Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Says There Is No MA Angle On 9/11?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by Da Pope View Post
    Hold on the failure of a stack of tiles (bricks) is in no way comparable to the collapse of the WTC!
    Dude, read the OP.
    Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


    KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

    In De Janerio, in blackest night,
    Luta Livre flees the fight,
    Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
    Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by Da Pope View Post
      Lol!!
      Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


      KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

      In De Janerio, in blackest night,
      Luta Livre flees the fight,
      Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
      Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by War Wheel View Post
        This has implication for 9/11 research of any variety, because the official "Pancake Collapse" theory of the WTC collapse events would be constrained in the same way as the multi brick breaks above (ie: constrained to a constant rate of collapse). I am still digging for good measurememnts of what was actually observed, but I don't believe the towers actually fell at a constant rate. It seems they accelerated.
        Ahh Ok I'm back with ya.

        Me thinks you were wrong to assume a constant rate of collapse.

        :toothy10:

        Seriously though there is no reason to assume such a phenomena in the WTC collapse due to (as has been mentioned too many times now) crack propagation through buildings being far from linear. The strain energy release would have been immense.

        Anyhoo off home to eat and do no work. If you've any questions relating to materials or deformation modes etc, I'll endevour to answer them as best I can.

        Good luck with your searching....

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by Da Pope View Post
          Ahh Ok I'm back with ya.

          Me thinks you were wrong to assume a constant rate of collapse.

          :toothy10:
          It's constant for the horizontal case, and it certainly looks constant in the brick breaking demos. I believe the final answer will end up depending on how much mass stays centered over the remianing structure to be broken, and how much disperses away. If that ends up being a function of the velocity of the breakage front, then the same negative feedback loop that creates terminal velocity will be in play (given enough time). Whether this is the case for the towers is unkown (at least to me)

          I think the essential difference with horizontal dominos is that only a certain number of dominos are helping topple the next to fall

          _ _ _ / / /| | | | | | | | | |

          Whereas every brick broken to date adds its mass to the interior area of the last unbroken brick (instead of the spacers and the brick edges)
          Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


          KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

          In De Janerio, in blackest night,
          Luta Livre flees the fight,
          Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
          Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

          Comment


            #80
            Here's the velocity graph for the 35 brick break under two different smoothing procedures.



            Again, the data are from measuring impact peak differences from the audio track.

            There clearly is some acceleration.
            Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


            KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

            In De Janerio, in blackest night,
            Luta Livre flees the fight,
            Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
            Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

            Comment


              #81
              For folks wondering about the internal structure of WTC 1, this video should answer any question you might have:

              YouTube- World Trade Center a 3D Visualization - WTC
              Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


              KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

              In De Janerio, in blackest night,
              Luta Livre flees the fight,
              Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
              Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by War Wheel View Post
                Whereas every brick broken to date adds its mass to the interior area of the last unbroken brick (instead of the spacers and the brick edges)
                BINGO!

                In the horizontal case you dont have the accumulating interia as in the verticle case (this much you have now convinced yourself of at least).

                There is the added complication of the geometry of the WTC internal structure and how stress in propagated through it. The verticle domino demo didnt have a supporting central structure and the intitial energy input that destroyed the dominos didnt come from the side, some way down the structure. I know I mentioned this earlier but it bears repeating. The dynaminc of the WTC collapse are truley mind bending.

                Comment


                  #83
                  So then what DID happen to the 25 J? Did the government cover it up?

                  Comment


                    #84
                    [quote=Da Pope;2327463]BINGO!

                    In the horizontal case you dont have the accumulating interia as in the verticle case (this much you have now convinced yourself of at least).
                    Well, not exactly. You do have accumulating inertia as we saw in the case of _ _ _ ///| | |
                    The difference is that the amount of falling mass, even if greater than 1 domino, can reach a maximum in the H case, whereas the amount of falling mass is potentially unbounded in the V case.

                    In the video I measured, virtually all the free mass stays centered, but the WTC collapses are another matter all together. An enormous amount of mass is being shed in the form of pulverized concrete clouds, small ejecta, and giant multi-storey pieces of the building. If the rates of mass gain and mass loss reach an equillibrium (as in the V case) , then constant descent velocity should be observed again.

                    There is the added complication of the geometry of the WTC internal structure and how stress in propagated through it. The verticle domino demo didnt have a supporting central structure and the intitial energy input that destroyed the dominos didnt come from the side, some way down the structure.
                    Are you talking about the plane? Even NIST doesn't say that the plane impacts did much in the way of bringing down the towers. As far back as 1968, opponents were taking out full page ads in the Times showing jetliners about to crash into the (then proposed) towers, and complaining that they shouldn't be built. The whole motivation for the structure of the buildings is a) hurricane resistance, and b) airliner collisions resistance. Each tower was over designed to take mutiple hits from a Boeing 707. NIST places the blame for collapse initiation on the fires.

                    I know I mentioned this earlier but it bears repeating. The dynaminc of the WTC collapse are truley mind bending.
                    Yes it's a complex problem, but remember that the observed behavior was actually pretty straight forward: towers coming down on a nice straight path, either at an accelerating or constant rate.

                    <begin rant>
                    Part of the reason I am aggressive about the government analysis is that I view 9/11 as a prelude to hurricane Katrina. It was a giant swirling mass of government incompetance, for which no one was fired, not the idiots at NORAD who failed to do their duty in every way, not the idiots at the EPA who gave the green light for folks to go back to work in lower Manhattan a few days after two 110 storey building with a known asbestos problem turned to dust, not the Port Authority of NY that sealed the "crime scene" and then moved all the evidence around randomly, and then to New Jersey. No one. Not one single person lost their job for their incompetence because...

                    ...because... we are the world,...we are the children, we are the ones that... oh that horrible day, let's not talk about it, it was all so chaotic, so heart wrenching, no one could have imagined planes flying into... please let's not dwell...

                    Fuck that. Everyone imagined planes flying into the WTC towers... everyone, that is, who's job it was to think about things of that nature. The projects opponents railed about pkane collisions in the papers, the projects designers insisted their design be able to resist such collisions, the city of new york, NYPD and the intelligence community all considered the threat multiple times over the years as one of the most likely forms a terror strike on NYC might take (LNG tanker demo was the most likely). Everybody knew this could happen, and everybody fucked up their response. Not only did they fuck it up, but they are still fucking it up, and asking us to look away and forgive because "no one could have imagined that this might happen" Bullshit. The rest of us never imagined it because it is not our job to imagine these things. But it was somebody's job and they didn't do it.

                    We could have answered so many important questions if (for example) the debris had been catalogued, and the locations recorded. Instead we got a go for broke mad dash to ship everything out of state. The Mafia was caught driving off with WTC structural steel on September 12th(!!). The whole thing was a joke, and a prelude to the images of our countrymen floating face down in the mud after Katrina. Heck of a job Brownie(!)

                    The FEMA report came out and we were told to believe it because they were government engineers, and they 'knew what they were doing'. Well they fucked it up anyway. Even the NIST report does not endorse FEMA's conclusions (of course Brownie did a heck of a job, again). Now it is becoming clear that NIST fucked up their analysis too.

                    I know I'm ranting, but let me explain a little what they did:

                    You start your analysis with an hypothesis, you descide what parameters you wish to estimate, and you 'turn the crank' and get your results. No problem, but (and this happens all the time in regular science) you can also run the thing in reverse, by desciding ahead of time what you want the result to be, and letting all your parameters take on whichever values are required to justify the answer you want. This is what NIST did, they started with the assumption that a certain collapse model was true, and searched the parameter space until they found a set of values that fit the theory.

                    Actually, even that wasn't good enough. To confirm their hypothesis, they had to make the model constants into variable parameters. And by model constants, I mean things like the sun coming up in the east. They allowed everything to float. Even though that meant changing things like the number and strength of the support columns, the length the fires burned, the amount of fuel on the planes, the amount of combustables in the tower, etc.

                    Unfortunately for NIST, there is such a thing as reality. The length of time the fires burned is not a variable parameter. The South Tower fire burned for 59 minutes, not 10 minutes, and not 5 hours. The planes contained 10,000 gallons of fuel each, not 1,000 and not 50,000. If you let constant variables become floating parameters, you can find a scenario that justifies pretty much any hypothesis you can think of. Unfortunately your result is only meaningful to the plum fairies in Candyland.
                    <end rant>

                    :tongue9:
                    Last edited by Matt Phillips; 3/09/2010 8:20am, .
                    Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


                    KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

                    In De Janerio, in blackest night,
                    Luta Livre flees the fight,
                    Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
                    Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by Madgrenade View Post
                      So then what DID happen to the 25 J? Did the government cover it up?
                      WINNAH!
                      Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


                      KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

                      In De Janerio, in blackest night,
                      Luta Livre flees the fight,
                      Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
                      Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Originally posted by Madgrenade View Post
                        So then what DID happen to the 25 J? Did the government cover it up?
                        No the plum fairies in Candyland ate them.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by Da Pope View Post
                          No the plum fairies in Candyland ate them.
                          Yes, but where did they GO?

                          :P
                          Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


                          KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

                          In De Janerio, in blackest night,
                          Luta Livre flees the fight,
                          Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
                          Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by War Wheel View Post
                            .......If you let constant variables become floating parameters, you can find a scenario that justifies pretty much any hypothesis you can think of.
                            Isnt that just preforming a parametric study to check things like robustness and parameter sensitivity?

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Originally posted by Da Pope View Post
                              Isnt that just preforming a parametric study to check things like robustness and parameter sensitivity?
                              That all depends on your intentions.

                              I see BS all the time where a model is "justified" by fitting its results to empirical data. Parameters take on values that can be orders of magnitude off from what future researchers determine to be their actual values. Of course, by then its "too late", and the offender gets away with it.

                              If you publish a model based on values for parameters that are outside of sensible or known (or to be known) bounds, what are you doing? Not science.

                              All you have proved is that the observables are not impossible given your model. And vice versa.

                              Not exactly worth waking the wife over, is it?
                              Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


                              KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

                              In De Janerio, in blackest night,
                              Luta Livre flees the fight,
                              Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
                              Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Originally posted by War Wheel View Post
                                I see BS all the time where a model is "justified" by fitting its results to empirical data.
                                How else can you validate a model?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X