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.

# Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

page: 11
18
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 11:08 AM

Explain the picture on my other post then the slabs below the top slab were connected to the walls so how did that collapse make it to the ground it's the STRENGTH of the connections that provide the resistance not the MASS.

I dont work in demolition I test for engineers to show what maximum load a connection would take so they can work out the SAFE WORKING LOAD.

Oh and your safety factors are out I respectfully suggest you stfu if you don't actually know what you are talking about

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:24 PM

You have not proven anything. Building strength is a not a function of mass. It's how the structure is connected, how its distributes weight, the type of material, the design of columns, and the thickness of columns.

Show me a chart of load per square foot that gives recommended mass for a beam? There are charts that show load per square foot the give recommend column or beam demolitions. In fact, as beam length increases, the recommended hieght for the same given width increases. Once the proper size of the vertical studs / columns is selected, increasing their mass has no impact on floor strength. Floor strength only increases by increasing floor hardware and increasing the width of a given beam for same width.

Say a beam 2" x 10" x 14 foot can only safely hold up ten ton.

There are five 2" x 10" x 14 foot beams spaced 10 foot apart up and down. Looking straight down, the beams are in perfect alignment. Each beam is holding up a 5 ton weight. The beams are connected on each end to 100 ton vertical columns.

A twenty ton weight is dropped from ten foot above the upmost beam, breaking it. Now a twenty ton weight and a five ton weight go on to strike the second most upper beam. It breaks, and the process continues. The whole structure is over 200 tons. But the spanning beams broke because the falling mass of twenty tons overload each beam it struck.

For one of the WTC towers, the vertical columns gave way to send the mass of 28 floors crashing into the next lowest floor. The falling mass overcame the load ratings for the next lowest floor. It sheared the next lowest floor's connections because the floors load ratings were exceeded. Strain was never transferred to the vertical columns. The falling mass increased with each floor collapse. Why would a fall mass exceeding any given floors load ratings be stopped? Especially in that it increased in mass after each floor collapsed.

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:33 PM

After 15 years, you cannot layout and explain a theory on the WTC towers to supersede and cause me to abandon inward bowing and failing of vertical columns do to floor beam contraction.

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 03:17 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

After 15 years, you cannot layout and explain a theory on the WTC towers to supersede and cause me to abandon inward bowing and failing of vertical columns do to floor beam contraction.

Your lack of logic in this respect is very telling of your shallow level of thought in general.

Cases that are unsolved, are so because there is not enough data to define exactly what happened.

This is not the same however, as looking at what has been said happened and then being able to say for certain that could not be the case because of various reasons.

The above is a founding principle of both the Judiciary system, and in fact our democracy. Something, that over the last few decades has been eroded away I might add... more so recently or has become more visible at least.

Korg.

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 03:29 PM

Going to refute this with facts? Or just rant and speculate?

www.nist.gov...

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST's analyses of the structural response of the
towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.
In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).
After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 03:43 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Going to refute this with facts? Or just rant and speculate?

Surely you can muster more than a few of your own words though on this subject right? other than shoving a page of the NIST report in front of me and asking for my analysis??

O.K. then, shall we in brief breakdown what that wall of text from the report basicly means??

It basically states the obvious, that something in a gravitational field will fall... its that simple...

It then goes on to define the various values of the area undergoing collapse at the point of collapse. Note this is not about the entire collapse, just the area of initiation.

It then states that the conservation of energy was satisfied with the calculations.... that's because the calculations only take into account the section under collapse... it does not calculate the ENTIRE collapse...

A rather odd thing to do wouldn't you say?

Especially Given the report was about you know the ENTIRE collapse of the building!!

Korg.

edit on 15-12-2016 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 04:10 PM

No it's not.

The falling mass had enough force and weight to overcome any rated load capacity of any given floor. The falling mass acted as a piston hitting the next static floor, shearing the floor connections. The horizontal bracing for the vertical columns was provided by the floors, the vertical columns lost stability as each floor section was stripped away. When enough horizontal support was gone, portions of the columns would topple. It only took about 10 seconds for all the floors to shear away and crash to the ground. It took longer for the vertical columns to completely topple over. Vertical columns were left standing for a few seconds after all the floors sheared and fell to the ground as documented in video.

Prove the first static floor hit by the falling mass could withstand the applied load of the equivalent of being hit by the mass of more than six floors.

Prove that a falling mass greater than any load capacity of an individual floor, and growing in force, would have been stopped.

If vertical columns thickness and capacity is adequately designed, prove individual floor strength and load capacity is a function of building mass.

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 04:50 PM

Want to explain this

STILL WAITING according to YOU and some CONSTRUCTION challenge Physicists this should be impossible the MASS below the ONE and only failing floor slab dropped on the next overloaded the connections that MASS then dropped on the next etc etc.

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 05:56 PM

originally posted by: wmd_2008

Want to explain this

STILL WAITING according to YOU and some CONSTRUCTION challenge Physicists this should be impossible the MASS below the ONE and only failing floor slab dropped on the next overloaded the connections that MASS then dropped on the next etc etc.

Explain what exactly?

Do you really think it is possible to give you a satisfactory answer to an unknown question about an unknown building in a state of sever damage caused by an unknown source.

I mean come on, I am not omnipotent!
edit on 15-12-2016 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 08:29 PM

YOU have been told EXACTLY what happened top slab dropped on the one below and collapse continued to ground level. THAT shoul be impossible according to YOU as the MASS below that slab was greater.

YET like the towers because the DYNAMIC load was enough to overload the connectins on the slab impacted by the top it failed this mass then dropped on slab below and repeat till ground level..

So if floor slabs are SUSPENDED between walls like the TOWERS and example above a TOTAL collapse can EASILY occur.

SO what are your thoughts NOW

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:08 AM

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

Also your desperation to pin a theory on me so you can attempt to google how to defend against this or that is as transparent as is your lack of basic phyics comprehension.

And to answer your question, I do not have enough data to say how it was done, only I can say for certain that the collapse did not occur as the OS states it did, because it does not conform to how matter reacts... in our universe at least.

It's not desperation. It's about facts. You cannot present an alternate theory to supersede inward bowing yet tell people they should abandon the mechanism proven most likely by evidence and events.

The pre-collapse and inward bowing of WTC 2 video
www.metabunk.org...

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 03:57 AM

originally posted by: wmd_2008

YOU have been told
YOU have been told
YOU have been told
YOU have been told
YOU have been told
YOU have been told
YOU have been told
YOU have been told

Hilarious!

Analysis....

All Caps on 'YOU'

So you are attempting to intimidate and is like looking down upon and pointing a finger in ones chest as though I were a child

'Have been told'

This is very telling, it further highlights your self belief that you are somehow above me and have the right to 'TELL' me something as in a telling off...

It also points to the fact that you believe people should in the first instance believe what they have been told... There is little wonder that you are either a conspirator or a person who blindly believes what the authorities tell you.

But we digress...

I repeat... all the data i have presented concerning the collapse of the WTC is not wrong. I have not posted anything that could be refuted.

The arguments here fall under the following two categories...

1. Post something form the NIST report that they think would be hard for me to understand, only to discover I not only understand it but can pick it apart.

2. Attempt to discredit me by trying to get me to stand behind a specific theory, even though there is not enough information.

Both are transparent and easy to overcome, with knowledge, logic and a clear head.

I'll remember this little exchange next time I drop something and the force of nature grabs hold of it and forces it towards the ground... I'll say in my mind.. "NO YOU have been told that the laws of physics don't apply here"

Maybe that will work!

Korg.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 05:00 AM

You practice intellectual dishonesty by only ranting and repeatedly ignoring questions ask of you.

After 15 years, can you give one theory and outline how it supersedes inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.

Has no understand that individual floor load ratings are independent of building mass, but dependent on floor design and floor connection design. Using your logic..... A karate chop from a 150 pound person breaking three or four boards held by a four hundred pound person should be impossible.

Video of WTC proves inward bowing and vertical columns did not collapse until their horizontal support supplied by the floor sections were sheared away.

Prove the first static floor hit by the falling mass could withstand the applied load of the equivalent of being hit by the mass of more than six floors.

Prove that a falling mass greater than any load capacity of an individual floor, and growing in force, would have been stopped

If vertical columns thickness and capacity is adequately designed, prove individual floor strength and load capacity is a function of building mass.

In your model, where is the breaking point for a 110 story building. If the building gave way so the top 54 floors fell onto the next lower floor, the 56 remaining floors would stop the collapse?

Did the witnessed collapse speed of the towers need CD.

For the false CD narrative.....

How the ignition system requiring precession timing survived the jet impacts which severed elevator and fire water header service. A ignition system able to corrrect for the inconsistencies in thermite burn times. As much as a 15 second variant in burn time per charge.

How the presence of a detonation system for hundreds of charges was robust enough to survive the fires, but not found in the hand search for evidence in the WTC debris.

Amazing that a never before CD of a high rise office building over fifty floors took place successfully twice in one day.

Amazing a never before top down demolition of a high rise office building successfully took place twice in one day.

Amazing inconsistent burning thermite was used for the first time successfully twice in one day for the first ever CD of buildings over 50 floors with a perfectly floor by floor top down sequence?

edit on 16-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Remove paragraph not really a question. Added vertical columns remains for short time

edit on 16-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Removed two repetitions paragraphs

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 05:03 AM

Yet, after 15 years, you have failed to produce one alternate to inward bowing.

The pre-collapse and inward bowing of WTC 2 video
www.metabunk.org...

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 05:54 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Yet, after 15 years, you have failed to produce one alternate to inward bowing.

The pre-collapse and inward bowing of WTC 2 video
www.metabunk.org...

Repeating the insult won't reach me any more than the first five times, neither will continuously attempting to get me to stand behind one of your predefined theories of what happened....

I already stated there simply isn't enough information to say for certain how it was done.. only that the OS cannot be true due to something you know that the entire universe conforms to.... PHYSICS!

Explain where is the Logic in stating that the answer is X when you do not have enough information to state that X is the answer?

Korg.

edit on 16-12-2016 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 06:14 AM

Another TRUTHER snacked in the face with an EVENT that confirms that indeed the floors in the Towers could collapse to ground level due to their DESIGN.

Your answers show your lack of knowledge of construction and how the physics apply to the DESIGN.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 07:00 AM

originally posted by: wmd_2008

Another TRUTHER snacked in the face with an EVENT that confirms that indeed the floors in the Towers could collapse to ground level due to their DESIGN.

Your answers show your lack of knowledge of construction and how the physics apply to the DESIGN.

An so now that I refuse to stand by a Predefined theory door, the move to discount and dismiss Laws of Physics and label me a truther anyway.

You people are literally a joke. I mean the only way you could make anything stick is if you put me in a kangaroo court, which of course ATS is on the subject of 911.

Just like the Moaning Remainers of Britain and the sour losing Hillary supporters of the US... You people think persistence alone is enough to force your agenda.... Only it isn't and is the reason the light always extinguishes the darkness..

You cannot slap a lie onto something because you don't know the truth and say that anyone looking for the truth is somehow wrong and should be ostracized for the search of the truth.

It is then completely oxymoronic to call me out for being a 'Truther' because indeed I hunt for the Truth and this is somehow been turned around by the name 'Truther' to mean something bad.

Sorry I won't stand behind your idea of what a truther means... but I will stand for the search of the truth and the rejection of known falsehood just because the truth is not known.

I believe your shrivelling attempted to bate me are rather like a minnow attempting to eat a blue wale....

Korg.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 07:11 AM
I really don't see how anyone can think a floor can hold up more weight than it is capable of holding. How does that work?

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 08:21 AM

You cant UNDERSTAND what is happening there is NO shame in it refusing to accept what is shown and refusing to answer the question I posted re the collapse building picture tells everyone else what they need to know about YOU so keep up the good work.

Oh I will have fries with that

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 10:04 AM

originally posted by: mrthumpy
I really don't see how anyone can think a floor can hold up more weight than it is capable of holding. How does that work?

Think of it this way... each floor was capable of holding X maximum where X is a variable dependant on a number of factors.

If the load of the floor is beyond X it would collapse... agreed?

So the calculation for this would have to include the weight of the falling material minus the tolerance value X of each floor compounded. Now given that there was a great deal less material above the collapse than was below the collapse then the calculations show that what we should have seen is a slow down in the rate of collapse.

There simply wasn't enough energy in the collapsing part of the building to pulverise the entire building into dust.

This is not theory, it is defined by the very Laws of Physics themselves.

What we actually observed was in fact the exact opposite of what physics state should have happened.... an acceleration in the rate of collapse...

The only way the collapse could accelerate at the rate it did would be if there was next to zero resistance to the material falling... and that is why the OS doesn't add up.

Do you see?

Korg.

edit on 16-12-2016 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

18