Peanut gallery: The WTC 1,2,7 collapsed from impact damage and fires

[einsteen]

I wanted to make a compilation but here are the originals, here it almost looks like the block indeed falls away from the building:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem1...ortheast.2.avi

This looks like the block scatters and destroys on the intact building, it is deformed, disintegrated, parts
fall away from the building, look at the horizontal component, I was shocked

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem1...n.south.04.avi

I have even a better one but I can't find it, beer now and then bed

[CurtC]

Guys, I realize you're trying to give einsteen as hard a time as possible, but what's the purpose of these claims about inelastic collisions? In my physics experience, it was pretty common to discuss "how inelastic" a collision would be, and a "perfectly inelastic" collision is one which minimizes the kinetic energy post-collision. This happens when the objects colliding stick together.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22p...22%20collision

There are tons of ways to refute this stuff, so I say refute it above-board.

[R.Mackey]

(for Einsteen) Please be more specific. Describe what you saw, and describe what's inconsistent with Greening's hypothesis.

I can't help you if I can't understand you.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Guys, I realize you're trying to give einsteen as hard a time as possible, but what's the purpose of these claims about inelastic collisions? In my physics experience, it was pretty common to discuss "how inelastic" a collision would be, and a "perfectly inelastic" collision is one which minimizes the kinetic energy post-collision. This happens when the objects colliding stick together.

Well, that's a first in terminology for me.

Nonetheless, he's complaining about Greening's work, but I don't understand the complaint. And I am not trying to give him a hard time.

It's pretty clear that the falling upper block of the WTC towers would not bounce back up into the air... so that makes the momentum / energy argument quite simple. Again, Greening's assumption is the correct one.

[einsteen]

maybe later, cheers. I'm tired

[Skiltch]

For what it's worth, in physics class we learned that a 'perfectly inelastic condition' was one in which the two objects colliding stuck together.
Not that I agree with anything Einstein says, and I could be wrong, but the term seems familiar.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Skiltch

For what it's worth, in physics class we learned that a 'perfectly inelastic condition' was one in which the two objects colliding stuck together.

OK, I yield. I've never seen the term "perfectly inelastic" before, but perhaps my professors were simply more precise. From now on, whenever I see "perfectly inelastic" or "totally" or "fully" or whatever, I will assume we are referring to a collision in which the end state has the two bodies in contact or fused together.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to make this a semantic discussion.

Anyway, using your terminology, Greening is using the "perfectly inelastic" hypothesis -- and he does so correctly.

Consider the alternative. If the falling block does not remain in contact with the lower structure after the initial contact, that means the upper block and the lower structure have bounced away from each other.

Structures do not bounce -- not at all -- once you exceed the elastic limits of the materials.

All you have to do is show that the initial impact exceeds the elastic limits, something that Greening does, and you know for a fact the collision will be "perfectly inelastic." No bouncing. Greening, thus, supports his own assumption with the preliminary calculation. He then goes on to show the energy of collision is enough to exceed the plastic limits as well, at which point the structure begins to collapse.

So... does that clear it up?

[Mince]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

This is the peanut gallery for TruthSeeker's overhyped debate.

Have fun!

Isn't it funny*, when the deniers talk about WTC 1 and 2 collapse, they, almost universally, do not talk about, oh, say, 80 ton aircraft hitting the buildings at 450+ MPH? Don't believe me? Go ahead, scour the LC boards. According to those idiots, the rest of the world is purporting that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed because of fuel fires and magically melting steel. You will NEVER hear discussion of compromised structural integrety due to aircraft impact. EVER!

If you are a LCer and reading this:

You're fooking stupid! You're an Alex Jones sheep whose been brainwashed and can't think for yourself!



*By funny, I mean sad.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Guys, I realize you're trying to give einsteen as hard a time as possible, but what's the purpose of these claims about inelastic collisions? In my physics experience, it was pretty common to discuss "how inelastic" a collision would be, and a "perfectly inelastic" collision is one which minimizes the kinetic energy post-collision. This happens when the objects colliding stick together.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22p...22%20collision

There are tons of ways to refute this stuff, so I say refute it above-board.

Actually, Curt, my argument was with his earlier statements that seemed to equate "ineleastic" with "doesn't lose any energy to things being thrown away from the impact point". He seemed (and still seems) to have a distinct lack of understanding of conservation of momentum and how it fits in with conservation of energy and kinetic energy in impacts. And this is what he bases his arguments on.

I'm STILL waiting for a clear description of what his problem is. AS near as I can tell, his issue is that there was mass thrown away fromt eh building, and this wasn't accounted forin Greenings calculation. This argument is, frankly, ignorant and ridiculous. If you agree that 10 floors will collapse one floor, then this means that over 90% of the total mass of the towers could be tossed out and it would still be a total collapse. A fact that einsteen fails to understand. He complains that Greening treated the upper stories as a "single block", yet he makes the same error by viewing the lower stories as a "single block" and thinking "how could that small part squish all this?".

[einsteen]

Maybe I confuse bouncing and scattering. Fact however is that mass is lost, which effect is responsible for that? There must be a horizontal component responsible. From that first movie you clearly see that this happens. In 911eyewitness you also see that there is even an upper component. Can it be a similar effect as the squibs but then on large scale? i.e. mass is pulverized and pressed out ? I don’t believe that, it is more a matter of finding the way of least resistance, like throwing a composite rock from the top of a big composite rock. This is what I think after seeing that video. And how much mass is lost? It is better to ask how much mass is remained because at the end of the collapse process you can calculate it; it’s by definition the amount of mass above the footprint. When I came here at this forum I mentioned that w<1 factor for the floors below, at that time I didn’t realize that there is much more involved and that is a similar factor for the upper floors.

Hunstman says that if you agree that 10 floors will collapse the next floor, then this means that over 90% of the total mass of the towers could be tossed out and it would still be a total collapse.

Well Huntsman if you have two trains, one carrying the upper block (say N floors) and another train carrying the remainder of the wtc (say M-N) and they collide, what will happen ? the train carrying the rest of the wtc can be thought of as another block of N floors plus a block of M-2N floors. Do you think that when a collision takes place the N floors stay intact during the whole collision through the other massive block ? In fact it is a stepwise collision floor by floor. Whether you use Greening or not, it will not really affect the collapse time, that is also not important. What is important that there is symmetry in the situation; it is in fact two trains colliding with 4.3 m/s, the block of N floors will be destroyed in the same rate as the floors on which it collides (or falls). The speed after a stepwise collision of N floors will not really be different (it will be slowed down by conservation of momentum but increase by gravity, it is no closed system, I think that is a nice problem to solve in the future), but then what is left then ? If you look again at the movie and mass falls away during the process, mass is conserved, but it goes in all directories then the question is what the initial momentum is to break the next floor ? It is plausible that we can again use the mass of the initial block?

There is more to add, Greening assumes a uniform mass distribution, but the building will be stronger at the bottom than at the top. This will slow down the fall, this will disintegrate the block in a higher rate, this will increase the collapse time.
Also the fact that at one tower the block falls skew is not a trivial calculation. Isn’t video material important? Of course, that is all that is available about it.

There is even more to add, point masses are of course relevant for a first approximation, but in this case it affects the collapse time very much. Because if you assume point masses (in fact in a 2d area) then during the whole length of two floors there is free fall assumed which means that the momentum will increase during those 3.7meter. The next collision will decrease it (because of the bigger mass) but then it has again 3.7meter to increase its momentum and so on. All stuff between the floors including the steel core etc is assumed to break by loss of kinetic energy. If you do that allright, but since the real situation is not a point mass situation some time should be added. The problem I personally have is the initial fall; it’s hard for me to accept this. Further Greening’s model gets no terminal velocity and that is not a realistic physical model, it goes to infinity if there are enough floors.

It would be nice if Mr. Greening does a similar calculation for a less mathematical and more physical model, he would be the best one to do that, I’m convinced.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I wanted to make a compilation but here are the originals, here it almost looks like the block indeed falls away from the building:

Did you have to look hard to find two videos of the south tower collapse that are obscured by buildings? You're killing me here, einsteen! Killing me!

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by einsteen

Well Huntsman if you have two trains, one carrying the upper block (say N floors) and another train carrying the remainder of the wtc (say M-N) and they collide, what will happen ?

And this is exactly why I call you ignorant. ANd moreso, an arrogant idiot for insisting your ignorance is knowledge.

Quote:

the train carrying the rest of the wtc can be thought of as another block of N floors plus a block of M-2N floors.

No, it can't.

Quote:

Do you think that when a collision takes place the N floors stay intact during the whole collision through the other massive block ?

Strawman. You are the only one who has argued this, because you're an idiot.

Quote:

In fact it is a stepwise collision floor by floor. Whether you use Greening or not, it will not really affect the collapse time, that is also not important. What is important that there is symmetry in the situation; it is in fact two trains colliding with 4.3 m/s, the block of N floors will be destroyed in the same rate as the floors on which it collides (or falls).

I'll take this, more or less, as accurate.

Quote:

The speed after a stepwise collision of N floors will not really be different (it will be slowed down by conservation of momentum but increase by gravity, it is no closed system, I think that is a nice problem to solve in the future), but then what is left then ? If you look again at the movie and mass falls away during the process, mass is conserved, but it goes in all directories then the question is what the initial momentum is to break the next floor ? It is plausible that we can again use the mass of the initial block?

And again, I say you are ignorant, arrogant, and an idiot.

I agree that the floors of the upper block will be destroyed just like the floor they are falling on.

So what? What does this mean?

You seem to believe that this means their mass disappears. You seem to think that destroyed means disintigrated. You seem to think that a simple fall violates one of the foundation of the science of physics, namely conservation of mass-energy. You are an ignorant ********* who speaks from his fourth point of contact.

Whetehr the upper portion is one block, or a formless mass of rublle, it still has more than enough weight to crush any floor it lands on. Now, let's take it further, since I have to explain this to you as if you were an eight yerar old, which seems to be about your level of understanding.

Assume a building with 100 floors (for simplicity).
The top ten floors (upper block, UB) have a weight of 10x. The bottem 90 (bottem block, BB) have a mass of 90x.

The UB impacts and destoys the top floor of the BB. This also destroys the bottem floor of the UB. Let's say that a mass equal to an entire floor is thrown outward from this impact.

So what is the amount of mass left to fall?

10x is your initial. THe impact throws out an entire floor's worth of mass, leaving 9x. However, the top floor of BB is destroyed, and is now falling as well, so adds to the UB. So, the mass of the UB is 10x.

And entire floor's worth of mass can be thrown out at each step along the fall, and the mass of the falling matter is still 10x. Every time. Doesn't matter if it's an intact block or not (unless you are ignorant of physics and don't understand what you're talking about, yet somehow still beleive you're more qualified than experts. If you ever had a physics degree I'm a f*&king brain surgeon, liar). And this leaves ONLY 10 floor's weight of mass in the footprint.

Quote:

There is more to add, Greening assumes a uniform mass distribution, but the building will be stronger at the bottom than at the top. This will slow down the fall, this will disintegrate the block in a higher rate, this will increase the collapse time.

Except that by the time it gets to the lower floors, it will be a heavier mass falling, so it won't really matter. Unless you really want to argue that only 10% of the mass was left in the footprint at the bottem?

Didn't think so, idiot.

Quote:

Also the fact that at one tower the block falls skew is not a trivial calculation. Isn’t video material important? Of course, that is all that is available about it.

Not really. It falls with a MUCH higher doward velocity than side, and as you said the block was destoryed in the fall anyway, so those bits of matter continue downard. Idiot.

Quote:

There is even more to add,

I do hope anythign else is actually sensible and shows some type of knowledge, rather than being pulled out of your anus to try and impress people with your idiocy.

Quote:

point masses are of course relevant for a first approximation, but in this case it affects the collapse time very much. Because if you assume point masses (in fact in a 2d area) then during the whole length of two floors there is free fall assumed which means that the momentum will increase during those 3.7meter. The next collision will decrease it (because of the bigger mass) but then it has again 3.7meter to increase its momentum and so on. All stuff between the floors including the steel core etc is assumed to break by loss of kinetic energy. If you do that allright, but since the real situation is not a point mass situation some time should be added.

How much does a fly slow down your car when it hits the windshield?

Or even better, how much does a small car slow when it hits a large dog?

Idiot.

Quote:

The problem I personally have is the initial fall; it’s hard for me to accept this.

So where's your math? Or are we accepting fallacious Arguments from Incredulity now? It's not true because you don't think so? Try again, idiot.

Quote:

Further Greening’s model gets no terminal velocity and that is not a realistic physical model, it goes to infinity if there are enough floors.

It's an approximation. Doesn't matter. There were nowhere near enough floors to reach that speed. You might as well argue against figuring any acceleration due to gravity, because it doesn't include terminal velocity either.

Idiot.

Quote:

It would be nice if Mr. Greening does a similar calculation for a less mathematical and more physical model, he would be the best one to do that, I’m convinced.

Well, it might help convince him if you had any actual criticisms based on realistic objections.

Idiot.

[rwguinn]

Huntsman:
You are absolutely, positively, wrong on all counts.



Einsteen is a Moron studying to become an idiot.
And failing the course.

[Hellbound]

LOL rwguinn

You had me worried for a second there

[einsteen]

Edited by tim:

einsteen, refrain from personal attacks.

[rwguinn]

Edited by tim:

Originally Posted by einsteen Edited for quoted comment.

Don't hold back, guy--
Vent! you can do it.
And what was that Thesis title again?

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by einsteen

Edited by darat:

Removed quoted content

Your inability to refute my arguments is noted. Since you'd prefer to insult me to the exclusion of argument, I must assume you concede the point?

At least I can understand the written word.

I didn't "drop out after the first year".

My major wasn't physics, I took physics courses as electives. My major was Information Technology (the last time) and Computer Systems Technology (before that) and Computer Science (first time).

And much of my physics knowledge was self-taught at later dates. I'm an avid reader, and besides keeping up with the popularizations on various issues I also read much of what our college library had on its shelves.

And if I'm such a moron, prove me wrong. Show my arguments are incorrect. Prove your "physics degree" that apparently doesn't cover Newtonian mechanics.

Insults are easy, but all it would take to shut me up and put me in my place is a bit of proof. A little math and a scan of a diploma. A copy of your plasma physics thesis you claim exists but that I wouldn't understand.

At least I understand F=ma, and conservation laws.

Just to rub some salt in the wound, I have over 200 college credit hours from three different colleges/universities, and two degrees currently. I took courses ranging from Accounting to Zoology, and from Stage Combat to Physics to History to Philosophy to Psychology. I've worked professionally in emergency medicine, computer security, and physical security. The reason I don't (yet) have a physics degree is because of the breadth of my interests, although I plan on completing such a degree shortly, once I've paid off my loans from my last college attendence.

[tim]

Edited by tim:

Folks, calm down. I've edited einsteen's posts, but Huntsman, you need to refrain from abuse as well. I repeat, calm it down.

[Hellbound]

Gotcha, Tim.

My apologies to the board. I tend to get frustrated after hearing the same lackign argument, that's been debunked seventeen times before, for the eightenth time simply because someone, for whatever reason, can't acknowledge that they've already been refuted.

[T.A.M.]

Jeez, when did this all become about comparing resumes. I believe there is a thread somewhere where alot of us posted our credentials. Why not just post them there, and both parties get on with the debating/discussion.

We all have our strong points, our interests.

I'll shut up now, but just though I would also voice a call for calm.

TAM

Edit: Well said Huntsman.

Oh and I hear ya on the loans. I owe the bank $120,000 for student loans.

TAM

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Jeez, when did this all become about comparing resumes.

It's typically not my style, either, unless someone rests their entire argument on their personal qualifications...at which point those qualifications become a part of the debate, because they are put forth as evidence.

And I get a bit upset when my own experience is blatantly mis-construed...true, I could have done more, and been at a different place now. However, I goofed off a bit at first, and later spread my studies to cover multiple interests. But I'm rather proud of that, actually

As I've stated before, I know a little about a lot, and a lot about a little

[T.A.M.]

Sounds like my job. I know a fair degree about all medical illnesses and conditions, but am a specialist in none.

As for wide interests, I went from being an Electronic Engineering Technologist to a Physician, so I can relate. Did I also mention I produce independent films in my spare time, when not performing duties as a husband and father of 2.

TAM

[Hellbound]

LOL

Does sound similar.

I joined the military first, was trained as a medic. Went to college for Comp Sci, took some physics on the side. Ended up loosing my scholarships because my grades weren't high enough (I overloaded myself, 22 hours my first semester including Calculus 1...never had Pre-Calculus). Went full-time Army for a few years. Got out, worked quality control at a hydraulics manufacturing plant. Went back and cot my AAS degree in Comp Sci Tech, took a lot of extra courses while doing that, including some theatre and stage combat. Got a job as a Systems Analyst. About this time the military cross-trained me as a Combat Engineer. I finish my BS in IT through correspondence, and get called up for an all-expenses paid trip to the never-ending desert (Iraq) for a year. Got back, did some work for the military stateside after re-calssing again into computers. Now I'm doing computer security and HIPPA-regulated file transfers for a major insurance company, and working on paying off my earlier loans and debts so I can work on that physics degree.

Also a husband and father of two, a 4 (almost 5) year old son and 15 month old daughter.

[T.A.M.]

Impressive resume, particularly in terms of time frame, and "busy"ness. Mine are 6 and 3, boy and girl respectively.

TAM

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Impressive resume, particularly in terms of time frame, and "busy"ness. Mine are 6 and 3, boy and girl respectively.

TAM

Yeah, it's rarely been a dull moment for me Of course, that paragraph covers about 12 years of time...so not quite as busy as it may seem

Of course, I left out a few things, as well, so...

Heh.

Settled down since marriage, though, with the exception of my Iraqi vacation.

[tim]

Keep the posts like that, fellers, and I won't have to worry about editing posts!


























(Grandfather of 4, girls 3,5, and 7, boy 2)

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by tim

(Grandfather of 4, girls 3,5, and 7, boy 2)

So you're part of the evil conspiracy to spoil the children of the world, eh?

[einsteen]

Originally Posted by tim

Keep the posts like that, fellers, and I won't have to worry about editing posts!

Tim, apologies, it will not happen again. I never in my life made such a post but I got a boost of adrenaline in my body.

Further I certainly make errors/mistakes, I'm no robot but also no idiot

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by einsteen

Tim, apologies, it will not happen again. I never in my life made such a post but I got a boost of adrenaline in my body.

Further I certainly make errors/mistakes, I'm no robot but also no idiot

So, Since you brought it up, what is the title of that Thesis, and which university?

[tim]

Thanks, everyone! Now play nice, or risk the (sharp intake of breath) wrath of the wombat!

[einsteen]

http://www.uva.nl/

I was just a normal student who finished and leaved, nothing special, send me an PM if you want a scan of the diploma, but who cares, I will hide my name and everyone can be anything on internet. Privacy is important for me. I'm nothing special, nothing

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by einsteen

http://www.uva.nl/

I was just a normal student who finished and leaved, nothing special, send me an PM if you want a scan of the diploma, but who cares, I will hide my name and everyone can be anything on internet. Privacy is important for me. I'm nothing special, nothing

Nope-
You clamed an advanced degree thesis in Plasma Physics.
I want to have the title, and university.
We see much evidence that you are prevaricating. removing that soupcon of doubt is easy.