65 of 65
65
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 02 July 2017 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 961 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 01 July 2017 05:46 PM

[quite]Take this example of the Tower of Pizza. It has gradually increased its lean over centuries, but how long do you think it will take the tower to fall when its limit of balance is reached.  I would guess less than 10 seconds.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is 186 ft tall.  One of the Twin Tower was wider than that thing was tall.  The towers were almost SEVEN TIMES as tall as they were wide.

Even if the Tower of PISA fell over, it would be falling through mere air offering almost no resistance.

The whole point of what I have been saying is that the top of the north tower would be falling into the structure that held it up not essentially empty space.

People who BELIEVE things don’t ANALYZE things, or at least come up with analyses that are absurd.

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 962 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05
DougC - 02 July 2017 09:25 AM

There is no problem there, the thousands of tons of steel and metal in the floors above the impact and fire sites on the two towers were constantly under a 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration towards the Earth center, they weren’t in freefall.

You seem to have a semantic problem.  Force and acceleration are not the same thing.  A mass can fall at that acceleration only if Earth gravity is the ONLY NET FORCE APPLIED.

I brought up the Conservation of Momentum because I know that would be another factor.

So the north tower coming down in less than 30 seconds is still too fast, but what engineering school has explained that?

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 11:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 963 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
psikeyhackr - 02 July 2017 10:43 AM
DougC - 02 July 2017 09:25 AM

There is no problem there, the thousands of tons of steel and metal in the floors above the impact and fire sites on the two towers were constantly under a 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration towards the Earth center, they weren’t in freefall.

You seem to have a semantic problem.  Force and acceleration are not the same thing.  A mass can fall at that acceleration only if Earth gravity is the ONLY NET FORCE APPLIED.

I brought up the Conservation of Momentum because I know that would be another factor.

So the north tower coming down in less than 30 seconds is still too fast, but what engineering school has explained that?

psik

I never said they were the same thing, the only problems with semantics here is on your end.

conservation of momentum states that that the momentum of a system will remain the same if there are no external forces acting on the system. In the case of the twin towers they were under constant acceleration towards the Earth’s center at 9.8 m/s^2 as is everything at the Earth’s surface. They needed very strong supports to remain upright and when those supports were removed they accelerated towards the ground at 9.8 m/s^2.

You have offered nothing to back up your claims that this acceleration was “still too fast”.

As you have nothing but your bias to present here this is done as far as I’m concerned, I’m not going to waste a second more trying to explain basic physics to someone who simply refuses to listen to anything but their own bias.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 964 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
psikeyhackr - 02 July 2017 10:29 AM
Write4U - 01 July 2017 05:46 PM

[quite]Take this example of the Tower of Pizza. It has gradually increased its lean over centuries, but how long do you think it will take the tower to fall when its limit of balance is reached.  I would guess less than 10 seconds.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is 186 ft tall.  One of the Twin Tower was wider than that thing was tall.  The towers were almost SEVEN TIMES as tall as they were wide.

Even if the Tower of PISA fell over, it would be falling through mere air offering almost no resistance.

The whole point of what I have been saying is that the top of the north tower would be falling into the structure that held it up not essentially empty space.

People who BELIEVE things don’t ANALYZE things, or at least come up with analyses that are absurd.

psik

But YOUR analysis is perfectly correct, right?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 965 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
psikeyhackr - 02 July 2017 10:29 AM
Write4U - 01 July 2017 05:46 PM

[quite]Take this example of the Tower of Pizza. It has gradually increased its lean over centuries, but how long do you think it will take the tower to fall when its limit of balance is reached.  I would guess less than 10 seconds.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is 186 ft tall.  One of the Twin Tower was wider than that thing was tall.  The towers were almost SEVEN TIMES as tall as they were wide.

Even if the Tower of PISA fell over, it would be falling through mere air offering almost no resistance.

The whole point of what I have been saying is that the top of the north tower would be falling into the structure that held it up not essentially empty space.

People who BELIEVE things don’t ANALYZE things, or at least come up with analyses that are absurd.

psik

You’re the one who introduced the totally irrelevant point of how long the towers were standing before they failed, the Pisa tower analogy was introduced to show how irrelevant that was so don’t complain about what others are presenting to refute your endless conspiracy based BS.

So what if the Pisa tower was falling through mere air, it would only be about 1/3 of the mass of the top of towers that fell onto the structure below, which means that there was much more force being applied downward on the towers than the Pisa tower could ever apply. And the entire tower didn’t fail at once, it was a cascade effect as each section failed as the immense force of tens of thousands of tons of steel and stone impacted from above.

No, the whole point of everything you say here is you either don’t understand the physics or you don’t care and this is just trolling excitement for you, given your user name I’m guessing the second. What better way for a pesky hacker to get their jollies is playing mental games over one of the worst tragedies in American history.

You’re not analyzing anything, you make unsupported assumptions such as the towers fell faster than they should WITH NO EVIDENCE then inflate that into some deep conspiracy over how it had to be something else that brought the tower down.

You misrepresent the nature of the damage that would have initially been done, the massive airliners impacting the buildings would have acted like the biggest shotgun blast in history not fuel air bombs, then set up a chain of events that eventually brought the towers down.

Or in your scenario a mechanism not identified and almost certainly unprovable was responsible allowing you to spout your nonsense endlessly.

Pesky hacker says it all… and it’s us getting hacked here for your entertainment.

[ Edited: 02 July 2017 05:05 PM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2017 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 966 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05

Collapse Of World Trade Center 7 Leroy Hulsey September 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMV8E_83NiI

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2017 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 967 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner which they did.

They were also designed to deal with intense fires which they didn’t.

Why would that be?

Because the impact of massive airliners traveling at close to the speed of sound did terrific internal damage to both buildings. Which meant that the fire suppression systems designed to handle intense fires was totally destroyed in the affected areas. Also all the material designed to protect the crucial load bearing steel supports was also destroyed. Which meant that steel that otherwise would have remained within tensile strength limits lost almost all strength.

The physics was simple and inevitable, once the exposed steel was in the 1,800 F degree fires at the impact sites long enough it failed under the massive weight above.

Or you can believe idiocy right up there with aliens building the pyramids…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 968 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC - 07 September 2017 01:16 PM

The physics was simple and inevitable, once the exposed steel was in the 1,800 F degree fires at the impact sites long enough it failed under the massive weight above.

One little correction, it didn’t need to get anywhere near° 1,800 F to fatally weaken and distort the steel and induce structural failure.  Also consider that those column were heated differentially, hot side cold side, above and below at normal temps.  Imagine the stresses.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 969 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 08 September 2017 06:38 AM
DougC - 07 September 2017 01:16 PM

The physics was simple and inevitable, once the exposed steel was in the 1,800 F degree fires at the impact sites long enough it failed under the massive weight above.

One little correction, it didn’t need to get anywhere near° 1,800 F to fatally weaken and distort the steel and induce structural failure.  Also consider that those column were heated differentially, hot side cold side, above and below at normal temps.  Imagine the stresses.

It’s the definition of chaotic, we will never know exactly how the buildings failed all we can say with certainty is that a massive airliner traveling at high speed slammed into each tower doing incredible amounts of physical damage which was then followed by intense fires started by jet fuel that then ignited anything flammable inside the buildings. Things that don’t normally ignite at common temperature can at temperatures over 1,000 F. And there was no water suppression equipment left on the floors that were totally shredded by the
impact of those airliners. What would have been amazing is if the buildings hadn’t come down.

The conditions were hell-like inside the buildings at a point of impact and fires, certainly hot enough to weaken exposed steel, the buildings failed at that point, what else needs to be explained. More importantly we’ll never know exactly what happened because the conditions created were so destructive. What information we have doesn’t point to some other mysterious mechanism of failure. In fact the presence of other intentionally created means of bringing the buildings down is almost entirely ruled out by how destructive the conditions were.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 970 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7848
Joined  2009-02-26

How is it possible that a CO2 molecule could possibly cause GW?  Jeez, we can’t even see them. Do they even exist?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 08:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 971 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7848
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 02 July 2017 10:29 AM
Write4U - 01 July 2017 05:46 PM

[quite]Take this example of the Tower of Pizza. It has gradually increased its lean over centuries, but how long do you think it will take the tower to fall when its limit of balance is reached.  I would guess less than 10 seconds.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is 186 ft tall.  One of the Twin Tower was wider than that thing was tall.  The towers were almost SEVEN TIMES as tall as they were wide.

Even if the Tower of PISA fell over, it would be falling through mere air offering almost no resistance.

The whole point of what I have been saying is that the top of the north tower would be falling into the structure that held it up not essentially empty space.

People who BELIEVE things don’t ANALYZE things, or at least come up with analyses that are absurd.

psik

You forgot to mention that the top of the tower fell through mainly empty space of blazing office spaces. That’s how it gathered momentum.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 11:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 972 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 08 September 2017 08:09 PM

You forgot to mention that the top of the tower fell through mainly empty space of blazing office spaces. That’s how it gathered momentum.

I consider responding to moronic comments really annoying.  That is why I post to this thread so rarely.

The purpose of constructing buildings is to create lots of useful empty space.

However the horizontal beams in the core above the impact zone would have to encounter the horizontal beams in the core below the impact zone in the process of any supposed collapse.  It is rather interesting how people who claim the collapse was physically possible need to ignore all of those horizontal beams for SIXTEEN YEARS.  We don’t even have data on whether or not their thickness varied down the building though the cross sections of the columns they connected has been published.  Retard Gage does not even talk about it.

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 01:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 973 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7848
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 08 September 2017 11:07 PM
Write4U - 08 September 2017 08:09 PM

You forgot to mention that the top of the tower fell through mainly empty space of blazing office spaces. That’s how it gathered momentum.

I consider responding to moronic comments really annoying.  That is why I post to this thread so rarely.

The purpose of constructing buildings is to create lots of useful empty space.

However the horizontal beams in the core above the impact zone would have to encounter the horizontal beams in the core below the impact zone in the process of any supposed collapse.  It is rather interesting how people who claim the collapse was physically possible need to ignore all of those horizontal beams for SIXTEEN YEARS.  We don’t even have data on whether or not their thickness varied down the building though the cross sections of the columns they connected has been published.  Retard Gage does not even talk about it.

psik

Whatever it was, the evidence does not support anything other than is available. Can you add to the evidence?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 04:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 974 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 09 September 2017 01:24 AM

Whatever it was, the evidence does not support anything other than is available. Can you add to the evidence?

And you have what evidence that an aircraft impact and fire can make a 400,000 ton skyscraper can collapse?  You believe a video therefore it must be true, you just have to not doubt it.

I am not saying what did cause it, I just expect it to be proven with accurate data about the building that airliner impact and fire could do it.

Inquiry is not required at the Center for Inquiry.  LOL

The Conservation of Momentum is SO UNSCIENTIFIC!!!  The NIST can’t specify the amount of concrete in 10,000 pages.  I emailed Hulsey about the north tower but he did not respond.  I do not see what people find so interesting about WTC7.  He comes up with a complicated argument that will be nothing but expert vs expert where nonexperts can’t tell who is lying.

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2017 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 975 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05


WHATEVER HAPPENED: BELIEF IN WTC EXPLOSIVES WIDESPREAD ON 9/11 - UNTIL AUTHORITIES DENIED IT; EVIDENCE OF HUGE EXPLOSIONS, RAPID FLASHES, AND LIQUEFIED STEEL; NIST REPORT BASED ON PURE FRAUD

https://isgp-studies.com/911-evidence-for-explosives-and-thermite-at-WTC#intro

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
65 of 65
65