9/11 No Longer Matters

Oye,

Yes, you tested that shape. You then falsely claimed that it was as weak as possible to sustain its load. This statement is false. A column that is as weak as possible would have a critical buckling load that is less then the critical load for the ultimate strength of the material. A column that is as weak as possible buckles before it crushes. A column that crushes retains much of its capacity to bear load through the distance that is crushed. A column that buckles looses its total capacity to bear load as soon as plastic deformation takes place. A column that is buckled by 15 washers is obviously weaker then a column that is crushed by 15 washers.

Your columns do not buckle because they are pinned by the wooden dowel, which has a much higher critical buckling load, and ultimate strength than your paper loops.

This point is important because you are trying to model the way you think the WTC should have behaved. It's clear that your model does not do this because your model is not supported the way the WTC was supported. The WTC did not have such an impossibly strong structure in its middle to prevent buckling. It had a steel framed core that had exactly the same ultimate strength, and similar critical buckling loads. If it were possible to build a structure with strength that was scaled to your model, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Here in reality, however, the larger you make something, the harder it is for it to support its own weight. If you increased the scale of your model by a factor of 1.5 and I'm sure it wouldn't even stand, let alone arrest a collapse. Reduce it by a factor of .5 and I'm sure you couldn't even get the first loop to completely crush.

This is the problem with your "model"

It cannot falsify your premise because its a false model to begin with. That's not science or physics. That's just a bunch of junk.

 

Oh sure, the paper loops are "pinned" to the dowel even though they don't TOUCH the dowel.

Anyone that wants to can build it for themselves and see.

What idiotic drivel, "pinned"!

psik

 

http://web.mit.edu/4.441/1_lectures/1_lecture13/1_lecture13.html

You tell me what kind of connection it is then. The dowel has to be connected in some way or it would be a pointless element.

 

I was going to agree with you, Fangbeer, and state that if Psi can so easily prove you wrong then setup the experiment, record it, and put it on youtube or whatever your preferred hosting option. At this time, though, if you could prove him false I would imagine you would have done so.

 

What part of this discussion do you believe is still at issue?

 

The inner edges of some of the washers press against the dowel. That is what keeps the whole thing from progressively tilting.

Remember that sin of the angle and vector analysis I was talking about? As long as the angle of tilt is less than 9 degrees 99% of the weight is on the paper loops not the dowel. If the angle was that much I would have noticed.

psik

 

The dowel in your model prevents lateral translation, but allows rotation in a single direction. Your columns are free to rotate around the dowel, but they are held in place parallel to the dowel. This is called a pinned connection. You interviewed at MIT right? Read the link I posted. I'm not making this up, and it's not nonsense. The problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about. Please educate yourself. I've given you the tools to do so.

Please try to pay attention. Not once did I say that the weight of the paper loops is on the dowel. The issue with the dowel is not that it carries axial load. The issue with the dowel is that it carries a radial load. It creates excessive stiffness in your column that prevents buckling, and causes your columns to fail in a crushing mode rather then a buckling mode.

 

I was just stating I see what you're stating as far as his dowel playing a bigger role in his experiment than he lets on. I might have phrased it confusingly. I apologize.

 

Did you mean "prove him false" to be "prove to him"?

Yeah, Psikey has been at this for a number of years. Better men then myself have tried and failed to educate him.

 

As I understand it,for psi's model to be an accurate rendition of the wtc,the core columns wouldhave to be a solid piece of steel,all the way up.

 

Psi's model cannot exist in full scale. Material strength does not increase as scale increases and gravity does not scale.

There are several fallacies in Psi's argument, but the most glaring can be explained with a little theoretical exercise. An ant can survive a drop from a tremendous distance. You could throw one off the roof of your house and it would hit the ground and walk away without issue. This would happen even if you removed air pressure as a factor by dropping the ant in a vacuum. This is because the ant has a high ratio of surface area to mass. The force of the impact is spread out over that larger surface area which allows the impact to be easily absorbed by the ultimate strength of the materials that make up the ant.

Now if you increase the size of the ant, the ratio of surface area to mass changes. A human sized ant would not fair as well as his little bother. In fact, a human sized ant could not support itself on its own legs, let alone withstand a drop off a rooftop.

This is due to square cube law. Imagine a cube that is 1 foot tall, 1 foot wide, and 1 foot deep. This cube rests on a surface area of 1 square foot, and has a volume of 1 cubic foot. If you increase the scale of the cube to 2x2x2 the area of the foot becomes 4 sq feet, but the volume becomes 8 cubic feet. Thus, the area increases by the square of the scaling factor, but the volume increases by the cube. This means, the larger you make something, the pressure that something exerts on its footprint increases exponentially. There comes a point at which the something becomes too large and it can no longer support its own mass on such a small amount of surface area. This is the point at which the ultimate strength of the material can no longer withstand the pressure that is created by the mass of the material and it crushes.

So think back to Psikey's model. The wooden dowel is like the little ant. It has a large amount of surface area in relation to its mass. As a result, in scale, it's much stronger then something the scale of the WTC. Even if we tried to give the WTC a feature scaled to the wooden dowel, it could not behave the same as Psi's model due to the inability to scale the strength of materials. The WTC dowel would crush under its own weight.

 

You are full of crap about this "pinning" business.

Held in place by WHAT? They are pressed from above by the weight of however many washers.
And resting on the washer below. Although the paper loop could rotate. How could a force be applied to it to do the rotation. If I put my fingers between the washers to grab it, it would be forced in toward the dowel because it is just a flimsy piece of paper. I could grip the end of a washer an rotate it. FOR WHAT? There are no forces produced by the model itself that could rotte the components.

You are just making up drivel to blather about.

psik

 

Your arguments are always so sophomoric. Do you disagree that your "columns" are held in place by the dowel? What happens to the tower without the dowel? Why? Where does the force come from for this action to take place? Better yet, in what direction is the force applied?

Look up the term "moment" and learn.

Or remain stubbornly ignorant. Your choice.

 

So if I make a stack of 15 washers and paper loops without the dowel then what would be holding them in place?

I admitted that when it got up to twenty it began to tilt and would fall over. The dowel keeps the stack from tilting and I always admitted that. Now you want to say that is "pinning" and bring up the totally absurd "rotation" nonsense. It would be difficult to rotate the paper loops if I wanted to. What did any of your videos about buckling columns say about "rotation"?

Like I said, BLATHER that has nothing whatsoever to do with comprehending the physics of a supposed collapse. No one who either approves of disapproves of my model has EVER brought up rotation before. Because it is totally obvious that no forces involved in the demonstration could produce rotation. But YOU have to come up with something to complain about so you found something sufficiently irrelevant and idiotic.

By all means continue. It's hysterical. That is why I wait so long to respond sometimes.

psik

 

I spoke about rotation because you refused to admit that your dowel is a pin. Rotation is part of the definition of a pinned connection. Nothing about the definition requires rotation, only that a pinned connection allows rotation. In your own way, though you still don't realize it, you admitted to each of the features of a pinned connection. You admitted that the dowel restrains lateral translation, and that it allows rotation. Your dowel is a pin and your columns are pinned by it. It's not nonsense. It's the proper term for the type of connection you created. The more you claim it's blather, the more you show your ignorance. By all means, laugh. People often find humor in things they don't comprehend. I'm reminded of your opinion of the "fancy calculus" that engineers use to describe the same properties you're doing an amateur job of trying to describe with paper loops and steel washers.

Now the point is not that the dowel allows rotation. I have no clue why you've fixated on that other then you think its a good way to distract from the flaws in your model. The point is that the dowel restricts lateral translation. I've been more than clear about this. This restriction creates strength in your model by preventing buckling in your columns. And make no mistake, what you call "tilt and fall over" is really buckling instability due to a slenderness ratio that is too high for the strength of the material. This "tilt and fall over" property is a moment that is restrained by the dowel. Without the dowel, your columns are too weak to support the mass you rest on them. With the dowel the weakness created by their slenderness ratio is offset by a much higher strength material. Your columns can't buckle, and this is just but one of the flaws in your model.

 

I started to read your submission and agreed with a lot and had an empathy with the facts! Until you spoke about Obama!

Obama is so far down the pecking chain, he's insignificant, and only a stain on the carpet!

This nonsense of Moslem's.....where does that come from? Your owned!

Almost all your politicians are politicians because they were sponsored by AIPAC! Fact!

Your demise is cause by bankers! The Goldman Sachs executives in your government appointed by Obama.... to carry on the heinous acts and crimes on behalf of those same bankers!

But when you have the likes of Ron Paul trying to audit the the federal Reserve...... Just watch what happens! Its been voted on by the senate and passed by 327 - 98. The majority will not have its way... mark my words!

They control the money so you can and will starve!

But carry on with the delusion..... the American dream ..... and the freedoms you don;'t have ....... its called a fascist dictatorship!

But to change things..... all you need to do is talk to each other.... listen and make up your own mind not accept the dogma from Fox and the likes! AND VOTE accordingly!

But I agree with your submission you're a morally bankrupt nation! But not through choice, you live in the AIPAC American dictatorship!

Regards
Highlander

 

That!
Was a lot!
Of Exclamation!
All in one post!

......and.....liberal.....use.....of..................the mega ellipsis.

The only thing you forgot was SHOUTYCAPS!

 

Which one of your videos said that and where did it say so?

LINK and time please.

psik

 

You won't believe him unless he points it out in a YouTube video? Seems like you could verify it for yourself if you really wanted to.

Good grief.

 

He has provided a video before and claimed something was there when it wasn't. I went back and watched the video again to be sure. It wasn't there. He takes for granted that he has the right to waste people's time and he is supposed to be believed just because he says something.

If he CLAIMS something is in a video then he should be able to say which one and where. But if he claims something that makes no sense then I suspect it ain't there. Just because it is there does not necessarily mean its true. In one video the instructor got the number of perimeter columns on one side of the tower wrong. He said 47 instead of 59. 47 is the number of core columns.

psik

 

So I'm curious. You claim your model accurately represents the fact that the towers could not have collapsed, but you also admit your model doesn't work past so many washers. Shouldn't that be a HUGE clue to you that maybe you're missing the big picture completely? That a retarded toy is NOT an accurate representation of ANYTHING past a retarded toy? After all, if your model accurately represents the collapse of the towers, shouldn't it be able to represent all aspects of the towers? That is like taking a toy aircraft carrier that floats, submerging it in water and then. when it pops back to the surface, claiming a full sized aircraft carrier can't sink because you can't get the toy to sink.

 

Where did I say any such thing?

Are you changing what I say to make it mean what you want?

I said that at 20 levels the stack would tilt and fall over so the dowel was necessary. And since the dowel was only 4 feet tall there was a limit to how big a stack I could make and still leave room for a gap for the drop.

psik

 

You said

Your model fails after 20 washers until you fundamentally change the model. Does the tower have a dowel in the middle? Your paper loops are suppose to represent the core, yet they can't do that past so many washers until you add yet another support to prevent the whole thing from collapsing.

So again I ask you, how can you pretend your retarded little toy accurately represents the collapse model of the towers when it can't even accurately represent ANY OTHER ASPECT of the towers? Never mind all the other issues that prove your retarded little toy is nothing but the pipe dream of an uneducated fool who ignores the truth to push a lie. You know... like how a toy built with several dozen parts doesn't represent an object made with millions of parts on a MUCH larger scale, made of different material, and designed by structural engineers, not a failed toy maker.

 

More distractions.

First you distracted from your inability to describe the collapse with math. What would you do with the exact mass distribution if you actually had it?

Next you distracted from your inability to understand the importance of buckling or support the fact that your model crushes instead of buckles. The dowel is a pin that provides lateral stiffness and prevents the columns in your structure from buckling. Buckling was a major factor in the WTC collapse.

Now you're trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong about the connections in your model.

Do you really think that Dr. Ressler's discussion of the WTC hinges on whether there are 47 or 59 perimeter columns in the WTC? If you do, you clearly didn't listen to a word he said. This distraction is just going to lead to another once you realize you have no idea what you're talking about. Are you sure you really want to go down this tangent?

 

I did not CHANGE the model.

It was ALWAYS INTENDED to have the dowel. How else would I support the mass I intended to drop directly onto the top of the stack below and make it impact properly? Those are about the biggest washers you can find at a local hardware store. I then selected the biggest dowel that would comfortably fit through the hole.

That stacking without the dowel was just one of tests I conducted on the equipment.

All you can do is make faulty assumptions in then blather on that basis.

Any one who would expect such a flimsy structure to stand on its own is an idiot. But the whole point is that it is so weak but it still will not collapse due to a self generated dynamic load. Skyscrapers are not designed to be as weak as possible. Believing the top of the north tower could fall and destroy everything below in less than 18 seconds is equally idiotic.

psik