Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

The Line


  • Please log in to reply
337 replies to this topic

#331    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 12 July 2013 - 09:33 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 11 July 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Each model serves a different purpose and answers a different question.

The question addressed: -

What happens...
when we drop an ever SOLID BLOCK...
in a vacuum with NIL INTERMEDIATE MASS...
on a structure with ZERO REDUNDANCY...
???

Methinks the guy who said, “there’s no such thing as a stupid question”, he lied.

Next up, aquatus answers the question:  do three-legged pixies enjoy ambrosia under a blue moon?

This could be most revealing...

:lol:

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#332    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 13 July 2013 - 08:55 AM

View PostQ24, on 09 July 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

The aquamodel applies freefall acceleration (as in a vacuum, no less). This is entirely impossible in the case of a building crushing itself.
what is not acknowledged by the aquamodel (in actuality it is a model concept, not an actual model) is that even destroyed columns will provide resistance to continued collapse.
  • "Bazant concluded that after the initiation of failure of the critical story, the columns in that squashed story offered only negligible resistance. That led to the assumption that the upper part of the building, above that story, would be in a free fall until a complete flattening of that story. At the end of the critical story squash the free-drop velocity is over 8.5 m/s, resulting in a destructive impact. This in turn culminated in [2] as a conclusion of a quick collapse of the entire edifice. We call this a “vanishing story assumption” and refer to it as the fatal mistake No.2. (This free-fall assumption was not openly stated, but there are numerous hints in [1, 2, 6] and [12] implying that it was used in computational procedure.)"
in effect, and unnoticed by most, is that the aquamodel (and indeed the MIT-Bazant PCF official "collapse" hypothesis endorsed by NIST), treats the columns as glass-like material, shattering or vanishing upon each impact setting up the next freefall induced jolt to the next subsequent story which is an ideal model only for demolition, not a PCF collapse.
  • "A number of simple, transparent calculations of the North Tower collapse were presented in [5] and the conclusion was that assuming even a modest resistance of columns during their destruction would cause an unacceptably long collapse time. It is only when perfectly frangible columns were adopted that the fall time was as low s 15.3 s. This removes the PCF mode, as defined here, as a viable hypothesis of collapse."
http://rethink911.or...s_.Szamboti.pdf

note to yamato,
the above linked study from which the quotes are taken was peer reviewed and published yesterday

http://multi-science...60385h25254748/


Quote

The aquamodel applies the upper mass that remains within the tower footprint in a single instant as a rigid block, i.e. a hammer blow at each level. This is entirely impossible due to break up of the upper block which will actually result in a rapid succession of individual smaller impacts.
yes, and easily demonstrated by experiment to be incompatible with the aquamodel.

Quote

The aquamodel does not account for a factor of safety. This additional strength is entirely relevant to determine to what degree the upper mass will lose momentum.
at one extreme we can imagine a completely solid tower with no air inside, at the other extreme we can imagine a "house of cards" that will collapse when a feather is placed on the top. by paying no mind to FOS one can get any reality one wants, so yes, in terms of whether the tower will completely collapse, knowing the FOS is critical. for the twin towers it has been calculated as 4:1. using a calculated value rather than a guess is the sane thing to do.


#333    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 July 2013 - 12:16 AM

View PostQ24, on 12 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:



The question addressed: -

What happens...
when we drop an ever SOLID BLOCK...
in a vacuum with NIL INTERMEDIATE MASS...
on a structure with ZERO REDUNDANCY...
???

Methinks the guy who said, “there’s no such thing as a stupid question”, he lied.

Next up, aquatus answers the question:  do three-legged pixies enjoy ambrosia under a blue moon?

This could be most revealing...

:lol:

Haha funny, you do realize aquatus's model actually factors in a loss of mass.

How does that equate to a solid block again?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#334    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 July 2013 - 12:36 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 14 July 2013 - 12:16 AM, said:

Haha funny, you do realize aquatus's model actually factors in a loss of mass.

How does that equate to a solid block again?
way to miss the point.
careful reading might help.


#335    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 July 2013 - 02:55 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 July 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

way to miss the point.
careful reading might help.

Learning what aquatus's model represents, might help you understand what is going on.

Careful reading and actual learning may help stop you looking foolish than you have already presented yourself as in this opic.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#336    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 July 2013 - 09:08 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 14 July 2013 - 12:16 AM, said:

Haha funny, you do realize aquatus's model actually factors in a loss of mass.

How does that equate to a solid block again?
the issue has already been defined more clearly here:

"The aquamodel applies the upper mass that remains within the tower footprint in a single instant as a rigid block, i.e. a hammer blow at each level. This is entirely impossible due to break up of the upper block which will actually result in a rapid succession of individual smaller impacts."

it matters not that the model removes a fraction of the mass at each level. the model still meanders around newtons third law which tells us any destruction on the lower block is going to be mirrored on the falling block also. the incorrect assumption in the aquamodel (and one which you yourself echoed in post#14) is that the cumulative forces acting at different times equate to the same jolt as a single hammer blow, it doesn't. and remember, as per Bazant et al, it is the jolt that is needed to cause the damage, without the sizable jolt there can be no sizable damage, there was no measurable jolt in the destruction of the north tower.

you can discover this yourself by the following experiment:
drop a marble on the back of your hand.
increase the height of the drop until you reach your pain threshold, the pain you feel is the force so is a way to experience the force yourself.
now drop several separate marbles from that same height, the pain is still tolerable.
if you were to drop a solid object of the same substance that weighed the same as those collective several marbles from the same height, such as a glass paper weight, you would inflict severe pain on yourself an order of magnitude greater than dropping the several marbles and likely bruise or break a bone. if you don't wish to risk hurting your hand by experiencing the force yourself then rig up a weigh scale with the same experiment or reduce the drop height significantly.


#337    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 15 July 2013 - 10:55 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 14 July 2013 - 12:16 AM, said:

Haha funny, you do realize aquatus's model actually factors in a loss of mass.

How does that equate to a solid block again?

Please see my earlier description quoted above by Little Fish.

Although aquatus accepts, in his own words, “the individual components of the avalanche are moving faster or slower”, his calculations actually treat the ‘avalanche’ at every impact (after loss of mass) as a single solid object with one combined velocity.  My previous example and Little Fish’s suggested experiment above demonstrate why this is pivotal to a collapse model.

That was only one of three points I mentioned that you questioned.  How about the other two points which are equally as vital to model accurately?  Do you really think that applying pure freefall acceleration to the ‘avalanche’, upon a lower structure with zero redundancy, presents a useful model?

We are not unreasonable or ‘out to get you’ and we would not say the current model is misleading if it was not.  Neither are the criticisms impulsive - I know I have given the model fair review in some time and detail and it appears Little Fish has done the same.  Suggestions have been made and explanations provided to aquatus throughout the thread but he continues to ignore them.

We would just like to see some honest acknowledgement of the above errors and the provision of a genuine, relevant model to begin.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#338    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 July 2013 - 03:19 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 July 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

We would just like to see some honest acknowledgement of the above errors and the provision of a genuine, relevant model to begin.
After 23 pages, there is little to no chance of that happening because deep down, they know that if you apply real world physics, their theory doesn't work.

All we have discovered is that Aqua's model was designed to show us.....
".... the difference between mathematical models and real life scenarios...."

Which as Yamoto pointed out...
"....could have been stated in six words or less..."

What an epic fail of a thread, I thought it might actually give us a clue as to why panto debunkers believe in models which bear no relevance to reality what so ever! lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users