Physical Impact Model Video

[psikeyhackr]

Are we finally reaching the 3rd Stage of Truth psik?

Actually I am afraid we are approaching stage TWO.

I am inclined to wonder if the people that pulled this off anticipated the effect of the internet on the mass mind. It is like the printing press during The Reformation in Europe but every individual with a computer and a net connection is a printing press with a distribution network. Of course that means way more bullsh!t but ideas that make sense may stick with people more than anyone knows.

I really wish I could just go to an engineering school and read the minds of students. I think a lot of people are not saying what they are thinking because this is so weird. To my way of thinking this should be IMPOSSIBLE but I am obviously out of touch with reality. LOL

psik

[dMole]

Hi psik,

I recommended this thread to an "anonymous unknown" from another board who said of our ongoing discussion:

" Gat Daym that stuff WAY above me!

I'll give you my thoughts tomorrow when I have a clear head.

Night,
xxxxxxxx"

I dunno if that's bad or good- but that's our "friendly" reviews...

[psikeyhackr]

" Gat Daym that stuff WAY above me!

He was talking about the stuff you wrote.

LOL

psik

[dMole]

Hi psik,

Have you seen the following Finite Element Analysis (FEA) video yet? I found it a while back, and it seems to be pretty rare. Usual disclaimer applies- I do NOT necessarily agree with or support EVERYTHING the author states or implies in the videos.

Thought I would bounce these off you for your take.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExmSMU9ls-w

http://www.youtube.com/user/mmmlink

[psikeyhackr]

I couldn't handle the music in the 2nd one. Too much drama and excitement.

LOL

It is certainly sobering to think that the Empire State Building was completed in 1931 and there were no electronic computers until 1945. Of course when the WTC was designed the computers that were impressive at the time are a joke in terms of today's processing power. My Archos PMA400 that fits in my pocket

http://www.lordpercy.com/archos_pma400_review.htm

ran my benchmark test compiled with GNU C and beat the IBM 3033 results running COBOL. The 3033 won with PL/I and assembler.

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ex...33_241902.html

And that is a 1978 machine.

So in SIX YEARS with all of this computing power we can't get a definitive analysis of buildings designed when computers were a joke. This is pathetic. Our engineering schools are accomplices after the fact. I wonder what would happen if the engineering schools were on NISTs back for accurate data. They seem to be sticking thier heads in the sand to me.

I think I saw the first one a few months ago but was turned off by the nuclear stuff at the end. The finite analysis is impressive though. I can't fathom how we can get out of this mess. Consider all of the people that would not want to admit they were wrong after six years of saying the planes did it. A lot of people seem to get angry with me for demanding to know the tons of steel and concrete on every level but these same people will insist they know physics. They keep asking who did it with how much explosives and all I am saying is that the planes couldn't do it.

I am going to have to get back to work on that genetically engineered virus that is fatal to people with IQs below 120. LOL

psik

[dMole]

Hi psik,

Here's a paper that was recently brought to my attention- Mitigation of Motion.

http://www.911-strike.com/mitigation_of_motion.pdf

It did mention visco-elastic mounts in the WTC Towers- first I've seen that anywhere IIRC.

I agree on the 2 FEA vids that I linked and a "grain of salt," but can you check out all of them for me? Your opinion/review carries more "mass" than some IMHO . Just turn down the sound, or crank up the iPod. I really did like his FEA work- it looked more reasonable than Purdue's IMHO. It still looked like a "ridgid" building mount to me though BTW, and I don't agree there at all.

[psikeyhackr]

I encountered mention of the visco-elastic dampers some time last year.

The real culprit
I have experienced skyscraper sway, being extra-sensitive to it. Sway is handled by visco-elastic dampers. Without them, these buildings would have to be 10 times strongers so that they can stand up to the wind. The WTC towers had thousands of such dampers between the beams and the concrete. In other words, everything was glued together using 3M material and these products from the late 60s were not exactly state-of-the-art - and the WTC was the first use of them due to its sheer walls and wind loads.

The visco-elastic dampers melted under the heat, producing live loads. No one wants to mention them because a lot of skyscrapers would have to be torn down were that the case. Look it up
How visco-elastic dampers failed

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspo...-hope-not.html

Although they might have something to do with starting the collapse I can't see them having anything to do with the buildings coming straight down that fast.

Do you have any thoughts about the top of the building remaing centered on the mass it would be crushing below? There would be constant massive and random vibration and I would think if it got just slightly off center it would begin crushing the building below unevenly which would force it more off center so it would inevitably fall off the side. And yet we are supposed to regard it as conceivable that this straight down gravitational collapse happened twice.

Urich has shown me another spreadsheet.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/calcCollapse.xls

But when I mentioned that off center business he says there were no lateral forces. I am thinking physics only conforms to math perfectly in a vacuum when the forces don't involve physical contact. When BIG, HEAVY things start rubbing together the complications get really messy.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

By the way that second video showed 300 tons for the weight of a floor slab including the trusses and pans. I presume he meant an entire floor slab. But I did these calculations for just the concrete some time ago.

206 ft * 206 ft = 42,436
86 ft * 136 ft = 11,696 core
=====
30,740 sq ft * 1/3 ft thick = 10,246.66 cu ft * 100 lb/cu ft / 2000 lb/ton = 512 tons


So I don't know how he got 300 tons total.

psik

[dMole]

Hi psik,

According to the US Army Corps of Engineers' EC 1110-2-6054, Sec 7.a.1 [p. 4 of 9]:

"1. The density of LDC [low density concrete] typically ranges between 760 and 2,000 kg/m^3 (110 to 125 lb/ft^3) (Holm and Bremner 2000). Compressive strengths of 17 MPa (2,460 psi) or higher are easily attained...

2. Although density levels are conspicuous throughout the discussion of LDC, there is no standard specification for this property. Specification requirements on density are developed on a project-specific basis."

http://www.usace.army.mil/publicatio...054/entire.pdf

This should give a higher load/floor than you got by 10-25%. The 300 tons looks way light though.

I recently found a new toy for you if you are interested. It is a pretty big free download though for non-commercial use. You can get velocities, and graph data from video, after setting up the scale. Take a look:

http://physicstoolkit.com/

http://physicstoolkit.com/ptk60.zip

Here's a video that is a portion of what Richard Gage will be using in his new DVD that was produced with Physics Toolkit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw

Enjoy.

[psikeyhackr]

About that 300 ton floor again.

That video only showed one truss length. The real building had two truss lengths, 30 ft and 60 ft I think. So maybe his model had a square core with only one truss length and that accounts for the lower weight. He talked about sinplifying.

psik