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: 31
34
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:22 AM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Ok lets extend your silly "model" to include the failed floors. There were 110 failed floors falling down in the end. So you have (16x-89x+110x)9.8m/s=362.6x. I know, it all doesn't make any sense, because your "math" doesn't make any sense to begin with. But look, the number is positive now.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:30 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-

Yes, floors that are no longer connected to anything and completely free to fall down are offering resistance. It is because of their magical floating power, right Anok?

The falling floors would not fall horizontally/leveled down to the floor under, do friction from the core + walls and broken connection points. Remember each floor was also covered with cement, furniture and other debris. The weight on top of each floor(s) were never evenly spaced around the floors. So the floors would fall down at an angle. That means one side of the floor would break of and fall first.

When one side falls down before the rest of the floor. Mass effecting the floor under gets another meaning. The falling edge would probably never break the floor under of its connection points.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:44 AM
Here is an explanation that actually makes sense:

15 floors in the top hit the upper floor of the lower 85 floors. Both a floor in the bottom and top fail. Now you have 16 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 2 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 84 floors. The floor fails as result of the 2 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 17 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 3 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 83 floors. The floor fails as result of the 3 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 18 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 4 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 82 floors. The floor fails as result of the 4 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 19 floors falling.

You can of course make variations on this, where more floors in the top fail. But even a truther should be able to understand that the lower floors that have all the failed floors plus the top section falling on them fail easier than floors in the top that do not have the failed floors falling on them.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:46 AM
Seriously, when is this going to stop? The towers fell and many innocent lives were loss. Debate all you want you aint going to bring them back to life.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:51 AM

Originally posted by spy66
The falling floors would not fall horizontally/leveled down to the floor under, do friction from the core + walls and broken connection points. Remember each floor was also covered with cement, furniture and other debris. The weight on top of each floor(s) were never evenly spaced around the floors. So the floors would fall down at an angle. That means one side of the floor would break of and fall first.

When one side falls down before the rest of the floor. Mass effecting the floor under gets another meaning. The falling edge would probably never break the floor under of its connection points.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

When the falling failed floors hit an intact floor, it will add to the falling mass. It will result in dense rubble consisting of both the failed and newly failed floor, there is not space in between. The next intact floor is hit by a mass of all these failed floors, not just the one that failed before. And it does not matter if goes straight down or not. The result is failure. A floor designed to carry 5 times its own weight can not hold at least 12 floors of this same weight. Also not when you carefully place such as mass in 1kg at the time over a period of weeks. It will fail.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:44 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-
Here is an explanation that actually makes sense:

15 floors in the top hit the upper floor of the lower 85 floors. Both a floor in the bottom and top fail. Now you have 16 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 2 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 84 floors. The floor fails as result of the 2 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 17 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 3 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 83 floors. The floor fails as result of the 3 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 18 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 4 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 82 floors. The floor fails as result of the 4 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 19 floors falling.

You can of course make variations on this, where more floors in the top fail. But even a truther should be able to understand that the lower floors that have all the failed floors plus the top section falling on them fail easier than floors in the top that do not have the failed floors falling on them.

Not quite true.

-Only one floor can hit at a time. So the first floor of 15 hit the 85th floor. Or 85 floors according to your terms.

-The first floor of 15 floors will break first, because that floor is the weakest. The floor connections are designed to take down force (force from above). The connections on the falling floor will break first because the bottom of that floor hit the top of the 85 floor, which is a stronger floor by design. The 85th floor is designed to take load from above.

-85 floors are designed to take load from above. Non of the 15 floors are designed to take force from Bellow.

-The 85th floor wont break, not yet, you need more floors. So the top section needs to fall more so the next floor can add more weight/pressure.

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

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:49 AM

Here is an explanation that actually makes sense:

15 floors in the top hit the upper floor of the lower 85 floors. Both a floor in the bottom and top fail. Now you have 16 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 2 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 84 floors. The floor fails as result of the 2 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 17 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 3 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 83 floors. The floor fails as result of the 3 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 18 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 4 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 82 floors. The floor fails as result of the 4 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 19 floors falling.

You can of course make variations on this, where more floors in the top fail. But even a truther should be able to understand that the lower floors that have all the failed floors plus the top section falling on them fail easier than floors in the top that do not have the failed floors falling on them.

Great!

Now that is what I call an hypothesis, well done PLB.

The next step is to attempt to falsify it in an empirical study. Just waiting for that experiment...

Any moment now...

Can't wait to see it personally...

...

Do the experiment, you'll see the problem.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:09 AM

again with the "you're model doesn't make sense". i can see you didn't get far in school. the tower and failed floors were already accounted for.

in your model, you're saying that 16 floors fell on 89, which caused wtc building 2 to fly up in the sky and be dropped on top of building 1.

the biggest assumption my model makes is that the original floors could have actually started falling without being assisted, and that's not a point in your favor.

i don't know why you're still posting, as anyone who has kept up can see it's already over.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:17 AM
we could settle this once and for all if we knew the maximum resistance each floor could give, though i still hold that the towers shouldn't have even started to collapse in the "failed" floors.

what we saw in both towers was an instant global failure all the way across. there was alot of steel and concrete there.

PLB- your model doesn't take into account the resistance and deceleration of each floor as it comes into contact with resistance. both the walls and the floors would push back against it.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK

Now, quit saying we're wrong and address the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, in context with 110 concrete, and steel panned, floors collapsing themselves into the ground.

So how does gravity work in Truther World ?

How do you turn it off after the top block of floors collapse an equal number of lower floors ?

How many more time does it have to be explained that gravity is not going to overcome resistance!! Resistance of undamaged structure is far greater than the force of gravity. If gravity was that strong, buildings wouldn't stand in the first place. Can you place a 20lb weight on an apple, and not have that apple crush, yes you can, so gravity is not that strong a force is it? Drop it from a height, and yes it can crush the apple, now try dropping the apple on the weight from any height you like, and at any velocity. The apple will not even dent the 20lb weight.

How can the top block collapse an equal number of lower floors? For every static floor that is destroyed a falling floor will also be destroyed. If they are NOT destroyed then the build up of floors, when they no longer have anywhere to fall, would stop the collapse. All this has already explained, if only you would quit forgetting what has already been explained when you attempt to debunk from another angle.

Unequal mass, unequal damage, larger the mass the less the damage. Force on both objects is the same, equal opposite reaction. The only different is MASS, and if you want to get more detailed also density. But we're talking objects of equal mass, and density, concrete and steel panned floors. If just two of the those floors impacted the damage would be similar to both, now drop 15 of those onto 95, and you've got the apple falling on the weight. An exaggerated example, but if you don't get the point from that then you are seriously in denial, or seriously dishonest.

This is not 'truther world' this is reality PLB, welcome to it.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-

I indeed can not fathom that the majority of the floors ejected, because there is no physics that can explain that, nor any evidence to support it, and I don't believe in magic.

When objects hit something, and break, they don't stay moving in the same direction, they are deflected. Resistance PLB.

Again drop a plate on the ground, where do the pieces go?

No physics can explain that?
No physics can explain you.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
How many more time does it have to be explained that gravity is not going to overcome resistance!! Resistance of undamaged structure is far greater than the force of gravity. If gravity was that strong, buildings wouldn't stand in the first place. Can you place a 20lb weight on an apple, and not have that apple crush, yes you can, so gravity is not that strong a force is it? Drop it from a height, and yes it can crush the apple, now try dropping the apple on the weight from any height you like, and at any velocity. The apple will not even dent the 20lb weight.

Do you really not get that the vertical support columns are what resist gravity? Once the collapse is putting the pressure of gravity on points that are not the vertical supports, then there is very little resistance.

It's akin to taking a metal pole, and standing it straight up, then balancing a 50 pound weight on top of it. It holds it up because the vertical pole is able to hold the weight and resist it.

Now, take that pole and glue the end to a wall. When the same weight is put on it, it will break off the wall.

And if that's not a good enough analogy, consider dropping the 50 pound weight instead, from about a foot up. How well will the pole hold?

How can the top block collapse an equal number of lower floors? For every static floor that is destroyed a falling floor will also be destroyed. If they are NOT destroyed then the build up of floors, when they no longer have anywhere to fall, would stop the collapse. All this has already explained, if only you would quit forgetting what has already been explained when you attempt to debunk from another angle.

When you say destroyed, are you implying that the mass ceases to exist? That's crazy talk. Also, the tower floors were not solid blocks falling on each-other. It shouldn't have to be explained, but whatever.

Unequal mass, unequal damage, larger the mass the less the damage. Force on both objects is the same, equal opposite reaction. The only different is MASS, and if you want to get more detailed also density. But we're talking objects of equal mass, and density, concrete and steel panned floors. If just two of the those floors impacted the damage would be similar to both, now drop 15 of those onto 95, and you've got the apple falling on the weight. An exaggerated example, but if you don't get the point from that then you are seriously in denial, or seriously dishonest.

This is not 'truther world' this is reality PLB, welcome to it.

It's not one massive solid mass, though. That's where your logic is failing.

Again, not a big solid mass. It's not a solid mass. Do you understand.

The mass/weight is not being removed during collapse. The building was not made up of one massive lower block and a smaller upper block. It was not made up of big solid blocks.

This is not block-on-block physics.

Should I repeat it again?

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by spy66
-85 floors are designed to take load from above. Non of the 15 floors are designed to take force from Bellow.

This is simply not true. The open-space floors had no design for upper resistance. The vertical columns, yes, but not the floors. The horizontal supports would shear almost instantly.

Why would the vertical columns not resist on the falling floors, yet resist on the static floors? It makes no sense. The horizontal columns are what is failing, not the vertical columns. Their resistance and load capabilities are irrelevant.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:18 PM

This is all baseless assertion. How exactly did you determine that the connections fail easier when there is a load from below? How large is the difference? Another thing, do you realize that even in the first impact the lower floor has to endure a higher load than the floor in the top section because of its own weight?

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:21 PM

Or in other words, you can't really tell anything wrong with what I am saying so you just shift the goal posts a couple of km further. As long as you do not need to acknowledge that I actually have a point you will do anything.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
in your model, you're saying that 16 floors fell on 89, which caused wtc building 2 to fly up in the sky and be dropped on top of building 1.

Right... you really don't get it. It doesn't get much simpler then this. I am afraid it is above your capability to understand.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:25 PM

Another failed analogy. How about dropping 100 plates in a square of 10 by 10 meter. How much of the mass falls outside the square?

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Varemia
Do you really not get that the vertical support columns are what resist gravity? Once the collapse is putting the pressure of gravity on points that are not the vertical supports, then there is very little resistance.

It's akin to taking a metal pole, and standing it straight up, then balancing a 50 pound weight on top of it. It holds it up because the vertical pole is able to hold the weight and resist it.

Good point..

What do YOU suppose happend to ALL of the vertical support columns in the 3 buildings??

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:40 PM

Originally posted by 5MaveN5

Originally posted by Varemia
Do you really not get that the vertical support columns are what resist gravity? Once the collapse is putting the pressure of gravity on points that are not the vertical supports, then there is very little resistance.

It's akin to taking a metal pole, and standing it straight up, then balancing a 50 pound weight on top of it. It holds it up because the vertical pole is able to hold the weight and resist it.

Good point..

What do YOU suppose happend to ALL of the vertical support columns in the 3 buildings??

What do you mean? I suppose they simply twisted and got carried down with the rest. There was simply no way for the debris to focus its weight on the supporting points of the vertical columns, so they didn't offer any resistance, except perhaps to make the collapse non-uniform on the way down (ie. a bit more chaotic). We know part of the core was able to resist the collapse, because it remained standing afterward for a short period of time.

Edit: And with WTC 7, it was just unfortunate construction, in my opinion. One column failed, and a quarter of the building collapsed. Then, when the collapsed floors impacted the base of the building, it blew out more supports, and the damage caused by WTC 1 made it fall nearly straight down, though leaning in the direction of where WTC 1 used to be.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66
-85 floors are designed to take load from above. Non of the 15 floors are designed to take force from Bellow.

This is simply not true. The open-space floors had no design for upper resistance. The vertical columns, yes, but not the floors. The horizontal supports would shear almost instantly.

Why would the vertical columns not resist on the falling floors, yet resist on the static floors? It makes no sense. The horizontal columns are what is failing, not the vertical columns. Their resistance and load capabilities are irrelevant.

The open space floors must have a "set stander" of max weight tolerance. And must be built to a safe set standard, called SWL. "Safe working Load". This is a requirement by law.

You are not allowed to build a floor and use it, if you have no knowledge of what you can load on top of it.

Each connection point that connects the floor to the walls + core must have a SWL specification. The open floor design it self must also have a SWL specification, so that you will be able to know how much load you can put on the floor so that it wont bend/collapse. This is a requirement by law.

So it is very relevant.

Why would the vertical columns not resist on the falling floors, yet resist on the static floors? It makes no sense. The horizontal columns are what is failing, not the vertical columns. Their resistance and load capabilities are irrelevant.

If you understand the specifics about the open floors you would also know that the vertical support structure is designed after the same specifics. All the vertical support structures are designed after SWL "safe Working Load" Limits.

-The SWL "Safe Working Load" on the vertical support structure on the ground floor, must have a SWL to carry the weight of the whole building.

-The SWL on the second section (middle) must have a SWL to carry the weight of the second (middle) and third section (top floors).

So the buildings vertical support structure gets harder to break apart as you get closer to the ground level.

The vertical support structure on the top section (15 floors) are the weakest. Because the top section is only designed to carry its own weight.

The middle section "85th floor" is designed to carry the weight of the top section. So that makes the middle section a lot more tolerant than the top section.

I dont know why this is so hard to understand?

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

top topics

34