• 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

Gravy said:
I have just balanced on a 15-gram Coke can, so I know it can support 7,257 times its own weight in dead load. Therefore the towers should have been able to support at least a 7.26 trillion pound (3.3 trillion kg) dead load, about as much as 605 Great Pyramids of Khufu (Cheops) at Giza. You can't argue against such obvious physical truths.
Click to expand...

You're trying to tell me that a skyscraper is as flimsy as a thin aluminum Coke can? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Dude, don't you know STRUCTURAL STEEL IS STRONGER THAN THIN ALUMINUM!!!! it would hold much more weight than that! I don't need any calculations to show this, it's obvious. But if you need proof, here's a link to a chart containing very large numbers.

And if soda cans are so strong then why were none found in the debris? Last time I was on a plane they had whole carts full of little cans of soda. No soda cans = no planes at ground zero!! Look at the bottom of the can, you'll see it's curved. That's to resist the force of the ground as it pushes up on the can, allowing the can to be crushed for dispoal or recycling. Did the World Trade Center have curved bottoms? I DON'T THINK SO!!! So how could they collapase? Here's a clue: Travis Fergusen R.Gr. of the N.I.P.A. says there were 99 BOTTLES OF BEER ON THE WALL in the North Tower. Where are those bottles now? Did they really "just happen" to fall? Don't we have the right to answers to these questions? Let me remind you that NO BUILDING IN HISTORY has ever been filled with carbonated beverage, had its top popped open and its contents sucked out through a plastic straw! It's just not possible!

Carbonation, carbon dioxide, global warming, warm beer, beer bottles, soda cans, straws, straw men, straw hats, politicians, political parties, keg parties, single-serving containers, self-serving conspirators, cover-ups, covert ops, overt cops, pop tops, IHOP, MIHOP -- are you beginning to see the pattern here? Building Seven was pulled, cans of Seven-Up have pull tabs, and the tab was about seven million dollars. Or will you try to pretend it's not obvious? You can STAND on a CAN, but CAN you STAND the truth?

Respectfully,
Several beers, using Myriad as a shill
 
Eggs are problematic in that one cannot get them to stand well on a flat surface and paper cylinders are also difficult to work with.

my suggestion would be shoeboxes.For this one needs a couple dozen identical boxes.

First, place a brick on top of the shoebox, use smallish bricks btw, and it would be good to have a brick the same width and length as the box, and ensure that the box can support the mass of that brick. Now place a 1/8" iron plate with the same width and length as the brick, onto the brick. Continue doing this until the box just shows that it is breaking down, that is, when a side or corner kinks. At this value the box has failed yet still managed to halt the collapse.

Now, new boxes again. Lift an unplated brick up 1 cm and drop it flat on the box. Continue (using a new box each time) redoing this until you reach a height at which the box crushes to the same amount as above. At this point the falling lone brick is imparting the same amount of force on the box as the brick-plus-plates mass was.

Once again go back to the unplated brick and drop it again from increasing heights until you reach the point at which the box completely crushes to the ground. Obviously at this point the brick has imparted more force upon the box than it did when the box just failed but managed to stop the collapse. However it is just possible that the forces did balance and that the brick reached a terminal velocity through the box.(which is what his,"it would crush at a constant velocity" means)

Now, if you again raise the brick even higher you obviously increase the force imparted on the box yet again. If in the last paragraph's actions you had arrived at the point at which the forces balanced and the brick reached a terminal velocity then.
NOW, by raising the brick still further you ensure that the force imparted on the box is greater than the force the box will be able to balance out and THUS the brick will experience continuing acelleration until it reaches ground level!

Q(rule8)ED

,,,, eta,,,,
and the beauty of such an experiment is that it uses no math at all just an understanding of physics and it uses nothing other than the forces involved rather than momentum and energy as well. It is comparitive and intuitive and should be easily digested by a CT.
It also models what would have been the case if the upper section had fallen onto the load bearing structural members(the columns) in the WTC towers, a considerably more robust resistance than if the uppper section did not do that.

right?

What physics boy wunder missed is that the falling mass can impart more force than the structure can withstand.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
You're trying to tell me that a skyscraper is as flimsy as a thin aluminum Coke can? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Dude, don't you know STRUCTURAL STEEL IS STRONGER THAN THIN ALUMINUM!!!! it would hold much more weight than that! I don't need any calculations to show this, it's obvious. But if you need proof, here's a link to a chart containing very large numbers.

And if soda cans are so strong then why were none found in the debris? Last time I was on a plane they had whole carts full of little cans of soda. No soda cans = no planes at ground zero!! Look at the bottom of the can, you'll see it's curved. That's to resist the force of the ground as it pushes up on the can, allowing the can to be crushed for dispoal or recycling. Did the World Trade Center have curved bottoms? I DON'T THINK SO!!! So how could they collapase? Here's a clue: Travis Fergusen R.Gr. of the N.I.P.A. says there were 99 BOTTLES OF BEER ON THE WALL in the North Tower. Where are those bottles now? Did they really "just happen" to fall? Don't we have the right to answers to these questions? Let me remind you that NO BUILDING IN HISTORY has ever been filled with carbonated beverage, had its top popped open and its contents sucked out through a plastic straw! It's just not possible!

Carbonation, carbon dioxide, global warming, warm beer, beer bottles, soda cans, straws, straw men, straw hats, politicians, political parties, keg parties, single-serving containers, self-serving conspirators, cover-ups, covert ops, overt cops, pop tops, IHOP, MIHOP -- are you beginning to see the pattern here? Building Seven was pulled, cans of Seven-Up have pull tabs, and the tab was about seven million dollars. Or will you try to pretend it's not obvious? You can STAND on a CAN, but CAN you STAND the truth?

Respectfully,
Several beers, using Myriad as a shill
Click to expand...



Nominated!
 
Vincent Vega said:
I am refering to the usual claim that to have occur what we witnessed (violent expulsion of debris during the collapse) there would have to have been explosives on every floor.
Click to expand...

He's making so many confused and contradictory statements compressed into such a small space that we can't help stepping on each other as we pick them apart.
 
In conclusion

”Well if the net force is zero and an object collides with another object of equal density the collision dynamics are dependent on the structure of the objects and the kinetic energy of each object. Incase you failed to understand the entire point it is this: the collapse wave should not accelerate once it enters the structurally sound area.” -Yandros42

He has finally almost completely backtracked.
Well, he’s slowly getting there. Remaining errors :

1. He doesn’t yet understand the difference between elastic and inelastic collision and the relevance of the conservation of momentum in collisions.
2. He still does not realize the structurally sound area resisting the impact is one floor thick with acceleration between the floors.
3. He may now finally start to realize Fnet=0 only means no acceleration, but not necessarily no movement. No movement won’t be achieved until the structure hits the ground. But he already refused that fact, because Fnet=0 on impact in his mind and by his reasoning (to him) this means a collapse of the floors is impossible.
4. He simplified his model to blocks with an uniform resistance, but did not describe or consider the limits of his model.
5. He is convinced the only explanation is demolition, without any necessary evidence to support this conviction.

In his mind one floor can withstand the impact of 14 or 24 floors over 3.7m, because they were part of the lower block.
This means:
m=29/110*510.000.000kg=1.345 E8 kg
Since he doesn’t think the conservation of momentum applies (?!),
:eye-poppi
we’ll do it his way:

S(t)=1/2*9.8*t^2=3.7m
t=0.87s
v=a*t=8.52m/s (still close to Greening)
KE top=1/2*1.345 E8 kg *8.52^2=4,88 E9 J

This is still a lot (7.77 times) more then the capacity of one floor (6,28 E8 J)

According to Y. and Judy Woods' "fiziks" the collapse must stop completely (=no transfer of momentum, no conservation of momentum), break under the collapsing weight and fall again to the next floor again reaching an acceleration of 8.52m/s in 0.87s. (or else F. Greening is right and the floors must speed up)
When you do this according to Yandros42's presentation, the total time for collapse would be 1 minute and 36 seconds = completely wrong, in J. Woods' theory also the top floors would have to collapse separately and it would take even longer

When you take into account the loss of energy for every collapse and use Judy Woods fiziks: Every floor will absorb some of the energy of the collapse (the “common sense”argument). This would work out to:
4.88 E9J- 6.28 E8J + ½(29+N/110*510000000)*v^2- 6.28 E8J+…=9.07 E11 J (a little off but close to the potential energy of the towers). Nevertheless they don’t see a reason for any crushing or pulverization of the building.

I think, he fails to realize that the floors don’t carry the weight of the building, but mostly their own weight and therefore the velocity, at no moment in time, will reach zero (except on reaching the ground). Most importantly he ignores that in a collapse the conservation of momentum applies (one of the basic rules in collisions) . The reduction of the total downward acceleration is only marginally affected by the resistance of the floors and will still result in a collapse CLOSE to free fall when considering the conservation of momentum, as described by F. Greening.

In conclusion: the argument that the observations leave no other explanation then demolition is therefore based on an incomplete and flawed interpretation of the events and unfounded suggestive association with apparently similar events, and is in doing so completely wrong.
 
Last edited:
Yandros' most recent parade of idiocy:


"That stupid JREF forum, you're all backpatters, you make me sick, you're aruging disinformation."
 
Mancman said:
Yandros' most recent parade of idiocy:


"That stupid JREF forum, you're all backpatters, you make me sick, you're aruging disinformation."
Click to expand...

Now that there is funny!


i don't suppose he has even read the posts that directly take on his misinformed physics. We are just wrong and taking our cues from some God of the NWO.
 
Mancman said:
Yandros' most recent parade of idiocy:


"That stupid JREF forum, you're all backpatters, you make me sick, you're aruging disinformation."
Click to expand...

"The physics are obvious, the truth is self-apparent".

Yet every physicist in the world disagrees with him. Are they all shills? :confused:
 
SYLVESTER1592 said:
”Well if the net force is zero and an object collides with another object of equal density the collision dynamics are dependent on the structure of the objects and the kinetic energy of each object. Incase you failed to understand the entire point it is this: the collapse wave should not accelerate once it enters the structurally sound area.” -Yandros42

He has finally almost completely backtracked.
Well, he’s slowly getting there. Remaining errors :

1. He doesn’t yet understand the difference between elastic and inelastic collision and the relevance of the conservation of momentum in collisions.
2. He still does not realize the structurally sound area resisting the impact is one floor thick with acceleration between the floors.
3. He may now finally start to realize Fnet=0 only means no acceleration, but not necessarily no movement. No movement won’t be achieved until the structure hits the ground. But he already refused that fact, because Fnet=0 on impact in his mind and by his reasoning (to him) this means a collapse of the floors is impossible.
4. He simplified his model to blocks with an uniform resistance, but did not describe or consider the limits of his model.
5. He is convinced the only explanation is demolition, without any necessary evidence to support this conviction.

In his mind one floor can withstand the impact of 14 or 24 floors over 3.7m, because they were part of the lower block.
This means:
m=29/110*510.000.000kg=1.345 E8 kg
Since he doesn’t think the conservation of momentum applies (?!),
:eye-poppi
we’ll do it his way:

S(t)=1/2*9.8*t^2=3.7m
t=0.87s
v=a*t=8.52m/s (still close to Greening)
KE top=1/2*1.345 E8 kg *8.52^2=4,88 E9 J

This is still a lot (7.77 times) more then the capacity of one floor (6,28 E8 J)

According to Y. and Judy Woods' "fiziks" the collapse must stop completely (=no transfer of momentum, no conservation of momentum), break under the collapsing weight and fall again to the next floor again reaching an acceleration of 8.52m/s in 0.87s. (or else F. Greening is right and the floors must speed up)
When you do this according to Yandros42's presentation, the total time for collapse would be 1 minute and 36 seconds = completely wrong, in J. Woods' theory also the top floors would have to collapse separately and it would take even longer

When you take into account the loss of energy for every collapse and use Judy Woods fiziks: Every floor will absorb some of the energy of the collapse (the “common sense”argument). This would work out to:
4.88 E9J- 6.28 E8J + ½(29+N/110*510000000)*v^2- 6.28 E8J+…=9.07 E11 J (a little off but close to the potential energy of the towers). Nevertheless they don’t see a reason for any crushing or pulverization of the building.

I think, he fails to realize that the floors don’t carry the weight of the building, but mostly their own weight and therefore the velocity, at no moment in time, will reach zero (except on reaching the ground). Most importantly he ignores that in a collapse the conservation of momentum applies (one of the basic rules in collisions) . The reduction of the total downward acceleration is only marginally affected by the resistance of the floors and will still result in a collapse CLOSE to free fall when considering the conservation of momentum, as described by F. Greening.

In conclusion: the argument that the observations leave no other explanation then demolition is therefore based on an incomplete and flawed interpretation of the events and unfounded suggestive association with apparently similar events, and is in doing so completely wrong.
Click to expand...


Don't forget the initial failure resulted in a fall of more than one floor, as the entire aircraft impact area failed at once.

For WTC1 the fall was 18m, for WTC2 it was 26m. The impact energies were 9.7GJ (WTC1) and 30.3GJ (WTC2), spread over a maximum footprint of 45m2.

-Gumboot
 
I still need to check the calculations for several floors, but decided to use the minimal collapse of one floor to demonstrate the amount of energy involved and avoid any doubt about the possibility of the collapse, since this is really the mean issue for Yandros. The values used favour Yandros' point of view and still prove him wrong. Ofcourse a more precise estamation would contradict Yandros even more.
 
I see now Yandros has proven gravity at ground zero was greater than anywhere else on terra firma. This localized gravitational instability should be investigated further. I'm proposing we form a tack force of our "best scientists working in this field today" Dr. Judy Wood, a.k.a. "Sleeping Beauty" and Yandros42, a.k.a. "NetFroce=zero". Funding will of course be provided by SonofNewo, a.k.a "Diet Coke Can Model", assuming he get all the glue off the cans and gets his full deposit back.
If i couldn't laugh, I'd cry.
 
*Signs of the pseudo-genius*

While lying in their hammock amidst the gardens trees, they look at the apples falling from the tree...And wonder: How does the hammock hold up the tree?
 
How's this look guys?

129594644abf43eace.bmp


F1 is the maximum strength of the lower structure. This represents the maximum force that structure can resist while the structure remains intact. Of course this number goes down when the structure is in any way damaged but lets assume it remains constant.

F2 is the force due to gravity that the falling mass exerts. this is equal to M times g

F3 is the force of impact. It can be calculated a couple of ways. It is the change in momentum divided by the time of contact or it is the energy of the falling mass divided by the distance it travels during which the energy is transferred to the other object.

Obviously in any building F1>F2 Buildings are designed that way, its a safety margin

If F2 + F3 = F3 then the mass will reach terminal velocity and continue to the ground

If F2 + F3 > F1 then the mass will continue through the lower structure , acellerating all the way to the ground.

Only if F2 + F3 < F1 will the collapse come to a halt
 
jaydeehess said:
How's this look guys?
Click to expand...

:eek:

Are you now not making the same mistake as Yandros? Asuming a homogenous lower and upper structure? Next argument will be thermodynamics.
:covereyes
Please, NO...don't, No Yandrification of this problem.

If you are using this to represent one floor, OK
Agree? :)
 
jaydeehess said:
How's this look guys?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/129594644abf43eace.bmp

F1 is the maximum strength of the lower structure. This represents the maximum force that structure can resist while the structure remains intact. Of course this number goes down when the structure is in any way damaged but lets assume it remains constant.

F2 is the force due to gravity that the falling mass exerts. this is equal to M times g

F3 is the force of impact. It can be calculated a couple of ways. It is the change in momentum divided by the time of contact or it is the energy of the falling mass divided by the distance it travels during which the energy is transferred to the other object.

Obviously in any building F1>F2 Buildings are designed that way, its a safety margin

If F2 + F3 = F3 then the mass will reach terminal velocity and continue to the ground

If F2 + F3 > F1 then the mass will continue through the lower structure , acellerating all the way to the ground.

Only if F2 + F3 < F1 will the collapse come to a halt
Click to expand...

I think you meant that: "If F2 + F3 = F1 then the mass will reach . . ."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom