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.

# Physics of 9/11...

page: 2
9
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by iamcpc

We, after estimating the weight of the top 30 floors of the WTC tower, determined that the falling top portion of the building had about 400 times the amount of force that the airplane had when it hit...

This doesn't make sense, how did you determine that force? How did you estimate the floors weight, and did you take into account the structures ability to hold that weight as it was designed to do?

Just dropping that weight might get the effect you're looking for, if you ignore the structures ability to resist it's own collapse.

Also there is no evidence that the top portion fell at all. In fact how would it? How would all 48 core columns become severed from the aircraft impacts? The top independently falling unattached from the rest of the structure is a NIST myth that should not be taken seriously imo as there is no evidence or even explanation of how it could happen.

Have you looked at WTC2? The top didn't drop it started tilting off the side, the rest of the building fell from under it causing the top to stop it's angular momentum and follow the bottom down. It did no crushing.

What would the WTC look like if each floor got hit with 3.9 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplanes? A big pile of rubble.

Irrelevant, it didn't happen.

They explained that the building collapsed through the path of least resistance. How is that possible? How is the the path of the least resistance through the support structure? I started understanding after they explained to me.
When you have the top portion of the building accelerating downward at 8.9 m/s with X newtons of force and the suuport structure can only hold 1/10th X and the amount of force needed to cause the falling top portion to stop falling straight down and fall to the side is 1/5th X the path of least resistance involves crushing the support structure.

Where did you get those figure from? And again no portion of the buildings accelerated downward independent of the rest of the structure. You can make the hypothesis work if you blindly except what NIST said, otherwise it's garbage.

The floors could hold at least 2x their own weight, that is the MINIMUM requirement for buildings, and usefully the figure is a lot higher. So where do you get the structure could only hold 1/10th X?

The collapse didn't have the force because it fell at 8.9m/s, it fell at 8.9m/s because it met no resistance.

Your prof sounds like NIST starting with a conclusion and then trying to make the evidence fit that conclusion.

Think about crushing an aluminum can with a cinderblock. The aluminum can collapsed downward through it's support structure which is also the path of the least resistance. The force needed to cause the cinderblock to fall sideways and only partially crush the can is greater than the force the can will support.

This analogy fails. An aluminum can doesn't have a path of least resistance, there is no internal structure to keep it from being crushed as easily from any direction. Put the can on it's side and drop your block on it. I think you misunderstand what path of least/most resistance means.

A better analogy would to chop through the top 20% of your can and see if that top will crush the bottom. Of course it won't and neither will a building for the same basic reasons, resistance.

and at the speed at which all three buildings fell

The speed is not as important as the fact the collapses showed no slowing due to resistance and the collapse wave accelerated through the path of most resistance.

WTC 7 may have fallen too quickly. I don't know. Before I can say that the twin towers collapsed too quickly shouldn't we know how quickly they collapsed?

Again this is irrelevant when other evidence shows that the collapses fell through the path of most resistance without slowing of the collapse wave. They could have taken 2 minutes, but if the collapse was still symmetrical and global it could still not be explained by aircraft impacts and fire. There would be MASSIVE resistance from the undamaged structure, just doing it's job of holding up the building as it was designed to do. If top floors gave way and pancaked there would still be resistance and the collapse would have slowed as floors stacked up on top of each other, which they obviously didn't as there were no stack of floors when it was done, where are the stack of steel floors pans? The concrete turned to dust.

Sry but no matter how you look at it, the OS simply doesn't work to explain what happened, it's nothing but assumptions that cannot be proved and don't make scientific sense.

[edit on 6/24/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

iamcpc, you deserve an APPLAUSE for this analogy:

(think about a bodybuilder who can bench press 500 pounds. His arms can present 500 pounds of resistance. Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it. His arms would collapse straight down. Just like a tower that can support X newtons of force trying to catch 10, 20, even 30 times that amount of force is going to go straight down.

LOL are you kidding? The human muscle system is nothing like a static building holding it's OWN WEIGHT. You keep wanting to add weight, breeze blocks etc., dropping on it.

First off there was no extra weight that the building was not designed to hold.

Secondly there is no evidence that the top fell as a whole block, WTC2 proves that hypothesis wrong...

That top could not go from it's angular momentum to falling straight down through the path of most resistance without the bottom giving way first. The momentum of the top is already decided, if it had the weight to fall through the bottom it would have done it already, it can only tilt like that if it has a solid pivot point in which to rotate about.
If the pivot point failed to hold the weight the top would have continued it's path of fell off the side. Once something has momentum, angular or otherwise, it take an outside force to change that momentum, it can't do it by itself. So the only way the top could go from angular momentum to downwards momentum is if the whole bottom section dropped independently of the top.

Another known practical fact in engineering is that if you want a force to go straight down it has to be sitting 'true', not at an angle. How could the top, at an angle, create force equally on all points to cause symmetrical collapse, and not just take off part of the building as it fell?

Try hammering a nail straight down by hitting it at an angle, it will never happen however hard you hit it.

[edit on 6/24/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:18 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

iamcpc, you deserve an APPLAUSE for this analogy:

(think about a bodybuilder who can bench press 500 pounds. His arms can present 500 pounds of resistance. Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it. His arms would collapse straight down. Just like a tower that can support X newtons of force trying to catch 10, 20, even 30 times that amount of force is going to go straight down.

Clear, cogent and concise, and perfectly phrased to be relatable to even the average person. It's what those of us who saw the collapses understand, and finally (hopefully) will quell the mantra first promoted by the 'conspiracy theorists': -- "Path of least resistance". THAT non-applicable term, in this event, has been repeated far too often.

My physics professors explained it in a way that made perfect sense. Things fall and follow the path of least resistance. I weigh 200 pounds and I can jump on a trampoline no problem. We will say that it can support 300 pounds of force. But If I jumped from 16 meters in the air I would fall right through the trampoline because i hit it with more than 300 pounds of force pounds of force. So I fall through the trampoline. The reason, as my physics professors explained, is this.

When falling with 400 pounds of force and encountering something with 300 pounds of force worth of resistance (like a trampoline) I have two options.

Option A 300 pounds of resistance:

Fall through the trampoline.

Opion B over 400 pounds of resistance:

Have my fall be redirected at the trampoline and have it throw me off to the side.

The path of the least resistance involves overcoming the resistance from my support structure (the trampoline).

I know this is true because, when growing up, me and my friends were doing backyard wrestling on a trampoline and jumped on the trampoline from too high and broke the trampoline

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

iamcpc, you deserve an APPLAUSE for this analogy:

(think about a bodybuilder who can bench press 500 pounds. His arms can present 500 pounds of resistance. Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it. His arms would collapse straight down. Just like a tower that can support X newtons of force trying to catch 10, 20, even 30 times that amount of force is going to go straight down.

Clear, cogent and concise, and perfectly phrased to be relatable to even the average person. It's what those of us who saw the collapses understand, and finally (hopefully) will quell the mantra first promoted by the 'conspiracy theorists': -- "Path of least resistance". THAT non-applicable term, in this event, has been repeated far too often.

It definitely explains the kinetic energy behind the collapses in layman's terms.

But as you note, the whole "path of least/greatest resistance" argumeent is a stupid one.

It's FAR better, IMHO, to understand it a little differently. A straight down collapse consumes the least amount of energy. To use the body builder again, in order to avoid having the barbell pound his ribcage, the bodybuilder would first have to be able to HALT the barbell, then redirect it to the side. This requires more energy to do than just having the poor dude's arms fold up, LOL.....

It stands to reason that if the bodybuilder colud halt it in the first place, there would be no need to redirect it away.

But this is what truthers advocate anyways. The buildings should have been able to HALT the falling part, and then shed material off the side.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

LOL are you kidding? The human muscle system is nothing like a static building holding it's OWN WEIGHT.

A force falling through resistance because it's the path of least resistance is EVERYTHING like a force falling through resistance because it's the path of least resistance.

First off there was no extra weight that the building was not designed to hold.

How do you know that? I think you're just making that up. And you are notorious for not citing your sources for information. So stop making things up, leave your 100% un-expert opinion out of this, or CITE YOUR SOURCE to help people like me do my research!

If the buildings were demolished wouldn't they be holding whatever materials were used to demolish the buildings? YES.

Maybe, whoever wanted the towers to collapse, secretly put extra weight into the building? Putting extra pallets of office paper into an office building is more likely, and much easier, than secretly prepping an office building for demolition.

That top could not go from it's angular momentum to falling straight down through the path of most resistance without the bottom giving way first. The momentum of the top is already decided, if it had the weight to fall through the bottom it would have done it already, it can only tilt like that if it has a solid pivot point in which to rotate about. If the pivot point failed to hold the weight the top would have continued it's path of fell off the side. Once something has momentum, angular or otherwise, it take an outside force to change that momentum, it can't do it by itself. So the only way the top could go from angular momentum to downwards momentum is if the whole bottom section dropped independently of the top.

Stop making things up, leave your 100% un-expert opinion out of this, or CITE YOUR SOURCE to help people like me do my research! I have no idea if you're outright lying, making things up, 100% correct, or just misunderstanding the physics like you have done with the path of the most resistance comment that you keep making.

How could the top, at an angle, create force equally on all points to cause symmetrical collapse, and not just take off part of the building as it fell?

A question I will ask my phsyics professors. They will explain it to me (if they have an answer), then I will explain it to you, and you will tell me that my physics professors know less than you do about physics (but only if my physics professors disagree with your theories). We've already went through this with the whole path of most resistance thing.

Steven Wilson and Douglas Patterson, my physics professors, have explained to me that you have confused falling through the path of least resistance with falling through the path of the most resistance.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by iamcpc]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by iamcpc
My physics professors explained it in a way that made perfect sense. Things fall and follow the path of least resistance. I weigh 200 pounds and I can jump on a trampoline no problem. We will say that it can support 300 pounds of force. But If I jumped from 16 meters in the air I would fall right through the trampoline because i hit it with more than 300 pounds of force pounds of force. So I fall through the trampoline.

Well said, iamcpc. Each floor by itself weighed around 4000 tons, which is relatively light becuase each floor was little more than a metal pan with several inches of concrete poured into it. Yet, the horizontal brace was strong enough to hold up four times this weight.

HOWEVER, the plane didn't crash into the very top floor of the structures. The crashed into the middle areas (WTC 1, floor 96, WTC 2 81). Each tower was 110 stories, meaning that there were upper sections of 14 floors and 29 floors that were above the areas where the plane impacted, with each floor weighing 4000 tons. When the tower began to fall, a floor designed to withstand 16,000 tons was therefore hit with a force of FIFTY SIX THOUSAND TONS and ONE HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND TONS. Combined with the force of impact from a falling object, the falling wreckage would have gone through each of the floors like they weren't even there.

I don't really understand why these conspiracy people insist on dragging these controlled demolitions daydreams into the mix. The math shows that the structure was quite capable of falling in the way it did without them.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:10 PM

What am I making up?

why don't YOU show some proof of your claims HUH?

I am not making anything up, just looking at it with no bias effecting my judgment.

There IS NO PROOF anything dropped on anything!

You think there was weight added? Where from? You think floors as a whole block fell on floors, prove it! And NIST is not proof. Show me where my analysis of the physics is wrong, don't bother asking your prof he doesn't seem to make sense either.

And weedy encouraging you is meaningless, he will encourage anyone who supports the OS...

I'm starting to think you're just a troll cause you ain't really paying much attention to what I've said, or you don't have the ability to put it all together and in context.

Quit accusing me of making things up unless you have proof. Quit asking for sources to known physics, go look up angular momentum and learn something, I can't do all your work for you. I cannot assume what you understand or not, so how am I supposed to know what you need sources for exactly? Do you need a sources for every physics term or principle that I cite? Would it change your attitude and make you see the truth? I doubt it. I have given you lots of sources for the physics in the many posts and U2U's to you, do you forget form one post to another (typical OSer tactic).

At first I really thought you were trying to learn something but it turns out you're just like all the other OSers. You say we're a 'movement', seems to me the OSers are far more a movement than the rest of us.

[edit on 6/24/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I don't really understand why these conspiracy people insist on dragging these controlled demolitions daydreams into the mix. The math shows that the structure was quite capable of falling in the way it did without them.

Because there are experts that say that the towers should have collapsed in minutes and not seconds. There are experts who, without addressing or even ATTEMPTING to find out how much damage was done by the airplanes and fire, have determined that the buildings didn't collapse from airplanes and fire.

Because, in several aspects, the building collapses look simiar to buildings that have collapsed from controlled demolition.

No one is willing to even consider that tons and tons of extra weight were added to the buildings, in the form of office paper, to assist with the collapse is one that I personally came up with and is, in my opinion, the most plausible one.

If you believe that something other than airplanes and fire assisted with the collapse of the twin towers. And you also believe that whatever, in addition to airplane impacts and fire, was put there by the government.

OFFICE PAPER! Tons and tons and tons of office paper could have been put in the buildings by the government and burned up in the rubble and the buildings could have been demolished with office paper in addition to airplane impact damage and fire!

But no! no one would even consider the plausible conspiracy theories.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

There IS NO PROOF anything dropped on anything!

Stundied.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:26 PM
"iamcpc, you deserve an APPLAUSE for this analogy:

(think about a bodybuilder who can bench press 500 pounds. His arms can present 500 pounds of resistance. Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it. His arms would collapse straight down. Just like a tower that can support X newtons of force trying to catch 10, 20, even 30 times that amount of force is going to go straight down."

Actually, this analogy is misleading, to say the least. Did the plane slice through the entire tower, causing the top section of the tower to gain momentum and fall onto the lower section? Of course not. However, this is exactly the type of fantasy scenario which your analogy implies.

What about the core columns? How many of them were severed/damaged, if any? Does anyone really believe that some oxygen starved fires caused these massive core columns to stop doing the job they were designed to do? Gimme a break.

As for the clear evidence of the tower tilting to one side when the collapse initiated, what exactly caused this huge and heavy piece of building section to correct itself, sink into the path of greatest resistance and not topple over?

And what is so difficult to understand about the concepts of greatest and least resistance? Least resistance: nothing supporting the top section of the tower as it leans over and prepares to topple over. Greatest resistance: the massive building structure below the top section supporting the tower.

It is beyond absurd to believe that a pancake collapse would defy gravity and put an abrupt halt to the toppling over of the top section of the tower. Of course, people who have no concept of gravity, nor any rational thought can't seem to grasp this grade school concept.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

What am I making up?

I don't know what all you're making up. You refuse to cite your source. You made up that the twin towers collapsed through the path of the most resistance. The truth is, that the twin towers collapsed downward, through their support structure and that the path of the least resistance was through the support structure.

why don't YOU show some proof of your claims HUH?

I can present evidence. I will happily do so. Something you simply refuse to do.

I am not making anything up, just looking at it with no bias effecting my judgment.

If that was the case, and you were correct, then you could CITE YOUR SOURCE.

There IS NO PROOF anything dropped on anything!

The videos of the top floors of the towers dropping on the lower floors of the towers is pretty strong evidence. But on that note, there IS NOT PROOF that new york city even existed on 9/11/2001.

You think there was weight added? Where from?

I think weight could have been added easily. It could have been added by the same orginization(s) that people demolished the towers. The weight could have been from office paper. How easy is it to bring palletts of office paper into an office building? VERY VERY EASY. There prolly about 3 tons of office paper in my office building right now.

Show me where my analysis of the physics is wrong, don't bother asking your prof he doesn't seem to make sense either.

Your analsys of the physics implies that when something is falling, and it encounters resistance, then it would change direction. I have shown you where your analysis of the physics is wrong when i give the example of falling through the trampoline.

Your analsys of the physis says that a falling object that encounters resistance and continues through the resistance is falling through the path of the most resistance. I have shown you where your analsys of the physics is wrong when i give the example of an object falling (a person) encountering resistance (a trampoline) and falling through the resistance (trampoline) because it's the path of least resistance.

I'm starting to think you're just a troll cause you ain't really paying much attention to what I've said, or you don't have the ability to put it all together and in context.

ditto

Quit accusing me of making things up unless you have proof. Quit asking for sources to known physics, go look up angular momentum and learn something, I can't do all your work for you. I cannot assume what you understand or not, so how am I supposed to know what you need sources for exactly? Do you need a sources for every physics term or principle that I cite? Would it change your attitude and make you see the truth? I doubt it. I have given you lots of sources for the physics in the many posts and U2U's to you, do you forget form one post to another (typical OSer tactic).

I'll quit accusing you of making things up when you start citing your sources. I'll quit accusing you of making things up when you stop saying things that both of my physics professors disagree with. You have given lots of sources. Yet very few have anything to do with the physics of the WTC towers.

At first I really thought you were trying to learn something but it turns out you're just like all the other OSers.

I am trying to learn something. That's why I'm asking my physics professors. Professional teachers who spend their lives helping people LEARN SOMETHING.

I'm an OSer yet I believe that it is possible that something in addition to airplane damage and fire could have assisted with the collapse of the wtc towers??????

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:48 PM

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"iamcpc, you deserve an APPLAUSE for this analogy:

(think about a bodybuilder who can bench press 500 pounds. His arms can present 500 pounds of resistance. Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it. His arms would collapse straight down. Just like a tower that can support X newtons of force trying to catch 10, 20, even 30 times that amount of force is going to go straight down."

Actually, this analogy is misleading, to say the least. Did the plane slice through the entire tower, causing the top section of the tower to gain momentum and fall onto the lower section? Of course not. However, this is exactly the type of fantasy scenario which your analogy implies.

No the plane didn't slice through the entire tower. But I saw the top part of both of the twin towers start falling while the lower section was not falling and i saw part of the top section, that was falling, impact with the lower section which was not falling.

Comparing an object falling with X force and hitting an object that is not falling that can support 1/2 X force to an object falling with X force and hitting an object that is not falling that can support 1/2 X force is not a good analogy? I thought was a pretty good analogy!

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by ANOK

First off there was no extra weight that the building was not designed to hold.

How do you know that? I think you're just making that up. And you are notorious for not citing your sources for information. So stop making things up, leave your 100% un-expert opinion out of this, or CITE YOUR SOURCE to help people like me do my research!

Um...wha....?????????

Where would any extra weight have come from? Did you see anything dropped onto the buildings no one else saw?

[edit on 24-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by ANOK

First off there was no extra weight that the building was not designed to hold.

How do you know that? I think you're just making that up. And you are notorious for not citing your sources for information. So stop making things up, leave your 100% un-expert opinion out of this, or CITE YOUR SOURCE to help people like me do my research!

Um...wha....?????????

Where would any extra weight have come from? Did you see anything dropped onto the buildings no one else saw?

It could have been put in the building days, weeks, months, or even hours before the attacks. It would have come from a shipment of office paper. We have several pallets of office paper in my building right now. Nothing unusual about a shipment of office paper coming into my building at all. They even have their own service elevator that we don't use or go close to! How easy it would be for someone to put a few extra tons of office paper in my building and no one would notice.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by iamcpc]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

iamcpc, you deserve an APPLAUSE for this analogy:

(think about a bodybuilder who can bench press 500 pounds. His arms can present 500 pounds of resistance. Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it. His arms would collapse straight down. Just like a tower that can support X newtons of force trying to catch 10, 20, even 30 times that amount of force is going to go straight down.

Clear, cogent and concise, and perfectly phrased to be relatable to even the average person. It's what those of us who saw the collapses understand, and finally (hopefully) will quell the mantra first promoted by the 'conspiracy theorists': -- "Path of least resistance". THAT non-applicable term, in this event, has been repeated far too often.

In case iamcpc fails, can you tell me? Since you think the analogy is applause worth, where does the extra 500 lbs fit in to the collapse of any tower?

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by iamcpc
It could have been put in the building days, weeks, months, or even hours before the attacks. It would have come from a shipment of office paper. We have several pallets of office paper in my building right now. Nothing unusual about a shipment of office paper coming into my building at all. They even have their own service elevator that we don't use or go close to! How easy it would be for someone to put a few extra tons of office paper in my building and no one would notice.

You honestly believe those buildings were not built to support office supplies? Do you think each time a pallet of paper was delivered to an upper floor, people were in danger? Are you telling me that you believe that with all the mainframe computers in that building on upper floors, some paper could have completely exceeded design requirements?

Are you serious?

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:00 PM
"The truth is, that the twin towers collapsed downward, through their support structure and that the path of the least resistance was through the support structure.

Are you saying that the support structure of these massive buildings (which were designed to withstand, multiple aircraft impacts, hurricane force winds, changes in air pressure and support massive amounts of weight) provided less resistance than the empty space (air) on the side of the building?

Here's an experiment for you to try. Go to the top of any skyscraper and jump on its roof. Then go stand on the corner of the roof and lean off of it on a 45 degree angle. When you're done, and if you survive, come back and tell me which of the two provided less resistance: the roof of the skyscraper or the air (empty space) located adjacent to the building.

"I'm an OSer yet I believe that it is possible that something in addition to airplane damage and fire could have assisted with the collapse of the wtc towers??????"

Yeah, they're called explosives, which pulverized a great deal of the structures into dust particles. No amount of weight added to the towers could have even come close to causing this devastating effect. Don't know what purpose this extra "weight theory" serves, other than to add more rubbish to the OS dump.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:05 PM

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by iamcpc
It could have been put in the building days, weeks, months, or even hours before the attacks. It would have come from a shipment of office paper. We have several pallets of office paper in my building right now. Nothing unusual about a shipment of office paper coming into my building at all. They even have their own service elevator that we don't use or go close to! How easy it would be for someone to put a few extra tons of office paper in my building and no one would notice.

You honestly believe those buildings were not built to support office supplies? Do you think each time a pallet of paper was delivered to an upper floor, people were in danger? Are you telling me that you believe that with all the mainframe computers in that building on upper floors, some paper could have completely exceeded design requirements?

Are you serious?

I believe that the buildings were not designed to support 20, 30, 40, 50 hell pick a number tons of office paper after getting hit by an airplane and set on fire! If the government wanted the buildings to collapse they could have made sure it happened just by delivering 25 EXTRA tons of office paper! THe office paper burns up in the rubble explaining why it was hot for so long.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by iamcpc]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by K J Gunderson

OK...I'll try to field this...iamcpc can jump on if I miss something...

Here's the analogy...it's not an extra 500 lbs, that was just an figure used to illustrate that --- ...oh, I see where you are thinking "extra"...he's talking about the added impetus due to motion, so it's that which supplies added energy. The "500 lbs" signifies the static upper floors of the buiilding, being supported from below, as originally designed.

As long as the mass above is stationary, he is capable of supporting the unmoving mass, as his arms exhibit the required strength. Actually, for the analogy, ignore the muscles, and their influence in balance, etc, for that dynamic aspect isn't part of this...it's the image of the static weght, and the structure beneath...the bones of the arms, let's say. They certainly are strong enough.

Now...one arm bone is fractured...say a bullet is fired, and hits it.

Let's also take the image of the traditional barbell out of our minds, for this mental excerise...see why? Because we want all of the mass that's being supported centered, without the excessive overhang seen with a "barbell"....

So, in this simplified image, one arm is damaged...hence the other arm is overstressed, since it is insuffiently strong.

Below that, is ANOTHER man, and set of arms...he has been supporting the entire mess above, and even with two good, undamamged arms, they are overwhelmed and will fail because of the kinetic energy of acceleration, and increased force presented by the mass above, as it begins to move downward. And so on....

Of course, some may try to argue that it will become "unbalanced" and topple to the side...but, no, because there must be an initial horizontal vector of force for that to happen...that's why we had to remove that "barbell" image, so as not to confuse the analogy. (The misconception is that one heavy end of the unbalanced barbell would 'pull' sideways, due to gravity...which is possible, again ONLY if there is a great deal of overhang to begin with).

Now, the kicker (to me) as it relates to the design of the Towers...the "Achille's Heel", once the kinetic energy of acceleration, due to motion, and gravity, gets started is the fact that although EACH individual steel component is plenty strong, on its own...especially lengthwise, they are still weakest where they are attached to other pieces.

Here is where the "two arms" similarity ends...it gets more complex, of course. And, for our earlier purposes, we were imaging "solid" arms, without the weak attachment points...but, you could think of the elbows and shoulders in that scenario, as comparison....

I probably botched that up, it's hard to convey what's in mind's eye into a post, sometimes....

[edit on 24 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:36 PM
WOW ! At last we know the truth ! OFFICE PAPER BROUGHT DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS ! I can see tomorrows The Sun headlines !

new topics

top topics

9