Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 75

Thread: Physical Impact Model Video

  1. #1
    psikeyhackr Guest

    Physical Impact Model Video

    And now for a video that is completely different.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

    No one else seems to be demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor.

    The NIST tells us the building oscillated for 4 minutes. How do you compute how much kinetic energy shook the entire building versus how much did structural damage at the point of impact? Isn't that necessary to do an accurate computer model?

    psik

  2. #2
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    I think a better model would have been showing a few floors on the top of that model getting knocked off or squshed down and seeing how fast the whole thing collapses- if at all.

  3. #3
    psikeyhackr Guest
    The model is intended to demonstrate that the behavior of the structure changes with the distribution of mass. The questions point out that we have not been told the distribution of mass in steel and concrete in 6 years.

    The trouble with building an accurate collapse model is the strength to weight ratio of matter increases as things get smaller. An ant is stronger than you in relation to its size. An accurate collapse model could not be built without the information which I am saying we are not being told.

    psik

  4. #4
    dMole Guest

    Looks pretty accurate

    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

    No one else seems to be demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor.

    The NIST tells us the building oscillated for 4 minutes. How do you compute how much kinetic energy shook the entire building versus how much did structural damage at the point of impact? Isn't that necessary to do an accurate computer model?
    psik
    I kept getting interrupted when I tried to watch the video, but the physics appeared sound to me.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ewt.html#ntcon

    I remember Newton's own words saying that an applied force is proportional to the rate of change of momentum of the body (not F=ma per se). F=dp/dt, if you will. It's really a matter of semantics for classical mechanics though. In quantum mechanics and optics, photon momenta and radiation "pressure" gets a little "trickier" since you can't weigh the things...

    There are a few places that mention the steel and concrete floor masses/loads.

    [metric units from my review]
    http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...tc/godfrey.htm

    http://www.911research.com/papers/tr...lysisFinal.htm

    http://911research.wtc7.ent/mirrors/...ews-record.htm

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...TwinTowers.pdf

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...lueprints.html

    [I've found some questionable findings in this MIT paper IMHO]
    http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfil...Structures.pdf

    [Very suspect findings in this paper with gems like:]
    "Additionally, the FEMA team carried the computer analysis only to a point in time immediately after the impacts; they did not consider the effects of the fire."
    http://132.236.67.210/EngrWords/issu...ensonC_PR1.pdf

    Regarding the WTC Tower oscillations, these should be impulse-driven, damped oscillations (likely harmonic due to the symmetry in Tower construction). Impulse physics is not well understood AFAIK (usually instrumented crash-test-dummy type stuff). And yes, these SHOULD BE accounted for in an ACCURATE computer model... Who has the source code of the simulations exactly?

  5. #5
    dMole Guest

    More on KE

    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
    How do you compute how much kinetic energy shook the entire building versus how much did structural damage at the point of impact?
    psik
    Hi again Psi,

    I made an inquiry about the engine rotational energy over at Pilots 4 Truth (P4T). Unfortunately, I've been unable to find any data on the jet engines' Moment of Inertia (I), needed for a rotational energy calculation.

    http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...ost&p=10063991

    Linear KE is easy (= 1/2 m * v^2), if you can find an accurate number/concensus on the combined plane/passenger/fuel mass (good luck- I haven't so far). Oh yeah, UA175 that struck the South Tower WTC2 appears to have been traveling MUCH faster than a Boeing 767's maximum cruise velocity [which SHOULD BE faster than low altitude V_max], too.

    http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...ost&p=10011348

    Hmmmm...

    d

  6. #6
    psikeyhackr Guest
    Some people at Purdue made this simulation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

    I sent them this email about it:

    Greetings,

    Congratulations on a great looking simulation.

    Since some of the kinetic energy caused the entire building to shake and some did damage at the impact zone I was wondering how it was determined how much did what?

    In six years I have not heard how much steel and concrete were on each level of the buildings so I am wondering how that information can be obtained.

    You see I made my own video but the simulation is based on a physical model. I am having trouble understanding how this incident can be analyzed without the distribution of steel and concrete being taken into account. How many tons of steel were on the impact floors of the south tower to weaken in 56 minutes? I haven't heard that in 6 years.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

    Sincerely,

    -----------------------------------------

    I got this respone from Chris Hoffmann:

    Thanks for your interest.
    Please contact Professor Sozen regarding the building particulars.
    Best wishes, Chris Hoffmann

    ______________________
    Christoph M. Hoffmann, Computer Science
    Director, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
    Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
    ph: 765-494-6185, fax: 765-494-0739
    www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh
    ______________________

    I emailed Professor Sozen the same day but I have gotten no response so far.

    psikey

  7. #7
    dMole Guest

    We were supposed to go away quietly

    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

    I got this respone from Chris Hoffmann:

    Thanks for your interest.
    Please contact Professor Sozen regarding the building particulars.
    Best wishes, Chris Hoffmann

    ______________________
    Christoph M. Hoffmann, Computer Science
    Director, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
    Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
    ph: 765-494-6185, fax: 765-494-0739
    www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh
    ______________________

    I emailed Professor Sozen the same day but I have gotten no response so far.

    psikey
    Don't you know that we were supposed to accept the MSM and Kean Commission versions of physical laws? Hell, just to humor we "CT'ists", they did [government appointed and funded] FEMA/ASCE and NIST studies, not to mention all that wonderful PM (Pseudo-Mechanics) and pHistory Channel "debunking."

    It looks to me like Mr. Hoffmann was QUITE quick to wash his hands of your inquiry. I'd stay on Professor Sozen until he responds (but it took me 3 years to get here, and I've been studying the WTC "attacks" for 3 years more, and I don't plan on going away any time soon- that is what the OCT and PTB would prefer, you know).

  8. #8
    psikeyhackr Guest
    This certainly puts an interesting spin on the IMPACT if true.

    http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=x2upl977dsY

    But lots of people involved with large commercial planes should have known this years ago. Aeronautical engineering students should have known it. If it is true what does it say about our engineering schools?

    This is a site with info on aerodynamics:

    http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sflight2.htm

    It says the air density at sea level is 4 times that at 30,000 feet therefore the drag on the airliner would be 4 times as great. The engines would need 4 times as much power to overcome that drag. It seems unlikely that a normal airliner would have engines that over powered.

    These are videos of large aircraft at low altitudes:

    Low Pass

    Hot Dog

    So if the planes in the videos were doing 300 mph and drag is proportional to the square of velocity.

    300 * 300 = 90,000 500 * 500 = 250,000

    250,000/90,000 = 2.8

    Going from 300 mph to 500 mph at the same altitude means 2.8 times as much drag. But going from 700 feet to 30,000 feet means 1/4th as much drag.

    2.8 * 0.25 = 0.7

    So doing 500 mph at 30,000 feet is less drag on the planes than 300 mph at 700 feet. So if the engines were only using 50% of their maximum thrust when cruising at 30,000 feet they could not produce enough thrust to do 500 mph at 700 feet. I think there is a very good chance that ex-Boeing engineer is correct. Since MIT says the plane that hit the south tower was doing 503 mph this makes 9/11 look very weird.

    And the weirdness just doesn't stop.

    Switched Planes

    psikey

  9. #9
    N320AW Guest
    [QUOTE= Oh yeah, UA175 that struck the South Tower WTC2 appears to have been traveling MUCH faster than a Boeing 767's maximum cruise velocity [which SHOULD BE faster than low altitude V_max], too.

    /QUOTE]

    Could you be a little more clear on what the above means? I lost ya on that!

    N320AW

  10. #10
    dMole Guest

    Speeding and then some

    Hi N320AW (is this a tail number or ??),

    Ummm, where to start- the link was to a 23-PAGE thread over at P4T. I used some reasonably accurate approximation methods based upon latitude/longitude and the ~12 second radar "sweep" time interval to estimate the "average" velocity between radar data returns.

    Aside from the 888 knots (1022 mph) velocity anomaly at 08:55:47 EDT for UA175 at 28400 feet Mode C altitude (derived DIRECTLY from the USAF 84 RADES .XLS data file), I found an average (arithmetic mean) velocity for the UA175 flight of 391 kts (453 mph). Incidentally, the "high" velocities started well before the alleged hijack time:

    "The 9/11 Commission concludes that Flight 175 is then hijacked within the next four minutes (see (Between 8:42 a.m. and 8:46 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 7]"

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...e_911_timeline

    Disregarding the one radar "anomaly", I found a 2nd highest velocity of 546 kts (628 mph) at 08:53:47 EDT. The V_mo/M_mo for a Boeing 767 is listed at 360 knots / 0.86 mach.
    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...C?OpenDocument

    Another problem is that the USAF 84 RADES cover letter submitted to the FBI 13 September 2001 lists flight UA175 as a Boeing 757, not a B767. Incidentally, the same cover letter lists UA93 (Pennsylvania) as a Boeing 747...

    FWIW, the V_mo/M_mo for a B757 is only slightly lower at 350 kts / 0.86 mach.
    http://www.757.org.uk/limits/lim1.html

    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...B?OpenDocument

    According to Joseph Keith, the ex-Boeing engineer in the above video, the turbofan engines are capable of 330 mph at 700 feet AGL, but the airframe is only capable of 220 mph before it "begins to shake itself apart" according to the video.

    FEMA, Kean/Hamilton, NIST, and others all put the impact velocity with WTC2 South above 500 mph from what I recall. Several of the 2+2's here are coming up 9 it would seem...

Similar Threads

  1. Physical Collapse Model
    By psikeyhackr in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 09:35 PM
  2. The Environmental Impact Of 9/11 - Video Inside
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2008, 06:29 PM
  3. The Environmental Impact Of 9/11 - Video Inside
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2008, 06:29 PM
  4. Bush Says Israel Could Be Model For Iraq
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2007, 12:57 AM
  5. F-4 Phantom Disintegrates On Impact - Video Inside
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-31-2005, 12:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •