0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Per psikeyhackr:QuoteTherefore SOMETHING ELSE had to be responsible for the destruction. I am not trying to say what that Something Else was. That is other people's problem.In otherwords, the objective of the "experiment" was a foregone conclusion.This is a conspiracy theory disguised as a science experiment. This thread is locked.Mod.
Therefore SOMETHING ELSE had to be responsible for the destruction. I am not trying to say what that Something Else was. That is other people's problem.
If the poster had not sent me an irate message titled "Conspiracy Crap" I would be more sympathetic.
When the first set of supports in the Twin Towers failed to support the structure above them, the entire weight of the structure above that point acted like a hammer when it encountered the floor below the columns that failed. When that happened, the columns supporting many, if not all the floors below became simultaneously overloaded. Your model makes no attempt to take that into account, and your "experiment" is entirely incapable of including that effect. Also, the effects of friction between the washers and the dowel render your "experiment" virtually worthless.
Quote from: Geezer on 22/12/2009 08:26:14When the first set of supports in the Twin Towers failed to support the structure above them, the entire weight of the structure above that point acted like a hammer when it encountered the floor below the columns that failed. When that happened, the columns supporting many, if not all the floors below became simultaneously overloaded. Your model makes no attempt to take that into account, and your "experiment" is entirely incapable of including that effect. Also, the effects of friction between the washers and the dowel render your "experiment" virtually worthless.In the first place the columns were in the CORE and on the PERIMETER.The FLOOR SLABS that everyone makes a BIG DEAL about are supported at the inner and outer edges. The columns shouldn't come down on the floor slabs. But what people don't talk about is the BEAMS that connected those columns. Where is the data on the MASS OF THOSE BEAMS? So in order for the top of the north tower to come straight down then the upper core would have to come down on the lower core and those BEAMS would impact each other and masses would impact each other involving the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM.I knew someone would try to EXAGGERATE the importance of friction with the dowel that is why some of the video has TWO MASSES falling next to each other. One on the dowel and one in free space. You can watch them both fall and see how much difference it makes.Now about those floor slabs. Why don't you try finding how much a complete floor assembly weighed? It is easy to compute what the concrete should have weighed from the dimensions and the density of 110 lb/cu.ft. It comes to 601 tons. But the concrete was poured on corrugated pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. The upper knuckles of the rebar were embedded into the concrete slab so it could not be separated. So let's see you find the total weight of the entire assembly anywhere. I never have. And I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD two years ago. I have searched it hundreds of times. It does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.So how is it you can complain about friction when I have two masses falling next to each other at 1:30 into my video.Also I build another model and had just explained what it was before you locked the thread. I still have to edit the video. I can't show the new model there if the thread is locked so what does that say for your complaints about the old model even if they were valid?psik
As we have come to expect, you have done nothing to address the flaw in your model.
I was not referring to the model in your "experiment". I was referring to your mathematical model.