If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[Oystein]

An interesting challenge.

I'll limit myself to some preliminary comments - I should be engaged in some horizontally polarised inactivity - 0217 in this time zone as I type.


Two issues are the same traps we regularly see on this topic:
1) Be explicit whether you are (A) discussing an abstract or even a constructable model which is NOT WTC OR (B) discussing the WTC Real event; AND
2) Be sure how you get to "dropping the distance of 'x'" whether one floor or not. Because that did not happen in WTC real event.
...

1) I am sure it doesn't matter
2) The point is: At the time the first intact story is tested, the upper segment's KE ought to be strictly less than the KE gained between two stories (storeys?). Doesn't matter so much if the fall was "free" or the initial drop strictly less than or equal one story height, or same mechanism.

I agree that these experiments do not model the WTC, but they all attempt to show, in a larger context, that total and even accelerated collapse is never possible - and they are wrong - and the reasons I identified are (among) the reasons why these experiments fail to "prove" their belief. My reasons hold for any type of structural failure, provided its the same failure (mode, magnitudes) on every story:
If the first story cannot dissipate the KE gained from less than or equal to one story drop, then none of the storeys below can. But there will always be the additional KE gained from an equal to one story drop while the top drops one additional story.


I am assuming somewhat that structural resistance occurs on a story-by-story schedule. This is certainly attackable.
Oh ok and I have so far been ignoring mass shedding

ETA:

Think "scrunch" not "drop" unless by "drop" you specifically mean "go lower but not by falling through a gap"

Understood, and yes.
I should make it clearer:
If, after having descended 1 story, KE has increased, then the structure cannot dissipate the KE gained from PE differential - collapse continues and accelerates.
The experiments err in allowing the top segment to initially descend through a PE differential without giving the structure a chance to concurrently dissipate. This cannot happen in a fire-induced collaspe (although it could happen in an explosives-induced collapse, by creating such a gap )

 

[ozeco41]

1) I am sure it doesn't matter
2) The point is: At the time the first intact story is tested, the upper segment's KE ought to be strictly less than the KE gained between two stories (storeys?). Doesn't matter so much if the fall was "free" or the initial drop strictly less than or equal one story height, or same mechanism.

Gotcha.

I agree that these experiments do not model the WTC, but they all attempt to show, in a larger context, that total and even accelerated collapse is never possible - and they are wrong - and the reasons I identified are (among) the reasons why these experiments fail to "prove" their belief.

Agreed "among" now I understand where you are coming from. Remember my excuse for the pre-set bias. When I came into WTC collapse analysis I was confronted by a swathe of academic explanations which relied on heavy and complicated looking maths intended to explain what was relatively easy to explain without maths. i.e. the "progression failure" stage for the Twin Towers. And often doing the mental stuff to work out what the maths was doing showed that it was a house of cards built on a wrong foundation. It was more often wrong than right for the papers I looked at.

So I chose to explain it by the "bleedingly obvious" method of explaining what was visually obvious THEN noting that the maths was easily subsumed. (Once you get to understand floors sheared off it is easy to see that the available energy was orders of magnitude higher than needed >> runaway without needing the maths to prove it)

That was the reason for my much used graphic:

At the time I thought that the obvious disparity between the large falling mass and that poor little connection should be obvious. mmmm.. forgetting that many engineers cannot get out of the spread sheets and FEA "in the square" or "Nine Dots" trap. I still tend to expect that engineers will have a "gut feel" for engineering physics.

At that time the academic and numbers oriented engineers approach was mostly based on measuring and rebutting/justifying the near free fall or actual accelerations and velocities. Without regard to the actual mechanism. (..and - I won't derail to the side track BUT conflating the two is and remains the source of the continuing confusions over M_T's technical claims...if you set aside all the personality aspects.)

The historical and continuing core problem is improper conflation or "mix and match" - hence my usual insistence - leading to a bias - for "keep them separate".

You haven't fallen for the trap.

My reasons hold for any type of structural failure, provided its the same failure (mode, magnitudes) on every story:
If the first story cannot dissipate the KE gained from less than or equal to one story drop, then none of the storeys below can. But there will always be the additional KE gained from an equal to one story drop while the top drops one additional story.

Yes.

I am assuming somewhat that structural resistance occurs on a story-by-story schedule. This is certainly attackable.
Oh ok and I have so far been ignoring mass shedding

Yes. Lack of uniformity of the mechanism wouldn't necessarily be fatal to a storey by storey schedule - the storey "gross ups" remain even if parts of a floor were spread in time. And mass shedding is probably second order for the "ROOSD" bit - the "dust" component almost certainly 2nd order. And peel off of columns is not or should not be in the mass balance for ROOSD. BUT that is still presuming tight alignment of Core on core, OOS on OOS - mmmm...I'll leave it for you to manage the sub-system boundaries.. (Another reason why my lazy man's qualitative approach is easier. )

ETA:

Understood, and yes.
I should make it clearer:
If, after having descended 1 story, KE has increased, then the structure cannot dissipate the KE gained from PE differential - collapse continues and accelerates.
The experiments err in allowing the top segment to initially descend through a PE differential without giving the structure a chance to concurrently dissipate.

Yes

This cannot happen in a fire-induced collapse (although it could happen in an explosives-induced collapse, by creating such a gap )

Which is precisely why T Szamboti stubbornly holds onto the false premise. All his personal claims rely on a false premise selected to pre set his predetermined conclusion of "it was CD". Missing Jolt a prime example - forget that he bastardised Bazant's model - he assumes a gap is cut in the columns then circles round to prove his assumption. And gets away with it - we've seen many debunkers beavering away looking for the Jolt which was never there to start with. The paper with Szuladzinski (Sp??) and Johns the only exception I'm aware of. And I suspect that G Sz kept a tight rein on T Sz for that one. That paper also destroys Missing Jolt - as I have much fun pointing out to T Sz. ,

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Nobody claims that Cole's videos are fake. It's that they are laughably irrelevant to the collapses of the Twin Towers, for reasons that have been endlessly repeated but which you do not understand. One might as well demonstrate the sinking of RMS Titanic by putting a cherry bomb inside a model.

Why are they not relevant? Please provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim that Cole's videos are not relevant to 9/11.

Easy. Once again, it's called {sigh} scaling. This was mentioned countless times in the first thread. Good example.

Originally Posted by tfk

Here's a tiny sample of what you need to know - cold - in order to have a meaningful opinion on Cole's crappola.

Structural Modeling and Experimental Techniques
By Harry G. Harris, Gajanan Sabnis
http://tinyurl.com/z5ob9nj
Chapter 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 11, 12 App A

.....His first major, laughable flaw is a scaling factor of about 120:1....

Lets also take the 1:300 scale models of the Eiffel Tower I mentioned earlier. You could take three of them, arrange them in a triangle, and lay a board on top and then stand a hefty football lineman on the board. The scale models of the Eiffel Tower would weigh only a few pounds, yet support hundreds of times their own weight. But the real Eiffel Tower could never do this, and in an imaginary Battle of Giant Robots (again), the Eiffel would fall apart if one tried to pick it up. Why? Scaling!

 

[FalseFlag]

Scaling!

Please explain how scale affects similar directions of motion, similar accelerations, and similar sequences of net forces. Thanks.

 

[Steve001]

Please post where I have said, in this thread, that 9/11 was an inside job.

You don't as far as I've read state explicitly 9/11 was an inside job, but the argument you make tacitly is understood to be you agree with other Truthers 9/11 was an inside job. Ah, but you wrote 3 times.

1. The only way it can happen is if the lower floors were removed by an external force. That is what the experiments demonstrate, and the conclusion is that controlled demolition brought the WTC towers down.
2. Controlled demolition is the ONLY way the WTC towers could have collapsed the way they did.
3. The only explanation for this is controlled demolition.

You just can't handle what you see, because it makes the tens of thousands of posts in support of the official story meaningless and pure nonsense. You just can't deal with that. It must suck to be a skeptic, because, as I'm sure you've heard before, "The obvious stares you in the face.

How do you know with certainty controlled demolition is the only way those two buildings could have collapsed the way they did? Why do you refuse to acknowledge aircraft as the initial cause plus plain ol' gravity could not do it? Please don't argue you see stuff in the videos blowing out sideways and that persons said they heard explosions.

This is the forth time I've asked this question. I'll keep asking it until you answer. It's in red this time so you don't miss it. Why is it so incredibly easy for you to believe the USA government did it than it is to believe a bunch of terrorists did it?

 

[jaydeehess]

You don't as far as I've read state explicitly 9/11 was an inside job, but the argument you make tacitly is understood to be you agree with other Truthers 9/11 was an inside job. Ah, but you wrote 3 times.How do you know with certainty controlled demolition is the only way those two buildings could have collapsed the way they did? Why do you refuse to acknowledge aircraft as the initial cause plus plain ol' gravity could not do it? Please don't argue you see stuff in the videos blowing out sideways and that persons said they heard explosions.

This is the forth time I've asked this question. I'll keep asking it until you answer. It's in red this time so you don't miss it. Why is it so incredibly easy for you to believe the USA government did it than it is to believe a bunch of terrorists did it?

Oh but he didn't state what group is responsible. Could be da joos.

 

[Mark F]

Could be da joos.

Apparently it usually is.

Who knew?

 

[Reactor drone]

Please explain how scale affects similar directions of motion, similar accelerations, and similar sequences of net forces. Thanks.

For starters the same acceleration will produce higher velocities over greater distances resulting in greater impact forces.

 

[Steve001]

Oh but he didn't state what group is responsible. Could be da joos.

They're responsible for all the bad things I hear.

 

[Belz...]

Please explain how scale affects similar directions of motion, similar accelerations, and similar sequences of net forces. Thanks.

Please explain why you concluded that it was a controlled demolition if you need the simplest, most basic physics explained to you. Thanks.

 

[beachnut]

Cole's idiotic claims remain delusional opinions based on zero evidence

If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong; Cole's video are wrong.

Jonathan H. Cole, PE. - posted failed videos to support delusions of CD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgCtvTmshZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

Mr. Cole's claims are wrong. A celebration of ignorance.

Believers of Cole's idiotic experiments offer no evidence. The faith based true believers of Cole's claims, have no clue how the WTC began to collapse, or the initial conditions.

https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande

Two threads... wow, zero evidence from 9/11 truth followers.
FalseFlag starts a thread, and has 955 post free of evidence, free of facts. Cole's claims remain evidence free.

 

[FalseFlag]

For starters the same acceleration will produce higher velocities over greater distances

If you are claiming this then you are wrong.

Neglect air resistance, friction, and gravity.
Assume a mass of 1kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.
Assume a mass of 1x10¹⁰⁰⁰kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.

After one hour are you really going to tell me that one mass has a higher velocity than the other? If so, you are wrong.

Here is my proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs The objects are different, and the direction of velocity is different, but the concept is the same.

If they impact an object, the magnitude of the force has nothing to do with Cole's experiment.

If you wish to prove that my statement is wrong, please provide a link to a credible source that proves I am wrong. Otherwise, your words are meaningless.

 

[DGM]

If you are claiming this then you are wrong.

I see you found another lie in your avatar.

I bet you can't support the claim in that either. Like all your other claims.

I still think the selfie with the tinfoil hat would be better..........

 

[Reactor drone]

For starters the same acceleration will produce higher velocities over greater distances resulting in greater impact forces.

If you are claiming this then you are wrong.

Neglect air resistance, friction, and gravity.
Assume a mass of 1kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.
Assume a mass of 1x10¹⁰⁰⁰kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.

After one hour are you really going to tell me that one mass has a higher velocity than the other? If so, you are wrong.

You appear to have responded to a point I didn't make. Different distance at the same acceleration implies different time. So, while your point that objects accelerating at the same rate for the same time achieve the same speed is correct, it has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[waypastvne]

Neglect air resistance, friction, and gravity.
Assume a mass of 1kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.
Assume a mass of 1x10¹⁰⁰⁰kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.

OK so we are neglecting gravity. So then what force are you using to accelerate the mass. Is it some sort of propulsion system ? Have you calculated the fuel burn / mass loss rate into the acceleration.

 

[ozeco41]

OK so we are neglecting gravity. So then what force are you using to accelerate the mass. Is it some sort of propulsion system ? Have you calculated the fuel burn / mass loss rate into the acceleration.

Some one running alongside and pushing???

 

[jaydeehess]

If you are claiming this then you are wrong.

Neglect air resistance, friction, and gravity.
Assume a mass of 1kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.
Assume a mass of 1x10¹⁰⁰⁰kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.

After one hour are you really going to tell me that one mass has a higher velocity than the other? If so, you are wrong.

Why are you keeping time constant?
Its distance that is varying therefore time also varies. Are you saying a drop of 3cm will result in the same velocity as a drop of 3m?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Please explain how scale affects similar directions of motion, similar accelerations, and similar sequences of net forces. Thanks.

You seem to have totally forgotten this....

If the upper floor moves upwards, even a little, the explanation for this is simple. It is obvious that the force the firecracker exerts in all directions is causing this motion. I am talking about force, not motion. The solution is to make the upper floors heavier, or reduce the explosive force caused by the firecracker.

By arguing that you could change the observable motion by changing the weight of the floor or the size of the firecracker, you are arguing that changing the scale (weight or size) can change the observed direction of motions.

Your arguments are contradictory.

similar accelerations

I am still waiting for you to prove that there were steel columns ejected with a similar acceleration from the WTC as the paper was in Cole's 5th experiment.

I am also still waiting on the answers to the following questions.

- In the WTC videos we see the columns bend inwards during the collapse initiation, as in the video below (1:20 mark). Where does Cole's video replicate this motion?



- In photos and videos of the collapse, including the one above, we see the outer columns topple from the side of the building and fall in a slow velocity parabolic arc. Where does Cole's Video replicate this motion?

- Why do the seismic recordings of the collapses not evidence of record any explosions even though in other cases of large explosions they have done so?

- What qualifies Cole or any of the other sources you link to as reliable?

- How could there be no physical traces of explosives, such as blasting caps, cables, or explosive cut steel, found in the debris, despite the thousands of man hours and thousands of people involved in the cleanup and investigations? And all without any leaks what-so-ever?

- Who would you consider Independent enough to conduct this new investigation?

- Considering that most of the steel is now gone, and there are only the photos and original testing results to go off, why do you assume that the outcome would be any different to the previous investigations?

- Are there any theories that are to way out there to be considered in this new investigation, or should theories have some form of evidence and at least be plausible before being considered?

- If such an investigation came back and stated that the Towers collapses were due to damage and resultant fires and that the collapse was a gravity driven propagation that didn't involve any explosives, would you accept it?

 

[ozeco41]

If you are claiming this then you are wrong.

Neglect air resistance, friction, and gravity.
Assume a mass of 1kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.
Assume a mass of 1x10¹⁰⁰⁰kg accelerates for 1 hour at 1/m/s/s to the right.

After one hour are you really going to tell me that one mass has a higher velocity than the other? If so, you are wrong..

Correct.

 

[Reactor drone]

For starters the same acceleration will produce higher velocities over greater distances resulting in greater impact forces.

If you are claiming this then you are wrong.

Correct.

Really?