Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

reply to post by -PLB-


ANOK's fundamental flaw with his "beliefs" on the laws of physics and the floors is that he does not realize that the only thing that gave resistance were the connections of the floor truss seats to the interior/exterior columns. The very fact that he ignores these and says they are not relevant proves he either: 1. has no clue what he is talking about or 2. knows that in order for his fantasy to work, it is necessary to cut out a large chunk of facts, in order to allow imagination to fill in the gaps.

ANOK's assumptions would make more sense if, and only if, the floors were supported and built traditionally, with a large steel I-beam skeleton, giving the structure a rigid and structurally stable design, where the floors are held up by a lattice of welded steel I-beams. However, facts are, the floors were held up by seats that were welded onto the exterior/interior columns, and then attached to the top chord of the truss by two 5/8" bolts and two 1" bolt attaching the viseoelastic dampener from the bottom chord of the truss to the exterior column, and NO secondary attachments to the interior columns. Somehow, in ANOK's mind, these connections got stronger towards the base, giving more resistance the lower you got. But naturally, he has no explanation for how, or why, and then jumps on the core failing later, as if its some sort of proof. Amazing how once cornered, the jump to the next argument occurs and then once the coast is clear, jumps right back.

To ANOK. The following picture shows all what held up each and every floor, from the 1st floor to the 100th. Granted, the mechanical floors did have some extra re-enforcement, for obvious reasons, but were few in comparison. Also, notice the actual mass and thickness of the floor. Why would you think that there should be a huge stack, when in reality, the floors were mostly 2' 8" thick? Ever crushed a beer can, ANOK?

www.debunking911.com...

Can you show me where in there, the resistance got stronger? Did the seats get larger and larger until they somehow took over the entire exterior wall?

This paper explains what happened to the truss connections. They believe it to be significant to how they collapsed. You claim it doesnt. I'll go with the professionals since they know what they are talking about, and understand the structure a lot better than you.

www.aws.org...

Originally posted by GenRadek
Really? NIST says those are floors all scattered about? Where are the corrugated pans from the floors? Where are the floor trusses? Where are the concrete floors in that debris field? All I see are.............. exterior columns!

Actually no, that is FEMA saying that. So you're saying all the interior columns, floors pans, concrete etc., all landed in the footprint? Really?

Well, arent we entering the self-delusional state? First of all, you are the only person who pulled this gem of a nugget out of God knows where, about how the majority of the floors were ejected, which is entirely based on your own personal incredulity, and nothing to back it up, except for your imagination and wishful thinking, and heaps of personal incredulity.

Nonsense, it is quite well established that the debris was ejected in a 360d arc. There are tons of pics that show this, and I posted a bunch that you simply ignored.

And then, you go and claim victory by stating that I cannot prove you wrong. Well, guess what? I can play that game too. There is ample evidence that the WTC were brought down by magical pixies, using their magic pixy dust, in collusion with reverse vampires, that managed to plant special pixy-laced nano-thermite, developed by hob-goblins. Come on now ANOK. Prove me wrong.
They were all using special stealth technology, given to them by the Romulan Empire, also known as cloaking. That is why no one saw them rigging the towers. There was no way to see them. But that is what happened. What else can explain everything we saw? Prove me wrong ANOK!!!

Now you are just being childish and ridiculous. I was referring to the laws of motion, and the fact that you can not prove me wrong on the physics, this has been proved by your numerous failed attempts. I challenged you to prove me wrong on the physics, and you can't do it obviously. All you can do is act incredulous and throw insults, how mature of you.

Right and that picture that shows floors stacked on top of each other, and the others where they were compressed together were what again?

No they don't, they show no rubble higher than the top of the lobby level. That is less then 10% of the height of the building.

So a picture of floors stacked on top of each other, and another picture that shows numerous floors compressed together to a size a fraction smaller than what they were originally, is not evidence of floors that fell on top of each other?

Not enough floors, the majority of the mass was ejected out of the footprint. You have 15 floors falling on 95 floors, it is not enough to crush floors, there should have been floors till standing and core columns still intact, not crushed to a level lower than the lobby.

Anok, seriously, you are starting to lose touch with reality here, and its sad to see that this cult has grabbed you into a world, where reality is no longer reality, but a state of delusion, which forbids any and all rational thinking, in order to survive. You wanted pictures, I showed them, you say they dont count. That is not rational behavior. Its irrational. Not healthy.

See you can't really discus the physics can you? Stop calling me names, and discus the physics if you want to prove me wrong.

Really? The majority of the mass was ejected? And you base this on, what exactly? Personal incredulity?

YES look at the pics, do you see the majority of the mass in the footprint or outside the footprint?

Watch the collapses again, and watch how the floors collapse internally first, before the exterior columns fall away.

How can you tell the floors collapse internally first?

If you look at this gif you can see the top collapses independent of the bottom.



So no matter if the floors fell ahead of the core, the top did not crush the bottom floors.

In fact, explain just how they managed to expel the floor trusses, the floor pans, etc, out and through the exterior columns?

You explain why those floor, floor pans etc., did that. IMO some other energy other than gravity was at play.

Also, again, your warped and incomplete understanding of physics is causing you to see things that just arent true. For example, you ignore the fact that the ONLY thing that held up each floor were the floor truss seats. THAT was it. It was them that gave resistance.

Warped mind huh full of insults today aint we, must be hitting a nerve eh?

You are ignoring that when the floors begin to stack up the floors themselves would offer resistance. But of course we know floors didn't stack up at all.

You claim that the floors gave more resistance the lower they went. Ok, well then, I ask you again, did the floor truss seats get stronger somehow? You claim it doesnt matter, but oh, but it does. You forget the design of the WTCs, you ignore how the floors are constructed, you ignore how the floors are held up, and then you go off on about how the core got stronger. Well, for one thing, to hell with the core for this second ANOK.

The floors offer more resistance because they stack up, the only way they wouldn't offer resistance is if they were completely demolished as they impacted, but then that contradicts your claims doesn't it? Demolished floors can not demolish other floors.

We are talking about the floors and how they are held up. You claim they dont matter, but obviously you have no clue what you are talking about, but insist that you do. So far you managed to ignore everything, because to you, it does not fit your delusional fantasy. You ignore the exterior columns. YOu ignore the floor trusses. You ignore the floor truss seats. Well then, ANOK, what the hell was holding up each floor? Let's start there. ANOK, tell us all ignorants, what held up each floor. Lets make this easy.

I haven't ignored anything. The floors were held up by numerous trusses connected to the core and the outer mesh columns. But that is not the only thing offering resistance. The floors themselves would offer resistance as they stacked up.

Really? Another energy? And you base this on?????

Why do you act so ignorant all the time, I explained why in my post. There was not enough energy from gravity to cause the complete global symmetrical collapse of the towers.

Oh yes, your own version of events where somehow the floors were ejected magically outside the WTC footprints. And of course this was purely based on................ your own imagination?

You know what is it based on, you are just being ignorant here and pretending there is still the majority of the buildings mass in the footprint when photos and FEMA prove that the majority was ejected in a symmetrical 360d arc.

So, you want me, to debunk something that you created, entirely in your mind, that is based on something that is also created entirely in your mind? I think there is a word for that sort of thinking. Also who said the core telescoped into itself? Another thing you came with in your mind? Gee ANOK, its like the entire argument is based on things that came out of your mind, and not based on fact. So in other words, I'm expected to debunk your dreams? Is that it?

No you have to debunk the actual physics, which you have not even attempted to do. All you have done in this post is throw insults, not once have you tried to tackle the physics I keep trying to get you to discus. Are you afraid of the physics Gen?

Talk about ignoring things I keep asking this questions and not one of you Osers has even attempted to answer it...

How did the core telescope down through a path of increasing most resistance?

You ignored this once calling it some derogatory name...



wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Ignoring info that comes from the very source you support is the height of ignorance. Ignoring the fact that NIST rejected the pancake collapse you keep arguing for is the height of ignorance. Not addressing the known, and accepted, laws of motion is the height of ignorance.

yeah just ignore the 500 eyewitnesses that heard and saw explosions like the 911 commission did. just because they heard explosions doesn't mean there were bombs, maybe someone farted into a microphone.

911review.com...

Originally posted by ANOK


Actually no, that is FEMA saying that. So you're saying all the interior columns, floors pans, concrete etc., all landed in the footprint? Really?


Nonsense, it is quite well established that the debris was ejected in a 360d arc. There are tons of pics that show this, and I posted a bunch that you simply ignored.

Oh really? Please, do show me the pictures of the floor slabs, floor pans, trusses outside the footprint on top of the exterior columns, or underneath them. All you showed were pictures taken from way above the site, and all I see are exterior columns laid out in four directions, with no floor trusses, no corrugated steel pans, no concrete slabs. I, however, showed a picture from WTC2 that showed floors, with concrete slabs, trusses, and steel pans, stacked on top of each other. I dont know what to call it when you act like this ANOK.

Now you are just being childish and ridiculous. I was referring to the laws of motion, and the fact that you can not prove me wrong on the physics, this has been proved by your numerous failed attempts. I challenged you to prove me wrong on the physics, and you can't do it obviously. All you can do is act incredulous and throw insults, how mature of you.

Laws of motion mean diddly squat if you do not understand how they work in relation to the entire picture. You claim the laws of motion state the building should not have collapsed the way it did. But you are clearly in the wrong because you are using the overly simplified version, and completely ignoring all the intricate mechanics of the event, including the significance of the floor truss connections. The physics is sound, its just that YOU dont get it ANOK, but try and pretend as if you know better than everyone else, including NIST, FEMA, and numerous others.

No they don't, they show no rubble higher than the top of the lobby level. That is less then 10% of the height of the building.

ANOK, lets make this very simple. How thick were the floors of the WTC? According to NIST and FEMA, roughly 2 feet, 8 inches. That is, from the bottom of the truss, to the top of the concrete. There were 110 floors. There were mechanical floors, and there are mentions that these were structurally enhanced to withstand the extra weight of machinery, elevator equipment, and such, but I cannot find much specifics on that front, but those are the few exceptions. So right now for sake of argument, we have 110 floors X 2' 8" so about 308ft. Now, this is only relevant if the floors were neatly and gently stacked on top of each other, as in a work yard. However, we know this is not the case, as those trusses were crushed and squeezed to a fraction of their size. The floors were practically all air. What happens when you squash 110 floors? The weight of the collapsing floors squished the floors, and created the pictures I showed, including those "meteorites" and that chunk where four or five floors were compacted into a stack less than a few feet thick. That is the force of the collapse you have to understand ANOK. There was nothing going to stop the collapse once it started. You keep harping on and on about the mass of the building below would stop the mass above, well, that is simply not true. By your logic ANOK, the mass of the Earth below the WTC should have stopped everything, and should stop all collapses, because it's mass is greater than anything else that falls on it. Do you see now, where your gross error in understanding physics is?

Not enough floors, the majority of the mass was ejected out of the footprint. You have 15 floors falling on 95 floors, it is not enough to crush floors, there should have been floors till standing and core columns still intact, not crushed to a level lower than the lobby.

ANOK, how? How, how how how how? I've asked you this numerous times, and still cannot get a single decent answer, other than, I dunno, but it had to be something else. And pray tell, how were there suppose to be floors still standing? I mean really. Did you not see the remains of the WTC? Did you notice the hollow shell of the exterior columns that remained standing? Where were the floors suppose to remain standing, if their connections were sheared off during the collapse? Did you read the article I posted about the floor truss connections? Also, can you show me the floor trusses, floor pans, concrete slabs laying outside the exterior columns at the base there?

Here are some interesting pictures, including a section of the core:




An awful lot of exterior columns, but no floors outside the footprint. This is why i think you are acting out of touch with reality.

See you can't really discus the physics can you? Stop calling me names, and discus the physics if you want to prove me wrong.

Did I call you a name? Please, show me where I did in the previous post. Here is my quote:
" Anok, seriously, you are starting to lose touch with reality here, and its sad to see that this cult has grabbed you into a world, where reality is no longer reality, but a state of delusion, which forbids any and all rational thinking, in order to survive. You wanted pictures, I showed them, you say they dont count. That is not rational behavior. Its irrational. Not healthy."

Is reading comprehension also a weak point for you ANOK? We can discuss the physics, once you catch up to speed on the discussion at hand and the facts first. You are failing to understand, or willfully ignoring, the fact that the mass of the lower section floor means nothing in this case because the top section's mass is only impacting the floor directly below it. What is offering resistance of that floor? The floor truss seats and the bolts holding the truss to the welded on seat on the columns. That means, ANOK, the falling mass of floors and debris has to only overcome that floor's connections and its resistance. Not the entire mass of the lower floor. If you want to go that route, why not factor in the mass of the Earth? The seats and truss connection were not designed to withstand the dynamic overloading of 10-30+ floors impacting them at once. The floors were designed to hold the columns together, not hold vertical loads. Now to directly address your physics, was there an equal and opposite reaction? Oh yes of course. What were the impactor/impactee? 30+ floors vs. 1 floor. The equivalent of a speeding Mack truck impacting a bicyclist. Did the 1 floor offer the same amount of force to the 30+ floors? Yes it did. Just like how if you push on a wall, and it pushes back on you with the same amount of force. However, you also need to factor in momentum, and a whole host of factors. Your "equal and opposite" mantra falls sadly short, and is an example of the common misconception of the law.

YES look at the pics, do you see the majority of the mass in the footprint or outside the footprint?

I see exterior columns outside, and lots of dust, dust from the tons and tons and tons of drywall, sheetrock, and some concrete that was crushed in the collapses. I dont see sections of floor pans, floor trusses, or concrete slabs anywhere outside. So no, I dont see anything substantial outside the footprint, that could be considered a floor. Do you even know how a WTC floor section looks like?

How can you tell the floors collapse internally first?

If you look at this gif you can see the top collapses independent of the bottom.

So no matter if the floors fell ahead of the core, the top did not crush the bottom floors.

You can see the collapses initate as the top section begins its decent, but then you see later the exterior columns peeling away above the collapse wave of dust and debris. You can also see this in how the exterior columns were laid out on the ground. You can also see this in just how the dust is being ejected through the exterior columns as the collapse continues, and the exterior columns peeling away.

You explain why those floor, floor pans etc., did that. IMO some other energy other than gravity was at play.

Excuse me, but why should I? You are the one that is claiming the majority of the mass was somehow expelled outside the footprint (and how you see this i have no clue) so at least give us some idea of how or what can do this, and how it could happened. Its up to you to give us an idea or back up your assumptions with something tangible. IMO the only possible way what you say could happen, was that is every single floor was packed with megatons of high power explosives, to have the force to be able to expel each and every floor outside the footprint, and through the exterior columns, to be able to have the majority of the mass outside the footprint. But that is just fantasy since you are incorrect in your assumption of the majority of the mass being outside.

Warped mind huh full of insults today aint we, must be hitting a nerve eh?

You are ignoring that when the floors begin to stack up the floors themselves would offer resistance. But of course we know floors didn't stack up at all.

Did I say that? Warped mind? Shall I repost my comment for posterity?
"Also, again, your warped and incomplete understanding of physics is causing you to see things that just arent true. For example, you ignore the fact that the ONLY thing that held up each floor were the floor truss seats. THAT was it. It was them that gave resistance."
Lack of reading comprehension rears its ugly head again, eh ANOK? Or trying to put words in my mouth to garner more sympathy for you? I was stating that your warped understanding of physics is causing you to see the entire situation from an erroneous stand point. I never insulted you, or said your mind is warped. But hey, I take it reading comprehension is not a requirement in the truther camp. Sad because, in the real world, it's very important.

The floors did stack up, however, the mass of the falling block was impacting each floor below it individually. On impact, the floor truss connections were severed, and now, the entire floor section is added to the mass of the falling block, completely disconnected from the main structure. Once those floor connections were severed, the floor is now added to the falling mass.

The floors offer more resistance because they stack up, the only way they wouldn't offer resistance is if they were completely demolished as they impacted, but then that contradicts your claims doesn't it? Demolished floors can not demolish other floors.

But how can they just stack up and stop if the mass of the falling block is gaining momentum and dislocating each floor below it? And who said the floor was demolished? Even if the floor is "demolished" as you say, where does its debris go? Vanish? Nope. It stayed right inside. The mass of the floor be it intact, or squashed, remained in the collapse, and added to the mass of the falling block above it.

I haven't ignored anything. The floors were held up by numerous trusses connected to the core and the outer mesh columns. But that is not the only thing offering resistance. The floors themselves would offer resistance as they stacked up.

How can a floor that is now disconnected from the structure offer resistance to 30+ floors moving down on top of it? Those floors were under the influence of gravity, and then later, gravity and the collapsing mass above it. The floor truss seats were not meant to withstand a stack of floors impacting it at once.

Why do you act so ignorant all the time, I explained why in my post. There was not enough energy from gravity to cause the complete global symmetrical collapse of the towers.

Where are you calculations then? Are you factoring in the tensile strengths of the floor truss seats, and bolts, and welds? Are you calculating the tensile strengths of the floor trusses themselves, and of the exterior columns and their bolts? Have you calculated the mass and momentum of the moving block? What about the floors?

You know what is it based on, you are just being ignorant here and pretending there is still the majority of the buildings mass in the footprint when photos and FEMA prove that the majority was ejected in a symmetrical 360d arc.

No ANOK, I see the exterior columns spread out in a rough circle around the WTC. I do not see anything else, other than dust. Its like you are trying to convince me the sky is purple and green, when I can plainly see its blue. Also, does NIST or FEMA say the majority of the mass is outside the footprint? Or are you using the time honored armchair sleuthing of pictures?

No you have to debunk the actual physics, which you have not even attempted to do. All you have done in this post is throw insults, not once have you tried to tackle the physics I keep trying to get you to discus. Are you afraid of the physics Gen?

Talk about ignoring things I keep asking this questions and not one of you Osers has even attempted to answer it...

How did the core telescope down through a path of increasing most resistance?

You ignored this once calling it some derogatory name...

Who said the core telescoped into itself? I asked you this numerous times, but i have yet to get a response. The core fell apart from damage and the collapses. Why is that such a great mystery? The spire stood for a while, as well as the ghostly image of the South Tower's core during collapse. Hell, you can even see the core sections falling over or tilting over and falling.


ANOK, this is why it seems I ridicule you. Its when you pull out such nonsense, that its hard to take you seriously, and have to be shown how wrong you are. Watch the video above. You can see how the core sections that stood, stood for a whole after initial collapse, but then, some sections fell over, and then rest just collapsed.

Ignoring info that comes from the very source you support is the height of ignorance. Ignoring the fact that NIST rejected the pancake collapse you keep arguing for is the height of ignorance. Not addressing the known, and accepted, laws of motion is the height of ignorance.

edit on 7/6/2011 by ANOK because: typo

ANOK, you dont even know what NISt says about the pancake collapses, the fact that you ignore every time I try to explain to you what they said, and the fact that you continue to say the same erroneous statements over and over, makes me want to laugh.
NIST rejected the pancake collapse as the INITIATOR of collapse. Do you know what "initiate" means? You claim to have such an education and understanding of physics and such, and yet, you cannot figure out this simple term? NIST states:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable".

Here is what NIST stated as well:

What the NIST observed:

Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3

oops!!
Sorry ANOK, it is you that is wrong. Floors did pancake. They pancaked after initiation of collapse, which was brought on by the failure of the sagging exterior columns bending in first.

So, once and for all, ANOK, you have been proven wrong on numerous counts. Most obviously, regarding pancaking of floors. This was a result of your inability to understand what NIST stated. If you cannot understand this basic fact, and continue to spew your erroneous beliefs, then there is no way for me, or anyone else to take you seriously, when you cannot even read and understand what NIST states.

Here is what else NIST states about the collapses:

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.” In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

wtc.nist.gov...

here is something about momentum. Another part you like to ignore.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by GenRadek


Here is what they say about the common misconceptions of Newton's Laws:

CORRECTED: FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS NOT AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION [BACK TO TOP]
Newton originally published his laws of motion in Latin, and in the English translation, the word "action" was used in a different way than it's usually used today. It was not used to suggest motion. Instead it was used to mean "an acting upon." It was used in much the same way that the word "force" is used today. What Newton's third law of motion means is this:

For every "acting upon", there must be an equal "acting upon" in the opposite direction.
Or in modern terms...
For every FORCE applied, there must be an equal FORCE in the opposite direction.
So while it's true that a skateboard does fly backwards when the rider steps off it, these MOTIONS of "action" and "reaction" are not what Newton was investigating. Newton was actually referring to the fact that when you push on something, it pushes back upon you equally, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT MOVE. When a bowling ball pushes down on the Earth, the Earth pushes up on the bowling ball by the same amount. That is a good illustration of Newton's third Law. Newton's Third Law can be rewritten to say:
FOR EVERY FORCE THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCE.
Or "you cannot touch without being touched."
Or even simpler: Forces always exist in pairs.

www.msu.edu...

using your version of N3rdL, bunker buster bombs would not exist or work, because the mass of the Earth is greater than the mass of falling bomb, and it should stop the bomb from penetrating the Earth. A meteor should not be able to gouge out a massive crater on impact, because its mass is less than the mass of the Earth, and it should stop and destroy the meteor on the surface, without damaging the Earth.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Here is what they say about the common misconceptions of Newton's Laws:

CORRECTED: FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS NOT AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION [BACK TO TOP]
Newton originally published his laws of motion in Latin, and in the English translation, the word "action" was used in a different way than it's usually used today. It was not used to suggest motion. Instead it was used to mean "an acting upon." It was used in much the same way that the word "force" is used today. What Newton's third law of motion means is this:

For every "acting upon", there must be an equal "acting upon" in the opposite direction.
Or in modern terms...
For every FORCE applied, there must be an equal FORCE in the opposite direction.
So while it's true that a skateboard does fly backwards when the rider steps off it, these MOTIONS of "action" and "reaction" are not what Newton was investigating. Newton was actually referring to the fact that when you push on something, it pushes back upon you equally, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT MOVE. When a bowling ball pushes down on the Earth, the Earth pushes up on the bowling ball by the same amount. That is a good illustration of Newton's third Law. Newton's Third Law can be rewritten to say:
FOR EVERY FORCE THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCE.
Or "you cannot touch without being touched."
Or even simpler: Forces always exist in pairs.

www.msu.edu...

The forces on colliding objects are the same, equal opposite reaction, just as your quote above says. How am I misunderstanding it? What the term 'action' means is no mystery. It just says what I have been saying all the time. Why did you type 'even if it does not move' in caps? That statement does not contradict what I've been saying, it just proves what I've been saying all along, you do not understand how to apply the laws. Equal opposite reaction law applies to all types of collision whether they move or stay static. You just have to know how to apply it in context. All types of collision are easily explained using the laws of motion.

Just like your quote says colliding objects push back against each other with same amount of force. So if two objects of equal mass collide what happens? Is one destroyed while leaving the other still intact? No, the damage would be more or less the same. So once again mate 15 floors can not crush 95 floors without being destroyed themselves, you do the math.

using your version of N3rdL, bunker buster bombs would not exist or work, because the mass of the Earth is greater than the mass of falling bomb, and it should stop the bomb from penetrating the Earth. A meteor should not be able to gouge out a massive crater on impact, because its mass is less than the mass of the Earth, and it should stop and destroy the meteor on the surface, without damaging the Earth.

Incorrect the bunker bomb destroys the bunker not the Earth, it breaks up from the force of the bomb, the bomb does not continue through the Earth.

A meteor makes a crater because the Earth is soft, when the soft Earth can no longer be displaced the meteor is destroyed by the Earths mass. It's just like any projectile can put a mark on a more massive object but that does not mean it defied the physics as I, and your quote, have explained them.

Sorry Gen but once again you simply prove my point, both your quote and your analogies prove this.

Originally posted by ANOK


The forces on colliding objects are the same, equal opposite reaction, just as your quote above says. How am I misunderstanding it? What the term 'action' means is no mystery. It just says what I have been saying all the time. Why did you type 'even if it does not move' in caps? That statement does not contradict what I've been saying, it just proves what I've been saying all along, you do not understand how to apply the laws. Equal opposite reaction law applies to all types of collision whether they move or stay static. You just have to know how to apply it in context. All types of collision are easily explained using the laws of motion.

Just like your quote says colliding objects push back against each other with same amount of force. So if two objects of equal mass collide what happens? Is one destroyed while leaving the other still intact? No, the damage would be more or less the same. So once again mate 15 floors can not crush 95 floors without being destroyed themselves, you do the math.

But again, you are simplifying the entire equation. Each floor was impacted separately by the mass above, and no, the floor impacted does not get destroyed and disappears. It is still more or less intact and is now a part of the mass moving down. Were the floors destroyed? Yes. Did they disappear? No. They impacted the floor below it in sequence. i dont know why you think the floors just disappeared and lost all mass.

But still you have not explained how the floors should be arrested. You just say the top floors get smashed and, disappear, and nothing is left to destroy the rest. That is not the case, as the top section of floors impacted the floor directly below it, destroying its connections, and adding it to its mass. The process repeated itself until it went all the way down. You keep ignoring, yes ignoring, the connections of the trusses and how they play an important part in how they collapsed. NIST explains how they managed to collapse, and no laws of physics were violated. Its funny how all those professionals can make such a mistake, and you are smarter than they are. Oh wait, I think they are pros. I'll take their word over yours. Where are the professionals that side with you? and dont turn me to that dreary collection of "professionals" at AE9/11T. Those people are a joke. I want actual people, actual physicists, that came to the conclusion that the WTC collapsed in the face of Newton's Laws.

Originally posted by ANOK
...when the soft Earth can no longer be displaced the meteor is destroyed by the Earths mass.

NO.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh really? Please, do show me the pictures of the floor slabs, floor pans, trusses outside the footprint on top of the exterior columns, or underneath them.

So you're saying that all that interior fitted in the footprint, but was not higher than the lobby level? I don't think you understand how much steel was in the core.

Laws of motion mean diddly squat if you do not understand how they work in relation to the entire picture.

I do understand fine, and every time you try to say I'm wrong you prove you are the one who doesn't understand.

ANOK, lets make this very simple. How thick were the floors of the WTC?

You are again missing the point. There should have been un-crushed floors still attached to the central core and outer mesh columns. There was not enough energy from 15 floors to crush 95 floors to the height of less then 10% of the building and take out the core.

However, we know this is not the case, as those trusses were crushed and squeezed to a fraction of their size.

And where did the energy come from to do that?

The floors were practically all air. What happens when you squash 110 floors?

How did 110 floors get squashed? This is a question you ignore, and seem to think its a normal thing. Air has nothing to do with it.

Go ahead and try dropping concrete slabs on concrete slabs and see if you can get that kind of destruction.

The weight of the collapsing floors squished the floors, and created the pictures I showed, including those "meteorites" and that chunk where four or five floors were compacted into a stack less than a few feet thick.

Yes floors were crushed, but they could not have been crushed simply from a gravity collapse. Again equal opposite reaction laws explains why. There must have been another energy source that was not investigated.

That is the force of the collapse you have to understand ANOK. There was nothing going to stop the collapse once it started.

The mass of the lower structure, just like your Newton quote tells you, would put an equal and opposite force on the collapsing top mass, that bottom mass is what is going to stop the collapse.

You keep harping on and on about the mass of the building below would stop the mass above, well, that is simply not true. By your logic ANOK, the mass of the Earth below the WTC should have stopped everything, and should stop all collapses, because it's mass is greater than anything else that falls on it. Do you see now, where your gross error in understanding physics is?

Of course it's true, you can not ignore the mass of the bottom section, that is just too stupid to be stupid.

Well the mass of the Earth did stop the collapse from continuing past the basement and end up in China.

ANOK, how? How, how how how how? I've asked you this numerous times, and still cannot get a single decent answer, other than, I dunno, but it had to be something else.

So you want me to speculate on what was used? Well the common belief is thermite but I have no proof for it and have given up debating on speculation. All I can say for sure is there was another energy source that was not investigated.

And pray tell, how were there suppose to be floors still standing? I mean really. Did you not see the remains of the WTC? Did you notice the hollow shell of the exterior columns that remained standing? Where were the floors suppose to remain standing, if their connections were sheared off during the collapse? Did you read the article I posted about the floor truss connections? Also, can you show me the floor trusses, floor pans, concrete slabs laying outside the exterior columns at the base there?

Well I don't think the connections should have sheared off, and the amount of damage to the towers should not have happened. There had to be another energy source acting to remove the resistance ahead of the collapse wave. But of course you now this so why do you constantly act ignorant as if this is the first time you've read any of this?

An awful lot of exterior columns, but no floors outside the footprint. This is why i think you are acting out of touch with reality.

You think all 110 floors are still in the footprint? Really?

I remember when 'truthers' used to say the towers were an implosion because they fell vertically, the OS argument was there was no floors in the footprint. Oh how you change your nonsense to simply argue.

Did I call you a name? Please, show me where I did in the previous post. Here is my quote:
" Anok, seriously, you are starting to lose touch with reality here, and its sad to see that this cult has grabbed you into a world, where reality is no longer reality, but a state of delusion, which forbids any and all rational thinking, in order to survive. You wanted pictures, I showed them, you say they dont count. That is not rational behavior. Its irrational. Not healthy."

Is reading comprehension also a weak point for you ANOK? We can discuss the physics, once you catch up to speed on the discussion at hand and the facts first.

I think anyone can see who has the comprehension problem, you're like a little kid repeating what I say to you. I discus the physics in every post, but you either ignore it or misinterpret it.

You are failing to understand, or willfully ignoring, the fact that the mass of the lower section floor means nothing in this case because the top section's mass is only impacting the floor directly below it.

Wrong. The top section is floors connected together, the bottom section is floors connected together.

You are ignoring the mass of the bottom section, THAT is ignorance at its best.

Remember Newtons laws, EQUAL reaction. The mass of the top is acting on the bottom falling floor, the mass of the bottom to acting on the top impacted floor. If the falling top causes the trusses to fail on the impacted floor, then the trusses of the falling floor will experience the same force and also fail, or be seriously damaged. Once that happens you have less force working on the yet undamaged trusses. This will create resistance. The resistance will build as the floors lose energy to deformation, sound, friction, heat etc., and the collapse will arrest before it is complete.

What is offering resistance of that floor? The floor truss seats and the bolts holding the truss to the welded on seat on the columns. That means, ANOK, the falling mass of floors and debris has to only overcome that floor's connections and its resistance. Not the entire mass of the lower floor.

It's the mass of the floors that is causing the trusses to fail right? So if the mass of the floors is being ejected, or simply broken up, then you lose mass to break the trusses and you end up with floors still intact and connected to the columns.

The floors were designed to hold the columns together, not hold vertical loads.

Wrong. The floors held the vertical load of that floor. Each floors had to be able to hold it's weigh plus the load placed on it.

Now to directly address your physics, was there an equal and opposite reaction? Oh yes of course. What were the impactor/impactee? 30+ floors vs. 1 floor.

If you keep on insisting to look at it like that you will remain ignorant. You can not ignore the mass of the bottom floors. It is one block of floors falling on one block of floors. And you wonder why I keep saying you misunderstand the physics?

The equivalent of a speeding Mack truck impacting a bicyclist. Did the 1 floor offer the same amount of force to the 30+ floors? Yes it did. Just like how if you push on a wall, and it pushes back on you with the same amount of force. However, you also need to factor in momentum, and a whole host of factors. Your "equal and opposite" mantra falls sadly short, and is an example of the common misconception of the law.

If you had not one bicyclist but say a million bikes all joined together, would the truck eventually meet some resistance from the bikes stacking up in front of the truck?

Momentum makes no difference to the equal opposite reaction law. If momentum of one object is increased then the forces on BOTH objects also increases.

Sorry but you keep proving you are the one who misunderstands the laws. You fail to understand momentum is also an equal opposite reaction. It's not mantra, it is relevant and important physics.

I see exterior columns outside, and lots of dust, dust from the tons and tons and tons of drywall, sheetrock, and some concrete that was crushed in the collapses. I dont see sections of floor pans, floor trusses, or concrete slabs anywhere outside. So no, I dont see anything substantial outside the footprint, that could be considered a floor. Do you even know how a WTC floor section looks like?

And you don't see any inside either, your negative does not prove anything. There was not enough Sheetrock to do this...

You can see the collapses initate as the top section begins its decent, but then you see later the exterior columns peeling away above the collapse wave of dust and debris. You can also see this in how the exterior columns were laid out on the ground. You can also see this in just how the dust is being ejected through the exterior columns as the collapse continues, and the exterior columns peeling away.

But that doesn't mean it was a natural 'pancake collapse'. You ignore the fact that the top started crushing itself before the bottom started collapsing. How can the top have been crushing the bottom when it was crushing itself? It's obvious that the bottom collapsed independent of the top, the tilting of the tops shows that also.

Excuse me, but why should I? You are the one that is claiming the majority of the mass was somehow expelled outside the footprint (and how you see this i have no clue) so at least give us some idea of how or what can do this, and how it could happened.

You must be blind or again just playing ignorant. Please show me where all these floors are in the footprints?



This is how high the rubble pile was...

But how can they just stack up and stop if the mass of the falling block is gaining momentum and dislocating each floor below it?

Because that is not how it works? It would not be gaining momentum, we have gone over this already. For the momentum to gain then there would have to be NO resistance, which means something must have taken the resistance away.

And who said the floor was demolished? Even if the floor is "demolished" as you say, where does its debris go? Vanish? Nope. It stayed right inside. The mass of the floor be it intact, or squashed, remained in the collapse, and added to the mass of the falling block above it.

The debris was ejected proven by the lack of debris in the footprints.

Even if it didn't debris is not going to crush undamaged structure. Try dropping the same mass of lose rocks on a slab of concrete and see what happens.

How can a floor that is now disconnected from the structure offer resistance to 30+ floors moving down on top of it? Those floors were under the influence of gravity, and then later, gravity and the collapsing mass above it. The floor truss seats were not meant to withstand a stack of floors impacting it at once.

Well the floor should not have been disconnected. You are making a huge leap in logic if you think that floors could simply become disconnected with no resistance and just drop symmetrically. You are missing so much that would have to happen first. You are just assuming it would be such a complete automatic clean breaking of connections.

Where are you calculations then? Are you factoring in the tensile strengths of the floor truss seats, and bolts, and welds? Are you calculating the tensile strengths of the floor trusses themselves, and of the exterior columns and their bolts? Have you calculated the mass and momentum of the moving block? What about the floors?

You don't need calculations for basic physics.

No ANOK, I see the exterior columns spread out in a rough circle around the WTC. I do not see anything else, other than dust. Its like you are trying to convince me the sky is purple and green, when I can plainly see its blue. Also, does NIST or FEMA say the majority of the mass is outside the footprint? Or are you using the time honored armchair sleuthing of pictures?

Just because you don't see them outside the footprint it doesn't mean they must be in the footprint, that is so illogical its hilarious.

Who said the core telescoped into itself? I asked you this numerous times, but i have yet to get a response. The core fell apart from damage and the collapses. Why is that such a great mystery? The spire stood for a while, as well as the ghostly image of the South Tower's core during collapse. Hell, you can even see the core sections falling over or tilting over and falling.

The core obviously telescoped during the collapses. Do you see any part of the building tilting and falling to one side?

ANOK, this is why it seems I ridicule you. Its when you pull out such nonsense, that its hard to take you seriously, and have to be shown how wrong you are. Watch the video above. You can see how the core sections that stood, stood for a whole after initial collapse, but then, some sections fell over, and then rest just collapsed.

You ridicule me? Really? I think you're rude, and boring, but I don't feel ridiculed. In fact your posts are quite a giggle mate.

The core did not do that DURING the collapse did it? No, it was obviously telescoping straight down.

ANOK, you dont even know what NISt says about the pancake collapses, the fact that you ignore every time I try to explain to you what they said, and the fact that you continue to say the same erroneous statements over and over, makes me want to laugh.
NIST rejected the pancake collapse as the INITIATOR of collapse. Do you know what "initiate" means? You claim to have such an education and understanding of physics and such, and yet, you cannot figure out this simple term? NIST states:

Wrong pancake collapse is not an initiator. Pancake collapse is what you keep describing floors falling on floors causing them to drop and stack up like pancakes.

NIST dropped the pancake collapse, and instead decided to only try to explain away the collapse initiation. They dropped pancake collapse because it would only give people who know physics more ammunition to debunk the OS.

The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable".

No one is saying pancake caused the collapse initiation, you really are so confused.

So, once and for all, ANOK, you have been proven wrong on numerous counts.

No I haven't lol, only in your fantasy world.

here is something about momentum. Another part you like to ignore.
en.wikipedia.org...

I do not ignore momentum conservation I bring it up on a regular basis. What is it you want me to look at, I understand it perfectly but I have no idea if you do by simply showing me general link about it. What is it that I do not understand? Make you point clear for once.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by ANOK
...when the soft Earth can no longer be displaced the meteor is destroyed by the Earths mass.

NO.

If an object collides with another object, and one is destroyed, then what is doing the destroying? If the mass of the Earth was not in the way the meteor would not be destroyed.

It's another dumb analogy anyway, why not stick to objects that actually pertain to buildings. Try dropping a small block of concrete slabs on a larger block of concrete slabs, and see if your small block will stay intact until the larger block is gone, and then the smaller block destroy itself. If you can demonstrate that I will join your side of the argument.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by ANOK
...when the soft Earth can no longer be displaced the meteor is destroyed by the Earths mass.

NO.

....

It's another dumb analogy anyway...

It was your "dumb analogy", ANOK, but ok.

Originally posted by ANOK
Try dropping a small block of concrete slabs on a larger block of concrete slabs, and see if your small block will stay intact until the larger block is gone, and then the smaller block destroy itself. If you can demonstrate that I will join your side of the argument.

Why do you think that the concrete slabs are so important ANOK? Their role in WTC 1&2 was to provide a floor surface, and transfer building live loads to the floor trusses and secondarily to transfer wind loads from the perimeter columns to the core. Characterizing the WTC 1,2&7 as "blocks of concrete slabs" is more than a simplification, it's plain inaccurate.

Does the sequence of events you outline describe what you think happened, or are you referring to something else?

Originally posted by ANOK

....It would not be gaining momentum, we have gone over this already. For the momentum to gain then there would have to be NO resistance, which means

for momentum to increase it is not necessary that there be "no resistance" as long as there is an acceleration, momentum is increasing. There will be acceleration as long as the force of gravity is greater than the resistance provided by the structure actually doing the resistance. Not to mention that momentum increases as more of the tower falls.

Momentum = Mass*Velocity. Increase either mass, or velocity, and momentum will also increase.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
It was your "dumb analogy", ANOK, but ok.

No it wasn't, the only analogy I used was concrete slabs impacting each other, I did not bring up meteors hitting the Earth, someone else did.

Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you think that the concrete slabs are so important ANOK?

It represents the concrete floors impacting each other in a pancake collapse that the OSers argue for, you can't see that? It is a more relevant analogy than meteors, peoples heads, or the other crap the OSers claim.

It demonstrates the laws of motion, I could use anything but concrete slabs would be the closest you could get, at home, to the floors. If you think floors simply fell, and impacted, causing the complete global collapse then you should be able to repeat that feat using simple concrete slabs dropped in the same manner. That is called science, and until you can do that than your claim is simply an hypothesis with no basis of truth. I know the outcome of that experiment already, you obviously do not.

Their role in WTC 1&2 was to provide a floor surface, and transfer building live loads to the floor trusses and secondarily to transfer wind loads from the perimeter columns to the core. Characterizing the WTC 1,2&7 as "blocks of concrete slabs" is more than a simplification, it's plain inaccurate.

So what? You are the ones claiming the floors dropped and pancaked themselves to the ground. What is their role in transferring wind load have to do with that? What is how the towers constructed have to do with that.
You could stack those same WTC floors up with toothpicks, instead of core columns and outer mesh columns, and the towers would still not completely collapse to the ground. The floors would stack up and create resistance.

Does the sequence of events you outline describe what you think happened, or are you referring to something else?

I have no idea what you mean? What sequence of events?

They dont want to discuss, theres nothing to discuss. They would like you to swallow the OS and keep on with the koolaid.
Would not there be a "pancaked" floor pile somewhere? Ah sry, forgot that all floors were turned to dust not by any type of explosive but by simple collapse forces (you do realise how retarded that is right?). As they try to insult us calling us "truthers", how should we call them retarded ignorant believers? OSrs? Or simply "lil gullible sheeple"?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

for momentum to increase it is not necessary that there be "no resistance" as long as there is an acceleration, momentum is increasing.

No, momentum can not increase if there is resistance. Try driving you car into a brick wall. When two objects collide they both want to maintain their momentum equally. If object 1 has more mass than object 2 then object 1 will decelerate less than object 2, but the overall momentum of both objects remains the same, momentum is conserved. For the momentum of object 1 to be effected less than object 2 then object 2 must be deformed/damaged in some way. Now if both objects colliding are of equal mass, then the damage will be more or less the same for both, more momentum would cause more damage, to BOTH objects.

There will be acceleration as long as the force of gravity is greater than the resistance provided by the structure actually doing the resistance. Not to mention that momentum increases as more of the tower falls

That is true, but why would you think gravity would be a greater force than the resistance of thousands of tons of steel welded and bolted together? And again momentum is not going to increase through resistance, you keep ignoring the mass of the tower bellow the collapse point.

Momentum = Mass*Velocity. Increase either mass, or velocity, and momentum will also increase.

Not if it is effected by an outside force, resistance. Momentum is a vector quantity, you can not simply say the floors had momentum without including all the variables such as distance fallen, RESISTANCE met. You are not considering the whole of the physicist, you are taking parts of it and ignoring others.

In a collision, an object experiences a force for a given amount of time that results in its mass undergoing a change in velocity (i.e., that results in a momentum change).

www.physicsclassroom.com...

And you tried to tell me to take physics classes? Hilarious.

Originally posted by ANOK

So you're saying that all that interior fitted in the footprint, but was not higher than the lobby level? I don't think you understand how much steel was in the core.

The floor sections did. As for the core columns, did you miss them in the picture I posted earlier? They were all laid out and a section of it survived in that one picture I posted. Also, did you see any floor trusses attached to the exterior columns, or the floor pans still attached to the trusses connected to the columns?

I do understand fine, and every time you try to say I'm wrong you prove you are the one who doesn't understand.

So why arent there any actual physicists, or the professionals in NIST, FEMA, ASCE, ICE, or CSCE siding with you ANOK? Are they all dumber than you?

You are again missing the point. There should have been un-crushed floors still attached to the central core and outer mesh columns. There was not enough energy from 15 floors to crush 95 floors to the height of less then 10% of the building and take out the core.

How could there have been uncrushed floors attached to the central floor if the exterior columns had fallen off? Also, again, the resistance of the floors was only as strong as the floor truss connections, NOT the strength of the core. As for the core, did you miss how the core section fell over during the collapse, while some stayed up, and fell over later? What about the core columns that were found to be bent over in a pretzel? Do you not realize the power of the collapse?

And where did the energy come from to do that?

A little something called gravity ANOK.

How did 110 floors get squashed? This is a question you ignore, and seem to think its a normal thing. Air has nothing to do with it.

Go ahead and try dropping concrete slabs on concrete slabs and see if you can get that kind of destruction.

How about this, take the slabs and place them in a four sided box, on supports that would mimic the floor truss connections. Put about 30 slabs like this, then take five slabs and drop them together as one, from about 5 feet onto the slabs below. Then see what happens.

Yes floors were crushed, but they could not have been crushed simply from a gravity collapse. Again equal opposite reaction laws explains why. There must have been another energy source that was not investigated.

Why couldnt they ANOK? Is gravity so weak? Your equal and opposite reaction laws are meaningless when you ignore all the other factors, including design parameters, connections, tensile strengths, etc. There was NO sign of any "external" energy forces or, additional energy sources. Couldnt be explosives as none of the steel showed blast damage. Thermite does not explode. So what else is there? Death rays?

The mass of the lower structure, just like your Newton quote tells you, would put an equal and opposite force on the collapsing top mass, that bottom mass is what is going to stop the collapse.

ANOK, how? The floors themselves were not vertical supports of the building. All they did was hold the exterior columns to the interior, and they had NO vertical support of the structure. So dropping 10 floors onto the floor below it is just going to dislodge that floor and have it continue onward. Resistance would decrease as the mass of the debris increased, along with gravity. The floor truss connections did not get stronger aas you got lower in the building. The exterior columns did nothing to slow down the collapse either as, once free of the floor trusses, they tilted over. So what resistance would have increased, if the collapse itself is being gravity driven? The core? We saw how the core had a section of it go down with the initial collapse, but we also saw a section survive, until it too collapsed and fell over from damage and gravity. Once weakened, its going to come down. Many times this has been shown how one seemingly minor weakness can cause catastrophic failure.

Of course it's true, you can not ignore the mass of the bottom section, that is just too stupid to be stupid.

Well the mass of the Earth did stop the collapse from continuing past the basement and end up in China.

But just saying the mass below will stop it, is also being ignorant of the entire situation.

So you want me to speculate on what was used? Well the common belief is thermite but I have no proof for it and have given up debating on speculation. All I can say for sure is there was another energy source that was not investigated.

Thermite? I thought it was high power explosives ejecting floors and the majority of the mass everywhere? ANOK, believe me, I'm not trying to poke fun at you, or anything like that, but when you jump from one thing to another and back again, without realizing the certain conditions of said ideas (explosive demolition, thermite, etc etc etc) and using them interchangeably, while ignoring each ones specifics that make it possible or impossible, makes it hard to take anything said seriously. But ok, lets go with the thermite idea. How can thermite eject columns or the floors outside the footprint? Thermite does not explode. So, lets go with explosives. How many explosives would it take to just be able to eject said floors and core columns and exterior columns? How does that = a "CD" if you are going to fling tons of debris on top of five buildings? So what is left ANOK? That secret weapon from that GI Joe movie that turns solids into dust? Nukes? ANOK, I understand your desire to figure out what it was, but I mean, when you cut through the crap, and junk, to me, its just a gravity driven collapse that was made possible by the very design of the WTC themselves. And before you go and mention Sears Tower or John Hancock, or other towers, recall that those did not have floors supported solely by light steel truss (light in reference to size and shape and weight).

Well I don't think the connections should have sheared off, and the amount of damage to the towers should not have happened. There had to be another energy source acting to remove the resistance ahead of the collapse wave. But of course you now this so why do you constantly act ignorant as if this is the first time you've read any of this?

Did you click on the link I provided? The one about the observance of the behavior of the floor/truss connections? They did a pretty decent coverage on it. They did not find any evidence of blasting done, or thermite used. They found seats that were bent, sheered off, or completely ripped from the columns. That is why resistance was not an issue in comparison to the collapsing floors. ANOK, the only resistance were those floor truss connections, weather you like it or not. The welds failed, or the steel failed, or a combo, just look at the link.

You think all 110 floors are still in the footprint? Really?

I remember when 'truthers' used to say the towers were an implosion because they fell vertically, the OS argument was there was no floors in the footprint. Oh how you change your nonsense to simply argue.

ANOK, lets remind ourselves of the tube-in-tube design with light weight bridging truss supported floors of the WTCs shall we? Lets see:
Exterior lattice work of columns all connected together to form the "walls". Large vertical core columns to give main support for building, housing all elevators, stairs, and other needed equipment. Floors were constructed using light steel bow-string trusses with a corrugated steel decking on top and laid over with light concrete. This allowed for maximum floor space and no interior columns or walls to block or interrupt floor design for tenets, and maximum office space. When the Towers collapsed, the interior floors fell stacking onto each other, and fell all the way down, inside the "tube" structure. This left the exterior columns free standing. The then peeled away and fell over and away from the center of the structure (more or less). The core was partially taken down in the initial collapse, by the top section of the structure. The rest stayed up, after the interior and exterior collapsed, then it too fell over.

Well did I or didnt I ANOK? My quote was there, please point to it. If not, then please apologize for making a flase statement about what I said.

I think anyone can see who has the comprehension problem, you're like a little kid repeating what I say to you. I discus the physics in every post, but you either ignore it or misinterpret it.

ANOK, you keep ignoring the rest of the situation. You fail to realize the significance of the structure and how its design led to its behavior. If this was, say, the Empire State Building, or the Chrysler Building, then yes, I would be agreeing with 110%. But it wasnt them.

Wrong. The top section is floors connected together, the bottom section is floors connected together.

You are ignoring the mass of the bottom section, THAT is ignorance at its best.

Remember Newtons laws, EQUAL reaction. The mass of the top is acting on the bottom falling floor, the mass of the bottom to acting on the top impacted floor. If the falling top causes the trusses to fail on the impacted floor, then the trusses of the falling floor will experience the same force and also fail, or be seriously damaged. Once that happens you have less force working on the yet undamaged trusses. This will create resistance. The resistance will build as the floors lose energy to deformation, sound, friction, heat etc., and the collapse will arrest before it is complete.

But now you are forgetting the original mass of the initial block that started it all. It has already begun to accelerate from gravity. Each floor it destroys, is now a part of the growing mass of the falling block. Momentum is the key here ANOK. Mass was increasing. Resistance was only the floor truss seats.

It's the mass of the floors that is causing the trusses to fail right? So if the mass of the floors is being ejected, or simply broken up, then you lose mass to break the trusses and you end up with floors still intact and connected to the columns.

Its the mass of the top section plus the newly added mass of each floor it encounters. The floor's mass was not ejected outside the footprint, and I still have to see a decent explanation from you on just how the heck that can happen. I didnt see any floors get ejected from the building during the collapse. I saw exterior columns falling away, but no trusses or concrete slabs or the decking. This erroneous belief is what is giving you a major roadblock in explaining what happened.

Wrong. The floors held the vertical load of that floor. Each floors had to be able to hold it's weigh plus the load placed on it.

No, the floor's truss connections held the load of the floor. Not the floor itself. If you remove the seats the ends of the trusses sat on, what happens to the floor itself? The truss seats held up the truss, which held up the floor. To make it simpler. The floor truss and deck hold you up along with your office and such. Its not meant to take the dynamic load of 10+ floors falling on it vertically. However, if the truss is weak or damaged, or structurally deficient, it may fail and collapse, but the connections may not be compromised. So that is important. But what is holding up that floor truss? The seat it sits in, connected to the exterior and interior column. What happens if the load bearing ability of that seat is compromised, say either from damage or vertical dynamic overloading? A floor is only going to stay up depending on how well its secured to the vertical columns. If they were steel I-beams welded at each end, then, ANOK, I doubt the building would have collapsed.

And you don't see any inside either, your negative does not prove anything. There was not enough Sheetrock to do this...

Have you ever crushed sheetrock or drywall? There plenty of drywall and sheetrock in the WTC.

But that doesn't mean it was a natural 'pancake collapse'. You ignore the fact that the top started crushing itself before the bottom started collapsing. How can the top have been crushing the bottom when it was crushing itself? It's obvious that the bottom collapsed independent of the top, the tilting of the tops shows that also.

How exactly did the top start crushing itself? I saw it go behind the exterior columns in one piece. It happened to both the south and north towers. The top section tilted, then fell into the structure. What would have crushed the top section if it was moving as one unit down? What would have stopped the top section from moving down if the floors below are being pushed by the top?

You must be blind or again just playing ignorant. Please show me where all these floors are in the footprints?



This is how high the rubble pile was...

All that shows me is that the power of the collapse was enough to compress the floors into sizes a fraction of the original. Did you miss the picture of the WTC "meteor" that showed 4 or 5 floors compressed into a fraction of the original size?

Because that is not how it works? It would not be gaining momentum, we have gone over this already. For the momentum to gain then there would have to be NO resistance, which means something must have taken the resistance away.

Why should there be no resistance? What if the mass is growing and is still accelerating from gravity alone?

The debris was ejected proven by the lack of debris in the footprints.

Even if it didn't debris is not going to crush undamaged structure. Try dropping the same mass of lose rocks on a slab of concrete and see what happens.

So where are the floor trusses, slabs, floor decking?

Well the floor should not have been disconnected. You are making a huge leap in logic if you think that floors could simply become disconnected with no resistance and just drop symmetrically. You are missing so much that would have to happen first. You are just assuming it would be such a complete automatic clean breaking of connections.

Why not? Show me where the truss seats were meant to withstand the dynamic vertical load of 10-30 floors hitting it at once.

You don't need calculations for basic physics.

Then I guess anyone can be a skyscraper designer, as long as they have a high school education in physics right? Then why are all those fools going through engineering school to design buildings?

Just because you don't see them outside the footprint it doesn't mean they must be in the footprint, that is so illogical its hilarious.

Ok, please, show me in a ground photo, or an aerial photo of the following: floor truss sections attached to steel decking and concrete slabs, floor trusses attached to exterior or interior columns, trusses attached to steel decking. You know, things like that. I think they look very different from the exterior columns and dust.

The core obviously telescoped during the collapses. Do you see any part of the building tilting and falling to one side?

Yes. Sections of the core. See here:



There is the core to the left, and sections to the right. Looks like it fell over, ANOK.
How about this video:


I can see how sections of the core survived the initial collapse, and then some fell over. The rest fell over from the base. As to why it did that, could have been the floors damaging the lower sections as they came to a rest, maybe spreading out a bit. Also the pictures of the core columns show evidence of being bent over the force of the collapse.

The core did not do that DURING the collapse did it? No, it was obviously telescoping straight down.

See the pictures and video above.

ANOK, you dont even know what NISt says about the pancake collapses, the fact that you ignore every time I try to explain to you what they said, and the fact that you continue to say the same erroneous statements over and over, makes me want to laugh.
NIST rejected the pancake collapse as the INITIATOR of collapse. Do you know what "initiate" means? You claim to have such an education and understanding of physics and such, and yet, you cannot figure out this simple term? NIST states:

Wrong pancake collapse is not an initiator. Pancake collapse is what you keep describing floors falling on floors causing them to drop and stack up like pancakes.

NIST dropped the pancake collapse, and instead decided to only try to explain away the collapse initiation. They dropped pancake collapse because it would only give people who know physics more ammunition to debunk the OS.

Ding ding ding!! Correct!! The pancaking was NOT the initiator. Very good ANOK. Now we are getting somewhere. But you then flop right in the same breath. NIST dropped the pancaking as the cause of the start of collapse. My gosh, ANOK, seriously? You still cant figure that out yet?? They never said there was no pancaking. The floors DID pancake on to each other, only this happened AFTER the collapse started. NIST also says this. Workers also discovered this when clearing up debris:

Listen to "Demo Dave" Griffin and his crew talk about ground zero and evidence of pancaking.

"For it being two hundred and ten story buildings, the pile wasn't an enormous pile. We were expecting it to be - I think a lot of the guys were expecting it to be a lot more. I cut away a section of the wall - my gang cut into a section of the wall and we - we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet."

Two weeks after 9/11, engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo are walking in the B2 basement level at the ruins of the World Trade Center, towards where the North Tower stood. They discover a “solid, rocklike mass where the basement levels of the tower had been,” and see “the recognizable traces of twenty floors, very much like geologic strata revealed by a road cut, compressed into a ten-foot vertical span. In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protruded like tattered wallpaper, so close together that they were almost touching where they were bent downward at the edge. Nothing between the decks was recognizable except as a rocky, rusty mishmash. In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits.” As New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton describe, Lopez and Pontecorvo have found “where the vanished floors [of the tower] had gone. They had not just fallen straight down. The forces had been so great and the floors so light that they had simply folded up like deflated balloons.”
www.historycommons.org...

At some later time, ironworker Danny Doyle, who is also working at Ground Zero, finds that floors of the South Tower have been compressed into a formation like what happened with the North Tower’s. He discovers “a distinct mound of debris set into the pile, about six feet high, with strands of wire and pieces of rebar sticking out. It looked like layers of sediment that had turned into rock and been lifted up on some mountainside.… Here were ten stories of the South Tower, compacted into an area of about six feet.”
www.historycommons.org...

But most of the heavy lifting is still ahead, with the cleanup and recovery operation expected to last a year. Mountains of debris from the towers remain, as do the burned-out or smashed-in shells of the United States Customs House at the complex's northwest corner and 5 World Trade Center at the northeast corner. There are also six underground levels in the complex, caverns where most of the super-compressed debris from the towers has settled.

www.nytimes.com...

Also factor in the pictures I had earlier. Yeah, there is plenty of evidence of floors pancaking in the collapse. Thats what they did, thats what the workers discovered.

No one is saying pancake caused the collapse initiation, you really are so confused.

Exactly. But this is what you said not too long ago: "There was no pancake collapse, even NIST admitted that one."

So which is it? Where there floors pancaking during the collapse or not? I have ample evidence there were. You claim they didnt, and said NIST also stated there were no pancaking floors. I proved you were wrong in yoru claims by posting NIST exact words, and after explaining it to you,and now, you pull this. You confused when the pancaking occurred if at all. You said pancaking didnt happen. I proved it did. Now you change the argument saying no one is saying pancaking caused the collapse. I never said that. Its you who is confused ANOK. Not me. You said pancaking did not happen, and misread NIST's wording. I cleared it up and proved you worng, and now you twist and turn it into something else.

No I haven't lol, only in your fantasy world.

So what happened to your claim of "no pancaking" at the WTC?

reply to post by ANOK


I don't even know where to begin, ANOK.

momentum = mass * velocity, PERIOD, with no qualifications.

Originally posted by ANOK

There will be acceleration as long as the force of gravity is greater than the resistance provided by the structure actually doing the resistance. Not to mention that momentum increases as more of the tower falls

That is true, but why would you think gravity would be a greater force than the resistance of thousands of tons of steel welded and bolted together? And again momentum is not going to increase through resistance, you keep ignoring the mass of the tower bellow the collapse point.

ANOK, not all of the lower structure can act at once against the falling mass. You persistently treat the buldings as if they are some kind of homogeneous solid It matters a great deal in practice how the falling mass impacts the building below. Thats why I said "...resistance provided by the structure actually doing the resistance."

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

ANOK, not all of the lower structure can act at once against the falling mass. You persistently treat the buldings as if they are some kind of homogeneous solid It matters a great deal in practice how the falling mass impacts the building below. Thats why I said "...resistance provided by the structure actually doing the resistance."

Ah, the old faithful solid block that was made up of 90% air impacting with its whole mass onto only the tiniest fraction of the lower block bait and switch. Never gets old. Lovely how the lower structure be super flimsy and the top bit super strong eh?

Here's the rub:
- The top was not a solid mass_______The bottom was not a solid mass
- The bottom was 90% air_______The top was 91% air
- The bottom didn't support the top as a single mass_______The bottom didn't impact the top as a single mass
- The bottom broke up as the top impacted it the top_______The top broke up as it impacted the bottom

This type of interaction can be reliably reproduced in experiment, the OS version cannot. It doesn't matter how you construct your argument until you can demonstrate in experiment what you claim.

from: en.wikipedia.org...

The law of conservation of linear momentum is a fundamental law of nature, and it states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects, the momentum of the closed system remains constant. One of the consequences of this is that the center of mass of any system of objects will always continue with the same velocity unless acted on by a force from outside the system.

What OS'ers do is bait and switch here too.

For the purposes of determining the velocity of the collapse that treat the interaction between the floors as being a closed system where the lower floors were giving virtually no resistance.

But for the extent of the damage they treat the upper block as being able to completely destroy the lower, implying that resistance was present.

The reality is that the interaction was not perfectly elastic or perfectly inelastic, but somewhere in between. But that doesn't mean that you can assume elasticity when it suits you and inelasticity when it suits you, on average it was neither.

Same again, you can't choose to treat it as a closed system for determining the collapse speed but treat it as an open one for the damage. Either the whole lower building was supporting the whole top or each floor was imposing a new external friction to the equation.

Just saying p=mv as if that is all that is at issue is a gross distortion of reality.

momentum = mass * velocity, PERIOD, with no qualifications.

Please explain to me why these balls eventually stop, and would eventually do so even in a vacuum.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Even if the falling mass breaks up, it still has mass and velocity, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

My point about the towers not being a homogeneous solid is that falling columns and floor assemblies can overload the connection between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns with relative ease.

The pendulumn balls will stop swinging eventually for two reasons:
1. Normal friction that will stop any pendulumn.
2. Loss of Kinetic energy to heat and (slight) deformation of the balls: An imperfectly elastic collision is taking place.

What's your point RE the balls.