Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

SO, that gives us a rough energy equivalent of 233.7345 tons of TNT.



IOW, about 4x your first estimate.

there are better estimates on the web though. the steel was lighter higher up, so simply dividing the weight by 110 is inaccurate.

Gregory Urich did a very good estimate of the weight on each floor. It's the best I've seen.

Using that data, it's more like 140 tons. Just an FYI and a star for the effort.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



IOW, about 4x your first estimate.


Yes, my first estimate was only for the upper floors.


there are better estimates on the web though. the steel was lighter higher up, so simply dividing the weight by 110 is inaccurate.


Yes, I realize this, but I like to be liberal with my estimates... by erring on the side that I am arguing against, and STILL having numbers that agree with me, it gives it a bigger punch, ya know?




Gregory Urich did a very good estimate of the weight on each floor. It's the best I've seen.

Using that data, it's more like 140 tons. Just an FYI and a star for the effort.


Well, thanks for that!




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I don't know why people are so concerned about the potential energy of the falling floors.

Whatever way you look at it potential energy converts to kinetic once the mass is moving, and once that mass hits another mass Ke is lost to other energy to cause deformation, and lost to heat and sound.

Ke can not increase against resistance. Pe is totally dependent on the position of the object.

You can not keep ignoring the mass of the lower floors, and pretending that mass would have no effect on the collapse. The laws of motion teach us that the lower floors will push up against the falling floors equally. The floors were either ejected during the collapse or they stayed within the footprint, if they stayed within the footprint then the collapse would have slowed as floors piled up and they would be a visible pile of floors, as in a 'pancake collapse. But that is not what happened, the floors were not stacked up like 'pancakes' post collapse, so the only logical conclusion is that all that dust is the floors being pulverized. If the floors are being pulverized during the collapse that means mass and Ke are being lost. If mass and Ke are being lost the collapse can not continue.
For the collapse to continue the mass would have to stay in the footprint, and Ke would have to increase.

If each floors is ten tons, and you have 15 floors dropping on 95, that's 150 tons falling on 950 tons. Whatever the mass was, or Pe, it's all relative to the whole system.

edit on 9/16/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
So there are no major flaws to the math, which basically says for the twin tower collapse to have occoured the way it did, an high ammount of exterior energy had to be introduced. That about right?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The laws of motion teach us that the lower floors will push up against the falling floors equally..


Give us the load path whereby the falling mass, upon hitting the first intact floor, transfers that momentum onto the lower floors so that their mass can resist.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Give us the load path whereby the falling mass, upon hitting the first intact floor, transfers that momentum onto the lower floors so that their mass can resist.


Well according to you the truss plates failed allowing the floors to drop, so as soon as the floors impact you are losing Ke and mass.

If the floors stay intact and drop, instead of being pulverized, then they would stack up, what else are they going to do?

They can't both stay in the footprint allowing their mass to do work, and not be there once the collapse was complete. One or the other, and visible post collapse pics show no stack of floors, so only one logical conclusion can be made.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Ke can not increase against resistance.


LOL. sure it can, if the decelerating force is less than the accelerating force.


The floors were either ejected during the collapse


Rejected due to lack of evidence.


or they stayed within the footprint, if they stayed within the footprint then the collapse would have slowed as floors piled up


If floors piled up and they were moving at a constant rate, then ke increases.

Your statement is rejected.


and they would be a visible pile of floors, as in a 'pancake collapse.


Baseless assertion that the floors would be intact after a fall of 1000'

Claim is rejected.


But that is not what happened, the floors were not stacked up like 'pancakes' post collapse


Some were indeed stacked up. there has been proof of this. It is not debateable.

Your claim is rejected.


so the only logical conclusion is that all that dust is the floors being pulverized.


How much weight is there?

How much ke is lost as a result?


If the floors are being pulverized during the collapse that means mass and Ke are being lost.


How much mass is lost?

Without answers, your claim that ke is lost is rejected as a bare assertion.


If mass and Ke are being lost the collapse can not continue.
For the collapse to continue the mass would have to stay in the footprint, and Ke would have to increase.


Not all the mass needs to stay in the footprint.

This is an error and is rejected.


If each floors is ten tons, and you have 15 floors dropping on 95, that's 150 tons falling on 950 tons.


Unfortunately for you, 150 tons fell on 10 tons.

Your claim is rejected.


Whatever the mass was, or Pe, it's all relative to the whole system.


Only at the collision point - ie a single floor



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

The laws of motion teach us that the lower floors will push up against the falling floors equally..


Give us the load path whereby the falling mass, upon hitting the first intact floor, transfers that momentum onto the lower floors so that their mass can resist.


I believe that anok twists Newton;s laws to fit his description.

I just spent some time replying to Anok on this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Page 40 seven replies down I addressed the falling floors on the structure..

Anok has not come back to reply. I feel he is avoiding me.....What gives Anok, you avoid one conversation when one brings up good points to go spread more "information" on someone else's thread?

Physics can explain how the towers came down.........They are not solid moving blocks like he likes to use in his "physics" explanation.......It is not a solid block hitting a solid block. It is tons of weight falling on I beam and truss connections.......AKA bolts.......Bolts that have shear strength.

To the op. I do not feel this is off topic since it seems this is the way the thread is going......

I do like the math and I will eventually do my own math equation to explain the towers. Including the shear strength of the 5/8 inch and 1 inch bolts holding the trusses to the beams.

snf



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Well according to you the truss plates failed allowing the floors to drop


Connections failed during collapse progression.


so as soon as the floors impact you are losing Ke and mass.


How much ke is lost?

How much mass (dust) is lost?

How much ke is regained during the 12' drop between floors?


If the floors stay intact and drop, instead of being pulverized, then they would stack up, what else are they going to do?


Staying intact is a strawman.

The rational say that even though the concrete, drywall, and office contents will be pulverized, and that some small percentage of mass will be lost as dust. the rubble will continue to do damage, and that zero steel was ejected during this pulverization process.


They can't both stay in the footprint allowing their mass to do work, and not be there once the collapse was complete


Then to prove your point, you need to come up with an estimate of where the mass was an instant before the collapse front reached ground level.


One or the other, and visible post collapse pics show no stack of floors


Lie. Pics have been posted and steelworker statements that prove the existance of these stacks.

It is only unsubstatntiated and rejected claim thatall the floor's mass and the floors themselves must be in pristine condition after the collapse.

No one rational is buying it.


so only one logical conclusion can be made.


Agreed.

You have no evidence for your ridiculous claims.


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 




The floors were either ejected during the collapse


Rejected due to lack of evidence.


Then what do you call this?



Did you see all of that Dust?

Ya, that was the "Ejected" floors.



or they stayed within the footprint, if they stayed within the footprint then the collapse would have slowed as floors piled up


If floors piled up and they were moving at a constant rate, then ke increases.

Your statement is rejected.


Any falling object that lands on another object that is not falling loses kinetic energy until the two objects are equalized in kinetic energy.

This means that the Falling object would lose energy as the floor below it deforms from its foundation and supports, and begins accelerating, and at the end of the collision event, the energy of the two objects will be equalized, with kinetic energy being lost in the deformation, and the acceleration of the other object.

Your statement is Rejected.



and they would be a visible pile of floors, as in a 'pancake collapse.


Baseless assertion that the floors would be intact after a fall of 1000'

Claim is rejected.


Baseless assertion that each floor fell 1,000 feet, as opposed to merely falling 12 feet and then stopping as it butted up against the lower floor.

Claim is rejected.



But that is not what happened, the floors were not stacked up like 'pancakes' post collapse


Some were indeed stacked up. there has been proof of this. It is not debateable.

Your claim is rejected.


And you are not actually giving us any evidence for your claim.

Your Claim is Rejected.



so the only logical conclusion is that all that dust is the floors being pulverized.


How much weight is there?

How much ke is lost as a result?


Each floor weighed something on the order of 4 million kilograms

Most of that mass was lost as the concrete was turned into a rapidly expanding gas cloud around the demolition site.

Your Question is Irrelevant.



If the floors are being pulverized during the collapse that means mass and Ke are being lost.


How much mass is lost?

Without answers, your claim that ke is lost is rejected as a bare assertion.


The mass that is being ejected out the sides as Concrete dust is not applying to the continued downward kinetic energy calculations...

And since most all of the concrete was turned to dust, that is a substantial figure indeed.

Your claim that ejecta should still be included in the downward kinetic energy calculations is a fallacious argument, and is REJECTED.



If mass and Ke are being lost the collapse can not continue.
For the collapse to continue the mass would have to stay in the footprint, and Ke would have to increase.


Not all the mass needs to stay in the footprint.

This is an error and is rejected.


Any mass that is Ejected cannot be used to calculate downward kinetic energy for the continuation of the pancake collapse theory.

Your Argument is Rejected.



If each floors is ten tons, and you have 15 floors dropping on 95, that's 150 tons falling on 950 tons.


Unfortunately for you, 150 tons fell on 10 tons.

Your claim is rejected.


Unfortunately for you, buildings are made to support the mass that is above them, not to crumple under the load of the floors above them.

Your claim is rejected.



Whatever the mass was, or Pe, it's all relative to the whole system.


Only at the collision point - ie a single floor


And the floor that supports that floor, and the floor that supports that floor, and the floor that supports that floor, and so on and so forth.

Your continued assertion that each individual floor was just floating happily in air until the floor above fell on it is preposterous, and *IS REJECTED*
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 





Did you see all of that Dust?
Ya, that was the "Ejected" floors.



wrong, not all of the dust was concrete. How many tons of drywall(sheetrock) was in the building?

I have just made a reply stating this.....

You can never forget about the carpenters.




This means that the Falling object would lose energy as the floor below it deforms from its foundation and supports, and begins accelerating, and at the end of the collision event, the energy of the two objects will be equalized, with kinetic energy being lost in the deformation, and the acceleration of the other object.


Wrong this means that there was an instant load transfer to the suporting trusses below the falling mass. I completely explained it in the link to the other thread.

The energy is transferred to the other truss and I beam bolts and supports. They were not designed to handle the extra sudden shock of energy released when the weight fell on the current standing connections.....

They are designed for a specific application.




Most of that mass was lost as the concrete was turned into a rapidly expanding gas cloud around the demolition site.


Wrong.

There was totally way more weight toi the structure other than the 4 inches of concrete. I made a list of some of the things on the other thread. The elevator shafts were constructed of a sheetrock shell. That is alot of drywall when you add up the walls and the elevators.

As a matter of fact you keep saying rejected.

I am rejecting your comment.

I am done because it will not do anygood anyways.

Everybody ignores the real structural facts and goes along with their own little "physics" explanations.

There are thousands of connections that all have a job to do. If they are damaged, they cannot do their job. There I summed it up nicely for you.

Have a nice day.
edit on 16-9-2011 by liejunkie01 because: shell



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
S+F. Interesting analysis. I have heard the claim that extra energy was needed, and indeed, if extra energy was added, it still doesn't explain how it collapsed into the path of MOST resistance. Er, well... one thing would explain that part...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


If it wasn't the concrete, then where did it all go?

OSers seem to be unable to come to terms with the fact that there was no concrete floors in the footprints of the towers, that would need to be there if their claims are true.

Look at post collapses pics there was nothing in the footprints higher than the lobbies.

Even FEMA agrees that the rubble was ejected in a 360d symmetrical arc...



How many millions of time do we have to go over this. Prove the floors stayed in the footprints or STHU.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 



wrong, not all of the dust was concrete. How many tons of drywall(sheetrock) was in the building?


Considering that most of the building was empty, and had no tenants, I'd say not much.

So, it is YOU who are wrong.


Wrong this means that there was an instant load transfer to the suporting trusses below the falling mass. I completely explained it in the link to the other thread.

The energy is transferred to the other truss and I beam bolts and supports. They were not designed to handle the extra sudden shock of energy released when the weight fell on the current standing connections.....

They are designed for a specific application.


Wrong, the Kinetic Energy is transferred to the MASS of the floor below, which subtracts from the kinetic energy of the falling mass above.

As the energy is transferred to the stationary floor, the energy is distributed to the support structures, and their connections, including the floors and structural supports farther below.

This deformation that I already spoke about reduces the total Kinetic energy of the falling floors, and turns it into heat energy.


Wrong.

There was totally way more weight toi the structure other than the 4 inches of concrete. I made a list of some of the things on the other thread. The elevator shafts were constructed of a sheetrock shell. That is alot of drywall when you add up the walls and the elevators.


A sheetrock shell surrounding a bank of elevators is more than a 4 inch ACRE of flooring, eh?

Are you really listening to what you are saying?

Or are you just going by whatever List of attack points you have been given by your employer?


As a matter of fact you keep saying rejected.


As a matter of Fact, I am right.


I am rejecting your comment.


And Reality is rejecting yours.


I am done because it will not do anygood anyways.


Good Riddance.


Everybody ignores the real structural facts and goes along with their own little "physics" explanations.


And you are ignoring reality, and the laws of Physics.


There are thousands of connections that all have a job to do. If they are damaged, they cannot do their job. There I summed it up nicely for you.


And each of those connections requires a certain amount of Kinetic energy to fail, and that is kinetic energy that is subtracted from the total Kinetic energy of the falling floors.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Did you see all of that Dust?

Ya, that was the "Ejected" floors.


How much mass?

How much does it affect the ke?


Any falling object that lands on another object that is not falling loses kinetic energy until the two objects are equalized in kinetic energy.

This means that the Falling object would lose energy as the floor below it deforms from its foundation and supports, and begins accelerating, and at the end of the collision event, the energy of the two objects will be equalized, with kinetic energy being lost in the deformation, and the acceleration of the other object.


What happens during the 12' fall between floors?

Is ke again increased again?


Baseless assertion that each floor fell 1,000 feet, as opposed to merely falling 12 feet and then stopping as it butted up against the lower floor.


What happens when they hit the ground?

Do you expect them to remain intact?


And you are not actually giving us any evidence for your claim.


If you're unaware of these photos and testimonies being posted here on ATS already, then you are behind the curve.


Most of that mass was lost as the concrete was turned into a rapidly expanding gas cloud around the demolition site.


Baseless assertion


And since most all of the concrete was turned to dust, that is a substantial figure indeed.


Lie.

It was mostly drywall dust.


Your claim that ejecta should still be included in the downward kinetic energy calculations


I'm not, and you're lying when you claim I do.

I'm asking for a number, and there are nothing but baseless statements to back yours up.


Any mass that is Ejected cannot be used to calculate downward kinetic energy for the continuation of the pancake collapse theory.


I agree.

Now, how much was lost again? A baseless statement like "most of the mass was lost as dust isn't gonna cut it.



Unfortunately for you, buildings are made to support the mass that is above them, not to crumple under the load of the floors above them.


The columns are, not the floors and their connections.

And Bazant proved that even in the impossible scenario of mass falling on the columns alone, it still can't arrest after a drop of 1.2 cm.


And the floor that supports that floor, and the floor that supports that floor, and the floor that supports that floor, and so on and so forth.


Floors dont support other floors. Columns do.


Your continued assertion that each individual floor was just floating happily in air until the floor above fell on it is preposterous,


Who says it was floating?

It was being supported by the columns.

But stuff falls on floors, not on columns.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


One of things they keep refusing to address is the fact that Ke is lost when objects collide.

They seem to think energy has it's own power, and is not simply a measurement of work done.

Another is that the forces on each colliding object is the same. regardless of mass or velocity. They seem to think the falling floors would all stay intact while causing the lower floors to be destroyed.

They also fail to realise that it would take more energy to cause the connections to fail than the concrete itself, so if the connections failed, as they claim, then there is no reason the floors themselves would stay in one piece and not be crushed and ejected horizontally.

I've been over and over with them on this, and they still ignore it.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Considering that most of the building was empty, and had no tenants, I'd say not much.


Oh brother.......


Wrong, the Kinetic Energy is transferred to the MASS of the floor below, which subtracts from the kinetic energy of the falling mass above.

As the energy is transferred to the stationary floor, the energy is distributed to the support structures, and their connections,


Yes.


including the floors and structural supports farther below.



LOL.

No. the amount of momentum transferred is dictated by strentgh of the connections. They are not of infinite strength.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

One of things they keep refusing to address is the fact that Ke is lost when objects collide.

They seem to think energy has it's own power, and is not simply a measurement of work done.

Another is that the forces on each colliding object is the same. regardless of mass or velocity. They seem to think the falling floors would all stay intact while causing the lower floors to be destroyed.

They also fail to realise that it would take more energy to cause the connections to fail than the concrete itself, so if the connections failed, as they claim, then there is no reason the floors themselves would stay in one piece and not be crushed and ejected horizontally.

I've been over and over with them on this, and they still ignore it.


Why would anyone believe you after you made the comment that a 10 lb weight can't break a 1" x 2" piece of wood, regardless from how high it was dropped.

that's a preposterous statement and has zero basis inreality...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Considering that most of the building was empty, and had no tenants, I'd say not much.

So, it is YOU who are wrong.


*Ahem*


Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first super tall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaft ways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaft ways.


www.ussartf.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Vertical shafts surrounding stairs, mechanical shafts (carrying supply and return air), elevator hoistways, and utility shafts were all contained within the building core, and were enclosed by gypsum planking similar to fire separations commonly used today in single-family attached housing. While similar to other gypsum shaft wall systems and firewalls, this system was unique and innovative in that it eliminated the need for any framing. The gypsum planks were solid 2 in. thick (2.5 in. on floors with 16 ft ceiling heights) and 16 in. wide, with metal tongue or groove channels attached to the long sides that served as wall studs.


sites.google.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

And each of those connections requires a certain amount of Kinetic energy to fail, and that is kinetic energy that is subtracted from the total Kinetic energy of the falling floors.


Do you agree that ke is gained when the mass is accelerated by gravity during the appx 12' of air space between floors?





top topics
 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join