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.

 

So... What if 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by abcddcba
 



with each successive floor the momentum should be slowed as the floors below are absorbing the energy


Why would the momentum slow , if the mass is increasing as each successive floor collapses ?




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by abcddcba
in the second case where the only thing holding up the floors are joints then 28 floors dropping 1 floor down should have destroyed the floors below it and with each successive floor the momentum should be slowed as the floors below are absorbing the energy released when those 28 floors suddenly dropped 1 floor height, or level.


You seem to forget that after every floor that collapses, the entire top section plus that extra floor is pulled down again for several meters by gravity, speeding it up and generating all fresh and new momentum to crush the next floor. This momentum can only be larger than it was on the previous floor because the crushing mass increased by one floor and there is residue momentum from the collision from the previous floor. So with each floor, momentum increases. The model in that video is flawed as it does not represent the actual structure.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by abcddcba
anyone should be able to see that in either scenario the towers should not have collapsed the way they did. if the floors below are holding up the floors above then you have to use the what im going to call pyramid theory because i cant remember the law right now.


As long as you don't distinguish between floors and levels people will play semantic debating games.

The columns in the core and on the perimeter were not the FLOOR.

psik



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


a little something called resistance, you should look into it. you might be able to figure out why the wtc shouldnt just fall straight down as if nothing was supporting it.

also where are you getting this idea that the mass increased? from where? the plane in the building? thats negligible at best. if you have 100 pounds of weights(mass) stacked up in 10 pound increments and in between each weight is a sponge cake weighing 1 gram you have 100pounds + 10 grams. if the weight at the top flattens the spongecake below it causing it to contact the weight below it causing a chain reaction of collapsing spongecakes and weights you still only have 100pounds and 10 grams of total mass.
edit on 30-11-2010 by abcddcba because: logic.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by abcddcba
in the second case where the only thing holding up the floors are joints then 28 floors dropping 1 floor down should have destroyed the floors below it and with each successive floor the momentum should be slowed as the floors below are absorbing the energy released when those 28 floors suddenly dropped 1 floor height, or level.


You seem to forget that after every floor that collapses, the entire top section plus that extra floor is pulled down again for several meters by gravity, speeding it up and generating all fresh and new momentum to crush the next floor. This momentum can only be larger than it was on the previous floor because the crushing mass increased by one floor and there is residue momentum from the collision from the previous floor. So with each floor, momentum increases. The model in that video is flawed as it does not represent the actual structure.
again you like the other guy are forgetting resistance. the only way it would just keep going is if it fell 28 stories/floors before making contact with the next level/floor below. whats with this semantics you guys are playing with the word floor? it means the **** thing you are standing on right now that is being supported by the floor and beams below it unless you live an a basement. if you have a 5 floor/story(its the same thing dont play word games with me) building and you suddenly make the 2nd floor dissapear the top 3 floors will fall down 1 floor/level/story and the combined weight with the force of gravity (Fg=m(m=mass)*g(g=9.81m/s/s)) will crush the floor that they fell on in this case being the bottom floor. if you have a 100 story building and you make the 77th floor dissapear, the 23 floors above will not ave enough force to just destroy the remaining 76 floors below them its physically ***** impossible. this is why the wtc shouldnt have fallen down like they did. even if you took out 10 floors its still not enough. you would have had to have taken out the middle 3rd of the building for there to be enough energy to destroy the rest.

theres no generation of new momentum you cant just create energy out of thin air this is 5th grade science here folks. potential energy = energy stored in every object. kinetic energy = energy being used. you cannot create or destroy energy, only transfer/translate it to something else. you throw a knife at a wall. your potential energy goes through your arm and into the knife, the knife leaves your hand with whatever force you put into it, it flies through the air and some of the energy is transferred to the air which is resisting it, the remaining energy is transferred from the knife[kinetic energy] to the wall [potential energy] which is distributed into the wall as the force from you throwing a knife at the wall was not great enough to either knock the wall over or punch a hole through it.
edit on 30-11-2010 by abcddcba because: science lesson.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by abcddcba
 


By now it should have been clear that by floor I mean just the part you are standing on, so without the support columns. As for the resistance, it would be equal to the load capacity of the floors (as per definition in the previous sentence, I will use this definition further on) and not equal to the load capacity of the support columns. The load capacity of the floors is designed to carry only the weight of the floor, not of the top section. That is what the support columns are for. I already explained why in previous posts. As for preservation of energy, the momentum increases as result of gravity pulling a mass to the ground. Buildings store a significant amount of potential energy, which is transfered to kinetic energy when parts of the building falls due to gravity. It is indeed not rocket science, so get educated. Start for a basic understanding for example here: en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 30-11-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by abcddcba
 



also where are you getting this idea that the mass increased?


Look , I could really care less if you call them floors , or if you call them levels . I don't see where it is relevant .

As for increased mass , I'm really puzzled by your question . If five floors drop onto another floor , you now have six floors dropping . when those six floors drop onto another floor , you now have seven floors dropping . When those seven floors drop onto a floor , you now have eight floors dropping . With each successive floor failure , the mass that is dropping increases by the weight of one more floor level . Can you not see that ?

So , how does the momentum decrease , while the mass that is falling , increases ? Physically impossible .



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   


So that brings us back to the issue of why we don't have that information after NINE YEARS and why supposed experts haven't been demanding that information for all of that time.


Because the real experts don’t have any issue with the OS of the collapse. It’s only the ‘web experts’ who do.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
What's the matter with you conspiracy theorists? Don't you know that hundreds of heavy duty steel columns failing at virtually the same time in a modern skyscraper is no big deal? I'm sure there are thousands of examples of undamaged steel columns failing simultaneously in buildings which have not been intentionally set up for demolition. And if you can't find any such examples, keep looking, they're out there.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost374
 


I think you are pretty close,i also believe "they "had already planed something like what happened ,and loosened up the nooses on all security for a few months till they dialed in what "they "where planning to do (they meaning the patsies,cough i mean terrorist )
And silverstien was ever so willing to donate his complex( buildings 1,2,3,4,5,6,and 7 which all where destroyed ..why only his ?)to help the movie set be built that was played out before our very eyes with the use of real people and some actors thrown in(US government has done this for years)to make it all seem like it was real , when in actuality, The plot was the only real thing of that whole day , but the actions where all manipulated,not really controlled, but manipulated/nudged/pushed in one direction ..lol to even further the illusion that the plot ,was real as real gets

I am just saying



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent


So that brings us back to the issue of why we don't have that information after NINE YEARS and why supposed experts haven't been demanding that information for all of that time.

Because the real experts don’t have any issue with the OS of the collapse. It’s only the ‘web experts’ who do.


Yes it is certainly an interesting issue.

People can't comprehend that in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up every LEVEL must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the LEVELS above therefore the designers had to figure out how much steel was needed on each LEVEL.

And yet NINE YEARS after the event they allow REAL EXPERTS to get away with not telling them the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every LEVEL and yet believe this nonsense anyway.

So apparently we have a society of people that regard it as intelligent to think what they are told no matter how DUMB it is.

Do skyscrapers have to hold themselves up DUH!

41 years after the Moon landing and the nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every LEVEL of buildings designed before 1969. That makes so much sense.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up every LEVEL must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the LEVELS above


Are you simply ignoring my posts ? I have explained this to you over and over .

The "levels" DID NOT support the levels above them ! Why do you keep ignoring this ???



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   


People can't comprehend that in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up every LEVEL must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the LEVELS above therefore the designers had to figure out how much steel was needed on each LEVEL.



I totally disagree.

From my understanding the center core and the exterior are the only things holding each floor. The floors are attached at each end. If those attachments fail or the floor trusses fail, all the weight of that floor would fall to the next lower floor. Since that next lower floor was not designed to hold its own weight and the weight of the floor above, it too would fail. This failure would put pulling stresses on the outer steel as well as the core, setting them up for side ways failure. A self sustaining failure.

I think most truthers feel the building was made with steel I beams in a box configuration. Like the Empire State building. Stacking one steel box on top of another. But the size of the lower steel would have to be so large it would break the bank. If they had, or even could have, likely both building would still be here.

I would consider the design to be flimsy and only strong enough to support itself. I doubt it could have survived a 707 hit, even though they said it could.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up every LEVEL must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the LEVELS above


Are you simply ignoring my posts ? I have explained this to you over and over .

The "levels" DID NOT support the levels above them ! Why do you keep ignoring this ???


So you are saying the core columns and perimeter columns up to 8 feet above and 2 feet below the surface of a floor is not on the same LEVEL with that floor?

What are you saying is holding up the portion of the building above that level?

psik



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

As for increased mass , I'm really puzzled by your question . If five floors drop onto another floor , you now have six floors dropping . when those six floors drop onto another floor , you now have seven floors dropping . When those seven floors drop onto a floor , you now have eight floors dropping . With each successive floor failure , the mass that is dropping increases by the weight of one more floor level . Can you not see that ? So , how does the momentum decrease , while the mass that is falling , increases ? Physically impossible

Even if it were possible that the upper-floors gained velocity with the increased weight added by each new collapsing floor making the falling mass increasingly heavier enough to crush the tower below, there's a fundamental inconsistency that needs to be addressed, which is, where are the floors in the rubble? The rubble pile is only five stories high (and the underground basement 20 meters high), which means the floors couldn't have increased in weight enough to crush the significantly stronger tower below. And any arguments along the lines of "the floors were compacted and those five floors really represented twenty" need to be substantiated. A straight-down, symmetrical natural collapse I feel is highly unlikely, because physics dictates that objects invariably fall to the path of least resistance. Therefore as the falling mass crashed into the undamaged floors below the resistance would cause the falling mass to tilt sideways, causing a non-symmetrical collapse. It seems inconceivable to me that the falling mass (which is the same weight the towers held up every day) would fall through the towers at speeds exceptionally close to freefall.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Since the floors were never build to carry the weight of the top section, it seems to me they would fail easily. Especially when you consider the dynamic load was equivalent to 30 times the top section weight (according to Wikipedia). See the following scientific study for more details: www.civil.northwestern.edu...

So on what exactly do you base that this is "inconceivable"? Which scientific study?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

Since the floors were never build to carry the weight of the top section, it seems to me they would fail easily. Especially when you consider the dynamic load was equivalent to 30 times the top section weight (according to Wikipedia).

You actually see the top-section pivot outwards in one of the videos, which means it couldn't have collapsed symmetrically straight down unless it straightened up. Why don't you tell us all about this gigantic dynamic load that contains the mass distribution information to show how it got around the conservation of angular momentum to straighten up after pivoting outwards?


So on what exactly do you base that this is "inconceivable"? Which scientific study?

We see the same exact symmetrical global unified descent at an unnatural consistent unwavering near-free-fall rate despite different damage and vastly different weights above. The towers were designed to support their weight so the idea they could have crushed themselves at essentially freefall is improbable unless the columns were weakened to allow for almost no resistance.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
You actually see the top-section pivot outwards in one of the videos, which means it couldn't have collapsed symmetrically straight down through the building, unless it straightened up. Why don't you tell us all about this gigantic dynamic load that contains the mass distribution information to show how it got around the conservation of angular momentum to straighten up after reaching unstable equilibrium?


The answer is the in paper I linked:


Before disappearing from view, the upper part of the South tower was seen to tilt significantly and of the North tower mildly. Some wondered why the tilting did not continue, so that the upper part would pivot about its base like a falling tree see Fig. 4 of Bažant and Zhou 2002b. However, such toppling to the side was impossible because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elastoplastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3x Bažant and Zhou 2002b.


Although I am unable to confirm the validity of this without doing a lot of studying, as I am no expert in this field.


We see the same exact symmetrical global unified descent at an unnatural consistent unwavering near-free-fall rate despite different damage and vastly different weights above. The towers were designed to support their weight, so the idea they could have crashed themselves at essentially freefall while simultaneously being pulverised to dust due to gravity alone seems highly improbable to me.


The calculations in the paper (and its references) point out otherwise. Why are those wrong?


And you ask me for a scientific study, well, I could ask you the same thing. NIST haven't even explained in detail how the towers collapsed, in fact, their computer models inexplicably stop at the collapse initiation. I would like to see a scientific study proving a natural collapse.


I linked to a study in my previous post. Look at the references in that paper for more details. So why are you asking? Are you rejecting that study? Why?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
post by -PLB-
 

I linked to a study in my previous post. Look at the references in that paper for more details. So why are you asking? Are you rejecting that study? Why?

I've explained my case above. The towers came down at essentially freefall which violates basic physics. There is nothing exceptionally hard about knowing what G is. Free-fall acceleration is acceleration of an object acted on only by force of gravity. You're telling me this is too hard to understand and this is possible in a gravitational collapse of a steel-framed building?


Although I am unable to confirm the validity of this without doing a lot of studying, as I am no expert in this field.

Right. So you admit you don't understand it enough to confirm its validity. If that is the case, then why are you standing by it? As I said, if the top-section begins to pivot away from its centre of mass it cannot straighten up unless acted on by an equal and opposite force and nowhere in the videos do you see this happen, it just disappears into a cloud of dust.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I've explained my case above. The towers came down at essentially freefall which violates basic physics. There is nothing exceptionally hard about knowing what G is. Free-fall acceleration is acceleration of an object acted on only by force of gravity. You're telling me this is too hard to understand and this is possible in a gradational collapse of a steel-framed building?


It was more like halve of free fall speed. The study I linked shows it is possible. Why is that scientific study wrong, and your opinion correct, of which you still did not say what you based it on?


Right. So you admit you don't understand it enough to confirm its validity. If that is the case, then why are standing by it? As I said, if the top-section begins to pivot away from its centre of mass it cannot straighten up unless acted on by an equal and opposite force.


You obviously also do not understand it well enough to refute it. So unless another study or scientist refutes it by showing why it is wrong, I will stand by it, and not by your gut feeling. Show me the study that proves it is wrong, and we have something to discuss. Until then, I have no reason to believe its wrong. Intuitively it makes sense to me.

What we currently have is several studies that show that the progressive collapse is inevitable, and none it is inconceivable. Why should I go by your gut feeling, and not by the science?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join