63 of 65
63
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 09 May 2017 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 931 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1265
Joined  2016-12-24

But Conspiracies & Dumb Analogies is all you got here.

psikeyhackr - 08 May 2017 11:57 PM

Is it a “Conspiracy Theory” that you can’t find the quantity of concrete that was in the Twin Towers in the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report?

I’ll bet you’ve not read the 10,000 pages.

Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows. One single tower has a mass of about 450,000,000 kilograms (500,000 tons). The interior design of the World Trade Center contains 240 vertical steel columns, which were called the Vierendeel trusses. These steel columns maintained the tower’s structure and helped to create an extremely “light"building.

Eric Chen—2004
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

Oh you can also subtitle this thread How To Ignore Facts Inconvenient To Your Pet Theory, or Refusal to Learn From New Information.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2017 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 932 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2773
Joined  2007-07-05
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 09 May 2017 07:42 AM

I’ll bet you’ve not read the 10,000 pages.

My are you brilliant.

I am pretty sure I have mentioned that I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report.  So it is easy to search on the words “concrete” and “steel”.  Concrete is used more than 3,000 times.  I read every paragraph using concrete.  And every paragraph using steel.  The quantity of steel is mentioned 3 times.  But I have been talking about this for more than 6 years.  Not one person has quoted the NIST report and said where in the report the quantity of concrete is mentioned.

So you can find data that was available before 9/11.  That just indicates that it is even more strange that it is not in the NCSTAR1 report.

The NIST report says there were two types of concrete, 110 lb/cuft and 150 lb/cuft

Therefore specifying the volume does not specify the weight, just upper and lower limits.

So your sloppy argument just shows that you operate at the same level as the NIST.

I searched for “center of gravity” and “center of mass” also.  More peculiar results.

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2017 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 933 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7727
Joined  2009-02-26

psik said,
These steel columns maintained the tower’s structure and helped to create an extremely “light"building.

This reminds me of the big sailing races, with 10 million dollar yachts.  They use Titanium for all load bearing structures, such as masts and booms. But instead of allowing for margins of error, they built these boats as light as possible (for speed), right to the estimated sufficient load limits.

An engineer once said; “we don’t need to built things right, we just need to build them right enough”

Well during an unexpected gust of wind this 10 million dollar boat broke in half and sank within several minutes.
When dealing with too many mathematics, any analytical conclusions have to be viewed with skepticism. Can anyone predict the weather or the wave movement of large bodies of water?

Is it not sufficient to say, we did not build this tower to withstand bombs, but to known natural structural stresses.

[ Edited: 09 May 2017 07:38 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 934 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1265
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 09 May 2017 07:01 PM

My are you brilliant.

Let’s see those paragraphs!

As for brilliant;
How brilliant is it ignoring the physics of how structural loads are transferred in a high rise structure?
How brilliant is it building a model that if scaled up would have the top of the towers swaying by a couple hundred feet or more and claiming you’ve replicated the towers?
How brilliant is it being amazed that liquid on a floor would take a 90° turn when running into an elevator shaft?

fyi
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19163/P30/#231777

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 935 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2773
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 09 May 2017 07:33 PM

psik said,
These steel columns maintained the tower’s structure and helped to create an extremely “light"building.

This reminds me of the big sailing races, with 10 million dollar yachts.  They use Titanium for all load bearing structures, such as masts and booms. But instead of allowing for margins of error, they built these boats as light as possible (for speed), right to the estimated sufficient load limits.

An engineer once said; “we don’t need to built things right, we just need to build them right enough”

Well during an unexpected gust of wind this 10 million dollar boat broke in half and sank within several minutes.
When dealing with too many mathematics, any analytical conclusions have to be viewed with skepticism. Can anyone predict the weather or the wave movement of large bodies of water?

Is it not sufficient to say, we did not build this tower to withstand bombs, but to known natural structural stresses.

I think you need to get your quotes straight.  I never said that.

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 12:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 936 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7727
Joined  2009-02-26

W4U said,

psik said,
These steel columns maintained the tower’s structure and helped to create an extremely “light"building.

This reminds me of the big sailing races, with 10 million dollar yachts.  They use Titanium for all load bearing structures, such as masts and booms. But instead of allowing for margins of error, they built these boats as light as possible (for speed), right to the estimated sufficient load limits.

An engineer once said; “we don’t need to built things right, we just need to build them right enough”


Well during an unexpected gust of wind this 10 million dollar boat broke in half and sank within several minutes.
When dealing with too many mathematics, any analytical conclusions have to be viewed with skepticism. Can anyone predict the weather or the wave movement of large bodies of water?

Is it not sufficient to say, we did not build this tower to withstand bombs, but to known natural structural stresses.

 

I think you need to get your quotes straight.  I never said that. psik

Aah, now I see why I attributed the quote to you. CC quoted it on page 931, and it looked like it was attributed to you. But noticing the link, it could be that CC quoted it from that website.  Nevertheless, what I posted is true.

There is video of the race and the total collapse of a 10 million dollar sail-boat during that race.
And the quote “making things *just* right, was from an engineer at a space testing facility and was in relation to the design of the Rover. 

My apologies for sloppy reading.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 937 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2773
Joined  2007-07-05
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 May 2017 07:13 AM

[
As for brilliant;
How brilliant is it ignoring the physics of how structural loads are transferred in a high rise structure?


So you claim know but don’t ask about the distribution of steel in the building?  Didn’t the lower portion s have to support progressively more weight?

So how much steel was on level 5 compared to 105?

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 11:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 938 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4178
Joined  2014-06-20

Just what is it that are claiming happened, psikey? What is all this supposed to mean? That the jets didn’t actually bring down the towers and that it was “something else” that was responsible? What are you claiming that “something else” was? Who, what, when and where? Be specific. No more of your vague conspiract theories where you never identify who it is or how it happened. You seem able to investigate all sorts of things regarding the WTC buildings and how they couldn’t collapse from two jets crashing into them. Where are your precise answers as to what actually brought them down if it wasn’t the jets, who was behind it and exactly how it happened? You spend all your time trying to dismantle other people’s assessments, but you offer no evidence to the alternative theories you hold. You don’t even offer a solid theory as to who it might have been or how they might done it. Nobody can respond to your vague ideas without something to actually assess and investigate. Come on, come up with a detailed theory with evidence as to what you think happened or even could have happened. Give us something to chew on. So far you’ve offered nothing but vague speculations and blind alleys.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2017 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 939 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
LoisL - 10 May 2017 11:24 PM

Just what is it that are claiming happened, psikey? What is all this supposed to mean? That the jets didn’t actually bring down the towers and that it was “something else” that was responsible? What are you claiming that “something else” was? Who, what, when and where? Be specific. No more of your vague conspiract theories where you never identify who it is or how it happened. You seem able to investigate all sorts of things regarding the WTC buildings and how they couldn’t collapse from two jets crashing into them. Where are your precise answers as to what actually brought them down if it wasn’t the jets, who was behind it and exactly how it happened? You spend all your time trying to dismantle other people’s assessments, but you offer no evidence to the alternative theories you hold. You don’t even offer a solid theory as to who it might have been or how they might done it. Nobody can respond to your vague ideas without something to actually assess and investigate. Come on, come up with a detailed theory with evidence as to what you think happened or even could have happened. Give us something to chew on. So far you’ve offered nothing but vague speculations and blind alleys.

That’s his whole point, he will never offer a plausible alternative explanation because there isn’t one.

The whole point is to keep this “discussion” going on forever due to all the “doubt” there is. Because exact information can’t be supplied on precisely how the towers failed then people like this who thrive on creating chaos will be there to stir things up endlessly.

Much of the evidence was destroyed in the massive violence in this disaster, giving a few sociopaths a chance to screw with other people’s head indefinitely. Think how much pain it must cause those who lost family in the attack to have it treated in this absolutely cynical manner.

What we can say with certainty is that massive airliners traveling at high speeds were intentionally flown into each tower causing severe physical damage. Intense fires that followed would have certainly weakened already damaged steel supports holding the towers up. They failed at the points of damage, the obvious cause of the collapses is the impact of the jets followed by very high temperature fires.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2017 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 940 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2773
Joined  2007-07-05
DougC - 12 May 2017 09:32 AM

That’s his whole point, he will never offer a plausible alternative explanation because there isn’t one.

Explosives are an alternative explanation.  You can find plenty of people claiming that and some providing what they regard as evidence.

I do not have it.

But pretending that not providing an alternative explanation is PROOF that aircraft impact and fire could make a 1360 ft building collapse in less tan 30 seconds is nonsense.

But government experts producing a 10,000 page report that not only does not explain the collapse but does not even specify the total amount of concrete is ridiculous.

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2017 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 941 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1265
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 12 May 2017 06:54 PM
DougC - 12 May 2017 09:32 AM

That’s his whole point, he will never offer a plausible alternative explanation because there isn’t one.

Explosives are an alternative explanation.  You can find plenty of people claiming that and some providing what they regard as evidence.

I do not have it.
psik

so why are you mentioning? 
Guess I can understand you not wanting to link to it.  I’ve stumbled on it myself.

Here’s what you think is perhaps worth entertaining.
The Rebar used to build the WTCs was coated with C4 way back during construction in the early 1970s.

An idea born of a fevered mind on so many levels I can’t fathom it.
But, the one thing I know for sure - it was someone who’s never ever actually worked with Rebar and Wet Concrete,
and the only ones that could believe something so maliciously-ignorant are likewise clueless of the most basic of construction physics.

This is’t not emotions speaking, it’s physics.

“The WTC Towers Were Built To Demolish, C4 Coated Rebar In Concrete ...”  nope not worth me linking to, google it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 942 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2773
Joined  2007-07-05

Common Ground Zero

WTC Specs; Official v Alternative Hypothesis

https://commongroundzero.quora.com/WTC-Specs-Official-v-Alternative-Hypothesis

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2017 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 943 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2773
Joined  2007-07-05

WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE AS INELASTIC COLLISION, AND THE
“VARIABLE MASS” PROBLEMS IN PHYSICS.
WHY- WITHOUT A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF BASEMENT
–  WTC1 COLLAPSE WOULD HAVE STOPPED 15 STORIES BENEATH

In these years since September 11, 2001, many remarkable studies and specialists have correctly criticized and
challenged the “official” version and hypothesis that just a “gravity - driven” collapse of top buildings, after structural
weakening by airliners crashes and fires, could have possessed energy enough to totally crushing down both Twin Towers,
(and especially WTC1, whose top damaged and falling 12 stories were only 10% of total building) and also WTC7
(which suffered neither an airliner crash nor big fires!).  However, no alternative study –  as far as known
–  proposed yet a physical/mathematical model explaining why, how and where the collapse of top WTC1 alone
would have stopped long before the total destruction of building. Therefore, this paper is the first trying to set out and
modellize the problem of WTC1(and WTC2) collapse as an inelastic collision in the frame of “variable
- mass” problems of physics, in which a variable initial mass (Mi ) - here the top 12 falling stories - with a
known accretion/ablation factor, under two contrary forces (here gravity(g) against structural resistance (n) of steel beams,
concrete flooring, etc. ) and thereby receiving a constant “thrust”, gets turned
into a final mass (Mf).  How powerful and correct this model is, can be evaluated just thinking that the “variable
mass” approach in physics and engineering was many times used, since the beginning of XX century,
to precisely calculate the energy to send rockets to space and to the Moon (it is also known as the
“rocket equation”).  Hence, just the many times suggested hypothesis of a controlled demolition, i.e. the
demolition of Twin Towers mainly through blasting charges at the basement, can explain their total and
quick collapse. whereas the “gravity-driven”  total demolition of Twin Towers by the collapse of top buildings alone
is an impossible mechanism in physics.
This model can also explain what really happens, in physical/mathematical
terms, both when a controlled demolition succeeds in totally destroying a building, and when it fails with just a resulting
partial destruction.

http://www.academia.edu/13907138/World_Trade_Center_Collapse_as_Inelastic_Collision_and_the_Problem_of_Variable-Mass_in_Physics

What is interesting is that he doesn’t even bring up the certainty that the mass density of any skyscraper must increase down the building,
thereby increasing the strength and the deceleration caused by the Conservation of Momentum.  The author does not even mention the
Conservation of Momentum in his mathematical analysis.  LOL

psik

[ Edited: 29 June 2017 01:35 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2017 09:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 944 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1265
Joined  2016-12-24

Oh dear,

{psikeyhackr}

The author does not even mention the Conservation of Momentum in his mathematical analysis.  LOL
psik

He? 
Alberto Miatello?

What mathematical analysis??? 
There was none.
Tossing out some statistical facts of dubious legitimacy is not an analysis.
Of course, if I was too thick to catch it, please do share and correct my impression.

As for Miatello as some sober arbiter of complex matters, he seems to have all sorts of theories that invalidates accepted science:

WHY LUNAR HEATING/COOLING DISPROVES THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY ON EARTH

Published on July 14, 2014

Written by Alberto Miatello

Fresh scientific analysis of the heating and cooling rate of the moon has produced startling evidence to show that the greenhouse gas theory of global warming on earth is false. Italian researcher, Alberto Miatello presents a simplified version of his peer-reviewed and verified study to show that mainstream climate science has misunderstood a key function of earth’s climate system: its inherent cooling abilities. Principia Scientific International presents Miatello’s summary below:

I have been asked to explain the main concepts of my article of 2012: “Lunar Cooling Refutes the Greenhouse Effect Theory”, without using too much mathematical symbolism and I am pleased to do that.

To be honest sounds more like a contrarian’s cottage industry.
Principia Scientific International even. 

psikeyhackr - 29 June 2017 01:27 PM

What is interesting is that he doesn’t even bring up the certainty that the mass density of any skyscraper must increase down the building, thereby increasing the strength and the deceleration caused by the Conservation of Momentum. 

God damnit Psik, think man think. 
All that extra mass density is along those bearing points, such as main columns and that incredible perimeter skirting, the “girdle”.
Now think of those blue prints and all that open floor space between those concentrated bearing points???
Why wasn’t that the first skeptical question you asked about this guy’s spiel?

Skinny trusses spanning the distance, simple steel pans filled with rebar and a couple inches of concrete.

Please explain how were those floors supposed to stop the building falling down on top of it?

What about all that floor space, that provided zero residence to the exponentially increasing load?


I read through your link, and it’s all handwaving and the usual nasty general slander towards the establishment and loads of imaginative doubt mongering - but nothing that gets down to the brass tacts of explaining how his supposition is supposed to work. 
He provides zero structural analysis except for one pretty drawing,
zero math,
zero recognition of all the floor area that provided next to zero resistance to the imploding load.

It’s all so sickeningly juvenile sensationalism, rather than honest curiosity to learn.  downer

———————————————

[ post # 943 ]

”How powerful and correct this model is, can be evaluated just thinking that the “variable mass” approach in physics and engineering was many times used, since the beginning of XX century,
to precisely calculate the energy to send rockets to space and to the Moon…”

But psik, we are talking about structural failure.
That’s a very, very different beast from the physics of energy and space.

Why do such freak notions capture your imagination so easily?
Why does your skepticism only seem to go in one direction.

Oh and then you never finish with a topic, always on to the next.

I choose to label that as intellectually dishonest.
Like nothing is ever allowed to get resolved.

Or like you’re trying to convinced me, hey here’s another crack pot theory,
a hundred crack pot theories can’t all be wrong!
The hell they can’t psik - sorry to say, but so it is.

It’s like you rather play games with your own imagination,
me myself, I rather try to hone my imagination to the
realities of the physical world around us.

[ Edited: 29 June 2017 09:13 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2017 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 945 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2773
Joined  2007-07-05
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 29 June 2017 09:06 PM

God damnit Psik, think man think. 
All that extra mass density is along those bearing points, such as main columns and that incredible perimeter skirting, the “girdle”..

Oh really?

Have you seen data on the horizontal beams in the core all of the way down the building?  I haven’t!

I find the total absence of that data very curious.  So doing math without accurate mass distribution data is kind of funny.

Frank Greening was doing the same thing. 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

However, in an attempt to disguise this “inconvenient truth”, GHE supporters are trying to put confusion in the minds of their readers. For instance, “Skepticalscience” tells its readers that on the Moon the temperature “drops almost immediately … in several hours” from 117°C to minus 110°C. They say it is “due to the absence of atmosphere (such as here on Earth) which (in their opinion) should “protect” our surface from the “cold” of outer space.

But this statement, as we have seen, is clearly wrong.

Far from its temperature “dropping almost immediately … in several hours”, we have observed that on the Moon it takes 14.75 terrestrial days = 354 hours (!), at the lunar equator, to “cool off” from the highest temperature (117°C = 390K) to reach the lowest i.e. -173°C = 100K

So, the cooling rate of the Moon is very much slower than that of Earth: the Moon’s surface is cooling at a rate of 290/354 = 0.8°C/hour,

http://principia-scientific.org/why-lunar-heating-cooling-disproves-the-greenhouse-effect-theory-on-earth/

Oops!  Just having two data points is not proof that the change is linear over that time.  LOL

psik

[ Edited: 30 June 2017 11:08 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
   
63 of 65
63