The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2841  Postby psikeyhackr » Feb 02, 2011 11:11 pm

Kat Dorman wrote:Here I part company with you. Crush UP (versus down) doesn't mean compression of vertical members upward, it means crushing of the members above. All of the crushing is down. IF a story crushes completely, that which is above it has (by definition) moved down by the crush height in the process regardless of whether the story is part of the upper or lower. That's the Δh which plugs into mgΔh. If it's a partial crush, then adjust Δh accordingly. PE is lost according to Δh, not before the change in height occurs.


There is the SLIGHT PROBLEM of the amount of energy required to collapse a LEVEL!!!

Shouldn't that INCREASE as the columns get thicker and heavier down the building? So if you don't have the data on the steel you can't figure out what it is. So at best we should be admitting that it cannot be resolved at this time and be demanding the data from the powers that be.

But no! People have decided to believe the official story and now they must rationalize their BELIEF with defective physics based on ASSUMPTIONS. It is the 9/11 Religion.

For the hell of it I am computing the Potential Energy of my model so I can make a comparison to the amount of energy required to crush LEVELS since I can come up with meaningful REAL numbers for that in a physical model I can control.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2842  Postby tolman » Feb 03, 2011 12:40 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
tolman wrote:It's almost like psikeyhackr doesn't understand that a building could be quite stable in normal conditions, despite containing more than enough stored potential energy to pulverise the material it contains.


Nobody has accurate data on the building and you CLAIM to understand.

Indeed, I can claim to understand in general that buildings often contain sufficient potential energy to wreck them while actually being stable in normal use.
That's why a relatively small input of energy to initiate a collapse often ends up with a pile of rubble and a cloud of dust.

Surely you're not saying that with the towers there wasn't enough potential energy to account for the ultimate destruction caused?

While what *starts* a collapse and how a collapse progresses may be distinct issues, it'd be a pretty rash claim that we don't even have enough information to come to some conclusions about the stored energy and its relationship to the final damage seen.
For a start, that issue is pretty much mass-independent, since a doubling of the mass (with a given distribution) would double the stored energy and also double the amount of material to be pulverised.

As far as the towers are concerned, even most people making demolition claims are only really claiming a relatively small energy input compared to the eventual destruction, so they must necessarily agree that energy for the overwhelming fraction of the final destruction came from the buildings themselves.

psikeyhackr wrote:We don't know the distribution of steel in the building therefore you cannot accurately calculate the Potential Energy anyway.

How accurately does it need to be known?

psikeyhackr wrote:But there were two types of concrete used, 110 lb and 150 lb/cu ft. Try finding accurate data on how much of each.

You think that one type of concrete vs another makes much difference to what happens when a slab falls N stories?

psikeyhackr wrote:But skyscrapers must withstand the wind and that must put A LOT of torque on the base. So I am sure there was LOTS of 150 lb CONCRETE IN THE SIX BASEMENT LEVELS and I would bet money on plenty in the first five stories above ground level.

As has been pointed out by someone who seems to know rather more than either you or me, any sensibly and economically designed large building will be built to carry dead/live/wind/etc loads with some margin of safety over the maximum likely load, and may be designed to also account for various damage scenarios.
It won't be built to survive every imaginable scenario, because no-one would pay for a building like that, and even if some eccentric did, few people might want to work in the equivalent of an above-ground bunker (or to work with the kind of people who would want to work somewhere like that).
Designs will tend to be pruned down to vaguely similar margins of safety.
While even despite that, one design may be rather more resilient than another, and have more natural redundancy, what still really matters is the nature and scale of damage that could consume any safety margin and lead to a local failure, and whether a particular local failure could lead to a global failure in a given design.

psikeyhackr wrote:Let's see you build a model that can support itself and totally collapse.

Why should I or anyone else waste time and money trying to convince unconvinceable people, especially if those people aren't important enough to matter to anyone.
I just talk to the odd one or two on the internet for entertainment, but I wouldn't even do that if it wasn't free.

If there really were huge numbers of people who honestly believed it was a demolition job (rather than people having vague suspicions, and muttering things down the local bar) why can't they put their own bloody money where their mouths are and build a model that they can use to convince everyone else?
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2843  Postby Weaver » Feb 03, 2011 2:36 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
Kat Dorman wrote:Here I part company with you. Crush UP (versus down) doesn't mean compression of vertical members upward, it means crushing of the members above. All of the crushing is down. IF a story crushes completely, that which is above it has (by definition) moved down by the crush height in the process regardless of whether the story is part of the upper or lower. That's the Δh which plugs into mgΔh. If it's a partial crush, then adjust Δh accordingly. PE is lost according to Δh, not before the change in height occurs.


There is the SLIGHT PROBLEM of the amount of energy required to collapse a LEVEL!!!

Shouldn't that INCREASE as the columns get thicker and heavier down the building? So if you don't have the data on the steel you can't figure out what it is. So at best we should be admitting that it cannot be resolved at this time and be demanding the data from the powers that be.
No, it shouldn't - because, as has been pointed out innumerable times to you, the vertical support members were not crushed - it doesn't matter that they were presumably thicker and stronger, because they were bypassed in the collapse. As you well know, and as you try to ignore as often as possible to maintain your fantasy of what happened.

But no! People have decided to believe the official story and now they must rationalize their BELIEF with defective physics based on ASSUMPTIONS. It is the 9/11 Religion.
No, based on the fact that we understand what happened, and understand that some elements are irrelevant.

For the hell of it I am computing the Potential Energy of my model so I can make a comparison to the amount of energy required to crush LEVELS since I can come up with meaningful REAL numbers for that in a physical model I can control.

psik
And that will show what, exactly? Your model bears no realistic simulation to the WTC - the collapse modality there is completely different. Your computations are meaningless, as is your model - they demonstrate nothing relevant to understanding the WTC collapse.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 49
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2844  Postby Kat Dorman » Feb 03, 2011 5:19 am

psikeyhackr wrote:There is the SLIGHT PROBLEM of the amount of energy required to collapse a LEVEL!!!

Problem? It's a term in a relation. Setting up and solving equations representing the relations is a problem in the sense of a problem in a textbook. Getting very precise numbers is a problem in the conventional sense. Getting a ballpark estimate of the parameters and then doing said calculations is not much of a problem in the practical sense. Better still is defining the ranges in which the estimated parameters MUST lie, then running all possible combinations with a reasonably fine mesh to see what the effects are.

Shouldn't that INCREASE as the columns get thicker and heavier down the building?

Sure. But, as tolman points out:

tolman wrote:For a start, that issue is pretty much mass-independent, since a doubling of the mass (with a given distribution) would double the stored energy and also double the amount of material to be pulverised.

And that's if the primary supports (all of them) are indeed crushed. As Weaver points out, this is contradicted by the conditions of columns observed in the pile.

Potential energy, kinetic energy and design capacity are ALL directly proportional to mass. This leads to mass canceling out of a lot of things of interest. It's why the basic 1D mechanics result doesn't depend on absolute mass, but only its distribution - and even then not much. It's why I use unit masses as a starting point in computations and simulations instead of femr2's or Greg Urich's spreadsheets. All the masses can be divided by a common scaling factor and the results come out the same.

So if you don't have the data on the steel you can't figure out what it is.

You act like nothing is known. Could you at least estimate the error in available figures? Are we talking about being off by a factor of two at any scale above individual stories?

So at best we should be admitting that it cannot be resolved at this time and be demanding the data from the powers that be.

I claim it can be and has been been resolved for a 1D limiting case, which means a lot. The actual mechanisms will never be resolved with calculations or simulations to some arbitrarily small degree of error, though parts may be and have been adequately described and present no features which imply survival.

By all means, demand data from the powers that be. I'll keep doing what I'm doing. If you do manage to obtain sufficient information to construct an accurate database of all component masses, I will thank you heartily and gladly make use of such. The first thing I'll do with them is divide them by some very large number so the story masses are scaled to near unity. Since it doesn't matter for the mechanics, it's best to have the arithmetic performed on numbers of similar order of magnitude to avoid floating point pitfalls.

But no! People have decided to believe the official story and now they must rationalize their BELIEF with defective physics based on ASSUMPTIONS. It is the 9/11 Religion.

I took that remark personally before, but not anymore. There is religion permeating all sides of the debates on these subjects, I'll grant you that. Many people argue from ideology or their intuition and are right or wrong only by accident. There's a lot of certainty going around, even about things which are practically unknowable. However you seem to be hung up on the opposite. You argue that certain things are not knowable when they are, at least to sufficient degree to reason about the process.

Paradoxically, while you say facts necessary to arrive at a conclusion are unknown, you're quite convinced of a conclusion all the same. That seems like religion, doesn't it?

For the hell of it I am computing the Potential Energy of my model so I can make a comparison to the amount of energy required to crush LEVELS since I can come up with meaningful REAL numbers for that in a physical model I can control.

This can only be a good thing. After you do that, do you want to do the same for steel columns?
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2845  Postby psikeyhackr » Feb 03, 2011 4:07 pm

Paradoxically, while you say facts necessary to arrive at a conclusion are unknown, you're quite convinced of a conclusion all the same. That seems like religion, doesn't it?


That depends on how many FACTS about 9/11 are EXTREMELY peculiar.

Hijackers grab planes the same day the US military JUST HAPPENS to be running multiple simulations.

I can't fly but I would think people who had never flown airliners before might have just a bit of trouble doing suicide missions on targets 200 feet wide at 400 and 500 mph. Professional pilots don't land planes at that speed. They usually don't fly that fast at that low an altitude. That doesn't even bring up the issue of the drag on the planes at the higher air density of 1000 feet.

Then there is the amount of steel in the impact zone that supposedly weakened in less than ONE HOUR for the south tower and less than TWO HOURS for the north and then the experts don't make a big deal about the distribution of steel.

Then there is the collapse time which when computed purely on the basis of the conservation of momentum makes the so called collapse EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS.

The list of weird things about 9/11 is far too long.

But it is the 9/11 Religion versus the 9/11 Psychosis. People running around screaming "Inside Job" while talking about Free Fall SPEED are ridiculous. DUH, it's called Free Fall ACCELERATION.

But the lack of discussion about the energy required to collapse each LEVEL much less not inquiring about the AMOUNT OF STEEL on each level is even more ridiculous. Regardless of how dumb the people on the Psychosis side are the people on the Religious side have to conjure up delusional physics to make this fly. The inherent nature of skyscrapers in having to hold themselves up against gravity makes this extremely doubtful.

This can only be a good thing. After you do that, do you want to do the same for steel columns?


It would be nice but we don't have accurate data on the perimeter columns. We have no data on the horizontal beams in the core. The most doing these calculations on my model will do is emphasize the lack of data on the real buildings. Though it may show how irrelevant Potential Energy calculations on masses without empty space beneath them are to this problem.

Of course if it collapse is PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE then our engineering schools will LOOK REALLY STUPID for a really long time.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2846  Postby tolman » Feb 03, 2011 4:35 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:That depends on how many FACTS about 9/11 are EXTREMELY peculiar.

Hijackers grab planes the same day the US military JUST HAPPENS to be running multiple simulations.


If you're alleging The Grand Conspiracy has powers to take control of planes whenever they chose, why wouldn't they start by choosing larger planes, or choosing a less suspicious day?

Also, a Grand Conspiracy could easily have prevented any 'mayday' type messages being sent, and/or had someone impersonate the captain/co-pilot sufficiently well to allay suspicions for a substantial time (pretending mechanical failure, a need to divert course, etc).
It would seem to have been a doddle to get sufficient time to cause multiple impacts without any worry of the planes being shot down, without even needing to make the conspiracy bigger or more complicated, or choose one day over another.

At the time, who would even have *thought* of shooting down a plane over New York before being absolutely sure there was a threat (ie that there'd been one or more confirmed terrorist-caused impacts), or without passing the decision up to the very highest levels?

psikeyhackr wrote:I can't fly but I would think people who had never flown airliners before might have just a bit of trouble doing suicide missions on targets 200 feet wide at 400 and 500 mph. Professional pilots don't land planes at that speed. They usually don't fly that fast at that low an altitude. That doesn't even bring up the issue of the drag on the planes at the higher air density of 1000 feet.

They weren't trying to 'land'.
What effects of lower altitude would make it impossible to steer a plane?
Surely, all they had to do (barring the effects of crosswinds) would be to fly at roughly the right height and keep the plane lined up on the target?

psikeyhackr wrote:Then there is the amount of steel in the impact zone that supposedly weakened in less than ONE HOUR for the south tower and less than TWO HOURS for the north and then the experts don't make a big deal about the distribution of steel.

You forget - it's not the job of experts to convince conspiracy theorists.

psikeyhackr wrote:Then there is the collapse time which when computed purely on the basis of the conservation of momentum makes the so called collapse EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS.

I assume you mean eventual speed of the collapse?
With your physicist's hat on, what timings/speeds would have been less suspicious?

psikeyhackr wrote:But the lack of discussion about the energy required to collapse each LEVEL much less not inquiring about the AMOUNT OF STEEL on each level is even more ridiculous.

As has been repeatedly explained, in a decently-designed building, the safety factors are probably more relevant than absolute masses of material in a particular place.

psikeyhackr wrote:The inherent nature of skyscrapers in having to hold themselves up against gravity makes this extremely doubtful.

So you still don't understand that obvious fact that a structure can be stable in normal conditions, and yet can fail disastrously in abnormal conditions?

Also, I'd like to ask you my very simple question again.
I'm sure it needs no clarification to enable you to provide an answer, but if you think it does, please ask.

Here goes:
psikeyhackr,
It would really help people understand where you're coming from if you'd answer my question regarding the building X and the double-height building Y which has a top half identical to X. Given identical failure events at the same absolute distance from the tops of X and Y which lead to progressive collapse of X, do you actually expect the failures in the two buildings to have different histories before the point where the collapse zone reaches the bottom of X?

If so, in what ways would you expect the histories to be different, and what physical mechanisms would you suggest were behind any differences?
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2847  Postby Paul » Feb 03, 2011 4:44 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:I can't fly but I would think people who had never flown airliners before might have just a bit of trouble doing suicide missions on targets 200 feet wide at 400 and 500 mph. Professional pilots don't land planes at that speed. They usually don't fly that fast at that low an altitude. That doesn't even bring up the issue of the drag on the planes at the higher air density of 1000 feet.


If you don't know anything about aviation then I suggest you don't start spouting about it. It only shows another topic that you are ill equipped to argue about, and gives you even less credibility with this lurker than you had before (which was fuck all anyway).

Professional pilots tend not to land at that speed because their aircraft have tendency to keep flying at that sort of speed (due to the airflow over the wings producing lots of lift).
They don't slow down to make it easier to line up on the runway, they slow down as they approach, so that when they touch the ground, they stay on the ground.

Aircraft can and do fly fast at low altitude - ever seen a jet make a fast and low pass along the runway in an air display?
It's actually easier to stay on course at high speed.

As for "the issue of the drag on the planes at the higher air density of 1000 feet" what relevance does that have to the fact that the planes did hit the towers, whoever piloted them?
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2848  Postby psikeyhackr » Feb 03, 2011 6:26 pm

Paul wrote:If you don't know anything about aviation then I suggest you don't start spouting about it. It only shows another topic that you are ill equipped to argue about, and gives you even less credibility with this lurker than you had before (which was fuck all anyway).

Professional pilots tend not to land at that speed because their aircraft have tendency to keep flying at that sort of speed (due to the airflow over the wings producing lots of lift).


I didn't say I didn't understand anything about fluid mechanics.

The air pressure on wings works just like the constriction in a carburetor in a car. The higher speed over the curved surface reduces the pressure on the surface. That creates the lift for airplanes. You just wnat to believe people are STUPID if they disagree with you.

I am SO impressed by you phenomenal credibility.

But that drag on airlines is about 4 times what it would be at the altitudes they normally fly at those speeds. It does seem peculiar that NORMAL airliners would have enough thrust to do that.

So where is your physical model that can collapse?

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2849  Postby GrahamH » Feb 03, 2011 6:44 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:I am SO impressed by you phenomenal credibility.

But that drag on airlines is about 4 times what it would be at the altitudes they normally fly at those speeds. It does seem peculiar that NORMAL airliners would have enough thrust to do that.


edit: OK, "at those speeds" is the key phrase.

The airliners were in dives, that, accelerated them, just in case thrust at that altitude, was insufficient to reach those speeds.

Are you suggesting super-secret propusion was used to get the high impact speeds that were needed to...
Wait, what was it? Oh yes, not do enough damage to demolish the towers. :?
Last edited by GrahamH on Feb 03, 2011 6:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17703

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2850  Postby Weaver » Feb 03, 2011 6:47 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
Paul wrote:If you don't know anything about aviation then I suggest you don't start spouting about it. It only shows another topic that you are ill equipped to argue about, and gives you even less credibility with this lurker than you had before (which was fuck all anyway).

Professional pilots tend not to land at that speed because their aircraft have tendency to keep flying at that sort of speed (due to the airflow over the wings producing lots of lift).


I didn't say I didn't understand anything about fluid mechanics.

The air pressure on wings works just like the constriction in a carburetor in a car. The higher speed over the curved surface reduces the pressure on the surface. That creates the lift for airplanes. You just wnat to believe people are STUPID if they disagree with you.
While that explanation was taught for a long time, it's not actually correct. Angle of attack is what creates the lift - as can be seen with an airplane flying upside down.

I am SO impressed by you phenomenal credibility.

But that drag on airlines is about 4 times what it would be at the altitudes they normally fly at those speeds. It does seem peculiar that NORMAL airliners would have enough thrust to do that.
OK, you've discovered the real proof of the conspiracy - we used abnormal airliners with massive afterburners to let them fly fast at lower altitude.

Have you considered that, while drag is increased at lower altitudes, the primary reason the aircraft don't fly that fast and that low isn't because the CANNOT, but because they don't WANT to, due to higher risk and lower fuel efficiency?

Didn't think so.

So where is your physical model that can collapse?

psik
Where is your physical model that replicates what happened in the WTC, yet doesn't fully collapse?
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 49
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2851  Postby Xaihe » Feb 03, 2011 7:10 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
So where is your physical model that can collapse?

If I use your exact same setup, but replace the paper loops with dried clay, and it collapses completely (and it definitely will), will you give another reason why it's not acceptable or will you accept it as meeting your challenge? If you have no objections, then I don't need to actually build it, because I'm sure you have no doubts yourself that replacing the paper with dried clay will result in total collapse after a slight drop.
Consciousness is make believe. Just think about it.
Xaihe
 
Posts: 862
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2852  Postby tolman » Feb 03, 2011 7:27 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:But that drag on airlines is about 4 times what it would be at the altitudes they normally fly at those speeds. It does seem peculiar that NORMAL airliners would have enough thrust to do that.

So you think aircraft engines' maximum thrust is just enough to cruise at altitude?

You don't think that they use more thrust when doing things like accelerating down a runway than when cruising at altitude?

Or that a jet engine could actually provide more thrust where the air is thicker?
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2853  Postby Paul » Feb 03, 2011 7:54 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
Paul wrote:If you don't know anything about aviation then I suggest you don't start spouting about it. It only shows another topic that you are ill equipped to argue about, and gives you even less credibility with this lurker than you had before (which was fuck all anyway).

Professional pilots tend not to land at that speed because their aircraft have tendency to keep flying at that sort of speed (due to the airflow over the wings producing lots of lift).


I didn't say I didn't understand anything about fluid mechanics.

The air pressure on wings works just like the constriction in a carburetor in a car. The higher speed over the curved surface reduces the pressure on the surface. That creates the lift for airplanes. You just wnat to believe people are STUPID if they disagree with you.

I am SO impressed by you phenomenal credibility.

But that drag on airlines is about 4 times what it would be at the altitudes they normally fly at those speeds. It does seem peculiar that NORMAL airliners would have enough thrust to do that.


QED.

You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about when it comes to aviation. I didn't say anything about your claimed knowledge of fluid mechanics.

I don't believe people are stupid if they disagree with me, nor do I want anyone else to "believe" anything.
However, I do form my own opinions about the reliability of someone when I see them bullshitting on a subject about which I do have some knowledge and experience.
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2854  Postby psikeyhackr » Feb 03, 2011 9:20 pm

Paul wrote:
I didn't say I didn't understand anything about fluid mechanics.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_engineering

Fluid mechanics – the study of fluid flow around objects. Specifically aerodynamics concerning the flow of air over bodies such as wings or through objects such as wind tunnels (see also lift and aeronautics).

Your credibility is phenomenal.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2855  Postby psikeyhackr » Feb 03, 2011 9:30 pm

Here are the heights and weights of the washers and computations for potential energy and the totals for the top four and all 33. I didn't weigh the washers individually. 3 of the thinnest washers are about the same as 2 of the thickest so I did a linear interpolation from 1.4 to 2.1 ounces, converted to grams. I had the washers weighed before I left the hardware store and they averaged 1.7 oz.

Code: Select all
    height in   grams/1000     G
      meters      kg

1.   0.6238875 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.242910
2.   0.6048375 * 40.309/1000 * 9.81 = 0.239172
3.   0.5857875 * 40.929/1000 * 9.81 = 0.235202
4.   0.5667375 * 41.549/1000 * 9.81 = 0.231000


0.231000+0.235202+0.239172+0.242910=0.948284 Joules

Code: Select all
5.    0.5476875 * 42.170/1000 * 9.81 = 0.226572
6.    0.5286375 * 42.790/1000 * 9.81 = 0.221906
7.    0.5095875 * 43.410/1000 * 9.81 = 0.217009
8.    0.4905375 * 44.030/1000 * 9.81 = 0.211880
9.    0.4714875 * 44.650/1000 * 9.81 = 0.206519
10.   0.4524375 * 45.270/1000 * 9.81 = 0.200927
11.   0.4333875 * 45.890/1000 * 9.81 = 0.195103
12.   0.4143375 * 46.511/1000 * 9.81 = 0.189051
13.   0.3952875 * 47.131/1000 * 9.81 = 0.182763
14.   0.3762375 * 47.751/1000 * 9.81 = 0.176244
15.   0.3571875 * 48.371/1000 * 9.81 = 0.169492
16.   0.3381375 * 48.991/1000 * 9.81 = 0.162509
17.   0.3190875 * 49.611/1000 * 9.81 = 0.155295
18.   0.3000375 * 50.231/1000 * 9.81 = 0.147848
19.   0.2809875 * 50.852/1000 * 9.81 = 0.140173
20.   0.2619375 * 51.472/1000 * 9.81 = 0.132263
21.   0.2428875 * 52.092/1000 * 9.81 = 0.124121
22.   0.2238375 * 52.712/1000 * 9.81 = 0.115747
23.   0.2047875 * 53.332/1000 * 9.81 = 0.107142
24.   0.1857375 * 53.952/1000 * 9.81 = 0.098305
25.   0.1666875 * 54.572/1000 * 9.81 = 0.089236
26.   0.1476375 * 55.193/1000 * 9.81 = 0.079937
27.   0.1285875 * 55.813/1000 * 9.81 = 0.070405
28.   0.1095375 * 56.433/1000 * 9.81 = 0.060641
29.   0.0904875 * 57.053/1000 * 9.81 = 0.050645
30.   0.0714375 * 57.673/1000 * 9.81 = 0.040417
31.   0.0523875 * 58.293/1000 * 9.81 = 0.029958
32.   0.0333375 * 58.914/1000 * 9.81 = 0.019267
33.   0.0142875 * 59.534/1000 * 9.81 = 0.008344



0.008344+ 0.019267+ 0.029958+ 0.040417+ 0.050645+ 0.060641+ 0.070405+ 0.079937+ 0.089236+ 0.098305+ 0.107142+ 0.115747+ 0.124121+ 0.132263+ 0.140173+ 0.147848+ 0.155295+ 0.162509+ 0.169492+ 0.176244+ 0.182763+ 0.189051+ 0.195103+ 0.200927+ 0.206519+ 0.211880+ 0.217009+ 0.221906+ 0.226572+ 0.231000+ 0.235202+ 0.239172 + 0.242910 =

4.778003 Joules of potential energy for entire stack of 33 washers

Here is the calculation for the amount of energy necessary to crush all of the paper loops.

11 *0.118+17 * 2 *0.118+5 * 3 *0.118 = 7.08 Joules to crush all of the loops

So at the normal standing height there is not enough Potential Energy to crush all of the paper loops. 2.3 Joules short.

This is the calculation of the potentil energy of the 4 washers 45 inches up the dowel computed from the bottom of the dowel.

Code: Select all
    height in   grams/1000     G
      meters

1g.   1.2004427 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.467391273
2g    1.1813927 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.459974173
3g.   1.1623427 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.452557073
4g.   1.1432927 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.445139972

0.445139972+0.452557073+0.459974173+0.467391273 =1.825062491 Joules

1.825062491/0.118=15.467 should crush flat 15.5 single loops

Obviously 15 loops were not damaged in one drop. That is close to the total for TWO DROPS.

This is the calculation of the potential energy of the 4 washers 22 inches up the dowel from the top of the stationary stack of washers. The "es" stands for Empty Space because it only makes sense to calculate Potential Energy over a distance of empty space.

Code: Select all
    height in   grams/1000     G
      meters      kg

1es. 0.6337052 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.246732543
2es. 0.6146552 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.239315443
3es. 0.5956052 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.231898343
4es. 0.5765552 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.224481242

0.224481242+0.231898343+0.239315443+0.246732543
=0.942427571 Joules

0.942427571/0.118=7.986 should crush flat 8 single loops

So if you watch the video you will see that NINE loops were damaged but only 5 were crushed completely flat. The other 4 took significant but less than total damage and the falling mass was arrested after expending its energy.

So I would have to raise 4 washers 4.2 meters, about 14 feet, into the air in order to get enough energy to crush all of the loops. So obviously some people are going to say the loops are too strong, but how do you make them weaker but still strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD. I say some people just don't want to accept that PHYSICS makes the complete collapse of the two towers on the basis of the energies we are told about utterly IMPOSSIBLE!

Since my model is not a tube-in-tube structure as big a deal as people want to make can be made of that. But even if I knew how to make a good tube-in-tube model I say it can't be implemented without accurate data on the structures. Like how strong were the connections between the core and the flor assemblies relative to the weight of the floor assemblies. I HAVE NEVER SEEN the weight of the floor assemblies specified.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2856  Postby Paul » Feb 03, 2011 9:51 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
Paul wrote:
I didn't say I didn't understand anything about fluid mechanics.


You wrote that, not me.

psikeyhackr wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_engineering

Fluid mechanics – the study of fluid flow around objects. Specifically aerodynamics concerning the flow of air over bodies such as wings or through objects such as wind tunnels (see also lift and aeronautics).



and so what? Fluid mechanics is one aspect of aerospace engineering. Your ability to link to a wiki page, and quote two lines from it does nothing to persuade me that you are not talking through you arse when you make inane comments about landing speeds and air density with respect to aircraft that flew into the towers.

psikeyhackr wrote:Your credibility is phenomenal.

and given that, why would I care what your opinion of my credibility is? (I don't)
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2857  Postby tolman » Feb 03, 2011 10:01 pm

psikeyhackr,

If you're trying to say the planes couldn't have flown at the speeds they're claimed to have flown at, then presumably if it's obvious to you, it'd be more obvious to aeronautical engineers who know what they're talking about?

I must say, I don't think any of the aero guys I know are howling 'conspiracy!!!'

Surely, the planes issue must be much more cut-and-dried than the buildings, since there are countless similar planes, pretty well characterised as to maximum safe loadings and likely damaging loadings?

Is there a huge 'aero engineers for truth' organisation out there?

Seems like the total number supposedly signed up at ae911truth is about the same number that graduate from my old Uni every year.
And as far as I could face reading down the list, they don't seem to be talking about the planes, just giving their opinions on the collapse of the buildings.
FFS, if they don't think the impacts are impossible, then who does?
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2858  Postby psikeyhackr » Feb 03, 2011 10:20 pm

tolman wrote:psikeyhackr,

If you're trying to say the planes couldn't have flown at the speeds they're claimed to have flown at


I am not saying what they could and could not do I listed peculiarities about 9/11.

That is one of them. People who had never flown airliners before hitting targets 200 ft wide while flying 400 and 500 mph.

Computing the drag at 1000 feet compared to what it would be at 30,000 feet is no great accomplishment. What would be the point of airline companies having engines that could produce that much thrust when it should not be necessary. It is just a question to be answered. Other people brought it to my attention. I never would have though of it. But once it was raised it does seem peculiar.

You can scream CONSPIRACY all you like. To me it is just PHYSICS.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2859  Postby psikeyhackr » Feb 03, 2011 10:31 pm

Paul wrote:[ you make inane comments about landing speeds and air density with respect to aircraft that flew into the towers.


So you are saying that you do not think it is a LOT EASIER for Professional Pilots to line up their planes on 200 foot wide runways at 200 mph then it is for amateurs to line up airliners on 200 foot wide buildings at 400 and 500 mph.

Very interesting!

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2860  Postby tolman » Feb 03, 2011 11:10 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:So you are saying that you do not think it is a LOT EASIER for Professional Pilots to line up their planes on 200 foot wide runways at 200 mph then it is for amateurs to line up airliners on 200 foot wide buildings at 400 and 500 mph.

Height for hitting the towers wasn't hugely important, nor was speed, both of which are things that someone landing a plane needs to control fairly closely.

And who said the hijackers found it 'easy'.
They merely had to find it roughly feasible.
Pilots have to land planes daily for an entire career.
The 9/11 pilots only had to hit something once.

You're the one trying to make out it was some aerodynamic miracle, something which even 9/11 conspiracy-believing aero engineers don't seem to agree with.

Also, for a hijacker, what's the *worst* that could happen?
You miss a tower while flying south out of Manhattan, you turn round and take another run.
You miss a tower while flying north towards Mahnattan, you either try for another run, or if you screw up and you're too low, you still likely hit something expensive, and have a decent chance of causing at least a good few hundred deaths beyond the guaranteed ones of the people on the plane.

The least deaths would be in the unlikely event that wheels roll fast enough to authorise you be shot down over 'safe' or at least 'safer' territory, if your flight path allows it, and even then you've got your deaths *and* required someone high up (possibly the President) to order the downing of an airliner full of Americans, possibly still causing some extra deaths on the ground.

Seems pretty win/win to me, for someone wanting publicity.
Even if the odds of actually hitting a tower had been 50:50 or 25:75 that may not seem too bad.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests