9-11 First Responders See Loonylies Loser Tactics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 First Responders See Controlled Demolition -- FACT
Next: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
From: Henry on 23 Mar 2010 10:39 AllYou! wrote: > Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK brethren > do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. > At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into the > WTC1, there existed the following conditions: > A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which was > significantly damaged. > B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were undamaged > by the plane crash. > C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were undamaged > by the plane crash. > Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral floor > trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on the support > columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as can be seen in the > videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) to begin falling > downward toward the largely undamaged structure (C). That obviously did not happen, and even it had, it wouldn't explain the sudden and total disintegration of the massive central core structures. Twin Towers: The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper structures. From: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690 "The Twin Towers and Why They Fell It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs. More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html "There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 3" The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross' research paper on momentum transfer here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression, the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics. The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including the 47 interconnected central core columns: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground about the same time as the debris falling through the towers. Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible, is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in the bottom photo. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That, of course, is not physically possible. Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South Tower. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo evidence. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly reduced. Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information on the perimeter columns. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 23 Mar 2010 10:54 Al Dykes wrote: > The fisrt steel to fail due to heat in WTC1/2 was the steel truss > flooring system. It's made or heavy-gauge sheetmetal. Wrong. Truss assemblies were tested by Underwriters Laboratories under extreme conditions and did not fail. As always, here's hard irrefutable proof. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 23 Mar 2010 11:40 In news:4ba8bef9$0$28464$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message > news:L92dnX-dtq-zJjXWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >>>>>> It failed to support the weight that it should because it >>>>>> had been weakened by fire (and quite possibly mechanically >>>>>> deformed by the impact of the plane). >>>>> >>>>> You're horribly confused again. You're describing what >>>>> caused the upper block to come loose and begin its fall onto >>>>> the lower support structure. I'm not asking you that, nor >>>>> was that the subject of the report that was in debate. The >>>>> question to you now, as it was originally, is that once that >>>>> upper block began its fall, what caused the yet undamaged >>>>> lower support structure to fail? >>>> >>>> PW is just like all the other kooks that he debates here. >>>> Notice the same techniques? When he's boxed into a corner >>>> having to admit that he's got his facts wrong, he'll post >>>> whatever he has to post in order to obfuscate the discussion, >>>> and won't answer relatively simple questions head-on. He was >>>> wrong to claim that the statement by the kooks that the >>>> only force being exerted on the lower support structure was >>>> the weight of the upper block. He'll never admit it. >>>> >>> >>> You should actually provide an exact quote in context if you >>> want to claim that I was wrong about something. >> >> I have many times now, and you're suggestion that I have not >> is, quite simply, a lie. On 3-16-10, you said that the >> statement published by the conspiracy whackos: >> >> "The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are >> gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its >> interaction with the lower section of the building."" >> >> was "absolutely correct." >> > > That statement *is* absolutely correct. Not in the context in which it was made, which is what you just insisted that I show. The context of that statement was wrt the forces which caused the as yet undamaged portion of the lower structure to fail. You knew that. And the statement itself proves this with "due to its interaction with the lower section of the building". IOW, the context was during the time interval of the crash of that upper block into the lower support structure. And, in THAT context, the statement is wrong. During the crash, the force being exerted on the lower structure AND the upper block was (d/dt)mv of the upper block. Now, if you want to lie about context being important, or if, once again, you're going to try to blur your mistake by claiming that a falling body isn't crashing, then that statement is inherently incorrect because it says that the falling body is interacting with the stationary lower structure. > Here is what I said is absolutely correct: > > "The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are > gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its > interaction with the lower section of the building."" > > If you think there are any other relevant forces acting on the > falling block other than those two forces, what do you think > they are? In the context of the time interval in which the falling block is interacting with the lower, stationary support structure, the relevant force was the reaction of the lower support structure to (d/dt)mv of the upper block. This has been explained to you in painstaking detail very often now, and you alternately agree with it, and then show confusion about it. Try to focus. >> I know that you have very grand delusions about physics, and >> math, and "dynamics" and whatever else you think you know, but >> you do not. If you did, you'd know what F=(d/dt)mv is, and how >> it came into play DURING THE CRASH of the upper block into the >> lower support structure thereby causing it to fail. But you do >> not. > > So, what other forces act on the falling block? > > As this is the only example you offer as a test case, I would be > delighted to discuss it further. You are indeed lucky; analysing > a falling block is *far* simpler than analysing the inelastic > collisions between floors, very simple. > > So go for it. What are the other relevant forces? See the above, but I find it very humorous that you would now finally learn that any analysis of what caused the lower structure to fail, and how long to would take that upper block to finally hit the ground would be complex. After all, it was your contention that a very simple analysis, which, BTW, would exclude the very factor which that analysis was intended to answer (i.e., the resistance of the support structure), would do the trick. :-)
From: AllYou! on 23 Mar 2010 11:59 In news:hoaj4t$gnh$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: >> Responding to Peter Webb: > >> You really are a piece of work. All of this time, you've been >> completely unwilling to admit that you were completely wrong to >> agree with the dolts who said that the only two relevant forces >> at play during the crash of the upper block into the lower >> support structure were the weight of the upper block, and the >> reaction of the lower support structure on it, and now that >> you've finally been boxed into having to admit that this was >> wrong, you continue your obfuscation of the truth by trying to >> claim that you knew it all along, and that somehow, it is me >> who learned something or other. You were just as wrong about this >> as you were to think that you >> could show whether or not the lower support structure provided >> any resistance to the fall of the upper block by performing an >> analysis, the very premise of which is that it did not. >> >> You're a horribly confused person who says whatever he has to >> say to obfuscate from having to admit that you know almost >> nothing about physics. You think you do, but you most >> certainly do not, and all of your smoke and mirrors attempts to >> hide this very basic fact proves it. > > Hey nut job, tell us what makes you "think" that there's > no such thing as gravitational potential energy. That's at > least as stupid as ironhead's kook rants.... <chuckle> > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/gpot.html > > "Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses > because of its position in a gravitational field. The most > common use of gravitational potential energy is for an object > near the surface of the Earth where the gravitational > acceleration can be assumed to be constant at about 9.8 m/s2." LOL! Tell us all about Newton's Second Law!
From: AllYou! on 23 Mar 2010 12:06
In news:hoajqk$hve$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: > >> Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK >> brethren do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. > >> At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into >> the WTC1, there existed the following conditions: >> A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which >> was significantly damaged. >> B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were >> undamaged by the plane crash. >> C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were >> undamaged by the plane crash. > >> Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral >> floor trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on >> the support columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as >> can be seen in the videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) >> to begin falling downward toward the largely undamaged >> structure (C). > > That obviously did not happen, Even your whacko report authors say it did. Even they say that the upper block collided with the lower support structure. Are they wrong? > and even it had, it wouldn't > explain the sudden and total disintegration of the massive > central core structures. LOL! then what was all that junk that it took months to clear away from the holes? Is that you definition of disintegration? > Twin Towers: > The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of > the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force > of gravity alone. Of course it can. > The fact that it was exceeded to such an > extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no > measurable resistance, But your authors measured the resistance. So were they wrong? > proves conclusively that the lower > structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper > structures. > > From: > http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690 So which of these contradicting reports do you believe? The one wherein the resistance was measured, or this one? F=(d/dt)mv. |