an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7

Are you now claiming a baseball is a "complex" mass?

Momentum is mass times velocity. A baseball is 5 ounces. Google it.

A WTC tower was between 2,500 and 3,500 times the mass of the aircraft that hit it.

So your house and baseball comparison means you are talking about a house weighing much less than a ton. And that does not even raise the velocity issue. The fuselage of the airliner had to hit structural elements of the tower because it could not fit between two floors much less through a window like your baseball.
It is unfortunate that I have to explain stupid.

psik

 

Some people are too dumb to recognized damped oscillation. The NIST provided a graph.

psik

 

Why did the window not resist the baseball? The MASS behind the WINDOW is FAR GREATER than the baseball right?

This coming from the guy who BOUNCED a weight off a POORLY MODELED TOWER to demonstrate how the actual towers should have oscillated/responded. This gets better and better with each post.

Your video is the WORST demonstration of science application regarding the structures I have seen yet.

Congrats.

 

LOL!

Yeah, the model in your video and BOUNCING weight off it surely demonstrates accurately what SHOULD have happened! How does your video accurately represent what really happened?

You've got to be kidding me...

 

Are you now counting the weight of the air? Are you saying the window did not break?

It is your analogy, you explain it.

psik

 

I'm saying the window DID break. According to you and your understanding of the Conservation of Momentum, it simply mass versus mass right? Your understanding does not take look at the aspects of mass versus mass when it's a collision between two complex entities composed of thousands of pieces.

This is CLEARLY evident from the video you created that, again, depicts a POORLY MODELED TOWER having a swinging weight BOUNCE off the facade.

And you expect people seeing this video to take you seriously? This is on par with Gage's cardboard box hilarity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7tez1PP4q0

 

Do you agree that an object penetrating another object will provide different resultant affects than if the object bounced of another object?

 

Are you talking about your baseball or my impact model?

The ratio of the masses is a factor also. We are talking about MOMENTUM which is mass times velocity. I was not about to shoot a bullet at my model to satisfy any idiot watching the video. So to get a lot of momentum at a low velocity I needed a larger object that would not penetrate.

Now are you going to tell us the weight of your house?

Just because you want to project stupidity on whoever you are arguing with does not mean you can do it. The entire airliner could not go through a window of the WTC. Hitting a window is the only way you can get a baseball to penetrate. The comparison is stupid.

psik

 

So the entire mass of the house doesn't matter right? It's all about localized failure right?

No, it proves my point. You want to consider the entire mass of an object to determine a localized failure impact. Totally ridiculous. Just like your idiotic video trying to to show what the reaction/oscillation of the towers would be upon impact. That video PROVES without a doubt that you have no clue. Bouncing a swinging mass off of a model made of wood. What a joke. I guess from now on, when engineers want to see what happens to a car that impacts a wall, all they need to do is get a plastic model of said car and swing oranges and cantaloupes at it.

Good grief.

- - - Updated - - -

I see you ignored this...

 

You mean you don't understand that term in relation to structural entities?

Are you trying to say you think the ENTIRE mass and strength of the tower should be figured into the resistance calculations for three or four floors?

Use an average for crying out loud. I couldn't care less. The point is, you keep saying the entire mass of the towers should matter when applying the Conservation of Momentum to predict or figure out what would happen to the towers. You DON'T understand what this means as evident by the video you created. Pure garbage. I asked you if you think that MODEL TOWER you created and swung a ball of whatever into, was accurate to represent what actually happened. You have danced around that question a couple of times now.

And I asked you if you think you'd get a different result if the object penetrated compared to bouncing off. You ignored that too.

 

Is that what I said?

ROFL

We know the speed and mass of the plane. But the NIST gave us an oscillation graph of the building. So from that speed of a portion of the building we can compute approximately how much of the mass of the building the airliner moved. It was not the entire building. We know the basements did not move significantly. Solving an equation depends on what information you have to start with.

But knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level would be useful. That is why I ask the questions in my video.

I am talking about the mass of a single tower relative to an airliner. A tower should have been less than 3,500 times that of the plane.

You brought up the house and a baseball. A baseball is 5 ounces. Can you compute 3,500 times that weight? So you need to specify the weight of the house.

psik

 

in response to this thread having wandered astray
may I ask, who expects to see the same result
( that is demolished building{s} ) that one expects
to see from a well planned & executed controlled demolition,
and also from chaotic damage & fire? how is that?

 

Appeal to incredulity again?

 

Your incredulity aside: No - It's not the same result at all.

 

I'll ask again.

Is your video a good representation of what actually happened that day? Is your tower modeled correctly? Did the load swing on a string, impact the tower, and then BOUNCE off?

Would there be a difference in the oscillation data between an object penetrating the tower facade and the same object bouncing off?

 

and as I have asked before, where is it documented
that some significant portion of the WTC tower(s)
survived the "collapse" event?

 

I showed you a PICTURE of the stairwell where the survivors were.....geeze!

 

The demolition of the towers would make any CD
company proud to claim the work, the presents
of something that constitutes < 1% of the mass
of the towers, doesn't negate the "TOTAL COLLAPSE"
or total destruction label. note that the NIST used the
term TOTAL COLLAPSE, why do you think they said
"TOTAL" .....

 

If it survived,destruction wasn't total,doesn't matter how much of the total it represented

 

So, you would rather play a semantics game
rather than admit to the extremely suspicious
nature of the "total collapse" of both towers.

 

It's NOT semantics,stairwell B in the north tower remained intact and held survivors of the collapse,that was in NO WAY 'suspicious'

You need to quit letting incredulity govern your logic.

 

Note that the "survivors" story is VERY suspicious
and the survival of that one stairwell is NOT relevant
to the discussion of the suspicious nature of the
destruction of the towers.

You would like to negate the significance of the
as the NIST put it "TOTAL COLLAPSE" of the towers,
however it is a factor in that buildings simply do not
"collapse" like that without an additional source of energy
at work.

 

Yeah, it's called gravity. Heard of that conspiracy yet?

 

& if GRAVITY always works straight down,
how is it that the South Tower had a tilt?
what caused that?