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

[beachnut]

Since the buildings had to be designed to sway in the wind I am assuming the oscillaions did not cause damage.

BUT

It was kinetic energy from the impact that caused the oscillation. So the energy that started the oscillation should be subtracted from the total amount of kinetic energy and only the remainder did structural damage, so the oscillation should have reduced damage. I haven't noticed much mention of this in SIX YEARS.



Didn't the core of the building have to sway because of the wind? It could not have remained stationary while the exterior moved. The wind impacted the exterior columns and glass but some of that force was transfered to the core BY THE FLOOR SLABS. The exterior had to apply compressional force to the edge of the slabs which in turn pushed against the core. The floor slabs were not structural in relation to gravitational force but they were in relation to any lateral forces, like the wind and the airliners.

psik

Funny stuff. The swaying of the building can cause damage.

Go ahead subtract the impact energy! This is like studying the impact of bullet with a person, go ahead subtract the swaying person from the energy of the bullet ripping through the heart.

When will you take physics?

 

[aggle-rithm]

All I have to do if someone shoots me is to sway?

Cool! I'll give it a shot and let you know how it comes out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Mathematics is not physics. The moons of Jupiter do not do calculations to figure out how to move from on microsecond to the next. People have to UNDERSTAND PHYSICS to figure out how to correctly apply the mathematics. Of course some people who think they are smart try to use the mathematics to intimidate and confuse others with BS.

You will go a long way towards convincing people if you could show, mathematically, how the damage reportedly done to the towers by the impacts is not feasible.

I know that mathematics are not physics. However, if it can't be demonstrated mathematically, it's not physics, either.

Why not treat the elasticity of the towers as a variable, and show us what properties the towers must have had in order for the generally accepted crash damage to be feasible. If this is really a major issue, then you should be able to demonstrate clearly that the towers were too stiff/too elastic to account for the observed damage.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Debate in a Vacuum! Waste of time.

You will go a long way towards convincing people if you could show, mathematically, how the damage reportedly done to the towers by the impacts is not feasible.

I know that mathematics are not physics. However, if it can't be demonstrated mathematically, it's not physics, either.

Oh right, the moons of Jupiter could not figure out how to move until Newton came along.

Don't you need the correct data to plug into the variables in your equations? How does anyone demonstrate anything without correct data? I already demonstrated that Greening's paper had to be wrong because he averaged the total mass of the building by the above ground floors. And left out the basements. Column 505 is 19 times as heavy at the bottom as it is at the top.

I already demonstrated that a flexible tower behaves differently depending on the mass and distribution of mass.

My entire point is the the NIST isn't giving out correct data which should not be difficult for famous buildings designed before the moon landing. We don't even know the tons of steel on the impact levels.

So like I have been saying all along. Why don't we have the data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every LEVEL after SIX YEARS? If you guys are so smart why haven't you been demanding that information?

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

In mathematics, "<<" typically refers to an order of magnitude or so. By that standard, 0.6 << 11 is true.

Read Appendix K of NCSTAR1-5A already. It contains everything that you claim NIST didn't do with respect to oscillation. This is the fourth time you've been told, so you have no excuse at this point.

The terms "energy", "tons", "kg" and "kilogram" are not in that entire report so how did they compute the energy required to cause the oscillation to deduct it from the kinetic energy of the plane to determine how much energy caused structural damage?

The NIST report is reams and reams of trivial details that don't tell what is important.

But we know the building oscillated so that "<<" can't be that big a deal, now can it?

psik

 

[adoucette]

My entire point is the the NIST isn't giving out correct data

Nope.

You found that someone on an internet site had interpreted the NIST data incorrectly.

Apparently reversing the basement floor order. (Probably since they go up in number as they go down)

Oh, and as for floor levels of weight that you think are missing, simply look at NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Appndx C and you will find the floor weights in the impact zone that take into account not only the weight of the steel and concrete but also the live load.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Oh right, the moons of Jupiter could not figure out how to move until Newton came along.

Don't you need the correct data to plug into the variables in your equations?

Start with a value that is clearly too small, such as 1 ounce. At the other end, start with a value that is clearly too large, such as 96 trillion tons. Work your way towards the middle. At some point, you will discover that there is a window of feasible values that will account for what we observed. If this window encompasses values that are clearly too small or too large, then you will have proved your case without knowing the exact values.

Do you understand?

I already demonstrated that a flexible tower behaves differently depending on the mass and distribution of mass.

It also behaves differently depending on the speed of the object hitting it, the mass of the object, resistance, etc. Don't forget to include that in your calculations.

My entire point is the the NIST isn't giving out correct data which should not be difficult for famous buildings designed before the moon landing. We don't even know the tons of steel on the impact levels.

So like I have been saying all along. Why don't we have the data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every LEVEL after SIX YEARS? If you guys are so smart why haven't you been demanding that information?

psik

Because it is YOU who think this is a problem.

If this information was readily available, I have no doubt that you would find something else that they didn't disclose, such as the cumulative effects of bird droppings on the roof, and ask why we aren't demanding THAT information.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The NIST report is reams and reams of trivial details that don't tell what is important.

But you managed to find trivial details that they (according to you) forgot to include. Bravo!

 

[DC]

It also behaves differently depending on the speed of the object hitting it, the mass of the object, resistance, etc. Don't forget to include that in your calculations.

those things are in the NIST report and prolly pretty accurate.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So like I have been saying all along. Why don't we have the data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every LEVEL after SIX YEARS? If you guys are so smart why haven't you been demanding that information?

psik

From the NIST report, the total load on all columns of floor 93 of WTC1, pre-collision, was 89,986 kip. The total load on all columns of floor 96 was 79,835 kip. The difference, which represents the load of floors 93, 94 and 95 alone, is 10,151 kip, or around 5000 tons.

(Those more qualified than I may wish to correct me on my math.)

There's your data. Let's see your calculations.

 

[adoucette]

If this information was readily available, I have no doubt that you would find something else that they didn't disclose, such as the cumulative effects of bird droppings on the roof, and ask why we aren't demanding THAT information.

Ah, but the data IS readily available.

And guess what, as expected, psikeyhackr simply creates his strawmen quantities that he thinks are important and then complains that these figures in the format that he specifies are not found in the PRINT version of the NIST reports.

He says he wants the numbers for the "TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every LEVEL"

Well there is a table in NIST NCSTAR 1-2A that shows the floor type for each floor in both towers. Also in 1-2A you will find the baseline performance models for the typical floor types where they answer the far more important question, what were the LIVE LOADS on the various floors.

Since Dead Load (i.e SELF WEIGHT or "Tons of steel and Tons of Concrete") is a only a PART of the weight of each floor.

You also find out in 6.1 that Self Weight is AUTOMATICALLY generated by SAP2000.

So all that is standing in psikeyhacker's way to getting the answer to the question he thinks is so key to solving the mystery of the twin towers is a publicly available computer system, a little computer time and the readily available NIST database.

 

[WildCat]

So all that is standing in psikeyhacker's way to getting the answer to the question he thinks is so key to solving the mystery of the twin towers is a publicly available computer system, a little computer time and the readily available NIST database.

But he's a truther! You may as well ask him to find bigfoot, faerie wings, and the horn of a unicorn.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The terms "energy", "tons", "kg" and "kilogram" are not in that entire report so how did they compute the energy required to cause the oscillation to deduct it from the kinetic energy of the plane to determine how much energy caused structural damage?

Ah, but the data IS readily available.

I think the problem was that it wasn't readily available IN LAYMAN'S TERMS. For some reason, NIST insists on using all that confusing terminology 'n' stuff. It's how they keep things secret from crack investigators like psikeyhackr.

Also, would it have KILLED them to include a few videos in that boring report??? Maybe a chase scene or two?

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think the problem was that it wasn't readily available IN LAYMAN'S TERMS. For some reason, NIST insists on using all that confusing terminology 'n' stuff. It's how they keep things secret from crack investigators like psikeyhackr.

Also, would it have KILLED them to include a few videos in that boring report??? Maybe a chase scene or two?

But they can produce 10,000 pages and tell us that one plane had 9 tons of cargo and the other had 5, which is oh so important. And they can only use "center of mass" four times in 10,000 pages and then in a report about suspended ceilings. But they can't tell us the number and weight of each type of 12 wall panels but they can tell us the original design called for 14. But they cannot provide a table with the tons of steel and concrete on each level.

The objective here is not to prove to you or the NIST that I am smart. The objective is to understand how a 175 ton plane could make a a 500,000 ton building collapse in less than 2 hours. Now I don't consider wading through unnecessarily complicated crap that afford pseudo-intellectual morons the opportunity to hide information to be any fun. I don't have any problem admitting that I didn't know what dead loads and live loads were when I downloaded the NIST report. I went to college for electrical engineering not structural.

But back then college was $1100 per semester and they didn't start talking about Kirchoff's current law until 4th semester. Circuit Analysis 1 was the first class that supposedly involved electrical engineering. Then I learned that Kirchoff's current law was something I knew in grammar school, I just didn't know there was a name for it. But Kirchoff came up with that in 1845. They didn't know how atoms were constructed back then. I was mad as hell for spending that much time and paying that much for people to dribble out information and most of it being complicated but irrelevant. So I don't have any patience for this crap since I really don't give a damn about structural engineering, I just don't buy the story that a plane could do that. So as far as I am concerned the engineers that won't put it in layman's terms are just a bunch of assh---s. But it doesn't change the fact that Greening was talking nonsense with his averaging, so why didn't you geniuses catch it?

Is it because he was telling you what you already decided you wanted to hear?

But then of course there is the minor detail that the Empire State Building was completed in 1931. What kind of computers did they have back then? Could it be that this stuff isn't really that complicated and pseudo-intellectual morons need to make it that way to serve their economic interests? I tried searching for distribution of steel and concrete information on other skyscrapers. It must be a guild secret.

psik

PS - This book has Kirchoffs current law on page 75. It costs $35.

Teach Yourself Electricity and Electronics by Stan Gibilisco
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=0071459332&cat=&promocode=

I wish someone had given me something like that when I was in 7th grade.

Get to page 500 in that and you can move on to

The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill

Not everybody is into information hiding.

 

[aggle-rithm]

But they can produce 10,000 pages and tell us that one plane had 9 tons of cargo and the other had 5, which is oh so important. And they can only use "center of mass" four times in 10,000 pages and then in a report about suspended ceilings. But they can't tell us the number and weight of each type of 12 wall panels but they can tell us the original design called for 14. But they cannot provide a table with the tons of steel and concrete on each level.

Oh, for crying out loud. I did the work FOR you!!

From the NIST report, the total load on all columns of floor 93 of WTC1, pre-collision, was 89,986 kip. The total load on all columns of floor 96 was 79,835 kip. The difference, which represents the load of floors 93, 94 and 95 alone, is 10,151 kip, or around 5000 tons.

The objective here is not to prove to you or the NIST that I am smart. The objective is to understand how a 175 ton plane could make a a 500,000 ton building collapse in less than 2 hours.

Well, that's good, because these are two mutually exclusive objectives.

Now I don't consider wading through unnecessarily complicated crap that afford pseudo-intellectual morons the opportunity to hide information to be any fun. I don't have any problem admitting that I didn't know what dead loads and live loads were when I downloaded the NIST report. I went to college for electrical engineering not structural.

But back then college was $1100 per semester and they didn't start talking about Kirchoff's current law until 4th semester. Circuit Analysis 1 was the first class that supposedly involved electrical engineering. Then I learned that Kirchoff's current law was something I knew in grammar school, I just didn't know there was a name for it. But Kirchoff came up with that in 1845. They didn't know how atoms were constructed back then. I was mad as hell for spending that much time and paying that much for people to dribble out information and most of it being complicated but irrelevant. So I don't have any patience for this crap since I really don't give a damn about structural engineering, I just don't buy the story that a plane could do that. So as far as I am concerned the engineers that won't put it in layman's terms are just a bunch of assh---s. But it doesn't change the fact that Greening was talking nonsense with his averaging, so why didn't you geniuses catch it?

Is it because he was telling you what you already decided you wanted to hear?

What the hell are you talking about?

But then of course there is the minor detail that the Empire State Building was completed in 1931. What kind of computers did they have back then? Could it be that this stuff isn't really that complicated and pseudo-intellectual morons need to make it that way to serve their economic interests? I tried searching for distribution of steel and concrete information on other skyscrapers. It must be a guild secret.

Look at how much concrete is in the Empire State building. Then compare it to the amount of concrete in the World Trade Center.

Now look at the ratio of usable office space to the total mass of the building.

Because they DIDN'T have sophisticated modeling tools back then, they had to overengineer buildings. Today, they make use of these tools to maximize usable space while minimizing the amount of building materials needed.

Now you understand what the rest of us do.

PS - This book has Kirchoffs current law on page 75. It costs $35.

Teach Yourself Electricity and Electronics by Stan Gibilisco
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=0071459332&cat=&promocode=

I wish someone had given me something like that when I was in 7th grade.

Get to page 500 in that and you can move on to

The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill

Not everybody is into information hiding.

So what you want is highly granular data, but served up in a "NIST for Dummys" format?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[adoucette]

The objective here is not to prove to you or the NIST that I am smart.

Well that's obvious.

So I don't have any patience for this crap since I really don't give a damn about structural engineering

That's also obvious.

So as far as I am concerned the engineers that won't put it in layman's terms are just a bunch of assh---s.

Poor baby, don't cry.

it doesn't change the fact that Greening was talking nonsense with his averaging, so why didn't you geniuses catch it?

Because it wasn't something we had "to catch". Dr Greening stated it openly as an assumption, and because, the AVERAGE TOTAL LIVE weight of the various floors was REASONABLY the same, the use of an AVERAGE weight per floor was a reasonable approximation for the purpose that Dr Greening used it.

Of course Dr Greening is not affiliated with NIST and his independent research stands on its own merits.

Of course you can always do the math and attempt to show that Dr Greening's paper comes to a wrong conclusion if you use more precise floor weights.

I'm not holding my breath because I do believe it is far beyond your ability and equally beyond your desire to do real work.

 

[1337m4n]

So I don't have any patience for this crap since I really don't give a damn about structural engineering

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you: The Truth Movement!

 

[CHF]

The objective here is not to prove to you or the NIST that I am smart. The objective is to understand how a 175 ton plane could make a a 500,000 ton building collapse in less than 2 hours.

I'll bet you find it equally bizarre that a tiny bullet can kill a grown man.

So I don't have any patience for this crap since I really don't give a damn about structural engineering, I just don't buy the story that a plane could do that. So as far as I am concerned the engineers that won't put it in layman's terms are just a bunch of assh---s. B

Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen a better summary of the TM than that.

They know nothing about the subject matter, have no intention of ever learning it either, and then they get mad because NIST doesn't write reports for the benefit of single white males living in their mom's basement.

 

[Belz...]

I'll bet you find it equally bizarre that a tiny bullet can kill a grown man.

Oh, I can't wait to see the answer to that one!

They know nothing about the subject matter, have no intention of ever learning it either, and then they get mad because NIST doesn't write reports for the benefit of single white males living in their mom's basement.

But I wish all of us would stop using this as some sort of an insult or point. Let's stick to their arguments or lack thereof. Whether a truther is single or not or whatever or not has nothing to do with the subject matter.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'll bet you find it equally bizarre that a tiny bullet can kill a grown man.

It can't. They also have to use thermite.