9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-03-2015, 08:55 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(07-03-2015 07:22 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Any reasonably accurate physical model and a decent computer model should behave in very similar manners.

But they must both be built according to the same data. So if we do not have accurate data we can't do either one.

Look at the supposed "scientific simulation" done by Purdue.

Quote:"To estimate the serious damage to the World Trade Center core columns, we assembled a detailed numerical model of the impacting aircraft as well as a detailed numerical model of the top 20 stories of the building," Sozen says. "We then used weeks of supercomputer time over a number of years to simulate the event in many credible angles of impact of the aircraft."
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612...nnWTC.html

If you watch the video there is no horizontal movement of the core columns due to the impact.

But the NIST has a graph of the deflection and oscillation of the south tower at the 70th floor which was 11 floors below where the plane impacted. But Purdue's simulation only goes 6 stories below where the aircraft impacted the north tower. A "scientific simulation" of the building even though empirical data from the NIST demonstrates that more of the building had to have been affected. Moving that much mass takes energy. So where did Purdue's simulation send the energy that did not move their simulated piece of a building?

The trouble with computer models is that they do not actually do physics. They do calculations to simulate physics. A physical model does real physics, but has problems due to the square cube law and strength of materials. But since this was dealt with in 4 months in the case of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge model why can't it be handled in 13 years when we have way better electronic computers. Oh yeah, they didn't have electronic computers in 1940.

psik

PS - I emailed Sozen at Purdue. No response.

Consider

Okay, again, you don't think the... experts... are correct?

We have the visual evidence (And remains of physical evidence) that air-planes hit both towers.

We have the visual evidence (And remains of physical evidence) that both towers eventually, vertically, collapsed.

Consider

What exactly is your problem.position again?

Also, perhaps the suggestion of starting a new thread where you can lay out your thoughts etc might not go astray?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2015, 09:35 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(07-03-2015 08:55 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(07-03-2015 07:22 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Any reasonably accurate physical model and a decent computer model should behave in very similar manners.

But they must both be built according to the same data. So if we do not have accurate data we can't do either one.

Look at the supposed "scientific simulation" done by Purdue.

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612...nnWTC.html

If you watch the video there is no horizontal movement of the core columns due to the impact.

But the NIST has a graph of the deflection and oscillation of the south tower at the 70th floor which was 11 floors below where the plane impacted. But Purdue's simulation only goes 6 stories below where the aircraft impacted the north tower. A "scientific simulation" of the building even though empirical data from the NIST demonstrates that more of the building had to have been affected. Moving that much mass takes energy. So where did Purdue's simulation send the energy that did not move their simulated piece of a building?

The trouble with computer models is that they do not actually do physics. They do calculations to simulate physics. A physical model does real physics, but has problems due to the square cube law and strength of materials. But since this was dealt with in 4 months in the case of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge model why can't it be handled in 13 years when we have way better electronic computers. Oh yeah, they didn't have electronic computers in 1940.

psik

PS - I emailed Sozen at Purdue. No response.

Consider

Okay, again, you don't think the... experts... are correct?

We have the visual evidence (And remains of physical evidence) that air-planes hit both towers.

We have the visual evidence (And remains of physical evidence) that both towers eventually, vertically, collapsed.

Consider

Quote:I have no dispute with any of that.

What exactly is your problem.position again?

Also, perhaps the suggestion of starting a new thread where you can lay out your thoughts etc might not go astray?

Much cheers to all.

But could aircraft and fire create the results?

How could the top 29 stories of the south tower break loose and tilt 22 degrees 50 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from the impact and yet the EXPERTS do not even discuss the location of the center of mass in 13 years? Why didn't the top portion fall down the side? Like "experts" who can't even think of a question that obvious aren't laughable.

Even if aircraft impact and fires could cause the upper portion of the north tower to fall, how could 14 stories destroy 90+ intact stories in less than 30 seconds?

Considering that we are supposed to accept the plausibility that computers can simulate the climate for the next 100 years accurately enough to be worth paying attention to, it is certainly curious that we can't get decent computer simulations for a measly skyscraper.

It is as though everyone is supposed to allow themselves to be browbeaten into thinking what they are told and these so called collapses do not really have to be proven. So accurate data on the towers does not even have to be provided.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2015, 09:42 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(07-03-2015 08:55 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Consider

Okay, again, you don't think the... experts... are correct?

We have the visual evidence (And remains of physical evidence) that air-planes hit both towers.

We have the visual evidence (And remains of physical evidence) that both towers eventually, vertically, collapsed.

Consider


What exactly is your problem.position again?

Also, perhaps the suggestion of starting a new thread where you can lay out your thoughts etc might not go astray?

Much cheers to all.

(07-03-2015 09:35 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  But could aircraft and fire create the results?

Well... since there does not seem to be anything else in evidence.....

(07-03-2015 09:35 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  How could the top 29 stories of the south tower break loose and tilt 22 degrees 50 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from the impact and yet the EXPERTS do not even discuss the location of the center of mass in 13 years? Why didn't the top portion fall down the side? Like "experts" who can't even think of a question that obvious aren't laughable.

Even if aircraft impact and fires could cause the upper portion of the north tower to fall, how could 14 stories destroy 90+ intact stories in less than 30 seconds?

Considering that we are supposed to accept the plausibility that computers can simulate the climate for the next 100 years accurately enough to be worth paying attention to, it is certainly curious that we can't get decent computer simulations for a measly skyscraper.

It is as though everyone is supposed to allow themselves to be browbeaten into thinking what they are told and these so called collapses do not really have to be proven. So accurate data on the towers does not even have to be provided.

psik

So... you're again stating you are not happy with the evidence and the details/information supplied by the experts.

Again, your explanation would be.....?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 12:07 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(07-03-2015 09:35 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Even if aircraft impact and fires could cause the upper portion of the north tower to fall, how could 14 stories destroy 90+ intact stories in less than 30 seconds?

Facepalm

Cascade failure. Once it starts, each subsequent structural failure only adds more weight to the mass crashing down on the floors below, accelerating the rate of failure.

But it's good to know we have such erudite and enlightened structural engineers gracing us with their presence on the forums. Oh wait... Consider

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-03-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(08-03-2015 12:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(07-03-2015 09:35 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Even if aircraft impact and fires could cause the upper portion of the north tower to fall, how could 14 stories destroy 90+ intact stories in less than 30 seconds?

Facepalm

Cascade failure. Once it starts, each subsequent structural failure only adds more weight to the mass crashing down on the floors below, accelerating the rate of failure.

But it's good to know we have such erudite and enlightened structural engineers gracing us with their presence on the forums. Oh wait... Consider

ROFL

Like physics has to work according to what people say. What does the Conservation of Momentum have to do with collapse time? What about Newton's Third Law?

Every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights above. But since we are not told the weight of steel and concrete on every level we don't know the minimum strength necessary at each level. So any talk about a "cascade failure" is based on nothing but FAITH and merely BELIEVING what you see without any evidence of UNDERSTANDING.

Let's see you make a multi-level self supporting model that can do this "cascade" you speak of while damaging the components doing the support in the process. Doing damage takes energy and the only available source is the Kinetic Energy of the falling mass so it must slow down in the process of doing the damage.

So how did the north tower come down in less than 30 seconds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Can you do more than talk?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 03:45 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(08-03-2015 02:55 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 12:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Facepalm

Cascade failure. Once it starts, each subsequent structural failure only adds more weight to the mass crashing down on the floors below, accelerating the rate of failure.

But it's good to know we have such erudite and enlightened structural engineers gracing us with their presence on the forums. Oh wait... Consider

ROFL

Like physics has to work according to what people say. What does the Conservation of Momentum have to do with collapse time? What about Newton's Third Law?

Every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights above. But since we are not told the weight of steel and concrete on every level we don't know the minimum strength necessary at each level. So any talk about a "cascade failure" is based on nothing but FAITH and merely BELIEVING what you see without any evidence of UNDERSTANDING.

Let's see you make a multi-level self supporting model that can do this "cascade" you speak of while damaging the components doing the support in the process. Doing damage takes energy and the only available source is the Kinetic Energy of the falling mass so it must slow down in the process of doing the damage.

So how did the north tower come down in less than 30 seconds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Can you do more than talk?

psik

You, good sirrah, are an idiot.

Why is it always those who knew least about physics who bleat loudest about it?

I will set the following as a thought exercise for you: given the weight supported by the load-bearing elements of the impacted levels, what degree of damage to that capacity would be necessary to bring about catastrophic collapse?

hint: it's less than would result from thermally induced weakening due to exposure to burning jet fuel.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-03-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Oslwald acted alone, there is no such thing as bigfoot, the moon landing was not faked.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 04:08 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(08-03-2015 03:58 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Oslwald acted alone, there is no such thing as bigfoot, the moon landing was not faked.

Bigfoot killed Oswald to keep him from revealing the moon landing hoax.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
08-03-2015, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2015 04:37 PM by Kaepora Gaebora.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(08-03-2015 02:55 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 12:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Facepalm

Cascade failure. Once it starts, each subsequent structural failure only adds more weight to the mass crashing down on the floors below, accelerating the rate of failure.

But it's good to know we have such erudite and enlightened structural engineers gracing us with their presence on the forums. Oh wait... Consider

ROFL

Like physics has to work according to what people say. What does the Conservation of Momentum have to do with collapse time? What about Newton's Third Law?

Every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights above. But since we are not told the weight of steel and concrete on every level we don't know the minimum strength necessary at each level. So any talk about a "cascade failure" is based on nothing but FAITH and merely BELIEVING what you see without any evidence of UNDERSTANDING.

Let's see you make a multi-level self supporting model that can do this "cascade" you speak of while damaging the components doing the support in the process. Doing damage takes energy and the only available source is the Kinetic Energy of the falling mass so it must slow down in the process of doing the damage.

So how did the north tower come down in less than 30 seconds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Can you do more than talk?

psik

Do you even physics, bro?

Thought experiment: let's say a glass surface can support at its max 20 pounds. We can agree then that when placing a 19 pound bowling ball on it gently (meaning no additional force on it), it will support the bowling ball. However, let's say its dropping from about 3 feet above it.

It isn't going to support the impulse imparted from a falling 19 pound ball as the momentum from it adds more force on the surface and it will fail.

World Trade Center was along the same lines: as one portion failed, it impacted the bottom surface with a huge amount of impulse from falling about 10 feet per floor. And so each floor buckled as it couldn't handle it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
08-03-2015, 04:37 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
But but but...he saw a video on YOUTUBE.

That means it's got to be true, I mean who would make a video and put it on YouTube if it wasn't true?

Checkmate.
Drinking Beverage


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: