| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Dallas's remark still applies to the South Tower. But then you are notorious for cherry-picking those parts of an argument you can rebut and ignoring those that you cannot in order to create the illusion that your rebuttal is comprehensive, whereas it still misses the point, as it did here. |
In fact - Dallas's remark is even less applicable to the S Tower, which began its collapse at an even lower level thus making Bushwackers 'fraction' even closer to 1.
You seem to be 0/3 today, Micpsi. Are you always this bad or are you just having a dodgy day? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
psikeyhackr
New Poster
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:39 am Post subject: Physics without DATA! |
|
|
Greetings,
This is my first post here. Had to go pretty far back for a supposed discussion of physics.
I don't see any mention of tons or kilograms or kg in this thread but supposedly it's about physics. That is one of the really stange things about 9/11 discussions. Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? But doesn't that mean as you go down a skyscraper every level must support more and more weight? But in order to make levels stronger they must put in more steel but at 490 lb per cubic foot putting in more steel makes that level heavier but that added weight must be supported by all of the levels below. So figuring out the distribution of steel has to be one of the tricks of designing a skyscraper.
It is easy to compute the weight of a standard concrete floor slab from the dimensions and the density of 110 lb/cu ft. It comes to 601 tons. But how much did it weigh with the corrugated pans and the trusses? Why haven't we seen that a lot in EIGHT YEARS?
So skyscraper designers must determine how much steel and how much concrete they will put on every level before the hole for the foundation is even dug.
So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTC 1 & 2 after EIGHT YEARS? Why hasn't Richard Gage and the so called Truth Movement been screaming for that information?
How do people that claim the planes did it PROVE IT without that information?
How do we do PHYSICS without that information? 
psik [3154] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
New Poster
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:24 pm Post subject: Structural Collapse |
|
|
Here is a top down collapse for you.
The upper portion is crushable and will absorb kinetic energy on impact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c
That means less energy available to destroy the mass below and demonstrates that Bazant is talking nonsense.
The new model consists of 33 washers separated and supported by 33 paper loops. I selected 33 because it is a multiple of 11 like the WTC. The top 11 spacers are one loop, the next 17 are two loops and the bottom 5 are triple loops. I drop 4 washers on the rest which is 12%. 14 levels of 110 is 12.7%. I do TWO DROPS from 24 inches above the lower portion and the total height of my structure is only 24 inches. In the first drop 9 single loop paper "columns" are crushed. I then do a second drop having put new paper spacers in the falling portion. Even after TWO DROPS more than 50% of my structure is still standing. This business of airliners completely destroying the towers in less than two hours dragging on for EIGHT YEARS is way beyond ridiculous.
And not even having a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level is too absurd for words. Without that data how can a SCALED MODEL be constructed to satisfy the Great Ryan Mackey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk
psik [3569] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
New Poster
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Allen
Minor Poster
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: Structural Collapse |
|
|
| psikeyhackr wrote: | Here is a top down collapse for you.
The upper portion is crushable and will absorb kinetic energy on impact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c
That means less energy available to destroy the mass below and demonstrates that Bazant is talking nonsense.
The new model consists of 33 washers separated and supported by 33 paper loops. I selected 33 because it is a multiple of 11 like the WTC. The top 11 spacers are one loop, the next 17 are two loops and the bottom 5 are triple loops. I drop 4 washers on the rest which is 12%. 14 levels of 110 is 12.7%. I do TWO DROPS from 24 inches above the lower portion and the total height of my structure is only 24 inches. In the first drop 9 single loop paper "columns" are crushed. I then do a second drop having put new paper spacers in the falling portion. Even after TWO DROPS more than 50% of my structure is still standing. This business of airliners completely destroying the towers in less than two hours dragging on for EIGHT YEARS is way beyond ridiculous.
And not even having a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level is too absurd for words. Without that data how can a SCALED MODEL be constructed to satisfy the Great Ryan Mackey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk
psik [3569] |
I think you are missing the point on many levels here, first of all never in the history of building collapses has a scaled model been used in the investigation to determine what happened, so why the sudden demand now? You have no grasp on the problems with scaling, so I will give you an example - If you scale down a wooden structure, the grain is larger, and the structure will behave completely differently - The same applies to other materials like concrete and metals, and of course fire, how do you scale down the fire it the towers, yet have it behave the same? Scaling is applied to models where it can be scaled back up and still apply - aerodynamics is one example of this.
Now onto your video, there is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin! You should note that both towers had significant portions of the core still standing for a small period after the main collapse - the columns did not resist the collapse, because they fell after. Yet your model is all about the core columns making a top down collapse impossible, so now I have cleared that up for you, I can now provide you with a much more realistic example of how a top down collapse is very realistic, and possible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
New Poster
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: Structural Collapse |
|
|
| James Allen wrote: | | I think you are missing the point on many levels here, first of all never in the history of building collapses has a scaled model been used in the investigation to determine what happened, so why the sudden demand now? You have no grasp on the problems with scaling, so I will give you an example - If you scale down a wooden structure, the grain is larger, and the structure will behave completely differently - The same applies to other materials like concrete and metals, and of course fire, how do you scale down the fire it the towers, yet have it behave the same? Scaling is applied to models where it can be scaled back up and still apply - aerodynamics is one example of this. |
Whoop-dee-do! It's the square-cube law. Galileo figured it out.
That is why I deliberately selected supports as weak as possible relative to the static load.
Why model? When have skyscrapers over 1,000 feet ever collapsed before? How are we supposed to figure out if that was possible because of aircraft impacts and fire?
psik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
