WTC Collapses

[psikeyhackr]

And once again you are simply showing how foolish you really are. Yes, the VAST amount of them - because they don't want to have to communicate with idiots and fruitcakes who believe the stupid, stupid conspiracy theories!!!

.
.
Why don't you provide a link to a post of mine showing what supposed conspiracy theory I advocated?

Have I said the concrete is conspiring with the steel to keep information out of the NIST report?

psik

 

[scott3x]

.
.
Why don't you provide a link to a post of mine showing what supposed conspiracy theory I advocated?

Have I said the concrete is conspiring with the steel to keep information out of the NIST report?

psik

While I have at times wondered if it really is necesarry to know these quantities of steel and concrete, I do agree with you on one thing- you're not so much interested in who did what, you just want to know what really happened and you want to have the data in order to determine this.

In a very real sense, I too have tried to focus my attention on what really happened, because providing factual arguments as to what physically happened in the various crime scenes is frequently much easier then proving who did it; the FBI never charged Bin Laden for a reason- they simply didn't have much evidence to go on. Now they seem to be charging some mentally challenged guy.

Anyway, I digress- the point is I agree with psikey that we should try to focus more on what happened first; if we ever get beyond that, it will probably be much easier to persuade everyone as to who were the people who most likely did it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

While I have at times wondered if it really is necesarry to know these quantities of steel and concrete, I do agree with you on one thing- you're not so much interested in who did what, you just want to know what really happened and you want to have the data in order to determine this.

In a very real sense, I too have tried to focus my attention on what really happened, because providing factual arguments as to what physically happened in the various crime scenes is frequently much easier then proving who did it; the FBI never charged Bin Laden for a reason- they simply didn't have much evidence to go on. Now they seem to be charging some mentally challenged guy.

Anyway, I digress- the point is I agree with psikey that we should try to focus more on what happened first; if we ever get beyond that, it will probably be much easier to persuade everyone as to who were the people who most likely did it.

At this point there is more than enough data to say we know it wasn't the aircraft impacts and the fires that took those buildings down. The crime was committed for political reasons and if there is no new investigation it will only be for political reasons also, not because there is a lack evidence and suspicion to warrant it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I can do this with relative ease because I have flow charts of the first 1000 posts in this thread and what post any given post is in response to (or if it's starting a new subthread, I record that too), up to post 1213. I have a strong feeling, however, that no one else has spent the time to do this type of thing.

.
Yep, nobody has done that.

There were actually a couple of times when I thought about doing something like that on the Dawkins site but it never happened.

I made a video and am working on a second, so enough already.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

The only reason there is no new investigation is political.

.
But if the majority of people could understand the simple physics is there any way the politicians could not have an investigation.

Oh yeah, we can build 1360 foot skyscrapers without figuring out how much steel to put on every level.

ROFLMAO

So why hasn't every high school physics teacher in the country been pointing out something that obvious? 10,000 page report without the total amount of concrete. I thought we were supposed to shoot people that stupid in order to put them out of our misery.

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

You didn't tell me anything about what you read in FALL OF PHYSICS or where you got lost in it.

As far as I am concerned in this society a LAYMAN is a person that is supposed to be kept ignorant and confused therefore most so called scholars make things unnecessarily complicated. So all FALL OF PHYSICS does is show the before and after velocities of three sets of collapses with different distributions of mass to demonstrate that changing the distribution changes the collapse time.

So if that is true then what sense does it make to talk about the collapse time of the WTC without knowing the mass distribution.

All you have to do is cut and paste some part out of FALL OF PHYSICS and ask a specific question about it. Otherwise how am I supposed to know what you want explained? I regard the whole thing as an explanation so how am I supposed to explain an explanation if I don't know what you don't understand about it? Otherwise you just come across as someone trying to razz me because he can't understand the obvious. I don't know whether you read any part of it or not

psik

Well..I have been trying to razz you psi...but that is because of your attitude. You attack anyone who responds to your posts, and treat those who try to discuss with you with disdain. There's an old saying "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinagar". Have you noticed the way that I respond to Scott? I at least try to show him some respect, even though we may disagree on pretty much everything in this thread. Why? Because he responds to direct questions. (maybe a little too much ) and doesn't take an attack on his position as a personal attack.

I have seen in virtually every post you make your disgust at the fact that the total amount of steel and concrete were not listed in the NIST report. Time and time again you repeat this. I honest-to-goodness wanted to know why the hell this was so important to you, out of pure curiousity. My personal guess was that you had a theory that needed that data to be conclusive. I just wanted to hear what that theory was in a little more detail.

Here is the post that you directed me to, to explain your theory.

Can you expand on your conservation of momentum formula?

We must make it convenient for people to find the definition so they can judge if the conservation of momentum is relevant.

Fall of Physics

In my rarely humble opinion (LOL) many of the people who claim the WTC towers underwent gravitational collapse seem to exaggerate what gravity can do. This is a table showing the velocity and distance fallen by an object from a stationary start. In the first 1/10th of a second the mass moves less than 2 inches and is only traveling at 3.2 ft/sec. So a gravitational collapse of the WTC meant the falling top portion must have accelerated what it struck much more than gravity could have and also have broken whatever was supporting that intact portion of the building.

Code: Select all
. v == initial velocity
Time V = at + v D = 1/2 at^2 + vt
v = 0
00.1 3.2 ft/sec 0.16 ft 1.92 in.
00.2 6.4 ft/sec 0.64 ft 7.68 in.
00.3 9.6 ft/sec 1.44 ft 17.28 1n.
00.4 12.8 ft/sec 2.56 ft
00.5 16.0 ft/sec 4.00 ft
00.6 19.2 ft/sec 5.76 ft
00.7 22.4 ft/sec 7.84 ft
00.8 25.6 ft/sec 10.24 ft
00.9 28.8 ft/sec 12.96 ft
01.0 32.0 ft/sec 16.00 ft
01.1 35.2 ft/sec 19.36 ft
01.2 38.4 ft/sec 23.04 ft
01.3 41.6 ft/sec 27.04 ft
01.4 44.8 ft/sec 31.36 ft
01.5 48.0 ft/sec 36.00 ft
01.6 51.2 ft/sec 40.96 ft
01.7 54.4 ft/sec 46.24 ft
01.8 57.6 ft/sec 51.84 ft
01.9 60.8 ft/sec 57.76 ft
02.0 64.0 ft/sec 64.00 ft



No matter what brought the towers down the conservation of momentum cannot have been violated. This is the equation for an inelastic collision in which two masses stick together. If the second mass is stationary then v2 is zero.

Conservation of Momentum:

(m1 * v1) + (m2 * v2) = (m1 + m2) * v3

This means the ratio of the stationary mass to the impact mass greatly affects the resulting velocity. If the impact mass is smaller then it will be slowed considerably, but in the opposite case the velocity of the stationary mass will change a lot. But in a gravitational collapse there will be the additional effect of gravitational acceleration before and after impact.

So I have done the calculations for 3 "magical" cases. In each case four masses are magically suspended and when struck from above each mass is released with no resistance. In case #1 the 4 masses are are equal, 2.5 tons each. In case #2 the masses are in the sequence 1, 2, 3 and 4 tons from top to bottom. Case #3 is the reverse sequence of 4, 3, 2 and 1 ton. When the masses are struck from above they begin moving on the basis of conservation of momentum and undergo gravitational acceleration until the next object is struck. Case #0 is just a 10 ton mass dropped from 64 feet with no impacts and is used as a reference case.

Code: Select all

. mass 1 mass 2 mass 3 mass 4
64 feet feet 48 feet 32 feet 16

Case 0 10 ton 0 0 0
speed 0 32 45.25 55.43 64 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.41 1.73 2 sec

Case 1 2.5 ton 2.5 2.5 2.5
speed 0 32 16 35.78 23.85 39.91 29.93 43.82 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.618 14% 2.12 23% 2.554 sec 28%

Case 2 1 ton 2 3 4
speed 0 32 10.67 33.74 16.87 36.17 21.70 38.66 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.721 22% 2.324 34% 2.854 sec 43%

Case 3 4 ton 3 2 1
speed 0 32 18.29 37.35 29.05 43.23 38.91 50.37 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.58 12% 2.023 17% 2.381 sec 19%



The Case line specifies the weight of mass at each of the 4 heights, 64, 48, 32 and 16 feet. These heights were chosen because they correspond to the "1/2 * 32 feet/sec^2" that is in the distance from acceleration equation thereby making calculations easier.

The speed line has the velocity of the net mass before and after impact based on conservation of momentum.

The time line has the time for the mass to fall to that point and the percentage difference from Case 0.

A body in freefall dropped from the top of the World Trade Center would have taken 9.2 seconds to reach the ground. The NIST says the tower that took longer to collapse did it in 11 seconds. So that is only 20% longer than the freefall time. But the WTC collapses required that the tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete which had held up the buildings for 28 years be bent and broken and crushed. So how is it that only my absurd and miraculous collapse with inverted masses and disappearing supports comes down that fast in relation to freefall? A skyscraper must be bottom heavy and Case #2 using that distribution has double that percentage of time but it didn't require kinetic energy be used to break supports.

So what is the story with all of these people that claim there was a gravitational collapse but also pretend that knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level isn't necessary? I have demonstrated that changing the distribution of mass alters the collapse time regardless of the strength of the material involved and how much kinetic energy would be required to break it.

Time and velocity calculations after impacts:

Code: Select all

. After Impact #1:
Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 16t 1 = t^2 + t t = 0.618 19.78+16
Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 10.67t 1 = t^2 + 0.666875t t = 0.721 23.07+10.67
Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 18.29t 1 = t^2 + 1.143125t t = 0.58 18.56+18.79

After Impact #2:
Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 23.85t 1 = t^2 + 1.490625t t = 0.502 16.06+23.85
Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 16.87t 1 = t^2 + 1.054375t t = 0.603 19.30+16.87
Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 29.05t 1 = t^2 + 1.815625t t = 0.443 14.18+29.05

After Impact #3:
Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 29.93t 1 = t^2 + 1.870781t t = 0.434 13.89+29.93
Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 21.70t 1 = t^2 + 1.35625t t = 0.53 16.96+21.70
Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 38.91t 1 = t^2 + 2.431875t t = 0.358 11.46+38.91



http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/

The "aim" here is to answer "Do you believe the World Trade Center was taken down by controlled demolition?"
in the context of "World Trade Center? What Really Happened?"



Physics isn't about believing. Physics is about understanding. One would think a structural engineer could understand that. :funny:

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Can you expand on your conservation of momentum formula?

.
It is not my conservation of momentum formula. I have searched a little on the internet but have not found how old it is. It can't possibly be less than 300 years old but I would be surprised if it was not known before Newton.

http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/2cl/ch04/ch04.html

Object 1 hits object 2. Either they bounce apart like billiard balls or they stick together like a couple of pieces of clay. This is the formula if they stick together:

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)v3

m is mass and v is velocity. Now if the second mass is stationary then v2 equals ZERO and the formula becomes.

m1v1 = (m1 + m2)v3

This is what is being computed in my vertical collapses in FALL OF PHYSICS. If the 2 masses are equal then it is very easy, v3 will be half of v1. But for any other combination of masses just plug m1, m2 and v1 into the equation and compute. That is the easy part.

The problem is in FALL OF PHYSICS after each impact the combined mass will accelerate due to gravity to the next collision while it already has a starting velocity. This requires the quadratic formula to compute the time to the next collision and then the velocity at that collision. So the "Speed" lines list the velocities before and after each impact. But the alignment of the text in your quote does not show the way I put it using the CODE format.

There's an old saying "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinagar".

I am not interested in catching flies. I assume I am communicating with people with functioning brains that want honest solutions to a problem until they demonstrate otherwise. If they believe a <200 ton airliner can total a >400,000 ton building then they should be able to defend that position on the basis of the physics. If they don't know enough about the physics to even question the plausibility that is not my fault and they should be honest enough with themselves to admit they don't know.

If you saw someone roll a tennis ball down a bowling alley and all 10 pins fell down wouldn't you think it peculiar and that there might be something else involved like threads attached to the pins or special pins with magnets and electromagnets under the floor. But to not even be told the amount of steel where the planes impacted is ridiculous.

psik

 

[scott3x]

.
Object 1 hits object 2.

With you so far...

Either they bounce apart like billiard balls or they stick together like a couple of pieces of clay.

Sounds good.

This is the formula if they stick together:

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)v3

And I'm lost...

m is mass and v is velocity. Now if the second mass is stationary then v2 equals ZERO and the formula becomes.

m1v1 = (m1 + m2)v3

Halfway to oz now...

This is what is being computed in my vertical collapses in FALL OF PHYSICS. If the 2 masses are equal then it is very easy, v3 will be half of v1. But for any other combination of masses just plug m1, m2 and v1 into the equation and compute. That is the easy part.

And I'm already in oz .

The problem is in FALL OF PHYSICS after each impact the combined mass will accelerate due to gravity to the next collision while it already has a starting velocity. This requires the quadratic formula...

Going at warp speed for destinations unknown

Maybe BenTheMan or Alphanumeric or Tony or Headspin perhaps, but this stuff is just way out there for me.

 

[psikeyhackr]

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)v3

.
             m1 * v1 + m2  *  v2 = (m1 + m2)  *  v3 
              ^    ^    ^      ^                  ^
              |    |    |      |                  |
 mass of   ---+    |    |      +-- velocity of    +-- velocity of
 object #1         |    |          object #2         combined mass
                   |    |
 velocity of  -----+    +--- mass of 
 object #1                   object #2

I am currently watching a video of the Manhattan Project. This 9/11 business looks so simple and petty by comparison.

psik

 

[CptBork]

I didn't set up this website and select the labels for the forums.

It looks like you are the one claiming to be a physics grad student. So presumably you can recognize what is and is not pseudo-science in something that involves a mere bit of Newtonian physics.

If there is a flaw in Fall of Physics you should be able to explain what it is.

I'll help you out just a little bit here, since it's a matter of physics. Your calculations are ok, not that there's much that can go wrong here since you've made things as simple as they can possibly get. Just a note on your methodology- you can use $$t=\frac{v_f-v_i}{g}$$ to calculate times, no need to solve a quadratic equation once you have initial and final velocities for each interval. The problem with your reasoning is that the model is garbage. The WTC is said to have been collapsing internally before the exterior gave in, so your model is irrelevant. Also the top 13 floors or whatever fell at the same time, so you'd have to add that in once you fixed the first problem. And the surface that is falling could plow through the surface beneath it without performing a sticking collision. If you want to do some accurate physics modelling of the problem, why don't you contact some students and faculty at an established university, who have constructed their own models, and ask them how they did it and where they got their numbers?

Do you need a physics degree to know that a skyscraper must hold up its own weight? Do you need a physics degree to know that probably means more steel all of the way down to support the increasing weight above?

Skyscrapers aren't built like the pyramids. There are spatial considerations to take into account.

Of course if you don't find anything wrong then what does that say about AUTHORITY and this subject being pseudo-science?

psik

Hey I don't make the rules, although I admit I personally think the pseudoscience section is indeed the appropriate home for this thread. The only reason I dropped in is to let you know not to get cocky and start claiming scientific validation just because you're allowed to post this on a science forum.

 

[scott3x]

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)v3

.
             m1 * v1 + m2  *  v2 = (m1 + m2)  *  v3 
              ^    ^    ^      ^                  ^
              |    |    |      |                  |
 mass of   ---+    |    |      +-- velocity of    +-- velocity of
 object #1         |    |          object #2         combined mass
                   |    |
 velocity of  -----+    +--- mass of 
 object #1                   object #2

Ok, I knew most of what the symbols stood for. The main problem is I don't know much about the formulas you're using.

I am currently watching a video of the Manhattan Project. This 9/11 business looks so simple and petty by comparison.

psik

I'm sure. Unfortunately, for someone who knows little concerning equations, they can seem equally daunting to the layman.

 

[leopold]

At this point there is more than enough data to say we know it wasn't the aircraft impacts and the fires that took those buildings down.

we also know it wasn't a bomb or explosives

The crime was committed for political reasons and if there is no new investigation it will only be for political reasons also, not because there is a lack evidence and suspicion to warrant it.

good point.
it's hard to say what motivated those religious freaks.

 

[psikeyhackr]

we also know it wasn't a bomb or explosives

Who is we?

 

[leopold]

Who is we?

the ones that know the story and looks at this objectively, that's who.

the people that buy into this "bomb" nonsense are overlooking two pieces of evidence that the conspiracy buffs have failed to provide.

 

[psikeyhackr]

the ones that know the story and looks at this objectively, that's who.

the people that buy into this "bomb" nonsense are overlooking two pieces of evidence that the conspiracy buffs have failed to provide.

.
So why can't these objectivists tell everybody the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS? Did the distributions change since the buildings were completed in the 70's? Surely that has nothing whatsoever to do with bombs.

psik

 

[Stryder]

.
It is not my conservation of momentum formula. I have searched a little on the internet but have not found how old it is. It can't possibly be less than 300 years old but I would be surprised if it was not known before Newton.

Don't they teach kids nowadays?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Incidentally, bring up the man himself he happened to stumble on another architectural problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa

Conclusion on that tower:
Men are not perfect, they make mistakes. While the structure might be sound the foundations of the tower weren't necessarily well planned.

In regards to other towers:
We can't expect every worker involved in the creation of a building to do things 100% accurately and this means no matter how much stress testing any building design goes through there will always be a margin for human error.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'll help you out just a little bit here, since it's a matter of physics. Your calculations are ok, not that there's much that can go wrong here since you've made things as simple as they can possibly get.

.
Well thank you kind sir I could not have done it without you. Take note of that MacGyver and Scott33x. LOL

Just a note on your methodology- you can use $$t=\frac{v_f-v_i}{g}$$ to calculate times, no need to solve a quadratic equation once you have initial and final velocities for each interval.

.
I am astonished by your brilliance. It is so nice to know I didn't need the quadratic equation. But your equation depends on KNOWING THE FINAL VELOCITY. But when I started doing these calculations I didn't know the final velocity so how was I supposed to compute it without using the quadratic equation? Please enlighten me further?

The problem with your reasoning is that the model is garbage. The WTC is said to have been collapsing internally before the exterior gave in, so your model is irrelevant.

.
Would you care to provide the source for this supposed internal collapse and explain why you believe it and what supposedly caused it? Does this apply to both the north and south towers? Are you sure this isn't some pseudo-science that only you REAL SCIENTISTS that don't need quadratic equations are capable of BELIEVING?

Also the top 13 floors or whatever fell at the same time, so you'd have to add that in once you fixed the first problem. And the surface that is falling could plow through the surface beneath it without performing a sticking collision. If you want to do some accurate physics modelling of the problem, why don't you contact some students and faculty at an established university, who have constructed their own models, and ask them how they did it and where they got their numbers?

.
Oh, I get it. Physics only works at established universities and this is really just about keeping people believing in AUTHORITY not actually explaining things to people so they can understand it for themselves. It is just some 300 year old Newtonian physics after all and we all have computers and can download torrents of physics books. ROFL

Skyscrapers aren't built like the pyramids. There are spatial considerations to take into account.

.
There are a couple of skyscrapers that are built like pyramids though the one in Chicago is truncated. San Francisco always has to be more cool than Chicago.

Yeah that structural steel made it possible to eliminate thick walls on the lower levels of stone buildings to support all of that weight. But if you check Lon Waters' site you will find some columns had 20 times as much weight at the bottom as the top. So why don't you REAL SCIENTISTS want a table with the specs?

Hey I don't make the rules, although I admit I personally think the pseudoscience section is indeed the appropriate home for this thread. The only reason I dropped in is to let you know not to get cocky and start claiming scientific validation just because you're allowed to post this on a science forum.

.
Now that is really hilarious. Talk about COCKY and then give us an equation that couldn't be used without information I already got from using the quadratic equation and then claim I didn't need it.

ROFLMAO

I think the people who claim that they know REAL SCIENCE are going to have to explain why they didn't solve a problem in SEVEN YEARS that should have been done in SIX MONTHS because they didn't point out the simple and necessary data.

You can't build skyscrapers without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put where before you even dig the holes for the foundations. The people putting up the money want decent cost estimates.

Definitely AUTHORITARIAN. That Authoritarian Science must be maintained and the LAYMEN must grovel in their benighted ignorance.

psik

PS - Was that a proper mixture of honey and vinegar MacGyver1968? You know I have such poor taste in that area.

 

[leopold]

.
So why can't these objectivists tell everybody the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS? Did the distributions change since the buildings were completed in the 70's? Surely that has nothing whatsoever to do with bombs.

psik

haven't you read anything about how the towers were constructed?
the box column dimensions have been published.
the floor plan is also known.
i would imagine that the perimeter tree columns are also known.
what's left to consider?

 

[John99]

PS - Was that a proper mixture of honey and vinegar MacGyver1968? You know I have such poor taste in that area.

you put honey and vinegar on mcgyver?

 

[John99]

Kinky