4 of 5
4
Materials scientist explains Twin Towers collapse
Posted: 26 September 2011 07:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4349
Joined  2010-08-15
psikeyhackr - 26 September 2011 08:18 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 25 September 2011 11:09 PM

What I don’t understand in all this is:

It seems that a major point… issue… is claims that the WTC collapsed faster than gravity would allow ...  or something like that,

The implication being that “natural” planned high-rise demolitions fall at a faster than gravity speed.


P.  I don’t get it
  how’s that supposed to work???

There is no such thing as gravity speed.  There is gravitational acceleration.

There are stupid people talking bullshit on both sides of this issue.  People have had TEN YEARS to sort it out if they were sufficiently interested.  But most people on both sides are just rationalizing their BELIEFS regardless of how dumb.  But why hasn’t any engineering school built a physical model that can completely collapse yet?  And then people are supposed to pay $100,000+ for 4 years of education at these places.

And then we have all of this talk about STEM education.  LOL

psik

Your evading the question.

OK so I’m one of the stupid people and in honesty haven’t spent much time on this since last year’s discussion and my own personal epiphany regarding why the WTCs fell so perfectly vertically.

So as a dummy I claim; I’ve heard people making a big deal out of the speed of collapse, , ,
Can you explain what that big deal is about?

What would a half second here or there mean to the basic facts of the situation?

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2011 08:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 26 September 2011 07:54 PM
psikeyhackr - 26 September 2011 08:18 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 25 September 2011 11:09 PM

What I don’t understand in all this is:

It seems that a major point… issue… is claims that the WTC collapsed faster than gravity would allow ...  or something like that,

The implication being that “natural” planned high-rise demolitions fall at a faster than gravity speed.


P.  I don’t get it
  how’s that supposed to work???

There is no such thing as gravity speed.  There is gravitational acceleration.

There are stupid people talking bullshit on both sides of this issue.  People have had TEN YEARS to sort it out if they were sufficiently interested.  But most people on both sides are just rationalizing their BELIEFS regardless of how dumb.  But why hasn’t any engineering school built a physical model that can completely collapse yet?  And then people are supposed to pay $100,000+ for 4 years of education at these places.

And then we have all of this talk about STEM education.  LOL

psik

Your evading the question.

OK so I’m one of the stupid people and in honesty haven’t spent much time on this since last year’s discussion and my own personal epiphany regarding why the WTCs fell so perfectly vertically.

So as a dummy I claim; I’ve heard people making a big deal out of the speed of collapse, , ,
Can you explain what that big deal is about?

What would a half second here or there mean to the basic facts of the situation?

If you ask questions with built in assumptions and I am supposed to explain your assumptions then I ignore the question.  Your assumptions are not my responsibility.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread757232/pg3#pid12427948

Could the top of the north tower destroy everything below even if the airliner could make it collapse.  I say NO.

But obviously something had to destroy the building.  Do I know what that was?  NO!  Do I have any evidence for it?  NO!

So if you can’t comprehend eliminating a negative on the basis of the physics and it is easier for you to believe airliners could do it, that is your business.  I am not going to engage in useless speculation.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 01:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2011-09-20

I get it.. I think.  psik constructed a mathematical/computer model of the towers collapsing due to aircraft impact and it produced different results from the actual event.

Well one thing is for sure… the model is not correct a model of what did happened on 9-11, because - obviously - it produces a different result from what was observed.  psik seems very confident his model of what happens when an airliner hits a skyscraper is correct.  He needs to convince others of that it is, but he’s not doing very well at it.  If people are being sceptical, then psik has to up his game and be more persuasive.  Getting defensive just makes him look like another crank, albeit unusual in that he doesn’t explicitly espouse any particular ‘conspiracy theory’ - but I don’t think the scarcely concealed suggestion of 9-11 being an establishment job and cover-up is accidental. 

For all I know, psik’s model might be spot on physically and mathematically.  I don’t know much about his model or the relevant field, so I can’t really comment on that.  But I can comment on how psik is selling his idea.  He sticks it up without much to support it and when people don’t buy into it straight way he throws a hissy fit.  What ever psik’s merits as a mathematical modeller, he stinks as a salesman!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 07:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
keithprosser2 - 27 September 2011 01:27 AM

I get it.. I think.  psik constructed a mathematical/computer model of the towers collapsing due to aircraft impact and it produced different results from the actual event.

For all I know, psik’s model might be spot on physically and mathematically.  I don’t know much about his model or the relevant field, so I can’t really comment on that.  But I can comment on how psik is selling his idea.  He sticks it up without much to support it and when people don’t buy into it straight way he throws a hissy fit.  What ever psik’s merits as a mathematical modeller, he stinks as a salesman!

Maybe people who can’t think in terms of physics should not comment because all they can come up with is psychological crap.  Salesmanship is psychological crap. 

The point is that if a model is accurate and it does not behave the same as the real event based on KNOWN INPUTS then there could have been some UNKNOWN INPUTS.  Like something destroying the supports underneath to allow the structures to come down that fast.  Physics does not give a damn about psychology.

People who think they are intelligent make such brilliant statements when they are engaged in their rhetorical debating crap.  My collapse model does not model an aircraft impact or fire.

The towers are called tube-in-tube structures even though the core was not really a tube.  My physical and computer models are not tube-in-tube designs.  A true tube-in-tube physical model with proper strength and mass ratios would be very difficult to design and expensive to build.  I have no idea how to do it.  In fact I spent years thinking there was no way to make a reasonable design.  It wasn’t until I gave up thinking in terms of truly imitating the building that I figured a reasonable approximation merely demonstrating the principles could be done.

But a tube-in-tube design cannot violate the conservation of momentum either and skyscrapers must hold themselves up.  So regardless of what really destroyed the towers to discuss this subject without recognizing and admitting that accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers is necessary is totally ridiculous.  So what is your psychological excuse for not wanting that and demanding it for TEN YEARS?

People claiming to be intelligent, rational and scientific should have figured that out in 2002.

Of course people who want to CLAIM that the towers could collapse but then can’t build a model that does have to come up with some kind of excuses and distractions.  How else can they appear intelligent in a debate.  But debating Newtonian Physics 42 years after the Moon landing is pretty ridiculous anyway.  LOL

9/11 is a Physics issue.  The 9/11 Decade is a psychological issue.

http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html

http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1500.html

psik

[ Edited: 27 September 2011 08:15 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 05:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  308
Joined  2009-11-30

If you believe two planes flew into two towers and made three buildings fall as if they had been demolished by explosives,
you really should check out the video at the end of page 3 in this thread.

If you still believe two planes made it all happen, please let me hear the rebuttals of what the highly credentialed people saying (that that is IMPOSSIBLE).

I believe a forum that purports to stand for science, reason, some idea of objective inquiry and perhaps (hopefully) even Truth, SHOULD take this question seriously.

 Signature 

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” -Voltaire
“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” - Thomas Paine
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan
“It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.” - Baha’u'llah

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 03:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
DarronS - 23 September 2011 05:56 AM

Twin Towers model challenges 9/11 conspiracies

Read the article. Alcoa researchers introduced 30 kilograms of molten aluminum to 20 liters of water. The resulting explosion created a 30-meter diameter crater.There is no need to speculate about 9/11 being an inside job. Science explains how the buildings collapsed.

Darron thanks—this is an interesting article.  I think the 30kg Al + 20l H20 story has been morphed somewhat on the internet (sometimes it is 20 + 20).
Below is the first ~technical article I found which seems to link to the story…
http://www.pyrotek.info/documents/insight_newsletter/Aluminium_Insight_2011-02_Wise_Chem-Explosions.pdf

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 06:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2011-09-20

Maybe people who can’t think in terms of physics should not comment because all they can come up with is psychological crap.  Salesmanship is psychological crap. 

Oh, I can think in terms of physics as well as anybody, and better than most.  But I haven’t seen your model or your calculations, so how do I know you haven’t overlooked something obvious?  Have you had anyone qualified check your model and workings? 

I am not swallowing the official line like some sheep, you know.  My intuition is that if you fly an airliner into a skyscraper it’s not all that surprising if it collapses, at least not in hind-sight.  I remember at the time being appalled by the suddenness of the collapse and its almost graceful fall.  But it did not occur to me at the time it was due to anything other than damage from the collision.   

As you bothered to check it and discovered an anomaly and are busy telling people about it on various on line outlets, presumably you would like to be believed. 

I am open to persuasion, but I am naturally predisposed to go with my intuition that the collision was sufficient.
I am hardly in the minority in that.  People who are predisposed to see conspiracies everywhere will accept what you are saying uncritically - I think it’s called confirmation bias.  If you want to be accepted in the community of conspiracy cranks, you have probably done enough.

But if you want to persuade people like me, you will have to do more than accuse me of being intellectually incapable of understanding physics.  You need to give me more physics, a detailed and exhaustive study, the results of actual experiments performed and so on.  A good example is the report issued by CERN re FTL neutrinos.  They are not going round saying “We’ve found FTL neutrinos and if you don’t believe us, you just don’t understand physics”.  They have made public every conceivable detail of their results and their methodology.  Do the same and you will be believed - if you’re right.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 07:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
keithprosser2 - 28 September 2011 06:36 AM

Oh, I can think in terms of physics as well as anybody, and better than most.  But I haven’t seen your model or your calculations, so how do I know you haven’t overlooked something obvious?  Have you had anyone qualified check your model and workings? 

I am not swallowing the official line like some sheep, you know. My intuition is that if you fly an airliner into a skyscraper it’s not all that surprising if it collapses, at least not in hind-sight.  I remember at the time being appalled by the suddenness of the collapse and its almost graceful fall.  But it did not occur to me at the time it was due to anything other than damage from the collision.  .

So your intuition told you WHAT about the distribution of steel and other mass down a skyscraper?

The concrete floor slab outside the core alone was 4 times the weight of the airliner.  That does not count the weight of the pans and trusses holding the slab.  I have never seen that weight specified.  There were 84 identical standard floors in the building.  Most of the other floors like the technical floors were even stronger and heavier.  Of course the steel in the core and the perimeter columns had to be distributed to support the progressively increasing weight down the building.

The CN Tower most likely shows the kind of distribution for the support material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBzLhy3Q7sY

But since the tower is not a building it does not have the constant added mass for the empty space and since it gets narrower at the top it would not have as much of a wind problem as the WTC.

Now my model enabled me to test paper loops to make them as weak as possible to support the static load.  The washers provided the mass which would require acceleration from above in any top down collapse.  Crushing the paper loops would require energy and the only source is the kinetic energy of the falling mass therefore it had to slow down to crush the loops.  It takes 0.118 joules to crush a loop.  The entire structure does not contain sufficient potential energy to crush all of the loops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Of course since we don’t have accurate data on the steel and concrete on every level of the WTC we can’t accurately compute the potantial energy of the towers.  It is so curious that qualified people have not insisted on that information for TEN YEARS to do that calculation.

I would be most interested in seeing any model you could make where the components sustained damage in the collapse process.  The cards in a house of cards collapse remain intact.

Now that qualified business brings up a very interesting issue after TEN YEARS.  We are talking about a GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS problem here so after TEN YEARS the qualified people certainly need to make this look difficult because they should have resolved it in 2002.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Tells us more about the “red thermite” you mentioned Psikey….
Isn’t that what you called it?  “Red Thermite”?
edit:  ooops my bad….“nano thermite”  that’s what you referenced.

[ Edited: 28 September 2011 07:25 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
Jackson - 28 September 2011 03:45 AM
DarronS - 23 September 2011 05:56 AM

Twin Towers model challenges 9/11 conspiracies

Read the article. Alcoa researchers introduced 30 kilograms of molten aluminum to 20 liters of water. The resulting explosion created a 30-meter diameter crater.There is no need to speculate about 9/11 being an inside job. Science explains how the buildings collapsed.

Darron thanks—this is an interesting article.  I think the 30kg Al + 20l H20 story has been morphed somewhat on the internet (sometimes it is 20 + 20).
Below is the first ~technical article I found which seems to link to the story…
http://www.pyrotek.info/documents/insight_newsletter/Aluminium_Insight_2011-02_Wise_Chem-Explosions.pdf

So if you drop molten aluminum into a pool of water you get an explosion.

BIG DEAL!

First of all you are just SPECULATING that a large blob of molten aluminum existed.  The fuselage could not all melt at once could it?  So what happens as soon as one kilogram of aluminum turns liquid.  It starts flowing due to gravity.  Is it going to stay near the source of heat?  What is going to happen once it flows away from the heat source.  Oh no, it going to slowly start solidifying again.  So to get a large quantity of molten aluminum doesn’t it have to be in a container that can withstand the heat?

And then there is the water.  Wasn’t the water in pipes?  There wasn’t just a big pool of water for the molten aluminum to fall into was there?

So even if the pipes are broken there isn’t going to be a huge amount of water for 30 tons of molten aluminum to come in contact with.

There is a difference between speculation and a theory even if the speculation can occur under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS.  An airliner crashing into a skyscraper does not qualify as controlled conditions.

Apparently some people’s intuition does not match yours:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread757232/pg19#pid12437928

psik

[ Edited: 28 September 2011 07:34 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
VYAZMA - 28 September 2011 07:20 AM

Tells us more about the “red thermite” you mentioned Psikey….
Isn’t that what you called it?  “Red Thermite”?
edit:  ooops my bad….“nano thermite”  that’s what you referenced.

Provide a link to where I said anything about thermite in this site and I will respond.

Why don’t you get Mr. Spock to point it out to you?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Things are getting strange on Danish television:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

That can’t be good science.

Good science comes only from the US.

psik

This is from Apr. 13, 2009.  The “Inside Job 9/11 and Truth…..”  thread.  In General Discussion.
This is your link.  It provides a you-tube video with a title that references a Danish Scientist and nano-thermite!
You use links like this the same way you did with your “crop circle” buggery!
Little nuanced hints meant to foster mysterious, underworld notions. The “soup de jour” of conspiracy theorists!

[ Edited: 28 September 2011 07:55 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 08:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
VYAZMA - 28 September 2011 07:52 AM

Things are getting strange on Danish television:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

That can’t be good science.

Good science comes only from the US.

psik

This is from Apr. 13, 2009.  The “Inside Job 9/11 and Truth…..”  thread.  In General Discussion.
This is your link.  It provides a you-tube video with a title that references a Danish Scientist and nano-thermite!
You use links like this the same way you did with your “crop circle” buggery!
Little nuanced hints meant to foster mysterious, underworld notions. The “soup de jour” of conspiracy theorists!

So what did I SAY about thermite.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
psikeyhackr - 28 September 2011 08:04 AM
VYAZMA - 28 September 2011 07:52 AM

Things are getting strange on Danish television:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

That can’t be good science.

Good science comes only from the US.

psik

This is from Apr. 13, 2009.  The “Inside Job 9/11 and Truth…..”  thread.  In General Discussion.
This is your link.  It provides a you-tube video with a title that references a Danish Scientist and nano-thermite!
You use links like this the same way you did with your “crop circle” buggery!
Little nuanced hints meant to foster mysterious, underworld notions. The “soup de jour” of conspiracy theorists!

So what did I SAY about thermite.

psik

Why did you reference this video?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
psikeyhackr - 23 September 2011 09:34 PM

With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 1,220 degrees Fahrenheit, the melting point of aluminum — of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage — within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 1,470 and 1,560 F.

There were 10,000 gallons of kerosene, sometimes known as jet fuel.  Many sources say that 50% of that was lost in the initial explosive fireball.

“many sources say….”  What does that mean?  What sources?  List your sources!  Please don’t include overdubbed You-tube videos made by hermit-like cranks who haven’t seen the sunlight in years!

But!  What do you mean LOST!?!?  Energy or matter is not lost!!  It goes somewhere!  It’s transferred.  In this case into an explosive fireball!  Where did that energy get transferred?
Probably to a great extent into the steel and concrete that was surrounding the explosive fireball!
No, it wasn’t LOST Mr. Physics Master!
Where did that energy get transferred?  Massive amounts of steel and concrete were hurled down to the ground and much more to the inside of the building!
Of course…I wonder what kind of heat is generated by an explosive fireball from 5000 gallons of jet-fuel?  I guess all that heat was lost?
Just lost into the ether….

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 5
4