If you watch the videos you will notice that I did MULTIPLE tests with different values to show the behavior changed with the different values. So you didn’t get the point of the videos.
We must have correct data on the WTC to figure out what could happen.
Of course if one just believes and doesn’t question then all data is irrelevant. :smack:
psik
The last link has an MIT paper with the weight information and formulas.
“The Collapse of Twin Towers: Causes and Effects”
Once again, I was correct in the assumption that you never looked for the information carefully.
I rather trust the AIA, ASME and MIT than a guy that is just wasting his time with toothpicks.
Did you read my most recent post, #849?
To recap, in your video, you say:
And then you change the model so it shows what you want it to show. That’s the wrong way to conduct an experiment.
Why were the toothpicks 2" apart? Why did you change it to 1"? Why is the initial drop 12"? Are you just pulling those numbers out of your ass?
Strangely, you actually had it right to begin with. To paraphrase your own words, the spacing between the floors of the World Trade Center allowed the falling mass to gain too much energy.
You built the model. You dropped the weight. All the levels collapsed. If you’re not convinced by your own videos, I don’t see why we should be.
Since, as you yourself note, your model isn’t representative of what happened during the World Trade Center collapse, then what happens during different tests only demonstrates changed behavior in your model. It doesn’t have any bearing on the World Trade Center collapse, other than the broad observation that in a general engineering situation, different assumptions can lead to different results, which no one doubts.
If your model does not duplicate the behavior of the WTC, then you can’t make conclusions *about *the behavior of the WTC based on your model. So you can’t talk about “what should have happened to the north tower on 9/11.”
The only way to not pull some numbers out of my ass is to not do any experiment.
What is stopping you from making a video and pulling the numbers you prefer out of your ass?
How can an accurate model be built if the NIST doesn’t supply us with the information on the building? The real purpose of the videos is to show that these parameters matter to the result. Therefore the NIST should be providing us with accurate information on the WTC towers. We can’t figure out what could or should have happened without accurate data.
Did you notice that both videos had frames repeatedly asking the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?
The NIST can’t get its head out of its ass.
psik
My collapse model does not really have to hold itself up. After each collapse the wooden dowel that is what really supported all of the weight was still standing. There is no question that is not really a model of what the WTC did. It is a demonstration of the conservation of momentum combined with gravitational acceleration, but in order for the WTC 1 to have collapsed from the top down then the top had to accelerate the lower stationary mass.
So why don’t we have the data on the distribution of mass and why haven’t you people been demanding that information for SEVEN YEARS?
psik
I do not see where failing to waste the time and effort to gather and publish numbers that you want to see–when you could find them and calculate them, yourself, just as easily–is having their heads up their asses. If you think those numbers are so important, (hint, despite your delusion, they are not), then simply go to the board in New York City that has the job of recording the building specifications and get them yourself.
The fact that some crank wants to pretend that millions of pounds of material would simply decide to stop falling if something got in its way does not provide a burden on NIST. There are hundreds, (perhaps thousands), of cranks all over the country who each have their own silly, (and conflicting), notions why and how the buildings fell and it would be an exorbitant waste of taxpayer money to have NIST minions collecting all the factoids that would disprove their silly claims. If it is so important, do it yourself.
As to the repeated question: yes, I saw it. It looks like the sort of silliness that every crank poses when making nonsense claims. It is a standard feature in questions by Creationists with low budgets who believe they are “seriously” challengiung the Theory of Natural Selection. [ sotto voce ] "How could this happen without the Hand of God? ] [ /sotto voce ]
All of this is true, but none of it makes your model an accurate reflection of the collapse of the World Trade Center.
I suspect you’re trying to make a point about the convervation of momentum, but your conclusion is fundamentally flawed: your simplified model seperates the mass and strength components of the system, substantially changing the energy transfer.
Which, one could also argue, is fundamentally irrelevant. Anyone can construct a model that doesn’t completely collapse, with or without an accurate estimate of mass distribution. All it demonstrates is the ability to construct a model that doesn’t completely collapse; it implies nothing about the collapse of the World Trade Center.
.
The steel is put into skyscrapers for the strength. I am sure engineers would love a lighter material with the same strength. But the strength cannot be separated from the weight.
The toothpicks and washers allow me to separate the mass from the strength which is impossible in something the size of a skyscraper. Originally I had never intended to do a collapse model. I didn’t think of this design until after I wrote FALL OF PHYSICS.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.msg251656#msg251656
The masses in that mathematical demonstration are held up as if by magic but that cannot be done in any experiment. But it demonstrates that mass alone affects the collapse time. But that magical collapse would NEVER STOP. Mathematics is not physics.
I say you people have already decided what to BELIEVE and you don’t want to objectively evaluate what contradicts your BELIEF. As to having data, how many of you even know about the NIST not supplying the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels? Where is anyone on the internet pointing that out? Besides me of course. Where is there any reasonable physical collapse model? Why couldn’t the NIST build one?
psik
That should be a big clue that you are not correct.
In any case I’m not depending on the NIST alone.
So you’re David Harriman?
Debunk this:
US entry into the Afghanistan theater of war is analogous to US entry into the Iraq theater of war.
It is not because Iraq had diddly squat to do with 9/11.
I believe that the subject of the wars and 9/11 have to be treated as mostly separate debates.
I’m not sure what you want “debunked.”
The two are not analogous.
Afghanistan was an unstable, rogue state that was harboring a terrorist who had been involved in, at minmum, four separate attacks on the U.S., the most recent, (at the time of the invasion), being a direct attack on U.S. civilian and military sites inside the U.S., proper. Even if the Taliban was not capable of handing bin Laden over to the U.S., they were adamant that the U.S. was not to try to find him within the Afghanistan borders.
Iraq was a stable, if brutal, nation that was presenting no threat to the U.S. and was wholly contained, preventing any further aggression against its neighbors. Unfortunately, the U.S. president harbored a personal grudge against the Iraqi regime and Iraq happened to figure prominetly in the pipedreams of a few neo-cons whose grasp of history was warped by their wishful thinking.
Should I start a new thread, framing the Afghan war as something other than a conspiracy?
That’d be a start, though you won’t get much more data to understand than the PAGES you ignored in this one. You’ve already been told REPEATEDLY the steps that led to it. Yeah, ignoring facts is easier than understanding them, but do you wish to put the rest of us through the misery of posting them YET AGAIN?
Sigh… I dunno. I am attempting to not ignore anything. I understand the sequence of events. The motives and the results are still murky to me.
There are close to 900 responses to your thread here, the vast majority directed to your direct questions. Are you cognizant of the time and effort that has been put into helping YOU understand? I’ve been here for years and I’ve rarely seen this amount of time and effort to fight one person’s ignorance.
Frankly, you ask questions about issues that most consider non-issues by most, such as why the U. S. went into Afghanistan. I think you need to take some time and ask yourself why you’ve received ‘graduate level’ education on these issues and seem no closer to a basic understanding of the issues than when you began.
Put another way, what can we possibly provide you that will help you understand that you haven’t been provided already?
And which is a substantial difference between you model and the World Trade Center, which makes your model irrelevant.
Again, this is all true, but fundamentally irrelevant. Why would this change any conclusion about the collapse of the World Trade Center?
Probably because no one has shown how this would change any conclusion about the World Trade Center collapse. To be blunt, whether anyone has a “belief” or not, you haven’t presented anything that’s both novel and relevant for anyone to objectively evaluate.
Humor me for a moment: suppose you had an exact weight distribution for every floor of the World Trade Center. What, exactly, do you think you could do with the data? How would it be more valuable than boundary cases where the weight distribution is over- or under-estimated? More importantly, how would you demonstrate that any simplified calculation or model you make is relevant to the collapse of the World Trade Center?
Seems to me the lesson is obvious: future skyscrapers will not collapse as long as they are made of toothpicks.