[Split]Physics of collision and collapse - split from: Offer to the Truth Movement: L

[aggle-rithm]

Why can't the NIST tell us the number and weight of each type of perimeter wall panel?

If NIST has attempted to do this, and failed, then this would be a legitimate question.

Otherwise, the question should be, "Why won't NIST tell us the number and weight of each type of perimeter wall panel?"

The answer to THIS question is simple: Nobody but you finds this information important.

 

[psikeyhackr]

This table of weights is an absolute requirement to clear NIST and the government of any criminal actions because?

I don't give a damn about the NIST, the government, FEMA or criminal activity. I am talking about solving a physics problem. The problem cannot be solved without that data. How can two 175 tons airliners cause two 500,000 ton buildings to collapse to the ground in less that two hours?

As I demonstrated in my video the way a narrow vertical structure moves as a result of impact changes with the mass and its distribution. So for this subject to have been discussed for this long without that information is totally absurd.

Now of course if it is proven that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do what is claimed then that would open up a really interesting can of worms. ROFLMAO

psik

 

[aggle-rithm]

How can two 175 tons airliners cause two 500,000 ton buildings to collapse to the ground in less that two hours?

What kind of physics problem is that? Do you require ALL possible conditions that would allow two 175 ton airliners to cause two 500,000 ton buildings to collapse in that time?
Are we allowed to vary the height of the buildings? The speed of the aircraft? Whether the buildings are connected to a foundation or rolling around on little balls?

Regardless, you're trying to introduce an unnecessary level of precision into the problem. It's like saying the calculated orbit of the moon is incorrect because it doesn't account for missing moon rocks.

As I demonstrated in my video the way a narrow vertical structure moves as a result of impact changes with the mass and its distribution. So for this subject to have been discussed for this long without that information is totally absurd.

You realize that the buildings didn't collapse immediately, right? That the collapse was caused by events that developed slowly AFTER the impacts occurred? The amount that the towers moved when hit by the planes was negligible; anyone can see that.

Now of course if it is proven that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do what is claimed then that would open up a really interesting can of worms. ROFLMAO

I don't get it.

 

[1337m4n]

How can two 175 tons airliners cause two 500,000 ton buildings to collapse to the ground in less that two hours?

Maybe its time to start giving a "damn about the NIST", because they have 10,000 pages dedicated to answering this question.

 

[Belz...]

I don't give a damn about the NIST, the government, FEMA or criminal activity. I am talking about solving a physics problem. The problem cannot be solved without that data. How can two 175 tons airliners cause two 500,000 ton buildings to collapse to the ground in less that two hours?

Then since you seem incapable of finding out the answer for yourself you'd do well to give a damn about NIST, because they're your only hope of ever understanding said physics problem.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Then since you seem incapable of finding out the answer for yourself you'd do well to give a damn about NIST, because they're your only hope of ever understanding said physics problem.

Since they claim to be world renowned experts but can't even address the obviously important information I think they are full of crap.

The purpose of building that model and doing that demonstration was to show people that the experts weren't addressing the obvious. You people seem to expect everyone to believe in and accept AUTHORITY rather than understand a grammar school physics problem for themselves.

Bazant doing complicated math based on the assumption that bottom of the falling mass wouldn't be crushed by the top of mass supposedly being crushed. HILARIOUS!!! Greening dividing by 110 and averaging the entire mass of a skyscraper that had to be bottom heavy and ignoring the basements. WHAT A JOKE!

psik

 

[DGM]

Since they claim to be world renowned experts but can't even address the obviously important information I think they are full of crap.

The purpose of building that model and doing that demonstration was to show people that the experts weren't addressing the obvious. You people seem to expect everyone to believe in and accept AUTHORITY rather than understand a grammar school physics problem for themselves.

Bazant doing complicated math based on the assumption that bottom of the falling mass wouldn't be crushed by the top of mass supposedly being crushed. HILARIOUS!!! Greening dividing by 110 and averaging the entire mass of a skyscraper that had to be bottom heavy and ignoring the basements. WHAT A JOKE!

psik

Would you please stop derailing this thread and start a new one with whatever your going on about. Something to do with "building center of mass" if I remember.

 

[lapman]

I don't give a damn about the NIST, the government, FEMA or criminal activity. I am talking about solving a physics problem. The problem cannot be solved without that data. How can two 175 tons airliners cause two 500,000 ton buildings to collapse to the ground in less that two hours?

As I demonstrated in my video the way a narrow vertical structure moves as a result of impact changes with the mass and its distribution. So for this subject to have been discussed for this long without that information is totally absurd.

Now of course if it is proven that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do what is claimed then that would open up a really interesting can of worms. ROFLMAO

psik

IIRC, the floor plans for each floor are readily available from AE911. Look at them and do your own calculations. File a FOIA request. Do something other than just post on a message board. Why are you having such a hissy fit over this?

 

[beachnut]

Since they claim to be world renowned experts but can't even address the obviously important information I think they are full of crap.

The purpose of building that model and doing that demonstration was to show people that the experts weren't addressing the obvious. You people seem to expect everyone to believe in and accept AUTHORITY rather than understand a grammar school physics problem for themselves.

Bazant doing complicated math based on the assumption that bottom of the falling mass wouldn't be crushed by the top of mass supposedly being crushed. HILARIOUS!!! Greening dividing by 110 and averaging the entire mass of a skyscraper that had to be bottom heavy and ignoring the basements. WHAT A JOKE!

psik

The joke is you coming with zero evidence and not much more. Zero.

Guess you lack physics, or you would show your work debunking all you have trashed with hearsay and waving your hands.

Two planes hit the WTC towers with kinetic energy of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT causing severe damage. As if over 2 million shotgun blasts had ripped up those floors!

Fires set with 10,000 gallon of jet fuel (315 TONS of TNT heat energy) weakened the steel now exposed due to the impacts.

Steel does not do well in fire, and then the towers fell. If you can't understand, then you may lack physics, math, experience, and logical thinking. Stick around you could learn something and gain the maturity to stop falling for the lies of 9/11 truth.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Physics Rules!

IIRC, the floor plans for each floor are readily available from AE911. Look at them and do your own calculations. File a FOIA request. Do something other than just post on a message board. Why are you having such a hissy fit over this?

I've already done something besides post on a message board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

What have you done?

It isn't my fault that you don't have the wits to comprehend what is necessary to solve a grammar school physics problem. Do you think it is possible to design and build a 110 story skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put on every level? They had to compute the cost of construction just to get people to finance it. Why would you think it is possible to analyze the collapse without that information? So why shouldn't the world renowned EXPERTS at the NIST give out simple information that they had to have to do the analysis.

But no! I have downloaded and searched the NIST report. They don't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. And nitwits believe what they say.

So the US is killing Iraqis over something that is physically impossible for an airliner to do. It reminds me of Vietnam. Supposedly about capitalism and communism, but even 30 years since that war our capitalist economists can't tell us what we lose on depreciation of automobiles every year. We buy cars and they get added to GDP and the economic experts call it economic growth. The cars wear out and depreciate and our NET WORTH goes down but the economics profession says nothing about it.

Planned obsolescence is related to physics just like this nonsense with the World Trade Center. This country is full of stupid people too dumb to comprehend simple physics.

psik

 

[332nd]

I've already done something besides post on a message board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

What have you done?

It isn't my fault that you don't have the wits to comprehend what is necessary to solve a grammar school physics problem. Do you think it is possible to design and build a 110 story skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put on every level? They had to compute the cost of construction just to get people to finance it. Why would you think it is possible to analyze the collapse without that information? So why shouldn't the world renowned EXPERTS at the NIST give out simple information that they had to have to do the analysis.

But no! I have downloaded and searched the NIST report. They don't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. And nitwits believe what they say.

So the US is killing Iraqis over something that is physically impossible for an airliner to do. It reminds me of Vietnam. Supposedly about capitalism and communism, but even 30 years since that war our capitalist economists can't tell us what we lose on depreciation of automobiles every year. We buy cars and they get added to GDP and the economic experts call it economic growth. The cars wear out and depreciate and our NET WORTH goes down but the economics profession says nothing about it.

Planned obsolescence is related to physics just like this nonsense with the World Trade Center. This country is full of stupid people too dumb to comprehend simple physics.

psik

What was that video supposed to prove?

 

[Drudgewire]

I've already done something besides post on a message board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

I was just going to laugh at the fact we got an actual "I did something, I made a youtube" post which was funny enough on its own.

But then I thought it would be unfair to comment without actually watching the video.

 

[johnny karate]

But no! I have downloaded and searched the NIST report. They don't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. And nitwits believe what they say.

And by "nitwits" I assume you mean the worldwide community of relevant experts, because none of them are complaining about this. Only "geniuses" with Youtube accounts are.

 

[slyjoe]

Since this is all simple physics psikeyhackr, would you address the simple physics question in post 656? That way, we could understand where you are coming from a little better.

 

[A W Smith]

I've already done something besides post on a message board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

What have you done?

It isn't my fault that you don't have the wits to comprehend what is necessary to solve a grammar school physics problem. Do you think it is possible to design and build a 110 story skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put on every level? They had to compute the cost of construction just to get people to finance it. Why would you think it is possible to analyze the collapse without that information? So why shouldn't the world renowned EXPERTS at the NIST give out simple information that they had to have to do the analysis.

But no! I have downloaded and searched the NIST report. They don't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. And nitwits believe what they say.

So the US is killing Iraqis over something that is physically impossible for an airliner to do. It reminds me of Vietnam. Supposedly about capitalism and communism, but even 30 years since that war our capitalist economists can't tell us what we lose on depreciation of automobiles every year. We buy cars and they get added to GDP and the economic experts call it economic growth. The cars wear out and depreciate and our NET WORTH goes down but the economics profession says nothing about it.

Planned obsolescence is related to physics just like this nonsense with the World Trade Center. This country is full of stupid people too dumb to comprehend simple physics.

psik

Oh boy, What can I say about that video?

I cannot seem to find little ponderosa pine blocks, piano hinges, and zip lock plastic bags of mortar mix in this document. can you help me out here?

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pdf

 

[Belz...]

Since they claim to be world renowned experts but can't even address the obviously important information I think they are full of crap.

Yes, well to a layman like you, perhaps this is a simple problem that should be solved within a week. However, people who know how things work tend to know how complex they can be and how long it can take to solve the puzzle.

The purpose of building that model and doing that demonstration was to show people that the experts weren't addressing the obvious.

How come YOU get to decide what they should be focusing on ?

You people seem to expect everyone to believe in and accept AUTHORITY rather than understand a grammar school physics problem for themselves.

First off, screw authority. Second, only an ignorant fool would think that something like this is grammar-school physics. It shows how little you understand of this issue, and raises the question of why you debate about it if you don't understand it.

Bazant doing complicated math based on the assumption that bottom of the falling mass wouldn't be crushed by the top of mass supposedly being crushed. HILARIOUS!!! Greening dividing by 110 and averaging the entire mass of a skyscraper that had to be bottom heavy and ignoring the basements. WHAT A JOKE!

For some reason, people who know nothing about a particular subject seem to think they know more about it than people who spent their entire lives studying it. I wonder why that is...

 

[GregoryUrich]

FEMAs investigation was really curious too.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

On page 9 they have a map material hurled from the towers and they have X's showing where exterior columns were hurled. But they don't specify the weights of those connected columns. There was a section near the Winter Garden leaning against the AmEx tower. Pictures of it look like it has to be more than 6 wall panels connected together. But all FEMA has is an X with no weight. Plus they say the steel in the tower was all marked so it should have been possible to determine where on the building it came from. So with the weight and the starting and ending locations it should have been possible to determine the amount of energy necessary to get it there. But we don't even have the weight.

Some investigation!

SIX YEARS later we don't even have an "accurate" table of TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE one every level of the towers. And the core column basement data in Urich's spreadsheet has to be wrong. Why can't the NIST tell us the number and weight of each type of perimeter wall panel? They admit there were only 12. Not counting the corner panels of course.

psik

Hi psik,

It appears that Lon Waters has corrected the SAP2000 data for the core columns in the basement. I will eventually send a correction to the Journal of 9/11 Studies but I view this as low priority because it's not really significant for any of the analyses I have seen. I.e. if there was any attack in the basement, none of the observable phenomena indicate that it in any way affected the collapse or failure modes.

If you are interested in momentum transfer and energy you may want to look at these threads:

Momentum transfer in WTC1 revisited

WCT1 Near-Freefall not Evidence of CD

Also this thread on WTC7 might be interesting.

/Greg

 

[psikeyhackr]

I wrote up a little thought experiment a while ago:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=749734#p749734

Now I find Bazant's crush-down and crush-up hilarious.

Physics does not do mathematics. People do mathematics. So people have to figure out how to apply the mathematics CORRECTLY to the physics.

Suppose you tape a bottle cap to the business end of a hammer. If you then put an identical bottle cap on the sidewalk and smash the hammer down onto it, is only the bottle cap on the sidewalk going to get flattened.

When the falling portion of the tower comes into contact with the top of the lower portion they are going to engage in MUTUAL DESTRUCTION. The top is going to lose kinetic because of two levels being destroyed simultaneously. The levels of the upper portion get weaker and lighter going up while the levels of the lower portion get stronger and heavier going down. So where do your equations show that?

If a moving car hits a parked car does only the parked car get dented?

And Frank Greening had this energy, E!, that was required to crush a floor. His paper implied that the energy was constant. But the energy required to do that must increase going down the building. It just might be related to the quantity of steel on each level for some peculiar reason.

psik

PS - The Truth Movement talks about too much BS. This fake plane and hologram garbage is sickening. I don't know how you can settle anything with idiots like that. LOL

 

[Alt+F4]

How does a 47 story building collapse straight down without being hit by an airplane?

Weird "truther" logic here. One one hand they ask how WTC7 could have collapsed without being struck by a plane, then on the other hand they say that being struck by a plane wasn't enough to cause the collapses of WTC1 & 2.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Weird "truther" logic here. One one hand they ask how WTC7 could have collapsed without being struck by a plane, then on the other hand they say that being struck by a plane wasn't enough to cause the collapses of WTC1 & 2.

Well the people who claim the planes brought down 1 and 2 have to explain what brought down 7 without the plane.

Of course they also need to explain why the NIST tells us the two towers had 200,000 tons of steel but never say the total amount of concrete. What about only using the term "center of mass" four times in 10,000 pages and only in a report about "suspended ceilings"? ROFLMAO

You geniuses are so LOGICAL for not asking the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers for SIX YEARS but then want to claim to say something about math, physics and logic.

It is so logical to not know if the data you put into your mathematical equations to simulate physics is as correct as possible. Oh sure, average the mass of the entire building by only dividing by the above ground floors even though the mass includes the basements. ROFL

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

psik