It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 23
34
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by spy66
 


Actually, once the vertical supports are not directly contacting each-other, as is the case in the collapse, there is much less resistance. The collapse did not initiate with the floor below completely intact, and even if it did, the acceleration of the mass would have overcome the horizontal supports and caused shearing, the debris then twisting and bending the vertical supports down with them.

But that's how I see it, and it is an unpopular view here.


The WTC was built in three section. Where the first section was much stronger than the two above it. The second section was much stronger than the top section to be able to hold it in position. Each of the three had a reinforced floor which gave additional support for the core + walls.

I dont see how this could be a weak consturction at all.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The support columns did not require to fail in order for the floors to fail (except of course at the initiation point). And the floors had the same load capacity independent of the level. (so the 10th floor had the same load capacity as the 100th floor). In theory, all floors could have collapsed leaving an empty skeleton consisting of core and perimeter columns. In practice, the floors also gave support to the columns. The columns were pushed and pulled horizontally as result of debris hitting it and maybe some trusses pulling. On videos you can see several perimeter columns still standing well above the collapse front during the collapse. A significant part of the core survived after all floors had already collapsed. Both these observations support a type of collapse where failing floors are the key. It contradicts the theory that charges took down the columns.

If the truthers are right, and a type of charges were used, the way to get the effect we observed would be to place these charges at the floor connections. Although design specs show that these connections were already way to weak to stop the collapse, so charges are not required.
edit on 20-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




On videos you can see several perimeter columns still standing well above the collapse front during the collapse. A significant part of the core survived after all floors had already collapsed. Both these observations support a type of collapse where failing floors are the key. It contradicts the theory that charges took down the columns.


The collapses were uniform but not THAT uniform. Looking at them from the top the towers were in the shape of a square within a square. The one side of the square was falling faster than the other side, so that means that for your theory to work not only was the floors falling perfectly evenly in three dimensions, but were also stepped, so that one of the sides was higher than the other.

How do you explain the floors getting into that state?

_______________________________________

I am waiting for you to admit that you were wrong about the calculation of the impact force. Common decency man, stop changing the topic.

Just say: "I was wrong when I claimed that the impact velocity could be non-circularly calculated in this instance given the data presented and the unknowns to be calculated".

I will respect you more, not less, I promise. You can even copy/paste the apology. Everybody makes simple physics mistakes every now and again, man up.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   

edit on 20-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




This is a structure if one part fails it can cause other parts to fail this was a TOTALLY CHAOTIC SYSTEM you cant MODEL IT !!!


en.wikipedia.org...(insurance)
aesop.doc.ic.ac.uk...
books.google.com.ng...


Of course you can model chaotic systems, what do you think the gas laws are all about?

You can't make an empirically validity stochastic model behave the you do of course, but that isn't the fault of empiricism or modelling, just with your notion of how such systems behave.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The collapses were uniform but not THAT uniform. Looking at them from the top the towers were in the shape of a square within a square. The one side of the square was falling faster than the other side, so that means that for your theory to work not only was the floors falling perfectly evenly in three dimensions, but were also stepped, so that one of the sides was higher than the other.

How do you explain the floors getting into that state?


I read it two times, but what you write does not make much sense. Maybe you can explain it in a more coherent way?


I am waiting for you to admit that you were wrong about the calculation of the impact force. Common decency man, stop changing the topic.

Just say: "I was wrong when I claimed that the impact velocity could be non-circularly calculated in this instance given the data presented and the unknowns to be calculated".

I will respect you more, not less, I promise. You can even copy/paste the apology. Everybody makes simple physics mistakes every now and again, man up.


First you completely fail at reading or understanding what I wrote, then you ignore my last post, and then you have the nerve to come with a reply like this. And you still do not understand how velocity is one of the factors that determine the impact force. The Irony. My advice, do some more studying, or apply to a proper physics course.
edit on 20-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





I read it two times, but what you write does not make much sense. Maybe you can explain it in a more coherent way?


Your idea was incoherent.

You think that the floors fell through the tower like a stack of doughnuts and claim that you have special powers to see exactly where the collapse front is behind the dust.

But the "doughnuts" were not going straight down...

Try this: Get a stack of empty DVD's in one of those containers with a spindle in the middle (a tall one). Take out the discs and put one back in without pressing it down. Do you see that what the friction does to even in the ideal arrangement?

Now angle it at 20-30 degrees and try to make it go down at that angle.

See the problem?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




And you still do not understand how velocity is one of the factors that determine the impact force.


IT DOESN"T MATTER PLB!

You cannot calculate the impact force without knowing how long it will take for object to stop after the collision.

WE ARE TRYING TO WORK OUT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE FOR THE OBJECT TO STOP AFTER THE COLLISION!

The impact force is a function of the deceleration experienced by the object, which is a function of the initial velocity at impact and the distance traveled before it stops.

i.e. how long it takes for it to be decelerated to 0.

You are trying to claim that it will accelerate, which introduces an infinity into the equation, rendering it meaningless.

See the problem?
edit on 20-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


woah, you're getting side tracked here. i asked for an example. can you give me one


Shear happens faster than compression = faster collapse.

that is inconsequential, because the top towers falling on the bottom towers had the SAME construction. ergo, the top floors and the bottom floors could take the same damage. in actuality, the top floors could take less damage because heat rises, and the steel would be a bit weaker.

what i CAN show you is yellow hot steel, which means a massive amount of energy was introduced. the OS has nothing to account for it.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
IT DOESN"T MATTER PLB!


It does matter. It means that gravity has nothing to do with the impact forces (except for increasing the velocity of the object). Lets take a look what you wrote:



The MAXIMUM force that the top of the building can possibly exert on the lower structure is the force required to accelerate the body 9.8m/s^2.


Do you still think that this is correct? Or do you think that this maximal force can by much greater, as you now understand that 'a' is not 'g' but 'a' depends on the impact velocity?


You cannot calculate the impact force without knowing how long it will take for object to stop after the collision.


Correct for the example on the site I came with. And exactly like I was explaining to you, if you had only read what I wrote.


WE ARE TRYING TO WORK OUT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE FOR THE OBJECT TO STOP AFTER THE COLLISION!


Not "we". I am not trying to work that out.


The impact force is a function of the deceleration experienced by the object, which is a function of the initial velocity at impact and the distance traveled before it stops.

i.e. how long it takes for it to be decelerated to 0.


Very good Darkwing. You see, no gravity involved, and you require to know the velocity to determine 'a'. Wait a minute, exactly as I have been explaining to you. But why was I explaining that to you? Lets take a look. You said:


Do you see kinetic energy or velocity in that calculation PLB, because I sure don't. Perhaps you should contact Newton and inform him of his error because WTC sure proved that velocity should be in there..... Or not....


How about following you own advice and admit you were wrong?

(note, in other situations the mass is not required to stop of course. The example is only meant to get familiar with the concept).


You are trying to claim that it will accelerate, which introduces an infinity into the equation, rendering it meaningless.

See the problem?


Acceleration does not introduce an infinity. Acceleration can happen when the (average) resistance is lower than the gravitational force. And that is exactly what I am saying.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Acceleration does not introduce an infinity. Acceleration can happen when the (average) resistance is lower than the gravitational force. And that is exactly what I am saying.


But what you're saying is not logical. How can the resistance of an undamaged structure, the section bellow the impact and fires, be lower than gravitational force? You're just making that up, unless you are now agreeing there must have been another force acting on the collapse other than gravity.

You are still ignoring the physical mass of the floors themselves. Whether they collapsed from 'shear force', or not, the floors themselves were not destroyed by a 'shear force'. A simple pancake collapse from the failure of connections looks like this...



There is a reason for that, not enough energy from gravity for the concrete to completely pulverize itself. So the floors stack up, and create resistance that stops the floors continuing to fall through themselves.

There was far more going on than just failure of connections, as that does not address the complete collapse, period.




edit on 9/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



There is a reason for that, not enough energy from gravity for the concrete to completely pulverize itself. So the floors stack up, and create resistance that stops the floors continuing to fall through themselves.


And it makes no difference if the floors are 6 inches thick or 16 inches thick and it makes no difference if the top floor is 60 feet in the air or a quarter mile up in the air? The pile must always be the same? And exactly what rule of "physics" is that following?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your ignorance is not an argument. If you do not understand how the average resistance can be lower than the gravitational force, then you should study the physics. Try to do some actual calculations. I have already given some rather easy to grasp explanations in the thread. Start there.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
has dr. judy wood been mentioned in this thread yet?

www.drjudywood.com...

or hurricane erin?

drjudywood.com...

anomolies:

www.drjudywood.com...
edit on 20-9-2011 by shagreen heart because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

what i CAN show you is yellow hot steel, which means a massive amount of energy was introduced. the OS has nothing to account for it.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


If the buildings were brought down by thermite, why didn't it light up like a Christmas tree. We should have seen this yellow stuff pouring out of every corner of the building. How do you account for the East side of building 1, and South side of building 2, bowing inward to the point of collapse, using thermite. The snake oilers have nothing to account for it.

The place where the yellow stuff poured out is the exact same place where the majority of the plane debris came to rest and nowhere else. A 767 is made up mostly of aluminum and will melt at those temperatures. 767s are also made up of carbon fiber and carbon fiber will glow a very bright yellow at those temperatures without being consumed. It will also float on top of the molten aluminum and pour out of the building along with it.

Can you show me any photos of exterior columns buckled between the spandrel plates ? If not. then the building failed at the truss connections.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
ok so i ctrl+F'd the whole thread with the term "wood", and dr. judy wood did come up a few times, but apparently everyone in this thread is too busy with their pissing contests to even look at the evidence presented. any truther that doesn't know who she is or denies her outstanding research and contributions are a complete shill and disinfo agent, or truly, truly ignorant, no exaggeration. this thread is a joke until the discussion about her research begins.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart
ok so i ctrl+F'd the whole thread with the term "wood", and dr. judy wood did come up a few times, but apparently everyone in this thread is too busy with their pissing contests to even look at the evidence presented. any truther that doesn't know who she is or denies her outstanding research and contributions are a complete shill and disinfo agent, or truly, truly ignorant, no exaggeration. this thread is a joke until the discussion about her research begins.


Space beams Judy???



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by shagreen heart
ok so i ctrl+F'd the whole thread with the term "wood", and dr. judy wood did come up a few times, but apparently everyone in this thread is too busy with their pissing contests to even look at the evidence presented. any truther that doesn't know who she is or denies her outstanding research and contributions are a complete shill and disinfo agent, or truly, truly ignorant, no exaggeration. this thread is a joke until the discussion about her research begins.


Space beams Judy???


what about the theory has to do with space? she states explicitly that she makes no claims what platform the energy was directed from, and if the term "star wars" technology is confusing you, these weapons are being developed anyway, it doesn't mean they go straight to space and are solely used there.

her credentials are perfectly suited to be an expert on the only thing that could have happened on 9/11, without question.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


Sorry, not to be rude, but this thread is not really about Judy Wood.

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

What that outside energy was is not that important at this point, and can only be speculated on. It can be proved that there had to be another energy acting on the towers, simply from proving that there was not enough energy from gravity alone, as our resident OS supporters here are trying to claim.

We tend to stay away from speculation these days, because as you can see it brings out the worst in out resident OS supporters. Stick to the facts of the physics, sit back relax, and watch them prove they are clueless. I think they do more to make people realise the OS is nonsense than the 'truthers' do.


edit on 9/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by shagreen heart
ok so i ctrl+F'd the whole thread with the term "wood", and dr. judy wood did come up a few times, but apparently everyone in this thread is too busy with their pissing contests to even look at the evidence presented. any truther that doesn't know who she is or denies her outstanding research and contributions are a complete shill and disinfo agent, or truly, truly ignorant, no exaggeration. this thread is a joke until the discussion about her research begins.


Space beams Judy???


what about the theory has to do with space? she states explicitly that she makes no claims what platform the energy was directed from, and if the term "star wars" technology is confusing you, these weapons are being developed anyway, it doesn't mean they go straight to space and are solely used there.

her credentials are perfectly suited to be an expert on the only thing that could have happened on 9/11, without question.


Pretty much everything Judy Wood claims can be refuted easily. The spire "turning to dust" was it simply falling, and the dust on it dispersing into the air, supported by separate angles of the collapse. The burning cars and such are explained by falling, burning debris, which is why people, paper, and pretty much everything else survived which was not crushed.

It's not that people are ignorant of Judy Wood. It's just that her claims err on the side of ridiculous and ignore a lot of common sense.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join