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: 45
34
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

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.

That is correct, somewhat. Of course it will, KE is dependent on movement, resistance changes the KE. Again KE is not magic, it is simply dependent on movement. The actual force come from the mass.

Newtons 1st law states that an object will stay in motion unless acted on by an external force. When a floor impacts another floor, that impacted floor is the external force that changes your KE, and slows or stops the collapse.

The 2nd law states, the change of momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body.

When a system is composed of several objects it is the total mass that matters.

physics.info...

The 3rd law states, To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.

It doesn't matter that the floors dropped any distance, the forces on the impacting floors are still equal, no mass was added due to momentum. The dropping floors could not have stayed whole AND crushed floors of equal mass. IF floors were destroying each other in the way you describe, then the top floors would have ran out before the bottom floors did.

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.

What has that got to do with it? Also if floors dropped then they became detached from the columns? What caused the columns to fail then?

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.

Nonsense, you are ignoring that floor were firmly attached to columns, that is what would arrest the collapse.

Also there is NO evidence floors dropped in the first place. It seems to me the whole top section dropped as one, including the columns, started to crush itself before the bottom started collapsing. Also the tilt of WTC 2 proves you wrong. A tilting top can not cause a pancake collapse, the center of gravity would take it off the edge, not straight down through the path of most resistance.

edit on 4/27/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:25 PM

If the floors did not fall after the initiating event, and hit the lower floors, it would not have collapsed. Also, like your use of KE.

There was no pancake collapse either. If the inner columns or outer columns only had failed, and the fires were brought under control, it think they would have stood. But they had a weakened inner core and you had the outer columns fail after trying to compensate. I have said before I think they withstood what they could and it may have been worse. The fact that 2 planes smacked them and neither immediately collapsed is a testament to the design.

However, it was a tube design that was very unique and that was not a bad thing unless you had an event such as 9/11.
edit on 27-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 03:26 PM

There was no pancake collapse either.

But what you describe is a progressive/pancake collapse. Floors dropping on floors, and the weight causing collapse is a progressive/pancake collapse. What other name would you call it?

If the inner columns or outer columns only had failed, and the fires were brought under control, it think they would have stood. But they had a weakened inner core and you had the outer columns fail after trying to compensate. I have said before I think they withstood what they could and it may have been worse. The fact that 2 planes smacked them and neither immediately collapsed is a testament to the design.

There is no evidence for these claims. There is no reason the inner core was weakened, you keep making these claims with no evidence to support them other than the claims of NIST. There is no evidence, or even logic, to conclude that the core weakened and the outer mesh failed trying to compensate.

Your reasoning for that is failing trusses, which is illogical nonsense.

However, it was a tube design that was very unique and that was not a bad thing unless you had an event such as 9/11.

Again wrong. There are many buildings with the same design. The first one was built in 1963, and most all 'supertall' buildings since.

The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which Khan designed and was completed in Chicago by 1963.[5] This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.

.
en.wikipedia.org...

Even so, being a unique design does not mean it would defy known physics. Physics applies to everything, the same way, unique or common.

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 03:43 PM

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

Your example has nothing to do with a building collapse. Your head was not designed to hold the weight of a barbel. Another failed analogy to add to the long list. One day I'll post them all and give ATS a good laugh.

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

The energy would change into other energy, friction, heat, sound, potential, etc. You do know how energy is converted right? Energy is only totally conserved in perfect elastic collisions.

What happens to the KE of a car when it collides with another car? Does one car continue driving though the other car and keep going? Of course not because most of it's KE is converted to other energy. If the cars stick together that means all the KE was lost. If they bounce off each other then some KE was conserved. Neither car has enough KE to go through the other car and keep going. That is what you claim the floors did, even of you don't realise it, one stack of floors ignoring their loss of KE from impacting the lower floors and continuing on as if they gained KE.

Most of the KE would be gone, and the collapse wave would slow as the resistance would build, from the stacking up floors. But we don't have stacking up floors in reality, we have ejection of most of the mass outside of the buildings footprint. That means no mass was available to completely crush all the floors.

edit on 4/28/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:07 PM

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.

Styrofoam is providing more resistance than columns these days?

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

If there was no loss in KE that's a red flag.

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?

It would be difficult to catch and hold it, but it certainly would not continue to accelerate through your entire body at 2/3rds free fall.

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Azp420

Styrofoam is providing more resistance than columns these days?

No, it was simply to give an idea of what psikeyhackr's model lacked: space in-between floors. Columns will provide resistance, yes, but the horizontal supports still matter. You can't ignore them and assume that they will withstand high stress vertical impacts just because they're connected to vertical columns.

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:09 PM

No, it was simply to give an idea of what psikeyhackr's model lacked: space in-between floors.

I was under the impression that the model represented the columns between floors, which were just strong enough to support the entire structure.

Columns will provide resistance, yes, but the horizontal supports still matter. You can't ignore them and assume that they will withstand high stress vertical impacts just because they're connected to vertical columns.

The concrete/truss floors? They contain mass, lots of it. It takes energy to accelerate that mass. I don't think anyone's claiming they should withstand high impacts, but it costs energy to crush them too. Amazing then, that despite all these energy losses, the top section was able to almost maintain free fall (~2/3rds) through the undamaged structure.

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:23 PM
you have it all wrong,,,,the absolute true and official story was giant mosquitos brought down the 2 towers. the easter bunny brought down building7. This actually has more validity than the government version of how 911 happened.

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:26 PM

There's a difference between a giant 500MPH missile hitting a building and a earth quake.

STILL BELIEVE BASIC PHYSICS?!

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Miraj

There's a difference between a giant 500MPH missile hitting a building and a earth quake.

STILL BELIEVE BASIC PHYSICS?!

Airliners are so much more impressive when they are called GIANT. The building was only 2000 times the mass of the plane.

Considering that the earth all around a skyscraper must be moving to move the skyscraper I would think the earthquake must be applying more energy. But since it is applied evenly it is more like the wind than the airliner. But the wind applies the force in the same area as the airliner.

The question is can the building withstand it. Considering that the south tower only moved 15 inches I would have to say yes. But then no one compares the FIFTEEN INCHES at impact to the 20 feet and tilt 54 minutes later and accounts for how fire could do that.

It is all BELIEF without explanation.

Physics has sure gone down the tubes since 2001.

psik

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Azp420
I was under the impression that the model represented the columns between floors, which were just strong enough to support the entire structure.

You can't ignore the horizontal supports when modelling a collapse. If you had an impossibly strong horizontal support system (like the broom psikey used in his model), then the collapse would certainly arrest.

The concrete/truss floors? They contain mass, lots of it. It takes energy to accelerate that mass. I don't think anyone's claiming they should withstand high impacts, but it costs energy to crush them too. Amazing then, that despite all these energy losses, the top section was able to almost maintain free fall (~2/3rds) through the undamaged structure.

Yes, it takes energy, but guess how it can re-generate the same energy it used to crush/impact the first floor? The same amount of space will be available for acceleration on each successive floor, if my imaginings are correct. I mean, I assume that there is air between each floor, and I assume that objects act on a large scale as they would on a small scale in terms of accelerating when falling through air given that the object does not have a great deal of air resistance (ie: being dense or non-planar). I may have scored pretty low on the physics test back in Junior year of high school, but I remember some of the concepts we learned in class. (the test was mostly equations anyway, and my dad with an IQ almost as high as it can go told me he had to take physics twice to fully get it).

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:05 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Airliners are so much more impressive when they are called GIANT. The building was only 2000 times the mass of the plane.

Oh yeah, it sounds so impressive when you use the entire mass of the building to say that the plane couldn't have caused any significant damage. That's like saying a mosquito can't pass a deadly virus into a human just because a human is thousands of times larger. Size isn't important when it comes to initiating the destruction of something. What matters is where you hit and what happens after you hit. The old adage of an ant moving a rubber tree plant, if you will.

Considering that the earth all around a skyscraper must be moving to move the skyscraper I would think the earthquake must be applying more energy. But since it is applied evenly it is more like the wind than the airliner. But the wind applies the force in the same area as the airliner.

It depends on the earthquake. The Trade Centers were probably designed to take a few levels of Earthquake, but New York is not a very prone zone for it, so the towers would not be built to sway considerably more than with the strongest wind. Japan was a totally different story because they designed their buildings to withstand ridiculous shaking and swaying, and it worked.

Also, the wind isn't concentrating into a mass applying the same force as the airliner. It hits the building and spreads across it, going around or up or down, but it doesn't hit the building like a bullet. The building is designed to sway, not have chunks taken out of it and set on fire.

The question is can the building withstand it. Considering that the south tower only moved 15 inches I would have to say yes. But then no one compares the FIFTEEN INCHES at impact to the 20 feet and tilt 54 minutes later and accounts for how fire could do that.

I would say it would be a support failure that would do that, wouldn't you think? Maybe I'm just being my stupid thinking self again...

It is all BELIEF without explanation.

Physics has sure gone down the tubes since 2001.

psik

At least I don't have faith that something else had to have happened. I look at what is available to me and draw conclusions based on what I can verify. You and many others deny what is available to you and draw conclusions based on your denial. That is not science and though physics may be applied somewhat correctly, your method is all wrong.

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Varemia
At least I don't have faith that something else had to have happened. I look at what is available to me and draw conclusions based on what I can verify. You and many others deny what is available to you and draw conclusions based on your denial. That is not science and though physics may be applied somewhat correctly, your method is all wrong.

ROFLMAO

You can't verify that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. LOL

FAITH is irrelevant to PHYSICS. You just don't comprehend the difference between understanding what is necessary to KNOW and BELIEVING.

So you can't notice the obvious absurdities of what is obviously being not made available.

The Empire State Building is 80 years old and was designed without electronic computers because they did not exist. That was 38 years before the Moon landing. Now here we are 41 years after the Moon landing and have computers all over the place and the nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings supposedly TOTALLY OBLITERATED by planes 1/2000th their mass in less than TWO HOURS.

I don't know which is more incredible.

That stupid liars expect people to believe really stupid lies.

or that

So many people prefer to believe really stupid lies than notice the obvious.

If the top of the north tower could destroy everything below the impact zone it should be relatively easy for physicists at our engineering schools to build a model demonstrating the effect.

But when do any physicists even discuss the idea? No, this is a very strange global psychological problem. But there were many things demonstrating that psychology before 9/11 just nothing on this scale. Like IBM selling computers and never saying they were von Neumann machines even though IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1952. The system depends on leaving out information so most people don't even know what questions to ask.

And now we need computers with gigabytes of RAM even though before 1990 multi-million dollar corporations could do business with mainframes with less then 100 meg. Now we need operating systems that take up 10 gig of disk space. People allow their thinking to be distorted due to bombardment with disinformation.

The liars just need to speak confidently and they get the push button emotional reactions they want. Our schools do not encourage, much less teach kids to think for themselves and verify the facts to think with.

psik

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:16 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFLMAO

Alright, good beginning. Childish, but stupid. Thanks.

You can't verify that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. LOL

What the heck is this supposed to mean? It was visibly seen that the towers did hold themselves up for a while after impact. That is verifiable. It is also a fact that in an hour to an hour-and-a-half, both towers fell. Usually, people work backward and try to figure out what about a plane impact would cause this, but Truthers work in some diagonal direction and look for reasons completely independent of a crash, literally ignoring the crash altogether or even claiming it didn't happen.

FAITH is irrelevant to PHYSICS. You just don't comprehend the difference between understanding what is necessary to KNOW and BELIEVING.

I understand what is necessary for me to know. I'm not a freakin engineer man, and you're not God. You act like you are high and mighty on a pedestal asking for something that you believe everyone should know even though NO SKYSCRAPER HAS THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE.

See what I did there, I used your ridiculous looking ALL CAPS YELLING TECHNIQUE. I'd appreciate it if you cut that crap out. We're people, not yelling boards.

So you can't notice the obvious absurdities of what is obviously being not made available.

Obviously. I mean, why would they make something available which is not available for any skyscraper? It's not like they worked it out themselves using the best methods they could. Oh wait, they did. You just refuse to accept it.

The Empire State Building is 80 years old and was designed without electronic computers because they did not exist. That was 38 years before the Moon landing. Now here we are 41 years after the Moon landing and have computers all over the place and the nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings supposedly TOTALLY OBLITERATED by planes 1/2000th their mass in less than TWO HOURS.

These events are relative how?

I don't know which is more incredible.
That stupid liars expect people to believe really stupid lies.
or that
So many people prefer to believe really stupid lies than notice the obvious.

Obviously you considering something obvious doesn't make you magically correct. It just means you have an opinion, dude.

If the top of the north tower could destroy everything below the impact zone it should be relatively easy for physicists at our engineering schools to build a model demonstrating the effect.

Seriously. Your model sucks. I already explained that you have no space in-between floors, and you completely ignore the horizontal strength factor, focusing on a vertical-on-vertical column collapse. That in no way, shape, or form could possibly be a model of the trade center collapses. And it is not easy, unless you'd like to demonstrate what's so easy about it.

But when do any physicists even discuss the idea? No, this is a very strange global psychological problem. But there were many things demonstrating that psychology before 9/11 just nothing on this scale. Like IBM selling computers and never saying they were von Neumann machines even though IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1952. The system depends on leaving out information so most people don't even know what questions to ask.

And now we need computers with gigabytes of RAM even though before 1990 multi-million dollar corporations could do business with mainframes with less then 100 meg. Now we need operating systems that take up 10 gig of disk space. People allow their thinking to be distorted due to bombardment with disinformation.

The liars just need to speak confidently and they get the push button emotional reactions they want. Our schools do not encourage, much less teach kids to think for themselves and verify the facts to think with.

psik

So wait, now the towers were brought down because computers started using more complex processes which require more memory to run faster and do more things at once? How was this relevant at all? I know a lot about computers man, and while I agree that they're being really inefficient about stuff, it's not a conspiracy even remotely related to 9/11. It's about using the cheapest methods possible to continue making money.

Honestly, I can only conclude that you are completely unreasonable to talk to. Every time I try to, you YELL AT ME IN ALL CAPS constantly, and then you start basically saying that I'm an idiot, berating me at every turn using terms such as "it's so obvious" and "only an idiot wouldn't see what I see" and "why aren't you DEMANDING the tons of steel and concrete?" Seriously, we get it. You want to know the exact amount of steel and concrete. Start sending letters and emails to people about it. They'll turn you down at first simply because it's not their job to give stuff to random strangers who request it, but eventually you may get a professional to oblige. What I hope you haven't done is talked to only one or two people, gotten turned down and then assumed that everyone is against you. That would be a misunderstanding of how our society has worked for decades.

Now, start acting civil, or I will slowly get less and less civil toward you, turning your own tactics against you and then making you look like a fool to the entire board.

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can't verify that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. LOL

What the heck is this supposed to mean? It was visibly seen that the towers did hold themselves up for a while after impact. That is verifiable.

The towers held themselves up for THIRTY YEARS.

That means the designers had to figure out how much steel to put where to support all of that concrete and the steel had to be distributed to support itself plus its other load.

So how was the steel distributed down that building?

What were the TONS OF STEEL on each and every level all of the way down? When does Richard Gage talk about that? Discussing this subject for NINE YEARS without getting that information correct and not even asking about it is utterly absurd.

What is there to do besides laugh about it after all of this time? Better childish than REALLY STUPID!

There are 200 buildings around the world more than 800 feet tall. Gravity works the same way all over the planet.

psik

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The towers held themselves up for THIRTY YEARS.

That means the designers had to figure out how much steel to put where to support all of that concrete and the steel had to be distributed to support itself plus its other load.

So how was the steel distributed down that building?

What were the TONS OF STEEL on each and every level all of the way down? When does Richard Gage talk about that? Discussing this subject for NINE YEARS without getting that information correct and not even asking about it is utterly absurd.

What is there to do besides laugh about it after all of this time? Better childish than REALLY STUPID!

There are 200 buildings around the world more than 800 feet tall. Gravity works the same way all over the planet.

psik

I'm pretty sure it's not so black and white. If you want to look up how much material they ordered for the towers and then used based on their blueprints, then go right ahead.

Also, there you go again with the CAPS LOCK. WE'RE NOT BABIES, STOP USING IT.

And another also, if you didn't realize, a big hole with fire is not the same as being undamaged and standing for 30 years. Conditions may be slightly different.

Seriously, I will soon refuse to act like a decent human being toward you if you don't get your act together.

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The towers held themselves up for THIRTY YEARS.

That means the designers had to figure out how much steel to put where to support all of that concrete and the steel had to be distributed to support itself plus its other load.

So how was the steel distributed down that building?

What were the TONS OF STEEL on each and every level all of the way down? When does Richard Gage talk about that? Discussing this subject for NINE YEARS without getting that information correct and not even asking about it is utterly absurd.

What is there to do besides laugh about it after all of this time? Better childish than REALLY STUPID!

There are 200 buildings around the world more than 800 feet tall. Gravity works the same way all over the planet.

psik

I'm pretty sure it's not so black and white. If you want to look up how much material they ordered for the towers and then used based on their blueprints, then go right ahead.

Also, there you go again with the CAPS LOCK. WE'RE NOT BABIES, STOP USING IT.

And another also, if you didn't realize, a big hole with fire is not the same as being undamaged and standing for 30 years. Conditions may be slightly different.

Seriously, I will soon refuse to act like a decent human being toward you if you don't get your act together.

I don't give the slightest damn how you act.

The so called BLUE PRINTS don't even show the positions of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core.

Not having info that simple just shows how RIDICULOUS this entire issue is. Architects, structural engineers and physicists are being silly not pointing out the lack of that information since the impacts and collapses can't be analyzed without it. The horizontal beams in the core would have to impact each other in any collapse.

Those beams provided the stiffness for the structure to resist the wind.

So 9/11 is a scientific FARCE. It should have been resolved in SIX MONTHS. So how do our physicists explain not doing it and how can they ever change their minds. They have painted themselves into a corner. They have mostly remained silent about what should have been obviously impossible. But they are supposed to TEACH PHYSICS at out engineering schools.

If you can't build a model that can COMPLETELY COLLAPSE then your act must be a JOKE.

Truth is whatever the majority of morons believe regardless of what information they leave out and cannot model. Computers can be programmed to LIE.

psik

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:23 PM

The so called BLUE PRINTS don't even show the positions of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core.

Really? Did you finally get your hands on the as-builts to confirm this?

Not having info that simple just shows how RIDICULOUS this entire issue is.

Well, making claims about simple info that YOU don't have is ridiculous, that may not be true for the professionals.

Architects, structural engineers and physicists are being silly not pointing out the lack of that information since the impacts and collapses can't be analyzed without it.

Well, see here's the thing. The professionals at the NIST did have information and, of course, being professional they also were able to calculate ranges for conditions that could not be verified.

The horizontal beams in the core would have to impact each other in any collapse. Those beams provided the stiffness for the structure to resist the wind.

So they probably were there, huh?

So 9/11 is a scientific FARCE. It should have been resolved in SIX MONTHS. So how do our physicists explain not doing it and how can they ever change their minds.

They explain it by being thorough professionals not internet pseudo youtube scientist.

They have painted themselves into a corner. They have mostly remained silent about what should have been obviously impossible.

Well, maybe they're right and you're wrong. We must always consider that remote possibility.

But they are supposed to TEACH PHYSICS at out engineering schools.

And they do, and those engineers turn out just fine and continue to design and build the world you live in which is just plain as the nose on your face evidence that there is something amiss with your assesment of the engineering and scientific community.

If you can't build a model that can COMPLETELY COLLAPSE then your act must be a JOKE.

I can, I just take your model, take the friggin' broomhandle out of the middle and every time I drop the little washer and construction paper thingamajigs on each other they all fall down. Just like on 9/11.

Truth is whatever the majority of morons believe regardless of what information they leave out and cannot model. Computers can be programmed to LIE.

Truth, like physics, doesn't depend on your support, interpretation or acceptance for the nature of its existance.

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:28 PM

Originally posted by hooper

The so called BLUE PRINTS don't even show the positions of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core.

Really? Did you finally get your hands on the as-builts to confirm this?

Do you know about an Internet link to any blue prints that have the horizontal beams? Do you know of any physicists or structural engineers that have been mentioning them on the net?

One person has provided a link to blueprints in one thread hear and I specified one of them that clearly showed 8 columns with no horizontal connections to any other columns.

psik

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper

The so called BLUE PRINTS don't even show the positions of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core.

Really? Did you finally get your hands on the as-builts to confirm this?

Do you know about an Internet link to any blue prints that have the horizontal beams? Do you know of any physicists or structural engineers that have been mentioning them on the net?

One person has provided a link to blueprints in one thread hear and I specified one of them that clearly showed 8 columns with no horizontal connections to any other columns.

psik

Really, did you read any of the NIST report? They are mentioned in there, they were obtained by the NIST engineers and investigators from the Port Authority of Newark and New York. They have them. The NIST probably has copies. All the columns were horizontally connected to each other with floor beams that formed the frame for the floors in the core area.

top topics

34