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.

# 1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 20
99
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by oniongrass
Mass times velocity is called momentum. Momentum (added up over everything) is conserved in collisions and all other times. So if something with a lot of momentum runs into something else, it's likely to transfer some of its momentum to that other thing.

I was keeping it simple. Velocity increases mass, momentum does not change the forces being equal on both colliding bodies.

What causes damage is energy.

Yes it does but energy comes from action, potential energy is just that, potential.
Energy is a measurement of work done, but it's not energy per se that causes the damage, that is due to deceleration on contact and the energy used to do that can be measured.

I had a link that explained this better but I can't find it now, so this will have to do.

When a car strikes another object, such as another vehicle or a telephone pole, the car is subjected to a rapid deceleration. Some of the energy is absorbed by the car, and some is absorbed by the other object. A collision is generally a combination of a plastic collision, where all energy is absorbed by the two colliding objects, which then come to rest, and an elastic collision, where all energy is transmitted through the two objects, forcing them to bounce back in different directions (think of billiard balls).

It's the rapid deceleration that causes the damage, the object with the most mass will decelerate less than the lower mass. In other words if a car hit a truck head on, the mass of the truck will force the car to rapidly decelerate, while the truck will not be caused to slow as much by the car. That is why the car will be more damaged than the truck. Momentum increases the force on BOTH objects, so if the car was moving faster it would still receive the most damage. No matter how much momentum the car has you can't make it damage the truck more than itself. Just like you can't get the fly to go through your windshield no matter the momentum, velocity, or which one is moving.

Opposite and equal reactions...

[edit on 9/7/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:46 AM
Right.
And this is the second line I am adding to make the post long enough to be considered acceptable.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:00 AM

Maybe this might help...

When analysing collisions... best to think in terms of Momentum and Impulse. Physically... Impulse = Change in momentum. F t = m v Now the force of collision is the same for both Truck and VW (due to Newton III)... and the time of contact is the same. But if you look at the momentum side... The Truck has more mass... so its v will be small. where as the VW... the mass is small.. so the v will be large... If the v is large... there is a lot more chance that the VW will crumble... or deform... and hence.. not only you'll get the VW changing it's motion more...you're more likely to get deformity of the shape.

www.extricating.com...

The velocity causes the VW to receive the most damage, due to it's lower mass than the truck. The damage comes from the rapid deceleration of that velocity. If the car did not decelerate it would not be damaged.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:18 AM
I agree with the conclusion but for the reason the VW has thinner sheet metal.

True story:

I was waiting many years ago at a traffic light in Chicago, in my old rusted VW Beetle. An ambulance pulls up next to me in the lane to my left (no flashing lights, he was not in a hurry but an ambulance is a big heavy thing) but, not seeing me, starts to pull into the space I am occupying. I don't remember if I honked, or maybe he heard the sheet metal crumple as he smashed in my left front wheel well, almost to where it was touching my left leg.

This was all at no more than five mph, we were in front of a red light.

My whole left front got crumpled in and my front axle bent. He did not even have a scratch on his paint!

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:25 AM

Originally posted by oniongrass
I agree with the conclusion but for the reason the VW has thinner sheet metal.

Oh dear, yes that is why it has less mass. If it had skin thick enough to equal the mass of the truck the outcome would be different.

True story:

I was waiting many years ago at a traffic light in Chicago, in my old rusted VW Beetle. An ambulance pulls up next to me in the lane to my left (no flashing lights, he was not in a hurry but an ambulance is a big heavy thing) but, not seeing me, starts to pull into the space I am occupying. I don't remember if I honked, or maybe he heard the sheet metal crumple as he smashed in my left front wheel well, almost to where it was touching my left leg.

This was all at no more than five mph, we were in front of a red light.

My whole left front got crumpled in and my front axle bent. He did not even have a scratch on his paint!

[edit on 9/7/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:37 AM
Here's another way the WTC buildings may have been brought down: evidence of nuclear explosions in or under the buildings.

letsrollforums.com...

I haven't evaluated this myself.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:22 AM

No, it doesn't It means there is more force down than resistant force up.

Exactly, this points to controlled demo if you can understand the physics and implications of this.

Originally posted by Azp420
Now that you agree that the mass of the top section is governed by F=ma could you please state to what you believe to be the upwards and downwards forces acting on the top section? We'll keep it simple and describe the forces at the moment the top section impacts the undamaged lower structure (after accelerating through the heavily damaged initiation zone).

You're almost there, don't ignore what I wrote above. You've made big progress admitting the mass of the top section is governed by F=ma and that the downwards forces acting on the top section were greater than the upwards forces. Now confront it head on and tell us what those upwards and downwards forces were. I know it's difficult to confront information which has the potential to change beliefs.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:01 AM

It's not difficult and I've not progressed. It's what I said always.

The upward force comes from the inner and outer structure resisting the force of gravity. When the plane it, the outer structure was compromised. The fire degraded structural strenght. Add in the termite to the inner structure and there's barely a structure left. Inner structure fails first, the floors collapse onto the floor bellow them, that floor was not made to resist it, and you get pancaking. The outer structure just chills because it was disconnected from the fall. It stands alone without the hierarchy. But once the insides fall enough, it has nothing keeping it up. It falls last.

No demos needed.

No thanks. Did them already. The mechanics dictate no explosives.

Not to mention your drawing straws now from an unrelated topic.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Azp420

I don't know much about the NWO but from what I understand they conduct a lot of business around lower Manhattan. Just speculation though.

Fair enough. But then why do it there at all? Wall Street still ground to a halt.

Actually your point made me think of something interesting. Presumably the people who had businesses in the towers - Cantor comes to mind, but only because they endured such widespread loss of life and the chairman was, I think, a Tory establishment figure - must not have been keeping up their subscription to the NWO.

I'm half joking, but the founders of Cantor and subsequent top brass were serious insiders in the upper echelons of business. They strike me as the sort of people who CTers would normally think of as exactly part of "TPTB".

It's more difficult to sell that middle eastern terrorists have got around security and planted multiple bombs throughout both towers and 7. And what I said about a spectacular fear based event of multiple simultaneous hijackings of planes then flown into buildings.

I'm not sure, although I take your point about the spectacle. Surely you just park a big truck bomb outside and say that brought them down? Hardly difficult to sell since they'd tried it once before.

Money is no problem for them. Terror acts are not about taking the simplest approach, they're about being spectacular and generating maximum public fear. Plenty of buildings have been bombed before without having to go to war over it.

Well, if the idea is to make money then controlling costs is important too. Every layer of complexity would require more manpower and more specialists who must be very expensive. Especially given that they must be completely reliable.

Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I don't mean the individual "squib" type ejections. I mean the leading edge of the wave of ejections which accelerates uniformly down the building. The video in this post at 8:30 talks about what I mean.

I'll look at some point.

I can see your point but I don't think it can prove anything. Both sides can only speculate as to their opinion. It is why I like to stick to what can actually be proved, either with physics and mathematics or some other evidence.

Fair enough. I have to say that I haven't seen any compelling physics that disproves the traditional take on what happened. I've seen some flaws in NIST's models, but they are after all working hypotheses, and that hardly invalidates the whole idea of destruction by impact and fire. Furthermore it certainly doesn't even start to prove an alternative theory, which is really what is called for.

What I have seen is a lot of made up "science" trying to prove a CT of the event. I'm not tarring you with that brush but it remains true that there are significant numbers of people who simply make stuff up or bend evidence to produce an outcome they want. This has generated an awful lot of "noise" (in the evidential sense) around 9/11 science and makes investigation quite arduous.

I really can't imagine anyone attempting to extort money from a powerful ex-employer at the risk of being tortured to death. There's no amount of money you could pay me in exchange for having to look over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

There is for me. I'd take ten billion, for example. And then I'd hire some of my ex colleagues to guard me and buy an island.

MK Ultra was pretty disgusting. I think most people research the type of organization they get into bed with.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Azp420]

The CIA is bloody horrible. What I'm getting at, though, is that if you want to be certain that no one will betray your plan you have to be absolutely confident that everyone in the CIA - or at least everyone you approach - is a murderous, venal, avaricious scumbag. I'm sure many of them are, but I doubt it's all.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:55 PM

I take it you've never had a security clearance. People can keep secrets. Secrets becomes a part of you and you don't talk. I never knew anything so explosive or troubling that I would have wanted to talk, but anyway it is possible to keep secrets and rely on people (and find reliable people) to do it.

A couple days after the collapse I volunteered to be in a phone bank for people to call in and ask about possible survivors from Cantor. Our company had a special relationship with them so that we did the phone bank. About half the calls, or less, were distressed loved ones calling to find out if there's any good news about daddy or hubby. (By now, if there was no good news there was unlikely to be any, so I spent the whole time being diplomatic but clear that we had not heard from this or that victim -- very draining.) At least half the calls were from business "colleagues" or competitors who didn't seem distressed at all to learn that somebody was no longer around. I could tell it in their voices.

So if Cantor was TPTB, I conclude that TPTB do not always get along with T other PTB.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91

Outer structure is part of the structure and each column is doing its job. it is not redundant. It is necessary. Each column was around the floor and supporting it.. Again. What was the redundancy of the WTC structure. Was there any?

Your grammar has to many lys.

FEMA said the outer columns were operating at 20% of capacity.

Therefore the load of any borken columns could be handled by the excess capacity of other columns.

That is REDUNDANCY!

psik

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:20 PM

I do not trust government agencies. I do my own work.

The mass of one tower was 450 million kg. Are you telling me that the WTC structure could support up to 2,500,000 tons? Really? So if I cut the Pyramid of gaza into three pieces and put one of those pieces on top of the WTC, you're telling me the structure would not collapse?

Perhaps, before you assume a government source is correct, you should try to visualize it. because this is what you are telling me:

Of course you can believe whatever you want to believe. I, on the other hand, will do my own research. I've learned to never listen to what bureaucrats say.

besides that, no, it is not redundancy. You see, each one of those columns is still doing work. perhaps you need a lesson in what redundant structure is:

Structure which has no work done on the main structure, but will do work if one part fails.

Now perhaps you can leave the conversation learning to not trust government and do your own work.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:44 PM

When the plane it, the outer structure was compromised.

Add in the termite to the inner structure and there's barely a structure left.

There is no evidence so suggest this is likely (the building creating it naturally). It is very much still an unproven theory and IMO will remain as just that.

Inner structure fails first

The outer structure just chills

So is that the inner or outer structure falling on the remaining jet fuel and causing those explosions?

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
Perhaps, before you assume a government source is correct, you should try to visualize it. because this is what you are telling me:

LOL that is not research that's you coming to conclusions based on assumptions.

Can you actually explain why the building could not hold that weight from your 'research'?

I'm not saying it could, but I don't think you understand how mechanical structures can hold many times their own weight. A simple triangle configuration of cross bracing is extremely strong and can hold many many times its own weight.

Oh btw those figures you mentioned are the weight not the mass, common misunderstanding. Mass is the amount of mater in an object, weight is a measurement of gravity on an object.

When you do your 'own work', you first have to know what you're doing.

Structures can be composed of a few or hundreds of parts. The shape that can withstand the most external force without moving is a triangle. Structures that are composed of many triangular shapes are inherently strong. Bridges, buildings, vehicles, and roof trusses all employ structures made up of triangles. The following series of video clips illustrates the effect of applying a force to different structural shapes.

www.cdli.ca...

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:05 PM

Fair enough. But then why do it there at all? Wall Street still ground to a halt.

I dono, I'm sure there were many reasons. The owner taking out terrorist insurance and then collecting double payouts might have been one. Maybe Wall Street grinding to a halt prevented a fair amount of short selling? And we come back to the twin towers being a bit of a spectacle and a symbol of freedom.

Hardly difficult to sell since they'd tried it once before.

I would have said more difficult because they tried it once before. Also, if a truck just blows the base out the tower is going to topple over.

Well, if the idea is to make money then controlling costs is important too. Every layer of complexity would require more manpower and more specialists who must be very expensive.

True, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think it would have cost that much to find some jihad suicide pilots and plan for them to hit the towers. After all, the idea of the spectacle was to have many hijacked airplanes hitting many important targets to give the public a sense of "America is under attack" and get them hungry for war.

Fair enough. I have to say that I haven't seen any compelling physics that disproves the traditional take on what happened.

Do you disagree with what I present in this post?

What I have seen is a lot of made up "science" trying to prove a CT of the event. I'm not tarring you with that brush but it remains true that there are significant numbers of people who simply make stuff up or bend evidence to produce an outcome they want. This has generated an awful lot of "noise" (in the evidential sense) around 9/11 science and makes investigation quite arduous.

I agree with you. The CT side does have a lot of lunatics who have no idea what they're talking about.

There is for me. I'd take ten billion, for example. And then I'd hire some of my ex colleagues to guard me and buy an island.

If everyone has a price wouldn't you be concerned that your ex employer might offer your ex colleagues more than what you are? Or that some would remain loyal to their employer (because they are power hungry rather than money hungry).

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91

I do not trust government agencies. I do my own work.

The mass of one tower was 450 million kg. Are you telling me that the WTC structure could support up to 2,500,000 tons? Really? So if I cut the Pyramid of gaza into three pieces and put one of those pieces on top of the WTC, you're telling me the structure would not collapse?

I said that FEMA reported that the EXTERIOR COLUMNS were operating at 20% of capacity.

The exterior columns only supported about 50% of the weight of the building. The other 50% was supported by the 47 CORE COLUMNS. But there were 238 perimeter columns. FIVE TIMES as many perimeter columns as core columns but you respond with this ENTIRE BUILDING GARBAGE.

Why don't you go and try to put your brain in gear?

psik

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:20 PM

Funny how every so called terrorist attack only seems to warrant a partial investigation...ie, 9/11 investigation received just \$14 million, and remains in many minds...a farce.
7/7 is also regarded by many as a farce, due to the fact that an full & independent inquiry has yet to be implemented.
The Oklahoma bombing (Timothy Mcvay)...countless news reports stated that they found other explosive devises inside the building...which proves more than one person being involved...yet no investigation has been started to find the others involved.

Nearly every part of the official theory does not add up...ie FBI stated to the Guardian newspaper..."We have no evidence what so ever to suggest that Binladen had anything to do with 9/11" This was a reply to the Guardian newspaper, who had asked the FBI why they have not accused Binladen of 9/11 on their most wanted site. (check for yourself)
12 of the so called hijackers have been found alive and well...yet the FBI still use their photos on their web site.
The Bush & Binladen families have been in business with each other for over 25 yrs and still are to this day (Carlyle group is one such business)

To date...only 30% pf questions have been answered by the so called 9/11 inquiry....doesn't it make sense that a full independent & fully financed investigation should be given a chance so that we can establish all the facts, and help bring closure to the families that lost their loved ones on 9/11....Why is the government so against this if they have nothing to hide?

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:06 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The exterior columns only supported about 50% of the weight of the building. The other 50% was supported by the 47 CORE COLUMNS. But there were 238 perimeter columns. FIVE TIMES as many perimeter columns as core columns but you respond with this ENTIRE BUILDING GARBAGE.

From what I've read the inner structure held about 80% of the weight and the outer mesh columns were designed mostly to allow lateral movement. The central columns were a lot larger, and cross braced, than the outer mesh columns.

That is why they would only have to drop the core to collapse the building. Thermite could have been used to help break up the outer mesh. This is why explosions are not very loud as in a conventional demo, where you hear the explosives on the outer walls, that debunkers want to compare.

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:27 PM

Thank you for bringing this up because this is the one thing that has bothered me the most out of all this 9/11 conspiracy theory/official story garbage.
Here we have numerous key indicators showing evidence that explosives might have been involved yet no investigation has been done into this theory.

Osama Bin Laden was accused, on day one, of committing these attacks and we have since went to "war" with two different countries over this accusation yet he has not been officially charged for these crimes! WTF!!!

Do these blatant mistakes miss the attention of everyone else? I mean, words cannot describe how screwed up all of this sounds! Meanwhile all of this has been happening in plain view of the whole world and we find people arguing over semantics and the prospects of a new world order!!! Even this thread here has digressed into such a worthless debate yet the goal remains the same.

I have said this over and over and it goes ignored yet nobody seems to disagree, "We need a new and complete investigation into what happened on 9/11". This is the point of the AE9/11 truth movement! This is their goal and this is the very point of their entire movement, the reason for its creation and the cause for this thread!

How could we have gone to "war" (or rather preemptive attack and occupation) with Iraq without any solid evidence proving a connection? These are acts of treason in the US by people in its own government! Even though it has been admitted that no connection ever did exist between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein we are still occupying Iraq. What in the hell is wrong with everyone? I can't even imagine all of the crimes that have been committed on the people of this world and yet we still go on. This country no longer has justice nor democracy and this means all of us are in big trouble. Here is where we need to focus our attention... Justice demands a new, transparent and complete investigation. No matter how difficult it may be nor how many people this implicates a complete investigation is needed in order to resurrect justice and democracy. It will be very painful but the alternative is far, far worse.

edit on 9/8/2010 by Devino because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
From what I've read the inner structure held about 80% of the weight and the outer mesh columns were designed mostly to allow lateral movement. The central columns were a lot larger, and cross braced, than the outer mesh columns.

I haven't seen many places that mention the load proportion between the core and the perimeter columns.

But there is a place in the NCSTAR1 report that says at basement level six the proportion is 53% to 47%.

I don't remember which is which so I usually just say 50-50.

psik

new topics

top topics

99