Physics of 9/11...

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by iamcpc
Force = Mass * acceleration

A big pile of rubble.

But, Mr Newton, the "top" section of the towers didn't hit the "lower" section at 500 mph!

But it has a lot more mass than a plane.

That's the point of the equation he gave you, but you missed its significance.

Fair point. Excuse my ignorance.

OK, it's plausible, but there's still the matter of this unknown "extra weight". "iamcpc" suggested pallets of paper - surely it would be possible to find out if any paper companies in NYC had made any large deliveries to the WTC shortly before 9/11...

Off you go, "iamcpc", do some investigative research.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by iamcpc
I guess you have never dropped a cinderblock on a pop can.

A completely irrelevant analogy. No metaphorical "ciderblock" was dropped on either tower. But, just for fun...

Hold a cinderblock a meter above a pop can and drop it. Sure, it will crush the can. But hold it only a few millimeters above the can, and drop. I don't think the can will be completely crushed.

You're not accounting for the momentum of the falling "top" section.

For your theory to work, the "top" section of the towers would probably have to fall from half a mile above in order to flatten the towers.

That would be the equivalent of dropping a cinderblock on a can. But that's not what happened.

Ok then let's replace the world drop with the world fall. Or even better yet the word collapse!


A 1 kg cinderblock collapses with 10 newtons of force on a sponge that can support 1 newton of force and the cinderblock falls straight down, crushing the sponge.

A 1 kg portion of a building falls with 10 newtons of force on the other portion of the building that can support 1 newton of force and the falling portion falls straight down.

Or you can do the real estimates

"But, Mr Newton, the "top" section of the towers didn't hit the "lower" section at 500 mph!"

Lets do the math! Lets play the 9/11 physics game!


convert-to.com...
www.ajdesigner.com...
1 pound = 0.45359237 kilograms

a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane.

a 100,000 - 136,000 kg airplane Is traveling at 223 m/s

F=MA 2.23 million netwons of force.

en.wikipedia.org...

355,00 newtons per square meter is the yeild strength of structural steel.

Now how much did 30 floors of the WTC tower weigh?

www.tms.org...

says 500k tons

hypertextbook.com...

says 450k tons

architecture.about.com...

the wtc towers were 110 stories

450k TONS (total weight) / 110 stories = 4000 tons per floor.


The top 1/3rd of the WTC weighed about 120000 tons.

120k tons is 109,000,000 KG. falling downward at 8.9 m/s is

968,873,302 newtons = estimate of the amount of force in the falling top 1/3rd of the tower

2,230,000 newtons= estimate of the amount of force in the plane

968,873,302 / 2,230,000= 434 times the amount of force!!

If you hit each floor of the WTC with 3.9 110 ton 500 mile per hour airplane what would it look like????

A big pile of rubble!

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

OK, it's plausible, but there's still the matter of this unknown "extra weight". "iamcpc" suggested pallets of paper - surely it would be possible to find out if any paper companies in NYC had made any large deliveries to the WTC shortly before 9/11...

That's like you saying the WTC were demolished with explosives and my reply being:

"surely it would be possible to find out if any demolition companies had done any demolition work on the twin towers"

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

OK, it's plausible, but there's still the matter of this unknown "extra weight". "iamcpc" suggested pallets of paper - surely it would be possible to find out if any paper companies in NYC had made any large deliveries to the WTC shortly before 9/11...

That's like you saying the WTC were demolished with explosives and my reply being:

"surely it would be possible to find out if any demolition companies had done any demolition work on the twin towers"

Oh I see, your theory is that the extra weight was planted for the purpose of bringing the towers down. I thought you meant the extra weight was simply an unlucky coincidence, as if the WTC towers had ordered extra paper pallets earlier that week. Sorry, I should have read your posts closer before replying.

Well you're very convincing, old chap. Good work on the physics (I'm in the arts myself - not very scientific even though I pretend to be). Your long post above with the equations was excellent. I quite like this theory, now I understand it.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

OK, it's plausible, but there's still the matter of this unknown "extra weight". "iamcpc" suggested pallets of paper - surely it would be possible to find out if any paper companies in NYC had made any large deliveries to the WTC shortly before 9/11...

That's like you saying the WTC were demolished with explosives and my reply being:

"surely it would be possible to find out if any demolition companies had done any demolition work on the twin towers"

Oh I see, your theory is that the extra weight was planted for the purpose of bringing the towers down. I thought you meant the extra weight was simply an unlucky coincidence, as if the WTC towers had ordered extra paper pallets earlier that week. Sorry, I should have read your posts closer before replying.

Well you're very convincing, old chap. Good work on the physics (I'm in the arts myself - not very scientific even though I pretend to be). Your long post above with the equations was excellent. I quite like this theory, now I understand it.

It could be an unlucky coincidence, It could have been planted, it could not even be a factor!

I know that of all the thories of what could have been used, in addition to airplane impact and fire damage, to cause the collapse of the twin towers the adding of extra weight with office paper is by FAR the most plausible and people who believe it was the death star laugh at me!



[edit on 25-6-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by iamcpc

Your theory doesn't even need paper pallets, or anything to be planted - the weight of the planes themselves would suffice wouldn't it?

OK, they break up on impact but I imagine the majority of their mass remained in the buildings.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by FOXMULDER147]

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Your theory doesn't even need paper pallets, or anything to be planted - the weight of the planes themselves would suffice wouldn't it?

OK, they break up on impact but I imagine the majority of their mass remained in the buildings.

I guess it's possible but a lot of people are hell bent on the theory that someone put (or shot/launched/fired) something in the building to help the airplane impact damage and fire damage cause the collapse.

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
as for the "can senario", it is rubbish. yes, if you drop a brick onto a can of aluminum, it will get crushed straight down. try chopping the top 1/8th of the can off and dropping it onto the can, did it get crushed? see the problem? you are assuming even damage, which is wrong, and you are also dropping something that is much much much heavier than the can. since it takes 32.516 12 ounce aluminum cans to equal one pound, and the average cement block weighs about 40 lbs, in your senario, the tower was crushed by something that weighs 65 MILLION tons. silly person is silly =P

It's not rubbish when something drops with X force onto something that can support or resists 1/5x force.

where are you getting that number from? i believe you said you made it up. so you're whole argument is based on a premise that you have not proven, but actually made up.

if a car hits another car head on (same exact car model) both traveling at 60 mph, the damage will total both cars. if that same car hit a semi truck, which one would win? of course the larger one.

in order to believe as you do, you must believe that the top damaged part of the tower was stronger than the whole rest of the tower combined. in your senario, the car hits the semi, and wins.

reply to post by iamcpc


three problems with that. you are again assuming uniform damage to the top of the tower, and you treat the top of the tower as if it wouldn't take any damage. it would destroy itself before it could destroy the tower. no jolts either. yes, the top of the tower has alot of energy falling, but the top part of the tower is hitting the bottom part just as hard as the bottom is hitting the top. and you are saying that the smaller, more damaged piece is less hurt by it colliding with a much larger and stronger piece.

btw, the buildings were designed to withstand passenger planes crashing into them. one of the designers estimated it could take about three at once and not collapse.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
as for the "can senario", it is rubbish. yes, if you drop a brick onto a can of aluminum, it will get crushed straight down. try chopping the top 1/8th of the can off and dropping it onto the can, did it get crushed? see the problem? you are assuming even damage, which is wrong, and you are also dropping something that is much much much heavier than the can. since it takes 32.516 12 ounce aluminum cans to equal one pound, and the average cement block weighs about 40 lbs, in your senario, the tower was crushed by something that weighs 65 MILLION tons. silly person is silly =P

It's not rubbish when something drops with X force onto something that can support or resists 1/5x force.

where are you getting that number from? i believe you said you made it up. so you're whole argument is based on a premise that you have not proven, but actually made up.

in order to believe as you do, you must believe that the top damaged part of the tower was stronger than the whole rest of the tower combined. in your senario, the car hits the semi, and wins.

I got that number from:

en.wikipedia.org...

355,00 newtons per square meter is the yeild strength of structural steel.


In order to believe as I do, you must believe that the top damaged part of the tower was as strong as the portion of undamage building that it impacted with. In my situation car collapses, head on, on an upright semi and they both lose.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by iamcpc

 

three problems with that. you are again assuming uniform damage to the top of the tower, and you treat the top of the tower as if it wouldn't take any damage. it would destroy itself before it could destroy the tower. no jolts either. yes, the top of the tower has alot of energy falling, but the top part of the tower is hitting the bottom part just as hard as the bottom is hitting the top. and you are saying that the smaller, more damaged piece is less hurt by it colliding with a much larger and stronger piece.

I'm saying that the top part was hitting the bottom part with X newtonw of force. The bottom part hit the top part with a fraction of X newtons of force. The extra force continued downward.

btw, the buildings were designed to withstand passenger planes crashing into them. one of the designers estimated it could take about three at once and not collapse.

btw, cars are designed to protect the driver from injury in a head on collision. They are rigerously tested over and over again with crash test dummies to ensure they protect the driver from injury in a head on collision. People still die in head on collisions.

reply to post by iamcpc


i wasn't talking about the downward force, but how much the tower can support.

where the car is totaled, the semi is only damaged at the impact, the back of the truck wouldn't be too banged up.

reply to post by iamcpc


you're very wrong there. you can only hit something as hard as it can resist. the top of the tower hit the bottom with just as much force as the bottom hit the top with.

i think the car analogy is probably the best to describe how silly the piledriver model is. two objects collide with the same amount of force, one is bigger, one is smaller, which one will suffer less damage? the bigger one.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

As you can see in this next video at 1:22. You can see explosions travelling down the corner of the building at the same rate as the falling unobstructed debris.

Oh btw my friends, the explosions you see were used to weaken the structure as it fell to callapse the whole structure while directing the collapse.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

OK, it's plausible, but there's still the matter of this unknown "extra weight".

I believe his point is a bit more subtle than you're giving him credit for.

There's a lot more crazy cd theories floated out there by truthers. THIS one, while also improbable, at least has some basis in reality.

I'll rank some of these theories for you:

A) batpoo crazy - nukes, holograms, space beams

B) uneducated drivel - explosives, thermxte> freefall

C) educated drivel - limited cd for initiation>natural collapse that takes ~ 15 seconds

D) Plausible, but not probable nor substantiated - naturally occuring thermitic reactions, underestimated fuel (including paper) loads (which Dr Quintere also backs to some degree, since his criticism of the report is that NIST vastly underestimated the fuel loads)


What this points out is one of the obvious points about being a truther. The more outlandish and crazy a theory is, the more likely it is bound to be accepted as probable and/or possible to truthers.

Insanity is the only reason to explain this.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by iamcpc

 

you're very wrong there. you can only hit something as hard as it can resist. the top of the tower hit the bottom with just as much force as the bottom hit the top with.

I may be wrong. I agree 100% with the statement that you can only hit something as hard as it can resist. The thing was, as my calculations have shown, that the top falling 1/3 of the building had MORE than enough force to crush and destroy steel support beams.

So what happens when an object (object A) collapses with X newtons of force and it hits an object (object B) that can only support 1/8th X newtons of force?

Well when a cinderblock collapses on a pop can the the pop can collapses.

When a person collapses with too much force on a trampoline the trampoline collapses





[edit on 25-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

i'm a certified structural welder. i see every day what happens to steel when it gets hot, when it melts, and when it bends. my analogy wasn't rocket science, it was a simple explanation of why the tower would topple over.
as i've stated, (and i think this actually applies more to the twin towers, because a relatively small office fire can't collapse a building) as the planes struck the towers, more damage would be done at the point of impact than any other part of the tower, specifically the side the plane crashed into. my earlier analogy comes into play, and of course, the tower would give in on the side that is weakest, toppleing that direction.

now, i would like for you to tell me where my train of thought is wrong, instead of replying with "you're not an engineer, so you can't say that".

Your train of thought is proven wrong in the first video. It defies the laws of physics. Had the towers collapsed as you surmise they would not have free fallen without obstruction as they did. They would have hit the lower undamaged floors and stopped. Did you watch the video? If so then maybe you can explain where he is wrong?

The twin towers did not free fall. Nice try.

www.plaguepuppy.net...

Notice free falling debri falling below the collapse????

THIS IS BECAUSE THE COLLAPSE IS SLOWER THAN FREE FALL SPEED!

Oh ok excuse me they were a second and half off of free fall. And the debris falling beside them was blown out by explosives BEFORE the upper portion hit it and had a head start! However the point is they fell as if there was no obstructions beneath them which can only be accounted for by controlled demolition taking out those obstructions. Had they fallen as you and others intimate they would have either tipped over or stopped at hitting the lower floors Maybe you can refute the first video that proves without explosives taking out the support columns 90+ percent of which were still intact the manner in which the towers came down would violate the laws of physics where in when mass impacts equal or greater mass it stops its motion or destroys en equal mass on impact. In this case the lower part of the towers was a much greater mass then the upper part that fell therefore impossible for it be destroyed by the upper part falling and should have stopped it or the upper part would have tipped over sideways.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

and you treat the top of the tower as if it wouldn't take any damage. it would destroy itself before it could destroy the tower.

Once again, engineering trumps your statement.

heiwaco.tripod.com...

"the crush-up resisting force
F0
c in the first overlying story may be lower or higher than indicated by the foregoing deterministic
analysis. If it is lower, the crush-up will penetrate deeper. But even for the maximum
imaginable standard deviation of the average column strength in a story, the crush-up will get
arrested before it penetrates the full story height."

no jolts either.

Oops, even truthers found jolts, and call Szamboti's paper baseless and an example of poor data acquisition.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

one of the designers estimated it could take about three at once and not collapse.

You're talking about Frank DeMartini, who perished on 9/11. He was a construction manager hired after the '93 bombing to help in reconstruction.

BTW, he stayed in the building after the plane hit, and he was of the opinion that the building was in danger of collapse.

This is on public record.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Oh ok excuse me they were a second and half off of free fall.

Do you have a source that says the twin towers collapsed in 10.7
seconds? I have found some information about the speed of the collapse.

911research.wtc7.net...

"Various pages on columbia.edu put the origin time of the signal at the source at 10:28:31, plus or minus one second. This is based on an estimate of 2 km/s travel speed for the S waves, which, given the PAL station's distance of 34 KM from the WTC, gives a travel time of 17 seconds. "


"The CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground. The following composite timeline combines timing estimates of collapse events from the CNN video and the PAL seismic record. It assumes rubble hitting the ground caused the large ground movement, and thus that the crumbling of the Tower prior to that caused only minor ground movement. Given that, the times from these pieces of evidence match up remarkably well. "

www.journalof911studies.com...

says 16.6 seconds for WTC 1

www.911myths.com...

says 12.8 seconds and 11.6 seconds


wtc.nist.gov...

Nist says the first exterior panels hit in 11 seconds and 9 seconds but does not say how long the collapse took.

I'll go with the fastest of all those numbers. Free fall speed is 9.2 seconds. According to the fastest estimation the quickest tower collapsed in 11.6 seconds.

Do you have any idea how much force is needed to slow the fall of 120 thousand tons of collapsing building by 2.4 seconds?

And the debris falling beside them was blown out by explosives BEFORE the upper portion hit it and had a head start!

look and listen very carefully here:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Listen very carefully here:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM


Those are some weird explosives! I can't even hear them! Silent explosives. Does such a thing even exist or did someone make that up?
Did you notice how the buildings that had the BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM had not been hit by airplanes and set on fire? I did.

However the point is they fell as if there was no obstructions beneath them which can only be accounted for by controlled demolition taking out those obstructions.

WRONG. If they fell as if there was no obstructions beneath them then they would have fallen in 9.2 seconds (according to my handy dandy free fall with quadratic drag calculator here: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...). You yourself claim that they fell in 10.7 seconds (something I need your source on). A CLEAR indication that they fell as if there was an obstruction beneath them slowing the speed of the collapse.

Again how much force is needed to slow the fall of 120,000 tons of steel and concrete by even 1.5 seconds? A LOT!

In this case the lower part of the towers was a much greater mass then the upper part that fell therefore impossible for it be destroyed by the upper part falling

It's not about mass, it's about FORCE. A HUGE bullet could weigh 1 pound. If it got shot at something. A person, A robot, A tree. You shoot a 1 pound bullet at a tree weighing 500 pounds it will destroy that tree. This is because the the bullet has X force and it's colliding with something that can resist 1/10thX force.

To even further reinforce this point I went to a science exibit and they had a "tornado gun" That shot an unsharpened wooden pencil at a block of wood that easily had 10 times the mass of the pencil. The pencil, on the first shot, broke the more massive piece of wood in half. On the second shot, at a new piece of wood, went almost all the way through the wood.

If the force of object A with 100 newtons of force collapses downward (or impacts with) object B that can support or resist 10 newtons of force then object A will be slowed by object B but either destroy it or pass through it. Regardless of the mass.





[edit on 25-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

OK, it's plausible, but there's still the matter of this unknown "extra weight".

I believe his point is a bit more subtle than you're giving him credit for.

There's a lot more crazy cd theories floated out there by truthers. THIS one, while also improbable, at least has some basis in reality.

You're preaching to the choir - I have accepted his rationale as being realistic.

Do you think it's "improbable" that the weight of the planes contributed to this "piledriver" theory...? 747's weigh - what - 150 tons? Not much in comparison to the building storeys, but when falling from above that's a lot of extra force.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by FOXMULDER147]