Try finding how many people have brought up the density of the steel in 13 years. What does that say about the significance of what you actually said? Personally I don't recall ever running across it before. Talking about the density means you have to bring up the volume of steel. psik
Not really... simple logic and an understand of the rules of the forum (rules which you, psikeyhackr, agreed to abide by upon signing up) allow me to differentiate actual discussion from pointless trolling... You keep claiming it should be easy... why don't you damn well do it then?
I demonstrated that the kinetic energy of falling mass is expended destroying supports strong enough to hold it under static conditions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo It is not a tube-in-tube design which is obvious and which would be much more complex and difficult to build and duplicate. And I have admitted that a bigger one would be better but which would also be unsafe for a single person to try to implement. But we have engineering schools which supposedly teach structural engineering and charge tens of thousands of dollars but they can't do any kind of model in THIRTEEN YEARS. I even suggested using 3D printers to make parts. If the printer could make parts 2ft by 2ft then it could produce each level 1.5 inches tall. It only took FOUR MONTHS to make a 54 foot 1/200th scale model in 1940. http://www.city-data.com/forum/36298968-post70.html psik
:Roll: You're trolling - the density is only important in so far as it means you can calculate the mass of the box columns and the cross beams once you know their dimensions, and that is the only thing I have said about it.
And you keep missing the fundamental flaw with your plan, which has been explained to you numerous times - even a perfectly-scaled down model is NOT going to act the same as the full size building. Simple as that, basic physics.
yes, resonance and butt joints. the problem is, the buildings took the evidence with them. i guess you could use estimates, but we will never know the exact frequency. the thing is psiky, this is a very plausible explanation, and very possibly the correct reason for the destruction of 1 and 2.
the density of the core columns IS given, in the congressional 911 report. it's called the grade of the steel. you have to figure out the density yourself by consulting manuals that list the grades of steel. even I know that psiky
I'm really not sure about a "resonance" hypothesis. For instance a Tuning Fork produces resonating frequency through the elasticity of the metal used, if it's mishapen or the alloy is too impure it will not carry a resonance for long if at all. The collapse of a building will generate "Solitons". It would kind of explain a near freefall collapse effect of a building if it's large enough. I'd assume an example of energy translation through soliton's can be observed through a Newton's Cradle.
Stryder Gravity explains the near free fall speeds without any need to resort to any exotic or unusual effects whatsoever. What we saw on 911 was exactly what it appeared to be, buildings falling down due to impact damage and fires applied to the specific construction techniques and materials. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
there is nothing exotic or unusual about resonance. it's a fact of almost ANY mechanical system. project apollo experienced the very same phenomenon, they called it POGO.
Like we can't know the mass of the steel without knowing the density of the steel. The NIST specifies the density of the concrete. There were two different kinds, 110 lb/cuft that they called lightweight concrete and 150 lb/cuft. But no, I do not recall seeing any mention of the steel density there. Maybe I will search for that? psik
no, you will search on ASTM and grades of steel. you will then cross reference that to the blueprints to determine the density of steel at any particular place in WTC 1 or 2. this is why you cannot find this info directly.
Here you go: Two mentions in 10,000 pages with no indication of variation but notice they "assumed". psik
Right... I'm going to go with what the NIST says, given that you can't provide even a single bit of actual hard-fact to back up your so-called arguments...