Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
quas wrote:Not sure if you have an apple-to-apple comparison here. .
psikeyhackr wrote:WTC Specs; Official v Alternative Hypothesis
Daniel DeHaan
https://commongroundzero.quora.com/WTC- ... Hypothesis
Energy at impact:
OH - 29 stories at 4500 tons each, 12.5 m/s yields 885.9MJ
AH - 14 stories at 1400 tons each, 12.5 m/s yields 142.2MJ
Thommo wrote:psikeyhackr wrote:WTC Specs; Official v Alternative Hypothesis
Daniel DeHaan
https://commongroundzero.quora.com/WTC- ... Hypothesis
From the link:-Energy at impact:
OH - 29 stories at 4500 tons each, 12.5 m/s yields 885.9MJ
AH - 14 stories at 1400 tons each, 12.5 m/s yields 142.2MJ
Formula for kinetic energy k.e. = 0.5mv2
OH - k.e. = 0.5 x (29x4,082,331) x 12.52 = 0.5 x 118,387,609 x 156.25 = 9,249MJ
AH - k.e. = 0.5 x (14x1,270,059) x 12.52 = 0.5 x 17,780,821 x 156.25 = 1,389MJ
Thommo wrote:Sorry, what's your point? If the numbers aren't impressive what's the point of a link that does nothing other than compute those numbers and get them wrong?
And regardless of that, how is getting them right not an improvement on getting them wrong? Isn't this guy part of a movement that literally named itself after "truth"?
psikeyhackr* wrote:. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy.
psikeyhackr wrote:
I really only provided that link for the pictures about distribution of mass. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy. The last time I checked 50 skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since 2011. It is not like engineers do not know how to design such structures.
psikeyhackr wrote:Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.
quas wrote:psikeyhackr wrote:
I really only provided that link for the pictures about distribution of mass. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy. The last time I checked 50 skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since 2011. It is not like engineers do not know how to design such structures.
With so many similar buildings being constructed already, so why is it that we can't have the probable/estimated data on the mass distribution of steel and concrete of the 9/11 towers?
psikeyhackr wrote:
I really only provided that link for the pictures about distribution of mass. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy.
The last time I checked 50 skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since 2011. It is not like engineers do not know how to design such structures.
But I do not hear many scientists or engineers asking about the mass distribution data on the towers so the "science" of the supposed collapses is complete crap.
The building had to get stronger toward the bottom so more energy should be required to destroy it progressively downward. But using up energy would slow the falling portion reducing its kinetic energy. So how did the structure come down so fast? Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.
psik
Thommo wrote:psikeyhackr wrote:Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.
If you don't give a shit about an error of a factor of more than 10, why do you give a shit about a possible error of less than a factor of 3?
psikeyhackr wrote:Thommo wrote:psikeyhackr wrote:Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.
If you don't give a shit about an error of a factor of more than 10, why do you give a shit about a possible error of less than a factor of 3?
If you do not have any data on the amount of energy required to crush the lower 85 stories of the north tower then how can you compute any factor of error?
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests