Discussion in '9/11' started by groupthink, Aug 15, 2012.
likewise an understanding of shattering.
There are 2 failure modes for columns under compression.
Dustify being one of them...
Somehow i knew that Koko wouldn't know what those two failure modes were.
So much for a demonstration of his understanding of the causes of stress / strain induced fracture.
that because you like others of your ilk construct ill framed questions.
there are 3 failure modes.
You for got BIG BODDA FODDA BOOM!
FODDA BOOM BOOM BOOM BAM SLAM BOOM
SPARKLE FARKLE BOOMA LOOMA
Oh and ^^^^^^^^^^^^ thats NBC LOL
BIG FODDA SHROOMA BOOMA
Good science demands proof in the form of repeatable experimentation. Anyone, using the same criteria can conduct the experiment and come up with the same result. Example: One can separate H20 into hydrogen and oxygen with an electric current. Anyone can do this.
The question isn't the problem. The problem is that the respondent doesn't know the answer. That's because, despite the respondents instance that physics was violated in some way, it's quite evident that the respondent doesn't have a lick of knowledge on the subject of structural engineering, or the physics applicable therein.
There are 2 failure modes for columns subject to compression. Those modes are crushing and buckling. Whether the failure mode will be one or the other is dependent on the slenderness ratio of the column and the stress - strain curve of the material the column is made of. Fracture is the final result of both modes of failure. A buckled column almost completely loses its ability to support load at the point of plastic deformation. At the point of fracture, it carries zero load. (just like the spaghetti)
The main point of discussion that discredits psi's silly washer and paper loop model is not the fracture of the column. The main point is that the mass of the column is accelerated out from under the falling mass due to buckling. This means that perfect layers of mass did not impact perfect layers of mass just like his simplistic washer model.
the answer however is once again BIG BODDA FODDA BOOM BAMAZOOMA
See when you get BIG BODDA FODDA BOOMA
DA WEIGHTA IS A TO MUCHA AND IT BUCKOS LIKA DATA
HAFFA WAYA BATWEENA DA IMPACTA AND TOPPA
VEWY VEWY CONVIENENTA
MAKA DA SHROOMA LIKA DATA
Simple physics boom and it all faws down!
When you're ready to make a lucid response in English we can continue this conversation.
what dont you understand
I don't understand why you think your posts are in any way a lucid response to the points and issues I raised with your puerile and unscientific picture based argument.
really? its equally scientific to anything troughers use.
Did you find where I "cut and pasted" that explanation of thermonuclear weapons from yet? Do you think it was from someplace sciency? I'll bet you do...
koko can't even use the word 'troughers' correctly,and he takes someone else to task for their research?....
looks correct to me, whats your problem?
its scientifically proven
I have better h8ngs to do with my time
Run away,run awayyyyyyyyyyyy.
getting anything from koks regarding 9/11 is like pulling teeth,apparently...
You have better 'hatings' to do with your time?
Why all the hate? Bad report cards?
Life is full of hate when one lives in one's parent's basement and they can't get anything right in their posts.
and the troughers are so weak they have been reduced to spelling nazis again!
Hell they cant even get that right and they try to analyse the wtc demolitions LOL
Scientific theories can conflict with each other.
Separate names with a comma.