[psikeyhackr]

Originally Posted by CabinetMaker

All the video showed is that the oscillations of the initial impact damp out at different rates based on the mass of the structure. You will note that the WTC, despite the heave structural damage, did indeed survive the initial impact of the air craft. The video also neglected the type of construction used by the WTC towers so it is not an accurate representation of even the impact response of the structure. Its sloppy science done by somebody more interested in proving a conspiracy theory rather than understanding the actual physics involved.


Ever hear of E=1/2*m*v^2? Its the formula for energy. The m of the towers was hue so even 1/2 m is a large number. Now multiply that by the velocity squared. Evan a fairly small velocity squared times a huge mass is tremendous amount of energy. Now look at how steel structures are designed.

It also shows the degree of motion varies with the mass. Yes the kinetic energy of the plane HAD TWO EFFECTS. It caused the oscillation and it did structural damage. That formula will give the kinetic energy of the plane but how much of that energy caused the oscilltion because only what was left could do structural damage. When have any of the EXPERTS brought that up in the last SIX YEARS? How can you figure out how much energy was lost on the oscillation without knowing the the mass and its distribution?

They are not designed to sustain a larg impact load such as the top 1/3 of the building collapsing onto a lower floor. ITs just like the pop can. Stack three on top of each other and then only damage the sides of the top one. What happens to the other two? They will also collapse.

29 lighter levels falling on 80 heavier levels. The question is, "How far will the collapse go?" Just because the 80th level would not stop the falling 29 levels does not mean it won't slow it down. The bottom of the 29 levels would also be crushed by the impact and the energy used crushing those two levels would have to come from the falling mass. IT WOULD SLOW DOWN! It would then encounter the next level to be crushed, and the next, and the next. The falling mass would be stopped within its own height leaving 40+ stories of the tower standing with debris all around. There had to be other sources of energy to cause what we saw.

By the way, the comment about a pop can acting on an atomic level is ignorant at best. It is acting at the same level as the model in the video. It is sill supporting real weight and it will collapse if the vertical walls of the can are distorted.

There was very little permanent distortion of metal in my model. The metal strip on the impacted side did dent a little after multiple hits but for the most part it only flexed. Your pop can would be crushed and probably torn so atoms within the metal would be permanently moved in relation to each other.

Because it doesn't matter. If you added up all the steel, concrete, office furnishings, water and other materials on the floors you could calculate the oscillation frequency and damping factor that have nothing to do with the collapse. You could calculate the total mass above the point of failure and then use that to calculate the energy involved as the top portion of the building collapsed onto the lower structure.

The distribution of mass would affect the oscillation frequency just as the distribution of mass would affect the collapse. The purpose of the demonstration was to show the need to know that distribution. The NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. We don't know the quantity of steel in the impact zones that was supposedly heated to the point of weakening in 56 MINUTES. There had to be enough steel there to hole 29 stories for 28 years. How many TONS was that? WE DON'T KNOW! The NIST hasn't told us though we payed them $20,000,000.

[/quote]Then go get a copy of the plans and calculate the steel and concrete yourself. The details are all there on the plans and I have seen some plans on the internet. Figure it out. And then what? Your oscillations change but the building still collapsed because the support structures failed, not because the building shook.[/quote]

I downloaded and burned the NIST report to DVD over a year ago. I have searched them dozens of times. The only use the term "center of mass" FOUR TIMES and that is in a report about suspended ceilings. ROFLMAO They took 3 years and were payed $20,000,000 to do the job. We payed $20,000,000 for a load of BS. I think it is important for the American people to know that they didn't do the job and aren't even telling us the relevant information. If you know so much about kinetinc energy equations and damping factors then why can't you figure out we a being handed a load of BULL. But instead you defend our being kept in the dark.

What do you thing blew the windows of the building as they collapsed? If you say explosives then do you think that tornadoes and hurricanes are government cover ups for elite strike teams to go around with explosives blowing up peoples houses and businesses?

What do you think hurled tons of material 600 feet into the Winter Garden? Do you think it was air from the building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hblla0DYmZQ

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

psik