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.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 24
13
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Believe it or not, there is more to a collapse than mere crushing.

For now, we're focusing on the physics involved in the collapse, not the specific amount of everything.


Some physics! You can't even do an accurate magical collapse based on the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM without accurate data on the distribution of mass.

I already wrote a computer program for it. But 109 masses floating in the air that move when struck from above take TWELVE SECONDS. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in ELEVEN SECONDS. So how does your physics without data explain anything? LOL

the911forum.freeforums.org...

psik




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Now you're just not making any sense. Again, the floors are not massive solid objects. It wasn't a floor-on-floor perfectly nice pancake collapse... Honestly, if I had the money and time, I would build a model that might accurately reflect some of this stuff, but I don't have money or time.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Now you're just not making any sense. Again, the floors are not massive solid objects. It wasn't a floor-on-floor perfectly nice pancake collapse... Honestly, if I had the money and time, I would build a model that might accurately reflect some of this stuff, but I don't have money or time.


You keep saying FLOORS. What happened to the CORE COLUMNS and the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core?

This pancaking rubbish is all about the floor assemblies outside the core for which we have not been told the weights. Very scientific. I haven't talked about LEVELS of the building being massive solid objects. That is just your dumb projection. But there were still tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the buildings and the designers had to make the buildings hold themselves up.

The NIST rejected the pancake theory years ago.

psik



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Believe it or not, there is more to a collapse than mere crushing. I know you won't believe it, but we'll keep arguing until you at least admit that there was more than "A lands on B and crushes it" with regards to the Trade Center collapses.


You are right there is more to a collapse than just crushing, there is Newtons laws of motion. When one floors impacts another floor, both floors would receive equal forces, if the static floor is crushed by the dropping floor then the dropping floor would also receive massage damage (as they were more or less equal mass). The bottom section will provide an equal and opposite reaction force to any downward accelerating force according to Newtons 3rd law.

With 30 floors dropping on 80 floors, the 30 floors would not last in one piece in order to crush 80 floors, the falling floors would all be gone before the static floors would be. There is NO way the 30 floors can continue crushing the 80 floors until the static floors were gone, AND then the 30 falling floors crush themselves. Impossible. The 30 floors would be gone before the 80 floors. This is fact according to known physics.

This will be ignored though, especially be Greening fans who tried to claim Newtons 3rd law only applies to 'billiard balls, not the interior of buildings', which is of course obsolete nonsense. In fact that is something a layman might conclude by just looking at web sites and not getting the complete picture.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So if I were to drop a 30lb bowling ball on your head, from 5 ft over you, you will remain unscathed? You weigh a lot more than a 30lb bowling ball, so does that mean the bowling ball will get damaged more than you?


Also, the lower 80 floors were not just one solid mass, like a tree trunk. Each floor was an individual section, and when the top 30 floors above started to move down as one mass, the immediate resistance would come from the first floor below the mass, and then that floor would add to the mass of the collapsing segment above. It accelerated as momentum grew and grew, as each floor below offered less and less resistance to growing mass collapsing as one unit above.

It would really help if you bothered to research the design of the WTCs first and also relearn the laws of physics. Something isnt clicking right for you when you make your physics arguements.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


So if I were to drop a 30lb bowling ball on your head, from 5 ft over you, you will remain unscathed? You weigh a lot more than a 30lb bowling ball, so does that mean the bowling ball will get damaged more than you?


Don't be ridiculous, the ball would not continue going through your head and body crushing you to the ground would it? No it would meet the resistance of your head and stop. To know the extent of the damage to your head you would have to compare the mass of the bowling ball with the mass of your head.

As far as the towers, its not a bowling ball falling on a human head, its bowling balls falling on bowling balls, or heads on heads. Floors falling on floors of equal mass, not two different objects of obviously different mass.


Also, the lower 80 floors were not just one solid mass, like a tree trunk. Each floor was an individual section, and when the top 30 floors above started to move down as one mass, the immediate resistance would come from the first floor below the mass, and then that floor would add to the mass of the collapsing segment above. It accelerated as momentum grew and grew, as each floor below offered less and less resistance to growing mass collapsing as one unit above.


It doesn't matter if it was a solid object, it was many solid objects all tied together. If I took a forest and tied all the trees together with cross bracing, they are still tress and will still collapse like trees.

You are ignoring Newton again. For your floor to add to the mass you have to 1, ignore the resistance of the cross bracing and fasteners etc. 2, ignore NEWTONS 3rd LAW, the FACT that the top section would also be crushed and run out of mass before the bottom section was completely crushed.


It would really help if you bothered to research the design of the WTCs first and also relearn the laws of physics. Something isnt clicking right for you when you make your physics arguements.


Yeah mate, lol. Something isn't clicking right that's for sure. The only reason you have to use these silly analogies is because you can't explain it using real physics.

edit on 3/11/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


No, but is your head going to destroy the bowling ball? After all, you weigh more and are much larger than the bowling that is dropping on yoru head. So I am just repeating the scenario you are claiming with your rediculous assumption of the floors below destroying the floor impacting it from above because it has similar to more mass, and because there are more floors below.

But it was not just one floor of the WTC coming down on top of the floor below it. How many times must this be repeated till it gets through to your head? We had 30+ floors moving as one unit, one mass, impacting the floor below it. Not just ONE floor byitself. i cannot believe you still dont even know the basics of the collapses! Its only been nearly 10 years!

Newton would have a field day explaining how wrong you are in your assumptions.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



You are right there is more to a collapse than just crushing, there is Newtons laws of motion. When one floors impacts another floor, both floors would receive equal forces, if the static floor is crushed by the dropping floor then the dropping floor would also receive massage damage (as they were more or less equal mass). The bottom section will provide an equal and opposite reaction force to any downward accelerating force according to Newtons 3rd law.

With 30 floors dropping on 80 floors, the 30 floors would not last in one piece in order to crush 80 floors, the falling floors would all be gone before the static floors would be. There is NO way the 30 floors can continue crushing the 80 floors until the static floors were gone, AND then the 30 falling floors crush themselves. Impossible. The 30 floors would be gone before the 80 floors. This is fact according to known physics.


Crush, crush, crush. You've got to get away from that simplistic concept of what occured on 9/11. The reactions, loadings, and failures were much more complex than simply one thing "crushing" another. Once you get past that misconception and stop trying to pretend that a building collapse is a high school physics exercise you will be able to see quite clearly why what happened, happened.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



You are right there is more to a collapse than just crushing, there is Newtons laws of motion. When one floors impacts another floor, both floors would receive equal forces, if the static floor is crushed by the dropping floor then the dropping floor would also receive massage damage (as they were more or less equal mass). The bottom section will provide an equal and opposite reaction force to any downward accelerating force according to Newtons 3rd law.

With 30 floors dropping on 80 floors, the 30 floors would not last in one piece in order to crush 80 floors, the falling floors would all be gone before the static floors would be. There is NO way the 30 floors can continue crushing the 80 floors until the static floors were gone, AND then the 30 falling floors crush themselves. Impossible. The 30 floors would be gone before the 80 floors. This is fact according to known physics.


Crush, crush, crush. You've got to get away from that simplistic concept of what occured on 9/11. The reactions, loadings, and failures were much more complex than simply one thing "crushing" another. Once you get past that misconception and stop trying to pretend that a building collapse is a high school physics exercise you will be able to see quite clearly why what happened, happened.


Your misconception is playing games with words.

Mass accelerated downwards onto greater mass that was strong enough to support it. But supposedly the whole thing came down in less than double the time for a heavy mass to fall from the top through air.

And yet experts have spent NINE YEARS not demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. And this nonsense from the nation that put men on the Moon in 1969.

The United States should be laughed at for the next 1000 years over sh!t this STUPID.

A physical demonstration is easy to make:

www.youtube.com...

So where is a physical model that can collapse completely? And not some house of cards crap.

psik



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Crush, crush, crush. You've got to get away from that simplistic concept of what occured on 9/11. The reactions, loadings, and failures were much more complex than simply one thing "crushing" another. Once you get past that misconception and stop trying to pretend that a building collapse is a high school physics exercise you will be able to see quite clearly why what happened, happened.


You are just playing semantics. I used the word crushing because that is what OSers were using. What word would you rather me use?

Oh wait, even better, how about you address what I actually said instead of my use of ONE word that does not make a difference to my overall point?

This is ridiculous. BTW are you still claiming you saw pics of bodies in aircraft seats at the pentagon? You seemed to disappear very quickly when I pointed that out you were wrong, typical OSer.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   


Once you get past that misconception and stop trying to pretend that a building collapse is a high school physics exercise you will be able to see quite clearly why what happened, happened.


I beg to differ. High school physics teacher, David Chandler, who makrd NIST look like the disreputable establishment puppet fools that they are by exposing NIST's lies about the collapse of WTC 7?


9/11 only becomes complicated when you have to dodge the truth and hide behind lies, like NIST and a bunch of hypocritical disreputable characters on this site have been ordered to do.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


No, but is your head going to destroy the bowling ball? After all, you weigh more and are much larger than the bowling that is dropping on yoru head. So I am just repeating the scenario you are claiming with your rediculous assumption of the floors below destroying the floor impacting it from above because it has similar to more mass, and because there are more floors below.


Its dropping on your head not your body. Weight and size has nothing to do with it, mass does.

The scenario I made was in accordance with what we know happened, floors were crushed, there were no complete floors still left post collapse. This means, if you believe the OS, that floors must have crushed floors, which as I explained using Newton is impossible because there was not enough collapsing floors to crush static floors. Unless you think the collapsing floors stayed in one piece until all the static floors were crushed, and then the collapsing floors crushed, which is of course extremely silly.


But it was not just one floor of the WTC coming down on top of the floor below it. How many times must this be repeated till it gets through to your head? We had 30+ floors moving as one unit, one mass, impacting the floor below it. Not just ONE floor byitself. i cannot believe you still dont even know the basics of the collapses! Its only been nearly 10 years!


Didn't I explain this already? NEWTONS 3RD LAW, opposite and equal reactions. IF the top was crushing the bottom then the top would also be crushing itself. 30 floors as a whole block has less mass then 80 floors, and if your upper block is crushing as a whole block then the 80 floors are also acting against it as a whole block. All the floors are connected vertically through the columns, both the upper and lower block.

But once again it didn't happen like this did it? DID IT GEN? let me answer for you, no it didn't. It is quit clear in collapse videos that the top block was tilting in both buildings and collapsing independent of the bottom section.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'm not sure if it means anything significant, but could the open air between each floor create enough potential energy for each floor as the building collapsed to allow it to keep its momentum and continue collapsing?

The way it's sounding, the argument is:
"Block 1 has so much mass, Block 2 has more mass. If Block 1 falls onto Block 2, then it can only destroy the equivalent of its mass because there is only so much energy."

However, what if it was actually:
"Black 1 has so much mass, Block 2 has more mass. As Block 1 falls onto Block 2, Block 2's mass is added to the mass of Block 1, and each empty space between floors acts as a gravity induced potential energy system, making the increasing mass of Block 1 (minus the debris shooting to the sides) continue falling on the mass below it with enough energy to crush an equal amount of energy."

With this idea, one might even theorize that the lobbies acted as greater factors in the speed of the collapse, as they would allow a slightly higher acceleration on the falling mass. But, I don't know the height of the lobbies, and I'm just trying to come up with an idea that makes sense to me.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You are ignoring Newton again. For your floor to add to the mass you have to 1, ignore the resistance of the cross bracing and fasteners etc. 2, ignore NEWTONS 3rd LAW, the FACT that the top section would also be crushed and run out of mass before the bottom section was completely crushed.


Wait, so where does that mass go? What about the broken parts of the mass? Does it stop existing? Where does it go? YOUR argument violates the Conservation of Matter.

Where does it go?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
You are ignoring Newton again. For your floor to add to the mass you have to 1, ignore the resistance of the cross bracing and fasteners etc. 2, ignore NEWTONS 3rd LAW, the FACT that the top section would also be crushed and run out of mass before the bottom section was completely crushed.


Wait, so where does that mass go? What about the broken parts of the mass? Does it stop existing? Where does it go? YOUR argument violates the Conservation of Matter.

Where does it go?


That's what I keep wondering. He keeps talking like the collapsing floors should just vaporize.
edit on 13-3-2011 by Tosskey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'm not sure if it means anything significant, but could the open air between each floor create enough potential energy for each floor as the building collapsed to allow it to keep its momentum and continue collapsing?


How do you ignore the columns in the core while you talk about the OPEN AIR between the floors?

Didn't the core of the falling upper portion of the north tower have to come down on the stationary core below?

Where is the calculation and explanation of how much energy was required to break a floor assembly loose from the core and the perimeter columns?

psik



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I don't have the calculation, as I'm not an engineer. I have not claimed to have calculations, only a layman's ideas.

It is possible that the core twisted or bent rather than crushed down while the rest of the floor around it caused damage and fell and such. I know for a fact that part of the core in one tower remained intact for a moment after the tower collapsed, so that indicates that the floors around the core were what was mainly being destroyed by the collapse, doesn't it?

Correct me if I'm missing something.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I don't have the calculation, as I'm not an engineer. I have not claimed to have calculations, only a layman's ideas.

It is possible that the core twisted or bent rather than crushed down while the rest of the floor around it caused damage and fell and such. I know for a fact that part of the core in one tower remained intact for a moment after the tower collapsed, so that indicates that the floors around the core were what was mainly being destroyed by the collapse, doesn't it?

Correct me if I'm missing something.


You don't KNOW anything of the kind. We all know from the video that some of the core was still standing, it is referred to as the spire. But it is obvious from the video that it was NOT INTACT, it was severely damage and soon crumbled.

Your sloppy layman's method of throwing around words which gives totally distorted impressions of the FACTS is some of what helps keep this idiotic debate going. Your admission of not having any information on the amount of energy required to break the floor assemblies loose from the core and perimeter demonstrates that you don't know enough to have a relevant opinion. At least admitting to not knowing should lead to a demand for relevant information rather than trying to defend some conclusion.

That is the 9/11 RELIGION. People BELIEVE then try to defend their belief so we end up with backwards physics. People should have been demanding to know the distributions of steel and concretre in the towers within weeks of 9/11 but we still don't have it NINE YEARS later.

psik



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Then it appears we agree. By intact, I meant it was still standing. We apparently just have different logic in our respective brains as to what that means. I get it, you're angry about the day and you want the math and a new investigation. What can I (and others) do to help acquire what you need?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Your admission of not having any information on the amount of energy required to break the floor assemblies loose from the core and perimeter demonstrates that you don't know enough to have a relevant opinion.psik


Where is your math there Psik? I would love to see it.

Please show us, since you want to attack other posters for not having a calculation, show us YOUR calculation of how much energy it would take to snap the bolts loose.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join