NIST 9/11 pseudo-science? - Truth Deniers vs. Isaac Newton

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas

Trevormkidd wrote:
 

Therefore I can use a simple pancake model.

You're using a piledriver model which builds mass as it descends, which is convenient to your argument. in fact, your argument depends on it, but it isn't correct. And you have it descending through a resistive power of '0' to boot.

 

jas

That's weird. Babble just switched the order of my last two posts.

Trevormkidd

jas wrote:
You're using a piledriver model which builds mass as it descends, which is convenient to your argument. in fact, your argument depends on it, but it isn't correct. And you have it descending through a resistive power of '0' to boot.

No I have it descending through a resistive power of 75% of the total potential energy.  That is a fucking massive amount of energy.  Seeing as you either clearly can't read, or are just being purposely dishonest, I will not be wasting any time on you.

jas

Actually another post of mine - in which I make a cute reference to Humpty Dumpty - disappeared, too.

Trevor wrote:

As for the pancake model, I didn't say that it was the explaination used by NIST to best explain the data.  NIST has to explain why large parts of the core of the towers stayed standing much longer.  I didn't have to explain that because I was answering your claim where you said that the building completely collapsed in 13 seconds.  Therefore I can use a simple pancake model.

NIST doesn't have to explain those large parts of the core, because they're the only ones claiming it.

Regardless, you can't assume some hypothetical model which is not reflective of the model we're disputing. So, no, you can't just use a pancaking piledriver theory to explain what happened if that's not in fact what happened. The whole point of your post is to explain the apparent physical impossibility of disintegration in under 15 seconds of the massive bulk of these buildings. You can't just use a hypothetical convenience if it pulls your argument away from an accurate explanation.

 

 

jas

Then just explain this, please, Trevor, since I obviously don't understand:

Quote:
(0.5)x(1000)x(0)

Fidel

This is about the best treatment of collapse physics I've seen. Dr Garcia supports the official version of events. And Dave Griscom makes some very interesting comments on Garcia's Counterpunch essay.

[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html]The Physics of 9/11[/url] We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist  by Manuel Garcia

In the above essay Dr Garcia describes total force imparted to the lower blocks of WTCs as this:  static + dynamic

And he gives three formulas for force balance. Garcia says that the lower blocks were not designed to carry the total force balance that was applied during collapse on 9/11. Garcia goes on to say that the total force of the upper block upon impacting the lower structure after a 3-meter free-fall as being 6.1 times the mass of the upper block.

===

However in his criticism of Manuel Garcia's Counterpunch essay, [url=http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.ht... Griscom[/url] says that Garcia's caclulations for force balance are flawed. Griscom says that the force number of 6.1 times the weight of the upper block is far too high considering how how much energy must have been dispersed by crushing of concrete floor and 250 massive support columns and exterior beams. Garcia assumes a 3-metre unimpeded free-fall of the upper block, which Griscom says amounts to wild assumption on Garcia's part considering the design of the building. Garcia's formulaic value for instantaneous time interval of 0.01 not only assumes zero degree of floor tilting, which wasn't the case, the calculation for it is non-existent and yet key to his caluclation for total force of impact on the lower block.

Griscom goes on to say:

Quote:
Moreover, if for the sake of argument we were to accept Dr. Garcia’s calculation of a static-plus-dynamic force of 6.1 times the weight of the “upper block,” this number is still far less than the “2000%” live loads (20 times the weight of the block) that the exterior columns alone were designed to withstand for brief moments

Quote:
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS  (1968)

A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. [url=http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm]Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2000 percent before failure occurs.[/url]

Even if total force(static+dynamic) was 6.1 times as Garcia noted, a 2000% safety load-bearing strength designed into the massive core columns and exterior beams should have resisted a 600% increase in live load for the floor. Just look at the photos of the massive steel structure of the first ten floors as it was being built in the 1960's. It's massive. There's no way all that steel jumped out of the way of the descending upper block as if free falling. No way.

Whoever did it used cutter charges!

Of course some of the perps were well known to those in US government. It's like a murder case where the person whose wife was murdered doesn't even have to deny having been familiar with the perpetrators, because the "prosecution" never thought to ask. And later it comes out that there is a direct connection between several US government agencies and the defendants.

oldgoat

Getting long.  Glad to see the whole business was finally resolved here, so I guess this is the last we'll hear about it.

Pages

Topic locked