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: 18
27
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Your making a quantitative claim here. To refer back yo my analogy, you are claiming that the barakes are applied fully/there was enough resistance to achieve deceleration, rather than less than freefall acceleration.

You have provided zero maths to help your claim. This makes your claim a bare assertion and thus can be discarded until you provide those quantitative maths.

I won't be holding my breath...
Come on, you haven't seen the video that I've posted probably 30 times?




My 2000 lb pickup/ upper 15 stories didn't smash into a 12,00 lb truck/95 stories. My 2000 lb pickup smashed into a 100 lb moped/single floor.
If that was the case, then the top floor of the bottom section turned to dust from the impact, so where are Newtons Laws of Motion in this scenario?



So your analogy is flawed and useless to understand the mechanics of the collapse.

Your understanding of the dynamics of what must have happened is pathetic.
I love the upbeat attitude.

Can you explain how the planes hit the towers with different speeds and masses, contained different amounts of jet fuel, hit a different section of each tower and spilled jet fuel in different areas meaning that the fires wouldn't burn the same, yet the towers both collapsed completely identical to each other?

South Tower:
North Tower:

The top section of the South tower was falling at an awkward angle too, how did they both collapse all the way to the ground in the exact same manner?




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
My 2000 lb pickup/ upper 15 stories didn't smash into a 12,00 lb truck/95 stories. My 2000 lb pickup smashed into a 100 lb moped/single floor.


I'm going to explain the mistake in your analogy by simplifying the analogy to something that is more directly related to collapsing floors.

Take 15 mopeds/single floors all joined together, and drop them on 95 mopeds/single floors all joined together.

Do you see how that works?

(Your analogies always seem to need an extra force thrown in there from somewhere completely unrelated to the energy of 15 floors falling on 95. Your whole premise falls apart when you are forced to accept that 15 floors falling on one is an incorrect concept and there is no mysterious extra energy that you have to create by claiming there was more mass falling than being fallen on, or it had magically increasing Ke from its velocity.)

Now Joey read this...


... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Now to test your understanding of that principle try to answer this question (without contradicting your claims)...


1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?


The answer is right there on that same site I linked above. Now if you're paying attention, and are still reading, you have a challenge to reply to this post with that answer, otherwise I'm done discussing this with you because this is the physics you keep ignoring. Prove you're not and answer the question. No more bluffing, no more spin, we're wise to you buddy...



edit on 7/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK the floorslabs are NOT all jointed together the connections on a FLOORSLAB only carry that flooor
and to PROVE the point the wall/core columns are all thicker at the bottom because they carry the mass of the columns above them.

SO why are the floorslab connections all the same from top to bottom all the floors are supported by a little section of angle iron with 2no 5/8" bolts one at each end of a truss.

If floorslab one carries or supports all the floors to the top why are the connections all the same answer that!
edit on 29-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
sorry double post
edit on 29-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



1) The lower floors that had to endure most of the falling mass were not designed to hold up the mass of the top section. The load capacity of the floors was much lower than the columns.

I disagree that it was just floor connections providing structural resistance to the falling mass. That is a highly idealized scenario and if that were the case, this photo (thanks Tupac) would look a lot different:

This is not even in the same ballpark as just floor connections failing. There is a reason the OS gets a little light after initiation has occurred..

As I've said before, the top section fell at an angle and at some offset. This means it did not slot perfectly between internal and external columns. Concrete floor sections would have been directly impacting some columns. There would likely have been truss members yielding before column connections failed, as the connections would not have been the weakest part of the floor system for safety reasons. Concrete was being crushed at each collision. Trusses were crushed at each collision (which also reduces the available "free fall" distance between floors).


2) This 1/3gm figure is the average force.

Apologies for leaving the word "average" out, I assure you I was referring to it as an average force, as I have mentioned it several times recently in this thread and always remembered to state it was average.


That means that momentarily or locally the force could have exceeded the maximal load capacity, only long enough to make the member fail, while from that moment on moment there was no resistance anymore at all.

Yes, in my opinion this is a very small average force. All that extra mass it is accumulating has inertia. It takes time to accelerate it up to the velocity of the crushing mass. There would not have been pure free fall between floors due to some of the structural resistance described above. For the top section to destroy all the structural elements described above and seen in the photo by applying an average force of only ~1/3rd its static weight is very suspect.

Also, I find it interesting that the top section accelerated through the heavily damaged initiation zone then maintained that same rate of acceleration as it met undamaged lower structure.

While on the subject, the non-existent structural resistance for a large part of 7s collapse is also very suspect.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by -PLB-
 



1) The lower floors that had to endure most of the falling mass were not designed to hold up the mass of the top section. The load capacity of the floors was much lower than the columns.

I disagree that it was just floor connections providing structural resistance to the falling mass. That is a highly idealized scenario and if that were the case, this photo (thanks Tupac) would look a lot different:

This is not even in the same ballpark as just floor connections failing. There is a reason the OS gets a little light after initiation has occurred..

As I've said before, the top section fell at an angle and at some offset. This means it did not slot perfectly between internal and external columns. Concrete floor sections would have been directly impacting some columns. There would likely have been truss members yielding before column connections failed, as the connections would not have been the weakest part of the floor system for safety reasons. Concrete was being crushed at each collision. Trusses were crushed at each collision (which also reduces the available "free fall" distance between floors).


How about this, I agree that accounting only floor connections failing is an over idealized model if you agree that a force larger than provided by the lower structure pre-collapse was required.



Yes, in my opinion this is a very small average force. All that extra mass it is accumulating has inertia. It takes time to accelerate it up to the velocity of the crushing mass. There would not have been pure free fall between floors due to some of the structural resistance described above. For the top section to destroy all the structural elements described above and seen in the photo by applying an average force of only ~1/3rd its static weight is very suspect.


How do you know this is suspect? Did you have an education in structural engineering? Was this told to you by a structural engineer? Or do you base is on a certain model?


Also, I find it interesting that the top section accelerated through the heavily damaged initiation zone then maintained that same rate of acceleration as it met undamaged lower structure.

While on the subject, the non-existent structural resistance for a large part of 7s collapse is also very suspect.


I don't find that very interesting, you can easily explain that by the tilting. As for 7, clear signs of internal collapse were visible.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


No, it's not reasonable to conclude planes demolished the buildings, both were designed to survive comparable impacts and fires. And they both did survive, we watched them standing for around an hour each. Then they were demolished in a controlled fashion by pyrotechnic devices and explosives already inside the buildings.


Your assessment is based on what? Science? When presented with thousands of images of plane debris on the sidewalk, you ignore it. When presented by eyewitness accounts, you ignore it.

It seems that you want to believe a government conspiracy because someone in France made it up and then Loose Change told you it was a conspiracy. But when presented with evidence, even Loose Change retracted statements.

So let's go on your theory that is clearly not based in science, because science does not explain human conspiracies.

How many people were involved?
How many people would it have taken to be involved?
Where were these people from?
Can you name one individual person who planted a bomb?
Can you name one witness who said they saw people planting bombs?
Did the government plant the plane debris on the sidewalk that fire rescue teams, the various other rescue teams and the police saw there and photographers took pictures of?
How much money did the reporters get from the government to make this story up?
How did the government convince the German, French, British,Dutch, Al Jezeera and other news reporters from around the world who were filming it live, to be part of the conspiracy?
If it were a conspiracy by the government against the American people, then why did the Queen of England evacuate Buckingham Palace? Why was the Hague evacuated? Immediately.
Why was Bill Clinton hidden by the Australian government moments after it happened?

If you say it is a conspiracy then you better be prepared to search for the answers who and why.So far all you tell us you believe the Towers fell. All the scientific evidence you ignore. All the witnesses you ignore. The only thing you can only tell us is that it should not have fallen if it were built right. You are right, it should not have happened. But it did

Instead of making a blanket accusation of conspiracy, start finding evidence of the people involved. If you choose to say American government, then find it.

All the "Truthers" do in their discussions is ask rhetorical questions as though the question were a fact. So now, when it was shown not only on Al Jezeera, but other media outlets in the Arab world, why did they not say it was the American government and why immediately did they cheer these men as martyrs?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   




Can you explain how the planes hit the towers with different speeds and masses, contained different amounts of jet fuel, hit a different section of each tower and spilled jet fuel in different areas meaning that the fires wouldn't burn the same, yet the towers both collapsed completely identical to each other?



I can. Because they were built with the same identical framework.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
911review.org...
sites.google.com...
sites.google.com...
sites.google.com...

Those are merely 4 souces, two being pictures. Shall I show more?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug

Of course not. That aspect of my analogy represented a simplification of the events leading to initiation of collapse and top section being set in motion. It is an analogy after all...


It's not representative at all.

Therefore your analogy fails and is suitable only for laughing at.



Actually guy, it is your analogy that fails. The amount of brake pressure applied needs some reference pressure where pre some event the force of "gravity" is counteracted and completely balanced.


So now you have reading comprehension too... Ok then.

My analogy was not trying to represent the collapse, merely explaining the difference between freefall acceleration, less than freefall acceleration, and decelerration.

So in my analogy, my reference brake pressure is zero.

Now... if YOU want to create an analogy that recreates the collapse, feel free. I could use a good laugh.



Don't worry about a constant or decreasing velocity.



An increasing mass at a constant velocity gains momentum.

An increasing mass may either gain OR lose momentum, depending on the velocity lost.

And again, truthers say that the building's resistance should have resulted in decel, without citing maths, etc. This is where the bare assertion fallacy kicks in to protect the typical truther's cognitive dissonance.


edit on 29-7-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

What he said.


Is pure stupid.

But since it is what you want to hear, you give him praise.

Pathetic.....



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Come on, you haven't seen the video that I've posted probably 30 times?


Yes I have.

There's zero maths indicating how fast it SHOULD have fallen, merely whining that in his amateurish analysis, acceleration was constant, and therefore, something is "fishy". Since this is what you want to hear, you laud it as something significant, when in reality it isn't.

And of course, I can counter his claims with an analysis of HIS analysis, done by other truthers that prefer to NOT make a mockery of themselves and their online persona:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Note that the title of that thread is "Missing Jolts Found"

In it, they discuss how Cnandler and Tony Szamboti both use a sampling rate - every .2 seconds - that is an order of magnitude longer than what the jolt should have lasted, and therefore had zero chance of capturing on THEIR graph. Ironically, the raw data that they provide - equal to the frame rate of the recording, 29.97 fps, IIRC - does in fact show the jolts/change in velocity. So either the author is inept, or a liar. You choose which.

But the jolts ARE there. PLEASE read that thread before you come back with more stupidity and debunked - by other truthers - garbage. Please educate yourself.



If that was the case, then the top floor of the bottom section turned to dust from the impact


Pure stupidity and baseless assertion.

There was some dust, with the largest probability of it being mostly drywall, with some concrete dust. Or do you not agree that drywall is more easily crushed than concrete?


I love the upbeat attitude.


It would be better if you educated yourself - like for example about the jolts that are actually in Chandler's data. despite what he claims.


Can you explain how the planes hit the towers with different speeds and masses, contained different amounts of jet fuel, hit a different section of each tower and spilled jet fuel in different areas meaning that the fires wouldn't burn the same, yet the towers both collapsed completely identical to each other?

The top section of the South tower was falling at an awkward angle too


So the south tower tilted, and the north tower didn't, yet they collapsed identically? LOL.

Gotta love it when a truther debunks himself....



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I'm going to explain the mistake in your analogy by simplifying the analogy to something that is more directly related to collapsing floors.

Take 15 mopeds/single floors all joined together, and drop them on 95 mopeds/single floors all joined together.

Do you see how that works?


Yes.

It works to show just how bad truthers suck at recognizing and constructing accurate analogies.


Your whole premise falls apart when you are forced to accept that 15 floors falling on one is an incorrect concept


If it's incorrect, then you should have no problem detailing the load path whereby when the top 15 story section hits the 95th floor, how the mass of floor 85 should slow it down. (I know you can't cuz you;re just trolling this truther lie)


otherwise I'm done discussing this with you


That would be fine. You do nothing but troll truther stupidity and lies. I have no idea why.

Now shuffle off back to your little world where, as your previous signature line said, you don't really believe everything that you type out. I know and you know that you changed it cuz it was a defacto admission to trolling.

But I like it when you post, for it proves the dishonesty of truthers. So please do...



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug
 


Myself PLB Joey and others have tried to explain what happened in simple terms yes
it may seem over simplfied to you ! but many on here have NO construction experience
and dont know for example what "cone of failure means" or what loading terms such
as dead,imposed,live and wouldn't know a shear load from a tensile load.

Lets see what your opinions are of the following Floor plan below



For the mass falling from above onto the typical floor plan shown

What would the BULK of the falling mass hit?


This picture shows the angle connections that the floorslab trusses connected to



Can you explain to the likes of ANOK why the floor connections CAN ONLY suppport the floorslab they are attached to!

Maybe he will accept it if it comes from someone like you.

I am now refering to the office floors as FLOORSLAB all the time becuase I think certain people on here are
confusing floors with floors in height.

The picture of the collapse is the South Tower so you had about 31 floors as the falling mass and it looks
pretty violent BUT when these pictures were first dicussed many people like ANOK for example claim look
at all the concrete dust and forget that lots of that would be sheetrock, the spray on fire protection, soot and
smoke from the fire.

Thats quite a load to expect the lower half to take as engineers I have spoken to say the MINIMUM load that would generate would be TWICE its static load but would be considerably more depending on how quick the floor it impacts fails!




edit on 29-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 





Or do you not agree that drywall is more easily crushed than concrete?


But But But doesn't the drywall push back with an equal and opposite force?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
The shock wave from the plane crash was so significant, that the windows in the lobby were blown out....before the tower collapsed.

www.youtube.com...

This was not a "government paid-off videographer"...and he was there with the firemen.

So are you "Truthers" going to say the entire FDNY was involved in the conspiracy when they said that burning jet fuel was flooding the elevator shafts? Yes, he says explosion, because the plane exploded.

Which one of you "Truthers" would put their very lives in danger to save people they didn't know if it were merely a conspiracy?
edit on 7/29/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I am replying only to the subject title of this thread because of how ridiculous a statement it is.

ONLY gravity can bring a building down like that.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


When presented with thousands of images of plane debris on the sidewalk, you ignore it.
Yeah, a plane hit the building, so there would be plane debris. How would ignoring plane debris from an airplane that everybody here agrees struck the tower back up our side of the story?


When presented by eyewitness accounts, you ignore it.
Eyewitness accounts of what?


How many people were involved?
How many people would it have taken to be involved?
Where were these people from?
Can you name one individual person who planted a bomb?
Can you name one witness who said they saw people planting bombs?
Did the government plant the plane debris on the sidewalk that fire rescue teams, the various other rescue teams and the police saw there and photographers took pictures of?
How much money did the reporters get from the government to make this story up?
How did the government convince the German, French, British,Dutch, Al Jezeera and other news reporters from around the world who were filming it live, to be part of the conspiracy?
If it were a conspiracy by the government against the American people, then why did the Queen of England evacuate Buckingham Palace? Why was the Hague evacuated? Immediately.
Why was Bill Clinton hidden by the Australian government moments after it happened?
The answer to every single one of those questions would be purely speculation, so it's pointless to answer them.

reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


But the jolts ARE there. PLEASE read that thread before you come back with more stupidity and debunked - by other truthers - garbage. Please educate yourself.
For every person that provides data and evidence backing up a jolt in those threads, there is another that provides data and evidence showing no jolt. So....
...should I educate myself by only reading the posts that back up what you're saying?



There was some dust, with the largest probability of it being mostly drywall, with some concrete dust. Or do you not agree that drywall is more easily crushed than concrete?
DAMN that's a lot of drywall. You already know what I think though, the concrete and drywall aren't being "crushed", but instead exploded, so I think their both just as easily pulverized when it comes to highly explosive material.


So the south tower tilted, and the north tower didn't, yet they collapsed identically? LOL.

Gotta love it when a truther debunks himself....
How is that debunking myself? The top section of the tower and the pre-collapse conditions were both completely different for the two towers, yet they collapsed identically.

The planes hit at different angles and different speeds with different masses. There were different amounts of jet fuel in each tower. Fires were distributed differently in each tower and burned at different temperatures. The top section of each tower had different masses. The top section of the south tower fell at a different angle than the north tower. Yet the collapse of the towers was identical.

Do you see what's wrong with this picture? Why, if every single detail was different for the towers, did they collapse in the exact same manner?
edit on 29-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



It was you "Truthers" that say it was a conspiracy. So prove it.

It is really amazing that in all the calls made to the loved ones and 911 calls, they acknowledge that planes hit the towers. But then again "Truthers" say the government made those calls. It is really incredible that government people who did not personally know the families of the victims could sound like the person.

That is incredible disrespect for "Truthers" against the families. And another "Truther" conspiracy is that no Jewish people were in the towers, however many Jewish families lost loved ones in the towers. Shimmy Biegeleisen was just one....so I suppose he did not get that memo.....

The "Truthers" have shown little regard to the victim's families, the victims and the integrity of the messages they made when they called their loved ones at home. To hear 911 calls from someone in the building say "We were hit by a plane, I love you" is extremely emotional and profound. They knew it was planes. So I want to know, did they see the "hologram images"? Did they watch tv while the building was burning around them? People jumping from the floors above, were they watching the "fake digital images"?

But of course, it is easier to diminish a human life when you don't care to hear to hear the messages of these people. You don't want to accept the testimony of firemen who gave their lives. You don't want to accept the many witnesses who saw it happen. You don't want to accept the simple little words "I love you" spoken by the victims as they tell their loved ones that their building was hit by a plane and they are trapped and about to die.

The "Truther" movement is disrespectful, hateful, and not at all truthful.
edit on 7/29/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
For every person that provides data and evidence backing up a jolt in those threads, there is another that provides data and evidence showing no jolt. So....
...should I educate myself by only reading the posts that back up what you're saying?


So what you're saying is that you have no idea how to determine who is correct?

You're saying that you don't understand the arguments about how the sampling rate/graph provided is unsuitable to provide accurate answers to whether or not jolts are actually in the raw data?

Ok then, if you're not able to make this determination, then you are unable to recognize when you read any truth. You will only agree with what is written when it agrees with your delusion of CD.



DAMN that's a lot of drywall.


Yep, there was a lot of drywall in the towers. You should educate yourself about it.


You already know what I think though, the concrete and drywall aren't being "crushed", but instead exploded


From that same forum: "What is causing the ejections of the debris" Once again, truthers that don't want to make a mockery of their online persona realize some truth of the matter.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

What else do you think is causing the dust and debris ejecta ?

Please don't say floor-by-floor explosives all the way down the tower, it's just silly.

The ejecta is not fast enough. Simple as that. Forget audio. Forget installation. Forget all the AE911T gibberish. The pulverised concrete ejecta is not going fast enough.

If you want to simplify your viewpoint, consider one floor impacting the one below...

The nominal progression rate is around 27m/s, so one floor takes about 0.15s to go from static, through a 12ft drop and impact the one below.

During that 0.15s, ~206*206*10=424360 cubic feet of air is displaced.

If we use a rough estimate of the window apertures as being 103*4*8=3296 square feet, then we're looking at a flow rate in the region of...

424360/3296/0.15 = 858 cubic feet of air escaping per second, per square foot.

Any fairly small scale debris is going to be ejected pretty easily with anything even roughly near that kind of flow rate.



so I think their both just as easily pulverized when it comes to highly explosive material.


SO then in your opinion, 5/8" drywall and 4" concrete can be broken apart into dust with similar inputs?

If you REALLY believe that, then you've jumped the shark....

Stundied, BTW.


How is that debunking myself? The top section of the tower and the pre-collapse conditions were both completely different for the two towers, yet they collapsed identically.


By this bit of self debunking lunacy:


The top section of the south tower fell at a different angle than the north tower.


A rational person would recognize that pointing out the south tower tilting during the collapse as being different from the north tower's collapse...... as proof that they weren't identical collapses.

LOL.......



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join