WTC MIToo Momentum Interference Test

[psikeyhackr]

Well, it's that day.

9/11/11

TEN YEARS of Bad Physics!

The Physics Profession has not demanded accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers. Who cares about Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum?

I guess it is time to burn Isaac Newton in effigy.

[MysticalGrooveWTC]

perhaps you could show us the ballpark physics involved of a plane hitting a building?

[psikeyhackr]

@MysticalGrooveWTC

Do a search on WTC Impact Model - MIT

watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The NIST report contains a graph of the south tower oscillating for Four Minutes after the impact. Now how can the damped oscillation of the structure be analyzed without knowing the distribution of mass? So how have all of the physics people in the country managed to not be interested in that for EIGHT YEARS?

[MysticalGrooveWTC]

@psikeyhackr it's a very good point I simply can't believe it, really.

[leftysergeant]

Your pegs can hold several times the static weight placed on them Find out how many times the static weight of each floor the mounting brackets can stand and try again with pegs that will take no more weight than that. Otherwise, you have nothing.

[psikeyhackr]

@leftysergeant The purpose of the experiment is to show the difference between the collapses on pegs with mass versus pegs without mass. Put your brain in gear and watch it again.

Watch the: Gravitational Collapse onto Cumulative Supports

video. It is a much better design. The point is we don't have accurate distribution of mass data on the towers. Why don't we have such simple information after EIGHT YEARS and why haven't people who supposedly know physics been demanding it?

[leftysergeant]

@psikeyhackr You don't know what facts to consider. You may even have subconsciously designed it to fail. It in no way demonstrates any process that operated in the towers. The information is available. No one who understands physics or forensic modelling questions it.

[psikeyhackr]

@leftysergeant So lets see you specify the weight of a complete floor assembly and provide a link.

The weight of the 205 ft sq concrete slab can be computed from the dimensions & density. That is about 600 tons. But what is the TOTAL WEIGHT with the corrugated pans and 35 and 60 ft trusses? Where is that information on the net. There were 84 standard floor assemblies in each tower. The buildings had to hold themselves up.

Cut the psychological crap and do the physics.

[leftysergeant]

@psikeyhackr The purpose of your stupid test was supposed to be to prove that the process would arrest. You don't even know how many floors your tooth picks are supposed to support before they fail. You need to have that data, i don't, because, as the phenomnon of "verinage" shows, it aint much.  According to you, verinage dont work. Your shipment of FAIL is here.

[psikeyhackr]

@leftysergeant So you are TOO DUMB to figure out the purpose of the STUPID tests.

The purpose was to demonstrate the effect of MASS on the collapse. Because the toothpicks were so strong the falling mass was arrested without the mass of washers. I was showing how MASS changed that behavior and why it is necessary to know the distribution of mass of the WTC towers.

So where is data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the World Trade Centers?

[Merlin5x5]

@psikeyhackr Because your video is a big failure for several reasons. . 1. YOU can't model a gravity fall, Dumbass. Galileo proved that in the middle ages. A 10 FT fall , is a 10 FT fall, and your model didn't do that. Raise those Washers 10 FT in the air, saw thru 1/2 of the pegs for SIX pegs, then repeat. THIS IS NOT 12 year olds building a model airplane. You have to understand the physics and the math.

[psikeyhackr]

@Merlin5x5 

Check the other video. You can't figure out the point of this one.

watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

.

[RexVMundi]

Just remember Van Romero of NMTech's first response, and then the lukewarm "retraction"...and "peer-review" has been exposed for the scumbaggery that it truly is.

[Skeptic121]

The problem with American academic science is that most of it is paid for by the government. Scientists are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them. Government grants are awarded by committees called "study sections". It is a common lament among scientists that even one enemy on a study section committee is enough to destroy a promising career. Questioning 9/11 makes many enemies, as any 9/11 skeptic knows all too well.

[psikeyhackr]

@Skeptic121

That is the really strange thing about 911.

This is really such a simple physics problem that it goes all of the way down to the grade school level. Mathematics is used to make physics unnecessarily complicated. There aren't any PHYSICS CONCEPTS involved in 911 that plenty of grade school kids could not understand.

The scientists make themselves look like idiots by not talking about the distribution of steel in skyscrapers. Of course the politicians are also.

[taledarkside]

@psikeyhackr

math and physics are pretty much the same.

why, do you have trouble with math. ROFL

[waqasanees]

atleast we Physicist know the truth. Great work.

[XPronger]

Great video, thanks for the visualizations.

911 was an inside job:

at least if you understand the principle of conservation of momentum :-)

[triforcharity]

Maybe the reason that the scientific community isn't up and arms about this is because the FUCKING UNDERSTAND IT!! You OBVIOUSLY DON'T!! Even YOU said that building scale models DON'T WORK!! You fucking moron.

[psikeyhackr]

You don't understand what SCALE means. Doing the physics to scale and doing the SIZE to scale are two different things.

It is about what YOU understand which is apparently NOTHING. You just BELIEVE.

Watch that Purdue simulation. Notice that the core columns don't move as a result of the aircraft impact. How is that possible? Even grade school kids should understand that doesn't make sense.

Is wanting the distribution of steel too much trouble for your intellect?

[usamericanz]

psikey, please watch this vid and explain to us how the top third of this building, demolished by cables, was able to crash down all the way through to the bottom, destroying the 2/3 of the building underneath:

watch?v=prwvj-npt5s

[psikeyhackr]

That building obviously did not have a steel frame. You can tell from the instant the pieces were pulled away with the cables.

You have no way of knowing how much the building was deliberately weakened before the cables pulled the sides off.

[usamericanz]

this particular demolition technique was patented in Europe (patent 1 082 505), and in the patent it says this technique can be used on "ANY type of building, regardless of height," and "it is NOT required to weaken the structure of the bulding." Secondly, this vid clearly shows that the weight of an upper part of a building is absolutely sufficient to crash through and destroy the floors below it...and the way the debris fell looked eerily similar to the collapse of the WTC towers.

[psikeyhackr]

If you are not going to provide quotes from the source and a link then don't hand me this "so and so said crap"

It was the top 13% of the north tower that started too fall. Why don't we have the distribution of steel in the buildings after EIGHT YEARS? Skyscrapers must be designed to sway in the wind so the steel has to be designed to handle that.

That short building is in no way comparable.

[RexVMundi]

@psikeyhackr - Damn straight - the buildings, at the higher floors, were subject to hurricane-force winds DAILY...just remember the fable of the tree and the blade of grass.

[taledarkside]

@psikeyhackr

so what are material are the buildings made of now? Oh, so now a building could be weakened, and it will collapse? I though thats impossible with the toothpick experiment.

[iamjackalope]

The building appeared to have only collapsed on the out side leaving most of the core still standing. It's hard to say for certain because the camera pans away and conveniently doesn't return. Patents are not Prof of anything but ownership. No reason to rewrite physical law quite yet.

[DarkwingScooter]

Good, falsifiable science.

NIST could not even produce the data from their own computer models, their is no science forthcoming from that side. I don't think America is ready or able to deal with the science, but they are waking up to it.

[iSunTzu]

A useless model for the WTC collapse. You proved washers can be stopped with an un-calibrated toothpick. After 7 years you could earn a PhD in structural engineering and all you have done is produced unadulterated stupid.

[psikeyhackr]

But where is the data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers? How can a calibrated model be built without that information?  That is why I built a model that can be changed.

But my toothpicks were that same all of the way down whereas every skyscraper must get STRONGER all of the way down. So your structural engineers with PhDs have demonstrated that they are nitwits over SEVEN YEARS by not demanding distribution of mass information.

[iSunTzu]

What a load of foolishness. Your toothpicks are not calibrated to anything real. You have no idea the strength of each toothpick in your moronic model.

[psikeyhackr]

I never claimed they were calibrated.

The point of the demonstration was to show the change in the collapse due to adding mass to the toothpicks. Therefore we should know the distribution of mass, in steel and concrete, in the towers. The conservation of momentum would be a factor inhibiting the speed of the collapse.

Or is that too difficult for your vast intellect to handle?

[SgtSpline]

I don't know as much about physics as I'd like, but appreciate your practical demonstration. One of the things that I've often thought about, is how the Tower with the TV antenna began its descent at an angle and momentum which should have produced a toppling effect. Instead, it would appear that the forward momentum, and the path of least resistance were overcome by other forces at work. A demonstration that could repeat or refute that anomaly would be a good experiment to try and create.

[slatchem2016]

I believe that one of the videos shows an optical illusion with the TV antenna. There wasn't an angle at the decent. Check a different video angle.

[DarkwingScooter]

No, the whole top tilts, it was not an optical illusion.

[slatchem2016]

watch the collapse form a different angle. it is just an optical illusion.

[DarkwingScooter]

WTC Demolition - WTC1 Sauret Zoomed

WTC Demolition - WTC 1 (8)

There is a better shot that I can't find now, but these should be sufficient. I think the tilt was away from the shot from the North which means you can't see it on the mos common footage.

[vengencefrom1979]

psychologists estimate that one out of twenty five people are sociopaths.

1/25 th of 350 million (u.s. population est.) is 14 million.

thats a lot of people to recruit from.

do the math.

[taledarkside]

what does this have to do with psikey screwing up his experiment?

[psikeyhackr]

And how is my "experiment" screwed up?

Where is yours by the way?

So far I haven't seen anything similar to mine.

[taledarkside]

I need to eat 500 more popsicles for the popsicle sticks

[psikeyhackr]

Take your time.

[mskydolphin]

Danish scientist has proven *nano thermite is in the 9/11 dust.

*Not sold in caves.

It always bugged me why the planes hit so high up the towers.

LOVE

[taledarkside]

you mean he couldn't find any molecular thermite?

[vengencefrom1979]

what was the reason for 'operation northwoods'? sociopaths dont owe allegiance to anything but themselves and what they can get away with.

[vengencefrom1979]

wtc 7 is clearly in freefall, it will always bring people back to question wtc 1 and 2. the missing wreckage from flight 93 and the questionable wreckage of flight 77 will do the same. obviously the investigation needs to be reopened.

[taledarkside]

So whats the gov reason to crash a plane into the ground with innocent people in it? please tell me the conspiracy theory why.

And the reason to bring building 7. To destroy documents? isn't it cheaper to buy a paper shredder

[taledarkside]

here ya go

momentum interference.

theres momentum, theres interference, and yet, theres still momentum. its called physics 100

watch?v=o5WSFmc-6eI

[psikeyhackr]

I am just ASTOUNDED by your brilliance.

Did you notice that nothing is being broken in that demonstration. There are only losses due to air resistance.

My falling mass must break toothpicks and accelerate any masses on those toothpicks.

The WTC towers would require that supports be bent and dislocated which would require energy losses in addition to accelerating the stationary mass.

Why don't you go compare rain clouds to elephants they are both big and gray?

[taledarkside]

Why don't you keep on adding more mass until the toothpicks break? Atleast, that is what myth busters do when they do an experiment.

Let me drop a feather on a table an expect it to break. Oh it didn't break, thats conservation of momentum. Keep applying the wrong theories in physics. 99% of the people in the forum your on say your wrong. maybe you should look into that.

[psikeyhackr]

It's not my fault that you think mythbusters are smart.

I showed a toothpick could hold 60 washers in a STATIC LOAD. But dropping 20 washers from 12 inches broke lots of toothpicks. But putting just one washer on each toothpick slowed the falling mass much faster.

It is not my fault that you can't recognize the obvious MYTH of a skyscraper's gravitational collapse from what this simple demonstration shows. You can easily test this for yourself. I explained the construction completely.

[taledarkside]

when did i say mythbusters are smart. I said, mythbusters would try more things to break the toothpicks. I already bash mythbusters for some of their experiments on here.

So why don't you drop the 60 washers instead of the 20?

[psikeyhackr]

{{{ So why don't you drop the 60 washers instead of the 20? }}}

Because it would be dumb thing to do.

It is about the difference between static and dynamic loads. Buildings are constructed to support static loads. Supposedly the collapse happened because the dynamic load greatly exceeded the static load capacity.

So all you do is show that you don't comprehend the physics of the demonstration. It triggers the cognitive disonance of what you have already decided to BELEIVE.

[taledarkside]

"So all you do is show that you don't comprehend the physics of the demonstration. It triggers the cognitive disonance of what you have already decided to BELEIVE. "

I already comprehend the theories of "force"

I have already decided to believe the WTC was a rectangle shaped and not a xmas tree pole shape with toothpicks as floors.

[psikeyhackr]

OH, so the conservation of momentum is affected by whether the masses involved are round or square.

ROFLMAO

[taledarkside]

WAT?

I said build a tower thats to scale or do an experiment thats to scale to the same mass that is falling as the WTC.

didn't you watch my video about momentum. the ball swinging and hitting the other ball gave it momentum. So why didn't it slow it down according to your physics?

[psikeyhackr]

The mass moving in that video is CONSTANT!!!

One ball hitting on the right raises one on the left. Two on the right raise two on the left. The mass is not INCREASING therefore the velocity does not change.

So you come here to advertise how much you don't know about physics. LOL

You can't scale a model unless there is accurate data on the structure being scaled. The NIST does not specify the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels. They supported 50% of the building weight.

[taledarkside]

But according to your physics. The ball should stop because of "resistance" Just like the building is falling and you claim it should stop.

The WTC mass doesn't change except the fact of a plane being added on.

uh oh back to NIST again. Build a rectangle building, smash a plane into it and add some weight. doesn't have to be that accurate.

[psikeyhackr]

The balls do stop, EVENTUALLY, because ot Air Resistance.

There is more than air involved in the building collapse. It would take multiple levels just like in my video. But we don't have the distribution of steel and concrete information on the buildings. The mass of the plane is Irrelevant. One floor slab was more than 5 times the weight of the plane.

Check with the NIST.

[taledarkside]

but according to you, the ball should stop right away

"My falling mass must break toothpicks and accelerate any masses on those toothpicks.

supports be bent and dislocated which would require energy losses in addition to accelerating the stationary mass."

[psikeyhackr]

{{{ but according to you, the ball should stop right away }}}

The ball does stop, but the energy is transferred to the ball at the other end so the quantity of mass in motion remains constant. That demonstration has almost nothing to do with what happens to the WTC. We are talking about a case where the total mass in motion increases but the velocity decreases.

[taledarkside]

that demonstration is called conservation of momentum. I thought you just said, conservation of momentum has everything to do with the WTC.

[psikeyhackr]

Your video is a special case of conservation of momentum where the second mass is ZERO and consequently the third mass has the same value as the first. Like I said, "in your video the mass is CONSTANT".

That is not what happened at the WTC or in my video.

What you are talking about DOES NOT APPLY to the subject under discussion.

[taledarkside]

All the balls have mass.

Isn't that what you do in your WTC experiment. You use the same mass (washers)

[psikeyhackr]

{{{ All the balls have mass. }}}

It is obvious that the matter between your ears does not.

You are a total waste of time. Either you are deliberately being obtuse or the subject is beyond your comprehension. In three years you are the FIRST person to ever try to compare what happened to the WTC to those swinging balls.

Does the NUMBER of balls in motion CHANGE? If noT then the mass in MOTION does not change. BYE!!!

[Algonquien3]

Total mass increases and velocity decreases when just using inelastic collision models but following collapse initation where top 16 stories with a V of 8.5m/s became 17 stories with a V of 8.0m/s (- 123 MJ); we have an Elastic* collision where there is no change in KE. This is evident as lower columns remained within elastic stress-strain region, and masses did not* combine into one larger solid mass. Even so, loss in KE does not equal loss in TE > why ignore inelastic buckling from strain-E?

[psikeyhackr]

My falling mass was not compressible.

The bottom level of the top falling portion had to have collapsed just like the top level of the lower stationary portion. The energy required to crush TWO LEVELS SIMULTANEOUSLY had to come from the kinetic energy of the falling portion of the building.

So why don't we know the tons of steel on, and the amount of energy required to crush, each level after EIGHT YEARS?

[Denierbud11]

So that explains the twoofs.

NO reading comprehension skills.

NO idea as to what SCALE is

NO hearing skills... are they all deaf?

Overinflated sense of self worth

Delusions of adequecy.

[psikeyhackr]

I am in awe of the brilliance of you commentary.

How do you scale a mass when you don;t have the data on the mass? Try finding the weights and quantities of the exterior wall panels.

[Denierbud11]

I'm not attempting to build a demonstration of the failure -- you however are, and the burden is on you to do so realistically -- that you cannot find the data is your problem

This project of yours is meaningless as it stands

[psikeyhackr]

It is not my fault that you can't figure out what is being demonstrated.

It is not a model of the WTC.

I am comparing the difference between the falling mass hitting toothpicks without washers for mass to toothpicks with washers for mass to be accelerated. Now if you can't figure out from that what effect stationary mass had to have in a supposed top down collapse of the WTC that is your problem.

Physics does not give a damn about WORDS.

[Denierbud11]

How does the mass of the washers vs the strength of the toothpicks compare with the mass of the towers incomparison to the towers supports?

[psikeyhackr]

The point is that the toothpicks with stationary mass slowed the falling mass much more than toothpicks alone.

So why don't we know the distribution of steel and concrete through the towers by now? It is not my fault if you can't figure out that skyscrapers must get stronger and heavier all of the way down. My toothpicks were the same all of the way down.

Richard Gage doesn't even talk about the distribution of steel.

[taledarkside]

he even can't explain why karate guys can break boards. because its the same principle

[taledarkside]

@psikeyhackr

the blue prints are online. Do some research.

just like typical truthers, waiting for someone else to do the research because they want answers handed to them.

[psikeyhackr]

Oh yeah, the NIST that took 3 years and $20,000,000 to produce 10,000 pages doesn't even have to specify the total for the concrete in the towers.

Try finding the total for a floor assembly, the 205 foot square concrete slab, plus the corrugated pans and the 35 & 60 foot trusses. People have been talking about them pancaking for years but no one says the TOTAL WEIGHT.

CURIOUS AIN'T IT? ASK GAGE?

People that BELIEVE whatever they are told can't even figure out the obvious questions to ask.

[taledarkside]

@psikeyhackr

I guess you figuring out square footage times thickness and multiplying that by weight is over complicated.

Then putting it into an integral for each floor.

i forgot, you suck at math and can't do any independent research

And theres estimated weight of the building all over the internet. theres a think called a search engine.

[psikeyhackr]

That only gives you the weight of the concrete STUPID. That was 601 tons.

What about the corrugated pans the concrete was poured on and the 35 and 60 foot trusses that held the pans? What did that weigh? Can't you read?

[taledarkside]

@psikeyhackr

10lbs and they are probably 4X8 ft sheets, unless they went with a 4X12 sections, which doesn't really matter

[Draysanman]

"People that BELIEVE whatever they are told can't even figure out the obvious questions to ask."

Bingo!!! Man, it's good to see that somebody else has actually noticed this.

[taledarkside]

so a bowling ball takes 9.2 seconds 2 fall from the top of the world trade center. Thats nice 2 know. The WTC collapsed at the height of where the plane impact. So maybe u should recalculate your "real physics"

And why don't you calculate the real loading of each floor. sure you have people loading, plumbing.How about elevators, elevator motors, antenna, drywall, furniture, computers, papers, tile, window washers, HVAC system which is usually stored on the top floors of high rise buildings.

[psikeyhackr]

What good is the loading if we don't know the strength of the columns? Where is the load capacity data on the columns at every level of the towers.

The NIST does not even tell us the total amount of concrete in the towers. You people demand correct information from those who doubt the Official Story but you don't expect it from the people telling you the Official Story.

A bit lacking in objectivity there.

[taledarkside]

who cares about NIST.

go to engineering school and figure out the strength of the columns. Your trying to prove something, so why are you going to do it in a half ass way?

And I'm sure someone has the floor rating online. Which is what I really asked. Build a realistic model that has the same load rating but smaller scale.

[psikeyhackr]

{{{ who cares about NIST. }}}

This from someone talking about karate and then accusing someone of being half assed.

ROFLMHAO

They just took 3 years and $20,000,000 to produce 10,000 pages that don't specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Our engineering schools haven't noticed.

.

[taledarkside]

because breaking bricks is an example of a force breaking an object that is stationary.

While truthers say, such physics is impossible.

So its NIST job to give you totals of everything in the building?

Someone that wants to prove NIST is wrong keeps on going back trying to use NIST information.

[Silentsam7532]

People actually count how long it took the top of the building to hit the ground, so you do go by the top. This should be obvious.

Ofcourse its hard to see it in the debree all around it.

But if it was a pancake collapse then why did debree get ejected sideways with the force it did?

[taledarkside]

You don't go by the top of the building.

So when you drop a ball, do you measure the diameter of the ball to calculate the time it takes a ball to hit the ground?

Same reason you step on a soda can and it gets compressed outward.

And it wasn't a 100% pancake collapse in my scientific research.

And the building didn't fall 100%. A lot of the remaining structure was still standing. So theres another point of inaccurate description of free fall.

[psikeyhackr]

{{{ A lot of the remaining structure was still standing. So theres another point of inaccurate description of free fall. }}}

Your scientific research? ROFL

Care to provide links to pictures of structure that was standing 5 minutes after the collapse.

[taledarkside]

i believe its 911 research website. It has all the pictures of ground zero.

[taledarkside]

no RC airplane flying into the toothpicks? experiment failure

[psikeyhackr]

No morons allowed in the physics departments of engineering schools. Above comment idiotic.

[taledarkside]

isn't that what they say about you in the randi org forum.

[bofors7715]

Your "slightly _more_ than 1/3" statement confused me for a few minutes.

It sounded like you were saying that adding washers, caused "_more_" toothpick failures, when it cause much less (proving your hypothesis about lower tower mass providing significant resistance by simple resting inertia).

It would have more clear if you would have just said "about 1/3."

[bofors7715]

Nice experiment.

I was wondering what the point was until you started putting washers on the toothpicks to represent the adding of mass.

[rookstone]

Try your experiment, But - build your model to scale, in the way the WTC was actually constructed.

I would be interested to see your results.

[psikeyhackr]

In order to build it to scale we would have to have accurate information on the distribution of steel and concrete. We would have to have information on the strength of each level of the tower.

My toothpicks are the same strength all of the way down. The WTC had to get stronger all of the way down. So the WTC should have been less likely to collapse than my experiment. The EXPERTS should have been able to figure that out SIX YEARS AGO.

.

[wolfekeeper]

Actually, the WTC wasn't stronger at the bottom.

Sure, the total amount of support beams was bigger, but so was the weight sitting on it, in exact proportion.

So if you have an overload at the top, say 50% overload, after each floor has given way onto the one below, that too has 50% overload which makes it fall onto the next, and so on, the weight of each floor goes up with *exactly* the same proportion as the strength below goes up, and so the failure propagates.

[psikeyhackr]

{{{ Sure, the total amount of support beams was bigger, but so was the weight sitting on it, in exact proportion. }}}

Just because they were in proportion does not mean they were equal. FEMA said the perimeter columns were only under 20% load. So they could have supported 80% more than they had to. So they DID GET STRONGER all of the way down.

Do your research.

My toothpicks did not get stronger and the stationary mass slowed the falling mass, so your point is irrelevant anyway.

[Silentsam7532]

The core collums started as 4" thick steel and got thinner as it got higher. The building was lighter as you got higher.

[Silentsam7532]

I remember watching a documentry on the construction of the WTC and I remember them saying that the steel in the collumns were thicker on the bottom, and got thinner as they went up.

So if the top of the building was lghter how could it push and accelerate lower floors that were of greater mass.

To believe the official story is to believe that for that action, their was a greater reaction.

[wolfekeeper]

It's like dominoes where the dominoes get progressively heavier.

The top domino was too small to knock over the bottom one, but after it has pushed on a slightly bigger domino that pushed on a slightly bigger one that pushed... the biggest one at the bottom one will fail.

[taledarkside]

how can a karate guy break bricks with his hand? His hand weighs less than the bricks

[psikeyhackr]

I love this Genius physics here.

I demonstrated REAL PHYSICS right there in the video.

Without washers on the toothpicks 17 were broken. With only one washer on each toothpick only 6 or 7 were broken. So adding mass to the toothpicks slowed and stopped the falling mass of TWENTY WASHERS. So less than half the mass reduced the fall by more than 50%.

I explained the entire apparatus. You can duplicate it for yourselves.

What is wrong? It is not what you WANT TO BELIEVE?

[taledarkside]

The WTC wasn't a 100 floor Xmas pole. Why don't you redo the experiment and build it in a rectangle shape with the correct floor trusses.

Why don't you explain the physics of a karate guy breaking bricks? Isn't the whole debate, the top floors are not heavy enough to crush the floors below?

[psikeyhackr]

Apparently you can't distinguish between moving mass hitting stationary mass and the FORCE behind the mass.

If your karate guy simply held his hand above the brick and allowed GRAVITY ALONE to bring his hand down and hit the brick, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

My demonstration was driven by GRAVITY ALONE. Supposedly like the WTC if the Official Story is correct.

I could have used ball bearings in a clear plastic tube. The pole is irrelevant, just the mass. I you understood physics you'd get that.

[taledarkside]

There is always force on being applied. F=MA since gravity is always "on"

Even, if the building isn't falling, there is a force on the steel beams.

Use something that has a larger mass then washers. And see if the toothpicks break. If you need to use 20 washers, find something else.

And the top 10 floors was moving when it hit the next floor below it. That moving mass had "force" behind it, just like a guy breaking bricks.

[Silentsam7532]

the "karate guy" uses a lot of acceleration. Its about as basic as it gets. Force = Mass * acceleration.

The WTC did not have very much acceleration. In the official story the building had nothing but its own weight to accelerate its fall.

The resisted acceleration should have been slowed and stopped. I think the make of this video knows his experiment is not a scale model, just an example of the forces involved that helps illistrate the whole in the official story.

[taledarkside]

the WTC already had potential energy(gravity always acting upon it as a downward force) And the building itself has a downward force already applied aswell.

The only acceleration the building had is gravity. To compensate for the lack of acceleration, it had the mass.

[psikeyhackr]

Potential Energy is based on the ASSUMPTION that the mass in question is FREE TO FALL the entire distance. Since skyscrapers are DESIGNED TO HOLD THEMSELVES UP doing a PE calculation on a skyscraper is a mathematical delusion.

But since it would require knowing the amount of steel and concrete at every level I have no objection to people wanting to do it. So where is the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level information?

That info is going to affect conservation of momentum calcs.

[Silentsam7532]

I dont know what people thionk the towers were built so weak. Plus since when is it possible for jet fuel to weaken steel that much, especially structural steel.

Maybe if it was made in China with resources supplied from Mexico.

I am a welder and that steel couldnt have taken much heat damage from what wasnt much of a fire. The firman that was standing right in the devestation said there was 2 main pockets of fire that could be put out.

[taledarkside]

your a welder not a fireman, so your just assuming what the firefighter "means"

Jet fuel wasn't the only fuel in the building. Its always fun when people only "assume" thats the only thing burning in the building.

[psikeyhackr]

So what fuel was there that wasn't in any other skyscraper fire that DID NOT RESULT IN A COLLAPSE?

These rationalizations that don't complete their own trails of DUMB LOGIC are getting really OLDE.

[taledarkside]

yup, physics is dumb logic. I can be like you and make up variables and plug it into functions and get the wrong answers.

Find me a building with the same structure as the WTC and had a plane flown into it that didn't collapse. And I'll find what the difference was between them.

[psikeyhackr]

What VARIABLES are you accusing me of making up?

The NIST does not tell us the total for the concrete in the towers and they do not tell us the weights and quantities of the 12 types of exterior wall panels. Therefore the information required to analyze the problem is inadequate.

So why do people BELIEVE a 150 ton airliner can destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours?

[taledarkside]

because its stupid to believe the government planted bombs in front of 1000s of employees.

office worker "whats that your putting in my office window"

gov worker"oh thats just thermite, we need to put it on all of the outer structure"

office worker "isn't that dangerous"

gov worker "yes it is"

office worker "well than, I'll continue working in this building for the next 4 months with explosives in my office"

[psikeyhackr]

I'm not talking about the government or bombs or explosive.

I'm talking about physics and the conservation of momentum.

Now what VARIABLES are you accusing me of making up?

[taledarkside]

LOL conservation of momentum. same thing that all nutjobs talk about.

i told you to rework the free fall speed of the building.

you should have watched the history channel yesterday when they did a rendoring of the John hancock building in chicago that fell in a pancake collapse fashion.

[psikeyhackr]

Sure, calling someone a nutjob makes it easy for you to accept that you don't have the brains to understand the conservation of momentum.

But it can't be applied to any building without knowing the distribution of mass for the building. So why don't we have that information on the WTC after SEVEN YEARS?

The NIST says there were 12 types of exterior wall panels. Why don't they tell us the weights and quantities of each type.

You still haven't specified what VARIABLES I supposedly made up.

[taledarkside]

Still going back to NIST. LOL

Why don't you write an email to the company that designed the building. And ask them for blueprints. Take that information, go to home depot, and figure out how much drywall weighs, screws, concrete etc... Go to a steel yard and ask them how much a steel beam weighs

It isn't called research if your expecting people to give you the answers.

Conservation of momentum is physics 100. Passed that with an A. You forgot the term "inertia" that goes with it

[Silentsam7532]

yes ofcourse it always had that potential energy. But the building was more then strong enough to stop that energy. This is why the building could stand.

The force of a couple floors colapseing doesnt provide that much acceleration (yes I know it had a lot of mass) to cause the building bellow to collapse.

[taledarkside]

the building stands because its designed to hold potential energy. Was it designed to support kinetic energy?

Was it designed for it to have 10 floors land on top of a plane?

[psikeyhackr]

ROFLMAO

If the tower was built 100th scale it would be 13.6 ft tall, 2 ft wide and 2 ft long. Do you think it would be 100th the weight? NO! it would be 1,000,000th the weight made of the same materials.

The weight & strength of material do not scale with size. Objects get stronger in relation to size & weight as they get smaller. People focus on what they see too much, assume they understand.

You will have to scale the effect up in your head.

4 times the weight only doubles strangth.

[psikeyhackr]

{{ The tops of what was left of the cores had no structural integrity left. }}

I see. You just have to make stuff up and claim that it is true. EVERYONE is supposed to believe it because of your obvious brilliance. ROFL

[leftysergeant]

This trest is only valid if you can prove that the devices holding the washers to the rob in any way represent the strength of the brackets that held the floor slabs to the perimeter columns.

You have no done so.

That the collapse took far less than 9 seconds shows that there was resiotance to the collapse.

FAIL.

[psikeyhackr]

NOT!

4 drops were done without washers. An average of 17.75 toothpicks were broken.

On drops with washers an average of 6.64 were broken.

The point of the demonstration was to show that MASS inhibited the collapse. Why do you think I kept asking about the steel and concrete on each level? Didn't you read the title?

The NIST spent 3 years and $20,000,000 producing a report that does not specify the tons of steel and concrete on each level of buildings designed before the Moon landing.

[leftysergeant]

You have proven nothing relevant to the collapse of the towers. It should be obviousto anyone with a room temp IQ that the towersfell because the colapse of upper floors tore lower floors loose from the perimeter columns, leaving those perimeter columns free to fall off, at first, then providing a swarm of compressed debris to help shove them outward.

Your tooth picks must have exactly the same proportional failure popint as the brackets holding the floors to the perimeter or you have nada.

[psikeyhackr]

You don't suppose that people with room temperature IQs would notice that THE CORE of the buildings completely disappeared from your explanation.

In the official explanation THE CORE of the top falling portion had to come down on THE CORE of the lower stationary portion. So what happened there?

Stop thinking of my washers as floor slabs. Think MASS hitting MASS.

[leftysergeant]

The top part of the core appears to have slid a little off-center and started breaking up much more slowly that the parts below. Notice that the core of the south tower almost fell off into the street. Large portions of both cores were left standing long after the flloors that had been attached to them were gone. The cores played little part in the process once they broke on the impacted floors. All those collapsing floors no doubt set up a destructive mechanical resonnance in the cores.

[psikeyhackr]

The top of the south tower should have fallen down the side but my demonstration must come straight down because of the dowel.

The top of the south tower should have crushed one side more than the other causing it to tilt more until the center of mass was beyond the edge of the building. But the NIST report never mentions the center of mass of the top of the south tower.

[leftysergeant]

Look at the videos of the start of collapse. The bottom of the top section can be seen to move slightly toward the camera while the top moves away. The broken core slid off the side of the standing core and the standing core acted as a guide to bring it back before it could pass the center of gravity to topple.

[psikeyhackr]

{{ The cores played little part in the process once they broke on the impacted floors. All those collapsing floors no doubt set up a destructive mechanical resonnance in the cores. }}

Yeah Right! The core supported 50% of the weight of the building and you just make up some "DESTRUCTIVE RESONANCE" BS and that explains EVERYTHING.

ROFLMAO

[leftysergeant]

I did not invent this concept. You bang a big steel structure like that enough, it will start to shake apart. The phenomenon is well-known to anyone who knows about the different kinds of wheels that were used on the T-34 tanks.

That the cores are visible through the dust during the collapses proves that what caused it all acted directly on the floor slabs.  Thus, your model, if it does not accurately reflect what happened to the floors is worthless. Fail.

[psikeyhackr]

{{ The phenomenon is well-known to anyone who knows about the different kinds of wheels that were used on the T-34 tanks. }}

How fast do the wheels on a T-34 tank move and how long does this DESTRUCTIVE RESONANCE take? Does it happen in less than TWO HOURS on the tank? Because if so that doesn't sound very battle worthy to me.

So you think you can compare a wheel on a tank to the core of the WTC. How many sections of columns in the WTC weighed more than that whole tank?

Wheels! ROFLMAO

[leftysergeant]

The tops of what was left of the cores had no structural integrity left. The force of all that steel and concrete acting on them was absolutely certain to have set off some ghastly strong vibrations This is common sense stuff.

[ItsAllCoolio]

a bowling ball dropped from the top of the wtc towers (average ht. =416m) would not hit the ground after 9.2 secs as that would imply it would be travelling at 90 m/s on impact. I googled it and got two terminal velocities for a bowling ball... 70m/s and 74m/s. It wouldn't affect it greatly but I'm just sayin'

[Sueezedtight]

The simplest experiments can be the most elegant when they demonstrate a fundamental principle.

[Swazi4]

Oh, and it took longer than 9.2 seconds for each tower to collapse. So what the hell is your point? They didn't fall at free fall speed, so controlled demolition didn't happen.

[psikeyhackr]

There is no such thing as FREE FALL SPEED.

It is free fall ACCELERATION. And I didn't say anything about controlled demolition.

[Swazi4]

This "test" is about as retarded as Richard Gage's box "test".

Washers? Really?

This is a fucking joke. But what do you expect from idiot 9/11 Truthers anymore?

[psikeyhackr]

Have you made some great discovery indicating that washers don't have MASS and therefore do not have INERTIA?

Does gravity not work on WASHERS?

I am hitting washers with washers. It is still MASS hitting MASS. Do the Laws of Physics not apply to washers?

Were the Laws of Physics different in New York on 9/11?

[Swazi4]

You are comparing washers, to the World Trade Center Towers. Comparing washers, to abuildings which each floor was an achor in size.

The physics are covered in the NIST report. Other physicists also say nothing irregular happened, and bash the crap out of Stephen Jones for his crackpot thermite paper.

[psikeyhackr]

I am not comparing washers to the World Trade Center. I am demonstrating that a falling mass hitting stationary masses below and has to break the supports of those stationary masses must be slowed down considerably.

It is not my fault that you get fixated on what you see and cannot comprehend the fundamental general principles that control the behavior of the inanimate objects that you observe.

I could have put ball bearings in a clear plastic tube but it would have been more expensive.

[Swazi4]

You aren't comparing it to the WTC. Really. Is that why the title of this video is "WTC MIToo Momentum Interference Test"? If you aren't comparing it to the towers, why did you bother putting WTC in the title? And 9/11, WTC are in the keywords.

[psikeyhackr]

I said I am not comparing WASHERS to the towers.

What do you think the ball bearing comment was about?

You want to make a big deal out of WASHERS.

Did a falling mass collapse onto a similar falling mass at the WTC or not?

[psikeyhackr]

Yep! It looks like my rating took a hit from those Genius JREFers.

LOL

[iSunTzu]

This is proof why you will never build large buildings, understand 911, and use physics properly. You demonstration is pure junk and failed. Did I miss the joke? Cause this is a giant joke.

[psikeyhackr]

The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. What kind of electronic computers did they have back then? I went to college for electrical engineering and they NEVER did a good job of explaining von Neumann machines.

Don't they have to figure out how much STEEL and CONCRETE to put on every level of a skyscraper? So why don't we have a table from an official source specifying that after SEVEN YEARS?

Great job from the nation that put men on the Moon!

[AgiHammerthief]

"Is something stopping you from making a video to show how it could happen?"

1) lack of equipment

2) I've actually got a life

I didn't (want to) claim you are insulting me. it was just a reminder: you are the mod here.

[psikeyhackr]

It almost makes me want to cry.

I paid almost $1000 for a Canon ZR-10 in 2000. I just saw one on ebay with a bid of $20 and 1 day left to run. So equipment to make videos is available real cheap. No wonder there is so much stuff on the net.

If you contradict yourself what do you expect? FALL OF PHYSICS only has momentum as a resistive force.

[AgiHammerthief]

How do you know that the weight of the washers when compared to the breaking strain of the pegs is proportionate to the weight of the trusses when compared to the breaking strain of the truss attachments to the inner and outer cores in the WTC?

[psikeyhackr]

Why do you say nothing about the breaking strain of the beams and columns in the CORE?

I am demonstrating the RELEVANCE of MASS by comparing the number of toothpicks broken with and without MASS.

So why don't we know the distribution of MASS in the WTC? And why haven't EXPERTS been pointing that out for SEVEN YEARS?

[AgiHammerthief]

yeah, well demonstraded.

only... if the strength is an order of magnitude off (higher) then the influence of the toothpicks is by the same order of magnitude higher. or rather the influence of the momentum of the mass lower.

So if you want it purely to be a demonstration of Momentum Influence, the strength of the things holding up the mass(floors) is ideally as near 0 as possible. Try a breaking point of 10 disks (floors above ipact zome in WTC 1)

[psikeyhackr]

Now you are talking BS again.

FALL OF PHYSICS is the computation of the effect of the conservation of momentum without any physical supports involved. But you avoid saying anything specific about that. So you just come up with excuses to avoid issues while BELIEVING NONSENSE.

[AgiHammerthief]

Its your channel, so you can be as personal and insulting as you like, but its not going to help you.

I'm just saying what could be improved with this model, in a calm and polite manner.

The makeup IS waayyy better than the wobbly tower btw.

[psikeyhackr]

ROFL

You want to claim I am insulting but FALL OF PHYSICS did exactly what you are complaining about now. It eliminated the strength of the supports but you never sang its praises. You just want to claim to be right no matter what.

The straight down gravitational collapses of the towers are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE but too many people want to BELIEVE IT.

Is something stopping you from making a video to show how it could happen? LOL