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.

 

Gravity Can't Do This!

page: 12
27
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Answer 2 simple questions then

What holds the floor is position IE the office floors

Do you KNOW how to calculate the the dynamic load of the falling mass YES OR NO




posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I think your model is wrong.
Try using small washers for the steel supports and playing cards for the floors.
Place a playing card on the floor.
Then place a stack of washers 1 inch high at each of the corners of the card. But only covering the card by 1/8 inch.
Place another card on top of the stack of washers. Place 10 washers around the interior of the card to simulate interior walls and office equipment.
Continue to stack floor after floor up to about 10 floors.

Then overload the top floor with washers to simulate an airplane sitting on a floor that wasn’t designed to support it. I think you will find that each floor will collapse in turn and the exterior washers will fall as well.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


"objects accelerating"

In elementary science classes we learned that if something is propulsed, it moves faster than normal....I believe it has something to do with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Hence, if I drop a ball, then gravity takes it at a certain speed. But if I were to use greater energy to actually throw the ball, it will drop faster because more energy is used to propel it. Look at cannons too. Cannon balls can be dropped at a certain speed...but cannons shot causes the ball to go forward at great speed. People like to say there were explosions, and yes, as someone who escaped a house fire, I will say that explosions do occur when great heat and fire collide with objects that become flammable. My bedroom windows were blown out because of the house fire and that is the result of an explosive action.

For this conspiracy to be the result of explosives, that means that more than 10 stories would have had explosive material implanted, and most of those stories were office buildings of companies that had nothing to do with the government and people were in those offices where the explosives were supposedly hidden. It would take a great amount of explosives to do this. What you are seeing is indeed explosions but they occurred after the initial cause of the fire. For witnesses to say they heard explosions, that is true in any event that involves fire.

I know people who saw it happen. All the news services around the world filmed it. It would be a great conspiracy for the US government to go to all the reporters from Germany, France, Great Britain and all those other countries to ask them to take part in this. While you might not know this, all major news services has reporters in the United States, the same as we have reporters in theirs. The planes were shown on German and French tv, but not from American sources, it was their own reporters and cameramen who were showing this as live feeds.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindfulReason
THATS IT!!
Im declaring a war on gravity.


It would seem that some people's understanding of gravity and Newton's 3rd Law of Motion are gleaned from watching a Michael Bay movie. I know he's a great director and makes it plausible to be able to fly a tank, but it's not real. It's all special effects and cgi.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jumbojimbo

Originally posted by MindfulReason
THATS IT!!
Im declaring a war on gravity.


It would seem that some people's understanding of gravity and Newton's 3rd Law of Motion are gleaned from watching a Michael Bay movie. I know he's a great director and makes it plausible to be able to fly a tank, but it's not real. It's all special effects and cgi.


ROFL, good one...

I meant in my post above, that it was Newton's Laws of Motion...I had been reading a website prior to this about
astrophysics and The Laws of Thermodynamics must have carried over into this discussion...lol



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

I think your model is wrong.
Try using small washers for the steel supports and playing cards for the floors.
Place a playing card on the floor.
Then place a stack of washers 1 inch high at each of the corners of the card. But only covering the card by 1/8 inch.
Place another card on top of the stack of washers. Place 10 washers around the interior of the card to simulate interior walls and office equipment.
Continue to stack floor after floor up to about 10 floors.

Then overload the top floor with washers to simulate an airplane sitting on a floor that wasn’t designed to support it. I think you will find that each floor will collapse in turn and the exterior washers will fall as well.


Utter rubbish. You would have supports to strong for too little weight.

The washers in my model are not to represent floors they are simply mass that must be supported. The paper loops give me some control over how weak my supports can be. They are as weak as I can make them and still support the static load. So my paper loops are crushed and thereby absorb the kinetic energy until it runs our of energy and stops. That is what the core should have done to the north tower.

The fact that the north tower came down completely is the proof something else had to be involved.

All discussion about the so called collapse that does not involve demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete is nonsense because that steel had to support the static load so we need to know the distribution of the static load.

psik



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Answer 2 simple questions then

What holds the floor is position IE the office floors

Do you KNOW how to calculate the the dynamic load of the falling mass YES OR NO


Why ask people questions that they can look up on the Internet?

www.ehow.com...

You have no way of knowing whether I knew the answer to the question before I found that or not.

But the dynamic load is dependent upon the impacting mass. So if we don't know the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers and we don't know the weight of the floor assemblies then we can't compute the Dynamic Load even if we know the equations. Claiming to do physics without accurate data is SO STUPID!

How many connections were there around the edges of the floors outside the cores. If the trusses were 6 feet apart it should be about 210 in total. 137 around the external perimeter and 73 around the core. But when do we ever hear that from the people claiming pancaking was possible. How could they all break simultaneously for the floor to remain horizontal as it fell. But if it wasn't horizontal it would SQUEEZE THE CORE. That would create a lot of friction.

psik



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Do you KNOW how to calculate the the dynamic load of the falling mass YES OR NO


Why are you so obsessed with 'dynamic loading'.

You have objects impacting objects, it is a simple problem of motion covered by Newtons three laws.

Dynamic loading is a distraction, you should focus on equal opposite reactions, and momentum conservation. Dynamic loading does not change the laws, it just increases the forces on BOTH objects, so your dynamic loading is irrelevant, and doesn't change the way the laws work. Otherwise you could make that claim with ANY impacting objects, whether they are falling, or moving horizontally. Dynamic loading does not increase it's mass, which it would have to do extensively for your hypothesis to work. It only increases the forces, which are increased equally on both impacting objects, not just the one being impacted.

You still have the problem of explaining how the collapse accelerated through a resistance mass, and how core columns telescoped down through an increasing mass of most resistance. For that to happen Ke must have increased to overcome resistance, or resistance was removed ahead of the falling mass. How can Ke increase when it was being lost to deformation, sound, heat etc.

Can you figure out the resistance of 95 floors, to the dynamic load of 15 floors? If you can't then your dynamic load result means nothing.


edit on 7/22/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well as you cant answer DYNAMIC loading has everything to do with it, when the falling mass hits a floor what has to take that increased load the FLOOR CONNECTIONS.

The floors are hung between the wall and core colums ONLY the connections of the floor the mass is falling on take the load.Now since the area is one acre only a tiny fraction of the falling mass was will hit wall columns a bit more core columns the bulk will hit the 40,000+ sq ft of concrete floor.

You have no doubt looked at the video of the rice bag as an example when an object falls it generates MANY TIMES its static load.

You have an angle bracket welded on the walls at either side of a truss they are bolted through by the 2no 5/8" bolts if the mass falling generates enough load to either snap the angles or shear the bolts NOTHING is holding the floor up that then joins the falling mass.

If you stand on a set of scales and you weigh 150 lbs stand on something one foot high and drop on the scales you will go way past 150lb, the floors that fell would be doing 19mph when they dropped that one floor at the start of the collapse.

ITS impossible for them to generate less than their static load as some have claimed think about it as soon as the mass touched a lower floor the MINIMUM LOAD it could generate WAS ITS STATIC LOAD and that doesn't take into consideration its velocity.

You keep quoting "equal and opposite" but once its maximun restance is reached the connections give they can only resist to their maximum load then they give way if the force applied is greater than that.





edit on 22-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: missing word



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well as you cant answer DYNAMIC loading has everything to do with it, when the falling mass hits a floor what has to take that increased load the FLOOR CONNECTIONS.


Can't answer what? You make up these questions, like you think they have some relevance, and then wonder why you don't get the answer you are looking for?

Did you even read my post past the first couple of lines?

How about including correctly 'equal and opposite reaction', and 'momentum conservation', laws in your assessment and see if it makes any difference? Until you do the rest of your claims are nonsense.


edit on 7/22/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




But when do we ever hear that from the people claiming pancaking was possible. How could they all break simultaneously for the floor to remain horizontal as it fell.


Excellent point, I keep wanting to point out to people that posting a side-ways edge-on view of the floor assembly is hugely misleading for this very reason

It plays a trick on your brain, which debunkers of course love exploiting.

This, again, is why science is done by experiment first and foremost, by equations secondly and by out of context pictures on the internet...

...actually no, not by out of context pictures on the internet.
edit on 23-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




You have no doubt looked at the video of the rice bag as an example when an object falls it generates MANY TIMES its static load.


Nobody is arguing, or has ever argued in this context to my knowledge, that it wouldn't.

What you have failed to establish is that such a dynamic load would cause a complete failure such as observed in WTC.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




You have no doubt looked at the video of the rice bag as an example when an object falls it generates MANY TIMES its static load.


Nobody is arguing, or has ever argued in this context to my knowledge, that it wouldn't.

What you have failed to establish is that such a dynamic load would cause a complete failure such as observed in WTC.




I take it you saw how many times greater than the rice bag static load the maximum load was now multiply the falling mass in the towers around 15 floors for the north and around 30 floors for the south by similar amounts.

Also remember dropping the height of one floor around 12 ft the impact speed was around 19 mph.

When the mass drops a fraction of that mass hits wall or core coulmns the bulk of it hits the floor slab what holds the floors in position the connections that's all.

For example if all the floors above floor 94 drop on 94, then the connections of floor 94 have to try to support all that load, the connections of any floor below that can't help, the mass below that can't help and that is the real problem.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





I take it you saw how many times greater than the rice bag static load the maximum load was now multiply the falling mass in the towers around 15 floors for the north and around 30 floors for the south by similar amounts. Also remember dropping the height of one floor around 12 ft the impact speed was around 19 mph. When the mass drops a fraction of that mass hits wall or core coulmns the bulk of it hits the floor slab what holds the floors in position the connections that's all. For example if all the floors above floor 94 drop on 94, then the connections of floor 94 have to try to support all that load, the connections of any floor below that can't help, the mass below that can't help and that is the real problem.


The falling mass only impacts one floor at a time and that one floor can support 4x the full static load of all the floor above.

If you were correct then no tall building would ever be able stand because it would necessarily become weaker as you go down no matter how much more support to the lower structures.

Is this what makes people think the collapse could occur naturally? That makes sense because if that was true then the collapse WOULD be able to occur as seen.

But this is a mistaken view of reality, that is why no physical experiment behaves you think it should and you have to resort to this single iteration scale experiment which does not in any way prove your position.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


WRONG THE FLOOR CONNECTION CAN ONLY SUPPORT ONE FLOOR LOAD X THE SAFETY FACTOR!!!!

The core supported garvity loads, the walls took the wind loads the FLOOR CONNECTIONS hold up that floor and ONLY THE FLOOR THEY ARE CONNECTIONS FOR!!!

The DYNAMIC LOAD would have been way past the static load here is a link put in some figures

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

Lets have a look at the force the concrete alone from one floor dropping one floor height could generate

700tons of concrete in a floor so thats 700,000kg

Floor height 3.6 mts approx (USE 3.7 distance dropped after impact has to be added see note on calculator)

The hard bit is distance travelled if the bolts shear or the angles shear distance travelled would be very small 12-16mm 0r 0.012 to 0.016 mtrs lets say they held a bit longer and the distance before failure was 0.100 mtr put the figs in and we get 253820000. (with large numbers some of the digits are hidden)

So thats 253,820,000. newtons divide that by 9.81 = 25873598kg or 25,873,598kg divide by 1000 gives you
25,174 tons THATS JUST THE CONCRETE FROM ONE FLOOR.

lets multiply up 15 loors at 700 tons AND I will be generous and say the full depth of the truss was traveled before faliure lets say around say 1 mtr put that in link above and just the concrete would generate a 48,000 ton impact thats concrete alone!!68 floors worth (PLEASE NOTE distance travelled after impact has to be added to height)

IF the floor gives way under the shorter distance like above say 100mm or 0.1 mtrs the total load of impact force just from the concrete would be for 15 floors 388,103 tons thats about 32 times the static load watch the video right to the end!!!!

now if you check the rice video

( drop produced 31 times static load!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Now above loads are just the concrete none of the steel work, service, lift machinery etc etc.

Then you guys wonder why it fell down!!!
edit on 24-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Darkwing01
 

( drop produced 31 times static load!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Now above loads are just the concrete none of the steel work, service, lift machinery etc etc.

Then you guys wonder why it fell down!!!
edit on 24-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


You keep talking about mass hitting the FLOOR and about connections but didn't THE CORE of the upper portion have to come down on THE CORE of the lower portion.

There were 90+ LEVELS of the north tower that had to be impacted not just one. Each impact would absorb some of the energy until the falling mass ran out of steam. It has already been demonstrated.



Where is your data on the tons of steel on each level of the core?

Oh yeah, we are all supposed to believe without data.

psik



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Did you see the pictures of how the core was constructed?

Here

Look at the diagrams down the page.

It was mostly a large hollow concrete box containing elevators and hallways and other equipment. It wasn't a solid filled concrete monolith. I don't know how thick the walls were but if you had the floor truss bolts being ripped out, that would likely have an large impact on the integrity of the structure as a whole.
Plus it was likely that the plane punched one or more holes through it. Yes it had rebar inside it but that stuff would bend like a coat hanger. They bust up these kind of things with a swinging steel ball all the time.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Did you see the pictures of how the core was constructed?

It was mostly a large hollow concrete box containing elevators and hallways and other equipment. It wasn't a solid filled concrete monolith. I don't know how thick the walls were but if you had the floor truss bolts being ripped out, that would likely have an large impact on the integrity of the structure as a whole.
Plus it was likely that the plane punched one or more holes through it. Yes it had rebar inside it but that stuff would bend like a coat hanger. They bust up these kind of things with a swinging steel ball all the time.


There is dispute over how much concrete was in the core and how high. I presume there was lots of concrete in the base. Sources from before 9/11 say there were 425,000 cubic yards in both towers which comes to more than 300,000 tons per building. The floors outside the cores only account for about 70,000 tons. So where was the rest? How much was in the 6 basement levels that had to anchor the buildings against the wind?

psik



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Did you see the pictures of how the core was constructed?

Here

Look at the diagrams down the page.

It was mostly a large hollow concrete box containing elevators and hallways and other equipment. It wasn't a solid filled concrete monolith. I don't know how thick the walls were but if you had the floor truss bolts being ripped out, that would likely have an large impact on the integrity of the structure as a whole.
Plus it was likely that the plane punched one or more holes through it. Yes it had rebar inside it but that stuff would bend like a coat hanger. They bust up these kind of things with a swinging steel ball all the time.


No wonder you're confused when you get your info from sites that like that.

Here is a real picture of the real core of the towers...



Here is the NIST data on the core columns...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

It has all the column info, showing the size of each column as they tapered from bottom to top using gifs...



Take a good look at how the core was really constructed and the size of the 47 columns. Take special note how they taper in size, and weight, getting smaller and lighter towards the top, and the fact that to have collapsed the way you claim they would be collapsing through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance.

How do you explain that using the known laws of motion, and momentum conservation? No links to crappy web sites please. Gravity can't do this!


edit on 7/24/2011 by ANOK because: to add humorous anecdote...



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Take a good look at how the core was really constructed and the size of the 47 columns. Take special note how they taper in size, and weight, getting smaller and lighter towards the top, and the fact that to have collapsed the way you claim they would be collapsing through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance.

How do you explain that using the known laws of motion, and momentum conservation? No links to crappy web sites please. Gravity can't do this!


But they can be bent due to non-vertical forces. I seem to remember seeing more than one picture of beams bent into some pretty weird shapes.
If you remove the floors, those long vertical beams have no lateral support. How rigid would a 20 foot pencil be?



new topics




 
27
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join