Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[000063]

I didn't know you from Adam 24 hours ago.

So the charges just teleport themselves into the building right before they need to be detonated? Please, expound upon this theory, in detail.

Remember that you specifically said the charges were in the impact zones. How would they function as explosives if they weren't intact and/or functional?

They didn't function because they were neither intact nor functional.

Please answer the portions of my post you cut out; what is your theory?

Or, more simply, what sort of theory doesn't require the charges to actually work?

 

[Java Man]

I suggest you look up the word self-sustaining.

Nice, thanks for the link. What's the ignition temperature of thermite btw?

 

[Java Man]

Please answer the portions of my post you cut out; what is your theory?

Or, more simply, what sort of theory doesn't require the charges to actually work?

We'll be getting there briefly. I already hinted part of it in my response to tfk.

 

[000063]

We'll be getting there briefly. I already hinted part of it in my response to tfk.

By the way, a year ago you were working on a draft for some 9/11 theory. Has it come to fruition yet?



That was in march 2011.

I had first asked you to provide at least an abstract on 25 sep 2010. Four days, 160 posts and uncounted evasions by you later, you finally agreed to start writing down your hypothesis and even said


And then...

...days pass...

...nothing happens...

4 months later:



I am confused now. Do you have anything of substance to add to these discussions, Java Man? Or are you back at mile 0 in your endeavours about 9/11?

Forgive me if I withhold my enthusiasm.

 

[tfk]

Exactly my point. So if a brick falls from the top floor of WTC 1 in 9.2 seconds (in vacuum) and would drop in say 12 seconds with air resistance. Then the NOT "insignificant" amount of force you mention should account for more than the air. Which accounts for 3 second delay or aprox 33% of original drop time in vacuum. Thus it is hard to believe that all that resistance you mention only adds up 4 or 5 seconds to the total drop time of the building.

May I ask "what is your background?"

You have no point. You understand neither the statics nor the dynamics of the situation. You are simply pulling numbers out of your ass that have precisely zero relevance to the situation.

The first point is that it is utterly irrelevant how long it takes anything to fall from the top of the building.

Even tho I tried to lead you by the hand to think about the issue, the significant height is from the BOTTOM of the upper block. Not from the roof line.

If you pulled the upper block to the side & dropped it, would you measure the impact time from the time the BOTTOM of the upper block hit the sidewalk, or when the top of the upper block hit the sidewalk?

Unless of course said resistance isn't there because it was removed by charges below the impact zone.

I just showed you that the bottom of the building applied about 15,000 TONS of resistance force during the period when the acceleration (& therefore forces) are measurable.

And now you're saying "... unless said resistance isn't there ..."

Are you able to follow an adult conversation?


tk

 

[Java Man]

May I ask "what is your background?"

I'm an electronics engineer.

The first point is that it is utterly irrelevant how long it takes anything to fall from the top of the building.

I think it does, as it gives us an initial model to work with. We can refine things from there on.

Even tho I tried to lead you by the hand to think about the issue, the significant height is from the BOTTOM of the upper block. Not from the roof line.

So put the brick at the BOTTOM of the upper block and do the math again. How much does that cut? A second? Total drop type in vacuum 8.2 and 10.9 with drag? So that's a 5 second difference cutting through air vs cutting through the whole building.

If you pulled the upper block to the side & dropped it, would you measure the impact time from the time the BOTTOM of the upper block hit the sidewalk, or when the top of the upper block hit the sidewalk?

I'd put it in the CENTER of the block. The center of gravity. But that's just me.

I just showed you that the bottom of the building applied about 15,000 TONS of resistance force during the period when the acceleration (& therefore forces) are measurable.

And now you're saying "... unless said resistance isn't there ..."

I heard you. That's what I'm saying. That resistance is huge and surely would slow down the top a whole lot more than 5 seconds if air alone would slow it 3.

 

[000063]

...
I heard you. That's what I'm saying. That resistance is huge and surely would slow down the top a whole lot more than 5 seconds if air alone would slow it 3.

Show your work. How much more, exactly? You're making the same statement you did when you calculated a fall from the top of the building, even though we're now working under the idea of a fall from the bottom of the top block.

 

[GlennB]

Exactly my point. So if a brick falls from the top floor of WTC 1 in 9.2 seconds (in vacuum) and would drop in say 12 seconds with air resistance....

Now, dropped simultaneously from the same height, which would hit the ground first, a small brick or a really big one with the same shape and material ?

 

[Java Man]

Now, dropped simultaneously from the same height, which would hit the ground first, a small brick or a really big one with the same shape and material ?

That's a catch question isn't it? A small brick vs really big one with the same shape and material? How can it have the same shape if it is bigger than the small one?

 

[grandmastershek]

That's a catch question isn't it? A small brick vs really big one with the same shape and material? How can it have the same shape if it is bigger than the small one?

:headdesk:

You have a large pizza and a small pizza. Are the same size? Are they the same shape?

 

[tfk]

I'm an electronics engineer.

How long?

You're an engineer who confuses speed & acceleration?

When it comes to "the structural engineering of massively large structures that are in the process of collapse", you are an amateur. And, from reading your replies here, an incompetent amateur.

(Sorry. If you've been in the field >10 years, you'll understand my bluntness.)

I've got 37 years of continuous, successful experience as a mechanical engineer.
That allows me to follow the mechanical & structural engineering arguments in fine detail.

However, while not an amateur, I am NOT an expert.

The specific expertise that I bring to this discussion is 37 years of engineering epistemology.

Whose 1st rule is: Ignore amateurs. Listen very, very carefully to experts.
2nd rule: expertise is VERY narrowly defined.

Experts, in this case, are ONLY structural engineers who specialize in the failure modes & failure analysis of extremely large structures, and have done so successfully for >25 years.

Zdenek Bazant is an expert. This has been exactly his field for about 50 years.

I think it does, as it gives us an initial model to work with. We can refine things from there on.
…
I'd put it in the CENTER of the block. The center of gravity. But that's just me.

And you'd be simply, completely, utterly wrong on both counts.

So put the brick at the BOTTOM of the upper block and do the math again. How much does that cut? A second? Total drop type in vacuum 8.2 and 10.9 with drag? So that's a 5 second difference cutting through air vs cutting through the whole building.

I heard you. That's what I'm saying. That resistance is huge and surely would slow down the top a whole lot more than 5 seconds if air alone would slow it 3.

You are talking about "resistance". More specifically, a resistive force.

What are the units of force?

Are they "seconds"?

Your pulling "seconds" out of your butt, and handwaving your imagined correlation between seconds & force simply demonstrates that you're an amateur at the mechanics of the collapse.

Sorry to be harsh.
But it is all the simple truth.


tom

 

[Java Man]

:headdesk:

You have a large pizza and a small pizza. Are the same size? Are they the same shape?

Convenient you bring the word pizza as Glen is surely referring to a famous experiment done on the tower of Pisa and then corroborated on the Moon. His question could almost qualify as a cliche.

 

[grandmastershek]

Yeah I am going to have to call BS on anyone who claims to be an engineer who treats size & shape synonymously

 

[grandmastershek]

Convenient you bring the word pizza as Glen is surely referring to a famous experiment done on the tower of Pisa and then corroborated on the Moon. His question could almost qualify as a cliche.

And another dodge.

 

[Java Man]

...
Sorry to be harsh.
But it is all the simple truth.

tom

I don't mind your harshness as long as it comes with numbers and I didn't see any in your post. Would you be kind enough to explain how that force you clearly mention as "not insignificant" only adds a few seconds to the total time it takes for the building to collapse.

 

[Sunstealer]

That's a catch question isn't it? A small brick vs really big one with the same shape and material? How can it have the same shape if it is bigger than the small one?

Jesus wept.

You are a one man stundie factory aren't you?

Are all of these circles the same size because they are the same shape?

 

[tfk]

I don't mind your harshness as long as it comes with numbers and I didn't see any in your post. Would you be kind enough to explain how that force you clearly mention as "not insignificant" only adds a few seconds to the total time it takes for the building to collapse.

I GAVE you the one number that you're struggling to pull out of your ass by inserting "seconds" into your mouth.

The number that you are asking for is "how much resisting force did the bottom of the structure provide during the collapse?"

Force is measured (in the US) in TONS.

Does the number "15,000 tons" ring any bells, vis a vis my recent posts to you??

 

[NoahFence]

That's a catch question isn't it? A small brick vs really big one with the same shape and material? How can it have the same shape if it is bigger than the small one?

LOL

You can't make this stuff up!

 

[Java Man]

Jesus wept.

You are a one man stundie factory aren't you?

Are all of these circles the same size because they are the same shape?

No obviously not, but in Glen's post it calls for the question because he clearly puts size, shape and material in play. The real test is done with same size and shape object with different masses (by Galileo) and different objects (feather and hammer) by Scott on the Moon. Obviously Scott had the benefit of vacuum. Thus I asked Glen if it was a catch question since size and shape matters in Earth's atmosphere and neither size nor shape matter in space.

I think Glen tried to arrive at a different mass by greater size when Galileo used different densities. Thus keeping the aerodynamic profile the same. Thus my question "How can it have the same shape if it is bigger than the small one?" means that if its bigger to have a greater mass (that Glen tried to achieve through greater volume, unlike Galileo) it would necessarily need a different shape to keep the cross section the same and thus preserve the aerodynamic profile. Now if Glen meant this in space then size nor shape nor size matters as Scott proved. Hence my clarifying if it was a catch question since his constraints are irrelevant in space and not akin to Galileo's experiment on Earth.

 

[Java Man]

I GAVE you the one number that you're struggling to pull out of your ass by inserting "seconds" into your mouth.

The number that you are asking for is "how much resisting force did the bottom of the structure provide during the collapse?"

Force is measured (in the US) in TONS.

Does the number "15,000 tons" ring any bells, vis a vis my recent posts to you??

It does ring a bell. You still haven't explained to us how that converts to a 5 second delay on the fall. For example what would be the acceleration if the atmosphere were twice as dense? What would be the drop time if the atmosphere were three times as dense? What if the atmosphere were dense enough to provide a 15,000 ton resistance to the downward travel. That's the type of numbers I'd expect from a 37 year expert in the field.