 4 inches of lightweight concrete(114 lb per cubic foot)over 2/3 acre, they also had about 1/2 of the other third(the core area)covered in normal weight concrete at 6 inches depth(150 lb per cubic foot). 94 floors were identical in this respect. The mechanical floors(3)had an acre of 6 inch normal weight concrete. There was absolutely no other structural concrete in the floors above ground level. All the structural steel was in the core and perimeter, the steel in the floors themselves held only that floor's load. Specifications for that steel are listed in the NIST report by heighth of the building. You can do the math, can't you? An acre is 280 feet by 280 feet.
And stop lying.
Grumpy
You need new lies, these are stale.
Every floor had 4 inches of lightweight concrete(114 lb per cubic foot)over 2/3 acre, they also had about 1/2 of the other third(the core area)covered in normal weight concrete at 6 inches depth(150 lb per cubic foot). 94 floors were identical in this respect. The mechanical floors(3)had an acre of 6 inch normal weight concrete. There was absolutely no other structural concrete in the floors above ground level. All the structural steel was in the core and perimeter, the steel in the floors themselves held only that floor's load. Specifications for that steel are listed in the NIST report by heighth of the building. You can do the math, can't you? An acre is 280 feet by 280 feet.
And stop lying.
Grumpy
So you admit your model was inaccurate then? Good. Glad we've cleared that up.
If I say my model is 100% accurate in the distribution of mass could you prove me wrong if you don't have the data? My model is a physics demonstration which I have always admitted. I would say that it is very unlikely that the mass distribution matches the north tower but I do not KNOW that it does not.
It is a linear distribution with the base 50% more than the top. That should be pretty close considering that I do not have a precision scale to measure each individual washer. I ignore the weight of the paper loops since that is about 1/5th the weight of a single washer.
psik
If I say my model is 100% accurate in the distribution of mass could you prove me wrong if you don't have the data? My model is a physics demonstration which I have always admitted. I would say that it is very unlikely that the mass distribution matches the north tower but I do not KNOW that it does not.
It is a linear distribution with the base 50% more than the top. That should be pretty close considering that I do not have a precision scale to measure each individual washer. I ignore the weight of the paper loops since that is about 1/5th the weight of a single washer.
psik
And you know that your connecting strength mirrors the difference in scale that the weight does?
yes.
let's just stick with floors.
it doesn't matter what the weight is as long as the model accurately represents it.
wrong, as in DEAD wrong.
the floors supported no weight except the live loads they carried.
the only structural support the floors gave was to keep the building from twisting and to keep the perimeter aligned to keep it from buckling.
wrong, see above.
i believe this is erroneous.
i believe the floor weight was constant, each floor weighed the same.
I really don't understand...
This thread has gone on for some 1200 posts. I have no idea why.
Two planes crashed into the world trade center buildings. People on the street saw it, and it was actually filmed by MANY people. Fucking sick of this conspiracy bullshit.
Yeah, the Government paid off some 100,000 people, so they could fake the incident.
Wanna buy a bridge? I just so happen to have one for sale... Meh.
This thread has gone on for some 1200 posts. I have no idea why.
Two planes crashed into the world trade center buildings. People on the street saw it, and it was actually filmed by MANY people. Fucking sick of this conspiracy bullshit.
Yeah, the Government paid off some 100,000 people, so they could fake the incident.
Wanna buy a bridge? I just so happen to have one for sale... Meh.
- Status