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

reply to post by ANOK

Mass is the decider not velocity.

Flat out wrong.

Think bullet! Velocity is the deciding factor not mass.

I don't know the specific answer to that question, maybe a structural engineer or physicist could give you the answer.

if you don't know the answer to that question, then how can you argue against us? that is the crux of the issue. the OS cannot account for it, and it defies the laws of physics.

reply to post by samkent

no. you don't understand the physics of things when they collide. shoot a .357 magnum bullet at an inch thick piece of lead. same material, same resistance, yet the inch thick lead bar will win. an object cannot impart more force than it can resist, else it breaks apart and the force it was imparting diminishes.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

ok, then why do we not see the top floors slowing down and stopping as they collide with greater resistance?

It's near impossible to see what, precisely, is travelling at what speed during the collapse.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

I don't know the specific answer to that question, maybe a structural engineer or physicist could give you the answer.

if you don't know the answer to that question, then how can you argue against us? that is the crux of the issue. the OS cannot account for it, and it defies the laws of physics.

I am arguing against your truther physics and false analogies, rather than claiming to know the precise nature of how the towers fell at every step. If a collapse without explosives is feasible, resembling the OS, it trumps the CD hypothesis, even if imperfect.

I am actually of the belief that the collapse was too complex to perfectly determine what caused what, and why, with perfection. Kinda the opposite view to you, who thinks he can refute the OS with simplistic statements like "big beats small".

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the same physical principle, with completely different materials and weight ratios. put the plate on top of the brick, see the brick can hold the weight. now, drop the plate from 50 cm onto the brick. oh, the plate didn't survive?

while the principle you expressed is true, the way you expressed it is inaccurate as pertaining to the twin towers collapse.

you're trying to show people that the bottom gets destroyed while the top remains intact, which is what happened at the twin towers, BUT you're using a much greater weight and mass on the top, and a very small, very brittle bottom. the opposite was true at the wtc. a weak few top floors, crushing many times their mass.

I explained that issue separately (but you ignored it), the example with a brick and plate has absolutely nothing to do with it. And I never implied it did. That is your incorrect assumption.

reply to post by humphreysjim




here is a nice video of a man who uses the physics toolkit to measure the tower's collapse speed with some of the larger debris falling next to it. freefall speed is achieved.

erego, no resistance. your move. actually, that's checkmate.

Originally posted by samkent
Flat out wrong.

Think bullet! Velocity is the deciding factor not mass.

Wrong. You can think what you want, but you can't keep ignoring the physics I link to.

Velocity increases the forces felt on BOTH objects, just as that big red truck and scooter test shows. You have to stop ignoring the equal opposite reaction law.

What you don't understand is that the mass that is being effected is the mass that is being impacted. A bullet has a very small point of impact. It is a lot of pressure on a very small area. You don't assume the whole mass of the object the bullet hits but just the tiny spot it hit. Like the difference between trying to hammer a 2" steel round bar into a piece of wood, and a steel nail. They both still abide by the equal opposite reaction law, yet the nail goes in far easier because it has less mass to have to penetrate.

You have to realise that we are talking about two objects colliding that are of similar mass and density, please keep it in context. You make analogies that are not relevant, and then you ask why I used concrete slabs that are completely relevant.

This debate is like pulling teeth. You are being intellectually dishonest in dismissing anything and everything that contradicts your claims. You completely dismiss known physics, but make no explanation as to why, act like you know everything, and think just saying 'no you're wrong', with no explanation is a sufficient rebuttal.

When are you going to address the equal opposite reaction laws, and conservation of momentum, in context with the collapses?

reply to post by -PLB-


it isn't worth discussing with you anymore, because quite frankly, most people are aware of who you are. i choose to use my time educating actual people who don't know, instead of people like you.

good day sir.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK

 

Mass is the decider not velocity.

Flat out wrong.

Think bullet! Velocity is the deciding factor not mass.

What is the velocity of the diatomic molecules of air which are bouncing off your body all of the time?

If we assume that the average mass of air (since it is a mixture of different gases) is 28.9 g/mol (or each gas particle is around 4.799*10^-26), and room- temperature is 27C or 300K, we find that the average velocity of a single air particle is around 500 m/s or 1100 miles per hour!

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

So if all that matters is velocity then why haven't you been killed by all of those high velocity impacts?

Understanding physics is knowing what is oversimplified bullsh#. The relative mass of the impacting objects matters. If the difference is to great then velocity is irrelevant.

So where is the distribution of mass data on the towers? Why haven't our so called physicists been demanding it for TEN YEARS?

psik

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by spy66
Than how can you think that the top section witch is less solid, have fewer load bearing parts, could ever crush the much more solid bottom section, which have much more load bearing parts?

I don't know the specific answer to that question, maybe a structural engineer or physicist could give you the answer.

I can envisage ways something like this may happen, though, that do not defy any laws of physics. If some load bearing columns failed very quickly on some lower floors, I can imagine for a period the entire mass of a lot of other floors above it, which are now acting as a solid object, could crush the floors below.

The issue is that the top section must be made up of a lot stronger load bearing material than the bottom part of the structure for you case to legitimate.
Even if the floors collapse, you still have to crush the "vertical" weight bearing part that support the entire bottom section of the structure. Because the floors were not the main vertical weight bearing structure for the towers.

For your case to be legitimate the floors and the vertical load bearing structure must have collapsed at the same time, because the collapse speed was very close to that of a free fall. So what this basically tells us is that the floors on the bottom section must have been in tacked when the building collapsed.

So what you are saying is false. The floors never could have collapsed before the vertical load bearing structure. Because the top section came straight down on the bottom vertical load bearing section first. And accelerated to free fall from that point on. Just that is incredible considering the vertical load bearing structure in the lower section is designed to carry the entire weight of the top section.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

lets say bigger mass, same surface area of collision, same material and density. i've already set up the experiment with bricks. video tape it and show us. cinder blocks would be ideal, as they aren't solid. drop 2 on to 9 at the distance of 1 cinder block. make sure the 9 on the bottom are cemented together, and the two you're dropping. then try it again, and drop the two from 4 cinder block spaces up.

you won't see a 9/11 esque collapse.

Actually, your test is flawed. It ignores the space between each floor, if each cinderblock is meant to simulate a floor.

What you would have to do is find a way to support the cinderblocks at heights to scale of the tower floors, and then make the very top cinderblock fall onto the cinderblocks below. If it causes the first cinderblock to break loose and collapse down, then together (though slightly broken), they would hit the block below that, and so on and so forth.

You would have all your blocks broken by the end of it, if it was set up properly. Remember that there would be variable for error if there is no containing exterior for the broken cinderblock bits as they fall. In the towers, the exterior wall was breaking away during the collapse, but it was also containing much of the collapsing debris as well, as evidenced by some of the debris blowing out of windows ahead of the exterior panels' destruction.

Originally posted by Varemia
If it causes the first cinderblock to break loose and collapse down, then together (though slightly broken), they would hit the block below that, and so on and so forth.

IF that happened as you claim then the cinder blocks would all be in a pile stacked up on top of each other, that didn't happen with the towers, the debris was ejected out of the footprints in a 360d arc, as noted by FEMA.

No matter how you spin it your hypothesis only works if you ignore evidence, and the laws of motion.

reply to post by Varemia


no, actually. that isn't how physics works. assuming we have a like substance with like resistance, and that it can break on the scale we're using (like if i used steel bars, it would be very loud, and nothing would break).

breaking the floors and walls takes energy, which would reduce the speed of the falling mass. remember, quite a bit of mass is lost out the sides of the towers as dust, yet some would remain, then you have a bit greater mass impacting the next floor with less energy, and more energy is lost, and more lost, etc.

seriously try it with cinderblocks. they're much more brittle than the twin towers, so they will give a good demonstration of the physics.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

here is a nice video of a man who uses the physics toolkit to measure the tower's collapse speed with some of the larger debris falling next to it. freefall speed is achieved.

erego, no resistance. your move. actually, that's checkmate.

Wow, someone sucks at chess, checkmate, with your flank wide open for my rook? I dont think so.

Freefall of the debris is no surprise. No one is complaining about the initial debris is falling free fall. The Tower on the other hand is still there, standing underneath that cloud of debris. Its not going anywhere. To think that this "physics" man doesnt realize that the debris hits the ground first, because its in freefall, as opposed to the building, which I see standing as the initial debris hitting the ground, its pretty funny. Doesnt he know the building was covered up by the debris falling from the upper floors? How can he say the building collapsed in freefall?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia

 

no, actually. that isn't how physics works. assuming we have a like substance with like resistance, and that it can break on the scale we're using (like if i used steel bars, it would be very loud, and nothing would break).

breaking the floors and walls takes energy, which would reduce the speed of the falling mass. remember, quite a bit of mass is lost out the sides of the towers as dust, yet some would remain, then you have a bit greater mass impacting the next floor with less energy, and more energy is lost, and more lost, etc.

seriously try it with cinderblocks. they're much more brittle than the twin towers, so they will give a good demonstration of the physics.

How can you say quite a bit of mass was ejected outside the tower? Are you following ANOK in his flawed view of what happened to the floors? Fact is, the floors stayed inside the footprint. I dont see any floor trusses being ejected, nor do I see any large floor pans being ejected with floor trusses attached. I see dust. Dust from the tons of drywall and sheetrock and fireproofing. So no, you are wrong in that respect. The dust was just dust: crushed drywall and sheetrock, and some dust from the concrete floors that are getting smashed up in the collapse. But no, the majority of the mas stays in.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
If it causes the first cinderblock to break loose and collapse down, then together (though slightly broken), they would hit the block below that, and so on and so forth.

IF that happened as you claim then the cinder blocks would all be in a pile stacked up on top of each other, that didn't happen with the towers, the debris was ejected out of the footprints in a 360d arc, as noted by FEMA.

No matter how you spin it your hypothesis only works if you ignore evidence, and the laws of motion.

Maybe you're mistaken on how high I would drop these. There were 12 feet of distance in the tower, and this is supposed to be a (albeit flawed) model, it should follow similar rules. I'd say 6 feet between each block would work fine. If they would stay intact, then I will eat my words. Somehow, though, I feel like they will all break.

seems someone has already done this block drop test, using all manner of things, even small half-blocks. results the same every time.

care to tell me why the wtc towers behaved different?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
seems someone has already done this block drop test, using all manner of things, even small half-blocks. results the same every time.

care to tell me why the wtc towers behaved different?

Yes, he did it completely wrong and wasted a lot of time. Why would there be space between the first falling floor and not the subsequent floors below? There has to be a system in which there is the same space between each block, and the floor as well. Otherwise, all the force from the initial block will be distributed through the entire block below, rather than into the first block, knocking it down into the next block, and so on and so forth.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Good vid, not seen that one, thanx for posting.

The OSers will just say he doesn't understand, or he is twisting, the physics lol.