The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

Rat in the Hat

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
21,949
Reaction score
6,018
Points
198
Yeah? Well, Gamaclown.... you can just keep waiting for all I care. If there's any consensus on WTC 7 (the other thread getting trashed), we can move on to the towers and the pentagon. Until then....
In other words, you've got nothing. Yeah, we knew that.
Did you know if your take the sentence "building seven was a controlled demolition" and jumble the letters and remove some and add a couple, you get the words "total bullshit"


True story. :thup:




Cleese.
 

Rockland

National Treasure
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
562
Reaction score
171
Points
28
You talkin' to me, KooKooDooDoo? You're on my ignoramus list, remember? :eusa_whistle:
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
142
Points
85
You talkin' to me, KooKooDooDoo? You're on my ignoramus list, remember? :eusa_whistle:

unfucking believable

after having your ass handed to you:

You talkin' to me, KooKooDooDoo? You're on my ignoramus list, remember? :eusa_whistle:

The Following User Says Thank You to Rockland For This Useful Post: Rat in the Hat (Today)
Rat in the Hat



Did you know if your take the sentence "building seven was a controlled demolition" and jumble the letters and remove some and add a couple, you get the words "total bullshit"


True story. :thup:



The Following User Says Thank You to Rat in the Hat For This Useful Post: Rockland (Today)
missed your appointment again huh.



you need to make a new moniker "OWNED"
 
Last edited:

psikeyhackr

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
876
Reaction score
67
Points
63
I have searched this entire thread for "conservation" to find any mention of the Conservation of Momentum and that has been done several times by Mr. Jones. But he did not explain what it had to do with anything.

The north tower came down in just under 26 seconds though some estimates are as low as 10 seconds. The 26 seconds includes the time of the remains of the core to come down after most of the mass had already fallen.

But all of this supposedly occurred because the portion above the impact zone fell and forced the rest down. That is where the conservation of momentum comes in.

When moving mass A impacts stationary mass B at velocity V the resulting combined mass will have a velocity less than V but it is highly dependent on the relative sizes of the masses. But with the collapse of the north tower there would be a complex sequence of collisions also accelerated by gravity which will affect the collapse time.

I did a simplified analysis of this years ago.

The Next Level :: View topic - Basic Skyscraper Physics

This program reads a data file for 109 masses floating in the air, held up by nothing. It then simulates dropping the top 14 and computes resulting velocities due to the conservation of momentum slowing things down. The program has been updated a bit since then but the results are still pretty much the same. Since it only uses the conservation of momentum a real collapse from the top down would have to be significantly slower because energy would be lost bending and breaking supports.

But these are the three extreme cases.

A 1500 ton mass is placed at the top and all 108 lower masses are only 0.1 tons. This means very little mass is available to slow to falling top one and is almost like falling through empty space.

It takes 9.1 seconds. The top of my stack is only 1308 feet so it is somewhat less than the 9.2 seconds from the top of the WTC.

The next run is with equal masses of 1500 tons at every level. This takes 11.9 seconds. But this is more than the 11 seconds that Dr. Sunder of the NIST said in a PBS podcast. So how could a real building requiring energy loss due to breakage be less than very simple simulation.

The last run is extremely bottom heavy. From the top to the 55th floor it is a steady increase from 1 to 100 tons. Then from 55 to the bottom it is a linear increase from 100 to 10,000 tons. This takes 19.5 seconds.

So the distribution of mass of the tower changes the collapse time just because of the conservation of momentum. So discussing this for 12 years without accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level is unscientific nonsense.

Freshman engineers at schools all over the country should be able to write programs duplicating these results. So why isn't this even discussed by "experts"? 9/11 is a JOKE! :lol:

psik
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top