Truthseeker1234's Education/Degrees/Qualifications?

4arkan.jpg
 
einsteen said:
Do you know what the potential energy of the ground you're standing up now is if you compare it with the area 400 meter lower. I disagree with you for 100%. Everyone always mentions it started from the top, well let's assume this progressive collapse. It should also happen with a building of 20 floors if structural supports fails at floor #10.
Click to expand...
The key is whether or not the mass above the point of failure is sufficient to initiate the progressive collapse. If it is, the collapse will continue to the ground. Depending on the height of the point of failure, the top section (above the failure point) may or may not collapse completely after hitting the ground.

Total energy spent is entirely dependent on the building's height.
 
Exactly Chipmunk, the energy released depends on the height, but the collapse process is independent on the mass. Furthermore by symmetry the block will pulverize also if it is able to pulverize the part below.
 
Pardalis, That the initial process is in fact independent on the height/mass/whatever. Like a row of domino stones, whether you have 10 stones or 10000 stones the process will start independent of the amount. In the WTC case there is of course a minimum kind of block needed that is assumed to start the process. The child who has to topple the first domino stone must be strong enough to start the process, to use a kind of analogy.

This is in fact the official story but viewed from a different point, of course the gravity points in the direction of collapse, but it is still independent as long as N (starting amount of floors) is sufficient.
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
Exactly Chipmunk, the energy released depends on the height, but the collapse process is independent on the mass.
Click to expand...
Independent of the total mass, sure. But dependent on the mass above the failure point.
Furthermore by symmetry the block will pulverize also if it is able to pulverize the part below.
Click to expand...
Again, It's not actually a "block", though. Much of the structure failed without pulverizing the material the structure was made of (all the structural steel, for instance). And even after points in the structure failed, the material the structure was made of added to the downwardly accelerating mass.

Think of it as an enormous wad of debris that happens to be arranged in a way that keeps it stable. Instability is introduced by the energy of an impact which removes some of the debris and shifts some of it into less stable configurations combined with heat energy which weakens the molecular stability of the debris. At some point, the gravitational force of the wad of debris above this unstable zone overcomes the counteracting structural arrangement and its PE converts to KE. As the wad falls, some debris is thrown off, but more is collected from the wad below as its stability is interrupted by the energy of the falling mass.
 
einsteen said:
Pardalis, That the initial process is in fact independent on the height/mass/whatever. Like a row of domino stones, whether you have 10 stones or 10000 stones the process will start independent of the amount. In the WTC case there is of course a minimum kind of block needed that is assumed to start the process. The child who has to topple the first domino stone must be strong enough to start the process, to use a kind of analogy.

This is in fact the official story but viewed from a different point, of course the gravity points in the direction of collapse, but it is still independent as long as N (starting amount of floors) is sufficient.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that the WTC were unique structures, you can't compare it to a 20 floor building.

I think the scissors theory is more plausible than your CD theory.
 
Pardalis said:
You are forgetting that the WTC were unique structures, you can't compare it to a 20 floor building.

I think the scissors theory is more plausible than your CD theory.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the 20 floor building is assumed to have the same unique structure as the WTC.
 
If they built the WTC 20 stories high with the same unique structure the same would happen after Osama crashed in with his plane. It's not the mass that matters but, as Chipmunk already explained, the initial falling "block" that matters
 
As far as I know, the WTC was built the way it was specifically because of its amazing size and mass.

And yes, I guess a plane hitting a 20 floor building at its 10th floor would cause it to collapse. What is your point exactly?
 
If the 10th story of a 20 story building, designed as the upper portion of the WTC was designed, were to be hit by a 767 at similar speed, then I would precisely expect the ensuing collapse to look as it did on 9/11. Remember, the 'block' you keep harping on was already collapsing inside before the outer rigid support facing began to fall; hence, already a huge amount of gypsum dust from walls and ceiling tiles was pulverizing into an enormous cloud, and the heavier elements were already contributing to the destruction of the lower portions.

The only difference I would expect is a higher percentage of larger salvage in a shorter building, since the fall would be briefer and possess less energy.

As it is, even the collapse of the entire towers left behind large sections of in-tact debris (in spite of Toothshaker's continued assertions of 'total pulverization'). All we could expect is less damage overall in a shorter building.

(Another point for those not aware: the enormous cloud of dust seems unusual if you've seen controlled demolition collapses, unless you area aware that workers spend quite some time prior to demolition removing ceiling tiles and stripping out wall plaster, etc. This is done precisely to avoid potentially toxic dust clouds from enveloping huge areas during demolition.)

So... any other questions, Finklesteen?
 
Pardalis said:
And yes, I guess a plane hitting a 20 floor building at its 10th floor would cause it to collapse. What is your point exactly?
Click to expand...

The point is that I answered a question when Arkan asked something. But I'm glad that you understand everything already, but I don't understand everything that happened in this proces. And that's why I want to understand this proces completely and promised myself to go as deep as possible in this stuff, but I have to take it a little easier, there is time enough.
 
zaayrdragon said:
If the 10th story of a 20 story building, designed as the upper portion of the WTC was designed, were to be hit by a 767 at similar speed, then I would precisely expect the ensuing collapse to look as it did on 9/11.
Click to expand...

It's not relevant what one would expect, this must happen according to NIST.
 
My sources for the claim of insuffcient GPE to the work is Hoffman, Trumpman, and Ross. I have linked these papers. I'd glady post the whole paper, but they keep getting deleted. Each of these gentleman have provided calculations on one aspect of the "collapse". Each has run into energy deficit, while ignoring the other energy sinks, and while making assumptions favorable to collapse continuation.

Add this to the fact that NIST have not done these studies, and simply assert that "global collapse then ensued", then Hoffman, Trumpman and Ross stand as the last word, until some official source decides to tackle it.

Mackey, perhaps NIST will publish your calculations, since they seem reluctant to even look at the energy balance sheet.

Mackey, you and I need to debate on television. Game?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
My sources for the claim of insuffcient GPE to the work is Hoffman, Trumpman, and Ross. I have linked these papers. I'd glady post the whole paper, but they keep getting deleted. Each of these gentleman have provided calculations on one aspect of the "collapse". Each has run into energy deficit, while ignoring the other energy sinks, and while making assumptions favorable to collapse continuation.

Add this to the fact that NIST have not done these studies, and simply assert that "global collapse then ensued", then Hoffman, Trumpman and Ross stand as the last word, until some official source decides to tackle it.

Mackey, perhaps NIST will publish your calculations, since they seem reluctant to even look at the energy balance sheet.

Mackey, you and I need to debate on television. Game?
Click to expand...

Are you planning on defending your assertion against the refutations that show Hoffman to be wrong? Or are you just going to keep citing him in hopes we forget about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom