Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75

Thread: Physical Impact Model Video

  1. #71
    psikeyhackr Guest

    Distribution of Weight

    I recently but somewhat accidentally ran across something interesting in the NCSTAR report.

    On the matter of mass distribution of the towers the NIST says this:

    2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

    Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74


    Since people don't just accidentally decide how much steel and concrete to put on every level of a 1360 foot building that can withstand 100 mph winds the above statement is not surprising. The peculiar thing is that this was not discussed A LOT in preparing to analyze the event back in 2001.

    I don't understand why they couldn't have had that info on the building by fall 2003 though and I certainly don't understand why we don't have it now. WTF

    I love the jargon they have to come with for these kind of reports, " Single Impulse Excitations". You have to stop and think, "What the hell does that mean?" Oh. it was hit real hard one time and started vibrating. DUH! 500 mph airliners do that, but only once.

    The south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact at the 81st floor. The tower oscillated for FOUR MINUTES.



    These are physical data, showing a characteristic nearly exponential decay (damping) of the oscillation. Observed oscillation of the WTC 2 Tower provides compelling empirical evidence that it was hit by a fast-moving jetliner. Any claim to the contrary must confront these published data or the analysis thereof.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf p. 26 It will not do in scientific inquiry to ignore data like this – even if one does not trust the source for some reason. In other words, the argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).
    http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyt...olds_Wood.html

    So that Single Pulse Excitation was caused by a lot of kinetic energy from the plane and the amount of energy which produced structural damage cannot be computed from the total energy of the aircraft without calculating how much produced this behavior in the building and that requires reasonably accurate distribution of steel and concrete information. And where does the NIST show that data and do those calculation?

    psik

  2. #72
    psikeyhackr Guest
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf p. 26

    That page 26 is PDF page 80. The graph of the oscillation is at the bottom.

    psik

  3. #73
    psikeyhackr Guest

    Fall of Physics

    In my rarely humble opinion (LOL) many of the people who claim the WTC towers underwent gravitational collapse seem to exaggerate what gravity can do. This is a table showing the velocity and distance fallen by an object from a stationary start. In the first 1/10th of a second the mass moves less than 2 inches and is only traveling at 3.2 ft/sec. So a gravitational collapse of the WTC meant the falling top portion must have accelerated what it struck much more than gravity could have and also have broken whatever was supporting that intact portion of the building.

    Code:
    		 v == initial velocity
           	Time	V = at + v	 D = 1/2 at^2 + vt
           			   v = 0
           	00.1	 3.2 ft/sec	0.16 ft   1.92 in.
           	00.2	 6.4 ft/sec	0.64 ft   7.68 in.
           	00.3	 9.6 ft/sec	1.44 ft  17.28 1n.
           	00.4	12.8 ft/sec	2.56 ft
           	00.5	16.0 ft/sec	4.00 ft
           	00.6	19.2 ft/sec	5.76 ft
           	00.7	22.4 ft/sec	7.84 ft
           	00.8	25.6 ft/sec   10.24 ft
           	00.9	28.8 ft/sec   12.96 ft
           	01.0	32.0 ft/sec   16.00 ft
           	01.1	35.2 ft/sec   19.36 ft
           	01.2	38.4 ft/sec   23.04 ft
           	01.3	41.6 ft/sec   27.04 ft
           	01.4	44.8 ft/sec   31.36 ft
           	01.5	48.0 ft/sec   36.00 ft
           	01.6	51.2 ft/sec   40.96 ft
           	01.7	54.4 ft/sec   46.24 ft
           	01.8	57.6 ft/sec   51.84 ft
           	01.9	60.8 ft/sec   57.76 ft
           	02.0	64.0 ft/sec   64.00 ft
    No matter what brought the towers down the conservation of momentum cannot have been violated. This is the equation for an inelastic collision in which two masses stick together. If the second mass is stationary then v2 is zero.

    Conservation of Momentum:

    (m1 * v1) + (m2 * v2) = (m1 + m2) * v3

    This means the ratio of the stationary mass to the impact mass greatly affects the resulting velocity. If the impact mass is smaller then it will be slowed considerably, but in the opposite case the velocity of the stationary mass will change a lot. But in a gravitational collapse there will be the additional effect of gravitational acceleration before and after impact.

    So I have done the calculations for 3 "magical" cases. In each case four masses are magically suspended and when struck from above each mass is released with no resistance. In case #1 the 4 masses are are equal, 2.5 tons each. In case #2 the masses are in the sequence 1, 2, 3 and 4 tons from top to bottom. Case #3 is the reverse sequence of 4, 3, 2 and 1 ton. When the masses are struck from above they begin moving on the basis of conservation of momentum and undergo gravitational acceleration until the next object is struck. Case #0 is just a 10 ton mass dropped from 64 feet with no impacts and is used as a reference case.

    Code:
          		  mass 1       mass 2       mass 3	mass 4
           			 64 feet   feet 48	  feet 32	  feet 16
           				 
           	Case 0 	  10 ton	  0	     0			0
           	speed	   0		32		  45.25		55.43		 64 ft/sec	 
           	time		0		 1		   1.41		 1.73		 2 sec
           
           	Case 1	   2.5 ton	2.5	  2.5		  2.5
           	speed	   0	   32 16	 35.78 23.85  39.91 29.93	  43.82 ft/sec
           	time		0		 1	   1.618 14%	 2.12 23%	   2.554 sec 28%
           
           	Case 2	   1 ton	   2	     3			4
           	speed	   0	   32 10.67  33.74 16.87  36.17 21.70	  38.66 ft/sec
           	time		0		 1	   1.721 22%	2.324 34%	   2.854 sec 43%
           
           	Case 3	   4 ton	   3	     2			1
           	speed	   0	   32 18.29  37.35 29.05  43.23 38.91	  50.37 ft/sec
           	time		0		 1		1.58 12%	2.023 17%	   2.381 sec 19%


    The Case line specifies the weight of mass at each of the 4 heights, 64, 48, 32 and 16 feet. These heights were chosen because they correspond to the "1/2 * 32 feet/sec^2" that is in the distance from acceleration equation thereby making calculations easier.

    The speed line has the velocity of the net mass before and after impact based on conservation of momentum.

    The time line has the time for the mass to fall to that point and the percentage difference from Case 0.

    A body in freefall dropped from the top of the World Trade Center would have taken 9.2 seconds to reach the ground. The NIST says the tower that took longer to collapse did it in 11 seconds. So that is only 20% longer than the freefall time. But the WTC collapses required that the tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete which had held up the buildings for 28 years be bent and broken and crushed. So how is it that only my absurd and miraculous collapse with inverted masses and disappearing supports comes down that fast in relation to freefall? A skyscraper must be bottom heavy and Case #2 using that distribution has double that percentage of time but it didn't require kinetic energy be used to break supports.

    So what is the story with all of these people that claim there was a gravitational collapse but also pretend that knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level isn't necessary? I have demonstrated that changing the distribution of mass alters the collapse time regardless of the strength of the material involved and how much kinetic energy would be required to break it.

    Time and velocity calculations after impacts:

    Code:
    	After Impact #1: 
           	Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 16t	 1 = t^2 + t		  t = 0.618  19.78+16
           	Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 10.67t  1 = t^2 + 0.666875t  t = 0.721  23.07+10.67
           	Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 18.29t  1 = t^2 + 1.143125t  t = 0.58   18.56+18.79
           
           	After Impact #2:
           	Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 23.85t  1 = t^2 + 1.490625t  t = 0.502  16.06+23.85
           	Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 16.87t  1 = t^2 + 1.054375t  t = 0.603  19.30+16.87
           	Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 29.05t  1 = t^2 + 1.815625t  t = 0.443  14.18+29.05
           
           	After Impact #3:
           	Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 29.93t  1 = t^2 + 1.870781t  t = 0.434  13.89+29.93
           	Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 21.70t  1 = t^2 + 1.35625t   t = 0.53   16.96+21.70
           	Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 38.91t  1 = t^2 + 2.431875t  t = 0.358  11.46+38.91
    psik

  4. #74
    psikeyhackr Guest
    I have uploaded a 1 minute segment of a collapse demo.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYG9cdgwyqI

    It is just washers held by chopped down toothpicks stuck in holes drilled at 1 inch intervals. There will be a lot more drops in the completed video. My falling mass is a stack of 20 washers that weighs 3.8 oz. But in order to fall it has to break off the tooth picks. I show in another segment that a toothpick can hold 20 and 40 and 60 washers. I didn't tape it but I explain that the stack of 20 breaks a toothpick 33% of the time when dropped from 1 inch and 100% of the time when dropped from 2 inches. I drop it from 12 inches in all of the videos.

    So with no washers on the toothpicks an average of 17.7 are broken in 3 trials. With various masses it stops after breaking from 6 to 8. So the effect of conservation of momentum on the mass combined with the energy required to break the toothpicks brings the mass to a stop every time in less than half that of toothpicks alone.

    psik

  5. #75
    psikeyhackr Guest

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
  •