Math is a language. It's blah blah blah. Your complaints about my model are blah blah blah. So where is a model that will collapse completely like you claim the math implies? Real physics does not give a damn about math. Some people just try to use math to convince others that they are smart and therefore must be correct. But if you don't even have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete then you do not even have accurate numbers to plug into the variables of your equations. The blah blah blah isn't even correct. The math is a delusion. My physical model does not run on equations. But I did empirical tests to determine how much energy was required to flatten a single loop, 0.118 joules. How much energy was required to flatten each level of the core? Plug that into your math. psik
Being lectured by truthers on physics is like being lectured to by creationists about genetics. What a joke. No professional engineering institutions support anything other than natural collapse. There are none who support controlled demolition. Not one, single, professional organisation. Truthers overlook this fact because it blows a giant hole in all of the bs they're trying to spin. Here is a list of just some of the professional engineering bodies agree with natural collapse: Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Engineering Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Purdue University, Northwestern University, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering - University of Edinburgh, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the American Concrete Institute, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc, as well as, of course, All the structural engineers who designed and built the WTC, Okay, now go ahead and list any/all the professional engineering organisations, or well known structural engineers, who agree with controlled demolition. If it makes you feel any better to try and bulk your list, include any/all controlled demolition companies who agree with controlled demolition of the WTC. I wont hold my breath.
yeh so what they all agree with the accepted speed of light and that is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to! LMAO FAIL
there is a non-accepted speed of light?? I think thats going for stundie nomination.. What does that even have to do with the twin towers? Or you providing even one engineering/demolition organisation which supports controlled demolition?
And thus illustrates the sum of your understanding of physics. Math. It's blah blah blah. Which is more compelling? 1. The core of the WTC could stand on it's own because it's obvious. 2. The core of the WTC could not stand on it's own because Euler's buckling equation shows that the critical load of the core on its own is less than zero. False. People use math to record observation, predict future outcome, and communicate results. If you understood the language, which you don't, you would not say that "real physics" is somehow independent of the math used to describe it. You would also understand that the level of precision you keep demanding is unnecessary. We don't need to know how many ball point pens there were on the 8th floor in order to run an energy balance model of the collapse. The numbers are so large that there's a lot of room for variable variables. An extra 10,000 lbs of steel at the bottom of the building is not going to stop 50,000 tons of falling steel from buckling local column sections. That's not how the physical worth works, and the math communicates that fact. Yeah, it runs on assumptions. False ones. You've made an assumption that physical behavior can always be modeled with craft supplies you found in your junk drawer. You've made a false assumption that gravity and the strength of materials can be scaled. You've made a false assumption that you've designed an analogous structure. You've made an assumption that your model is "as weak as possible." You've made an assumption that your paper loops behave the same as slender columns. You've made the false assumption that the wooden dowel does not contribute to the structure of your model. You've made the false assumption that the number of "levels" and percentage of height of your structure somehow corresponds to floors and height of the WTC. Of course, if you had any respect at all for the language of physics, you'd already know that.
now there is a truck load of blah blah blah! lets see the model of your blah blah blah and all dat mad-o-matics you be a usin dar and you have done nothing to show that your bs claim that the floors provide vertical support LOL Looks to me like you dont even know what the addition of bracing between columns "really" does in the first place.
So gravity operating on the components of my model runs on assumptions. I never claimed anything about scaling. How can anyone scale to the WTC if they do not know the distributions of steel and concrete? My loops were tested to be "as weak as possible" but still support the static load. What skyscraper is designed like that? So what has kept you or any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse from whatever materials from anywhere you choose? psik
first off they have equipment and resources you do not have they have a crystal ball and they consulted their dahwy wahama, da best guessers on da pwanet, and dey guessed a wot and gave you da "FACTS"! The question is how can you argue with the facts?
Yeah in 12 years you geniuses blathering about math can't make a physical model conform to your math. Some people might call that lying. psik
It's been pointed out to you numerous times that the only way to accurately re-create the collapse with a physical model would be to re-create the WTC towers themselves. How many times does this have to be pounded into your skull until it sinks in? All of those things you like to disregard like the scaling of gravity (or lack thereof) is the exact reason why your stupid model means NOTHING. Outside of a fun hobby project for yourself that is. This is why math and computer models are run in the real world. It's just a tad bit more cost effective to do it that way psikey.
Us geniuses can't build impossible models, transmit data faster than the speed of light, build a 10 mile wide by 10 mile wide column.... You know, stuff your average truther can do.
You mean people keep repeating nonsense that is obviously stupid just because they are dumb enough to believe it. Scientists could land a 2000 lb robot on Mars but they can't discuss the center of mass of the tilted top portion of a skyscraper. Very interesting! The 9/11 Religion must be rationalized. But 3D printers could probably make good WTC levels to scale. They could even be tested and designed for strength. They would just have to be weighted properly. psik
they cant discuss the cg because it was too hard to find after they blew it all to hell now as far as troughers are concerned king kong took off the top of 2. how the hell do you calculate cg when the mass is disintegrating before our eyes?
thats good by me, you all wil just look even more foolish than you already do. Not that I blame you however, since I understand what a pain it is to have someone around who blows your (*)(*)(*)(*) so full of holes that it looks like a sieve. LMAO
