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

[aggle-rithm]

The objective is to understand how a 175 ton plane could make a a 500,000 ton building collapse in less than 2 hours.

Picture the Titanic colliding with the WTC at just under 3 feet per second. Not very fast, but when you get 46,000 tons moving, however slowly, it would take a hell of a lot of resistance to stop it.

That's the equivalent force of a 175-ton airliner colliding at 725 feet per second.

 

[A W Smith]

Picture the Titanic colliding with the WTC at just under 3 feet per second. Not very fast, but when you get 46,000 tons moving, however slowly, it would take a hell of a lot of resistance to stop it.

That's the equivalent force of a 175-ton airliner colliding at 725 feet per second.

Who was it that said (using an example of truther logic) that the sinking of the Titanic couldn't have happened because you cannot throw an ice cube through the door of a Buick?

 

[psikeyhackr]

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

I bet you think a grown man can stand in one place for 28 years without eating or sleeping. Comparing biological organisms to inanimate objects is idiotic.

psik

 

[1337m4n]

I bet you think a grown man can stand in one place for 28 years without eating or sleeping. Comparing biological organisms to inanimate objects is idiotic.

psik

I think you missed the point of the analogy...

 

[CHF]

I bet you think a grown man can stand in one place for 28 years without eating or sleeping. Comparing biological organisms to inanimate objects is idiotic.

psik

My point is that small objects can kill/destroy larger objects.

You were objecting to the notion that a 175 ton jet could take down a 500,000 ton skyscraper, remember?

Using that "logic" demolition charges cannot take down buildings either since they're so much smaller.

 

[A W Smith]

I bet you think a grown man can stand in one place for 28 years without eating or sleeping. Comparing biological organisms to inanimate objects is idiotic.

psik

Explain the relevance 28 years of remaining stationary has to do with anything, Anything at all, Besides of adding drama to whatever point you have failed to make.

Explain how biological organisms are irrelevant to the live load of WTC 1 and 2

 

[1337m4n]

My point is that small objects can kill/destroy larger objects.

You were objecting to the notion that a 175 ton jet could take down a 500,000 ton skyscraper, remember?

Using that "logic" demolition charges cannot take down buildings either since they're so much smaller.

Even better. When he complains about the notion that a 175 ton jet could take down a 500,000 ton skyscraper, he is essentially ignoring the effects of the fire. So by that logic any buildings that have collapsed due to fire alone (and there are quite a few examples) were destroyed by absolutely nothing.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I bet you think a grown man can stand in one place for 28 years without eating or sleeping. Comparing biological organisms to inanimate objects is idiotic.

psik

Okay. You're wondering how a 175-ton plane can take out a 500,000 ton building in two hours?

It's all in the pacing.

Two hours is 120 minutes. That means the plane must take out 4167 tons per minute.

What the plane must avoid is getting too eager and trying to take out 10 or 15 thousand tons per minute so it can finish early. It would get fatigued and wear out long before the two hours are up. It's better to set a purposeful, steady pace and stick with it. There's not reason for the plane to show-boat; it can celebrate AFTER the job is done.

....on the other hand, it could be that the plane DIDN'T take out the building, but that gravity destroyed it AFTER the structure was damaged by the collision and fires. But if this were the case, it would be silly to compare the relative masses of the plane and the building, wouldn't it?

 

[R.Mackey]

Okay. You're wondering how a 175-ton plane can take out a 500,000 ton building in two hours?

It's all in the pacing.

Humor aside, the real answer is remarkably simple.

The 500,000 ton building (actually closer to 290,000 ton, as Gregory Urich will probably remark) contains approximately 100 tons (closer to 160 if you use the heavier figure) TNT equivalent in terms of gravitational potential energy alone. This energy can all be released in only ten to twenty seconds if a catalyst exists to begin the collapse.

That's one kilogram of TNT for every 290 kilograms of structure and contents. Think about a lunchbox full of TNT placed at every desk. A typical column from floor to ceiling? About two kilograms of TNT, pumped into that column alone. All from nothing but gravitational energy.

The fire is that catalyst. Once it starts coming down, it's all over.

 

[Belz...]

I bet you think a grown man can stand in one place for 28 years without eating or sleeping. Comparing biological organisms to inanimate objects is idiotic.

If there's an award for missing the point, you just go it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Humor aside, the real answer is remarkably simple.

The 500,000 ton building (actually closer to 290,000 ton, as Gregory Urich will probably remark) contains approximately 100 tons (closer to 160 if you use the heavier figure) TNT equivalent in terms of gravitational potential energy alone. This energy can all be released in only ten to twenty seconds if a catalyst exists to begin the collapse.

That's one kilogram of TNT for every 290 kilograms of structure and contents. Think about a lunchbox full of TNT placed at every desk. A typical column from floor to ceiling? About two kilograms of TNT, pumped into that column alone. All from nothing but gravitational energy.

The fire is that catalyst. Once it starts coming down, it's all over.

Perhaps it would make more sense to psikeyhacker to use an analogy that's a little easier to grasp:

"How can a 12-volt battery allow a two-ton car to go 100 mph?"

 

[Newtons Bit]

Humor aside, the real answer is remarkably simple.

The 500,000 ton building (actually closer to 290,000 ton, as Gregory Urich will probably remark) contains approximately 100 tons (closer to 160 if you use the heavier figure) TNT equivalent in terms of gravitational potential energy alone. This energy can all be released in only ten to twenty seconds if a catalyst exists to begin the collapse.

That's one kilogram of TNT for every 290 kilograms of structure and contents. Think about a lunchbox full of TNT placed at every desk. A typical column from floor to ceiling? About two kilograms of TNT, pumped into that column alone. All from nothing but gravitational energy.

The fire is that catalyst. Once it starts coming down, it's all over.

290,000 tons / 100 tons = 2,900

 

[R.Mackey]

D'oh! Pesky factors of ten! Thanks for that catch.

And one should also keep in mind that explosives are not terribly efficient -- most of their energy is dissipated as blast and heat into the atmosphere. Rarely can they be fully contained in demolitions. Mythbusters has a splendid illustration of this, where a rather small charge is enough to totally shatter a large iron safe, simply because they filled it up with water first.

By comparison, the gravitational mechanism will be almost 100% efficient. All the energy becomes kinetic energy of the pieces themselves, leading to impact and damage. There's very little lost to heating, sound, and so on. This makes the gravitational mechanism four to ten times more efficient than explosives would have been.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The 500,000 ton building (actually closer to 290,000 ton, as Gregory Urich will probably remark) contains approximately 100 tons (

And Urich's data comes from the NIST who can write a 10,000 page report and never mention a total for the amount of concrete but say both towers had 200,000 tons of steel in 3 places.

Before 9/11 the Port Authority agreed with the 200,000 tons of steel but they also said 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. Now assuming that was lightweight concrete of 100 lb per cubic foot that comes to 286,875 tons of concrete per building and it wasn't all lightweight concrete.

Now the NIST can tell us there were 14 types of wall panel in the design but only 12 were used because 2 types were upgraded but they can't tell us the number and weight of each type of panel. Now I don't see how the number of each type could possibly have not been specified in the contract with Pacific Car & Foundry. Urich does an interpolation on the distribution of mass for the wall panels so that IS NOT what was there in reality.

So this all comes down too it being impossible to SETTLE anything because this data is so unreliable it would be laughable if this incident wasn't so tragic.

psik

 

[R.Mackey]

[You've seen it all before, folks]

If we tell you a hundred times that all of the data you require is in the SAP2000 model, will you accept it?

How about a thousand? A million?

That's the only answer you are likely to get, and it's all you should need.

 

[Newtons Bit]

And Urich's data comes from the NIST who can write a 10,000 page report and never mention a total for the amount of concrete but say both towers had 200,000 tons of steel in 3 places.

He actually calculated it by using good judgment of estimated in-service live loads and actual dead loads. He got the steel numbers from the SAP model, as I recall, and those cross-sectional areas give reasonable demand-capacity-ratios for the in-service loads.

Not that you care about this. You appear to think that since NIST doesn't come out and say exactly what the tons of steel and tons of concrete is that they must be hiding those numbers. But in reality, most engineers can ball-park it with just a calculator, not that they need to, it's not relevant to why it collapsed.

 

[psikeyhackr]

If we tell you a hundred times that all of the data you require is in the SAP2000 model, will you accept it?

I have communicated with Urich multiple times. He says his core column data is from SAP2000.

I showed you the basement data from his spreadsheet getting lighter going down. Don't you start asking questions when data obviously makes no sense? Oh no, just accept nonsense.

It makes sense to you that the NIST can't tell us the number and weight of each type of wall panel?

It makes sense to you that the 425,000 cubic yard number yields weight results so different form Urich's which he says is from the NIST? You guys are capable of accepting anomalies and calling it science. This entire business should have been settled in two years but things as simple as the contradictions in quantities of concrete should have been resolved.

Just BELIEVE in the NIST. It was the 70% air that did it. ROFL

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

He ought to be shot for saying something that stupid.

psik

 

[R.Mackey]

I have communicated with Urich multiple times. He says his core column data is from SAP2000.

Yes. Proving beyond any doubt that the data exists, and is accessible. Gregory Urich is not a "debunker" -- I'll let him speak for himself, but he is or was at least sympathetic to the Truth Movement.

I showed you the basement data from his spreadsheet getting lighter going down. Don't you start asking questions when data obviously makes no sense? Oh no, just accept nonsense.

Questions were asked and answered. There was a confusion among users of the data about the sequence of levels B1-B6, and that led to the anomaly. It's being fixed. It does not cast doubt on the data set itself, let alone the entire data set, which is what you are attempting to do. This is sophistry -- a hasty generalization, to be specific.

It makes sense to you that the NIST can't tell us the number and weight of each type of wall panel?

This is a lie. NIST can tell us this. They merely did not in the precise tabular form you require. False Precision fallacy.

It makes sense to you that the 425,000 cubic yard number yields weight results so different form Urich's which he says is from the NIST? You guys are capable of accepting anomalies and calling it science. This entire business should have been settled in two years but things as simple as the contradictions in quantities of concrete should have been resolved.

That depends on whether the foundations are included. For obvious reasons, this contribution does not appear in some calculations. Equivocation fallacy, and very simple.

Just BELIEVE in the NIST. It was the 70% air that did it. ROFL

Non sequitur.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

He ought to be shot for saying something that stupid.

Argumentum ad baculum.

At least your posts are educational in one respect, if not the one you intended.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Split from: Alright, put me up to date with the whole 911 Conspiracy debate

I have really not followed this eternal debate about 9-11 but the other day, a friend of mine who I consider a "serious person" was basically telling me that 9-11 was an inside job. So, in my skeptical attitude, I asked "Where's the evidence?" and he said "What do you mean where's the evidence? It's all explained in the videos"

.
#1. The laws of physics have not changed since the Empire State Building was completed in 1931.

#2. Skyscrapers must support their own weight and their contents so the designers must determine how to distribute the steel and concrete so that every level supports everything above and the entire structure can withstand the wind.

#3. We don't have the information on the distribution of steel and concrete to determine if it is even possible for the top 10% of the north tower to come straight down and crush and accelerate the rest to bring it all down in less than 18 seconds. It has only been SEVEN YEARS. And next month will be the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing. The nation that put men on the Moon is full of people that can't handle Newtonian physics. But then they haven't figured out that planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for the last 40 years so what do you expect?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2281034&postcount=1209

psik

 

[twinstead]

.
#1. The laws of physics have not changed since the Empire State Building was completed in 1931.

#2. Skyscrapers must support their own weight and their contents so the designers must determine how to distribute the steel and concrete so that every level supports everything above and the entire structure can withstand the wind.

#3. We don't have the information on the distribution of steel and concrete to determine if it is even possible for the top 10% of the north tower to come straight down and crush and accelerate the rest to bring it all down in less than 18 seconds. It has only been SEVEN YEARS. And next month will be the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing. The nation that put men on the Moon is full of people that can't handle Newtonian physics. But then they haven't figured out that planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for the last 40 years so what do you expect?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2281034&postcount=1209

psik

4. Yet for some odd reason, the vast majority of REAL scientists from around the world disagree with you. Coincidence? I think not.