[psikeyhackr]

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

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

[Chemistry4me]

How is it relevant to world politics?

[Raghavendra]

Breaking like nuts

[Chemistry4me]

This guy was breaking like nuts, didn't work though.

[psikeyhackr]

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

[Chemistry4me]

I think you should stick this thread somewhere else where more people will read it.

[Raghavendra]

This guy was breaking like nuts, didn't work though.

LoL its cool

[psikeyhackr]

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

[Chemistry4me]

Put it in New Theories

[Chemistry4me]

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?   

[psikeyhackr]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

But the inherent physics of skyscrapers should have told everyone that planes could not destroy the buildings that fast.

psik

[Chemistry4me]

So what happened?

[psikeyhackr]

So what happened?

So did you watch the video I linked to?

psik

[Chemistry4me]

Yes, I've still got it.

[psikeyhackr]

Yes, I've still got it.

Then I don't understand your question:

So what happened?

psik

[Chemistry4me]

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.

[psikeyhackr]

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

[Chemistry4me]

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?

[psikeyhackr]

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

[Chemistry4me]

Ohhh!
Sorry, excuse me. A bit of misunderstanding from my part.
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?

[psikeyhackr]

Ohhh!
Sorry, excuse me. A bit of misunderstanding from my part.
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

[Chemistry4me]

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.

[wolfekeeper]

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.

[psikeyhackr]

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.

[Chemistry4me]

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 ?