It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 44
34
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:24 AM

Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right? It can be in many forms such as thermal, gravitational,chemical,etc...right?

So, if the factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in.So, are you trying to say the potential energy was smaller than the gravitational energy so it would not collapse after the initiating event?

I just want to verify what you are saying before i post again with what I feel is correct...

edit on 21-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:18 PM

Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right? It can be in many forms such as thermal, gravitational,chemical,etc...right?

ROFLMAO

I just don't know what else to say.

ROFLMAO

psik

PS - kinetic energy is not thermal or chemical. The kinetic energy of falling water can be converted into electricity in a hydro-electric damn. Then the electricity can be used to charge a rechargeable battery in a laptop computer. Then it has been changed into chemical energy. But it ain't kinetic energy anymore. The electricity can be used to heat water in a microwave for thermal energy.

See why we can't resolve a grade school physics problem in NINE YEARS.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right? It can be in many forms such as thermal, gravitational,chemical,etc...right?

ROFLMAO

I just don't know what else to say.

ROFLMAO

psik

PS - kinetic energy is not thermal or chemical. The kinetic energy of falling water can be converted into electricity in a hydro-electric damn. Then the electricity can be used to charge a rechargeable battery in a laptop computer. Then it has been changed into chemical energy. But it ain't kinetic energy anymore. The electricity can be used to heat water in a microwave for thermal energy.

See why we can't resolve a grade school physics problem in NINE YEARS.

I was discussing energy types. Learn how to read a sentence. I was asking a question and not making a statement.

Your answers shows you understand but why are you berating me? Is it because I do not believe the same thing as you? You have still not shown what you believe is your theory or thought as to what happened, you just keep trying to pick apart what others say and you are not doing such a good job at it.

If it is grade school physics, explain it. Explain why, not with opinion, the OS is not correct. Use a few paragraphs. I can read. Please tackle what I stated in the second paragraph instead of reasking my question.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:17 PM

If it is grade school physics, explain it. Explain why, not with opinion, the OS is not correct. Use a few paragraphs. I can read. Please tackle what I stated in the second paragraph instead of reasking my question.

I demonstrated it. Supposedly impact damage and fire weakened the north tower where the plane hit. Supposedly the portion above the impact zone fell and kept falling and kept falling and kept falling and DESTROYED EVERYTHING BELOW.

The only two possible involvements of chemical energy are the combustion of the fire and POSSIBLY EXPLOSIVES.

According to the official story there were NO EXPLOSIVES.

So supposedly the chemical energy supplied provided enough thermal energy to WEAKEN THE STEEL. But we don't know how much steel there was in that area. Someone did chemical energy and thermal calculations YEARS AGO. But he just did a linear interpolation of the steel with twice as much at the bottom. So although his principles may be correct his data must be wrong.

911research.wtc7.net...

So how much mass hit how much other mass and how strong was the steel all of the way down and how much energy was required to crush that steel structure? Where is there a self supporting model that can completely collapse? So there are at least 3 reasons for needing accurate data on the steel to analyze this. And I don't mean to 5 decimal places 5% should be close enough.

If our engineering schools can remain silent on the subject why can't they at least provide a physical model to show that it was possible? Their silence sounds like tacit agreement with the official story. And why isn't the so called Truth Movement after the schools rather than having rallies in the streets. The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about any investigation. Shouldn't the schools that claim to train people to design skyscrapers either explain WTC 1 & 2 or say airliners couldn't do it?

We keep going over this same stuff in the same simple problem and it is always the same incomplete data that EXPERTS somehow manage to not mention. Like Richard Gage and Steven Jones so it is just a silly propaganda game from both sides.

psik

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:34 PM

Thanks.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:47 PM

Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right?

Right.

It can be in many forms such as thermal, gravitational,chemical,etc...right?

Kinetic only has one form but potential energy can be in many forms such as gravitational, chemical, etc.

So, if the factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in.

(The height refers to the height of the center of mass in question).

So, are you trying to say the potential energy was smaller than the gravitational energy so it would not collapse after the initiating event?

As above, gravitational energy is a form of potential energy.

The thing that I personally find fishy about the towers is, for a very large portion of the collapse, the average force applied by the top section to the lower section was lower than the average force the top section applied to the lower section when the top section was stationary (before collapse).

This means the top section was spectacularly (and supposedly) crushing the lower section, but managing to do so by only exerting an average crushing force equal to about 1/3rd (if my memory is correct) of the stationary weight of the top section. Think about that. Watch the footage of the collapses and think about that.

edit on 21-4-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:32 PM

Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right?

And it loses that kinetic energy as soon as it hits resistance as it is converted to other energy.

You seem to have this notion that energy is all powerful and overcomes everything.

KE is solely dependent on motion, and is a measurement of the work done to create that motion. You keep taking it out of context like it's a power all of it's own.

Again Newtons 3rd law comes into play when a moving object hits a stationary object it's the MASS that decides what happens not KE. The forces are equal, the mass isn't.

If a bug hits a windshield the forces on the bug and windshield are the same, and that includes the KE. The KE of the bug will be met with an equal force on the windshield pushing back. The bug splatters because of it's MASS, not it's KE.

They are all connected, and all explained by the laws of motion, that you all keep try to claim doesn't explain anything. You take them out of context because you don't understand them.

edit on 4/21/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:44 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right?

And it loses that kinetic energy as soon as it hits resistance as it is converted to other energy.

You seem to have this notion that energy is all powerful and overcomes everything.

KE is solely dependent on motion, and is a measurement of the work done to create that motion. You keep taking it out of context like it's a power all of it's own.

Again Newtons 3rd law comes into play when a moving object hits a stationary object it's the MASS that decides what happens not KE. The forces are equal, the mass isn't.

If a bug hits a windshield the forces on the bug and windshield are the same, and that includes the KE. The KE of the bug will be met with an equal force on the windshield pushing back. The bug splatters because of it's MASS, not it's KE.

They are all connected, and all explained by the laws of motion, that you all keep try to claim doesn't explain anything. You take them out of context because you don't understand them.

edit on 4/21/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

A few more questions...

So, was the reaction that occurred during the collapse an elastic or inelastic collision?

Also, are you stating that the KE for the upper part of the building became 'zero' when it hit the lower floors there fore does not adhere to the 3 laws?

We are describing the laws in detail but you are simply stating that what 'you' perceived occurred on 9/11 could not have happened based on 'your' understanding of physics. Also, it is not just mass, it is also velocity that will determine what the KE does. Then, if you add momentum it is a different equation but still a descriptive of KE.

Here is a simple example, if a ball is moving at 10 mph it takes the same force to stop it. However, if it was thrown at 20 mph, the KE of the object is now 4x what it was at 10...it is not just about mass.This is the application including momentum.

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 04:17 PM

So, was the reaction that occurred during the collapse an elastic or inelastic collision?

It would be mostly elastic. An inelastic collision is when both object move, like billiard balls. A floor dropping on a floor would be elastic because they're fixed and would not bounce off each other. This would cause a loss of KE, and a slowing of the collapse.

Also, are you stating that the KE for the upper part of the building became 'zero' when it hit the lower floors there fore does not adhere to the 3 laws?

No, you are not paying attention. Whatever the KE of the falling section is will be met with an equal force on the static floor pushing back, equal opposite reaction. This is why MASS is more important than KE.

We are describing the laws in detail but you are simply stating that what 'you' perceived occurred on 9/11 could not have happened based on 'your' understanding of physics. Also, it is not just mass, it is also velocity that will determine what the KE does. Then, if you add momentum it is a different equation but still a descriptive of KE.

Wrong, you keep taking things out of context. You keep on about KE for some reason and ignore the other parts of the law.

Velocity only effects what happens because MASS is increased, but the forces on impact are still EQUAL. MASS makes the difference. Enough KE can increase the mass, but it takes more than dropping a few feet, the mass increase of the dropping floors from momentum wouldn't be enough to be even measurable.

Here is a simple example, if a ball is moving at 10 mph it takes the same force to stop it. However, if it was thrown at 20 mph, the KE of the object is now 4x what it was at 10...it is not just about mass.This is the application including momentum.

Again it doesn't matter. KE is dependent on MOVEMENT, if it stops moving because it hits the resistance of an equal or larger mass then the KE is changed to other forces, such as potential energy if it stops completely.
KE is not some magic power, it is a measurement of work done.

IF those floors had dropped far enough in order to increase their mass then you would maybe have an argument, but the floors would have to drop a long way for that to happen. You not only have to overcome the mass of the static floors, but also the resistance of the structure, welds, fasteners, etc. That are built with a minimum safety factor. That all takes energy and KE of the falling floors is not enough to do that. (even if you can prove floors dropped, which you haven't, so this is all hypothetical anyway)

Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that a moving object can do work on anything it hits; it quantifies the amount of work the object could do as a result of its motion. The total mechanical energy of an object is the sum of its kinetic energy and potential energy.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Not enough KE would be produced by the falling floors to overcome the mass of the lower floors. KE is dependent on mass, more mass more KE.

Einstein Rescues Momentum Conservation

Einstein was so sure that momentum conservation must always hold that he rescued it with a bold hypothesis: the mass of an object must depend on its speed! In fact, the mass must increase with speed in just such a way as to cancel out the lower y-direction velocity resulting from time dilation. That is to say, if an object at rest has a mass M, moving at a speed v it will have a mass . Note that this is an undetectably small effect at ordinary speeds, but as an object approaches the speed of light, the mass increases without limit!

the mass increase m is related to the kinetic energy E by E=Mc2

try an example, such as a jet airplane weighing 100 tons moving at 2,000mph. 100 tons is 100,000 kilograms, 2,000mph is about 1,000 meters per second. That’s a kinetic energy ½Mv² of ½×1011joules, but the corresponding mass change of the airplane down by the factor c², 9×1016, giving an actual mass increase of about half a milligram, not too easy to detect!

galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu...

A plane moving at 2000mph has a mass increase of half a milligram. Off topic, but one of your arguments about the planes is the mass increased because of KE. @500mph the increase would be negligible.

Do the math, how much would the mass of the floors increase dropping a few feet? Zero?

edit on 4/22/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:37 AM

Thanks but I did not need an explanation, I wanted to know what you thought about the collapse. Can you answer a questions without telling someone they are not correct, or do not understand..etc?

It cannot be 'mostly' elastic. It must be one way or the other unless you feel that there can be variations in physics. Now, if you feel that it is elastic then the momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. Almost no energy is lost to sound, heat,,deformation,etc.

In the case of the WTC would it be elastic since it struck a non moving object and since there was no loss in KE or momentum, but as it feel it gained mass, right? I am trying to understand what you are explaining.

Also, it does not matter only if the floors fell a few feet(actually multiple floors). Here is an example for you. You may be able to hold a 20 lb barbell in one hand over your head. Now, Have someone stand 6 inches above you and drop that same barbell. Not that far to fall but you will have a difficult time catching and holding it, right? Now substitute that for 15-20 floors of a high rise. It is one thing to design a building to withstand wind or an earthquake but quite another to stand without the design elements in place anymore.

You keep referring to safety standards also and they were in place. If it had been just a fire, it would have been in place and more than likely worked. But you had structural damage so your safety factors cannot be applied since that was not part of the original design to allow the building to stand without inner and outer column support. It was designed to allow escape in the event just a fire which is set to two hours based on when the WTC was build and existing codes.

I also never refereed to the planes adding KE but I have heard a few people talking about how 'explosives' would have.

edit on 26-4-2011 by esdad71 because: spelling

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:14 PM

Thanks but I did not need an explanation, I wanted to know what you thought about the collapse. Can you answer a questions without telling someone they are not correct, or do not understand..etc?

Can you?

Now, if you feel that it is elastic then the momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. Almost no energy is lost to sound, heat,,deformation,etc.

Nonsense. That is not conservation of momentum. Moment conservation does not mean momentum is not stopped, it means BOTH objects colliding will want to maintain their momentum equally (equal/opposite reactions), resistance acts equally on both colliding objects causing the same stopping force on both objects. You again ignore the role mass plays in what is damaged. And again with the KE?

I feel it is elastic? What do you 'feel'?

You are once again ignoring equal opposite reaction, want to try to plug that into your hypothesis?

In the case of the WTC would it be elastic since it struck a non moving object and since there was no loss in KE or momentum, but as it feel it gained mass, right? I am trying to understand what you are explaining.

But there should have been an instant loss in KE, and momentum, when the floors impacted. Because there wasn't and the collapse did not slow is the problem. No it did not gain mass, why do you keep thinking that? Because of momentum? Mass does not increase significantly at that speed.

Did you even read my whole post?...

try an example, such as a jet airplane weighing 100 tons moving at 2,000mph. 100 tons is 100,000 kilograms, 2,000mph is about 1,000 meters per second. That’s a kinetic energy ½Mv² of ½×1011joules, but the corresponding mass change of the airplane down by the factor c², 9×1016, giving an actual mass increase of about half a milligram, not too easy to detect!

galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu...

This is not hard to understand, stop acting like you don't understand, go learn some basic physics.

Also, it does not matter only if the floors fell a few feet(actually multiple floors). Here is an example for you. You may be able to hold a 20 lb barbell in one hand over your head. Now, Have someone stand 6 inches above you and drop that same barbell. Not that far to fall but you will have a difficult time catching and holding it, right? Now substitute that for 15-20 floors of a high rise. It is one thing to design a building to withstand wind or an earthquake but quite another to stand without the design elements in place anymore.

Another bad analogy that doesn't pertain to buildings.

Here is your mistake. You keep wanting to claim it was multiple floors falling on one floor. That is not the case.
Think about how the towers were constructed. Each floors was attached the columns the same way independent from each other. IF one whole floor fell because the trusses failed then the floors above that would not be effected.

IF the trusses pulled in columns causing them to fail, and it fell as one whole block, the bottom floor of the falling block would hit the first floors of the impacted block with the same force. You can not take all the mass of the top block, and ignore all the mass of the bottom block, and pretend only one floor of the bottom block came into play. So you either have to consider the whole top block and the whole bottom block, or look at it as one floor impacting one floor. Otherwise you are cheating.

If you can't get that straight in your head you will never understand.

You keep referring to safety standards also and they were in place. If it had been just a fire, it would have been in place and more than likely worked.

I don't know what you;re talking about? The only thing I mentioned was 'factor of safety', which is the mechanical system itself, not something that wasn't in place. Another important consideration you fail to understand. Every building has to to be able to hold itself up and the weight of everything in it, so they are built to hold more weight than they will ever be subjected to.

Factor of Safety in buildings or other construction is kept so that to compensate any uncertainty in the design process. The uncertainty could come from anywhere in the design process including calculations, material strengths, environmental conditions, natural phenomenons, duty of the structure and last but not the least quality of materials used. Though there exist some difference when viewed in technical perspective but factor of safety can also be termed as Margin of safety or even Reserve strength.

www.engpedia.com...

The point is the buildings are not a house of cards like you want to think.

But you had structural damage so your safety factors cannot be applied since that was not part of the original design to allow the building to stand without inner and outer column support. It was designed to allow escape in the event just a fire which is set to two hours based on when the WTC was build and existing codes.

No I was not talking about safety features for fires. If you fail to understand what is being said it's no wonder you are so confused. All this time I was thinking you new what factor of safety was. Now I know why you ignore it, you don't even know lol.

Inner and outer support? AH, so you are assuming the loss of inner and outer support is not in question here?

You can not even explain how that support was lost in the first place, yet you want me to except your confused explanations.

Safety factor would come into play when you try to claim that steel loses 50% of it's strength etc., and when you claim all the weight of the top caused the crushing of the bottom. When you consider that the buildings were built with 'Reserve strength', and the laws of motion (no not just KE), you can not help but realise the towers should not have collapsed the way they did from gravity (and KE lol).

I also never refereed to the planes adding KE but I have heard a few people talking about how 'explosives' would have.

Huh? KE again? You seem to think everything hinges on KE? What is add KE, add KE to what? There is no adding KE, KE is simply the measurement of energy of something in motion. KE itself does nothing, something else creates the motion and the KE is dependent on that movement. If a mass hits another mass, then it's KE is lost to friction and resistance, and other forces depending on their MASS.

edit on 4/26/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:14 PM

As it goes, while only one floor is technically being acted on at a time, the top section has gravity acting down on it, while the bottom part is not pushing upward with gravity. It is resisted by the ground. Since gravity will continuously push down the top section, and since after the first floor gets destroyed it becomes a discombobulated mess, then the floors above and below are no longer being acted on under design conditions. The horizontal trusses will now be resisting dynamic vertical load, and the vertical columns will be resisting twisting forces and angled impacts.

I don't see how anyone could expect these to remain in one piece.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:34 PM

Although you summed it up in his eyes it is still not adhering to the laws of physics.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

As it goes, while only one floor is technically being acted on at a time, the top section has gravity acting down on it, while the bottom part is not pushing upward with gravity. It is resisted by the ground. Since gravity will continuously push down the top section, and since after the first floor gets destroyed it becomes a discombobulated mess, then the floors above and below are no longer being acted on under design conditions. The horizontal trusses will now be resisting dynamic vertical load, and the vertical columns will be resisting twisting forces and angled impacts.

I don't see how anyone could expect these to remain in one piece.

Who said what would remain in one piece? This is part of why I use LEVELS and FLOORS. I don't know when you mean an entire 12 foot section of the building when you say FLOOR and when you just mean the horizontal FLOOR assembly OUTSIDE OF THE CORE.

When the upper portion of the north tower comes down on the lower stationary portion the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core must impact each other. This means many components will be bent, twisted, dislocated etc., etc. But all of that requires ENERGY. The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling top portion. Therefore it must SLOW DOWN. So it is 15 stories against 95 stories. So the problem is why aren't we told the tons of steel on every level so this can be evaluated?

psik

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 11:25 PM

Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right? It can be in many forms such as thermal, gravitational,chemical,etc...right?

So, if the factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in.So, are you trying to say the potential energy was smaller than the gravitational energy so it would not collapse after the initiating event?

I just want to verify what you are saying before i post again with what I feel is correct...

edit on 21-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

A potential energy calculation is only valid if the distance is EMPTY SPACE otherwise it is just a delusional.

If there is solid mass in the way and the falling mass has to push it or crush it then energy is lose and that supposed potential energy DOES NOT BECOME KINETIC ENERGY. Computing the potential energy of the WTC straight down through its own mass is a mathematical delusion.

psik

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:42 AM

I agree that if it was solely the core columns impacting each-other that this would be the case. It is impossible to ignore the rest of the floor system (trusses, beams, etc.) which were very much connected to the core. The fact is that the rest of the collapsing building will impact the core as well, meaning that there is far more energy impacting it than you would have in a static one-on-one collision system. I think that the fact that the core partially remained standing in one tower's collapse for a moment is a testament to the strength of the core design, but also to the collapse dynamics. The core was basically mostly sheared away by the rest of the building, and the loss in stability caused it to collapse after a few seconds of standing free. (not an expert opinion of course, but this is how it makes the best sense to me right now. Correct me if I'm missing something)

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:57 AM

Your post never have any content man. Nothing. The example I gave was perfect and is a basic physics experiment.

So tell me, where did all the energy go when it hit the lower floors?

edit on 27-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:45 AM

ANOK, it gained mass because when it hit the floor below it, it destroyed that floor and cut it loose from the surrounding columns. It is now part of the falling mass. Hence, the whole falling mass just gained mass. Now the floor below that one is being hit by the mass of the initial falling 30 floor section PLUS the now destroyed floor. And then, when that floor is destroyed, the floor below it is being impacted by the mass of 32 floors. Then 33. Then 34. Etc etc etc.

What, did you believe the destroyed floor just disappears along with its mass?

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:20 AM

I think that ANOK is assuming that the floor which gets destroyed will remove kinetic energy from the above falling mass and no longer contribute. What he forgets is that there is a space in each floor which will allow for some acceleration by gravity for the added debris and initial falling mass. That is also one of the major problems with psikeyhackr's model. It does not have a space in-between each floor, making the collapse appear to be the above floors as a solid mass impacting another solid mass with lighter mass in-between each floor, but still a great deal heavier than air. It's true that if the towers had no air and all of the in-between floor space was filled with Styrofoam or something, then the collapse would have likely arrested. The simple fact is that the towers were not filled with Styrofoam.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:16 PM

ANOK, it gained mass because when it hit the floor below it, it destroyed that floor and cut it loose from the surrounding columns. It is now part of the falling mass. Hence, the whole falling mass just gained mass.

But you keep ignoring equal opposite reactions and moment conservation. You first have to show that the falling block could cause the impacted block to fail. This is why I keep mentioning factor of safety, because the floors should be able to hold the weight of another floor with failing itself. IF each floor failed as they impacted then both colliding floors would be damaged, 15 floors falling on 95, the 15 floors would be gone long before the 95, leaving mass in the footprint.

In fact the first floor to drop would have been the last, as one floor is not enough mass to break the fasteners of the floor bellow. And no you can not consider the whole top block falling on one floor, because the impacted floor has all the building bellow it just as the falling floor has the building above it. The impacted floor has the same support bellow it as the dropping floor has above it. So if you keep insisting the top block fell on ONE floor you are cheating. It is not how it works. You have to consider it as one floor impacting one floor, or one block of floors falling on one block of floors.

We KNOW as a fact from post collapse pics that the majority of the mass was ejected outside the footprint, this is why the pancake hypothesis you keep arguing for, that even your OS doesn't support, is not what happened.
No mass in footprint means there was no mass to do any crushing.

Your explanation doesn't take into account the columns, and how they failed from falling floors. Please don't try to argue the floors held up the columns, that is nonsense.

Now the floor below that one is being hit by the mass of the initial falling 30 floor section PLUS the now destroyed floor. And then, when that floor is destroyed, the floor below it is being impacted by the mass of 32 floors. Then 33. Then 34. Etc etc etc.

No that is not how it happened. This is something a layman not familiar with the laws of motion would think. But reality doesn't match your claim. If it did why did NIST reject this hypothesis?

What, did you believe the destroyed floor just disappears along with its mass?

No it was ejected outside of the footprint, even NIST reported this. The mass can not crush what is bellow it, and bounce off the mass bellow it at the same time. If it was a pancake/progressive collapse as you claim then there would be a mass of floors in the footprint. For any crushing ALL of the mass would have been needed (actually more than was available).

top topics

34