Well, 10,001 hits on 10/4/11. It took almost 4 years. Views started leveling off around June of 2009. So when I America going to do physics? Probably can't handle the psychological shock.
Just wondering, but have you noticed that this model is significantly stronger than the tower construction? The towers' main strength lay in the core column, and the outer panels were only held on by the trusses extending from the core. Therefor, a possibly more accurate portrayal would be if you used popsicle sticks or something (though those are probably too strong as well).
There is simply a fundamental flaw in your model. It does not accurately represent the physics.
@Daniel092004 The purpose of that model was to show that the response of the structure due to the impact changed with the mass and the distribution of mass in the structure. Therefore that information had to be necessary to analyze the effect of the airliner impact on the towers.
So why hasn't everyone been demanding the steel and concrete data on the towers?
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.
the evidence to me that pancaking happened comes from the videos of the collapse, the portion above the point of impact retained its shape and it's orientation as dust and debris came out from the pancaking levels below the point of impact....and it is that downward pancaking that pulverized the majority of the buildings.
the plane took out not just one level but parts of several levels. when that first level collapsed, the floor directly below had to withstand the impact of not just the weight of the floor directly above but the weight of ALL the floors above that point. The amount of energy transferred had to be huge. I am sure there are people out there that could do a calculation based on guesstimates...I can accept the idea that pancaking downward, once it started was unstoppable
screaming "TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE in SEVEN YEARS" over and over does not make your argument any more valid, you don't win a debate based on how many times you say the same thing over and over...
your model did not get penetrated, it did not catch on fire, it's useless.
And you ridiculed the computer simulation? Anyway. Would you agree that steel loses its strength at high temperatures? Not melt, just lose its strength. Structural steel is at less than 50% strength at 1100 fahrenheit. Although the temps at WTC never reached the meltingpoint of steel (~2800), it did reach above 1100 deg (reports saying 1832 at most). Then at less than 50% (10% at 1800 deg), wouldn't it be plausible for the steel to collapse under the weight of floors above?
@Insolent85 Doesn't that mean the CORE TEMPERATURE of the steel has to rise to that level? How much time does that take? How could it happen in LESS THAN ONE HOUR for the south tower when there had to be enough steel there to support another TWENTY NINE STORIES?
@74pbg Oh yeah? The core columns are not evenly spaced.
Let's see you provide a link to a picture showing how the horizontal beams connecting the core columns were arranged.
People keep claiming information is out there but I have never seen anyone so much as specify the weight of a floor assembly. The NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the tower. It is really curious that so much simple information is never mentioned yet we hear all this SCIENTIFIC CRAP.
Excellent video:) There is an article going to be published ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics in july as a response to the preposterous gravitational
collapse theory. I believe you will find it of interest , since I cant link directly.
search for Anders Bjorkman wtc in google. He has effectively narrowed down the basic principles this theory grossly violates. Believing the official collapse theory would render a persons scientific capabilities useless IMO.
We all know it survived the immediate impact. But how do we compute the structural damage done by the impact?
Why don't we know the TONS of STEEL & TONS of CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS?
The NIST says the 70th floor moved 12". Extrapolation would indicate that the 81st floor moved 14 ". How many tons of steel & concrete had to move how fast? How much of the planes kinetic energy did that take?
Curious how so many people that claim to know physics don't ask obvious questions.
My point is that your model is only a simple demonstration of the elasticity built into towers in general. Your models and elasticity are of no aid in understanding the collapse mechanism or the dynamics of the collapse.
Do you have a plan to do something with a more accurate measurement of the weight of each individual floor? Or is the lack of published precision just something that feeds paranoid thoughts about a grand coverup?
All you demonstrate is that you can't figure out the purpose of the model.
Why did I do multiple deflections with different weights? Why are there time lapses with different weights and distributions? Why are there frames asking about the steel and concrete.?
The point is that the behavior changes with the different distributions. Therefore that information is necessary to analyze what happened to the REAL TOWERS.
The Experts at the NIST need to explain why they don't have it.
Of course towers react differently to outside disturbances depending on their mass and mass distribution. But, since the planes did not knock the buildings over, your demonstration is irrelevant. The elastic behavior from the impacts was over long before the collapse initiation. Why don't you build a model that deals with NIST's collapse initiation theory instead of an elementary school classical mechanics demonstration?
THAT is why scientists and engineers describe a degree of uncertainty in their calculations. The weight of each floor can be obtained from sources other than NIST that would allow a degree of uncertainty of +-10%. If you build a model that will only collapse using the NIST collapse initiation theory when you go beyond the uncertainty, THEN a more precise value is called for. If a collapse initiates for all values within the uncertainty, you can't learn much more using greater precision.
All that means is that you worship people that you BELIEVE ARE SCIENTISTS.
You cannot think for yourself.
There were more than 2500 exterior wall panels on each tower and 12 different types of those panels. Let's see you find the weights of those panels +/- 10%.
Just another Truther who ingores scientific foundings! You can research on the work of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, he has done an independent investigation. Do not believe in conspiracy stupiditiy!
Around where i live, lumberjacks don't have to use saws, they just cover a tree with a plastic bag. Then they shoot a big arrow at it using a giant, truck-mounted crossbow. The tree then turns in to a cloud of sawdust which is used to make plywood. The 911 method is the future of timber harvesting.
But after SEVEN YEARS stupid arguments deserve to be insulted.
Why doesn't EVERYBODY expect to have been told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers by official government sources in SEVEN YEARS?
In human readable form. Not some SAP2000 database.
NY Twin Towers Structural Engineer Re: Boeing 747 Collision
This is similar to your vid as the engineer discusses the buildings not falling over due to a plane impact. Truthers like to point to this as evidence but in reality the buildings didn't fall over due to a plane impact but from the local damage caused by these impacts and the fires that followed.
I do some very basic calcs in the comments. I also have an issue with his assessment of local damage also.
Ok... hmmm! This viideo is completely irrelevant. What are you trying to prove? We all know the impact force of the planes didn't cause the building to fall over and the oscillation of the towers after the impact is irrelvant as it would have damped very quickly.
"THE QUESTION IS DOES IT DEMONSTRATE ANYTHING RELEVANT IS RELATION TO WHAT IT IS TRYING TO MODEL"
Yes its a great model and demostates damping quite well but it has nothing to do with the collapse of the twin towers!!!
Ye I agree. I'd love that info. But still this video is irrelevant to the collapse. If you notice in the calcs I mentioned I had to assume a weight for each floor based on an assumed concrete slab thickness. I seen your other vids and they are the most thought out models I have seen on youtube (thats not hard) but its difficult to draw conclusions from them. I think it would not be a stretch to assume the weight of each floor would be the same as any differences would be negligible
I distinguish between FLOOR and LEVEL. People focus on the FLOOR SLABS but how much steel was in a 12 foot height, including the core and perimeter columns?
The 105th level only had to support 5 levels but the 5th level had to support another 105. Don't you think there was a difference in the amount of steel? So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on each and every level after SEVEN YEARS? The NIST does not even specify the total for the concrete.
My point is that the floor structure will be mostly constant throughout and although the columns will change they account (in my calcs with lots o' assumptions) for less than 10% of the weight of each floor and that is probably overestimating their significance
If you check the NICSTAR1 report they say the 70th LEVEL of WTC2 moved 12 inches as a result ot the impact. That means all of the steel in the core and the perimeter columns moved.
The kinetic energy of the plane is known. So how can the energy that did structural damage be computed without knowing how much energy went into shaking the building? How can that be computed without the distribution of mass?
The NIST had 3 years and $20M. This should have been done already. It is not a JOKE!
Again I would have to say that this movement is irrelevant. It could move as much in high winds and was designed to withstand a hurricane. The plane caused local damage and the distribution of mass in this regard has no bearing. It is not mentioned as it has nothing to do with it. The damage to the exterior columns is obvious but the damage to the interior ones has to be estimated by looking at the their positions and the position of the plane crash
The planes essentially went through the core as evidenced by the video but the problem comes in trying to find out if large enough pieces of debris were still travelling fast enough to cut or do damage to the core columns by hitting them directly. NIST used a worst case scenario to estimate the possible damage. Im afraid their computer model is probably the best guess available.
I still don't see what you're on about! The only thing you would find doing that is the energy losses from sound etc. that were not directly transferred into the structure.
There was energy that did structural damage and there was energy that moved the building and did not do structural damage.
How can you figure out how much did structural damage if you don't know what shook the building? How can that be computed without distribution of mass data? I BELIEVE Nothing! That is official corporate policy. PROVE IT!
That calculation sounds impossible. For one debris was ejected the other side thus not transferring energy to the structure. You would also have to know how much energy was lost due to sound, heat etc. in the process too. The energy of exploding fuel (as well as the fact it wouldn't be unidirectional) would also be required and debris that cut or damaged a column would also transfer energy into the structure meaning that quantifying the values for such a calculation would be impossible.
You are getting ridiculous now to try to pretend you are not talking nonsense. The amount of debris that went through the entire building was so small it is irrelevant. The building averaged 862 TONS OF STEEL on every level. The plane was less than 150 tons including the fuel.
My point is you would have to track all the energy if you wanted to do such a calculation and that would be very difficult. You could simplify it by assuming all energy that didn't go into shaking the tower went into damaging columns in a worst case scenario type of thing just to see if it was possible to sever several core columns. But I would guess that would show there was enough energy to break enough at least. But you're welcome to try
There is a method of structural analysis called "virtual work" however that may be useful if you ever attempt such calculations. It uses the idea of conservation of energy to analyse a structure.
{{ My point is you would have to track all the energy }}
The entire airliner was only 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% the mass of the building. Those pieces that went all of the way thru the building were what percentage of the airliner? You can't understand how miniscule percentages don't matter to the BIG PICTURE but you want to quibble over trivia and then pretend that the amount of steel on each level the towers did not matter.
If you calculated the energy required to give the building a 12 in deflection (thats what you said right?) and subtracted it from the kinetic energy of the plane and assumed the rest of the energy went into destroying the structure locally (specifically the columns) im sure you'd find there was more than enough to destroy a lot more than even NIST says. To do it properly you would have to differeniate between say the destroyed floor structure and destroyed columns
this would be extremely difficult to do and would not yield very accurate results. You would have to split the energy up correctly between all the structural and non-structural elements that were destroyed locally.
The mass of the plane relative to the mass of the building is unimportant as we are talking about energy (and the plane would have a very high kinetic energy). That energy is distributed locally like I said
I showed you how the mass of each floor wouldn't vary significantly with the increasing column sizes as they make up a relatively small percentage of the mass on each level and thus assuming a uniform mass distribution would be acceptable. The amount of steel at the level of the impact matters.
All these "miniscule percentages" add up and differenciating how the energy went into destroying the plane, the floor structure, the columns and any other non-structural elements would be extremely difficult and certainly give a range of possibilities that would not be miniscule.
To calculate the deflection of the building you'd have to create a computer model with each element and its properties included and then apply the dynamic load. The mass would be a small variable in this calculation
there are so many other factors affecting the deflection of the structure its a wonder you concentrated on the mass only and shows a complete lack of understanding of structural analysis
And you think you are accomplishing something by distorting the issue.
I brought up the information we are not being told. Everyone knows there were 47 columns in the core and 236 perimeter columns. But the thickness and therefore weight of those columns changed going up the building so horizontal movement resulting from the impact meant the weight on each level mattered.
So make your own video to show how smart you are. You have gone beyond boring.
distorting the issue?! So thats what truthers cause reasonable arguments and criticism of their ideas. Your model is very good but I don't see the connection between it and the collapse mechanism of the structure. The distributed of mass throughout the building is a mute point. It does affect the lateral deflection but using this and the conservation of energy to calculate exact damage to core columns with reasonable accuracy would be next to impossible
{{ The distributed of mass throughout the building is a mute point. }}
The word is MOOT not mute.
I skyscraper must hold itself up. The designers must figure out where to put how much steel. They must figure out the weight of concrete for the steel to hold up. So the top 15% by volume must be lighter than any other 15% by volume.
I would tell you to figure out what that must means to the conservation of momentum if I thought you were smart enough. But that is MOOT also. LOL
lol jokes on you. If this were a proper debate I would have won already. First you wave the white flag by saying I was "distorting the issue", then you try to insult me and now you're arguing over spelling and refusing to explain your position further in a disguised attempt to further insult me!
You made the comment that the buildings should not have collapsed as well as that ridicules comparison to the Genbaku dome in Hiroshima. I hardly find it believable that, that little piece of sensationalism is based on physics
Buildings are designed to resist downward forces. It is one of those gravity things. It creates compressional force on components designed to resist it. The atomic bomb detonated almost directly above that building so it was subjected to compressional forces.
The top of the north tower coming down had to apply compressional force. So at the very least the structure should have slowed the fall. A less than 18 second collapse is impossible.
Your comparing a four story building to skyscraper. How does that jibe with your the smaller an object the greater its strength in relation to its size statement?
If you research Tunguska you will observe the same phenomenon of trees near the center of the blast remaining standing with the branches stripped off while trees away from the center being knocked over.
It is about the physics of the incident not the size of the building. The same physics applies to trees.
These are your words. THIS IS WHY MAKING A SCALE MODEL THAT MIGHT COLLAPSE THE SAME WAY IS IMPOSSIBLE. THE STRENGTH TO WEIGHT RATIO CHANGES WITH SIZE.
That physics demonstration was not about the collapse and was never intended to be. Why don't you quit wasting your tie advertising the fact that you aren't smart enough to figure out what it was about.
My second video about the distribution of mass in relation to the collapse shouLd be finished soon.
Guess What? The MASS stops the collapse. It is called the CONSERVATION of MOMENTUM.
You have only proved what we are already aware of. That these buildings did not topple over imediately after the impacts.The story doesnt end there though.The jets did not bounce harmlessly off the side of the buildings as they do in your experiment. They violently ripped through them with fragments exiting from the other side.They exploded in huge balls of flame and ignited fires that burned unchecked for several hours. your experiment addresses none of these facts.
You obviously could not figure out what the video was about.
Why do you think I was changing the weights and their distributions? The distribution of mass must be known to analyze the impact. How much of the kinetic energy of the impact moved the building and how much did structural damage?
Fact. Whoever or whatever you feel is responsible for it,theWTC towers did indeed collapse on 911. Fact.For reasons you yourself have already stated, your model cant be induced to collapse in an even remotely like manner to a full scale building. It matters not whether the building was brought down by terrorist, controlled demo or Godzilla. Your model is completely useless as far as proving if these buildings should or should not have collapsed.
Physics is not about FEELINGS! I never implied it was! You know full well that I was referring to your own,as yet unknown theory as to what brought theWTC down. You do a lot of talking about what shouldn't have happened. But nary a word about what did. There are dozens of preposterous theories going around. There are less than a hand full that are even remotely plausible and they leave just as many unanswered questions as the official reports do. What do you say brought the towers down?
It amazes me how many people can't comprehend the concept of eliminating a negative. We are talking about Newtonian Physics here. If an airliner weighing less than 200 tons can bring down a building weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than 2 hours it should be possible to explain it EXACTLY.
But the people claiming this happened can't even tell us the TONS of STEEL and CONCRETE on every level of the skyscraper but we are supposed to believe that is possible. Where's the PHYSICS?
1) simply because you dont understand the physics, or the explanation does not make explanation irrational, nor does it mean the physics were violated.
2) because the buildings survived the impacts, the questions about oscillations due to the impacts are are ultimately irrelevent.
You can believe I don't understand the physics all you want.
The kinetic energy of the plane had two effects. It punched a hole doing structural damage. AND it deflected the building starting the oscillation. The south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor.
The amount of energy that did structural damage cannot be computed without knowing what shook the building and that cannot be done without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete. So why don't we have it after SEVEN YEARS?
Sure, but unless youre telling me the oscillations didnt dampen for almost an hour, then the Impact (oscillations) by themselves are insufficient to bring the building down.
So, given that the building survived the impact, and oscillations, where exactly is your confusion on that issue?
I didn't say the oscillations brought the building down. The NIST says they damped out in FOUR MINUTES. But how much energy does it take to make a building that size oscillate for that long?
So how do you compute how much energy did structural damage if you don't know how much shook the building? And you don't compute that without distribution of mass.
The building never should have collapsed. So why don't they PROVE the plane could do it by providing distribution of steel and concrete?
cont...retroactively weigh every desk, every chair, every file cabinet, and every person in the building, AND know their exact posistions within the building at impact, rough estimates are the besr ur going to get.
If you want to advertise your idiocy by talking about desks and chairs when we don't know the distribution of steel and concrete that is your business.
The chairs didn't resist the collapse of the building the steel did. There are multiple reasons for wanting to know about the quantity of steel. I was only demonstrating one.
LOL. If you want to pretend that mass doesnt effect the dampening of oscillations (especially since that seems to be your whole pitch with your movie) then the idiocy is not mine.
And you morons wonder why no one familiar with the sciences takes you seriously? Its because of shit like this. You scream about not having an exact mass (to calculate dampening) then you call it idiocy when its pointed out you would need ALL the exact masses, not just the concrete.
We can NEVER have exact information for the contents of the building idiot. They will only be guesses.
But what reason is there not to have the steel and concrete on each level of buildings designed before the Moon landing? So why haven't people claiming a <200 ton plane could bring down a 400,000+ ton building in less than 2 hours provided that information within SEVEN YEARS?
Why do quantities for concrete range from 90,000 tons to more than 300,000 tons? And NIST doesn't give a total?
I am talking about the weight of steel and concrete that was part of the building not the contents. The NIST report does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers.
I have seen numbers ranging from 90,000 tons to 600,000 tons.
You can't compare these results to the WTC because nothing's in the correct scale. If the size of your model is a 1000th of the WTC, then you'll need the weight also to be a 1000th of WTC's weight. However if you had all of the correct sizes and weights of the WTC, then you can do a scaled model then compare them to the WTC.
So you obviously can't figure out the purpose of the model and video.
It was to demonstrate that changing the mass and the distribution changed the effect of the impact. The amplitude and frequency of the tower changed. The NCSTAR1 report has a graph of the south tower's FOUR MINUTE oscillation.
Why do you think I put in those questions about the STEEL and CONCRETE on every level?
An accurate model can't be built without correct info on the distribution of mass.
By the way, as objects get smaller their strength to weight ratio changes. Small objects are stronger in relation to their size and weight. Consequently I doubt that it is possible to build a small model that could possibly collapse anything like the WTC. It could not be heavy enough in relation to its own strength.
This is why a computer model is necessary but of course that presents the opportunity to hide information and cheat.
{{ If the size of your model is a 1000th of the WTC, then you'll need the weight also to be a 1000th of WTC's weight. }}
A 1/2 scale model would have 1/8th the volume so it would have 1/8th the weight. A 1000th scale model would have a BILLIONTH the weight. This is why making a scale model that might collapse the same way is impossible. The strength to weight ratio changes with size.
The video is about distribution of mass in steel and concrete in 1 & 2 not molten steel.
Since jet fuel will only burn at 1800 deg F in a pure oxygen environment and the atmosphere is only 20% oxygen then it had to be something other than jet fuel.
look men 9/11 was not a conspiracy, if u worked in the towers like i did, and knew them inch by inch, like i did, then your "smart ass", should be samrt enough to know that the support column, on the SE corner of the S (2) tower, was melted, so it collapsed, and all the support columns, on the (N)(1) tower, bended up to 5ft in some areas, until they broke and the tower collapsed! so 9/11 was not a conspiracy!! and by the way, i like your little model, but when u hit it, u do not perforate it bye
The conservation of momentum for the collapse cannot be analyzed without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete of the towers.
Have you heard how much steel was in the impact zones in SEVEN YEARS? Why not?
The nation that put men on the moon can't tell everyone the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing. Think about how absurd that is.
look the only moron here is u ok the towers, designed by minoru yamasaki were design to hold up multiple plane impacts. the plane bigger at the time was a 707. if the werenot good buildings,they woud have collapsed as soon as the planes hit. and they were bottom keavy. ur just jellous, cuz u didnt want bush to win so ur blaming it on them. talk to the port authority, and see what they said. i was one of the construction managers, so i should know u wanted 2 work there. i saved ppl u didnt bye
I am not talking about what people claim the buildings could withstand.
I am saying the designers of ALL SKYSCRAPERS must determine the distribution of steel and concrete and I bet that distribution would make it impossible for buildings the size of the WTC towers to undergo straight down gravitational collapses FROM THE TOP in less than 18 seconds.
So why haven't we been told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS?
Psikeyhackr, you have made clear you are unhappy with the conclusions reached by the official investigations. If you wish to dispute them based on your mass interaction test then the burden of proof lies solely and you, and it is your responsibility to collect the relevant information (i.e. the steel and concrete distribution). No one is going to do it for you; no one should do it for you, and whining at the youtube population will not get you the information you supposedly want.
My objective is to get people to understand some basic physics so they will comprehend how idiotic it is for the NIST to not have provided that information already.
The nation the put men on the moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing but expects them to believe it could undergo a top down gravitational collapse.
if the support collumn was made of steel, then it wouldnt have melted. and to collapse at free fall speed straight down would have required the supports to bend simultaneously at exactly in exactly the same direction. And the 3rd tower that fell in this way didnt even get hit by a plane. Any thoughts?
hey im not talking bout the main column cuz the plain destroyd it. all that was supporting the building were some columns in one side of the facade. look at the collapse carefully. and 7wtc was controlled demolition idk why but it was and it has been rebuilt. it opened since 2005 but i dont like it. look it up on google.
When the two towers started to go down, they were peeling away, so the official version about tremendous weight is nonsense. The weight was reducing itself, yet destroyed even the strongest part at the base, all the way to the foundation.
Wait a second. I'm on your side. Why are you attacking me, over and over again? Your models show that the official story cannot be true. That the buildings would have been able to withstand MULTIPLE impacts. Why are you attacking me?
There is doing the right thing for the RIGHT reason and there is doing the right thing for the WRONG reason.
After almost SEVEN YEARS of this nonsense the fact that the nation that put men on the moon can't resolve such a simple physics problem is a bigger deal than WHO actually caused the incident in the first place. A propaganda campaign to get people to BELIEVE it was an INSIDE JOB only solves short term problem.
What if Americans knew too much science to BELIEVE the nonsense from day one?
My model DOES NOT show what you say. You demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge by claiming that. My model simply demonstrates that the structure behaves differently with variations in mass and its distribution.
I built it to show that we need that information on the towers. But I don't hear our engineering schools demanding it so they are part of the problem. What does that say about our society?
Well said and good point. We need a new investigation because the American public is too busy watching Americas Got Talent to pay attention to what is really going on in America.
So why aren't you people who run around screaming, "INSIDE JOB!" demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the buildings?
Why aren't you trying to PROVE IT with physics instead of boring everyone with STUPID PROPAGANDA?
Isn't that information necessary to design a skyscraper? Doesn't it have to be documented to build a skyscraper?
The NIST doesn't even tell us the total amount of concrete in each tower but they claim to be WORLD RENOWNED EXPERTS on collapses.
As far as heat goes, would the steel skeleton not transfer the heat, spreading it over thousands of feet of steel? Something tells me that we can't for a minute involve heat as a contributing factor. I've seen a video of a woman standing at the edge of the impact zone, indicating that the initial fireball quickly cooled and interior contents were consumed and terminated. Therefore, structural damage becomes the focus. If the buildings don't collapse IMMEDIATELY upon impact, would they ever?
I am in the planes and fire could not possibly do it in that little time crowd. But after almost 7 years the US has a serious problem. Regardless of what brought the buildings down it is absurd that our engineering schools haven't been demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.
How could a competent analysis be done without that information? So how do all of the experts explain not talking about it?
The country that put men on the moon can't tell us that???
"The net result is that we are supposed to believe the planes caused the total destruction of the buildings."
Why does this not seem reasonable?
As demonstrated the stresses involved were massive, and even a quick fire could have raised the temperature enough to cause progressive weakening, and perhaps even creep.
This is interesting. Yesterday my rating was at 4 stars with 38 entries and today it is at 3 stars with 40 entries. But comments hasn't changed from 103. So some people want to knock the video without explaining what is wrong with it. That takes real GUTS.
I have been using the JREF forum recently and provided the URL to this video. No one has commented on the video there either.
They claim to know physics but they don't talk about the distribution of steel & concrete in the towers. LOL
only a handfull JREFers know indeed something about physics.
I like to claim something that is claimed by the OCT, i just claim it in simple words. and i get under heavy atack. i even have to backup things Bazant claimed, while they dont want to see backup from Bazant when he is ignoring the law of physics, like no C aka springiness for upper tower part etc.
that guy didnt even get the collapse times correct.
and according to bazant, you only need to cut the metal "columns" on one floor in your model, and it will progressively collapse with a crush down first folowed by a crush up.
Dr. Sunder Dunderhead is hilarious. "The WTC towers came down so fast because they were 70% air." says Dr. Sunder.
I computed that comes to 15 tons of air on every level of the building. The average is 862 tons of steel per level. I can't compute the average for the concrete because the NIST, in their sacred wisdom, doesn't tell us the quantity of concrete in the towers.
Good vid, thanks. Aside from your demonstration, I would also like to see a physical test demonstrating the vertical integrity of a steel building when a large weight is dropped from above. I'm not an expert, but I can only imagine that the mass being dropped would have to weigh billions of tons in order to disintegrate and pulverize as we have seen in the towers. I'm reminded of the Erector sets we played with as kids. Very strong. How can we not conclude that explosives were used?
What, somebody is not telling me that is the stupidest video they have ever seen? LOL I don't know if I can stand it.
Obviously not enough kids played with erector sets. Maybe they went out of style in the 70s. People learned their physics from Star Wars. The Force was with the Muslims on 9/11.
A two inch pvc elbow joint...I don't see how you could calculate the speed it is moving with what you show in your video.Also shouldn't the weight size of whatever is hitting the model be to scale with the model!
Who said it was PVC? That is metal. PVC is usually white.
No it should not be in scale with the model. The plane that hit the tower was 1/3rd of 1/10th of 1% the mass of the WTC.
I am only demonstrating the effects of changing the mass and its distribution in order to show we need for that info about the WTC. How many tons of steel were in the impact zones? What does it take to heat that to 1100 deg F in 56 or 102 minutes. Why don't we have that data in SIX YEARS?
You do not need to heat every ton or piece of steel in the area of the impact zone to to have a problem or a failure...maybe that is why you don't have the data on the tonnage of steel in the impact zone..because it may be irrelevant!
You obviously have not checked the NIST report. They say the south tower oscillated for FOUR MINUTES after the impact.
Obviously a 500,000 ton building isn't going to move as much as my model, but my model was built to demonstrate the effect. We need to know the TONS OF STEEL and TONS OF CONCRETE on every level to even begin understanding what happened to cause the COLLAPSE. I say the planes could not do it.
Why don't we have such simple information after SIX YEARS?
I don't think the planes did it either. But I still don't understand your model. Your point is basically that the more weight per floor in the building, the less it is likely to wobble. It's not wobbling the building that took it down, it is supposively the fire weakening and bending the horizontal steel beams at the collapse zone at WTC 1 & 2 until the point of collapse. There's a video here on youtube. I don't know if you've seen it. Just type in "Fires were sufficient".
The fires bring you back to the quantity of steel on each floor.
The more steel on each floor the more difficult it is to heat to the point of weakening and the more time it takes. I am not about to start a fire to demonstrate that so I built a model to show it was necessary to know the distribution of mass just to analyze the impact.
Kinetic energy that swayed the building did not do structural damage. So that energy must be computed. Where have the EXPERTS done those calculations?
There is another factor related to mass and heat calculations for the fires.
The airliner added more than 100 tons to the mass of the building, mostly aluminum. The fire can't tell what is part of the building and what isn't so the wreckage of the plane would absorb heat also. But energy absorbed by the wreckage would not weaken the building so the energy and temperature calculations would have to include a heat sink that big.
Considering that it was not a shoe, and that I can't comprehend how anyone could think it was a shoe, there is no point in further response to your brilliance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
pssssst guess what folks ive got a new conspiracy theory, believe it or not 911 was not down to bush and the cia, B U T! was actually down to terrorists, because you piss most !!
There had to be many tons of steel on the 81ST LEVEL of the south tower to hold another 29 FLOORS. Even without fireproofing it should have taken a lot longer than 56 MINUTES to collapse. So isn't it interesting that we don't hear how much steel was on every level of the buildings in SIX YEARS?
What is happening at our so called ENGINEERING SCHOOLS?
What's happening to all our so called "engineering schools"?
They've been turned into cartoon factories. And the kids that are studying in them are all on brain medication, so they don't have the ability to discern the difference between science and fantasy.
The Feasterbunny claimed to be an engineer and mentioned computer modeling. But a computer model has to have accurate data. An accurate computer model would need the correct amount of simulated steel and concrete on every level.
So he merely admitted that the need to address the questions I'm raising. Tho he apparently didn't realize it.
So why haven't the engineering schools been pointing this out for SIX YEARS? The schools are producing people that need computers to do their thinking.
Trust me, I know exactly what you're saying. I've worked in the software industry for the last 4 years - and even the programmers seem to be getting dumber - it's not just the products.
I'm sure you've seen it, but the Perdu cartoon even ignores the existance of an external wall at the Pentagon in otder to bolster the official story. Absolutely nuts.
I have emailed them about their north tower simulation for data on the steel and concrete. No response from Dr. Sozen. How can the simulation be accurate without that?
But the entire tower had to sway in response to the impact. How could they compute the energy lost in that motion without the mass distribution? That energy didn't do structural damage.
I think the point is, as you have explained, that these virtual studies are completely meaningless if the computer models are not 100% accurate representations of the physical structures. I suppose one could say the same of your study, but you're only attempting to illustrate one aspect, and you study is a physical reality rather than a cartoon.
You have to wonder if these people believe that a coyote would really survive a 2 ton anvil falling on it's head...
All I concentrate on is the engineering and physics of the buildings. I don't waste time on the arbitrary human details. People do all sorts of stupid bullsh!t but they can't change physics.
psikeyhackr - Physics unequivocally discounts the possibility of a hollow aluminum plane being able to slice through concrete and steel. C'mon - regardless whether you care that 911 was the flashpoint to destroy America, to ignore this simple concept is just being stubborn!
As you know, a Boeing 757 can't fly at 500+ MPH at sea level - the air is too thick. Boeing admits this - and they've been recorded saying so recently.
Exposing "no planes on 911" is probably the most important story to people beyond chemtrails, depleted uranium poisoning and nanotech genocide.
Americans are TV hypnotized, drugged up, dumbed down and so utterly dependent that in general they are incapable and disinterested in discovering how the media is adversely affecting their lives.
Since I think any competent high school student should be able to understand why a normal airliner could not bring the towers down I regard it as pointless to spend time studying videos that could have been altered by anyone over the last 6 years.
What caused the seismic shocks? People below the impacts reported the buildings swaying. The NIST says WTC2 oscillated for 4 minutes.
Why did the buildings collapse if REAL PLANES couldn't do it? That is more important than FAKE planes.
Your disinterest toward "no planes on 911" is contrary to critical thinking. This is the only explanation that makes any sense. There are too many disturbing questions left unanswered which only TV fakery explains.
The seismic data recorded explosions & the falling WTC's ground impact. Building sway was probably caused by foundation explosives.
"No planes on 911" is highly relevant because it shows collusion between the media, the intelligence community, the military & the US Government.
{{{ The seismic data recorded explosions & the falling WTC's ground impact. Building sway was probably caused by foundation explosives. }}}
I say that is TOTAL non-Critical thinking right there. If explosions in the foundation would have to cause the building to tilt to produce a sway. Explosions in the basement could produce vibrations felt at the 75th floor but not the rocking back and forth.
You can claim to be doing critical thinking all you want. I'll think for myself.
Critical thinking includes ALL potentials AND the cherished perspectives of others, especially those who have invested years researching the 911 event. To exclude another possibility, and one so well documented as "no planes on 911", you severly handicap & limit yourself to only a cursory review of facts. As I also see you constantly refer to NIST (part of the coverup), it becomes apparent that you are only interested in proclaiming yourself the "expert" while not really caring about the truth.
I don't see how the building could sway without being hit by something. There are people talking about nukes and particle beams and fake planes.
But the bottom line is the building collapsed and I don't even see how a real plane could do it. So the problem is getting most people to understand there had to be a demolition. If you want to concentrate on fake planes be my guest. You don't tell me what to focus on.
I don't see too many people demanding to know the tons of steel and concrete on every level of the building. How could it have been constructed without determining that before they started digging the hole for the foundation?
The NIST doesn't even tell is how much concrete was in the towers so you will just have to excuse me if I don't do the fake plane trip.
We already know exactly the amount & type of concrete on each WTC floor. Together with the steel, I'm sure you realize it amounts to sizable mass & density even at the upper levels where a "plane" supposedly impacted. If the media footage is to be believed, had a real plane hit as shown, its tilted wings would have had to slice into concrete floors from their side edge, their strongest point. An aluminum jet's wing is susceptible to even a bird's damage; several concrete floors would destroy it.
{{{ We already know exactly the amount & type of concrete on each WTC floor. }}}
Who is we? I know about the STANDARD floor slab but I don't know what was in the core. I have seen sources indicating variations in core design at different levels of the building. Technical floors were also different.
I have also seen info indicating that the plane that hit the south tower wasn't flight 175. I don't see wh
Well, 10,001 hits on 10/4/11. It took almost 4 years. Views started leveling off around June of 2009. So when I America going to do physics? Probably can't handle the psychological shock.
psikeyhackr 4 months ago
Just wondering, but have you noticed that this model is significantly stronger than the tower construction? The towers' main strength lay in the core column, and the outer panels were only held on by the trusses extending from the core. Therefor, a possibly more accurate portrayal would be if you used popsicle sticks or something (though those are probably too strong as well).
There is simply a fundamental flaw in your model. It does not accurately represent the physics.
Daniel092004 4 months ago
@Daniel092004 The purpose of that model was to show that the response of the structure due to the impact changed with the mass and the distribution of mass in the structure. Therefore that information had to be necessary to analyze the effect of the airliner impact on the towers.
So why hasn't everyone been demanding the steel and concrete data on the towers?
It's only been TEN YEARS!
psikeyhackr 4 months ago in playlist More videos from psikeyhackr
Well, it's that day. 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.
psikeyhackr 5 months ago in playlist More videos from psikeyhackr
the evidence to me that pancaking happened comes from the videos of the collapse, the portion above the point of impact retained its shape and it's orientation as dust and debris came out from the pancaking levels below the point of impact....and it is that downward pancaking that pulverized the majority of the buildings.
teampenit 7 months ago
the plane took out not just one level but parts of several levels. when that first level collapsed, the floor directly below had to withstand the impact of not just the weight of the floor directly above but the weight of ALL the floors above that point. The amount of energy transferred had to be huge. I am sure there are people out there that could do a calculation based on guesstimates...I can accept the idea that pancaking downward, once it started was unstoppable
teampenit 7 months ago
screaming "TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE in SEVEN YEARS" over and over does not make your argument any more valid, you don't win a debate based on how many times you say the same thing over and over...
your model did not get penetrated, it did not catch on fire, it's useless.
teampenit 7 months ago
your impact object did not penetrate your model. I would like to see what would happen to your model if the object did take out half of a level...
teampenit 8 months ago
@teampenit My impact mass was 8 to 25% of the weight of my model.
The airliner was less then 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% of the mass of the towers. One floor slab was more than triple the weight of the plane.
.
psikeyhackr 7 months ago
And you ridiculed the computer simulation? Anyway. Would you agree that steel loses its strength at high temperatures? Not melt, just lose its strength. Structural steel is at less than 50% strength at 1100 fahrenheit. Although the temps at WTC never reached the meltingpoint of steel (~2800), it did reach above 1100 deg (reports saying 1832 at most). Then at less than 50% (10% at 1800 deg), wouldn't it be plausible for the steel to collapse under the weight of floors above?
Insolent85 10 months ago
@Insolent85 Doesn't that mean the CORE TEMPERATURE of the steel has to rise to that level? How much time does that take? How could it happen in LESS THAN ONE HOUR for the south tower when there had to be enough steel there to support another TWENTY NINE STORIES?
.
psikeyhackr 10 months ago
All the blueprints of wtc has to be availible in a internet source!!!
74pbg 1 year ago
@74pbg Oh yeah? The core columns are not evenly spaced.
Let's see you provide a link to a picture showing how the horizontal beams connecting the core columns were arranged.
People keep claiming information is out there but I have never seen anyone so much as specify the weight of a floor assembly. The NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the tower. It is really curious that so much simple information is never mentioned yet we hear all this SCIENTIFIC CRAP.
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
BRAVO!
MysticalGrooveWTC 1 year ago
Excellent video:) There is an article going to be published ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics in july as a response to the preposterous gravitational
collapse theory. I believe you will find it of interest , since I cant link directly.
search for Anders Bjorkman wtc in google. He has effectively narrowed down the basic principles this theory grossly violates. Believing the official collapse theory would render a persons scientific capabilities useless IMO.
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
shouldn't "SCALE"
be you throwing the pipe? at 100mph instead of 5mph into the model
taledarkside 2 years ago
The model is 4 inches wide the WTC was 208 feet wide.
You compute the relative linear dimensions if it is not to much of a strain on your intellect.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
@psikeyhackr
Explain to me what does "that violates physics" means
So if people from the 18th century saw an airplane flying. Would they say "that violates physics"?
Same like truthers.
WTC fell so quickly because I couldn't count up to 20 seconds. That violates the laws of physics.
taledarkside 2 years ago
Dr Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds. Argue with him. It is in a podcast on PBS.
I am approaching the point where I decide to delete everything you post because it is nothing but idiotic drivel.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago 3
Thank you for your efforts, very appreciated!
XPronger 2 years ago
"The question is: Does it demonstrate anything relevant in relation to what it's trying to model?"
Yes and no.
Yes, because it demonstrates that a tower can absorb impact. No, because your model has nothing relevant to the events of 9/11.
Your model, as did the actual towers, quite easily survived the impacts.
yegreskin 2 years ago
We all know it survived the immediate impact. But how do we compute the structural damage done by the impact?
Why don't we know the TONS of STEEL & TONS of CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS?
The NIST says the 70th floor moved 12". Extrapolation would indicate that the 81st floor moved 14 ". How many tons of steel & concrete had to move how fast? How much of the planes kinetic energy did that take?
Curious how so many people that claim to know physics don't ask obvious questions.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
My point is that your model is only a simple demonstration of the elasticity built into towers in general. Your models and elasticity are of no aid in understanding the collapse mechanism or the dynamics of the collapse.
Do you have a plan to do something with a more accurate measurement of the weight of each individual floor? Or is the lack of published precision just something that feeds paranoid thoughts about a grand coverup?
yegreskin 2 years ago
All you demonstrate is that you can't figure out the purpose of the model.
Why did I do multiple deflections with different weights? Why are there time lapses with different weights and distributions? Why are there frames asking about the steel and concrete.?
The point is that the behavior changes with the different distributions. Therefore that information is necessary to analyze what happened to the REAL TOWERS.
The Experts at the NIST need to explain why they don't have it.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Of course towers react differently to outside disturbances depending on their mass and mass distribution. But, since the planes did not knock the buildings over, your demonstration is irrelevant. The elastic behavior from the impacts was over long before the collapse initiation. Why don't you build a model that deals with NIST's collapse initiation theory instead of an elementary school classical mechanics demonstration?
yegreskin 2 years ago
And how is such a model to be built if we don't know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each level of the tower?
That is what I keep asking in both videos.
Didn't you notice?
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
THAT is why scientists and engineers describe a degree of uncertainty in their calculations. The weight of each floor can be obtained from sources other than NIST that would allow a degree of uncertainty of +-10%. If you build a model that will only collapse using the NIST collapse initiation theory when you go beyond the uncertainty, THEN a more precise value is called for. If a collapse initiates for all values within the uncertainty, you can't learn much more using greater precision.
yegreskin 2 years ago
All that means is that you worship people that you BELIEVE ARE SCIENTISTS.
You cannot think for yourself.
There were more than 2500 exterior wall panels on each tower and 12 different types of those panels. Let's see you find the weights of those panels +/- 10%.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Right ON!
mthai66 2 years ago
Just another Truther who ingores scientific foundings! You can research on the work of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, he has done an independent investigation. Do not believe in conspiracy stupiditiy!
sagtimmerdiewahrheit 2 years ago
Oh sure, like my model can violate the laws of physics!
Why can't the NIST specify the total for the concrete in the towers?
Why don't they specify the quantity and weights of each of the 12 types of exterior wall panels?
Why aren't we told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level?
Why can't you figure out the obvious questions to ask? Can't handle grade school physics?
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
@psikeyhackr
LOL violate laws of physics.
and your asking that guy he can't handle physics and you said its possible to violate physics.
taledarkside 2 years ago
Anyone who thinks the distribution of mass in the towers is a 'mute' point when concerning their collapse is a stupid person.
doyle00100 2 years ago
The NIST is mute about the total amount of concrete in the towers.
But apparently to them that point is moot also.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Around where i live, lumberjacks don't have to use saws, they just cover a tree with a plastic bag. Then they shoot a big arrow at it using a giant, truck-mounted crossbow. The tree then turns in to a cloud of sawdust which is used to make plywood. The 911 method is the future of timber harvesting.
cheekieweekie 2 years ago 2
Strong arguments dont require insults to supplement them.
fizziwig88 2 years ago
But after SEVEN YEARS stupid arguments deserve to be insulted.
Why doesn't EVERYBODY expect to have been told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers by official government sources in SEVEN YEARS?
In human readable form. Not some SAP2000 database.
.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
You expect me to fall to your level and for me to insult you back but I won't.
I will point out however that phrases such as
"I skyscraper must hold itself up"
and "where to put how much steel"
aren't exactly proper english but it doesn't matter. I understand what you mean (even though I'm so damn stupid!)
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
Check out
NY Twin Towers Structural Engineer Re: Boeing 747 Collision
This is similar to your vid as the engineer discusses the buildings not falling over due to a plane impact. Truthers like to point to this as evidence but in reality the buildings didn't fall over due to a plane impact but from the local damage caused by these impacts and the fires that followed.
I do some very basic calcs in the comments. I also have an issue with his assessment of local damage also.
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago 2
Ok... hmmm! This viideo is completely irrelevant. What are you trying to prove? We all know the impact force of the planes didn't cause the building to fall over and the oscillation of the towers after the impact is irrelvant as it would have damped very quickly.
"THE QUESTION IS DOES IT DEMONSTRATE ANYTHING RELEVANT IS RELATION TO WHAT IT IS TRYING TO MODEL"
Yes its a great model and demostates damping quite well but it has nothing to do with the collapse of the twin towers!!!
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago 2
So you didn't notice the questions about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on each level?
Has any official source supplied that information in SEVEN YEARS?
See my other video about mass affecting the collapse. Inertia does not care which direction forcr is applied from.
Curious how so many people who want to seem intelligent don't figure out the obvious. Maybe they are deluded.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Ye I agree. I'd love that info. But still this video is irrelevant to the collapse. If you notice in the calcs I mentioned I had to assume a weight for each floor based on an assumed concrete slab thickness. I seen your other vids and they are the most thought out models I have seen on youtube (thats not hard) but its difficult to draw conclusions from them. I think it would not be a stretch to assume the weight of each floor would be the same as any differences would be negligible
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago 3
The main difference for each floor would be their capacity and how much energy is required to cause them to fail
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago 2
I distinguish between FLOOR and LEVEL. People focus on the FLOOR SLABS but how much steel was in a 12 foot height, including the core and perimeter columns?
The 105th level only had to support 5 levels but the 5th level had to support another 105. Don't you think there was a difference in the amount of steel? So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on each and every level after SEVEN YEARS? The NIST does not even specify the total for the concrete.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Well I presume because their engineers not quantity surveyors lol. If I had all the drawings I wouldn't want to work that out either.
I will show what I mean though:
Assume each exterior column weights 100kg/m and each interior one weights 250kg/m
Therefore we get about 1KN/m and 2.5KN/m respectively
Now say each floor is 4m in height
Therefore 4[(236*1)+(47*2.5)] = 1414 KN
Now say conc. floor slab w/depth = 200mm
building is 61m^2
therefore (61*61*0.2*24) = 17861 KN
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
My point is that the floor structure will be mostly constant throughout and although the columns will change they account (in my calcs with lots o' assumptions) for less than 10% of the weight of each floor and that is probably overestimating their significance
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
If you check the NICSTAR1 report they say the 70th LEVEL of WTC2 moved 12 inches as a result ot the impact. That means all of the steel in the core and the perimeter columns moved.
The kinetic energy of the plane is known. So how can the energy that did structural damage be computed without knowing how much energy went into shaking the building? How can that be computed without the distribution of mass?
The NIST had 3 years and $20M. This should have been done already. It is not a JOKE!
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Again I would have to say that this movement is irrelevant. It could move as much in high winds and was designed to withstand a hurricane. The plane caused local damage and the distribution of mass in this regard has no bearing. It is not mentioned as it has nothing to do with it. The damage to the exterior columns is obvious but the damage to the interior ones has to be estimated by looking at the their positions and the position of the plane crash
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
The planes essentially went through the core as evidenced by the video but the problem comes in trying to find out if large enough pieces of debris were still travelling fast enough to cut or do damage to the core columns by hitting them directly. NIST used a worst case scenario to estimate the possible damage. Im afraid their computer model is probably the best guess available.
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
If they won't compute the energy that shook the building and subtract it from the kinetic energy of the airliner then their guess is worth crap.
People like you just choose to trust rather than think.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Comment removed
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
I still don't see what you're on about! The only thing you would find doing that is the energy losses from sound etc. that were not directly transferred into the structure.
Believe me I do think
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
There was energy that did structural damage and there was energy that moved the building and did not do structural damage.
How can you figure out how much did structural damage if you don't know what shook the building? How can that be computed without distribution of mass data? I BELIEVE Nothing! That is official corporate policy. PROVE IT!
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
That calculation sounds impossible. For one debris was ejected the other side thus not transferring energy to the structure. You would also have to know how much energy was lost due to sound, heat etc. in the process too. The energy of exploding fuel (as well as the fact it wouldn't be unidirectional) would also be required and debris that cut or damaged a column would also transfer energy into the structure meaning that quantifying the values for such a calculation would be impossible.
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
You are getting ridiculous now to try to pretend you are not talking nonsense. The amount of debris that went through the entire building was so small it is irrelevant. The building averaged 862 TONS OF STEEL on every level. The plane was less than 150 tons including the fuel.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
My point is you would have to track all the energy if you wanted to do such a calculation and that would be very difficult. You could simplify it by assuming all energy that didn't go into shaking the tower went into damaging columns in a worst case scenario type of thing just to see if it was possible to sever several core columns. But I would guess that would show there was enough energy to break enough at least. But you're welcome to try
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
There is a method of structural analysis called "virtual work" however that may be useful if you ever attempt such calculations. It uses the idea of conservation of energy to analyse a structure.
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
{{ My point is you would have to track all the energy }}
The entire airliner was only 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% the mass of the building. Those pieces that went all of the way thru the building were what percentage of the airliner? You can't understand how miniscule percentages don't matter to the BIG PICTURE but you want to quibble over trivia and then pretend that the amount of steel on each level the towers did not matter.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
If you calculated the energy required to give the building a 12 in deflection (thats what you said right?) and subtracted it from the kinetic energy of the plane and assumed the rest of the energy went into destroying the structure locally (specifically the columns) im sure you'd find there was more than enough to destroy a lot more than even NIST says. To do it properly you would have to differeniate between say the destroyed floor structure and destroyed columns
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
this would be extremely difficult to do and would not yield very accurate results. You would have to split the energy up correctly between all the structural and non-structural elements that were destroyed locally.
The mass of the plane relative to the mass of the building is unimportant as we are talking about energy (and the plane would have a very high kinetic energy). That energy is distributed locally like I said
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
I showed you how the mass of each floor wouldn't vary significantly with the increasing column sizes as they make up a relatively small percentage of the mass on each level and thus assuming a uniform mass distribution would be acceptable. The amount of steel at the level of the impact matters.
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
All these "miniscule percentages" add up and differenciating how the energy went into destroying the plane, the floor structure, the columns and any other non-structural elements would be extremely difficult and certainly give a range of possibilities that would not be miniscule.
To calculate the deflection of the building you'd have to create a computer model with each element and its properties included and then apply the dynamic load. The mass would be a small variable in this calculation
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
Comment removed
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
Comment removed
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
there are so many other factors affecting the deflection of the structure its a wonder you concentrated on the mass only and shows a complete lack of understanding of structural analysis
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
And you think you are accomplishing something by distorting the issue.
I brought up the information we are not being told. Everyone knows there were 47 columns in the core and 236 perimeter columns. But the thickness and therefore weight of those columns changed going up the building so horizontal movement resulting from the impact meant the weight on each level mattered.
So make your own video to show how smart you are. You have gone beyond boring.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Eh look whose talking!
distorting the issue?! So thats what truthers cause reasonable arguments and criticism of their ideas. Your model is very good but I don't see the connection between it and the collapse mechanism of the structure. The distributed of mass throughout the building is a mute point. It does affect the lateral deflection but using this and the conservation of energy to calculate exact damage to core columns with reasonable accuracy would be next to impossible
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
{{ The distributed of mass throughout the building is a mute point. }}
The word is MOOT not mute.
I skyscraper must hold itself up. The designers must figure out where to put how much steel. They must figure out the weight of concrete for the steel to hold up. So the top 15% by volume must be lighter than any other 15% by volume.
I would tell you to figure out what that must means to the conservation of momentum if I thought you were smart enough. But that is MOOT also. LOL
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
lol jokes on you. If this were a proper debate I would have won already. First you wave the white flag by saying I was "distorting the issue", then you try to insult me and now you're arguing over spelling and refusing to explain your position further in a disguised attempt to further insult me!
ItsAllCoolio 2 years ago
You made the comment that the buildings should not have collapsed as well as that ridicules comparison to the Genbaku dome in Hiroshima. I hardly find it believable that, that little piece of sensationalism is based on physics
fizziwig88 2 years ago
So you should learn to THINK instead of Believe.
Buildings are designed to resist downward forces. It is one of those gravity things. It creates compressional force on components designed to resist it. The atomic bomb detonated almost directly above that building so it was subjected to compressional forces.
The top of the north tower coming down had to apply compressional force. So at the very least the structure should have slowed the fall. A less than 18 second collapse is impossible.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
So why don't we know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS?
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Your comparing a four story building to skyscraper. How does that jibe with your the smaller an object the greater its strength in relation to its size statement?
fizziwig88 2 years ago
So you can't count passed 4.
If you research Tunguska you will observe the same phenomenon of trees near the center of the blast remaining standing with the branches stripped off while trees away from the center being knocked over.
It is about the physics of the incident not the size of the building. The same physics applies to trees.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
I am aware of this phenomenon. How does this apply to the WTC collapse?
fizziwig88 2 years ago
These are your words. THIS IS WHY MAKING A SCALE MODEL THAT MIGHT COLLAPSE THE SAME WAY IS IMPOSSIBLE. THE STRENGTH TO WEIGHT RATIO CHANGES WITH SIZE.
fizziwig88 2 years ago
That physics demonstration was not about the collapse and was never intended to be. Why don't you quit wasting your tie advertising the fact that you aren't smart enough to figure out what it was about.
My second video about the distribution of mass in relation to the collapse shouLd be finished soon.
Guess What? The MASS stops the collapse. It is called the CONSERVATION of MOMENTUM.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
You have only proved what we are already aware of. That these buildings did not topple over imediately after the impacts.The story doesnt end there though.The jets did not bounce harmlessly off the side of the buildings as they do in your experiment. They violently ripped through them with fragments exiting from the other side.They exploded in huge balls of flame and ignited fires that burned unchecked for several hours. your experiment addresses none of these facts.
fizziwig88 3 years ago
You obviously could not figure out what the video was about.
Why do you think I was changing the weights and their distributions? The distribution of mass must be known to analyze the impact. How much of the kinetic energy of the impact moved the building and how much did structural damage?
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Fact. Whoever or whatever you feel is responsible for it,theWTC towers did indeed collapse on 911. Fact.For reasons you yourself have already stated, your model cant be induced to collapse in an even remotely like manner to a full scale building. It matters not whether the building was brought down by terrorist, controlled demo or Godzilla. Your model is completely useless as far as proving if these buildings should or should not have collapsed.
fizziwig88 2 years ago
Physics is not about FEELINGS!
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Physics is not about FEELINGS! I never implied it was! You know full well that I was referring to your own,as yet unknown theory as to what brought theWTC down. You do a lot of talking about what shouldn't have happened. But nary a word about what did. There are dozens of preposterous theories going around. There are less than a hand full that are even remotely plausible and they leave just as many unanswered questions as the official reports do. What do you say brought the towers down?
fizziwig88 2 years ago
It amazes me how many people can't comprehend the concept of eliminating a negative. We are talking about Newtonian Physics here. If an airliner weighing less than 200 tons can bring down a building weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than 2 hours it should be possible to explain it EXACTLY.
But the people claiming this happened can't even tell us the TONS of STEEL and CONCRETE on every level of the skyscraper but we are supposed to believe that is possible. Where's the PHYSICS?
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
1) simply because you dont understand the physics, or the explanation does not make explanation irrational, nor does it mean the physics were violated.
2) because the buildings survived the impacts, the questions about oscillations due to the impacts are are ultimately irrelevent.
EdgemanLL2 3 years ago
You can believe I don't understand the physics all you want.
The kinetic energy of the plane had two effects. It punched a hole doing structural damage. AND it deflected the building starting the oscillation. The south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor.
The amount of energy that did structural damage cannot be computed without knowing what shook the building and that cannot be done without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete. So why don't we have it after SEVEN YEARS?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Sure, but unless youre telling me the oscillations didnt dampen for almost an hour, then the Impact (oscillations) by themselves are insufficient to bring the building down.
So, given that the building survived the impact, and oscillations, where exactly is your confusion on that issue?
EdgemanLL2 3 years ago
I didn't say the oscillations brought the building down. The NIST says they damped out in FOUR MINUTES. But how much energy does it take to make a building that size oscillate for that long?
So how do you compute how much energy did structural damage if you don't know how much shook the building? And you don't compute that without distribution of mass.
The building never should have collapsed. So why don't they PROVE the plane could do it by providing distribution of steel and concrete?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Ultimately, if we can agree the oscillations were not a factor in the collapse, why do I even care?
I can understand research for the sake of research. I can understand if you are just kind of curious at the idea of solving a complex provblem.
Im the end an exact answer is not obtainable. since you can not know the exact weight at every spot on every floor.
You cant make estimates, and say that for every 1000 sq feet of an office space, there is "x" mass. But unless you have a...
EdgemanLL2 3 years ago
cont...retroactively weigh every desk, every chair, every file cabinet, and every person in the building, AND know their exact posistions within the building at impact, rough estimates are the besr ur going to get.
EdgemanLL2 3 years ago
If you want to advertise your idiocy by talking about desks and chairs when we don't know the distribution of steel and concrete that is your business.
The chairs didn't resist the collapse of the building the steel did. There are multiple reasons for wanting to know about the quantity of steel. I was only demonstrating one.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
LOL. If you want to pretend that mass doesnt effect the dampening of oscillations (especially since that seems to be your whole pitch with your movie) then the idiocy is not mine.
And you morons wonder why no one familiar with the sciences takes you seriously? Its because of shit like this. You scream about not having an exact mass (to calculate dampening) then you call it idiocy when its pointed out you would need ALL the exact masses, not just the concrete.
Carry on!
EdgemanLL2 3 years ago
We can NEVER have exact information for the contents of the building idiot. They will only be guesses.
But what reason is there not to have the steel and concrete on each level of buildings designed before the Moon landing? So why haven't people claiming a <200 ton plane could bring down a 400,000+ ton building in less than 2 hours provided that information within SEVEN YEARS?
Why do quantities for concrete range from 90,000 tons to more than 300,000 tons? And NIST doesn't give a total?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
""We can NEVER have exact information for the contents of the building idiot. ""
Exactly the point idiot.
Thats why its pretty uselss and moronic to bitch about the imprecision of estimates, since its impossibe to know all the relevent data needed.
Im done pumping your uselss joke video's view counts.
If you kookspiratards wonder why no one takes you seriously, review my comments. It explains it very well.
Done PWNED
EdgemanLL2 3 years ago
CAN YOU READ?
I am talking about the weight of steel and concrete that was part of the building not the contents. The NIST report does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers.
I have seen numbers ranging from 90,000 tons to 600,000 tons.
.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
CAN YOU READ?""
Sure I can. can you? Because the mass of the contents (like the mass of the "concrete mix" in your video) makes a difference.
So, dont to the expermient half-assed. Use ALL the mass involved, exactly, or except that no exact calculation can be made.
EdgemanLL2 3 years ago
visit
femr2. ucoz. com
Steel and concrete mass specified, and links to papers detailing the values you are after.
femr2 3 years ago
You can't compare these results to the WTC because nothing's in the correct scale. If the size of your model is a 1000th of the WTC, then you'll need the weight also to be a 1000th of WTC's weight. However if you had all of the correct sizes and weights of the WTC, then you can do a scaled model then compare them to the WTC.
MrCrappityCrap 3 years ago
So you obviously can't figure out the purpose of the model and video.
It was to demonstrate that changing the mass and the distribution changed the effect of the impact. The amplitude and frequency of the tower changed. The NCSTAR1 report has a graph of the south tower's FOUR MINUTE oscillation.
Why do you think I put in those questions about the STEEL and CONCRETE on every level?
An accurate model can't be built without correct info on the distribution of mass.
DUMB comments, CRAP alright.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
By the way, as objects get smaller their strength to weight ratio changes. Small objects are stronger in relation to their size and weight. Consequently I doubt that it is possible to build a small model that could possibly collapse anything like the WTC. It could not be heavy enough in relation to its own strength.
This is why a computer model is necessary but of course that presents the opportunity to hide information and cheat.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
By the way, scale refers to linear dimensions.
{{ If the size of your model is a 1000th of the WTC, then you'll need the weight also to be a 1000th of WTC's weight. }}
A 1/2 scale model would have 1/8th the volume so it would have 1/8th the weight. A 1000th scale model would have a BILLIONTH the weight. This is why making a scale model that might collapse the same way is impossible. The strength to weight ratio changes with size.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
With this comment and the one immediately above it, you just proved your model and your experiment pointless!
fizziwig88 3 years ago
It isn't even an attempt to be a scale model. It is designed to model and demonstrate the physics.
If you don't get it TOUGH.
.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
So if your such the expert,what in gods name could cause the steel to melt in WTC's 1,2, and 7???????????
piffpete420 3 years ago
The video is about distribution of mass in steel and concrete in 1 & 2 not molten steel.
Since jet fuel will only burn at 1800 deg F in a pure oxygen environment and the atmosphere is only 20% oxygen then it had to be something other than jet fuel.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
look men 9/11 was not a conspiracy, if u worked in the towers like i did, and knew them inch by inch, like i did, then your "smart ass", should be samrt enough to know that the support column, on the SE corner of the S (2) tower, was melted, so it collapsed, and all the support columns, on the (N)(1) tower, bended up to 5ft in some areas, until they broke and the tower collapsed! so 9/11 was not a conspiracy!! and by the way, i like your little model, but when u hit it, u do not perforate it bye
parejopinto 3 years ago
So they allowed morons to work in the WTC.
The conservation of momentum for the collapse cannot be analyzed without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete of the towers.
Have you heard how much steel was in the impact zones in SEVEN YEARS? Why not?
The nation that put men on the moon can't tell everyone the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing. Think about how absurd that is.
Skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. IT'S PHYSICS!
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
look the only moron here is u ok the towers, designed by minoru yamasaki were design to hold up multiple plane impacts. the plane bigger at the time was a 707. if the werenot good buildings,they woud have collapsed as soon as the planes hit. and they were bottom keavy. ur just jellous, cuz u didnt want bush to win so ur blaming it on them. talk to the port authority, and see what they said. i was one of the construction managers, so i should know u wanted 2 work there. i saved ppl u didnt bye
parejopinto 3 years ago
I am not talking about what people claim the buildings could withstand.
I am saying the designers of ALL SKYSCRAPERS must determine the distribution of steel and concrete and I bet that distribution would make it impossible for buildings the size of the WTC towers to undergo straight down gravitational collapses FROM THE TOP in less than 18 seconds.
So why haven't we been told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS?
Physics doesn't give a damn about Bush.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Psikeyhackr, you have made clear you are unhappy with the conclusions reached by the official investigations. If you wish to dispute them based on your mass interaction test then the burden of proof lies solely and you, and it is your responsibility to collect the relevant information (i.e. the steel and concrete distribution). No one is going to do it for you; no one should do it for you, and whining at the youtube population will not get you the information you supposedly want.
Chopstewie 3 years ago 2
You do not comprehend my objective at all.
My objective is to get people to understand some basic physics so they will comprehend how idiotic it is for the NIST to not have provided that information already.
The nation the put men on the moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing but expects them to believe it could undergo a top down gravitational collapse.
THAT IS HILARIOUS!
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
A lot of people talk as though mathematics is physics. The moons of Jupiter did not do calculations to figure out how to move before or after Newton.
A person has to understand the phenomenon to decide which equations to use then get the correct data to put into those equations.
It is totally absurd that so many EXPERTS are not even talking about what the correct data is after SEVEN YEARS.
If the official story is correct then falling mass had to accelerate mass below. SO HOW MUCH WAS THERE?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
if the support collumn was made of steel, then it wouldnt have melted. and to collapse at free fall speed straight down would have required the supports to bend simultaneously at exactly in exactly the same direction. And the 3rd tower that fell in this way didnt even get hit by a plane. Any thoughts?
therealbombassa 3 years ago
hey im not talking bout the main column cuz the plain destroyd it. all that was supporting the building were some columns in one side of the facade. look at the collapse carefully. and 7wtc was controlled demolition idk why but it was and it has been rebuilt. it opened since 2005 but i dont like it. look it up on google.
PS: use it cuz God gave it to u for that
parejopinto 3 years ago
When the two towers started to go down, they were peeling away, so the official version about tremendous weight is nonsense. The weight was reducing itself, yet destroyed even the strongest part at the base, all the way to the foundation.
zvast 3 years ago
Wait a second. I'm on your side. Why are you attacking me, over and over again? Your models show that the official story cannot be true. That the buildings would have been able to withstand MULTIPLE impacts. Why are you attacking me?
chupo29 3 years ago
There is doing the right thing for the RIGHT reason and there is doing the right thing for the WRONG reason.
After almost SEVEN YEARS of this nonsense the fact that the nation that put men on the moon can't resolve such a simple physics problem is a bigger deal than WHO actually caused the incident in the first place. A propaganda campaign to get people to BELIEVE it was an INSIDE JOB only solves short term problem.
What if Americans knew too much science to BELIEVE the nonsense from day one?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
My model DOES NOT show what you say. You demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge by claiming that. My model simply demonstrates that the structure behaves differently with variations in mass and its distribution.
I built it to show that we need that information on the towers. But I don't hear our engineering schools demanding it so they are part of the problem. What does that say about our society?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Well said and good point. We need a new investigation because the American public is too busy watching Americas Got Talent to pay attention to what is really going on in America.
chupo29 3 years ago
Hello, My name is logic. I'm slapping you in the face right now.
When are you people going to wake up? 9/11 was an inside job.
chupo29 3 years ago
So why aren't you people who run around screaming, "INSIDE JOB!" demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the buildings?
Why aren't you trying to PROVE IT with physics instead of boring everyone with STUPID PROPAGANDA?
Isn't that information necessary to design a skyscraper? Doesn't it have to be documented to build a skyscraper?
The NIST doesn't even tell us the total amount of concrete in each tower but they claim to be WORLD RENOWNED EXPERTS on collapses.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
As far as heat goes, would the steel skeleton not transfer the heat, spreading it over thousands of feet of steel? Something tells me that we can't for a minute involve heat as a contributing factor. I've seen a video of a woman standing at the edge of the impact zone, indicating that the initial fireball quickly cooled and interior contents were consumed and terminated. Therefore, structural damage becomes the focus. If the buildings don't collapse IMMEDIATELY upon impact, would they ever?
scottgarren 3 years ago
I am in the planes and fire could not possibly do it in that little time crowd. But after almost 7 years the US has a serious problem. Regardless of what brought the buildings down it is absurd that our engineering schools haven't been demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.
How could a competent analysis be done without that information? So how do all of the experts explain not talking about it?
The country that put men on the moon can't tell us that???
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
"The net result is that we are supposed to believe the planes caused the total destruction of the buildings."
Why does this not seem reasonable?
As demonstrated the stresses involved were massive, and even a quick fire could have raised the temperature enough to cause progressive weakening, and perhaps even creep.
Chopstewie 3 years ago
the rating stuff is messed up, yesterday it was at 40, i gave it 5 stars, and today it says i have already ratet it. but still 40 rates......
Aanthanur 3 years ago
This is interesting. Yesterday my rating was at 4 stars with 38 entries and today it is at 3 stars with 40 entries. But comments hasn't changed from 103. So some people want to knock the video without explaining what is wrong with it. That takes real GUTS.
I have been using the JREF forum recently and provided the URL to this video. No one has commented on the video there either.
They claim to know physics but they don't talk about the distribution of steel & concrete in the towers. LOL
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
only a handfull JREFers know indeed something about physics.
I like to claim something that is claimed by the OCT, i just claim it in simple words. and i get under heavy atack. i even have to backup things Bazant claimed, while they dont want to see backup from Bazant when he is ignoring the law of physics, like no C aka springiness for upper tower part etc.
Aanthanur 3 years ago
Dont listen to Dr. Sander from NIST.
that guy didnt even get the collapse times correct.
and according to bazant, you only need to cut the metal "columns" on one floor in your model, and it will progressively collapse with a crush down first folowed by a crush up.
bazant debunked Sir Isaac Newton.....not
Aanthanur 3 years ago
Dr. Sunder Dunderhead is hilarious. "The WTC towers came down so fast because they were 70% air." says Dr. Sunder.
I computed that comes to 15 tons of air on every level of the building. The average is 862 tons of steel per level. I can't compute the average for the concrete because the NIST, in their sacred wisdom, doesn't tell us the quantity of concrete in the towers.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Good vid, thanks. Aside from your demonstration, I would also like to see a physical test demonstrating the vertical integrity of a steel building when a large weight is dropped from above. I'm not an expert, but I can only imagine that the mass being dropped would have to weigh billions of tons in order to disintegrate and pulverize as we have seen in the towers. I'm reminded of the Erector sets we played with as kids. Very strong. How can we not conclude that explosives were used?
scottgarren 3 years ago
What, somebody is not telling me that is the stupidest video they have ever seen? LOL I don't know if I can stand it.
Obviously not enough kids played with erector sets. Maybe they went out of style in the 70s. People learned their physics from Star Wars. The Force was with the Muslims on 9/11.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
the stages were not holding the building
were is the core ?
youjib 3 years ago
I was not trying to build an accurate model of the WTC. I was trying to demonstrate the effects of changing the mass and its distribution.
Why don't we know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC after SIX YEARS?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
FYI: The airplane simulator is a 2 inch elbow joint. It is not a shoe of any kind. LOL
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
A two inch pvc elbow joint...I don't see how you could calculate the speed it is moving with what you show in your video.Also shouldn't the weight size of whatever is hitting the model be to scale with the model!
quaheedus 3 years ago
Who said it was PVC? That is metal. PVC is usually white.
No it should not be in scale with the model. The plane that hit the tower was 1/3rd of 1/10th of 1% the mass of the WTC.
I am only demonstrating the effects of changing the mass and its distribution in order to show we need for that info about the WTC. How many tons of steel were in the impact zones? What does it take to heat that to 1100 deg F in 56 or 102 minutes. Why don't we have that data in SIX YEARS?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
You do not need to heat every ton or piece of steel in the area of the impact zone to to have a problem or a failure...maybe that is why you don't have the data on the tonnage of steel in the impact zone..because it may be irrelevant!
quaheedus 3 years ago
What exactly are you trying to prove? WTC 1 & 2 did not wobble upon impact.
Dicecube78 4 years ago
You obviously have not checked the NIST report. They say the south tower oscillated for FOUR MINUTES after the impact.
Obviously a 500,000 ton building isn't going to move as much as my model, but my model was built to demonstrate the effect. We need to know the TONS OF STEEL and TONS OF CONCRETE on every level to even begin understanding what happened to cause the COLLAPSE. I say the planes could not do it.
Why don't we have such simple information after SIX YEARS?
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
I don't think the planes did it either. But I still don't understand your model. Your point is basically that the more weight per floor in the building, the less it is likely to wobble. It's not wobbling the building that took it down, it is supposively the fire weakening and bending the horizontal steel beams at the collapse zone at WTC 1 & 2 until the point of collapse. There's a video here on youtube. I don't know if you've seen it. Just type in "Fires were sufficient".
Dicecube78 4 years ago
The fires bring you back to the quantity of steel on each floor.
The more steel on each floor the more difficult it is to heat to the point of weakening and the more time it takes. I am not about to start a fire to demonstrate that so I built a model to show it was necessary to know the distribution of mass just to analyze the impact.
Kinetic energy that swayed the building did not do structural damage. So that energy must be computed. Where have the EXPERTS done those calculations?
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
There is another factor related to mass and heat calculations for the fires.
The airliner added more than 100 tons to the mass of the building, mostly aluminum. The fire can't tell what is part of the building and what isn't so the wreckage of the plane would absorb heat also. But energy absorbed by the wreckage would not weaken the building so the energy and temperature calculations would have to include a heat sink that big.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
the tower collapsed way after it stabilized, there are bigger questions, check my video and see if you can see any fault,
abz082 3 years ago
I KNOW THAT!
The point of the video is to show the need to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on Each LEVEL of the building.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Good Lord......Was that a swinging shoe?? A shoe to simulate the effects of an airliner slamming into the towers?? A shoe!?
Fill the shoe full of gasoline and then make it explode as it cuts through your Tinker Toys like butter and then I'll be convinced.
Horrible comparison dude!
smartbet 4 years ago
Considering that it was not a shoe, and that I can't comprehend how anyone could think it was a shoe, there is no point in further response to your brilliance.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
pssssst guess what folks ive got a new conspiracy theory, believe it or not 911 was not down to bush and the cia, B U T! was actually down to terrorists, because you piss most !!
su27q 4 years ago
This video is about the physics, not who or why.
There had to be many tons of steel on the 81ST LEVEL of the south tower to hold another 29 FLOORS. Even without fireproofing it should have taken a lot longer than 56 MINUTES to collapse. So isn't it interesting that we don't hear how much steel was on every level of the buildings in SIX YEARS?
What is happening at our so called ENGINEERING SCHOOLS?
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
What's happening to all our so called "engineering schools"?
They've been turned into cartoon factories. And the kids that are studying in them are all on brain medication, so they don't have the ability to discern the difference between science and fantasy.
djjimi 4 years ago
The Feasterbunny claimed to be an engineer and mentioned computer modeling. But a computer model has to have accurate data. An accurate computer model would need the correct amount of simulated steel and concrete on every level.
So he merely admitted that the need to address the questions I'm raising. Tho he apparently didn't realize it.
So why haven't the engineering schools been pointing this out for SIX YEARS? The schools are producing people that need computers to do their thinking.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
Trust me, I know exactly what you're saying. I've worked in the software industry for the last 4 years - and even the programmers seem to be getting dumber - it's not just the products.
I'm sure you've seen it, but the Perdu cartoon even ignores the existance of an external wall at the Pentagon in otder to bolster the official story. Absolutely nuts.
watch?v=bMqgFaNvoP8&feature=related
djjimi 4 years ago
Thanks, I hadn't see it.
I have emailed them about their north tower simulation for data on the steel and concrete. No response from Dr. Sozen. How can the simulation be accurate without that?
But the entire tower had to sway in response to the impact. How could they compute the energy lost in that motion without the mass distribution? That energy didn't do structural damage.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
I think the point is, as you have explained, that these virtual studies are completely meaningless if the computer models are not 100% accurate representations of the physical structures. I suppose one could say the same of your study, but you're only attempting to illustrate one aspect, and you study is a physical reality rather than a cartoon.
You have to wonder if these people believe that a coyote would really survive a 2 ton anvil falling on it's head...
djjimi 4 years ago
All I concentrate on is the engineering and physics of the buildings. I don't waste time on the arbitrary human details. People do all sorts of stupid bullsh!t but they can't change physics.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
psikeyhackr - Physics unequivocally discounts the possibility of a hollow aluminum plane being able to slice through concrete and steel. C'mon - regardless whether you care that 911 was the flashpoint to destroy America, to ignore this simple concept is just being stubborn!
4ezMoney 4 years ago
As you know, a Boeing 757 can't fly at 500+ MPH at sea level - the air is too thick. Boeing admits this - and they've been recorded saying so recently.
Exposing "no planes on 911" is probably the most important story to people beyond chemtrails, depleted uranium poisoning and nanotech genocide.
Americans are TV hypnotized, drugged up, dumbed down and so utterly dependent that in general they are incapable and disinterested in discovering how the media is adversely affecting their lives.
4ezMoney 4 years ago
Since I think any competent high school student should be able to understand why a normal airliner could not bring the towers down I regard it as pointless to spend time studying videos that could have been altered by anyone over the last 6 years.
What caused the seismic shocks? People below the impacts reported the buildings swaying. The NIST says WTC2 oscillated for 4 minutes.
Why did the buildings collapse if REAL PLANES couldn't do it? That is more important than FAKE planes.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
Your disinterest toward "no planes on 911" is contrary to critical thinking. This is the only explanation that makes any sense. There are too many disturbing questions left unanswered which only TV fakery explains.
The seismic data recorded explosions & the falling WTC's ground impact. Building sway was probably caused by foundation explosives.
"No planes on 911" is highly relevant because it shows collusion between the media, the intelligence community, the military & the US Government.
4ezMoney 4 years ago
{{{ The seismic data recorded explosions & the falling WTC's ground impact. Building sway was probably caused by foundation explosives. }}}
I say that is TOTAL non-Critical thinking right there. If explosions in the foundation would have to cause the building to tilt to produce a sway. Explosions in the basement could produce vibrations felt at the 75th floor but not the rocking back and forth.
You can claim to be doing critical thinking all you want. I'll think for myself.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
Critical thinking includes ALL potentials AND the cherished perspectives of others, especially those who have invested years researching the 911 event. To exclude another possibility, and one so well documented as "no planes on 911", you severly handicap & limit yourself to only a cursory review of facts. As I also see you constantly refer to NIST (part of the coverup), it becomes apparent that you are only interested in proclaiming yourself the "expert" while not really caring about the truth.
4ezMoney 4 years ago
You can blame all of this on my ego if you want.
I don't see how the building could sway without being hit by something. There are people talking about nukes and particle beams and fake planes.
But the bottom line is the building collapsed and I don't even see how a real plane could do it. So the problem is getting most people to understand there had to be a demolition. If you want to concentrate on fake planes be my guest. You don't tell me what to focus on.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
I don't see too many people demanding to know the tons of steel and concrete on every level of the building. How could it have been constructed without determining that before they started digging the hole for the foundation?
The NIST doesn't even tell is how much concrete was in the towers so you will just have to excuse me if I don't do the fake plane trip.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
We already know exactly the amount & type of concrete on each WTC floor. Together with the steel, I'm sure you realize it amounts to sizable mass & density even at the upper levels where a "plane" supposedly impacted. If the media footage is to be believed, had a real plane hit as shown, its tilted wings would have had to slice into concrete floors from their side edge, their strongest point. An aluminum jet's wing is susceptible to even a bird's damage; several concrete floors would destroy it.
4ezMoney 4 years ago
{{{ We already know exactly the amount & type of concrete on each WTC floor. }}}
Who is we? I know about the STANDARD floor slab but I don't know what was in the core. I have seen sources indicating variations in core design at different levels of the building. Technical floors were also different.
I have also seen info indicating that the plane that hit the south tower wasn't flight 175. I don't see wh