Physical Impact Model Video

[dMole]

Dr Sunder of the NIST tells us that the World Trade Centers came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume.

Hi psik,

Well, I can think of one way that 70% air [by volume, not that it really matters] could lead to a "collapse" in a relatively-airtight container:

Add a vacuum source to cause a true "implosion" [a misnomer all too often used in the 911TM to carelessly describe CD/engineered explosions], to quickly get rid of the 70% air [by volume, which will want to compress rather quickly due to atmospheric pressure].

Of course the only way I can quickly see to get one of those of WTC tower dimensions is a thermobaric or "vacuum" bomb, and that doesn't exactly help Dr. Sunder's case now does it? Oh well, 70% air [by volume] is NIST's conspiracy theory, NOT mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

Anyway, in this case the potential energy (PE) of the implosion would be equal to the work done (W) [which would equal the negative definite integral of P dV, taken from V_initial to V_final], with P being pressure and V being volume, but you probably already knew this, I suspect.

[psikeyhackr]

Anyway, in this case the potential energy (PE) of the implosion would be equal to the work done (W) [which would equal the negative definite integral of P dV, taken from V_initial to V_final], with P being pressure and V being volume, but you probably already knew this, I suspect.

LOL

Always with the techy jokes.

That makes sense but it hadn't crossed my mind actually.

psik

[dMole]

Have fun kids...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8vmIGGKvIms

Jeez AuG,

I think we've been there and done that already:
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/sho...65&postcount=6

I've got a few Finite Element Analysis (FEA) videos that I could post here later that paint an entirely different picture. I don't think that anyone has released a copy of Christoph's (the guy with the accent in that video) or his boss' calculations and FEA source code from Purdue yet (2+? years later).

You've heard the saying "Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO)" haven't you?

Hell I've seen a video of Homer J. Simpson stopping a nuclear meltdown with his big muu-muu'ed ass...

[AuGmENTor]

I didn't know it was t he same one. Sorry. Post withdrawn.

[psikeyhackr]

I don't really see a problem with that Purdue video. We know a plane hit the building and had to do structural damage and start a fire. I don't see where it proves enough damage was done to start a collapse much less explain how that collapse could crush everything below.

But like my video shows some of the energy had to oscillate most of the buildings. The repeated impacts I did eventually caused a significant dent in the metal strip on the side of my model. So the energy applied to the WTC towers did that same thing as on my model. Some energy moved the structure and some energy damaged the structure. But in SIX YEARS I haven't heard anyone talking about separating those two energies to determine how much did structural damage.

psik

[dMole]

Some energy moved the structure and some energy damaged the structure. But in SIX YEARS I haven't heard anyone talking about separating those two energies to determine how much did structural damage.

Chopped liver sez: I thought you and I have talked about that- or is it YEAR SEVEN now? ["You don't send me flowers.... anymore." JK- ]

[psikeyhackr]

Chopped liver sez: I thought you and I have talked about that- or is it YEAR SEVEN now? ["You don't send me flowers.... anymore." JK- ]

OK, besides us. It is just that I jump around to a lot of websites that go on and on about this and a lot of these people just come across to me as smug assholes talking bullshit and I'm having a hard time not just going off and cursing people out.

I just had somebody on JREF tell me I wasn't taking gravity into account in my thought experiment (post #49). I was actually posting at Gregory Urich in relation to Bazant's paper.

I see we haven't mentioned Urich and Bazant here.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ssAndPeWtc.pdf

Other people have pointed out what I think is obviously wrong with what Bazant is saying.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=155

So I am just boggled that this idiocy drags on and on. It passed ad nauseum for me some time last year. I must be delusional in thinking this whole thing should have been solved in less than 2 years.

psik

[dMole]

Wow psik! You're either brave or foolish spending your valuable time "under the bridge" with those JREF trolls! Are my old friends mackay and Pat Curley (don't know his JREF username) still around over there? Ryan Mackey, Pat, and I go way back (I think "mackay" is allegedly from Scotland on another forum that I monitored, but I'm pretty sure Ryan Mackey is at NASA/JPL down in "The Armpit of LA" in SoCal, and I believe they are the same person based upon writing style and other observations). Is Pat "Yoda" Curley [long story] still trolling around as "Brainster" over at 911blogger? That guy needs to go screw a loose something in a BAD way IMHO...

Lately, I've taken to calling that place the Journal of Repugnant Egotistical Fluffers- based upon their sophist, rhetorical propaganda tactics and past behavior, I don't honestly consider this ad-hominem on my part anymore- it's just fact. I gave up even trying to be civil to that ilk months ago. Those OCT-apologist douchebags have earned my wrath the honest way- my hypothetical "gloves" would be OFF! I don't think they're worth any of our effort, however. Something about teaching a pig to sing...

I personally think they all ought to go smoke a big, fat JoREeFer and leave we C"T" "twoofers" alone, or get a more legal hobby, or take up knitting, or something... I don't go telling them what to believe or question both their sanity and their every word, then go pat the ad-hom backs of my "critical thinking" associates do I?

I suspect that you and I might have a slightly different definition of "critical thinking" than they do over there though. I'd say don't waste your intellect, energy, and sanity down in that cesspool.

"Strange" that JREF couldn't get any of their experts to the Month of Truth Week 3 debate over on Air America last Thursday. Ronald Wieck was the only OCT supporter on the show, and he nearly got thrown out for his repeated implications/aspersions that DRG is a liar- and that's about all that Wieck had. [CAUTION: I just got a .MIL security certificate notice at the following link. Hmmmm....] The show is at:

http://airamerica.com/clout/blog/200...-week-3?page=1

I'd advise you to swallow that JREF poison in small doses with large gulps of pure water... Here's a little tidbit that you might not have seen before:

James Randi pockets $175K while "non-profit" loses $80K in 2006. Hmmm...
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=125x194011

Keep your head and hands inside the car at all times psik,
d

P.S. On the "didn't consider gravity" thing- it took me < 4 seconds (most of that scrolling up-thread) to find:

" Since gravitational acceleration is 32 ft per seconds squared the data for this problem yields:
60 = 16 * t^2"

Let's see PE = mass * height * WHAT AGAIN? JREF... Maybe they would have understood metric units better psik- HA HA!!

[psikeyhackr]

I didn't sign up for JREF until May 1st.

Someone who was impressed by them told me to check them out last June and I watched them for a while and concluded they were as you say. But I was told recently that Frank Greening was there so I registered in and made a comment about him. He challenged me on May 1st and I responded with my analogy using the stack of blocks.

He uses the handle Apollo20 and hasn't responded since then. ROFL

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111647&page=8

I noticed this morning that the rating on my video went down from 4 stars to 3 stars though only 2 more people had rated it and no new comments were added. No one on JREF has commented on the video either. I provided the link a number of times. I guess these geniuses can't handle such simple physics.

R. McKey has said that no on has brought up the question of TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every LEVEL before. I find that very strange. I must be insane. My brain can't function with the physics of this distorted universe.

psik

[dMole]

I didn't sign up for JREF until May 1st.
R. McKey has said that no on has brought up the question of TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every LEVEL before. I find that very strange. I must be insane. My brain can't function with the physics of this distorted universe.
psik

Yes, it's a strange soup made of cognitive dissonance, revisionism, bias, sophistry, poor understanding/manipulation of scientific laws, and flat out deception over there. That or else you "busted" them flat out, stone cold, and they finally fell silent.

I'm seeing your situation more often lately- the vaunted James Meigs of Pseudo Mechanics/Hearst Publications/History Channel now refuses to debate any subject related to 9/11 (he was invited to the radio debate last week).

I once saw a movie about the Civil War [can't remember the title] that ended with the cannon slowly falling silent across a smoky, bloody battlefield- bagpipe music wailing decrescendo into the distance while the scene fades to black. I'd like to think that all the "debunking" disinfo "guns" are soon to do the same. Are we finally reaching the 3rd Stage of Truth psik?

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/25832.html

I'll leave you to hypothesize what exactly their motivations are over there- I've had my theories for some time...

So had you seen the $175,000 "Amazing Accounting" thing before?

Also, Kevin Ryan's refutation of R. Mackey's 200-page document is at:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...ckeyLetter.pdf

Peace my intrepid compadre,
d