It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 21
34
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:16 PM
Dbl post
edit on 9/19/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:21 PM

Dust from the tons of drywall and sheetrock and fireproofing.

i've seen samples that show around 25% of the dust was concrete. it was over three inches thick 6 blocks away. that is a huge amount of matter.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:25 PM

so you're model of the twin towers is floors floating on nothing? you do realize there were verticle support columns, right? and that all the floors were connected by walls. you know, exactly how the cement blocks are.

and he put space between the falling block and the colliding block erring widely on the side of the OS. with the twin towers, the collapse wouldn't have even started at 9.8 meters per second^2 because of the matter in those floors. he went ahead and gave it the full 9.8.

the floors are represented by the flat top, middle, and bottom of the cinder blocks, so there is space between them, as they are held up by the walls.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Varemia
Why would there be space between the first falling floor and not the subsequent floors below?

It doesn't matter. The falling floors will eventually not have spaces between them, after all the connections failed, as you claim, so the floors will all be sitting on top of each other like 'pancakes', if those floors are not in that arrangement then the floors must have been ejected during the collapse, which you keep arguing they didn't. If the mass was removed during the collapse, which it obvioulsy was, then you are losing your downward force.

Your hypotheses makes the bottom one block with no spaces, because you claim the connections failed, and argue the floors didn't because you need that upper mass to stay whole, and the upper mass can not stay whole while crushing the lower block.

Your reasoning is twisted, and as confusing as I bet you find what I just wrote.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

so you're model of the twin towers is floors floating on nothing? you do realize there were verticle support columns, right? and that all the floors were connected by walls. you know, exactly how the cement blocks are.

and he put space between the falling block and the colliding block erring widely on the side of the OS. with the twin towers, the collapse wouldn't have even started at 9.8 meters per second^2 because of the matter in those floors. he went ahead and gave it the full 9.8.

the floors are represented by the flat top, middle, and bottom of the cinder blocks, so there is space between them, as they are held up by the walls.

This is why it is a flawed model, as I've said each time I propose a method. The tower collapse was not a perfectly symmetrical collapse downward. It was asymmetrical. To explain, that means that they did not fall straight downward, vertical support onto vertical support. It was uneven and unpredictable, meaning that rather than hitting the max resistance available, as with the block videos, the supports could be twisting and shearing, lowering the resistance significantly.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:28 PM

As I said above, it is not symmetrical. This destroys your argument, simple as that.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:28 PM

yeah, it truly demonstrates the physics involved and how it was impossible.

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.

really, though? you want the blocks floating with no interconnection? because the floors of the twin towers were just floating.... there is space between the falling floor, and the ones below BECAUSE IT HAS TO FALL. stop being so thick.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:30 PM

what force supplied the twist? and show some evidence that the towers didn't fall straight down, i'd love to see that. i'm done posting in this thread. the few people that are debating this aren't actually OS'ers, they're employees.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

As I said above, it is not symmetrical. This destroys your argument, simple as that.

What is not symmetrical, and how does it destroy my argument if it wasn't? The laws of physics apply regardless of symmetry.

Again you are making claims with no explanation. I am lost as to what you're trying to claim now. You can keep picking at certain points out of context all day but unless you address the complete picture you'll never get anywhere with it.

When are you going to address the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws?

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:40 PM

what force supplied the twist?

Chubby Checker.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:03 PM

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?

The towers failed under shear loads.

All of the experiments in this video are set up to fail under compression load. Therefore the man who made this video is an idiot.

If you want to tell me the towers failed under compression... Then show me some exterior columns that failed under compression. By that I mean a set of exterior columns with a buckle midway between spandrel plates.

If the towers failed under compression you should have no trouble finding hundreds of pictures of these.

Show me. Where is your evidence.
edit on 19-9-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Dust from the tons of drywall and sheetrock and fireproofing.

i've seen samples that show around 25% of the dust was concrete. it was over three inches thick 6 blocks away. that is a huge amount of matter.

I do not deny that some concrete was crushed into dust, however, to make that leap into "most of the mass outside the footprint" is quite a leap. The workers clearing up Ground Zero discovered the floors were stacked up inside the footprint, squished into a size a fraction of the original height. They said it was like the layers you see in a geological formation, with the trusses, steel pans, concrete floors, equipment, all compressed into thin layers from the sheer force of the collapse. Ergo, the majority of the mass was inside. Most of the dust was crushed drywall though.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

so you're model of the twin towers is floors floating on nothing? you do realize there were verticle support columns, right? and that all the floors were connected by walls. you know, exactly how the cement blocks are.

The only vertical support was the exterior and interior columns. The floors were resting on their truss ends in seats that were welded to the columns. If you want the simplest idea, grab a slab of drywall and grip it with only your fingertips from both sides. That is approximately how the floors were held up. Nothing else. Just floor truss ends which were bolted into seats that themselves were welded to the columns.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:20 PM

Originally posted by waypastvne
The towers failed under shear loads.

All of the experiments in this video are set up to fail under compression load. Therefore the man who made this video is an idiot.

If you want to tell me the towers failed under compression.

LOL what did I say a few posts ago? You think the only part of the collapse relevant is the failing of the connections, and you keep continuously ignoring the floors.

IF your hypothesis is true you still have to account for the floors, they are not just magically going to have no effect on a "shear load failure". The floors failed also, they were not stacked up like 'pancakes'. IF it was just a failure of connections the floors would be visibly stacked up in the footprint, as in a 'pancake collapse', and the core would also still be standing. Failure of floor connections has nothing to do with the ability for the core to remain standing, whatever you claim to the contrary.

There was a lot more than a "shear load failure" going on. The demonstrations in the vid were for the destruction of the floors after they supposedly sheared the connections, because supposedly suddenly the connections were no longer able to hold the mass they had been designed too, and had successfully done since they were built, and the floors according to you are irrelevant to the big picture.

We know what your claim is, what we want is for you to complete your hypothesis by addressing the equal opposite reaction laws and momentum conservation of the CONCRETE and STEEL PANNED FLOORS that supposedly pancaked after their connections failed. Until you do that you have not addressed the physics of the collapses, you only have excuses for its initiation and try to imply once initiated collapse was inevitable as per the claims of the NIST report.

edit on 9/19/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

supposedly sheared

Not supposedly, they defiantly failed under shear, lots of photos showing sheared truss seats. Here's another one.

You got any photos of buckled exterior columns to support your failed under compression theory.

Here's some pancakes. Enjoy.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 08:15 PM

that is inconsequential to the physics. the demonstration shows that when one object impacts another, each takes equal damage. an equal and opposite reaction. so, now we go to the twin towers, but wait! the smaller top floors dish out more damage than they take! much, much more. also, near freefall speed is seen. you can't both impart force, and gain momentum.

this contradicts newton's third law, ergo, the supports must have been removed. combine this with the molten steel, and tons of witnesses and audio recordings of explosions, it makes controlled demolition the most likely hypothesis.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 08:18 PM

the top of the tower DID collapse into the ground, and since all the resistance from the lower sections was removed, it would have been crushed.

this collapse model that the french use for demolitions only works when 50% of the building is dropped on the other 50% AND the lower half is weakened.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
[. also, near freefall speed is seen.

Correction, nearly 1/2 free "speed" was seen.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 08:21 PM

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

this collapse model that the french use for demolitions only works when 50% of the building is dropped on the other 50% AND the lower half is weakened.

Those demolitions actually are compression failures. The walls are crushed during the collapse.

WTC 1&2 failed under shear.

Are you going to show me some WTC exterior columns that failed under compression.

new topics

top topics

34