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: 12
21
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 10:31 AM

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

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.

OK so how much energy was there and how much would be required?

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 10:41 AM

What UTTER BS stick to keyboards each FLOOR SLAB had the same design apart from the 3 service floors. They all had the same truss seats same size of bolts etc .

The wall and core columns were larger at base and decreased in section higher up the towers .

What held the floor slab in position and had to resist the loading was the TRUSS SEATS if they failed guess what can't make ut any more simple for you.

edit on 16-12-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:00 AM

Show the calculation in which separate floors only connected at separate ends to vertical columns and with no connections to the floor above and below aided each other's load ratings.

Each separate floor of the WTC only transferred load to the vertical columns.

There was no way for the first static floor decimated by the collapse of the upper building to transfer load to the floor below it.

The collapse shearing the connections to the vertical columns prevented energy transfer to the tower foundation. The only thing you are correct in, the collapse did not destroy the vertical columns. The columns only tumbled over when enough horizontal support was removed.

Each static floor struck took the entire energy of the falling mass with no means to transfer the energy to the next floor below.

Energy transfer and transmission during the collapse was only through the falling mass. Other than the energy absorbed while shearing floor connections.

I have tried to be nice, but you just don't get the physics of the tube in tube and independent floor WTC design.

You need to show how energy was transferred through a series of floors structurally independent of each other.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:13 AM
But one also has to remember the strength of a vertical column is in its ability to transfer strain straight down to the foundation. If a column deformes, the area of buckle acts as a check point taking the strain and interrupts energy transfer to the foundation.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 12:42 PM

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

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.

9/11 is one of the most documented events ever. Because you choose to ignore logical evidence and choose the pseudoscience of people like Richard Gauge, Steven Jones, and Dr Wood is not my fault.

If you cannot offer and debate an alternate theory than inward bowing and collapse, your efforts here are pretty useless. Especially when you do not hold conspiracy theories to the same scrutiny as inward bowing.
edit on 16-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Added richard

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 05:44 PM

originally posted by: mrthumpy

OK so how much energy was there and how much would be required?

You say o.k. than ask for how much energy would be required?

To answer your question is a little hard as there are some variables that we simply do not know. It is clear however that the OS which is based upon the NIST report doesn't give an answer to this either, or rather an inadequate partial answer.

This is why If we were to give our figures and someone else gave their figures, there may be disparity between the values.

It's far better to deal with the logic as a whole than to get bogged down in debating details that are subject to estimation.

Therefore the question should be:

'How can the rate of collapse be accelerating following a curve one would expect at free fall, when the equation requires the collapsing system to lose energy at the rate of resistance of each floor compounded (which is resistance of each floor times the number of floors being collapsed onto)?'

Do you see?

Korg.

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

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 05:53 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

If you cannot offer and debate an alternate theory than inward bowing and collapse, your efforts here are pretty useless. Especially when you do not hold conspiracy theories to the same scrutiny as inward bowing.

Again you show yourself up as being very shallow.

Just because I cannot offer you a theory as to what happened, only that the OS cannot be correct because of two laws of physics that I am somehow useless?

I would hope that understanding that the OS is woefully inadequate as an explanation to what happened is enough for investigation and discussion.

You however seem to want people to blindly accept the OS even though it it has been shown to be incorrect or simply ignores the important elements all together.

The OS a bit like you, moves to a conclusion.. skipping over the parts it cannot deal with... wash and repeat!

Korg.

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

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 05:58 PM

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

To answer your question is a little hard as there are some variables that we simply do not know. It is clear however that the OS which is based upon the NIST report doesn't give an answer to this either, or rather an inadequate partial answer.

Korg.

Remember this? The NIST doesn't have an answer? Why does the movement only deal in half truths or flat out innuendo.

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.

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

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 07:03 PM

WOW even more BS especially the last paragraph you have a special skill you make Judy Woods death ray seem plausible.

The MASS increases during the collapse the resistance of the floor slab connections does not.

It doesn't reach freefall speed that's more truther BS but then again you have displayed you don't even understand the construction in the first place.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 07:14 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Remember this? The NIST doesn't have an answer? Why does the movement only deal in half truths or flat out innuendo.

I think you're the one with the memory issue... I already addressed this... this actually only accounts for the initial collapse, it does not account for the collapse in its totality...

How many times am I going to have to answer the same question I wonder?

Korg.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 07:21 PM

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 07:24 PM

I have also stated the equivalent energy release was about 600 tons of TNT and powerful enough to have its seismic data recorded 30 miles away with no seismic evidence of CD.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 08:22 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

For all the percistance you may muster, you can never make a falshood into a truth... Keep it up.. I'm enjoying bouncing all your extremely weak attempts.

Slap this one on for size...

Already Answered you, this post is one of Four all answering the same question from you... Click ME....

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 08:47 PM

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

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.

You are being intellectual dishonesty again. You made a speculation with no supporting evidence.

Then your speculation was met with me answering. The force of collapse went into the breaking and shearing of floor to vertical column connections. The force of collapse was effectively not transferred to the vertical columns.

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, 16 2016 @ 08:50 PM

Bottom line, if there was seismic data the energy of collapse was captured. Is that a false statement?

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 09:44 PM

Remember... What was observed was an actual acceleration in the rate of Collapse....

In all my time here on ATS I have avoided the 911 threads because it's such a huge topic, with religious like fervour, akin to the "was Jesus a historical person".
Having watched the videos I somehow find it incredulous how no one can account for the acceleration in the rate of collapse. In my mind this can never be adequately explained away
edit on 16-12-2016 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 12:25 AM

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight

Having watched the videos I somehow find it incredulous how no one can account for the acceleration in the rate of collapse. In my mind this can never be adequately explained away

And yet, to me, the buildings fell like anything would under the influence of gravity IE accelerating at a rate determined by the drag of the medium until it reached a terminal velocity where the forces were in balance. The design of those towers meant the floors were no stronger at the bottom than they were on the highest levels (with the exception of the 'mechanical' floors which were around 50% stronger).

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:58 AM

EXACTLY the problem seems to be on the truther side they don't seem to get the the mass falling on the floor slabs is driving the collapse and has been pointed out since day one the floor slab design is same top to bottom except for the sevice/mechanical floor. Once the floor slabs are removed the walls and core lose stability.

The truther side see it as a 2 mass problem but its not.

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 07:45 AM

You said you and your coworkers would have a good laugh over this thread?

Where do you work? I work with various engineers daily, but using a little common sense and observation, I realize most people are not into conspiracy theories. One way or another, most people are done in about 30 seconds.

The only couple that I know that enjoys talking about conspiracists is more about the psychological and perpetuation of a hoax by conspiracists. They too where open minded until burnt by all the Bigfoot, UFO, Alien Artifact, Crop Circle, Man didn't land on the moon, and Flying Rod hoaxes.

Either you are totally oblivious to other people's reactions.

A zealous conspiracist.

Work for AE911truth

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 08:59 AM

Right. So you have no idea what should have happened but you can't believe it happened the way that is claimed.

Fair enough. As long as I know all you have is an argument from incredulity. Thanks for clearing that up

top topics

21