46 of 48
46
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 06 April 2014 07:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 676 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4298
Joined  2010-08-15
Robert Walper - 06 April 2014 11:47 AM
psikeyhackr - 06 April 2014 11:22 AM
Robert Walper - 06 April 2014 09:37 AM

the instant the upper 13% destroys the floor below it, that floor becomes part of the falling destructive mass and the percentage of the upper tower falling onto the next floor rapidly increases.

And the Conservation of Momentum does not apply and no energy is lost breaking supports.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l2b.cfm

psik

And you will of course demonstrate how the energy added by the additional collapsing mass is less than the energy lost due to impact resistance.

dang I promised myself not to post here again, but given Walper’s interesting posts, I can’t resist.
I’ll bet a few of us would be interested in hearing psik’s answer.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2014 07:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 677 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02

Readers should ask themselves: does psikey’s repeated neglecting of mention of the fact that the mass of the collapsing upper portion rapidly increases as destroyed floors add to it, indicate extreme dishonesty on his part or extreme ignorance?

I’d say the latter is clearly the case. After all, he doesn’t seem to understand this, despite well over a decade worth of time to learn about it, and instead claims the scientific community of engineers and physicists have ignored the issue. LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2014 06:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 678 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 06 April 2014 07:56 PM

Readers should ask themselves: does psikey’s repeated neglecting of mention of the fact that the mass of the collapsing upper portion rapidly increases as destroyed floors add to it, indicate extreme dishonesty on his part or extreme ignorance?

Or does it indicate that something else had to be destroying the supports for that mass to increase and accelerate?

So why haven’t physical models been built to demonstrate this phenomenon that Walper says can occur?  Shouldn’t it be easy for engineering schools to do if so?  But how many engineering schools have said nothing official about 9/11?

Anyone that wants to can duplicate my model for themselves.  No talk required.  Physics does not depend on what people say or think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2014 07:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 679 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 07 April 2014 06:14 AM
Robert Walper - 06 April 2014 07:56 PM

Readers should ask themselves: does psikey’s repeated neglecting of mention of the fact that the mass of the collapsing upper portion rapidly increases as destroyed floors add to it, indicate extreme dishonesty on his part or extreme ignorance?

Or does it indicate that something else had to be destroying the supports for that mass to increase and accelerate?

Present your evidence there was any other cause for supports failure.

You can start by showing how the added mass (thus energy) of destroyed floors in collapse is less than the reduced energy from impact resistance.

So why haven’t physical models been built to demonstrate this phenomenon that Walper says can occur?  Shouldn’t it be easy for engineering schools to do if so?  But how many engineering schools have said nothing official about 9/11?

They have better things to do than entertain ignorant crackpots about 9/11 issues. The ‘phenomenon’ I’m talking about is nothing more complicated than ‘stuff added to falling stuff adds to its mass and thus energy).

The fact you sit there and actually claim there needs to be a model to test that speaks volumes about your ignorance of simple physics.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2014 04:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 680 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02

Sure is taking psikey awhile to cough up those calculation figures that demonstrate that the added mass/energy of crushed floors is less than the energy required to crush them.

You’d think he’d have had them on hand close by, with all his posturing about the combined world majority of respectable experts all being wrong and not understanding simple physics, according to him.

Guess we’ll just keep waiting! LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2014 05:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 681 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 11 April 2014 04:55 PM

Guess we’ll just keep waiting! LOL

Like I am waiting for people to even specify the amount of steel on each level?  LOL

That is why I built a model as weak as possible to test it.  But then our engineering schools that charge more than $100,000 for four years of education don’t say anything about the subject.  Has any engineering school taken any official position on the collapse of the towers?  Shouldn’t they be able to afford to make models better than mine regardless of what the truth is?

But if they say nothing then they don’t need to do anything.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2014 08:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 682 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 12 April 2014 05:39 PM

Like I am waiting for people to even specify the amount of steel on each level?  LOL

And why should anyone do that? You’re the one who should do that, since you keep claiming to know the towers couldn’t have collapsed the way they did. Something you can only assert if you actually know the design and structure of the building in question.

That is why I built a model as weak as possible to test it. But then our engineering schools that charge more than $100,000 for four years of education don’t say anything about the subject.  Has any engineering school taken any official position on the collapse of the towers?  Shouldn’t they be able to afford to make models better than mine regardless of what the truth is?

But if they say nothing then they don’t need to do anything.

psik

Right, so you bringing up engineering schools is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Still waiting for you to present evidence that amount of energy gained from collapsing floors is less than the energy required to destroy them.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2014 06:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 683 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 13 April 2014 08:39 PM

And why should anyone do that?

To prove that the so called collapse could happen simply due to airliner impact and fire.

Right, so you bringing up engineering schools is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Still waiting for you to present evidence that amount of energy gained from collapsing floors is less than the energy required to destroy them.

Because more than 50 skyscrapers over 1000 feet tall have been constructed since 9/11.  My physical model “demonstrated” that energy was required to destroy static supports but if we don’t know the tons of steel on every level of the WTC then the potential energy cannot be accurately calculated.

Like good climate models can be done 45 years after the Moon landing but collapsing skyscrapers cannot!

Great Scientific logic on this site! 

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2014 07:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 684 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 14 April 2014 06:27 AM
Robert Walper - 13 April 2014 08:39 PM

And why should anyone do that?

To prove that the so called collapse could happen simply due to airliner impact and fire.

And that remains the conclusion until you present evidence for other causes.

Right, so you bringing up engineering schools is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Still waiting for you to present evidence that amount of energy gained from collapsing floors is less than the energy required to destroy them.

Because more than 50 skyscrapers over 1000 feet tall have been constructed since 9/11.

And I built several things since 9/11 as well. So what?

My physical model “demonstrated” that energy was required to destroy static supports but if we don’t know the tons of steel on every level of the WTC then the potential energy cannot be accurately calculated.

Like good climate models can be done 45 years after the Moon landing but collapsing skyscrapers cannot!

Great Scientific logic on this site! 

psik

So you again admit you do not know the amount of mass being discussed, thus demonstrating claims on your part about how the towers couldn’t have collapsed the way they did is a complete lie and an assertion made in pure ignorance.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2014 07:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 685 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 14 April 2014 06:27 AM

if we don’t know the tons of steel on every level of the WTC then the potential energy cannot be accurately calculated.

I’m sure we’re all still waiting for psikey to explain to everyone how he asserts the amount of potential energy cannot be calculated while at the same time insisting the towers couldn’t have collapsed the way they did due to this potential energy.

One wonders if he is really this stupid, or really this dishonest. Perhaps both is the answer.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2014 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 686 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 18 April 2014 07:17 PM

I’m sure we’re all still waiting for psikey to explain to everyone how he asserts the amount of potential energy cannot be calculated while at the same time insisting the towers couldn’t have collapsed the way they did due to this potential energy.

One wonders if he is really this stupid, or really this dishonest. Perhaps both is the answer.

Bump!

I see no point in responding to the advertisement of stupidity until it is about to scroll off the page.

Potential Energy is mass times height.  So it would be necessary to know the mass at the height of every level in the building to compute the Potential Energy of the entire building.  But the only PE that matters in the destruction of the building is the Potential Energy above the impact zone.  In the case of the north tower the mass above the 95th floor would have to fall on the intact mass below.  But the distribution of the mass below still matters because of the Conservation of Momentum.

Just because I mention one factor does not mean I have forgotten another that involves the same mass.

psik

[ Edited: 24 June 2014 10:05 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2014 01:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 687 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  541
Joined  2014-06-20

All the engineering “evidence” we’ve heard over and over again is of no use until someone can come up with evidence of who executed a conspiracy and how. So far no one has come up with anything but idle speculation, none of which stands up to scrutiny. Anyone who claims to see a conspiracy in the WTC collapse should consider the likely possibility that his mind has been permanently and irretrievably damaged.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2014 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 688 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
LoisL - 25 June 2014 01:48 AM

All the engineering “evidence” we’ve heard over and over again is of no use until someone can come up with evidence of who executed a conspiracy and how.

It ain’t my fault that you can’t comprehend that physics is more fundamental to reality than people. Who did what is irrelevant until the physics is resolved.

And that is what is so hilarious.  The bottom of a skyscraper must support all of the weight above.  In a high wind the top sways back and forth.  The bottom must withstand that stress.  So not asking about the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers for 12 years when the buildings stood for 28 presents a whole ‘nuther issue about the “intelligence” of society.

psik

[ Edited: 25 June 2014 10:25 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2014 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 689 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05

The Union of Careless Scientists is so cool.  LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-F2eU54XY

Apathetic Scientists Society?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2014 02:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 690 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  541
Joined  2014-06-20
psikeyhackr - 31 August 2014 08:40 PM

The Union of Careless Scientists is so cool.  LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-F2eU54XY

Apathetic Scientists Society?

psik

It took you two months to come up with that response. Wow! Great calculations.

LL

Profile
 
 
   
46 of 48
46