It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

page: 13
23
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:21 PM

It has nothing to do with twisting of facts.

Take this example. There are two vertical columns ten foot apart. The columns are twenty feet tall, straight above grade. You can rate the vertical columns for a million tons if you like.

At 17 feet and 9 feet above grade, a steel horizontal beam spans the gap between the vertical columns. Each horizontal beam is rated for only 220 pound person. ( There is a reason I use 220 pound person. Look up harness safety for all the math.)

Recap. At 17 feet above grade, a horizontal beam with a 10 foot span is attached to the vertical columns. The beam is rated for 220 pounds.

At 9 feet, an identical horizontal beam spans the vertical columns.

A person of 220 pounds will not shear the beam at 17 feet if they walk across the horizontal span.

Now the person is standing on top of a vertical column. That person of 220 pounds jumps onto the horizontal beam at 17 feet above grade. That 220 pound person will strike the horizontal beam with a force of 900 pounds, and shear that beam. (Don't believe the math, look up ratings for safety harness anchor / tie off points.)

It's an example, don't get up tight. Say the falling person and the mass of the sheared beam both impact the remaining horizontal beam at nine feet. This results in two objects, still accelerating due to gravity, and striking the horizontal beam at 9 feet with over 900 pounds of force.

Now. How did the beam at 9 foot add any support to the beam at 17 foot.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:46 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Now. How did the beam at 9 foot add any support to the beam at 17 foot.

In this case? The beam at 9 ft. didn't have to support the weight because the beams above it turned to dust.

That's also why the rubble pile didn't even reach the height of the lobby.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:57 PM

originally posted by: facedye

so you're saying the building snowballed on its way down?

Yes.

EDIT: i feel like this is a really simple question.

when 30 floors of building material fall on 80 floors of building material, is nothing being destroyed in the process?

Nothing is simple with bad data.

Yes, the floor and connections are destroyed. After a few floors down, the vertical columns will start to lean and buckle.

The total falling mass is not destroyed. It grows floor by floor. The mass is constantly being accelerated by gravity, unless it hits terminal velocity. If a floor offers some resistance, but yields, gravity will cause the acceleration process to start again.

are you saying that if only the top floor fell on the bottom 100 floors, the entire building would collapse?

It depends. If 10,000 tons fell on a ten story structure only rated 500 tons each floor, yes.

If that same building had a max rating of 20,OOO on the ninth floor instead, no.

It also depends on if you could load that 10,000 tons perfectly on the vertical columns. That is the narrative you were stuck on.

Or the 10,000 tons hits only the decking of the top floor, so all the energy is transferred via floor connections to columns. If the impact causes the floor to columns connections to shear, then there may never be a chance that any meaningful energy was transferred to the vertical columns.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:13 PM

are you saying that if only the top floor fell on the bottom 100 floors, the entire building would collapse?

I believe someone found that one floor could hold 6 floors worth of weight IF IT WERE APPLIED GRADUALLY.
Not the 30 floors that actually fell first.

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:39 AM

It depends. If 10,000 tons fell on a ten story structure only rated 500 tons each floor, yes.

you just confirmed that if 1 floor fell on 109 floors of steel columns, you believe the entire building may very well collapse.

you have just proven to everyone here with a basic college level education that you have no idea what you're talking about.

EDIT: I've also asked you several times now if you've ever taken a physics class. you've refrained from answering this question several times. I'm going to assume the answer is no unless you state otherwise.

does going over the math of kinetic vs. potential energy in the context of a building collapse with physics professors count as "getting info from conspiracy sites," or "pushing conspiratorial talking points?"

because i've done that. have you done that?

i think my job here is done. there's nothing left for us to talk about.
edit on 22-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:41 AM

originally posted by: samkent

are you saying that if only the top floor fell on the bottom 100 floors, the entire building would collapse?

I believe someone found that one floor could hold 6 floors worth of weight IF IT WERE APPLIED GRADUALLY.
Not the 30 floors that actually fell first.

you, too, have proven yourself to be logically inadequate with this statement.

all 30 floors fall, right? that means all 80 floors take the impact.

there is zero merit and zero science in your line of thinking on this.

EDIT:

when a car slams into a bus, does only the front of the bus take the impact?

when someone sits on your shoulders, is it only your shoulders that hold up the other person?

you account for a kinetic load of 30 floors that fall *all at once,* but don't account for a potential load of 80 floors *all at once?*

before you go any further, substantiate what you're saying. show me any example, building or otherwise, that conveys the physical phenomenon you're describing.

also, this is probably worth asking you too - have you ever taken a physics class?
edit on 22-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:47 AM

originally posted by: facedye
.

all 30 floors fall, right? that means all 80 floors take the impact.
.

No. The burden of proof is on you.

It's been explained. Links have been provided.

30 of the most upper floors of a tower fall. Like a ram rod, the mass strikes the floor below it. Whatever impact energy hits the static decking must travel through the decking, floor steel, and floor to column connections before it is absorbed into the vertical columns. For the tenth time, if the floor connections yield / shear, there is no path for the energy of collapse to travel to the vertical columns. The falling floors are failing at their weakest point.

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:52 AM

have you ever taken a physics class?

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:02 AM

originally posted by: facedye

have you ever taken a physics class?

You haven't even used shear strength, yield, tensile strength, potential energy, tension, or given facts how energy hitting a floor is simultaneously transmitted to 80 other floors. A force hitting floor decking uses the steel as a conduit for travel at specific speeds.

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:04 AM

have you ever taken a physics class?

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:05 AM

originally posted by: facedye

have you ever taken a physics class?

Have you taken a class in conspiracy theories, pulverization, thermodynamics, demolitions, metallurgy.

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:06 AM

have you ever taken a physics class?

pulverization, thermodynamics, demolitions and metallurgy are all topics in a scholastic physics course.

so.. again, have you ever taken a physics class?

edit on 22-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:16 AM

originally posted by: facedye

have you ever taken a physics class?

Dude. You are treating Gage's reference to Newtonian physics like a religion to ignore metallurgy, thermodynamics, failure modes of steel, building design, potential energy, and studies how stress and strain are applied and travel through steel.

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:17 AM

so, no? you've never taken a physics course in high school or college?

I'm referring to Newtonian physics, not Richard gage. I've been speaking about newton's laws this whole time.

so.. again.. have you taken a physics course while you were in school?

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:21 AM

You ever graduate from a technically school or engineering school. Specialized in a technical field. Taken technology courses.

Do you even know what metallurgy is?

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:25 AM
Have you ever taken welding classes for structures or classes on the principles on the bolting of mechanical flanges and connections.

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:26 AM

thank you for showing ATS that you have no knowledgeable understanding nor scholastic credibility to speak about what caused the twin towers to be reduced to rubble no more than a few floors high.

i've taken physics courses. this is what allows me to speak about Newtonian laws. I've done enough experiments and have had enough conversations with my professors to understand what these principles mean, and how they're applied.

have you ever taken a physics course?

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:29 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux
Have you ever taken welding classes for structures or classes on the principles on the bolting of mechanical flanges and connections.

have you?

because you'd probably need a few physics courses under your belt to even begin understanding that process.

hmm.. what about those physics courses? have you taken any of those?

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:36 AM

I am out have here. You don't even know what metallurgy is about. So sad. A single physics class is like the kindergarten of the mechanical sciences.

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:38 AM

so you've taken a few of them, then?

new topics

top topics

23