0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How is it relevant to world politics?

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

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

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.

Quote from: psikeyhackr on 13/04/2009 03:34:39But 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?

So what happened?

Yes, I've still got it.

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:Quote from: psikeyhackr on 14/04/2009 07:56:06the 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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

PS - There seems to be a BIG jump in the number of views.

Quote from: psikeyhackr on 18/04/2009 01:49:45PS - 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 []?

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.

Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?

Quote from: Chemistry4me on 18/04/2009 11:20:58Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?Mostly.

Quote from: psikeyhackr on 18/04/2009 19:06:38Quote from: Chemistry4me on 18/04/2009 11:20:58Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?Mostly.So is that a Yes or a No?

Okay, if you say so.

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? []

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? [][]

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.

You want a petition signed Mr. psikeyhackr?

Alright alright, just calm down matey. Of course I understand.

. 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

. 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%

. 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