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

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by spy66

 

Ok, I don't have any issues with that. When failed floors fall on an intact floor, the intact floor will also fail. The floors in the top section did not have failed floors falling on them.

Correct, The floors above the impact point were intact until they hit the floors under it. But the top floors must have broken of its connection points before the floors they hit under broke of their connections. That is because the floors that are falling are not designed to hold a force hitting it from bellow.

The floors in the falling top section are weaker then the floors they hit on the way down. Do to the direction of force they are designed to hold.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia

 

then the same equal amount of concrete and steel in the top would be equally damaged. you'd run out of top floors before bottom floors.

it's a pickle isn't it?

edit on 22-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

Yes, damaged and connections broken, but the debris is still falling and still maintains its weight. I do not see how this is so complicated.

reply to post by waypastvne

The meteorite that made this crater weighed 100,000 tons.

The falling top of the building has been estimated (by a truther in this thread) at 90,000 tons.

Does 10,000 tons make that big of a difference in how hard it hits.

Care to explain ?

Doesn't look like it carried on straight through the earth accreting mass as it did so.

It looks suspiciously like the available energy was dissipated almost immediately upon impact.

I-T-E-R-A-T-I-O-N

That is the theory you are selling, so let's see it.

Yes, damaged and connections broken, but the debris is still falling and still maintains its weight. I do not see how this is so complicated.

Weight isn't the important thing.

Would you rather be hit by a ton of loosely packed feathers or a ton of bricks? If you took the mass of water you use in your shower everyday, put it in a rigid container and dropped it on your head, it would certainly at least do some serious damage.

Aside: ga2.er.usgs.gov... Wow! I didn't know it was that much lol

reply to post by Darkwing01


You know, the spaces in-between floors offered room for acceleration. If there were random caverns underneath the impact site, the meteor probably would have made them all collapse down and create a huge sinkhole.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by superluminal11

D.E.W Directed Energy Weapon

Can you tell us more about the Truther Physics used to power this D.E.W. Weapon. Did it produce a 8.5 KiloTon blast ? How did they harness the power of the hurricane. Please tell us more.

Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.
Sec of Defense William Cohen





Shes on the right track...more so than Stephen Jones Thermate theory.
coupmedia.org...

HR 2977 107th Congress

Dennis Kucinich is sort of like Ron Paul....they are allowed to protest and function out of league with the majority rogue for a reason. It is sort of like the world rulers put things in media so they can say they never hid it from the citizens. Remember....the greatest secret of all is There are NO secrets. Hidden in plain sight. Eyes wide shut basically.

Alex Jones says they gain spiritual power from hiding these things in the open...I believe they are simply universal laws that have to be followed to make it legal. You can never say you were misled because you were not... nor did they hide anything from you...they told you everything in one form or the other. Basic Spiritual battle rules of engagement.

Believe it or do not believe it... makes no difference to me. We are all doomed to make choices

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

by your estimates it was going around 65% freefall speed, so we should see a crater that's 58.5% of that, right? but we don't. we see a nice small rubble pile.

Yes the the buildings collapsed at a rate of 65% of Free Fall Acceleration.

Free fall "speed" however would be the top of the buildings terminal velocity,

A falling object accelerates until drag equals its mass weight then it maintains a constant speed.

With a loading of 2.25 tons per square foot of frontal area, and a drag factor of .8, the resulting terminal velocity would be around 1500 mph.

So in reality the top of the building fell at around 4 % of free fall speed

If the top of WTC 1 had entered from out side of earths atmosphere it would of course been traveling much faster.

reply to post by waypastvne


Here is a link showing that he is indeed correct about this:

microgravity.grc.nasa.gov...

Here's a calculator for it:

www.calctool.org...

Edit: careful with the calculator. Units of measurement are of ultimate importance. Using waypastvne's numbers, I got a result of 1418.64 mph.

reply to post by Varemia

the spaces in-between floors offered room for acceleration.

Great so it should be easy to produce an empirical model behaving in the way you describe.

I can't wait to see the experiment in action and read the instructions for reproducing it. Science in action I tell you, so invigorating.

Just waiting for that link...


Any minute now...

Refreshing...

...

...

Here is a link showing that he is indeed correct about this:

microgravity.grc.nasa.gov...

Here's a calculator for it:

www.calctool.org...

Edit: careful with the calculator. Units of measurement are of ultimate importance. Using waypastvne's numbers, I got a result of 1418.64 mph.

This calc uses a formula that ignores buoyancy (so should only be used for falling in air). Requires a drag coefficient and projected area of the body

The whole point is that the lower structure makes the upper structure "buoyant" on it, it is essentially floating on the lower structure.

This calculator is meaningless in this context, the upper structure was on average less dense than the lower.

Also: As the building is broken up. the surface area increases exponentially.

If there were random caverns underneath the impact site, the meteor probably would have made them all collapse down and create a huge sinkhole.

Yes, but would it have accelerated while doing so?

Remember this thing has been decelerating since the moment it entered the atmosphere proper. It was already going at much higher speeds than its terminal velocity.

reply to post by spy66


Again, it is not intact floors in the top section hitting intact floors in the lower section. It is already failed floors that are not connected to either the top or lower section that are falling on the floors in the lower section. So we have the mass of the failed floors falling on the floors in the lower section. This mass is not falling on the floors in the top section.

So what exactly is the problem here?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Great so it should be easy to produce an empirical model behaving in the way you describe.

I can't wait to see the experiment in action and read the instructions for reproducing it. Science in action I tell you, so invigorating.

Just waiting for that link...


Any minute now...

Refreshing...

...

...

So you expect others to create a model because you do not understand some basic physics principles? Get real, you, nor the truth movement, is anywhere near that relevant.

How about you admitting you were wrong that impact velocity is irrelevant for calculating the impact forces? Or do you rather go through life as a hypocrite?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by spy66

 

Again, it is not intact floors in the top section hitting intact floors in the lower section. It is already failed floors that are not connected to either the top or lower section that are falling on the floors in the lower section. So we have the mass of the failed floors falling on the floors in the lower section. This mass is not falling on the floors in the top section.

So what exactly is the problem here?

Aha i see. So loose floor(s) + rubble is breaking up the intact floors in the lower section ahead of the intact falling top section?

Interesting.

Not easy to compete with that theory. So it must be the way it happened then

reply to post by Darkwing01


Now wait just a second. Buoyancy is needed if you are attempting to determine the impact. For the 12 initial feet, you can calculate how much energy the falling portion had, because it is "falling through air." Then, if you happen to know the buoyancy, you can calculate the effect on the floor below, whether it was enough energy to shear connections and progress steel and concrete to the next floor and so on.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Darkwing01

 

Now wait just a second. Buoyancy is needed if you are attempting to determine the impact. For the 12 initial feet, you can calculate how much energy the falling portion had, because it is "falling through air." Then, if you happen to know the buoyancy, you can calculate the effect on the floor below, whether it was enough energy to shear connections and progress steel and concrete to the next floor and so on.

That is not all you have to take into account. You have to know how many connection points there are in total on each floor, because they function as a unit, The distance between each connection point. And what maximum weight/pressure they can take as a unit.
You also have to know exactly where the top floors hit the floor under and at what speed. So that you will know exactly which connection that will break.

When it comes to the falling floor, falling onto the once bellow. You have to know how much force/pressure they can take from bellow before they break into pieces.

The falling flools are much weaker than the intact floors they hit.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Darkwing01

 

Now wait just a second. Buoyancy is needed if you are attempting to determine the impact. For the 12 initial feet, you can calculate how much energy the falling portion had, because it is "falling through air." Then, if you happen to know the buoyancy, you can calculate the effect on the floor below, whether it was enough energy to shear connections and progress steel and concrete to the next floor and so on.

That is not all you have to take into account. You have to know how many connection points there are in total on each floor, because they function as a unit, The distance between each connection point. And what maximum weight/pressure they can take as a unit.
You also have to know exactly where the top floors hit the floor under and at what speed. So that you will know exactly which connection that will break.

When it comes to the falling floor, falling onto the once bellow. You have to know how much force/pressure they can take from bellow before they break into pieces.

The falling flools are much weaker than the intact floors they hit.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Actually, since the collapse was non-uniform, it was not able to act as a unit. That is a fact.

reply to post by Varemia

Then, if you happen to know the buoyancy, you can calculate the effect on the floor below, whether it was enough energy to shear connections and progress steel and concrete to the next floor and so on.

Sure, for the initial impact this would almost certainly be the case if the initiation was suitably uniform and sudden (which is was in one tower but not the other).

I am talking about the smoothed resistance over multiple floors though, not a single impact.

As I say: I-T-E-R-A-T-I-O-N

Actually, since the collapse was non-uniform, it was not able to act as a unit. That is a fact.

For the initial series of impacts it did very much act as a unit.

What exactly do you mean by non-uniform, and at what stage of the collapse? After how many iterations?

You have to know how much force/pressure they can take from bellow before they break into pieces.

Exactly. The fact that they were broken into pieces means that they were giving resistance.

That resistance has to be factored in.

It is not good enough to guesstimate when it would break, because we know it must have given at least as much resistance as the total force required to dismember the structure as well.

Equal and opposite remember?

reply to post by Varemia


that's just semantics.

here are several links showing i am correct with newton's third law:
www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...
csep10.phys.utk.edu...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

newton's third law, combined with equal resistance, means mass is the deciding factor. a greater mass means more resistance. mass times resistance = total durability.

btw, that meteor impacted with the equivalent force of 20 million tons of tnt, yet the earth is fine. that crater is a small dot on the crust. where's the meteor? it was turned into particles.

that's a victory for big mass.



earth is fine, but only small fragments of the meteor are left, most pieces are pebble size or smaller.
big thing: 1
little thing: 0

how can you not grasp that they both impart the same amount of force on each other, and therefore, with equal resistance, the bigger mass will win? it was demonstrated in that block dropping test with many different substances.

the OS'er model requires the floors to be free floating with no resistance between them, and no resistance under them.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Darkwing01

 

Now wait just a second. Buoyancy is needed if you are attempting to determine the impact. For the 12 initial feet, you can calculate how much energy the falling portion had, because it is "falling through air." Then, if you happen to know the buoyancy, you can calculate the effect on the floor below, whether it was enough energy to shear connections and progress steel and concrete to the next floor and so on.

That is not all you have to take into account. You have to know how many connection points there are in total on each floor, because they function as a unit, The distance between each connection point. And what maximum weight/pressure they can take as a unit.
You also have to know exactly where the top floors hit the floor under and at what speed. So that you will know exactly which connection that will break.

When it comes to the falling floor, falling onto the once bellow. You have to know how much force/pressure they can take from bellow before they break into pieces.

The falling flools are much weaker than the intact floors they hit.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Actually, since the collapse was non-uniform, it was not able to act as a unit. That is a fact.

But the connection points in the intact floors that got hit, were unified by multiple connection points along the walls and core. The connection were unified do to the cement and iron netting that were put on top the floors.

If the collapse of the floors were not unified, Why do all the videos show that the building fell down symmetrically and unified? Both of them.

reply to post by -PLB-


do you want me to write an equation that factors in velocity to show it doesn't effect the outcome, but only makes the process faster or slower?

lets see... (Tx - Bx)*9.8=? same answer.

acceleration is multiplied to both sides equally, because the amount of force you give is the amount of force you take. the top floors give the same amount of force to the bottom as the bottom gives to the top. that's newton's third law.

ergo, velocity does not change the outcome, but only the size of the numbers. 1/5=10/50. same thing.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


No, I want you to write an equation that factors in the floors that already failed.

reply to post by -PLB-


And what are you going to do when the maths proves that 15 floors cant destroy 95 floors, or when 30 floors cant destroy 80? I've been listening to the radio today about the latest 'faster than light' neutrino work at CERN and I was very surprised at how the presenters in the UK openly admitted they have very little physics knowledge.