No one is denying that sound can and does travel through solid material aside from air as the "medium". This has nothing to do with the towers coming apart.
I found the missing Jolt.
- Thread starter Crazy Chainsaw
- Start date
No one is denying that sound can and does travel through solid material aside from air as the "medium". This has nothing to do with the towers coming apart.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
What do you mean, it is mathematical provable that it does have an effect, the shock waves from impacts transiting though the steel structure would have had the potential to crack bolts welds and floor slabs. The cracks decrease the energy the debris has to apply to the structure to cause failure.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Incessant nonsensical twaddle attack on reality:irony or something
Tony the velocity of the fall, the changing velocity of the fall was exactly in line with a gravity collapse of the WTC upper mass destroying the WTC. The acceleration is exactly as it should be for the upper mass destroying the lower section associated with momentum transfer; simple physics proves the unnatural collapse caused by terrorists was caused by fire and gravity. Your CD is proved wrong since 9/11, and now 9/11 truth fails as they grasp for evidence not there, using simile as evidence.
The inability of 9/11 truth to grasp reality, the lack of a practical knowledge of physics, has 9/11 truth pushing the lie of CD. 14 years of big time failure, big talk, no science.
The "constant acceleration" you talk about is your missing jolt staring you in face, as you continue the farce of CD based on BS. Your evidence is simile. How long will you spread the lie of CD based on overwhelming lack of evidence?
Your CD claim, the claim is the silly, incessant nonsensical twaddle.
Classical projection.
Tony the velocity of the fall, the changing velocity of the fall was exactly in line with a gravity collapse of the WTC upper mass destroying the WTC. The acceleration is exactly as it should be for the upper mass destroying the lower section associated with momentum transfer; simple physics proves the unnatural collapse caused by terrorists was caused by fire and gravity. Your CD is proved wrong since 9/11, and now 9/11 truth fails as they grasp for evidence not there, using simile as evidence.
The inability of 9/11 truth to grasp reality, the lack of a practical knowledge of physics, has 9/11 truth pushing the lie of CD. 14 years of big time failure, big talk, no science.
The "constant acceleration" you talk about is your missing jolt staring you in face, as you continue the farce of CD based on BS. Your evidence is simile. How long will you spread the lie of CD based on overwhelming lack of evidence?
Your CD claim, the claim is the silly, incessant nonsensical twaddle.
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
May be you should find a competent engineering professional and ask his opinion.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Then what causes steel to bounce when dropped?
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
The sound is a result, not a cause.
Deflection of the steel is a function of it's Modulus (E), length, section properties, and supports--in the case of dropped, that would be free-free.
The steel (or whatever) bends due to Hooke's Law==>F=K(x)
But F is also a function of mass and acceleration. The mass of the steel has to0 come to a stop and reverse direction--that causes a force.The steel (or aluminum, or whatever) is being deformed in the elastic range and exerts a reaction force back on the ground as it returns to it original, zero deflection state, exactly the same way a rubber ball does when dropped.
because the bar/wrench, whatever is in a free-free end condition, you get "Dynamic Ringing", and the thing vibrates at its natural frequency, w2=K/m, and K is a function of E
Which is why a steel article will ring with a higher pitch than an aluminum one of the same size and shape
Nice observation, JD.
Exactly to the point.
(Pun intended.)
__
Tony, in concrete/masonry building construction, when the Verinage technique is used, and a mid-level set of columns are mechanically buckled ...
... when the floor above the hydraulic rams crashes down onto the floor below the rams, what percentage of the two floors comes in (approximately) simultaneous contact? 95%? 98%? 99%?
In the towers, what percent of the floor area of the impacting floors was taken up by the columns? 1%? 2%? 3%?
Let's put this into human terms, Tony.
In a fall, a judo expert brings himself to a rapid stop without injury by landing flat (lots of surface area) and slapping the mat. He/she achieves a sudden reduction in velocity.
A person thrown onto an array of very sharp punji sticks. Can that poor soul do the same thing, Tony?
Will this person's deceleration be as large as the judo expert's?
"Why does it matter, Tony?"
__
And your jolt STILL depends on the ends of the upper columns landing squarely on the top of lower columns ... that are no longer there.
Fantasies, Tony. You've got nothing but fantasies.
When is Gage going to take this fiasco to a Structural Engineering conference, rather than preying on defenseless architects, Tony?
Last edited:
The resistance force exerted by the lower structure Fr does act upon the falling mass m. However, so does the force of gravity, in the opposite direction. The (positive downward) acceleration of the falling mass a is thus g-(Fr/m).
Note that a < g as long as there is at least some resistance force (Fr > 0), and that net acceleration will change (jerk will occur) at any time Fr changes.
But a velocity decrease will only be observed if a<0; that is, when Fr > mg.
It's plausible that velocity loss is observable in every verinage demolition recorded so far, meaning that time intervals during which Fr > mg occur in each case. I suspect that is by design; after all, the demolition team would want to minimize the power (the rate of energy release) of the event in order to minimize unwanted effects such as ejected debris, and they have the freedom to calculate and select which floor to knock out in order to manipulate that variable. (Do you see how kicking a lower floor would result in faster conversion of potential into kinetic energy than a higher one?)
But the rest of your statement above, "and it would be in any demolition…", is asserted without evidence. You don't know a priori whether or not Fr > mg in any particular instance unless you quantify Fr and mg.
Thus, your argument is a disguised unevaluated inequality fallacy.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Exactly the crystalline structure is deformable, ductible, and a compression wave is induced on impact, a compression wave though a material, is a sound wave?
The strength and speed of the sound wave is directly influenced by the crystalline structure,
the electromagnetic bonding of the structure.
Since technically all compression waves though materials are sound waves, physics you know you are describing in engineering terms a sound wave though a solid material.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Aside from rwguinn's comments about what can cause rebound in some steel impacts, and Crazy Chainsaw's attempt to explain the compression waves as sound waves
most of the comments on this thread, attempting to deny that the dynamics of the building collapses (constant acceleration in WTC 1 and free fall acceleration in WTC 7) prove they were not natural collapses, are twaddle.
most of the comments on this thread, attempting to deny that the dynamics of the building collapses (constant acceleration in WTC 1 and free fall acceleration in WTC 7) prove they were not natural collapses, are twaddle.
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
There's no such thing as "Free Fall Acceleration". That's a Truther term.
Either something accelerates or it doesn't.
You and your ilk want to imply free-fall speed is the same thing as Terminal Velocity, and nothing at Ground Zero (outside of the jumpers) achieved that rate of fall.
It's why you've failed.
Either something accelerates or it doesn't.
You and your ilk want to imply free-fall speed is the same thing as Terminal Velocity, and nothing at Ground Zero (outside of the jumpers) achieved that rate of fall.
It's why you've failed.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Marvellous! A new classification in the taxonomy of fallacies. Congratulations on having discovered this new variant.
Dave
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
No.
Absolutely wrong in every particular. Here's a paper in it:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760006440.pdf
Here 's a calculation method
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
WTC 7 was certainly falling at full gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/sec^2) for over two seconds at the beginning of its descent and then a little less, but it was continuously picking up speed until it finally had a negative acceleration about 16 stories into the fall (a deceleration where velocity loss occurred). The North Tower was falling at about 52% of gravitational acceleration through its first story and then at 64% of gravitational acceleration (6.3 m/sec^2) continuously for as long as it could be measured (about ten stories).
You seem to have some issues with terminology and don't realize how embarrassing your comment here is in that regard, or you probably wouldn't have said it.
Last edited:
Wrong. It didn't reach gravity acceleration until after more than 1 second since it started falling.
Are you going to deny that?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
You are parsing words that make no difference to the argument as to whether the collapse of WTC 7 was due to controlled demolition or not.
I fully appreciate that the exterior column pull-in was occurring at the beginning of the descent and it was about half a second during which this occurred that the exterior was moving downward at about 1 meter/sec. It then went into full gravitational acceleration.
You can see this on the graph of the measurement and it makes perfect sense from a mechanics point of view.
WTC 7 was demolished by removing eight stories of the core.
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
rwguinn, I respect your knowledge and opinion but what you just provided I believe was a paper on long wavelength compression waves on a metal beam, at 5900 meters per second, or in other words infrasound in steel.
Can I please get the opinion of one of the physicists that frequent this forum please?
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
I surrender. Only been doing that analysis for 50 years. Thought I'd give you something to chew on, but, oh well.
Try this one:http://www.varg.unsw.edu.au/Assets/link pdfs/Beam_vibration.pdf
No where will you find any reference to crystalline structure, or sound. Moment of inertia, area, length, and modulus, yes.
Have it your own *********** way.
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Yes I have seen that analysis before isn't it based on James Clark Maxwells equations for a pined beam?