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.

 

How to Collapse Without Explosives

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by FDNY343
 


They also made these statements...

"As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed, the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes."

"Once the structural support of the upper floors is removed, a few falling floors can bring down an entire building."

This was before they were proven wrong, and NIST changed their mind on the 'pancake collapse' hypothesis.

Nat Geo has no credibility, and I don't need them to do tests for me. It's no more relevant than the Unpopular Mechanics tabloid hit piece.


And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

They showed without a doubt that a fire would cause the failure of a beam simmilar to the ones found in the WTC with just jet fuel. In less than 4 minutes.

I'll ask you the same thing.

When do you plan on submitting your paper to a respectable, peer-reviewed journal, proving NIST wrong?




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

This is such a weak claim.

We know the strength of materials, we know physics. We know Newtons laws of motion, and what happens when objects collide. We know, and so does NIST, that the plane impacts had very little to do with the final collapses. We know an hours worth of fire is not enough to transfer heat to thousands of tons of steel to make it fail from its own weight.

If you don't know this stuff then on what grounds can you claim the OS is correct? None, you work on nothing but faith.


Do you think that the structure should have acted like a giant heat sink? LOL!!!


If I were you, I wouldn't point out the splinter in someone elses eye, when you have a plank in your own.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


You don't even need to build anything to prove it's not possible.

Just take some light construction steel and jet fuel and light a fire under it. See if it sags after an hour.


Already done, and in less than 4 minutes IIRC.

Nat Geo did it. They even put a load on the steel.

Guess what happened?


What good are tests that are basically IDIOTIC?

Nat Geo could compute the temperatures ahead of time and the thickness of steel to use. They could even have conducted the tests ahead of time to be sure it did what they wanted.

The THICKNESS OF STEEL in the columns on the 81st LEVEL of the south tower was determined by how much weight that steel had to support which was another 29 stories.

So when do we ever hear how thick that steel was or how many tons of steel were on that LEVEL?

Then there is the matter of the airflow in the Nat Geo demonstration. They created a FIRE STORM. The exhaust air could flow straight up and fresh air could flow in from 360 degrees. Those are not the conditions of the WTC fires. Exhaust flow was blocked by the floors above and the input was limited by the holes created by the plane and explosions.

psik


Horse****. If anything, the fire conditions in the WTC would have been WORSE than what is shown in the Nat Geo test.

Why you ask?

Heat buildup at the ceiling.

No air? Go google "Stack Effect" or "Chimney Effect" and tell me what you find out.

Lastly, do you not realize how much air could have been brought in through that hole?

I estimate around 1,000 cubic feet per minute given the size of the hole, and the size of the fires.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


You don't even need to build anything to prove it's not possible.

Just take some light construction steel and jet fuel and light a fire under it. See if it sags after an hour.


Already done, and in less than 4 minutes IIRC.

Nat Geo did it. They even put a load on the steel.

Guess what happened?


What good are tests that are basically IDIOTIC?

Nat Geo could compute the temperatures ahead of time and the thickness of steel to use. They could even have conducted the tests ahead of time to be sure it did what they wanted.

The THICKNESS OF STEEL in the columns on the 81st LEVEL of the south tower was determined by how much weight that steel had to support which was another 29 stories.

So when do we ever hear how thick that steel was or how many tons of steel were on that LEVEL?

Then there is the matter of the airflow in the Nat Geo demonstration. They created a FIRE STORM. The exhaust air could flow straight up and fresh air could flow in from 360 degrees. Those are not the conditions of the WTC fires. Exhaust flow was blocked by the floors above and the input was limited by the holes created by the plane and explosions.

psik


Horse****. If anything, the fire conditions in the WTC would have been WORSE than what is shown in the Nat Geo test.

Why you ask?

Heat buildup at the ceiling.

No air? Go google "Stack Effect" or "Chimney Effect" and tell me what you find out.

Lastly, do you not realize how much air could have been brought in through that hole?

I estimate around 1,000 cubic feet per minute given the size of the hole, and the size of the fires.


The exhaust air had to go out through that hole also. All you have to do is watch the video and see where the smoke came from.

How much hot air was concentrating near the ceiling if it was flowing out sideways through the hole for the plane and blown out windows? How hot did the fire get with weak air flow? So how could it get hot enough to start a collapse?

But then how thick was the steel of the columns at the 81st floor of the south tower? JEEZ! We can't even get the tons of steel on every level.

psik



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?


It means they will print anything, they lose their credibility. How can you trust what they say when they have been shown to tell lies?


They showed without a doubt that a fire would cause the failure of a beam simmilar to the ones found in the WTC with just jet fuel. In less than 4 minutes.


And they didn't prove that failure of a truss can lead to complete global collapse through the path of most resistance. So they fail.


When do you plan on submitting your paper to a respectable, peer-reviewed journal, proving NIST wrong?


Me not doing that does not mean the OS is correct, sorry. Please stick to the points of discussion, my personal actions outside of this forum are irrelevant.

Where is your peer reviewed journal proving the OS correct? In fact where is there ANY peer reviewed journal proving the OS correct?



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Actually, if you remember, parts of the plane blew through the opposite side of the tower, so there were multiple sources for air and exhaust.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


And they didn't prove that failure of a truss can lead to complete global collapse through the path of most resistance. So they fail.


Where is your peer reviewed journal proving the OS correct? In fact where is there ANY peer reviewed journal proving the OS correct?


They weren't trying to prove that, so they didn't fail at their objective. They were testing a single variable: the idea that jet fuel fire can't weaken steel. They proved it wrong rather strongly, and from the possibility that jet fuel can weaken steel, assumptions can be drawn about the cause of the collapse. There was no analyzation of the collapse itself.

As for journals, lets see here, I do know one that was not the official report that supported the OS. It happens to be an engineering journal:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

From the Abstract:

After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during
the crushing of one floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of
progressive collapse is developed.

edit on 12-2-2011 by Varemia because: fixed parentheses



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The exhaust air had to go out through that hole also. All you have to do is watch the video and see where the smoke came from.


You think all the smoke left from that opening only? LOL!! Wow.


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How much hot air was concentrating near the ceiling if it was flowing out sideways through the hole for the plane and blown out windows?


Are you saying that the ceiling area in a fire will not get very hot because the hot air is escaping? Wow, someone alert firefighters everywhere!!


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How hot did the fire get with weak air flow?


1,000 cf/m is not weak. Not at all. Did you google "stack effect" or "chimney effect"? This post tells me you didn't. How......Unsuprising.


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So how could it get hot enough to start a collapse?


Heat rises. Where do you think all that heat goes?


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But then how thick was the steel of the columns at the 81st floor of the south tower? JEEZ! We can't even get the tons of steel on every level.

psik


And WHY would you need this information? I've seen you ask it here a few times, but it seems like a waste of time.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by FDNY343
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?


It means they will print anything, they lose their credibility. How can you trust what they say when they have been shown to tell lies?


They showed without a doubt that a fire would cause the failure of a beam simmilar to the ones found in the WTC with just jet fuel. In less than 4 minutes.


And they didn't prove that failure of a truss can lead to complete global collapse through the path of most resistance. So they fail.


When do you plan on submitting your paper to a respectable, peer-reviewed journal, proving NIST wrong?


Me not doing that does not mean the OS is correct, sorry. Please stick to the points of discussion, my personal actions outside of this forum are irrelevant.

Where is your peer reviewed journal proving the OS correct? In fact where is there ANY peer reviewed journal proving the OS correct?


Who printed that? THe News media? No ****, the media gets stuff wrong all the time.

It wasn't a truss failure that caused the global collapse. That is a strawman.

You keep saying the path of most resistance. Of course that is where it went. Where else should it have gone? Sideways? Not happening. Sorry.

No, it certainly mean that the OS is correct, but it certainly shows that NOBODY have been able to prove it wrong.

I have (as it stands) about 5 peer-reviewed papers published in fire engineering journals. No, I will not link to them. I vualue my privacy, just as you do.

Lastly, you want peer-reviewed papers? I gotcha.



Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.


You have alot of reading to do.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I noticed in the two videos of demolition without explosives that the ejected debris obviously falls faster than the building itself, less resistance.
What puzzles me is the ejections coming from wtc2 which if i were to believe you are the floors collapsing on to each other, are keeping pace with the falling debris outside, how can this be should not the floors fall slower due to resistance.
Here is a vid that shows the ejections keeping pace with the falling debris



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The collapse would have taken a lot longer. It does not work with building which have a steel column, think about it, how is one floor collapsing on the next going to take out the steel columns. But you know what, we dont need to go into as much detail.

All you need to know is, that a terrorist attack happened in which 3000 people died and those who were employed to investigate, did not test for explosive or accelerants. The only explanation is that somebody was involved who would not like the results and put a lid on it.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


It appears to me that the debris from the WTC is going faster than the collapse; only slightly, but it is accelerating faster than the building. I think the main difference between that debris and the debris seen in the OP is that in the demolition video, the concrete buckles and impacts the debris that is already in the air, turning the debris into faster-than-free-fall projectiles.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin
 


It appears to me that the debris from the WTC is going faster than the collapse; only slightly, but it is accelerating faster than the building. I think the main difference between that debris and the debris seen in the OP is that in the demolition video, the concrete buckles and impacts the debris that is already in the air, turning the debris into faster-than-free-fall projectiles.



1 Watch it again the ejections are keeping pace its as plain as the nose on your face.

2 As for faster than freefall , so every piece of falling debris was impacted on to speed it up in both your vids Thats laughable.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


No, not every piece. Only many of them. Stop insulting me. There is hardly enough height from which the debris is falling to draw any exact comparisons or observations.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin
 


No, not every piece. Only many of them. Stop insulting me. There is hardly enough height from which the debris is falling to draw any exact comparisons or observations.



I have not insulted you.

If you cant draw any comparisons or observations why start this thread. you said in the op "The point of it all is, however, that these are demolitions carried out with no explosives whatsoever and allow for the idea of the official story of the WTC collapses to actually become conceivable"
If I cant use those vids for comparison how can you.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by remymartin

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin
 


No, not every piece. Only many of them. Stop insulting me. There is hardly enough height from which the debris is falling to draw any exact comparisons or observations.



I have not insulted you.

If you cant draw any comparisons or observations why start this thread. you said in the op "The point of it all is, however, that these are demolitions carried out with no explosives whatsoever and allow for the idea of the official story of the WTC collapses to actually become conceivable"
If I cant use those vids for comparison how can you.


Have you glanced at the date that this thread was started? I realized the faults in using those videos as comparative evidence and no longer rely on them. It is your fault in not realizing that people can and do change their understandings as time goes on.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   


I realized the faults in using those videos as comparative evidence and no longer rely on them. It is your fault in not realizing that people can and do change their understandings as time goes on.


Why did you not say that in your first reply to me, would have saved me a lot of time. I am not a mind reader how am i to know you changed your mind.
As this thread does not stand any more i will not reply to it again



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Who printed that?


Err, National Geographic? Yes they get things wrong, this is my point. They are willing to print whatever without checking, what does that tell you?


It wasn't a truss failure that caused the global collapse. That is a strawman.


Oh, so what is the theory now then?


You keep saying the path of most resistance. Of course that is where it went. Where else should it have gone? Sideways? Not happening. Sorry.


I don't even know where to start with this one. Please go learn Newtons laws of motion.


The Law of Action-Reaction (Revisited)

A collision is an interaction between two objects that have made contact (usually) with each other. As in any interaction, a collision results in a force being applied to the two colliding objects. Newton's laws of motion govern such collisions. In the second unit of The Physics Classroom, Newton's third law of motion was introduced and discussed. It was said that...

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs...

...In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision.


Answer this question...


1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?


www.physicsclassroom.com...

Sorry but there was not enough floors to collapse the whole building. The falling floors would be destroyed along with the static floors, so you would run out of falling floors before all the static floors are destroyed.


No, it certainly mean that the OS is correct, but it certainly shows that NOBODY have been able to prove it wrong.


Who needs to PROVE it's wrong? There is enough doubt in its claims to warrant a new investigation. Why are you debunkers so scared of a new investigation?

Nothing in your list proves the OS correct.
edit on 2/12/2011 by ANOK because: type



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Now I KNOW that it's impossible for you to have read every one of the papers on that list. You are a liar at this moment.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Err, National Geographic? Yes they get things wrong, this is my point. They are willing to print whatever without checking, what does that tell you?


It tells me that you do not understand the NIST report.

It wasn't a pancake collapse that BEGAN the collapse. It is what happened DURING the collapse.


Originally posted by ANOK

Oh, so what is the theory now then?


The same it has been for quite a while. The trusses didn't fail. They sagged. Pulling in the exterior columns.

If you had read and understood the NIST report, you would know this.


Originally posted by ANOK

I don't even know where to start with this one. Please go learn Newtons laws of motion.


The Law of Action-Reaction (Revisited)

A collision is an interaction between two objects that have made contact (usually) with each other. As in any interaction, a collision results in a force being applied to the two colliding objects. Newton's laws of motion govern such collisions. In the second unit of The Physics Classroom, Newton's third law of motion was introduced and discussed. It was said that...

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs...

...In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision.



Yep. Point?


Originally posted by ANOK

Answer this question...


1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?


www.physicsclassroom.com...


The same. Point? You keep forgetting all the debris that was still able to exert a force on the lower floors.


Originally posted by ANOK

Sorry but there was not enough floors to collapse the whole building. The falling floors would be destroyed along with the static floors, so you would run out of falling floors before all the static floors are destroyed.


Again, you are forgetting that even rubble can exert a force. Care to back up this claim with math?


Originally posted by ANOK

Who needs to PROVE it's wrong? There is enough doubt in its claims to warrant a new investigation. Why are you debunkers so scared of a new investigation?


Feel free. Get to it. What's stopping you? Has ANY truther written ANY kind of engineering paper like Bazant did and published it in a RESPECTABLE journal? To date, NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Why are truthers so afraid of respectable journals?



Originally posted by ANOK

Nothing in your list proves the OS correct.
edit on 2/12/2011 by ANOK because: type


Really? You've read them all, and understood them?

Lets discuss one. Pick any one you would like. I will wait. You can even start a new thread about it.

Just be prepared. READ the entire paper.

I'll wait......

(PS. One of those papers is even referenced in the NIST report. Do you know which one that is? )



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join