Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: psikeyhackr on 12/04/2009 05:11:21
-
If a falling mass hits a sequence of stationary supports and breaks them, what is the effect of adding mass to those supports? Do the masses result in more supports being broken because of the increased weight or does the conservation of momentum slow the falling mass so much that the reduced kinetic energy results in fewer broken supports?
Without added mass an average of 17.75 toothpicks were broken in 4 drops.
With various configurations of mass an average of 6.64 were broken in 14 drops.
So the mass reduced toothpick destruction by 63%.
The tilt in the washers means the falling mass does not accelerate the entire washer in a uniform manner. A better support system needs to be developed.
But is common understanding of this phenomenon relevant to world politics?
psik
-
How is it relevant to world politics?
-
Breaking like nuts
-
This guy was breaking like nuts, didn't work though. [:)]
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_GOVsUOzHSfc%2FSIoHAt-S98I%2FAAAAAAAAAFc%2FiT5ElvMhIGw%2Fs400%2Fmotorcycle-crash-740712.jpg&hash=4ecba3ff1229699573b353923dc22f73)
-
How is it relevant to world politics?
Well there were these buildings in New York I think that supposedly underwent top down gravitational collapses because of airliner impacts and fires. And this seems to have stirred up a bit of a ruckus with lots of people getting killed in Iraq.
So I was wondering if a top down gravitational collapse was actually possible but part of the problem is that I don't know the distribution of steel and concrete in the buildings. I figure the steel should get stronger and heavier toward the bottom but I don't know how fast.
After I shot most of the video it occurred to me that by using wire instead of toothpicks I could vary the strength at each level with the gauge of the wire. Maybe solve that tilt problem too.
But what would happen if it were PROVEN that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the top 11% by volume of a skyscraper to crush the bottom 85%? That 11% by volume might be less than 5% by weight.
psik
-
I think you should stick this thread somewhere else where more people will read it.
-
This guy was breaking like nuts, didn't work though. [:)]
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_GOVsUOzHSfc%2FSIoHAt-S98I%2FAAAAAAAAAFc%2FiT5ElvMhIGw%2Fs400%2Fmotorcycle-crash-740712.jpg&hash=4ecba3ff1229699573b353923dc22f73)
LoL its cool
-
I think you should stick this thread somewhere else where more people will read it.
Where do you suggest?
You are welcomed to create links back to this thread.
I didn't know what the reaction would be on this site. There is a lot of anti-9/11 sentiment out there. I have had two threads locked on other sites.
What I find odd is so many people who claim to be interested in science do not find the whole 9/11 business fascinating. Shouldn't it be obvious that the distribution of mass and the distribution of steel are important to skyscraper design? So how could the top 10% crush the rest in less than 18 seconds? "Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice. [91]
psik
-
Put it in New Theories (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=18.0)
-
But what would happen if it were PROVEN that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the top 11% by volume of a skyscraper to crush the bottom 85%? That 11% by volume might be less than 5% by weight.
What about the other 5%?
-------
Okay, I've had a look at that video. I don't know anything about the physics behind this so my comments are most likely to be of no use to anybody. [:)]
But from what I understand, tell me if this is right or not. What you are saying is that the engineers did not design the building properly correct? So why do you think the building collapsed?
-
But what would happen if it were PROVEN that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the top 11% by volume of a skyscraper to crush the bottom 85%? That 11% by volume might be less than 5% by weight.
What about the other 5%?
-------
Okay, I've had a look at that video. I don't know anything about the physics behind this so my comments are most likely to be of no use to anybody. [:)]
But from what I understand, tell me if this is right or not. What you are saying is that the engineers did not design the building properly correct? So why do you think the building collapsed?
The distribution of mass in skyscrapers cannot be uniform. They are bottom heavy because they must get stronger toward the bottom to hold the weight above.
No, I would say the building never should have collapsed. There was nothing wrong with it. But the idea that the top 10% could crush the rest in less than 18 seconds is utterly absurd.
But the inherent physics of skyscrapers should have told everyone that planes could not destroy the buildings that fast.
psik
-
So what happened?
-
So what happened?
So did you watch the video I linked to?
psik
-
Yes, I've still got it.
-
Yes, I've still got it.
Then I don't understand your question:
So what happened?
psik
-
What I meant was: so what happened to the building if, as you say:
the building never should have collapsed. There was nothing wrong with it. But the idea that the top 10% could crush the rest in less than 18 seconds is utterly absurd.
...the inherent physics of skyscrapers should have told everyone that planes could not destroy the buildings that fast.
-
What I meant was: so what happened to the building if, as you say:the building never should have collapsed. There was nothing wrong with it. But the idea that the top 10% could crush the rest in less than 18 seconds is utterly absurd.
...the inherent physics of skyscrapers should have told everyone that planes could not destroy the buildings that fast.
I supplied you with a video about WHAT DID HAPPEN.
I am not approaching the problem from that perspective however. I am attrmpting to demonstrate that the Official Story is IMPOSSIBLE. Due to the Conservation of Momentum and the way Mass Must be DISTRIBUTED in a skyscraper it should be IMPOSSIBLE for the top 10% by volume of a skyscraper to crush the bottom 85%. 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. But no official source has given us the distribution of steel and concrete of the WTC towers in SEVEN YEARS. We should have had it in SIX MONTHS.
psik
-
Perhaps your experiment did not accurately model the situation? You are suggesting that the distribution of mass was not bottom heavy so the building collapsed, just like your toothpicks?
-
Perhaps your experiment did not accurately model the situation? You are suggesting that the distribution of mass was not bottom heavy so the building collapsed, just like your toothpicks?
Excuse me?
I said skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. The WTC was bottom heavy. Lon Water has a site showing the cross section of the columns.
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/system:list-all-pages
But that means skyscrapers get stronger going down. My toothpicks were the SAME going down. Therefore my model should be MORE LIKELY to collapse than the towers. But my model stopped the falling mass even faster with mass than without. Therefore distribution of mass should be important to the analysis of the WTC.
So why don't we have that information made public from an Official Source in SEVEN YEARS?
psik
-
Ohhh!
Sorry, excuse me. A bit of misunderstanding from my part. [:I]
But now I see. Now isn't that wierd? [???]
What kind of a plane was it? How many passengers were on it and how many people were in the building? Are we given this information?
-
Ohhh!
Sorry, excuse me. A bit of misunderstanding from my part. [:I]
But now I see. Now isn't that wierd? [???]
What kind of a plane was it? How many passengers were on it and how many people were in the building? Are we given this information?
.
The NIST report goes into considerable detail about the planes, pitch, yaw, angle of impact. One plane had 5 ton of cargo and the other had 9. I never focused on the number of people. The total mass of the planes was less than 150 tons. That included 10,000 gallons of fuel which was 34 tons.
But my point in this thread is the collapse. I am taking for granted that the plane and fires could cause the collapse. But could the top of the north tower destroy the rest? I say it could not but accurate information on the distribution of steel and concrete is the minimum information needed to begin analyzing this so why weren't the EXPERTS demanding this SEVEN YEARS ago?
psik
-
I say it could not but accurate information on the distribution of steel and concrete is the minimum information needed to begin analyzing this so why weren't the EXPERTS demanding this SEVEN YEARS ago?
Well I'm afraid I cannot answer you on that one...
I do agree that this information should be given.
-
The problem with this theory is that skyscrapers are not stronger at the bottom than the top- they're *thicker* at the bottom, but then again they've got more weight on them, so they have to be.
So if the top collapses, and it falls and overloads the next bit down by 50%. That in turn falls and overloads the next bit down by 50% (because it picked up the next stories weight as well) and so on. At each and every point the overload percentage is the same, and so the whole thing fails together.
And that's because these buildings are designed to be equally stressed at every point, because that minimises the construction cost.
The kind of failure you saw at 9/11 is exactly what you would expect.
-
The problem with this theory is that skyscrapers are not stronger at the bottom than the top- they're *thicker* at the bottom, but then again they've got more weight on them, so they have to be.
The kind of failure you saw at 9/11 is exactly what you would expect.
How structural steel gets thicker without getting stronger is beyond my comprehension. Considering that any skyscraper most support more weight toward the bottom to say it doesn't get stronger makes absolutely no sense.
But my toothpicks were not getting stronger toward the bottom but adding mass obviously reduced the number broken. So the effect of conservation of momentum slowed the falling mass down reducing its kinetic energy and the amount of destruction. So why didn't that happen at the WTC? And why don't we have distribution of mass data on the towers? It looks like that Danish scientist is explaining why the towers came down so fast.
And then there is the matter of all that collateral damage. Tons of material hurled 600 feet to the Winter Garden.
psik
PS - There seems to be a BIG jump in the number of views.
-
PS - There seems to be a BIG jump in the number of views.
You mean this thread or your Youtube video?
Is that good [:)] or bad [:(]?
-
The reason it's not stronger is because metal has a maximum stress it can survive.
Stress is force per unit area. The area of girder is greater at the base because there's more weight on it, so it needs to be- the engineers optimised (minimised) the amount of girder so that the stress is the same at the bottom as at the top; and then added a 'safety factor' on top; usually a factor of 2 or so.
You could potentially simulate this by using more toothpicks to support the lower, heavier parts.
But unfortunately this means that when the building begins to pancake the proportion of the weight it's designed to withstand is exceeded all the way down, by the same proportion- basically each floor is trying to catch all the floors above it moving downwards, but there's more and more weight moving downwards as the failure propagates.
It's possible to make a building that doesn't fail like this, but it would make the building several times more expensive to build, because each floor would have to survive several times the force than the WTC girders were designed for.
-
PS - There seems to be a BIG jump in the number of views.
You mean this thread or your Youtube video?
Is that good [:)] or bad [:(]?
This thread. It was in the low 200s then the next time I checked it was 330.
-
Hmmm...shows how popular wolfekeeper is. [;)]
-
But unfortunately this means that when the building begins to pancake the proportion of the weight it's designed to withstand is exceeded all the way down, by the same proportion- basically each floor is trying to catch all the floors above it moving downwards, but there's more and more weight moving downwards as the failure propagates.
The sections of columns were 36 feet long. So there were 38 sections from the top to the bottom of the towers. Lighter columns that the top would be bending and joints getting out of alignment long before failure would occur at the bottom.
But in order for that to be happening MASS would have to be accelerated from the top. As my demonstration shows, stationary mass would slow down the falling mass. It could not come down in less than 18 seconds. Something had to be taking out the columns.
psik
-
Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?
-
Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?
Mostly.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html
psik
-
Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?
Mostly.
So is that a Yes or a No?
-
Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?
Mostly.
So is that a Yes or a No?
It's a MOSTLY!
I provided a link with a spokesman from the NIST who talks about the times.
Of ourse people on JREF said he misspoke when I brought this up.
psik
-
Okay, if you say so.
-
Okay, if you say so.
Fun with JREFers.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4223153&postcount=91
psik
-
Of course the distribution of mass is also related to analyzing the impacts.
The NIST says the south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor even though that was 130 feet below the impact point. How much energy the building absorbed without doing structural damage would be necessary to know in order to figure out how much energy DID do damage. Distribution of mass would be necessary for that analysis.
psik
-
Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?
Yes, according to the 9/11 commission report they fell in 10 seconds. 10 seconds is unrealistically fast looking at the video footage and the true collapse times would more likely be 14 to 16 seconds.
WRT Conservation of Momentum and the collapse of the Towers, if you could remove all the columns and just have the floors magically hovering until they were impacted then the mass alone of the hovering floors would still slow the collapsing mass more than what happened on 9/11. I guess a similar point is being made in the opening post of this thread.
That's even without considering any losses from the system, like the very significant energy needed to pulverise all the concrete which must slow the descent, and the huge amounts of mass that is billowing outwards and therefore cannot assist in collapsing the lower portion because it is falling outside of the collapse.
I think the Towers were brought down by explosives as was the third highrise to fall that day, WTC 7. Please have a look at this short video of WTC 7 collapsing if you are not familiar with it:
If you want to have a look at what is happening under the dust clouds when the Towers collapse then this clip has a very good angle, and it also explains how the Towers fell so quick (because they were blown to smitherines)...
psikeyhackr, I hope to have a good look at your video when I get back from a short holiday.
-
So are you and psikeyhackr on the same page here about this WTC business? Except you seem to have a theory that they were blown up! Or is that just my misunderstanding? [:)]
-
What we have are either trollers or conspiracy theorists, neither of which stand up to scrutiny nor have a place on a scientific thread (IMHO).
-
So are you and psikeyhackr on the same page here about this WTC business? Except you seem to have a theory that they were blown up! Or is that just my misunderstanding? [:)]
That's correct, there are millions around the world who, based on the evidence, think the same.
Here are also over 600 architects and engineers who are publicly saying the same thing (if you look on the right hand side of the page you will see the main reasons)..
http://www.ae911truth.org/
-
So you're saying there were also terrorists at the bottom of the buildings and they detonated the bombs when the plane crashed? Or maybe there were just bombs put into place? [???][???]
-
So you're saying there were also terrorists at the bottom of the buildings and they detonated the bombs when the plane crashed? Or maybe there were just bombs put into place? [???][???]
I only have time for a very quick reply, most people who have looked at all the evidence and concluded that explosives HAD to have been used to bring WTCs 1 2 and 7 down as quick and completely as they did, also believe that the buildings were pre-laced for complete demolition, hence the saying "9/11 was an inside job".
Google 9/11truth and you will find thousands of websites on the subject, both for and against.
The planes and supposed terrorists were nothing more than a sideshow to the false flag operation that 9/11 was, and were inconsequential to the collapses that occured that day (most would also believe that the planes were remotely flown into the buildings and the supposed terrorists were just patsies).
-
So are you and psikeyhackr on the same page here about this WTC business? Except you seem to have a theory that they were blown up! Or is that just my misunderstanding? [:)]
I am not talking about what caused the buildings to come down.
I am saying that if planes, fire and gravity are all that caused the WTC1 and WTC2 to come down then it should be possible to analyze and explain everything almost second by second from impact through collapse with all of the computing power we have today.
The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. What kind of electronic computers did they have back then? Skyscrapers must hold themselves up and withstand the wind therefore the designers must determine how much steel and concrete to put on every level. Therefore how can a SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS be done without that information?
Science is not about BELIEVING. Science is about KNOWING. People that want to dismiss this as unscientific but haven't been DEMANDING to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers for the last SEVEN YEARS are full of crap. Those so called architects and engineers at AE911TRUTH haven't been talking about that . I have emailed them twice.
I have been to one of Richard Gage's seminars. It comes across as propaganda rather than science to me.
psik
-
WRT Conservation of Momentum and the collapse of the Towers, if you could remove all the columns and just have the floors magically hovering until they were impacted then the mass alone of the hovering floors would still slow the collapsing mass more than what happened on 9/11.
If it couldn't physically fall down even if the columns had been removed by explosive (yeah, right) then how did it get to flat from up?
So you're saying that it was collapsed by an alien force field or invisible rockets? Or was it all a giant hologram? Perhaps it never actually fell down at all?
You're not making any sense at all.
-
You want a petition signed Mr. psikeyhackr?
-
You want a petition signed Mr. psikeyhackr?
Do the laws of physics give a damn about a petition?
This ain't politics. This is PHYSICS!!!
Do you understand why the distribution of steel and concrete in the WTC is important to analyzing the supposed collapse or not? Are you interested in SCIENCE or not?
So do we expect high school kids to BELIEVE airliners could bring down the towers or UNDERSTAND why they could not? 9/11 is such a global event it involves global education.
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/contrib/911_physics_v9a.htm
I have been to a website where I read a post by somebody complaining about science education in New Zealand.
psik
-
Alright alright, just calm down matey. Of course I understand.
-
Alright alright, just calm down matey. Of course I understand.
WHAT? I'm always calm it's one of those Vulcan things.
Actually I'd like to beat a lot of these so called Truthers over the head. With them running around screaming INSIDE JOB and talking about JFK and Pearl Harbor.
Science is a TRUTH MOVEMENT.
Grade school kids all over the planet should be laughing at engineers in the United States.
psik
-
There is something very curious about the nitwits in authority.
If you download the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report and search it for "conservation of momentum" you will only find two occurrences.
In one case it refers to the analysis of air flow in a fire. In the other case it is about the effect of the airliner impact on the trusses supporting the floor slabs.
But about the ALL IMPORTANT effect of conservation of momentum on the overall collapse of the entire building they say nothing. How do you explain people claiming to be world renowned experts ignoring the obvious?
Didn't anybody like Cartoon Physics? [;D]
psik
-
More views but no responses in a week.
Fall of Physics
The people who claim the WTC towers underwent a gravitational collapse seem to exaggerate what gravity can do. This is a table showing the velocity and distance fallen by an object from a stationary start. In the first 1/10th of a second the mass moves less than 2 inches and is only traveling at 3.2 ft/sec. So a gravitational collapse of the WTC meant the falling top portion must have accelerated what it struck much more than gravity could have and also have broken whatever was supporting that intact portion of the building.
. v == initial velocity
Time V = at + v D = 1/2 at^2 + vt
v = 0
00.1 3.2 ft/sec 0.16 ft 1.92 in.
00.2 6.4 ft/sec 0.64 ft 7.68 in.
00.3 9.6 ft/sec 1.44 ft 17.28 1n.
00.4 12.8 ft/sec 2.56 ft
00.5 16.0 ft/sec 4.00 ft
00.6 19.2 ft/sec 5.76 ft
00.7 22.4 ft/sec 7.84 ft
00.8 25.6 ft/sec 10.24 ft
00.9 28.8 ft/sec 12.96 ft
01.0 32.0 ft/sec 16.00 ft
01.1 35.2 ft/sec 19.36 ft
01.2 38.4 ft/sec 23.04 ft
01.3 41.6 ft/sec 27.04 ft
01.4 44.8 ft/sec 31.36 ft
01.5 48.0 ft/sec 36.00 ft
01.6 51.2 ft/sec 40.96 ft
01.7 54.4 ft/sec 46.24 ft
01.8 57.6 ft/sec 51.84 ft
01.9 60.8 ft/sec 57.76 ft
02.0 64.0 ft/sec 64.00 ft
No matter what brought the towers down the conservation of momentum cannot have been violated. This is the equation for an inelastic collision in which two masses stick together. If the second mass is stationary then v2 is zero.
Conservation of Momentum:
(m1 * v1) + (m2 * v2) = (m1 + m2) * v3
This means the ratio of the stationary mass to the impact mass greatly affects the resulting velocity. If the impact mass is smaller then it will be slowed considerably, but in the opposite case the velocity of the stationary mass will change a lot. But in a gravitational collapse there will be the additional effect of gravitational acceleration before and after impact.
So I have done the calculations for 3 "magical" cases. In each case four masses are magically suspended and when struck from above each mass is released with no resistance. In case #1 the 4 masses are are equal, 2.5 tons each. In case #2 the masses are in the sequence 1, 2, 3 and 4 tons from top to bottom. Case #3 is the reverse sequence of 4, 3, 2 and 1 ton. When the masses are struck from above they begin moving on the basis of conservation of momentum and undergo gravitational acceleration until the next object is struck. Case #0 is just a 10 ton mass dropped from 64 feet with no impacts and is used as a reference case.
. mass 1 mass 2 mass 3 mass 4
64 feet feet 48 feet 32 feet 16
Case 0 10 ton 0 0 0
speed 0 32 45.25 55.43 64 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.41 1.73 2 sec
Case 1 2.5 ton 2.5 2.5 2.5
speed 0 32 16 35.78 23.85 39.91 29.93 43.82 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.618 14% 2.12 23% 2.554 sec 28%
Case 2 1 ton 2 3 4
speed 0 32 10.67 33.74 16.87 36.17 21.70 38.66 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.721 22% 2.324 34% 2.854 sec 43%
Case 3 4 ton 3 2 1
speed 0 32 18.29 37.35 29.05 43.23 38.91 50.37 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.58 12% 2.023 17% 2.381 sec 19%
The Case line specifies the weight of mass at each of the 4 heights, 64, 48, 32 and 16 feet. These heights were chosen because they correspond to the "1/2 * 32 feet/sec^2" that is in the distance from acceleration equation thereby making calculations easier.
The speed line has the velocity of the net mass before and after impact based on conservation of momentum.
The time line has the time for the mass to fall to that point and the percentage difference from Case 0.
A body in freefall dropped from the top of the World Trade Center would have taken 9.2 seconds to reach the ground. The NIST says the tower that took longer to collapse did it in 11 seconds. So that is only 20% longer than the freefall time. But the WTC collapses required that the tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete which had held up the buildings for 28 years be bent and broken and crushed. So how is it that only my absurd and miraculous collapse with inverted masses and disappearing supports comes down that fast in relation to freefall? A skyscraper must be bottom heavy and Case #2 using that distribution has double that percentage of time but it didn't require kinetic energy be used to break supports.
So what is the story with all of these people that claim there was a gravitational collapse but also pretend that knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level isn't necessary? I have demonstrated that changing the distribution of mass alters the collapse time regardless of the strength of the material involved and how much kinetic energy would be required to break it.
Time and velocity calculations after impacts:
. After Impact #1:
Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 16t 1 = t^2 + t t = 0.618 19.78+16
Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 10.67t 1 = t^2 + 0.666875t t = 0.721 23.07+10.67
Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 18.29t 1 = t^2 + 1.143125t t = 0.58 18.56+18.79
After Impact #2:
Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 23.85t 1 = t^2 + 1.490625t t = 0.502 16.06+23.85
Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 16.87t 1 = t^2 + 1.054375t t = 0.603 19.30+16.87
Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 29.05t 1 = t^2 + 1.815625t t = 0.443 14.18+29.05
After Impact #3:
Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 29.93t 1 = t^2 + 1.870781t t = 0.434 13.89+29.93
Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 21.70t 1 = t^2 + 1.35625t t = 0.53 16.96+21.70
Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 38.91t 1 = t^2 + 2.431875t t = 0.358 11.46+38.91
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1058903#p1058903
No one on richarddawkins.net has found any flaws in the math since July of 2008, not even the man claiming to be a structural engineer. He just complained about left brained physics. LOL
Actually I think the people have chosen to BELIEVE the Officail Conspiracy Theory have chosen to ignore this.
psik
-
The examples you've calculated are the wrong ones.
You need to calculate the case with 1,2,4,8 or other exponentially increasing masses. That's what the mass in the WTC did- all really tall buildings have (more or less)an exponentially increase in the mass as you go down the building. The counterintuitive result with exponentially increasing masses is that if the collapse starts, it (nearly always) carries on.
(The reason it's exponential is that if you make it exponential, then it's possible to make the building almost infinitely tall in principle- in practice it eventually gets spindly enough that it gets unusably thin, so they stop.)
-
The examples you've calculated are the wrong ones.
You need to calculate the case with 1,2,4,8 or other exponentially increasing masses. That's what the mass in the WTC did-
Oh really? And what do you think that would accomplish?
What do you think the point of my calculations was?
The linear sequence with the heaviest mass at the top took 19% longer than free fall. The constant sequence took 28% longer than free fall. The linear sequence with the heaviest mass at the bottom took 43% longer than free fall.
So the sequence you are suggesting would have to take even longer. It is commonly said that the north tower came down in 11 seconds which is only 20% longer than the free fall time. My objective was to demonstrate that conservation of momentum alone would slow a top down collapse caused by the plane such that everyone should recognize that it could not have occurred.
So you are helping me win the war by claiming to have beaten me at a skirmish. Your assistance is most welcomed.
psik
-
Uh huh. So you presumably did the calculation and it didn't work.
It's all nonsense anyway; the building did fall down in the time that is showed on the video.
I don't care what calculation you can show that says otherwise; it fell down in that particular time. If your calculation says otherwise, your calculation is wrong.
The other thing you're failing to consider is that the structural failure happened at the speed of sound in steel. That's 4.5 km/s, so the entire metal structure can fail in the time that it takes the shock wave to travel the length of the building; very short. Basically the whole top few floors of the building acts as a pile drive and after falling onto the bottom section, the whole structure will fail in about a tenth of a second, then it's just gravity acting; everything just falls together.
-
Uh huh. So you presumably did the calculation and it didn't work.
It's all nonsense anyway; the building did fall down in the time that is showed on the video.
I don't care what calculation you can show that says otherwise; it fell down in that particular time. If your calculation says otherwise, your calculation is wrong.
You can presume whatever you like. I didn't bother doing the calculations. The larger the stationary mass the more it slows down the mass falling on it.
I am not disputing the collapse time. I am just pointing out the IMPOSSIBILITY of it being a top down collapse without something destroying the supports to make it happen in that time frame.
psik
-
It's all nonsense anyway; the building did fall down in the time that is showed on the video.
I don't care what calculation you can show that says otherwise; it fell down in that particular time. If your calculation says otherwise, your calculation is wrong.
The other thing you're failing to consider is that the structural failure happened at the speed of sound in steel. That's 4.5 km/s, so the entire metal structure can fail in the time that it takes the shock wave to travel the length of the building; very short. Basically the whole top few floors of the building acts as a pile drive and after falling onto the bottom section, the whole structure will fail in about a tenth of a second, then it's just gravity acting; everything just falls together.
The upper portions of these buildings are approx 1/5 the mass of the lower portions, if anything is going to be smashed on impact it will be the weak upper portion, not the stronger undamaged lower portions. Also even if a shock wave were to somehow have destroyed the lower portion on impact then the collapse should represent that, rather than the progressive type of collapses we see.
With regard to earlier discussion of the mass of the building increasing lower down, I'm pretty sure it is only the steel columns that get bigger and thicker, the concrete and steel girders for the floors are uniform throughout the whole building.
-
It's all nonsense anyway; the building did fall down in the time that is showed on the video.
I don't care what calculation you can show that says otherwise; it fell down in that particular time. If your calculation says otherwise, your calculation is wrong.
The other thing you're failing to consider is that the structural failure happened at the speed of sound in steel. That's 4.5 km/s, so the entire metal structure can fail in the time that it takes the shock wave to travel the length of the building; very short. Basically the whole top few floors of the building acts as a pile drive and after falling onto the bottom section, the whole structure will fail in about a tenth of a second, then it's just gravity acting; everything just falls together.
The upper portions of these buildings are approx 1/5 the mass of the lower portions, if anything is going to be smashed on impact it will be the weak upper portion, not the stronger undamaged lower portions.
Nope, you've still missed the point.
If, for example the mass of the building goes 1,2,4,8,16
and 1,2 falls onto 4, and 4 is designed to withstand 50% at dynamic overload, let's assume that floor 1 and 2 acts as if it was twice as heavy when it impacts (due to momentum), then 4 will immediately fail and then 1,2,4 will fall onto 8, which will immediately fail and so on; the percentage overload *increases* as the failure propagates 1+2+4/8 is 7/8 whereas 1+2/4 is only 3/4.
With regard to earlier discussion of the mass of the building increasing lower down, I'm pretty sure it is only the steel columns that get bigger and thicker, the concrete and steel girders for the floors are uniform throughout the whole building.
Probably, but it doesn't matter; the total mass still goes up exponentially along the length of the building.
-
If, for example the mass of the building goes 1,2,4,8,16
and 1,2 falls onto 4, and 4 is designed to withstand 50% at dynamic overload, let's assume that floor 1 and 2 acts as if it was twice as heavy when it impacts (due to momentum), then 4 will immediately fail and then 1,2,4 will fall onto 8, which will immediately fail and so on; the percentage overload *increases* as the failure propagates 1+2+4/8 is 7/8 whereas 1+2/4 is only 3/4.
Probably, but it doesn't matter; the total mass still goes up exponentially along the length of the building.
Then you missed the point of my gravitational collapse calculations.
DYNAMIC OVERLOAD has nothing whatsoever to do with those collapse times. I said the masses were held up by MAGIC and moved the instant they were hit from above. There were no supports to overload. So the distribution of mass that you propose would just fall even more slowly than mine because you increase mass more than I do.
The conservation of momentum and the energy required to break the supports are two separate factors. That is why I did drops on toothpicks without washers to show the breakage effect without mass. It is difficult to support masses by magic in real life.
psik
-
You haven't even attempted to scale things appropriately.
I'm sorry but your simulation is simply nonsense, it is so very far removed from the real mass distribution, strength and speeds of the WTC that you can draw no conclusions at all.
-
You haven't even attempted to scale things appropriately.
I'm sorry but your simulation is simply nonsense, it is so very far removed from the real mass distribution, strength and speeds of the WTC that you can draw no conclusions at all.
If you watch both of my videos
You will notice that I have frames that ask about the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers.
I did not try to build scaled models. How can you build scaled models demonstrating the physics if you don't have the distribution of mass data on the subject? The purpose of my designs was to demonstrate that the material that we do not have accurate information on had to affect what happened.
It doesn't even make sense to have an investigation without information that simple. The NCSTAR1 report doesn't even specify the total quantity of concrete in the towers.
So you are correct in that it is not scaled. I never claimed it was. But the models are built to be variable and my collapse demonstrated that stationary masses slow the falling mass down. But the strength of toothpicks in my collapse demonstration is constant while a real skyscraper must get stronger and heavier all of the way down.
Your complaint is silly.
psik
-
How can you build scaled models demonstrating the physics if you don't have the distribution of mass data on the subject?
Yes that would be impossible (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/) to determine, and there are no resources (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) that you can draw on.
-
How can you build scaled models demonstrating the physics if you don't have the distribution of mass data on the subject?
Yes that would be impossible (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/) to determine, and there are no resources (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) that you can draw on.
Sarcasm is so easy. Let us see you Google the quantity and weights of the exterior wall panels.
I told you what to look for, so you didn't have to figure that out for yourself.
BELIEVERS don't need relevant information. Understanding is more stringent. Believers don't even need to figure out what questions to ask.
psik
-
This is a science board. And now for the science bit.
In science we develop a 'normal hypothesis' and try to disprove it. The normal hypothesis is the simplest possible theory about how something happened. We get the normal hypothesis by using Ockham's razor.
So, building gets hit by enormous aircraft full of flammable fuel, there is a huge fire started and then after an hour or so, the building fell down.
What is the normal hypothesis?
The normal hypothesis is that the fire causes the building to fall down.
Unless you can provide a reasonable model and use the available evidence to show that the normal hypothesis is wrong (to within statistical bounds), then the scientific position is that it fell down due to the fire.
You have not done the work necessary to disprove the normal hypothesis.
-
building gets hit by enormous aircraft full of flammable fuel, there is a huge fire started and then after an hour or so, the building fell down.
I love that SCIENTIFIC description.
The ENORMOUS aircraft was ONE HALF of ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT the mass of the building.
There were 10,000 gallons of fuel onboard at the time of impact but the plane was capable of holding 25,000 gallons so it was nowhere near FULL of fuel.
A lot of people talk all this trash about being scientific but then they use lots of subjective and relative wording to support their position and then have the nerve to use the H-word like that can magically wrap them in the mantle of SCIENCE. That ain't science that is PROPAGANDA!
If we don't have correct data about the objects in question then talking about a hypothesis is idiotic presumption.
What is the number and weights of the 12 types of exterior wall panels? That is what the airliners hit first.
If you want to see a HUGE fire look at that hotel in Beijing THAT DID NOT COLLAPSE.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7880348.stm
What does that say about your HUGE FIRE hypothesis? There is of course the minor detail of the atmosphere only being 20% oxygen so that jet fuel doesn't burn as hot as in an engine that mixes the fuel and air properly.
psik
-
I note your excessive use of capital letters, and the fact that you still haven't got any relevant data; another hotel caught fire you say, that wasn't hit by an aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel, and didn't burn down? What does that prove?
I also note you seem to be surprised that fuel which has a equivalent energy of 450 tonnes of TNT could take down a structure like the world trade centre.
-
I note your excessive use of capital letters, and the fact that you still haven't got any relevant data; another hotel caught fire you say, that wasn't hit by an aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel, and didn't burn down? What does that prove?
I also note you seem to be surprised that fuel which has a equivalent energy of 450 tonnes of TNT could take down a structure like the world trade centre.
You are very good at parroting distorted information.
So now you concede it was only 10,000 gallons. The plane wasn't FULL.
Is that equivalent energy based on a 100% efficient burn? Open air fires can't burn with 100% efficiency. That is why they produce carbon monoxide. You are SO SCIENTIFIC with your Hypotheses. LOL
But all of that is totally irrelevant to whether or not the conservation of momentum could have allowed the top of the north tower to crush the rest in less than 18 seconds. You are going off topic.
psik
-
I note your excessive use of capital letters, and the fact that you still haven't got any relevant data; another hotel caught fire you say, that wasn't hit by an aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel, and didn't burn down? What does that prove?
I also note you seem to be surprised that fuel which has a equivalent energy of 450 tonnes of TNT could take down a structure like the world trade centre.
You seem to think the aircraft impacts and the jet fuel is all that was needed to completely destroy those buildings, there has been two official reports so far and both (NIST and FEMA) concluded that the Towers survived both of these.
Ultimately it was ordinary office fires that officially brought down the Towers, that is why other highrise infernos ARE relevant, and there are many highrises that have burnt longer and hotter than the WTC Towers but none that have completely collapsed.
The NIST official account has approx 30% of the fuel exploding outside the building, and the rest burning off after a handful of minutes with it's main role being to ignite widespread office fires (FEMA had the jet fuel lasting 10 minutes).
These Towers were so strong they barely flinched when being hit by the aircraft and the accompanying jet fuel explosion, and yet after approx an hour later they both suddenly disintegrated all the way to the ground at a rate comparable to freefall, supposedly as a result of smouldering office fires.
As Psikeyhackr has said this is now going off track, he has raised a very important point and that is that the laws of C of M will not allow those upper portions to crush the much larger and stronger lower portions as fast as they did.
Even a C of M equation that assumes no losses, so is therefore unrealistically fast, will not allow such a fast collapse of the upper section simply because the sheer mass of the larger and undamaged lower portion HAS to significantly slow the falling mass.
-
What's happening out there?
Views have been going up for two weeks but no more responses.
psik
-
What's the point; you've made your mind up and USED UPPERCASE TO DO IT. Clearly if you've used upper case, then your point must be true.
-
What's the point; you've made your mind up and USED UPPERCASE TO DO IT. Clearly if you've used upper case, then your point must be true.
So where is your PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION MODEL to disprove my point?
SARCASM is great for debating but it is totally irrelevant to PHYSICS.
psik
-
Yes, I agree with you that it's only physics if you're using uppercase. That's how all modern physics is done, and it's not a sign of possible mental instability at all.
-
Yes, I agree with you that it's only physics if you're using uppercase. That's how all modern physics is done, and it's not a sign of possible mental instability at all.
So two weeks and lots of hits but no other responses.
Are the people that come to this site interested in science or not?
Would you care to explain how innuendo or mental instability has anything to do with analyzing the physics of an event SEVEN YEARS AGO?
psik
-
Well, you know what they say; conspiracy theories can be fun.
-
Well, you know what they say; conspiracy theories can be fun.
Anyone that cares sufficiently can search the thread to see what I have said about any con______y th__ry. All you can do is come up with psychological BS. (3775)
(6-23=3851)(6-24=3916)(6-26=4062)(6-28=4148)(6-30=4233)(7-2=4295)
(7-4=4373)(7-6=4457)(7-8=4540)(7-10=4648)(7-12=4748)(7-15=4883)
(7-17=5007)(7-19=5096)(7-21=5159)
psik
-
So, tell us again how you not bothering to model any of the correct stress or mass distribution in a 'test' proves that a building that fell down, couldn't have fallen down?
-
So, tell us again how you not bothering to model any of the correct stress or mass distribution in a 'test' proves that a building that fell down, couldn't have fallen down?
I need a long time to come up with an appropriate response to your deep intellectual input.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.msg253416#msg253416
It is impossible to make a model with correct stress and mass proportions without sufficient data. The NIST doesn't even tell us the total amount of concrete in the towers. If you watched my videos you will see I ask about the steel and concrete on every level. How can anyone build a model as you describe without that data? (5244)
-
Well. it's been 30 days with 30 hits per day and no responses.
Isn't this an issue that should interest science buffs?
Is everyone supposed to think what AUTHORITARIAN science tells them? I am getting lectured about peer reviews. European science is the only science obviously. We have socio-economically controlled science. Reality is irrelevant.
The so called educational system produces people that can't actually think about grade school physics for themselves. LOL
psik (6263)
-
European science is the only science obviously.
Spread the news in your country!
-
European science is the only science obviously.
Spread the news in your country!
White Americans are Europeans! So are Australians and South Africans and New Zealanders. I am not talking about superficial nationalist crap.
The laws of physics don't have a nationality actually. That is one of the things that makes 9/11 so ridiculous.
You can't build a 1360 foot skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put on every level. Aren't there skyscrapers in Europe? So why aren't the Europeans in Europe demanding that the Europeans in the United States supply that information if THEY CLAIM that a 150 ton airliner can totally destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours. LOL
psik (6339)
-
We don't have to worry that much about plains in our skyscraper here on the European mainland, seeing as we don't p*ss off other nations around the globe as much as you do.
-
We don't have to worry that much about plains in our skyscraper here on the European mainland, seeing as we don't p*ss off other nations around the globe as much as you do.
And that has what to do with physics?
psik (6438)
-
I just had an idea for another model design the other day. It would involve Newton's third law because the falling mass would be crushable unlike the stack of washers I used here:
When I originally came up with that model I intended to use larger washers. There is a size that is almost 2 inches in diameter and about 1/4th of an inch thick. But the hardware stores don't stock very many of that type. I would have had to go to 20 stores to get enough, so I used smaller washers.
But now I am thinking that by using the big washers a stack could be made with the washers separated by folded pieces of paper. Cut the paper into 1/2 inch strips and fold them into little boxes that could act as supports between the washers. Since the paper at the bottom of the stack would have to support more weight either thicker paper or multiple strips would need to be used. So the paper would act as the columns of the WTC which could be bent and crushed by sufficient falling mass.
So a small stack of washers, also separated by paper "columns" could be dropped down the dowel to test the effect of the impact. So if 4 washers separated by paper were dropped on 29 similarly separated washers then the bottom of the falling stack would experience the same CRUSHING EFFECT as the top of the stationary stack. This would slow the mass of the top of the falling portion and kinetic energy would be used up by the falling portion crushing itself.
The only problem with this is that the washers would all be the same mass. There would not be the tapering of mass effect as in a real skyscraper.
So if this demonstration collapse ALWAYS STOPPED short of complete destruction in repeated tests then what would that say about the WTC? Curious that so many engineering schools haven't come up with something this simple. Ryan Mackey suggested the principle in his 3rd Hardfire episode but not a realistic method of implementing it.
This would be better than toothpicks since the "paper columns" would have to be made stronger toward the bottom to support greater weight. A lot of experimenting would have to be done with the strength of the paper to be sure each level had the minimum strength necessary for a realistic collapse and yet be capable of supporting itself for at least a week to be sure it was sufficiently similar to a real skyscraper.
psik
-
I just videotaped my collapse last night.
I am using the 2 inch diameter washers dropped down a 3/4 in. diameter dowel. The washers weigh about 1.7 oz each. The washers are separated by strips of paper 1/2 in wide. For the top 11 levels the paper is 5 in long and curled into a single loop. The next 17 levels use 8 1/2 in paper strips curled in a double loop. The bottom 5 levels use one of each making a triple loop. This structure was able to support itself for 3 days before I did the collapse test.
So I am using 33 washers held up by 33 paper spacers. The stack is almost 24 inches tall. I raised 4 washers to a 45 inch height. That is where I drilled the hole for the straightened out paper clip to hold my falling mass. So 4 washers numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 separated by 3 single loop paper spacers numbered 1, 2 and 3 would fall onto single loop paper spacer #4 and the rest of the stack.
So my falling mass could free fall for about 24 inches before impact. Proportunately that is much greater than what happened to the north tower. My mass ratio is 4/33 or 12.1%. The height ratio for the north tower was 14/110 or 12.7%. But we don't have any trustworthy mass ratio for the towers.
My collapse was ARRESTED, just like the one with the toothpicks.
Single loop spacers #1 and #11 remained intact and all of the spacers numbered greater than 11 which were farther down the stack were unaffected. Spacers 3, 4, 5 and 6 were crushed completely flat. The number on 8 was readable in the collapsed state but the other side was crushed.
Since spacers 2 and 3 were part of the falling mass and were crushed this demonstrates that Bazant's concept of the falling mass remaining intact while crushing the rest is COMPLETE NONSENSE.
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Bazant is claiming something violated Newton's 3rd law.
Without the dowel there is no way this structure could have stood straight up. I am sure some people will use that to complain about it. It would be nice to have finer control over the strength of the spacers but I haven't come up with anything better yet. I haven't tried spaghetti.
It will probably take me longer to edit the video and make a sound track than the model did.
But the collapse was ARRESTED!
psik
PS - As expected.
PS2 - The parts for this demonstration are less than $20 so any educator can have a class of grade school kids perform the experiment. This bullshit dragging on for EIGHT YEARS+ is totally ridiculous!
-
Per psikeyhackr:
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.
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.