67,000 people believe something's wrong with what we were told about 9/11

what about the washers demo is so wrong?
the falling bit makes contact with the stationary bit(s)
and moves the stationary bits, and uses up energy
crushing the paper spacers.

can anyone construct even a computer program model
that illustrates a structure where a falling mass from above,
that is part of the original structure, can fall through the lower
( and as yet undamaged ) part of the tower and accelerate while
doing so. what sort of conditions do you have to set-up for this
to be possible?

 

Answer this question for me genericBob.

What is this video trying to convey? That the descent of the upper section of the towers should have been arrested by the lower section at some point? Or something else?

 

indeed, the system would ( one way or another ) reach equilibrium and it would most likely happen a good bit before the action reached ground level. The thing that the opposition keeps chanting is that the floor loading had been exceeded therefore the whole level must be destroyed, however, this leaves out the fact that there are core columns and outer wall columns and these bits can support weight also, if a jumbled mass of building materials fell down upon the whole structure, core columns & all, then the whole structure would have to be overcome before the level could be destroyed. This is the fatal flaw in the ROOSD theory of skyscraper destruction. There are a multitude of different things that could have happened, but what is the most probable & plausible, or indeed what is the least probable & plausible?
Why should both towers have "collapsed" right down to ground level?

 

That's what you think this video conveys? If that's the case, how do you give his model validity when he ADMITS that he has no clue as to how much steel or concrete was contained in the structure, which means he cannot make an accurate model. In now way, shape, or form does his model scale to the towers correctly nor does he represent the structural elements. Yet you want to deem the results as a good representation of what occur that day.

Really?

No. The load has to travel THROUGH load paths to get to the columns to be distributed down to the grillages upon the bedrock. What you fail to understand is that as that load "travels" it passes through other components. If those components fail, the load cannot go through that load path anymore and has to go elsewhere, thus overload the other paths even more. There is PROOF of the floors being stripped from the core columns.

 

It is not my problem that you expect people to be impressed by the word "represent". I don't even care what YOU mean by it.

The models involve and demonstrate the same physics of what supposedly happened to the towers, momentum, kinetic energy, conservation of momentum. They are not scale models and I never claimed they were. This entire 9/11 issue is about most people not being able to comprehend middle school physics.

So you are one of them and can merely TALK. I am IMPRESSED!

What has stopped you from building a model that "represents" whatever you claim?

psik

 

How can you claim that your models demonstrated the same physics as the towers when their not even CLOSE to being reasonable replication?

What a joke!

You think washers supported by paper will give an accurate representation of the physics involved when concrete floors are impacted? You think a washer is representative of the tons of debris that fell on top of the floors? You think a wooden dowel is an accurate representation of the core which consisted of 47 columns?

Ridiculous.

Do you think Richard Gage's video below is accurate to show what SHOULD have happened to the towers? I think I already know the answer based on what you think above, but I'll wait to hear it from you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

 

So then you think that I can accurately represent an auto collision by banging two Hot Wheels cars together?

 

I'll give an example and see if you can figure out what's wrong.

If I wanted to predict what would happen "physics-wise" if I were to shoot a cannonball at a 12' thick castle wall, all I would need to do is get a metal plate, stand it on end, and then use a sling shot to shoot a marble at it?

And you would believe that my demonstration provides an accurate account of the "same physics, momentum, kinetic energy, conservation of momentum" that would happen with a cannonball and castle wall?

Screw structural engineers and their calculations! If Leslie Robertson wanted to know how many people and how much equipment his floors would hold up, all he needed to do was get a metal washer slipped over a wooden dowel and attached it to the dowel with paper and tape, and then start piling little Lego mini-figures and computers onto the washer until it collapsed!

 

Like said, It ain't my fault that you cannot comprehend mass, static loads and gravitational acceleration.

psik

 

Your 'model' illustrates NONE of that.

 

Lets just take that example and examine it, if the floors were being stripped away as you said, then there would still be the core columns and outer wall columns left standing at the time, what caused the failure of all the connections to every core column and every outer wall column and all precisely on time to create the observed result?

 

Like this you mean?

 

Why'd you drop the part about "demonstrating the same physics as the towers" in your quote above? Let's remind you what you said:

Then, following the quote above, you state this:

My question to you, which you failed to answer, is how can you claim your videos demonstrate the same physics the tower did when you admit that the models you used are accurate?!

You also didn't answer if you thought Gage's video was an accurate representation of the physics of the towers. Please answer.

 

what is that behind the smoke & dust?
another skyscraper? .... or?

 

It's the core of the tower, which remained standing for a short time following the collapse. This photo was in response to your post:

As observed, part of the core did remain erect briefly, following the initial collapse.

 

It's the CORE of the tower before it collapsed under it's own weight after being damaged from falling debris.

The structure had the core, floors, and perimeter facade working together and none of those substructures were designed to stand on their own.

 

"Precisely on time"?

What timeline are you using to determine this? Or did you mean "Precisely at the same time"?

 

First of all, I do not know what you are referring to by "Gage's video". How many videos has he made?

My collapse model must hold itself up. That means the paper loops at every level must be strong enough to support all of the weight above. That means the mass above any given point must have a limited amount of potential energy in relation to the strength below. The mass may not have the same distribution as the north tower but the north tower was not tested to be as weak as possible. That is not how skyscrapers are designed.

So my collapse model is a test of a worst case condition which should not exist in the real world but it still would not completely collapse.

psik

 

So you missed the link I posted?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

Wrong. Huge mistake mistake on your part and just one of the reasons your video is garbage.

The floors were not part of the support mechanism that supported "all the weight above" so why are the paper loops sitting directly beneath and on top of each floor, thus incorporating the floors? The floors only transferred the weight of themselves and the loads placed upon them to the core columns and perimeter columns, which then transferred that load to the grillages upon the bedrock. Each floor never felt the weight of the structure above.

The correct model would have a paper loop (representing the floor truss connections to the core columns) attached to the wooden dowel (representing the core columns) for each INDIVIDUAL washer (representing the floor). Each individual paper loop would be connected/touching/supporting only one washer from beneath said washer.

So no, your video and model do not correctly demonstrate the physics of the towers.

I suggest you fix your model to properly represent that which you are trying to emulate.

 

I do not know how much you care about what Richard Gage says. I have met the man. I went to one of his dog and pony shows in 2008. I asked him about the steel and concrete distributions down skyscrapers. First he looked at me like I had grown a second head. Then he told me that the NIST was releasing faulty blue prints.

If his group wanted to prove the top 15% of a skyscraper could not destroy the rest then why haven't they done a model by now? He wants people to BELIEVE, he is not trying to explain.

If you make a video I will watch. I am not watching every video someone posts. I post and explain what I made.

I mostly laugh at what Gage has to say.

That is totally idiotic. If the paper loops were not strong enough to support all of the weight above under static load than how could they not be crushed by that load?

psik

 

I'm disputing the fact that you're saying your model DEMONSTRATES the physics of the towers which, as explained above, is not the least bit true. There are many things wrong with your model and the above post is just the first problem.

Let's see if you can figure this out.

What is the difference between the floor truss connections on the core columns being sheared away and the paper loops you use to emulate the floor truss connections positioned and touching each floor above and below?

Hint: Are the paper loops (emulated floor truss connections) being COMPRESSED BETWEEN the washers (emulated floors) or are they being sheared from the wooden dowel (core columns)? Do you understand the difference between being an object being COMPRESSED from load and an object being SHEARED from another object from a load?

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't ask you if you cared what he said. I asked if you think the model he used in his video correctly emulates the towers and what happened that day.

 

So provide a link to evidence of floor trusses being sheared away in the "collapse". I have never seen any.

It is just a speculated explanation. And if the top of the north tower came down in its entirety then the upper core had to fall on the lower core and that would have nothing to do with the floors outside the core being sheared off.

You make something up then complain because a model does not conform to a delusion you cannot provide evidence for.

psik

 

You fail to see the point. Your paper loops represent a compression mechanic beneath the floors. The floor truss connections will not render a compression mechanic. What do you not understand here?

And it fails miserably.

Are you suggesting that the 47 core columns of the upper section directly impacted the 47 core columns of the lower section as the upper section descended? Explain how that is possible in the tower the had the upper section tilt.

That's pretty funny. You admit your model and video are "speculation", but I'm making things up. Oh the irony.

So explain to all of us here how your paper loop supports replicate the floor truss connections attached to the core columns for support purposes.

 

To attempt to answer the question ( at least the way I see it )
the official explanation of how the tower fell includes the idea
that a falling mass, helped along by increasing in mass as it
goes ( kinda like a snowball rolling downhill .... ) would accelerate
downward as it pulverized tons of material & broke up all the connections in every level down the tower. However the paper
& washers demo proves that the upper mass can not accelerate
downward through a mass that offers resistance.

 

As I have pointed out, the model he uses to represent the towers is not correct and thus provides bogus results.

Once again...

The paper loops used in the video are an incorrect representation of how the floor truss connections work to support the floors. The floor truss connections are not connected to beneath a floor, nor are they simultaneously connected to the floor below. The actual floor truss connections are connected to the core columns and beneath the floor only. Hence psikeyhackr, stating that any paper loop (as it represent the floor truss connections) in his model supports ALL THE LOAD above in his model, is completely incorrect.

He even stated that his paper loops act as some sort of compression support (like a spring):

That's not even CLOSE to what the floor truss connections are. Do you even understand the difference?