It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 22
99
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
My understanding is that you're talking about the falling top section that fell as a piece. As such within it there were no notable collisions, and it was subject to gravity, upwards forces from things it hit, and explosive forces from any explosive charges that may or may not have been going off. There were no other downward forces in particular, especially if you believe there were no explosive charges.

But if you want to talk about what happens to something when something falls on it, generally force is not used to analyze such collisions. Of course F = ma for each particle under consideration, but things become too complex to analyze that way because it's not obvious how to calculate the forces. Instead one tends to look at the large pieces and apply the laws of energy and momentum conservation. (Momentum conservation is really another way of saying F = ma.) Energy can "leak out" as heat. Momentum is conserved if added up over every particle.

Gorman91, I really suggest you take some time and read a good textbook on mechanics. I recommended one at the right level; many others will do as well. Since this is usually a one-semester course for people who are good enough at this stuff to be freshman engineering and science majors, it will take some time. There is some depth to it; it is one of mankind's significant intellectual achievements. Maybe some of the give-and-take here in the thread will be helpful in clarifying the way they want you to think and speeding your progress. It's been a pleasure to talk with you about this and good luck in your investigations.


edit on 11-9-2010 by oniongrass because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You have obviously never studied physics and are making statements based on your assumptions as to how the universe works.


Objects in motion generate more force than stationary objects.


A clear misunderstanding. Objects in motion don't generate any mysterious force. In case you haven't noticed, we're hurtling through space at a high rate of speed (even our whole solar system is moving very fast), yet we are not generating any force. We will need to be decelerated for that to happen.


A stationary rock on a table does not put as much force into the table as one crashing into the table at 200 mph.


I asked what forces were acting on the top section (the rock in this analogy). Do you have as much trouble with English comprehension as you do with physics? By the way, gravity is the only downwards acting force on the rock and the rock would only exert a force on the table (and the table on the rock) proportional to the rate of deceleration the table decelerated the rock.


It's quite simple.


If only it was simple enough for you to understand properly.

When the rock impacted the table, the table would have decelerated the rock. This is what should have happened to the falling top section of the towers. Instead it was as though the rock accelerated through the table, like if the table legs were blown out ahead of time.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 

reply to post by ANOK
 



We are not generating any force at those speeds because we have not yet hit anything. This so-called mysterious force is known at potential energy, and yes, we are storing it up in motion. What was this claim of yours I don't know physics?

Let this explain it to you:

www.physicsclassroom.com...



Gravitational potential energy is the energy stored in an object as the result of its vertical position or height. The energy is stored as the result of the gravitational attraction of the Earth for the object. The gravitational potential energy of the massive ball of a demolition machine is dependent on two variables - the mass of the ball and the height to which it is raised.


Guess what a 5th of the WTC about to fall has in terms of potential energy?

Jeez dude.

In case you don't get it, if the Earth were to hit a small rock the size of a car that was stationary relative to the whole universe, the Earth would turn it to dust.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of your stuff until you can understand these most basic physical facts.


edit on 12-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




edit on 12-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
...In case you don't get it, if the Earth were to hit a small rock the size of a car that was stationary relative to the whole universe, the Earth would turn it to dust.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of your stuff until you can understand these most basic physical facts.


LOL I have no idea what you're waffling on about.

The difference in knowing physics and just guessing is in the ability to explain WHY, and not just saying it happens.

You never explain why. You make guesses.

What the hell is your Earth analogy supposed to prove, that you again fail to realise that NO EXTRA MASS WAS ADDED TO THE TOWERS, yet you keep saying when a huge object hits a small object the small object will be destroyed,
pure genius! And completely irrelevant to the WTC collapses.

This is why I say you don't understand physics, you keep proving it. You fail to understand that potential energy is not the whole picture, RESISTANCE plays a huge part, so does conservation of momentum, angular momentum (for wtc2) etc.

Energy is a measurement of work done, it is not a physical entity, the amount of force is dependent on a lot of things not just the size, or momentum, of the moving object. You ignore Newtons laws of motion, especially 'equal and opposite reactions' that tell us when objects collide the forces on each object are EQUAL, no matter the momentum, or lol potential energy. When two objects of equal mass collide at low speed they are no going to destroy each other completely, as RESISTANCE slows the momentum almost instantly on contact and the monument is resisted. It can not simply keep going ignoring resistance, unless that resistance is removed first.

BTW did you even read the two posts above before you replied to me?



edit on 9/12/2010 by ANOK because: to remove long quote



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



We are not generating any force at those speeds because we have not yet hit anything.


That is what I said my entire post. When something is hit there is deceleration (negative acceleration). Force is directly proportional to acceleration and NOT speed. If you don't believe me then don't take my word for it, look it up in any physics text book.


This so-called mysterious force is known at potential energy, and yes, we are storing it up in motion.


Sorry, potential energy is not a force. Try again.


What was this claim of yours I don't know physics?


See above. Also, as oniongrass said, it would be well worth your time to get a basic mechanics text book and become familiar with the concepts. That way you can be assured that your beliefs regarding 9/11 are built on sound physics principles.


Let this explain it to you:


Thanks, but I've done my degree and am quite familiar with what gravitational potential energy is. By the way, it has nothing to do with speed.


Guess what a 5th of the WTC about to fall has in terms of potential energy?

Jeez dude.


I would imagine quite a lot, but it really has nothing to do with what I've been talking about.


In case you don't get it, if the Earth were to hit a small rock the size of a car that was stationary relative to the whole universe, the Earth would turn it to dust.



I'm not going to reply to the rest of your stuff until you can understand these most basic physical facts.


That's fine. Maybe one day you'll get a chance to be in one of the structures I designed without any understanding of basic physical facts. If you want to go on thinking you have a complete understanding of basic mechanics despite two engineers telling you otherwise then good for you. The world needs people like that for our Saturday night poker games.

One of the reasons I post on here is to have knowledgeable people try to find fault with my theories or beliefs. That way I can refine them and make them more accurate. As you are unable to offer me this it will be no great loss to have you no longer reply. It is unfortunate that the pain of conflicting evidence got too much for you.

Good luck in seeking the truth.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sure I explained why. You've failed to respond to my why. You simply say I am wrong and move on.

When a rock slide occurs, no extra mass is added. The rocks simply destabilize and fall. I fail to see how you need to add mass to make them fall once the material ability to generate resistant force is gone.

You completely ignore this fact and lie that you MUST add more mass. No, you do not. In as much a burned stick cannot hold the same mass as a non-burned stick, a burned iron frame cannot hold the same mass as a good cool iron frame.

It is simple. Material property change when conditions change. Failure to understand that, and saying I do not understand physics, is nothing short of hilarious.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 





Potential energy is closely linked with forces. If the work done moving along a path which starts and ends in the same location is zero, then the force is said to be conservative and it is possible to define a numerical value of potential associated with every point in space


Simply put, big thing falls, makes bigger force than if big thing was laying down stationary. If you reject that, I don't care about the rest of your post.

Reason why big thing fell is because fires made the materials incapable of generating resistant force. Material property changes in different conditions.

Failure to understand that is also disturbing.

So what forces? We're done with that topic. How about you prove that those forces at work remain constant in different temperatures.


edit on 12-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



When a rock slide occurs.....



Not only THAT example (though a good one) what about an AVALANCHE????

Not sure why people don't understand this, as relates to gravity......



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
To folks who think the "pancake" theory is as good as the "Magic Bullet" of the JFK False Flag...

Want a DEMONSTRATION why your 'theory' IS the Government Cospiracy ???

rewind: Hammer Feather Moon Gravity Experiment video.google.com...#

WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial

www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com.../ /3a5okw8

WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video above. To date, many years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.

Ever seen STEEL 'pancake' by FIRE alone ??? Other than 911 it has NEVER happened before WITHOUT 'controlled demolition' through use of PRECISELY spaced explosives and thermite cutters.

Even a Mud Wall will not crumble at "Free Fall Speed"
mycommonsensepolitics.net...
At no time in history has any building ever completely disintegrated without the use of explosives. The buildings above were all damaged by earthquakes. Three WTC Towers were completely demolished on 911. Why is our government telling us that these demolitions were caused by spontaneous collapse, primarily due to fire, after finding incontrovertible evidence of military high explosives?

Building What?

www.ae911truth.org...

Bob



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sure I explained why. You've failed to respond to my why. You simply say I am wrong and move on.

When a rock slide occurs, no extra mass is added. The rocks simply destabilize and fall. I fail to see how you need to add mass to make them fall once the material ability to generate resistant force is gone.

You completely ignore this fact and lie that you MUST add more mass. No, you do not. In as much a burned stick cannot hold the same mass as a non-burned stick, a burned iron frame cannot hold the same mass as a good cool iron frame.

It is simple. Material property change when conditions change. Failure to understand that, and saying I do not understand physics, is nothing short of hilarious.


Oh dear this is so painful.

When a rock slide occurs it is because the hillside lost the ability to resist the rocks falling, gravity tales over. What has that got to do with a building collapsing? How did the undamaged building lose the ability to resist its own complete collapse?

I never said you need to add more mass, you added more mass with your silly rock and table analogy.

You are not helping your case, you are trying to make round pegs fit square holes. Have I moved on? No I'm back correcting you again.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Avalanche is a perfect example. heat changes the materiality. Can no longer hold structure. Structure falls down. Steel is no different.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Gorman91
 



When a rock slide occurs.....



Not only THAT example (though a good one) what about an AVALANCHE????

Not sure why people don't understand this, as relates to gravity......


And you agree with that silly analogy with another just as bad analogy?


Avalanche is the same as falling rocks, hillside loses the ability to resist the movement of the snow, it falls. What has that got to do with collapsing buildings?

Both of you ignore or don't understand how resistance works.


edit on 9/12/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
After watching the FEATHER reach the Moon's surface at the SAME time as the HAMMER...

for the "Pancake" theory to be correct...WTC... HAD to be in "vacum"...i.e NO...repeat NADA...resistance.

The 47 STEEL core would have remained...and why is the only ONE mention of Bldg 7 in a "footnote" of this:

www.youtube.com...

or this

www.youtube.com...

Bob..



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Avalanche is a perfect example. heat changes the materiality. Can no longer hold structure. Structure falls down. Steel is no different.


No it isn't.

RESISTANCE!

Avalanches are not buildings designed to resist their own collapse. Buildings do not act in the same way an avalanche does.

You have over 80 floors of the WTC towers that received NO heat whatsoever, they should have resisted the collapse, period.

WTC 7 ended up with all four outer walls sitting ON TOP of the debris pile, in other words the building landed mostly in its own footprint. This is what controlled demolition is designed to do, it can not happen from random fires and asymmetrical damage.

The way avalanches and falling rocks work has nothing to do with it.

One of these days you might understand the significance of those facts. First though you have to understand basic Newtonian physics. You wonder why I say you don't understand physics, this is why.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hey guess what.

Add heat?

Resistance decreases.

In as much as water vapor doesn't have the same resistance as ice, solid room temperature steel does not have the same resistance as bending hot steel at jet fuel fires temperatures.

perhaps it is you who knows not how resistance works.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Once that massive structure began to fall the resistance of the structure bellow was pretty much null because the hierarchy was falling apart. No hierarchy, no strength. I've explained you to this. You called it opinion. You did not, however, say why it was wrong.

Also, WTC7 fires were bigger than you think.

Fires on nearly every floor.

www.911myths.com...


edit on 12-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hey guess what.

Add heat?

Resistance decreases.

In as much as water vapor doesn't have the same resistance as ice, solid room temperature steel does not have the same resistance as bending hot steel at jet fuel fires temperatures.

perhaps it is you who knows not how resistance works.


This is my last reply to you because you are not reading what I say, we've been over this.

How did the lower floors of the WTC towers get hot enough to not resist its own collapse? Buildings are designed with at least a 2x safety margin.

How did WTC 2 get hot enough to fail with less then one hour of fire when other steel framed buildings have stood for days after being completely engulfed?

How did WTC 7 land in its own footprint from heat? And why did it take so long to collapse when the WTC towers made from the same steel took only one hour?

Jet fuel fire temperatures? What would they be enstein? Are you making assumptions again?

Open air temp of burning jet fuel is about 275C, open air temp of a typical room fire burns a lot hotter than that, so no extra heat from the fuel. All the fuel does is help it burn QUICKER, which means the fuel (furniture etc.) doesn't last as long and the fire doesn't stay as hot for as long as it would without the accelerant (jet fuel).

Steel also doesn't suddenly fail from heat, there would be obvious deformation long before it failed completely.

Again you base everything on common misconceptions, not from any knowledge of physics.



edit on 9/12/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


the lower floors did not collapse. Quite literally, the internal parts got ultra-sardined, and the outer structure pretty much destabilized and fell over. if you take not of photos, most of the outer structure on the bottom was perfectly ok. This is because it was the inner structure which did most of the collapsing and sucked the floors down with it. The outer structure just brok eoff from the hierarchy, chilled, and fell without a support. Quite literally a Tesseract.

So the bottom floors did not have much happen to them other than get squished. besides, most of that was empty space to begin with. Check it out in videos and such.

To compare totally different buildings with totally different hierarchies and totally different design approaches and claim that because of their structure the wtc should have done the same is not only ignorant of architecture but also ignorant of the fact that they were totally different structures.

WTC7 did not have a plane crash into. Took longer to generate the conditions necessary for collapse. The whole idea of demoing it is retarded seeing as the damages incurred would be plenty good for a demo. And in terms of cash, because I know it will be brought up, you could make a crap-ton of money off it making a case that it had to be demoed for safety reasons and still get the money. if you burn down your house for the insurance money but it doesn't collapse, but the fire department brings it down for security, it's still valid.

Jet fuel fires are hot enough to generate thermite from the local environment. This was discussed ages ago. Failure to read it is not my problem. Look up zinc sulfur reactions. Zinc is plentiful on steel structure. Sulfur comes from walls though a reaction available from the resources and temperatures occurring.

With the structure weight above it, any deformation would probably lead to rapid collapse. However if you need proof of deformation, just look at the steel after the collapse.

I see no holes in these facts nor any reason for demos. Failure on your part to supply a case against it is not my problem. There are people who still think the Earth is flat. I couldn't honestly give a damn what you claim. I'm just going to point out the fallacies.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Never argue with someone who knows they are right.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous: Carl Sagan


Bob...



edit on 12-9-2010 by rhw007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by rhw007
 


And what if there was no pre-conceived bamboozle to begin with. There's plenty to prove the event was used to make wars and further policy. There is zero proof that it was planned or amplified with demos.

Forgive me for pointing out the glaring obvious fact, but government, especially the US government, is not exactly known for massive thousand-member plans that are planned for a decade not getting revealed or discovered somehow or another to the public eye.



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join