BiBi Netanyahu explains why they did 9-ll (Page 9): If you understand math, Please inform readers why this equation is not correct: The following is the Equation that proves that the...

payne1000

emarine wrote:

The English language is nothing more than a bunch of contradictory rules where logic is irrelevant taught by repetition... not so much in math ...math is the closest form of a universal language & it's a shame that you don't understand it... now why does I come before E except after C?...explain the logic in detail... Mr. grammar Nazi...

If you understand math,
Please inform readers why this equation is not correct:

The following is the Equation that proves that the 911 Twin Towers could not possibly have collapsed due to exploding plane crashes and extremely widespread and intense fires.

CL(95) = 20*LL(95)
= 20*[5*DL(95)]
= 100*DL(95)
= 100*(95/15)DL(15)
= 100*6.33*DL(15)
= 633*DL(15)
= 633 Force Units of upward support
where,
CL = Collapse Load for 100% & Total Collapse
LL = Live Load = Occupied & Furnished Weight
DL = Dead Load = Unoccupied, Unfurnished
110 = 110 Floor Steel WTC
95 = 95 Floor Steel Block (Lower Block)
15 = 15 Floor Steel Block (Top Block)
20 = Collapse Load Factor of John Skilling
5 = Live Load Factor of Ronald Hamburger
of NIST

Therefore, it required the Force of Weight of 633 15-Floor-Blocks pressing down on one 95-Floor-Steel-Block before the possibility of total collapse could possibly occur.

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

If you understand math, br Please inform readers w... (show quote)

You have already asked this question & it has already been answered many times...memory problem?... the use of repetitive junk in your argument proves your argument is nothing but repetitive junk... fact is you have not provided anything worth debate in a very long time & only answer questions with questions not answers...

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

If you understand math, br Please inform readers w... (show quote)

Ok... I'm bored & the wife's out so your experts equation is a static weight formula regarding the equal & opposite reaction relating to the 3rd law of motion of the steel columns not the floor system ... instead of the very dynamic event of the WTC towers collapse... I also find it interesting that you simply didn't understand anything of what you posted considering the fact that John skilling died before 911 & had no way of knowing anything about the events of 911... Skilling's weight factor of 20 is funny involving F=M*A relating to the Kinetic energy on 911...I think you're purposely trying to make David chandler look smarter or you know absolutely nothing ...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

payne1000 wrote:

If you understand math, br Please inform readers w... (show quote)

OK.

First of all that mess does not apply any scientific formula in existence. There is nothing in that list of designations that relates to any force, volume, velocity, motion, momentum, mass, weight, or any other physical element that can be measured or quantified through the application of the laws of physics and math.

The only 'equation" in there is grade school math: 95/15 = 6.33 x 100 = 633. Which tells us exactly nothing. There is no such thing as "Force Units of upward support". Where that came from is anyone's guess.

Boldwyn posted that ridiculous concoction in the comment section of Taking a Closer Look on the garlicandgrass website where it just sits there without comment or debate. And he adds:

I am in possession of the most critical information that all of the 911 researchers have been longing and praying for some Physicist to uncover. The wait for conclusive proof is over. Just request my paper to be sent to you via your email address.

Chuck Boldwyn

Apparently, Boldwyn is keeping his mad science close to the vest. If I had come up with that crap, I sure as hell wouldn't want any real scientists looking at it.

FYI: the STEEL BLOCK THEORY is about as bogus as it gets.

emarine

Blade_Runner wrote:

OK. br br First of all that mess does not apply a... (show quote)

If I remember correctly Boldwyn took the math from a old NIST paper concerning the total gradational requirements of all the vertical columns in compression and worked backwards from there ...it is useless information @ best proving absolutely nothing... but it impresses payne...

payne1000

emarine wrote:

Ok... I'm bored & the wife's out so your exper... (show quote)

Famous scientist Richard Feynman said: "If it doesn't match the experiment, it's wrong."
Boldwyn's equation matches the experiment below.
Your theory does not.
Your theory is wrong.

payne1000

[quote=Blade_Runner]OK.

First of all that mess does not apply any scientific formula in existence. There is nothing in that list of designations that relates to any force, volume, velocity, motion, momentum, mass, weight, or any other physical element that can be measured or quantified through the application of the laws of physics and math.

The only 'equation" in there is grade school math: 95/15 = 6.33 x 100 = 633. Which tells us exactly nothing. There is no such thing as "Force Units of upward support". Where that came from is anyone's guess. "The normal force is the 'support force' exerted upon an object that is in contact with another stable object. For example, if a book is resting upon a surface, then the surface is exerting an upward force upon the book in order to support the weight of the book." http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l2b.cfm
The "Force Units of upward support" in the 95 undamaged floors were the same force units which had supported the 15 upper floors for over half a century. The weight of those 15 floors didn't change on 9/11. The same physics which allows "upward support" of the flimsy drinking straw assembly to stop a falling brick applies to the 95 undamaged lower floors of the North Tower.

Boldwyn posted that ridiculous concoction in the comment section of Taking a Closer Look on the garlicandgrass website where it just sits there without comment or debate. And he adds:

I am in possession of the most critical information that all of the 911 researchers have been longing and praying for some Physicist to uncover. The wait for conclusive proof is over. Just request my paper to be sent to you via your email address.

Chuck Boldwyn

Apparently, Boldwyn is keeping his mad science close to the vest. If I had come up with that crap, I sure as hell wouldn't want any real scientists looking at it.

FYI: the STEEL BLOCK THEORY is about as bogus as it gets. According to your bogus theory, the top section of 15 floors became detached from the bottom 95 floors. Since the steel framework of both sections of floors were still connected as one unit in both of those sections, they could be accurately referred to as "blocks."

payne1000

emarine wrote:

If I remember correctly Boldwyn took the math from a old NIST paper concerning the total gradational requirements of all the vertical columns in compression and worked backwards from there ...it is useless information @ best proving absolutely nothing... but it impresses payne...

Why don't you explain to readers what "total gradational requirements of all the vertical columns in compression" means?
Maybe you can supply a link to that "old" NIST paper.
I'm sure the structural engineers who designed the towers paid a lot of attention to how much weight the tower columns could support in compression.
It was many times the weight they actually held up.

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

Famous scientist Richard Feynman said: "If it doesn't match the experiment, it's wrong."
Boldwyn's equation matches the experiment below.
Your theory does not.
Your theory is wrong.

On 911 the top section fell onto a damaged section below... the plane impact effected 3 floors structurally allowing the top mass to push the outer frame outward over thin air once in motion... design your brick experiment to reflect these issues & report back the test results...the outer frame didn't fail in compression it peeled outward... you must now figure it out & stop reposting the irrelevant brick & straw man over & over again...

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

Why don't you explain to readers what "total gradational requirements of all the vertical columns in compression" means?
Maybe you can supply a link to that "old" NIST paper.
I'm sure the structural engineers who designed the towers paid a lot of attention to how much weight the tower columns could support in compression.
It was many times the weight they actually held up.

the total gravitational load simply means the total of all loads... There was a good reason the outer frame was almost twice as strong as you "massive" central core... now I used the word "almost" once again...you do understand it rather than pick on my voice program...Herr grammar neo Nazi ...

emarine

[quote=payne1000]

Blade_Runner wrote:

OK.

First of all that mess does not apply any scientific formula in existence. There is nothing in that list of designations that relates to any force, volume, velocity, motion, momentum, mass, weight, or any other physical element that can be measured or quantified through the application of the laws of physics and math.

The only 'equation" in there is grade school math: 95/15 = 6.33 x 100 = 633. Which tells us exactly nothing. There is no such thing as "Force Units of upward support". Where that came from is anyone's guess. "The normal force is the 'support force' exerted upon an object that is in contact with another stable object. For example, if a book is resting upon a surface, then the surface is exerting an upward force upon the book in order to support the weight of the book." http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l2b.cfm
The "Force Units of upward support" in the 95 undamaged floors were the same force units which had supported the 15 upper floors for over half a century. The weight of those 15 floors didn't change on 9/11. The same physics which allows "upward support" of the flimsy drinking straw assembly to stop a falling brick applies to the 95 undamaged lower floors of the North Tower.

Boldwyn posted that ridiculous concoction in the comment section of Taking a Closer Look on the garlicandgrass website where it just sits there without comment or debate. And he adds:

I am in possession of the most critical information that all of the 911 researchers have been longing and praying for some Physicist to uncover. The wait for conclusive proof is over. Just request my paper to be sent to you via your email address.

Chuck Boldwyn

Apparently, Boldwyn is keeping his mad science close to the vest. If I had come up with that crap, I sure as hell wouldn't want any real scientists looking at it.

FYI: the STEEL BLOCK THEORY is about as bogus as it gets. According to your bogus theory, the top section of 15 floors became detached from the bottom 95 floors. Since the steel framework of both sections of floors were still connected as one unit in both of those sections, they could be accurately referred to as "blocks."

OK. br br First of all that mess does not apply a... (show quote)

You Quote...The weight of those 15 floors didn't change on 9/11.... I thought your good grammar skills allowed you to think clearly?... How much does a fully loaded 767 weigh?... now add it to the live loading of the floor system... this isn't physics here just logic...

payne1000

emarine wrote:

the total gravitational load simply means the total of all loads... There was a good reason the outer frame was almost twice as strong as you "massive" central core... now I used the word "almost" once again...you do understand it rather than pick on my voice program...Herr grammar neo Nazi ...

Good to see you admit the outer frame was so strong . . . much too strong to collapse from anything other than cutting charges and high explosives . . . same as all other skyscrapers in the 100-year history of skyscrapers. None had ever fallen from fire or anything else.

payne1000

emarine wrote:

You Quote...The weight of those 15 floors didn't change on 9/11.... I thought your good grammar skills allowed you to think clearly?... How much does a fully loaded 767 weigh?... now add it to the live loading of the floor system... this isn't physics here just logic...

The weight of a 767 could have been added to every floor in the towers without causing collapse.

payne1000

emarine wrote:

On 911 the top section fell onto a damaged section below... the plane impact effected 3 floors structurally allowing the top mass to push the outer frame outward over thin air once in motion... design your brick experiment to reflect these issues & report back the test results...the outer frame didn't fail in compression it peeled outward... you must now figure it out & stop reposting the irrelevant brick & straw man over & over again...

Watch the initiation of the collapse of the North Tower. The floors come straight down as they would when cutting charges are used to cut the columns. The peeling doesn't occur until the explosives start to remove the lower floors. www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

Richard Rowland

emarine wrote:

Read the "protocols" or charter of the M... (show quote)

This sounds as if you've just described yourself, emarine! Plus, I don't recall hearing of a "Muslim Brotherhood" before the establishment of the Zionist state of Israel. Look, emarine, I've concluded you know nothing of anything other than the material you're fed by those paying you. What's your age? That should indicate how much history you have actually lived and know.