computer simulation of WTC attacks by Perdue university

einsteen said:
Wrong ^varg, the model would be the same if the wtc1 tower was not 110 floors, with an impact on floor 96, but also if it was 20 floors high with a plane impact on floor 7. Just translate your coordinate system a little bit higher. Ever heard about translation invariance ?
Click to expand...

Einsteen, can I assume this post was meant for me? It makes no sense when applied to ^vargs post.

Using a model only 20 floors high would defeat TS1234's purpose... he want's a model of the entire collapse from top to bottom. What you propose is essentially what NIST did, and most people consider that to be sufficient.
 
I'm confused now, I should not do 4 threads at the same time and also working at work..
 
einsteen said:
Wrong ^varg, the model would be the same if the wtc1 tower was not 110 floors, with an impact on floor 96, but also if it was 20 floors high with a plane impact on floor 7. Just translate your coordinate system a little bit higher. Ever heard about translation invariance ?
Click to expand...

maybe i didn't make my point clearly.

my point was that those observations that were cited as evidence that the towers could not have collapsed due to the impact of the planes were themselves caused by the collapse of the towers. regardless as to why the towers collapsed, the observations would be about the same. the towers collaping for any reason would show pulverization, dust clouds, etc, etc, etc.

perhaps it's simply too late, and i'm delusional, and not understanding further implications caused by my points. i've just started a cup of coffee, so maybe that will help. but, i think it's most likely that i just didn't make my point clearly, and it's really a simple point.
 
^varg said:
3. rapid collpase time - gravity? a falling mass should collapse rapidly, shouldn't it? can you imagine a scenerio where the WTC building collapsed slowly? perhaps it's possible, but highly unlikely.
Click to expand...


I blame hollywood. In the movies every dramatic event happens in slow motion, and they usually show the same event from multiple angles, overlapping individual action.

It's called Ellipses. Real life does not feature ellipses.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
I blame hollywood.-Andrew
Click to expand...

Are you saying Hollywood took out the towers? It all makes sense now. The action movie business has been hurting since Ahnold went into politics. 9/11 was an attempt to reboot the industry in preparation of Predators 3 through 8 and Blade Runner 2 through 22.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Guinn penned

No. People with a knowledge of physics realize that all work requires energy. The observed work that was done ( the pulverization, the ejection, the rapid collapse times, the molten metal, the expansion of the dust clouds) requires far more energy than is available in the form of elevated mass.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that has ever been shown.

As far as I know, Ross only considered the makeup of the pulvarized material, and blatently asserted that it was representative of all the concrete in the rubble. However, there is no basis for that assumption, and it was never claimed in the original work.

The original work was an analysis of the dust formed in the collapse. It was not an analysis of the entire pile of rubble. Stuff that did not get pulverized was not included.

Interestingly, it doesn't take too many non-pulverized pieces to completely demolish Ross's argument (and he got his calculations wrong, anyway). One block of concrete that is 10 cm in diameter accounts for a lot of Ross's missing energy.
 
I love how the pulverization and dust cloud are always linked to the concrete in the buildings. As if that was the only material within the structure that could produce such a phenomenon.

Back when I was younger, I was helping my dad with the addition he was putting on his house. Every other weekend, we'd hang dry-wall. I found the toughest areas to nail down were always at the bottom, in a corner. My hammer would constantly reduce that poor corner to dust.

I can only imagine what a couple million pounds of falling building would do to it.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Guinn penned

No. People with a knowledge of physics realize that all work requires energy. The observed work that was done ( the pulverization, the ejection, the rapid collapse times, the molten metal, the expansion of the dust clouds) requires far more energy than is available in the form of elevated mass.

What engineers have said is that they understand how collapse is possible. But what occured was not just a collapse. That's why it is important that we study the events after NIST (and Purdue) truncated their timelines. When you add it all together, there is just way more energy needed than what is available. There must be another energy source, and that energy source would be explosives.

The scientific shortcoming of the OCTs then, is tunnel vision. Looking at individual elements of this event in isolation, they seem plausible. But putting the whole picture together, you realize the energy deficit is just too great.
Click to expand...
Look, TruthSeeker1234, your very first post at the JREF Forum was on this topic. You were quickly led to my critiques of Ross's paper. Critiques that show, in simple terms, that global collapse is expected.

Admittedly this is a back-of-envelope approach, but complex modeling is impossible, and the energies involved really leave little doubt for one who bothers to run (and can understand) the numbers.

You promised to review my critiques here. Even though your initial comments suggest you're not qualified to respond, I'm still waiting.

That thread has lain dormant for a week now.

Your claim that nobody addressed this, is, therefore, complete crap. Why have you not followed through? Have you even read my critique? Why come back again asking for still more information, when it's already been presented to you?
 
Can somebody tell me if my explanation in this post is generally right? I'm very curious to know whether I've actually gotten the hang of any of this engineering talk.
 
realitybites said:
I love how the pulverization and dust cloud are always linked to the concrete in the buildings. As if that was the only material within the structure that could produce such a phenomenon.

Back when I was younger, I was helping my dad with the addition he was putting on his house. Every other weekend, we'd hang dry-wall. I found the toughest areas to nail down were always at the bottom, in a corner. My hammer would constantly reduce that poor corner to dust.

I can only imagine what a couple million pounds of falling building would do to it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, a few million pounds of drywall would produce a phenomenal amount of dust.

Then, to add to it, there's bound to be tons of that cheap drop ceiling tile that's in every office building ever. And insulation of most types is usually dusty. And then there's corrugated cardboard, which turns into flakey bits when it's broken apart (and burns like crazy!), which is most likely what most of the office furniture in the building is made of. And I doubt all of the thousands of doors in the building were solid wood or metal.

There was a lot of other stuff in the building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom