• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

Horatius said:
Okay, I don't like pulling out credentials, but come on. I've got a Master's Degree in Physics, and there are people here who leave me in the dust. What do these punks have?
Click to expand...

NetCred=0

I know what you mean though, i have the least street cred here with an undergrad in Physics. Luckily Newtonian Mechanics is about the only thing i remember clearly.
 
I dare say I have more physics background than yandross even though he tells me I am the stupidest poster in his thread.
2 yrs university physics then moved onto a college degree in electronics where for some odd reason we were required to take what amounted to high school physics as well.
I therefore took all that is necessary for this thread many times over.

I am now blocked from his thread.

He fails to grasp that the only way top have the building fall in the time it would take to free fall from its height is to blow every single floor at the same time. he cannot even envision that two objects under the same acelleration but separtaed from beginning to move by time will for all time be moving at differing velocities and therefore if the one to start moving first is behind and in line with the second, the two will collide.

Yandross's misapplication of the most basic physics astounds me. He ranks in there with klowntown IMHO
He won't do the math on it though, I trust. too bad, it is probably the easiest thing a high school student could do in physics.
 
Last edited:
Your theory leaves the core standing at the end. I hope you realise that.
Click to expand...

Well Yanny, if you had not blocked me from responding then I could have pointed out that you missed that bit about Euler's critical load

no lateral support=collapse

,,, and that's even without heavy buffeting by dense, falling objects.

The core could not have stood as a separate structure even if you magically removed the rest of the building in an instant. I know that this is impossible for you to grasp. How is it possible that a structure designed to take on the gravity load of 50-60% of the entire WTC tower not be able to be a self supporting structure onits own but if you do any engineering research yourself you will find that it would not.

Here's a few hints, diagonal bracing, lateral support, Euler's critical load
 
Horatius said:
Is is just me, or is Vipt snarking this guy, and he doesn't realize it?
Click to expand...
He could be. The only way to talk to Yandros42 is to agree or he thinks he can refute you. Else, be banned.

back to setting up router and battling mom's virus infested computer, W32.Ahker.F@mm
 
jaydeehess said:
I dare say I have more physics background than yandross even though he tells me I am the stupidest poster in his thread.
2 yrs university physics then moved onto a college degree in electronics where for some odd reason we were required to take what amounted to high school physics as well.
I therefore took all that is necessary for this thread many times over.

I am now blocked from his thread.

He fails to grasp that the only way top have the building fall in the time it would take to free fall from its height is to blow every single floor at the same time. he cannot even envision that two objects under the same acelleration but separtaed from beginning to move by time will for all time be moving at differing velocities and therefore if the one to start moving first is behind and in line with the second, the two will collide.

Yandross's misapplication of the most basic physics astounds me. He ranks in there with klowntown IMHO
He won't do the math on it though, I trust. too bad, it is probably the easiest thing a high school student could do in physics.
Click to expand...
You were banned and never used the word stupid. You were too technical in your replies and he was unable to handle your stuff. I think we have a fictional expert physics guru.
 
Horatius said:
That right there is his major malfunction. The bottom wasn't 100%. The whole building was an interdependent structure. Google "Hat Truss", for Science's sake!

Okay, I don't like pulling out credentials, but come on. I've got a Master's Degree in Physics, and there are people here who leave me in the dust. What do these punks have?
Click to expand...
I would have a masters degree in physics but my thesis, Egg and Brick, failed to impress the board. It would be neat if his physics teacher could see his video.
 
jaydees55

um, Yandros, you came up with a value that is greater than 'g'. You claim that this is due to an error margin. Ok fine , then if the building collapsed at exactly the acelleration due to gravity then you do realise that would require that every floor be blown all at the same time?
I did not see that occur.



Yandros42

This comment is so stupid I don't quite know how to answer you.

Every floor doesn't need to be blown out at the same time because the collapse wave takes time to reach each floor. Look think about driving. You are stopped at traffic lights. Now the cars in front of you are going to move in say 10 seconds. And you are going to reach where they were in 20 seconds. Does this mean it is impossible to complete your journey? No. Are you that stupid you can't even think in 4D?
Click to expand...

Oh my. What a stupid, stupid idiot yandros is. He totally misunderstood jaydee.

He's implying that the floors were blown sequentially to match up with the 'collapse wave'. Well, say they blew the halfway point, at 207.5m, as the 'wave' from 415m reached it, we'd have the freefall time from 415m-207.5m + a stationary object from 207.5m-0m. 6.5 seconds each. 13 seconds. And he claims in his youtube thread that a tower fell in 8.4 seconds. What an idiot.
 
Mancman said:
He's implying that the floors were blown sequentially to match up with the 'collapse wave'.
Click to expand...
So that means extensive explosives planted on every floor of the building. Along with some exquisite timing in getting those explosive to go off so perfectly in time with the rest of the collapse.

How can some people be so incredibly dumb?
 
jaydeehess said:
Well Yanny, if you had not blocked me from responding then I could have pointed out that you missed that bit about Euler's critical load

no lateral support=collapse

,,, and that's even without heavy buffeting by dense, falling objects.

The core could not have stood as a separate structure even if you magically removed the rest of the building in an instant. I know that this is impossible for you to grasp. How is it possible that a structure designed to take on the gravity load of 50-60% of the entire WTC tower not be able to be a self supporting structure onits own but if you do any engineering research yourself you will find that it would not.

Here's a few hints, diagonal bracing, lateral support, Euler's critical load
Click to expand...

This is another key point in building construction people fail to understand. Try to build a 410m free standing steel structure with a 26mx 41m footprint and see what happens.
 
Incidentally, has anyone seen this "Analysis of Mass and Potential Energy in the World Center Twin Towers" by Gregory Urich? I've been checking old threads for some discussion on it and can't find anything. Any help would be much appreciated.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Incidentally, has anyone seen this "Analysis of Mass and Potential Energy in the World Center Twin Towers" by Gregory Urich? I've been checking old threads for some discussion on it and can't find anything. Any help would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Ulrich uses a total mass of 235.000.000kg instead of 510.000.000kg to reduce the total potential energy by 60%. He claims not to know where the numbers come from to calculate it, yet he references it in his paper including the Port Authority (which claims a weight of 500.000 tons). Afterwards he claims an 80% overestimation, when he shows a little over 60%. I think he got confused here with the requirements Ross is looking for to keep the tower in existence. He does not differentiate between the different types of steel used or any other elements, even though he has references to them. He picks the lowest number and then fudges his conclusions. Smoke and mirrors by supposedly being accurate showing a floor by floor analysis, when after all the assumptions and estimations an analysis based on the average center of gravity would suffice. All of this to increase the ratio of the number of floors one floor could hold up. Even this scenario would not save the towers... I would think, nice try but no prize :D You agree?
 
Last edited:
i must admit i stumbled on this by accident, and i was looking for clarification here. i find his summation notation suspect, like you're trying too hard. and i don't know what a short ton is? too much info...
 
3bodyproblem said:
i must admit i stumbled on this by accident, and i was looking for clarification here. i find his summation notation suspect, like you're trying too hard. and i don't know what a short ton is? too much info...
Click to expand...


A short ton is 2000lbs, slightly lighter than a long ton or tonne (which are almost the same).

-Gumboot
 
alright, im just not gonna respond to anything not in SI units anymore. my bum has been getting handed to me much to often :)
 
3bodyproblem said:
I hate to be a stickler for detail, but this IS a simple force equation. The building's mass remains the same for the entire collapse (plane mass not withstanding), and the acceleration due to gravity remains the same.

The "force" on the building remains the same from when it it was standing to when the whole friggin thing was lying on the ground in little tiny pieces F=ma!
That being said, It is a simple kinetic energy equation and therefore:

It is NOT a very simple force equation and he is too stupid to realize that.

He does not know the difference between energy and force.
And beachnut: I proposed the question of his feet exploding if he got hit in the head because he claimed that the upper masses kinetic energy would be transmitted down to the ground and the base would have been deformed before the upper floors. How he gets that is beyond me.
And finally, I must confess that I was the one who spawned this god awful demon, his first video was a response to a comment I made on a video over at YouTube. I tried to teach the kid a little bit of physics and he went insane. May god have mercy on my soul.
Click to expand...

You mean that gasp we can't blame Lisa?

Never try to teach a pig to sing the best you'll get is an off-tune pig.
 
Mancman said:
Oh my. What a stupid, stupid idiot yandros is. He totally misunderstood jaydee.

He's implying that the floors were blown sequentially to match up with the 'collapse wave'. Well, say they blew the halfway point, at 207.5m, as the 'wave' from 415m reached it, we'd have the freefall time from 415m-207.5m + a stationary object from 207.5m-0m. 6.5 seconds each. 13 seconds. And he claims in his youtube thread that a tower fell in 8.4 seconds. What an idiot.
Click to expand...


I don't think I even mentioned that his fall distance is only from the original impact zone to the ground. Well the truss hat on top of the building also made it to ground level illustrating that the upper section also fell all the way to the ground and that would be part of the collapse.

Now he would have that the collapse from 410m took 8.4 seconds which would give a gravitational acelleration of
a=410(2)/8.42a=11.6 m/s2
Unless there was a rocket strapped to the tower powering it down then that 8.4 second time must be incorrect.

His reading of the seismic data is incorrect(big suprise there).

However, if he wishes to use seismic data I wonder how he feels about the fact that the seismic data for WTC7 shows its collapse taking over 16 seconds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom