Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
SanderO wrote:Why blame NIST for the fact that WE can't see past the facade?
SnowCrash wrote:If I may, although I very much appreciate the discussion of 'blocks' and 'blockheads' to lay bare a rigid frame of mind, and a tendency to think in dogma, one can overshoot the target.
Since I'm an IT guy, you can chalk me up as a typical blockhead. The WTC collapses were an extremely large set of interacting collisions and sub-collisions resulting in the orderly chaos we all saw on TV, or, if you were unlucky enough to be there, with your own (spherical) eyes. Years ago, a brilliant teacher in 3D design already tried to tell me not to think of the WTC collapse in terms of Newtonian mechanics alone, but to consider quantum mechanics as well. Perhaps this should have been posted in one of Major Tom's excellent threads, but I'll post it here:
As stated in the above Youtube video description: "Newtonian determinism is bullshit."
If you increase the granularity of a block-based Newtonian simulation you can approximate complex collisions well enough to yield a meaningful result. The rub is in the granularity chosen, and made possible by the technological means available. Like a 4x4x2 picture can't properly render a circle, a 4000x4000x2^24 picture can, and the higher the resolution and the color depth, the better the approximation of the abstract, non-block object.
I agree with and appreciate the objections made about blocks and blockhead thinking. But I disagree with the a priori dismissal of block-based analysis as hopelessly inadequate.
If there was any way for us to incorporate quantum mechanics into any simulation, we should and we probably would.
Major_Tom, it may amuse you to find out that Seffen's work might be in error as to the magnitude of terminal acceleration achieved, claimed to be g/2.
Major_Tom wrote:OWE:Major_Tom, it may amuse you to find out that Seffen's work might be in error as to the magnitude of terminal acceleration achieved, claimed to be g/2.
OWE, do you have follow-up work with the Seffen g/2 thing?
When looking at WTC1 and 2, I think it helps to know some basic mechanics of some simple, stacked systems of masses, and the first 4 pages of this thread demonstrate this type of motion better than anywhere else.
Major_Tom wrote:In this thread OWE states very clearly that he is examining motion of a simple stacked set of masses in 1 dimension and this does not represent anything like the behavior of an actual building.
OneWhiteEye wrote:Major_Tom wrote:OWE, if he is correct in saying that g/2 convergence is expected in a whole class of problems, that is worth double checking. He calls it a "variable-mass system where the mass, initially at rest, is entrained by a non-impulsive action. "
Thank you for highlighting it in this way. Common knowledge...
I understand now (enough of it) and I think Seffen is wrong. See here and next few posts.
Major_Tom wrote:Quote from page 6 of this thread. Link goes to phys.org.
The last post in that thread is dated January, 2012.
Was there any follow-up between you and Dr B?
Did you write more on the Seffen g/2 thing anywhere else or does the linked thread cover the latest of your comments?
Major_Tom wrote:I was able to turn the information in this thread into 2 "papers".
A STUDY OF SIMPLE 1 DIMENSIONAL STACKED SYSTEMS
and the bonus paper:
Review1 of Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis by Keith Seffen
These papers are short but high quality. They are consistent with my "don't reinvent the wheel" approach to collecting information.
If you can't beat 'em, link to their stuff.
Also written as a presentation:
Models of Inelastic Accretion
Attributes of a Rubble Driven Collapse
I need these quality presentations as icing on the ROOSD cake.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests