is it possible for science to prove & disprove the same thing?

I do not doubt that the data exists. The buildings were designed and stood for 28 years.

I am simply pointing out that the people who claim to have the expertise to solve this collapse problem have not been demanding and making public the data required to solve it. The NIST not even specifying the total amount of concrete in the towers is pretty funny when they do it for the steel.

The 9/11 Affair is a blot on science that cannot go away. It is now just a matter of keeping people unaware of it by not getting them to understand Newtonian Physics. But then we have all of this talk about STEM education. A very contradictory situation.

psik

 

I do not doubt that the data exists. The buildings were designed and stood for 28 years.

I am simply pointing out that the people who claim to have the expertise to solve this collapse problem have not been demanding and making public the data required to solve it. The NIST not even specifying the total amount of concrete in the towers is pretty funny when they do it for the steel.

The 9/11 Affair is a blot on science that cannot go away. It is now just a matter of keeping people unaware of it by not getting them to understand Newtonian Physics. But then we have all of this talk about STEM education. A very contradictory situation.

psik

 

How do you intend to solve the problem given the exact mass of the concrete in the building?

Also, NIST did not specify how many staplers were on the 57th floor. Is this data required as well?

 

That is SO BRILLIANT!

Were staplers part of the LIVE LOAD?

How do skyscraper designers handle that?

psik

 

Staplers were part of the static load, and subsequently part of the live load. Does this mean you demand the total number of staplers in the building as well?

And why won't you answer the question I've asked?

If you had the exact mass distribution of the entire building, what would you do next?

 

I could put the data into my Python program to better see what conservation of momentum alone would do to collapse time. At present all I can do is say that the time should be from 12 to 14 seconds.

But I really emphasize it to show how BAD the science is for the 9/11 Affair. The 10,000 page NIST report can't even specify the total for the concrete.

psik

 

Show your math.

And what would the total for the concrete do for anyone? Is the total weight of the concrete somehow relevant to the collapse? No. Why? Because the total weight will never be known for sure because the load will never be known. You have to go with estimates for the total load which includes the concrete. You just use the lack of this information as an excuse to whine.

 

The tower collapse is not a closed system. It cannot be modeled with a conservation of momentum because momentum was not conserved within the collapse.

 

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584

 

But wouldn't that mean that energy was lost and therefore collapse would be less likely or increased collapse time?

So accurate data for my model would just give minimum possible time for collapse which is all I ever said it would do.

You are just coming up with excuses.

psik

 

Why would it mean that? The falling mass does not have to accelerate the mass below it. Gravity does that. The falling mass only has to break the support for the mass below it. I refer you once again to the demonstration of buckling located here:

http://www.math.psu.edu/belmonte/spaghetti.html

The energy of the impact moves through the structure in a wave that travels at the speed of sound through that structure. The falling mass may only be traveling at a few meters per second at the point of the first impact, but the energy of that impact travels through the structure at thousands of miles an hour. This wave can cause damage to structure that allows mass below the plane of falling mass to begin to accelerate before the falling mass even comes into contact with it.

Example:



The spaghetti below the plane of impact is already accelerating well before the falling mass has a chance to come into contact with it. Due to the moment generated by buckling, the mass is in fact accelerating in all different directions as well. It's not just falling down (this picture has been rotated by the way. Down is actually to the left of the image I believe)

 

As usual you leave out information. Your example has only a single mass of significance and a single support.

What would happen if there were multiple masses separated by multiple supports with each level capable of holding the static load. That example is not even capable of handling that STATIC LOAD. Your example is irrelevant.

psik

 

No, it's not irrelevant. It illustrates the irrelevance of conservation of momentum in describing anything about the collapse. The energy of the impact was transmitted down the structural supports and overloaded them. This caused them to fail, removing their ability to support their load against gravity. Gravity then accelerated the entire damaged mass before the impacting mass even came into contact.

Watch the collapse videos again. The buildings don't fall in levels. There's a zone of collapse with matter falling away from the central axis of the building above and below the entire region. As the mass travels downward, you can even still see central core systems that remain standing, disproving your concept of flat levels of mass impacting flat levels of mass in perfectly inelastic collisions.

Imagine floors distributed along the length of spaghetti, Psi. How does conservation of the momentum of the striking mass describe what would happen to them? It doesn't. That is because the system is not closed. The buckling moment rotates mass from below the impact out from under the falling mass.

 

So build a physical model with spaced masses all of the way down and demonstrate that your TALK isn't just TALK.

If you can't make a model collapse that your TALK is just HOT AIR.

psik

 

Oh no. Let's not change the subject to the limitations of physical scale models. Let's finish this point first, please.

The conservation of momentum cannot be used to describe the collapse for the reasons I outlined above. Do you agree or disagree?

1. The system is not a closed system.
2. The impacts were not perfectly inelastic.

 

The physical reality of complex systems almost never corresponds perfectly to mathematics. That does not make the math irrelevant. You are constantly trying to convince me or others that I am stupid with fancy math but then you want to ignore it when you decide.

The conservation of momentum should give a minimum collapse time. Any extent to which reality deviates from that perfect math in this case should only INCREASE THE COLLAPSE TIME.

So if the minimum time computed via the conservation of momentum is greater than what actually happened on 9/11 then there must have been factors involved on 9/11 which are not accounted for by airliner impact and fire. Meaning that a lot of people claiming to be "scientific" for the last 11 years have actually been really stupid. If not lying.

psik

 

No I'm trying to help you understand that you've misapplied the principal of the conservation of momentum.

This is a false assumption. Look at the spaghetti demonstration again. After the initial impact the falling mass only loses the amount of energy required to break the spaghetti. This results in a partial loss of momentum, but not the total amount of momentum required to accelerate the mass of the spaghetti. Immediately after the impact, the mass of the spaghetti is accelerated by gravity, and by the torque (moment) induced by buckling before the falling mass even comes into contact with the entire mass of spaghetti. Any subsequent impacts between the falling mass and spaghetti mass will also transfer momentum from one to the other, but since the spaghetti has been accelerated by external forces prior to the impact, momentum is not conserved.

You can't find the minimum fall time with this because you have no way of determining how much of the buckled mass is accelerated downward by gravity prior to the impact of falling mass from above. Also have no way of knowing how much mass was accelerated outward, out from under the falling mass. Lastly, you have no way to measure the amount of mass that doesn't come into contact with any falling mass.

You assume that each impact happens completely between an accelerating mass from above, and a stationary mass from below, but the nature of buckling shows that this is NOT the case. The nature of the conservation of momentum shows that for momentum to be conserved, the system needs to be devoid of external forces. It must be a closed system. The collapse was not such a system.

Yeah, these factors would include all the factors I have just described that you ignore. Buckling is the biggest factor that you ignore.

Or maybe instead they know what they're talking about and you don't.

 

Math isn't "invented", but more like discovered.

Nobody says that the moons of Jupiter do calculations. What can be said, is that the universe behaves in certain ways, and the laws of physics are such that, we can make determination about theory using math. These are more or less universal, and is what sets these topics apart from say literature.

Now math and science go hand in hand. Patriot911 is right when he says physics is expressed through maths.

To elaborate on that more specifically, we try to figure out why something is the way it is, or why it behaves the way it does. We then form what's called a hypothesis. This is merely a guess or idea. Now the way we determine how good that hypothesis is and how close of an explanation it is to the truth, we try to predict what will happen when we do certain tests, or experiments. In order to make the prediction, we use the math to determine what the results of the tests ought to be. The maths are formulated over many generations, granting us unchanging principles like the pythagorian theorum, formulas etc. and by implementing them we can then see whether the prediction comes true, and how sound the hypothesis is.

You said at one point you teach physics.. Was that you or is it somebody else I'm thinking of?

 

Psi does not teach physics. He has previously listed his credentials as:

Attending high school physics.

Messing around with rockets.

Interviewing at MIT.

Rooming with an architect.

(in discussions with me at least. I don't know what he told other people)

 

And I have also said many times that 9/11 is GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS?

I have also said that the NIST report does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

To date, not a single PhD physicist has told us where that information is in the report. If it is not there shouldn't some PhD physicist have noticed and said something by now? 11 years of physics without data. Math is so important when you don't have the data to plug into the equations.

The Empire State Building was completed before the neutron was discovered. Physicists have made fools of themselves by allowing this 9/11 business to go on for ELEVEN YEARS. But if they SOLVE it now they will just make themselves look more stupid because it that will just make it obvious that they should have solved it TEN YEARS AGO.

The physics profession is partly responsible for most of the deaths due to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

psik

 

They can find the equations which correspond to the behavior of the physics. The physics is incapable of giving a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the mathematics. Reality does what it does regardless of what we think.

So where is the experiment that duplicates the supposed complete gravitational collapse of the north tower?

Wouldn't that be PHYSICS?

psik

 

Still no comment on the fact that your assumptions are false, that conservation of momentum cannot be used to determine a minumum collapse time in the case of the collapse of the WTC towers.

I said:

You should respond.

To make it simple, why not describe how conservation of momentum should find a minimum collapse time for the spaghetti impact example I gave. Please show how you would use the conservation of momentum to determine the minimum amount of time the mass from above should take to fall through the distance previously occupied by the standing piece of spaghetti.

 

When you finally get beyond high school physics, your mind might be blown when you learn that this is not true.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

 

That's it! It is because of Quantum Physics that the NIST can't supply the total for the concrete.

That is almost as irrelevant as pasta.

psik

 

Once again you failed to respond to the blatant flaw in your argument. It didn't go unnoticed.