Yep, an avalanche of random point loads tearing the structure apart. NOT a nice smooth washer falling onto a paper cylinder.
I really can not believe that ‘truthers’ exist. The stupidity is mind boggling.
double post
You’re trusting US government maps? Sheeple!
People trying to make analogies between man made objects DESIGNED TO HOLD THEMSELVES UP and snow that randomly fell on a mountain are ridiculous. Do some research and you find that the temperatures of the layers of snow affect the behavior. And it is the mountain that is supporting the weight, the avalanche slides. That is not what happened to the WTC.
I prefer to say levels not FLOORS. Too many word games get started.
Since a skyscraper must support its own weight the levels must get progressively stronger and therefore heavier all of the way down. So the levels at the top were the lightest and weakest. When the top falling portion hit the lower stationary portion it would not stop just because of one level. But at least two levels would always have to be crushed simultaneously.
But crushing levels takes energy. The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Therefore it slows down in the process of crushing and because of the conservation of momentum. And then two more levels get crushed and two more, etc, etc.
But if 17 levels are falling on 93 and the 93 get heavier and stronger going down and the 17 get weaker and lighter going up then which side runs out first? Even if you assume the faling mass could destroy the stationary mass at a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio you still end up with 40 stories standing.
But then they won’t even supply an accurate table with the distribution of steel or even a total for the concrete. This is ridiculous after almost NINE YEARS. Even if I believed an airliner could destroy the towers I would expect to be given that information.
This is just, “Shut up and BELIEVE what you are told.”
Now why do so many people go along with that? I have no idea. But after almost NINE YEARS they would look pretty silly if they change their minds because of some FACTS. My model didn’t stop at one level. Nine of eleven single loops were crushed including the bottom two of the falling mass.
psik
As he demonstrated in the previous thread, psikeyhackr simply does not understand the physics.
Modeling is a tricky business, as the modeler needs to understand which aspects of the real structure can be simplified, which aspects can’t be simplified, and what’s critical to the system.
What psikeyhackr is trying to model is the real WTC, where each floor has some mass and some “collapse energy” (let’s call it)–the amount of energy it takes to buckle beams and actually “pancake” the floor.
psikeyhackr has chosen to discretize the mass and collapse elements, so all the mass is in the washer, and the “collapse energy” is absorbed by the paper rings. That’s a simplification, but not an unreasonable one.
Let’s think a moment about how the “real” WTC might collapse, using psikeyhackr’s discretization assumption. First, one floor is critically weakened so that it collapses under the weight above it. All the upper floors then fall until they hit the next floor down. The falling portion has kinetic energy equal to (1/2)mv[sup]2[/sup], where m is the mass of all the floors, and v is their velocity on impact. If this kinetic energy is greater than the “collapse energy” of the next floor down, then that that floor will collapse, too.
Now (and here’s the key), if the next floor collapsed, then the stack of mass continues downward. This time, though, it starts with some non-zero velocity, and it has a greater mass, because it’s added the mass of the collapsed floor. Unless the next floor down yet has a substantially greater “collapse energy”, the collapsing portion will pick up speed, going faster and faster and it continues to collapse the floors.
A glance at the video of psikeyhackr’s experiment will show why it’s completely invalid: he starts with the falling mass positioned substantially above the main structure, and thus the kinetic energy at first impact is substantially more than the mass gains as it falls from floor to floor.
And, one more time: the mass distribution from floor to floor is a piece of the puzzle, but 1) It’s no more important, and probably substantially less, than some measure of the “collapse energy” of each floor; and 2) It’s still possible to bracket the true distribution by assuming some over- and under- distribution. Given all the other simplifications required, bracketing the mass is a minimal issue.
So, bottom line: psikeyhackr doesn’t understand the physics behind what he’s doing, has constructed an experiment that doesn’t reflect the real building collapse, is making conclusions based on his flawed experiment, and wants something essentially unnecessary to improve his experiment which won’t address any of the fundamental issues.
Describing the collapse of the WTC as an avalanche isn’t an analogy, it’s a metaphor.
Yeah, what kind of person trusts a theory by someone else just because it’s logical and fits the known facts! It’s better to think for yourself and dare to be wrong independently.
It seems transparently obvious that this is false - the levels did not support the weight of the above floors. What the levels did was rigidly hold the vertical beams in place, and the vertical beams held the above floors in place. When levels began to give, the side beams bowed and lost their ability to support the levels above, which then proceeded to drop like uncounted tons of bricks and plow through everything in their path.
I think it’s quite clear that the lower levels were not strong enough to support the entire weight of the buildings above them resting on their surface. Remember, the levels are floors - they’re a foot or two thick, with empty space beneath them. Even built as sturdy as humanly possible out of whatever material you like you cannot drop (or even gently place) a half of a skyscraper on a floor like this and not have it give out. It’s not made of some material 100000x stronger than a block of pressed wood 100x thicker than a piece of paper, after all.
Any model based on such clearly false assumptions is pretty much guaranteed to give no useful information on the subject.
I meant “avalanche” as a chain reaction that gets progressively larger as it goes - I didn’t mean that it was literally comparable to snow. Jebus, you gotta explain everything.
I appreciate your wanting to avoid confusion about “levels” vs. literal floors, but I meant floors. The floor number 93 was hit by the top 17-story chunk of the building. That floor stood no chance of arresting it - it barely even would slow it down.
Then floor number 92 would be hit by a moving mass containing 18 stories worth of building. It would stand even less of a chance.
Then floor number 91 would be hit by a moving mass containing 19 stories worth of building. I hope you can see where this is going. There is no way that any single floor could arrest the avalanche of falling building that’s coming down onto it. If no one floor could arrest it, then the building falls all the way down.
Why do the 17 get lighter going down? They get heavier with each level they crush!
What really gets me about the conspiracy theory is that they claim the U.S. government can pull this all off .
And yet they forget to plant WMD’s in Iraq. That’s a big d’oh ! isn’t it ?
I mentioned earlier in this thread how the WTC’s construction differed from how other buildings are constructed. I had a couple of misconceptions corrected by CurtC so I will thank him for that now.
Just to repeat the relevant part, the WTC supported itself vertically at the core, and at the exterior wall. As the floors collapsed it put a tremendous amount of lateral force on the exterior wall which caused it to peel away in large sheets. The exterior wall was designed for vertical loads, and the collapse exposed it to horizontal loads.
As this video in the OP shows, the core did not collapse level by level. It remained standing for a few seconds while the debris fell around it. But the chaos of that debris still cut into it at a lower level, and just like a tree will fall if you cut into the base, the core fell as well.
The difference between your model and the actual towers besides the fact that WTC wasn’t made out of paper clips, washers, cardboard, popsicle stick and white glue.
Is about 500 000 tons.
You see thing about buildings they’re really really heavy and each floor is designed to hold static weight. Once structure connected to them start losing intergrity you’re going to have problems.
The same U.S. government that couldn’t keep a blowjob a secret. Or a break-in in a hotel room.
Seriously, do “truthers” (and birthers, for that matter) ever stop to think how many thousands of people would have to be involved in a conspiracy to detonate explosives in the WTC right after planes flew into it? And that NONE of those people, NONE, would have said something to a spouse, best friend, someone?
People who believe in conspiracy theories seriously overestimate the ability of people to keep secrets.
::: waves hand::: I know, I know
floor 1, you know the ground
This is an example of something that you said in that previous thread that was absolutely wrong and I specifically pointed it out to you, yet here you go making the exact same incorrect statement again as if it were established fact. This makes me think that you either are not reading replies to your own posts, you are choosing to ignore them, or you have forgotten that we’ve done this to death with you before. I strongly suggest that you go back and re-read your previous questions/comments and the actual responses before repeating the same stuff.
It is perfectly possible to design a tall building where each and every floor/level/cross-section is just as strong, IF NOT STRONGER, than the ones below it.
For example, you could design the lowest floor of a 100-story building to carry the load of 100 equal floors above it, and then make floors 2-100 just as strong. Floor #100 doesn’t HAVE to be designed weaker or lighter than floor #1.
Economically it might not make a lot of sense to do it that way (although in reinforced concrete design a lot of the cost is in forms and placing so keeping uniform structural members all the way up may actually save money) but there’s no technical reason not too.
Heck, you could design a building where floor #1 is the weakest of the lot and floor #100 is the strongest, if you really wanted to.
I’ve seen skyscraper designs where to keep things simple, the bottom 1/3rd of the floors were designed identically (call it “strength X”), the next 1/3rd were all “strength Y” and the top 1/3rd were all “strength Z”.
Actually, the real problem with the model is that his ‘walls’ were made with godlike strength, and that’s putting aside the facts that the floors were perfectly rigid and their ‘attachment’ to the walls doesn’t in any way model how the WTC’s did.
Putting aside the fact that his walls were made of a material many times stronger (and thicker) than the steel was, (accounting for scale), look at them. They are completely solid - no windows or other holes at all. And cylinders, without even corners to provide weak points. If that was scaled up to ‘life’ size, planes would just bounce off without scratching the paint. Heck, he had to drop the ‘upper floors’ from low orbit just to get enough momentum to crunch a few floors.
There’s nothing about this that resembles how the WTC was constructed. If we could construct buildings that way, there would be elevators to the moon by now.
ETA: if psikeyhackr redid his ‘model’ but cut out window-slits from each ‘ring’ from top to bottom, leaving only a millimeter at each end and only a milimeter or so apart, that might model the WTC’s walls a little better. Of course he’d never get it to stack up…
Yes…it’s not 15 floors falling on 85 floors. It’s 15 floors falling on ONE floor. And then it’s 16 floors falling on one floor, and then 17 floors falling on one floor, and so on down. How is this not obvious?
I’ll eventually read the whole thread (on page 2 now), but I have a question that can’t wait.
Why does everyone believe the WTC buildings were destroyed? Special effects are more than sufficiently advanced that making animations of buildings collapsing is simple. The truth is that the buildings are still standing! The Bush administration wanted its war, but it also couldn’t actually kill thousands of Americans. So they had the NSA create a special effects film making it appear that there had been an attack! The Government has means to hijack television signals. So once the film was completed they pirated the airwaves and showed the footage.
‘But what about millions of New Yorkers? They were there!’ :rolleyes: Some conspiracies are larger than others. It is obvious that they were coerced, and are still being coerced, into maintaining the charade by the means of direct payoffs (to people who were ‘killed’, and who are now living secret lives under assumed identities, and others) and the threat of an actual Fail Safe type of attack that really would destroy the city.
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE, PEOPLE! OPEN YOUR EYES!
Unlike most truther arguments, I can’t actually refute this. Yeah, okay, it’s a little unlikely, but it’s at least possible, unlike the many proposed scenarios which require the laws of physics to be in on the conspiracy.
Missed edit - I’d like to add that the evidence that I have that New York exists at all is actually pretty suspect. Sure, my dad claims to have visited, but he seems to be suspiciously well off, and there’s no particular reason to think that being an electrical engineer had anything to do with that. Hmmm…