Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:01pm PT
|
OK, Jolly, let's look at the math in your video again... At least what I can, as for some reason the whole thing will not play.
1) He even states himself, in writing, just below the video:The mathematical formulas used here are not the proper way for obtaining a real figure... So, your 'real true math' is made not even using the proper formulas, thus yield inaccurate figures.
2) Where does he get his values? Particularly, the designed load limits of the floor below? And, even better, the estimate of 68,000 tons for the top 30 floors? Since the estimated weight of just one tower was 500,000 tons, and the top 30 floors represents ~25% of the above street level mass. This means that the estimated weight would be 125,000 tons (give or take), and this is TWICE his estimate. 68,000 tons is only ~13.6% of it's mass.
(feel free to double check my math, since I'm not as smart as you [wink])
You know the phrase, GIGO, right? Garbage In, Garbage Out.
3) Did you notice that he had to look at his notes just to write the formula f=ma correctly?
Inspires confidence, doesn't it?
4) From what I can see, until the video froze, he is doing the math absolutely wrong...
He seems to be subtracting the masses (top from bottom), THEN calculating the force (f=ma) of what's left over. That is wrong, as the correct way to determine the 'force' of the inertial mass of the top 30 floors exerting a dynamic load on the floors below would be f=m[the mass of the top 30 floors]a. The result is a DYNAMIC FORCE that is larger in order of magnitude. Meaning, if you do the math "correctly", the net force is significantly (in order of magnatude) DOWN, not up as he absurdly concludes, as do you.
Again... GIGO. (E.g., 42 seconds)
I look forward to your super duper math reply, defending his admitted use of the wrong formulas, and using apparently absurd estimations for his values, to obtain an admittedly incorrect figure... That you take as GOSPEL.
Lastly... I stand corrected in my a*#ertion that the joists served to pull all the walls inward, as Jennie's picture shows, many of the exterios wall plates fell inhuge pieces, so many of the joists did in fact shear as it pancaked down.
So, as you can see, I can see when I am wrong, and note that she, nore anyone else, pointed this out to me. I saw that I was wrong from the evidence alone, and readily state this, and adjust my understanding of what happened accordingly.
PS... For a degreed engineer, such as yourself, this physics hobbyist is embarassing you, as far as applied physics goes.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:04pm PT
|
But of course all those engineers are in on it cuz they don't want to lose their jobs.
Why do you keep saying this stupid sh#t?
And of course all those engineers were inside all those buildings during those fires with their thermometers measuring the steel in all the places they say.
Logging the data into their instruments.
Sh'it anyone can theorize weeks later with no real hard data .....
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:16pm PT
|
Tony.... building 7 also fell the same way in a similarly astounding time,
Ummm... No it didn't fall the same way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA
As you can see it failed at the botton, where the fires were. The Twin Towers failed up near the top, where the fires were and pancaked there way down.
At least you are consistant in making absurdly incorrect statements. Problem is, you continue to believe them, even after being shown you are wrong.
Or, are you saying that all of those videos are faked, and it really did fall the same way as the Twin Towers?
PS... Why is it that you have repeatedly ignored my simple question regarding when this thing was "all planned out" in relation to when Bush took office, Tony?
Is it that you don't want to have to admit "An Inconvenient Truth", that may shine the light of reason on your absurd delusion?
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:42pm PT
|
I may have been editing in some more numbers for you in #2, so please reread.
BUT, you still haven't answered as to where he is getting his numbers, AND the way he did the math yields an absurdly small number for the dynamic load. Again... GIGO!
Please... Don't just say I don't know what I'm taking about... You asked what was wrong with his math, I told you, now please address it, directly, not with an ad hominem
Show me where I'm wrong... Directly refute what I am saying... Math doesn't lie, remember?
I numbered them for you, so please, number your answers to my points/concerns.
But I understand WHY you don't address them point by point... You cannot, as that would only weaken your position. Especially given that "the speed of the fall" is your biggest issue... You MUST be right about that.
Edit: And you'd have to admit that you got schooled in math and physics by a high-school drop out. Yea, that's right. I'm mostly self taught. That only makes it hurt worse, doesn't it, Mr Degreed Engineer.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:51pm PT
|
I did not find it odd at all that he looked at his notes, To write down f=ma? I said, "did you notice that he had to look at his notes to write the formula 'f=ma'". I said that specifically, as I would expect him to look at his notes for specific large numbers, but not for that.
OMFG! Yea... f=ma, That's an easy one to mess up.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 12:04am PT
|
Do not claim to beat me until you can Mathmatically show me where he is wrong. I have, in #'s 2 and 4 above, except you have only ignored it, like countless other things for days now in this thread.
So, you are hard to "show" things to, since you will not "look". (wink)
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 12:59am PT
|
That page states...fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse
This is false:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk
Ther are several examples in that vid of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed from fire alone.
In fact, the Deep Water Horizon, perhaps you've heard of it, was significantly stronger steel frame structure that collapsed from fire alone.
Now what? Care to admit that you are wrong? I'll bet you won't.
PS... This had been debunked as soon as the phrase was first made, but all the "truthers" just don't look into all the claims made by "truthers". Hence they continually embarrass themselves by constantly throwing out the same old debunked trash as fact.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:01am PT
|
"It is known that STRUCURAL STEEL begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C"
Actually those are the temps for aircraft aluminum.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:06am PT
|
Where the hell are you getting that? Aluminum melts at 660 C.
Source please. Or, how about just admitting that you are wrong... AGAIN!
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:10am PT
|
everyone who's onto this is trying to figure that out, john. we don't exactly have subpoena power and search warrants for the pentagon and the white house, but most of us think there is enough serious evidence to justify it.
-
So you're opinion is that shadowy elements within both the Pentagon and the White House conspired secretly with radical Arabs to bring down those buildings? Is that your official stance?
JL
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:28am PT
|
Jolly...
rrrAdam,
I see you have been busy. Don't you have a job inspecting something.
To be honest... I've been stuck in a hotel, for 2 days now, in Florence, SC, waiting to help do the final walkdowns of the primary and secondary systems of one of our nukes before it goes critical and syncs to the grid. Problem is, we can't do it until the systems reach normal operating temperate and pressure, and the schedule keeps slipping to the right. They haven't even started to "press up" the systems yet. :(
So I am bored to tears, hence my willingness to go in circles in this thread, and partake in all the banality.
Forgive me if I don't reply to any of your well thought out replies in the next few days... I did the walk-down tonight, finally, and the unit is coming back online... So I won't be cooped up in a hotel room in SC anymore, bored to tears. I'm going home tomorrow, and will likely be on my boat with friends:
It has been intelectually stimulating though, albeit a bit frustrating at times.
As far as 9/11 goes, you must admit that you can be called a passionate zealout. No offense meant, the words are accurate. I have been trying to get you to step outside that box that zealouts tend think in, as only the material that fits in that box is what you look at. (E.g., all the 'truther' sites, as do you get ANYTHING from outside the net and those sites? Kinda like a Fundie continually citing answersingenesis.org as an authoritative source) I don't really have anything invested in this to anywhere near the degree that you do, so isn't it possible, even likely, that I can be a bit more objective when looking at ALL of this? (Note - What I look at is mainly limited to what can be verified, and the evidence and reasoning is given as to WHY I call BS on the limited things I do)
Some food for thought...
You must realize, the very slim possibility that you can actually be wrong. If that's the case, what do you think all of the terrorists that hate the USA think of you "truthers"? They likely are happy as hell, and even view you as allies, in some way, huh? They got two birds with one stone... Their initial attack, and your continuing attack.
Now before you get your panties in a bunch... I'm NOT saying you are unpatriotic, or anything like that. i am merely trying to get you to step outside of your box and into the shoes of, say Osama bin Laden... IF he had a hand in this, do you think he is pleased to see US citizens blaming ALL of this on the government? (E.g., prerigged explosives, remote controlled planes, murder of thousands of citizens, etc) Seriously, do you think he is pleased with "9/11 truthers"?
Again... Just some food for thought.
Have a good weekend.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 02:33am PT
|
"It is known that STRUCURAL STEEL begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C"
Actually those are the temps for aircraft aluminum.
Philo, that information on structural steel comes from A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:16am PT
|
"In fact, the Deep Water Horizon, perhaps you've heard of it, was significantly stronger steel frame structure that collapsed from fire alone."
And all this time I thought it was the methane exploding that sunk the DWH. That must have been one hell of a fire, under water and all.
But, that's just a digression...
!~!~!~!
I watched the video that "debunks" the claim that steel high-rises don't totally fail due to fire. In the video, I see just one high-rise, the one in Madrid. Take a close look--does it totally collapse? At what rate does the building fail?
Just sayin'...it ain't the same as coming down at near free-fall speed.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:00am PT
|
"In fact, the Deep Water Horizon, perhaps you've heard of it, was significantly stronger steel frame structure that collapsed from fire alone."
And all this time I thought it was the methane exploding that sunk the DWH. That must have been one hell of a fire, under water and all.
Packing up, so I haven't left the hotel yet.
Pay attention here, OK...
Saing that would be like saying, "and all this time I thought it was the explosions of the jets that brought down the Twin Towers."
The methane on the DWH served to initiate the disaster, it caused the explosion, but the structure was still standing (floating actually) long after that. It was the fires, consuming the oil, that weakened the steel struture of the "Floating Platform" to the point of failure, and it sunk.
So, um, does that clear it up for you? Probably not, since you seem to have missed or ignored all the video of the fires burning, unabated, for hours, on the surface of the ocean and on the structure, NOT "underwater and all" as you put it.
In trying to understand why you would even write the above, I can only guess that you didn't know that the DWH was a 'floating platform', and actually thought that it stood on the ocean floor, like a huge bar-stool, with MILE LONG LEGS. Am I right?
If I am right, let me guess the next 5 minutes of your life...
Yu will google it, HOPING that the DWH was not a floating platform, but instead stood on legs as you thought, so you could "put it in my face". But, you'll find that it was indead floating... Insuide you notice something uncomfortable -- It's embarassment, realizing that youn look like ab idiot now for all to see on the net. You quietly slip away from thsi thread for a while, hoping people will forget.
Why not instead reply, "Hey thanx, Adam... I didn't know some of that. You don't have to be such an arse about it though."
That's the stand-up thing to do you know.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:28am PT
|
So if I put a piece of structural steel, say a piece of an I beam in my oven on high it will soften? How long will that take? And if I put it into a pizza oven it will soften to the point of being able to be bent into a donut? How long would that take?
Are those blast furnaces a waste of energy? couldn't we accomplish the same thing with some blow torches?
So those fires raged hot enough to vaporize tons of titanium while leaving desks, computers, papers and oddly enough Mohammed Atta's passport un-scathed?
To accept the official version of events requires suspension of reason and the abandonment of the physical laws governing the cosmos.
Wake up dummies!
Yes JL, I think it was an inside job. A false flag black op intended to justify the neo-con dream of a new American century. The only role radical islamists played was as scape goats and boogey men.
And the only role Spurious George played was dupe, puppet and potential scape goat.
He never had the intellectual chops to be more involved. He played his role. Mission Accomplished.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:33am PT
|
So if I put a piece of structural steel, say a piece of an I beam in my oven on high it will soften? How long will that take? And if I put it into a pizza oven it will soften to the point of being able to be bent into a donut? No... Have you been paying any attention? Temperatures have been cited here. Is it the "C" that confuses you? That means Celcius, different from F.
Or, are you just an idiot? The last few pages of replies from you would lead me to believe so, as you really say some STUPID stuff, and when corrected, you conveniently ignore it, and likely continue to beleieve that STUPID stuff.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:44am PT
|
It is quickly becoming apparent why this 9/11 conspiracy thing persists as it does...
Just look at the absurd things that come out of the mouths of its believers, much of which is repeatedly shown to be false, yet it persists. If one confidently believes absurd things, absurd conclusions follow.
GIGO!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:46am PT
|
Big problem with rrrAdam is he's just basing all his information on models.
The real world facts by one of the main FEMA investigators he's never even heard about and what this guy found, discovered, said, documented and what eventually happened to him.
All these guys who believe the official version do is simulate and model everything out out.
There's a ton of real world stuff you never factored in.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!