Conflicting theories of fire-induced collapse 20 years after 9/11...

[psikeyhackr]

What’s your point anyways?

Supposedly the top of the North Tower above the impact point fell down and destroyed everything below. So we have gravitational acceleration, potential energy, kinetic energy, conservation of momentum, etc., etc.

We have a physics problem. A 1360 ft structure should have to get stronger and heavier all of the way down. So why haven't physical and virtual models of the North Tower been done by now? In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations that caused the bridge to fail. They didn't have electronic computers.

But instead we do not even have steel and concrete distributions data and structural engineers have not been asking about it.


Physical model at 3:40

Why didn't the top arrest or fall down the side?

 

[psikeyhackr]

I thought you were unclear. The architect designed the airport in Dhahran.. built in 1962. It was beautiful with soaring arches.. a take on a mosque. After 25 years it began to crack.

The joke at the engineering school I attended was that "Architects studied funny physics and funny math."

Frank Lloyd Wright designed a building with a leaky roof for some major corporation but the interior looked fantastic.

Find Out Which Renowned Homes Were Practically Uninhabitable

They're dream homes for fans of architecture, but for the people who actually live in them, groundbreaking designs can be a real nightmare.

www.bobvila.com

 

[Gamolon]

Supposedly the top of the North Tower above the impact point fell down and destroyed everything below.

This is not true. It wasn't just the portion of the tower above the impact that fell down and destroyed everything. It was the portion of the tower above the impact point PLUS each additional floor it impacted on it's way down.

So we have gravitational acceleration, potential energy, kinetic energy, conservation of momentum, etc., etc.

Ok?

We have a physics problem.

Ok? Obviously you've run the numbers in order to determine there's a problem. Let's see your calculations.

A 1360 ft structure should have to get stronger and heavier all of the way down.

The towers don't? Didn't the steel get larger and stronger down the tower?

So why haven't physical and virtual models of the North Tower been done by now? In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations that caused the bridge to fail. They didn't have electronic computers.

So what?

But instead we do not even have steel and concrete distributions data and structural engineers have not been asking about it.


Physical model at 3:40

Why didn't the top arrest or fall down the side?

Explain why the model in the video completely collapse and why yours didn't. According to you, Mick's model should have arrested.

Answer another question. Did the floor truss seats, which attached the trusses beneath the concrete floors to the inside of the steel columns get bigger and stronger towards the bottom of the towers?

 

[Gamolon]

Supposedly the top of the North Tower above the impact point fell down and destroyed everything below. So we have gravitational acceleration, potential energy, kinetic energy, conservation of momentum, etc., etc.

See picture below.

If the upper floors of the structure drop down upon the lower structure (indicated by the blue arrow), what is the weakest link in the assembly that the load impacts? The concrete floor/floorpan/trusses (yellow oval), the vertical perimeter façade columns (green oval), or the truss seats (bluw oval)?

You do understand that the floor and their truss seats were designed to hold the load created by themselves and any live loads placed upon them right? That they weren't designed to hold up against the dynamic load of the upper section of floors coming down upon them right?

This is proven in Mick's video that I posted above.

 

[psikeyhackr]

This is not true. It wasn't just the portion of the tower above the impact that fell down and destroyed everything. It was the portion of the tower above the impact point PLUS each additional floor it impacted on it's way down.

That is the Conservation of Momentum and Newton's Third Law of Motion problem.

The falling mass had to accelerate the stationary mass and break the supports holding the stationary mass like in Makey's mathematical model. But where did the energy come from? Plus at least two levels had to be destroyed simultaneously, the bottom of the falling mass and the top of the stationary mass, action & reaction.

The only source of energy was the kinetic energy of the falling mass. It had to slow down. So we have a problem. People prefer to believe in magical physics. So 21 years of engineering schools in the nation that put men on the Moon not even talking about the distributions of steel and concrete down 1360 ft skyscrapers.

 

[Gamolon]

That is the Conservation of Momentum and Newton's Third Law of Motion problem.

The falling mass had to accelerate the stationary mass and break the supports holding the stationary mass like in Makey's mathematical model. But where did the energy come from? Plus at least two levels had to be destroyed simultaneously, the bottom of the falling mass and the top of the stationary mass, action & reaction.

So where are your calculations that you did to prove this wrong?

You also didn't answer my question.

Why didn't Mick's model arrest yet yours did?

 

[Gamolon]

Plus at least two levels had to be destroyed simultaneously, the bottom of the falling mass and the top of the stationary mass, action & reaction.

They weren't?

 

[psikeyhackr]

See picture below.

If the upper floors of the structure drop down upon the lower structure (indicated by the blue arrow), what is the weakest link in the assembly that the load impacts? The concrete floor/floorpan/trusses (yellow oval), the vertical perimeter façade columns (green oval), or the truss seats (bluw oval)?

I don't talk about FLOORS, I talk about LEVELS.

There were horizontal beams in the core at every LEVEL and they were not built like the floors around the core.

How many connections were there between that floor and the core, and the floor and the perimeter columns. Also the plane hit the South Tower shortly above the Mechanical Levels which were not built like that and the top of the South Tower tilted 22 degrees.

 

[Gamolon]

I don't talk about FLOORS, I talk about LEVELS.

There were horizontal beams in the core at every LEVEL and they were not built like the floors around the core.

How many connections were there between that floor and the core, and the floor and the perimeter columns. Also the plane hit the South Tower shortly above the Mechanical Levels which were not built like that and the top of the South Tower tilted 22 degrees.

I know why you're avoiding my question.

I'll ask again.

According to you and your understand of the laws of conservation and momentum, explain why your model arrested yet Mick's did not. According to you, all models with columns and floors connected to those columns should arrest a collapse when a portion of the top is dropped on the lower structure.

 

[Gamolon]

I don't talk about FLOORS, I talk about LEVELS.

Of course you don't because when you start to get down to the details, your argument breaks down.

This is why you won't answer my questions.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So where are your calculations that you did to prove this wrong?

You also didn't answer my question.

Why didn't Mick's model arrest yet yours did?

What Mick are you talking about.

Calculations based on what data I told you that we do not have. There were horizontal beams in the core to prevent the columns from buckling.
Let's see you find some data on those beams.

 

[Gamolon]

Plus at least two levels had to be destroyed simultaneously, the bottom of the falling mass and the top of the stationary mass, action & reaction.

Again, were both levels destroyed at the same time? Yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

What Mick are you talking about.

Calculations based on what data I told you that we do not have. There were horizontal beams in the core to prevent the columns from buckling.
Let's see you find some data on those beams.

 

[Gamolon]

Calculations based on what data I told you that we do not have.

So you haven't done any calculations at all?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Again, were both levels destroyed at the same time? Yes or no?

I said they had to be. We cannot see through the dust in the videos. You get any two nearly identical crushable objects in your hands and smash them together and see what happens.

 

[the other mike]

What’s your point anyways?

All we want is a new investigation ○○○or an actual investigation☆☆☆since there never was one.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Look at that joke he calls a core. He is making something that sorta looks more like the towers than mine but in the building the core averaged half thr width of the building. His so called floors were not connected on opposite sides of his core.

But the major thing is that his components do not SUSTAIN ANY DAMAGE. He can rebuild with the same pieces. I can rebuild my model but I have to replace the damaged loops he is just putting undamaged blocks back.

DAMAGE TAKES ENERGY!

My model had to get stronger toward the bottom, single loops, double loops and triple loops. They had to get stronger to support the static load of more washers. Does he say his model is stronger toward the bottom? My paper loops cannot just fall over sideways giving no support.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So you haven't done any calculations at all?

Do whatever calculations you want. Potential Energy is going to depend on mass and height.

Lurid Larry - Potential Energy

International Skeptics Forum

Join the International Skeptics Forum to discuss and promote critical thinking across the planet.

www.internationalskeptics.com

 

[Gamolon]

Look at that joke he calls a core. He is making something that sorta looks more like the towers than mine but in the building the core averaged half thr width of the building. His so called floors were not connected on opposite sides of his core.

But the major thing is that his components do not SUSTAIN ANY DAMAGE. He can rebuild with the same pieces. I can rebuild my model but I have to replace the damaged loops he is just putting undamaged blocks back.

My model had to get stronger toward the bottom, single loops, double loops and triple loops. The had to get stronger to support the static load of more washers. Does his say his model is stronger toward the bottom. My paper loops cannot just fall over sideways giving no support.

Your paper loop supports are BENEATH the floors. The washer floors need to be attached to the SIDES of the loops.
Your washer floors sustain no damage
Your core wooden dowel is SOLID and not composed of individual pieces
None of your components come apart. The "supports below the floors" just deform
Your paper loops are not composed of individual pieces
The upper section of the wooden dowel does not descend with your washer floors.

Need I go on?

Don't give me this crap about "model accuracy" when yours is complete garbage.

 

[Gamolon]

Do whatever calculations you want. Potential Energy is going to depend on mass and height.

Lurid Larry - Potential Energy

International Skeptics Forum

Join the International Skeptics Forum to discuss and promote critical thinking across the planet.

www.internationalskeptics.com

So you DIDN'T do any calculations whatsoever, yet claim there's a physics problem.

What a joke.