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: 32
34
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:33 AM

um, no. for newton's third law to back you up, you needed extra mass, so you added the weight of the falling floors to the weight of the tower, and said it was all falling on the tower.

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.

you admit it doesn't make any sense, because you're saying the whole entire 110 floors PLUS 16 other floors all falls on to the 110 story tower.

i'm sorry, but you must be trolling.

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

um, no. for newton's third law to back you up, you needed extra mass, so you added the weight of the falling floors to the weight of the tower, and said it was all falling on the tower.

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.

you admit it doesn't make any sense, because you're saying the whole entire 110 floors PLUS 16 other floors all falls on to the 110 story tower.

i'm sorry, but you must be trolling.

These guys dont know what they are talking about

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
um, no. for newton's third law to back you up, you needed extra mass, so you added the weight of the falling floors to the weight of the tower, and said it was all falling on the tower.

My reasoning is pretty much the opposite of yours. The reason I add the weight of the floors to the falling mass is because that is how the laws of physics are. When a floor has failed, it falls. It does not float in mid air, it is not ejected horizontally, it falls down.

you admit it doesn't make any sense, because you're saying the whole entire 110 floors PLUS 16 other floors all falls on to the 110 story tower.

i'm sorry, but you must be trolling.

It didn't make any sense before I altered it, and it didn't make any sense after I altered it. Outside truther world that is.
edit on 25-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:29 AM

you've said it doesn't make sense, yet you fail to show it mathematically.

the mass of the falling floors was already incorporated in the original. every number that isn't "x" in the equation represents a floor.

(16x-89x+110x)9.8m/s=362.6x

that's what you posted. 16 falling floors that are impacting 89 floors below. that is essentially the total mass of the tower. i left the floors that failed in, and you complained, so i took them out, and you complained. where does the 110 come from? the falling floors and crushed floors are already accounted for.

i'm sorry, but you either failed out of math class, or you're trolling. neither option is productive to this discussion, so i suggest you mosey on.

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:38 AM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

At most your equation describes a static situation before collapse. And all it says is "there were 16 floors in the top and 89 in the bottom". It does not explain anything about the collapse. The fact you think it does is because you lack any kind of engineering education.

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:56 AM

i'm a certified structural/pipe welder, and i'm going for a physics degree right now. do you not understand that 9.8m/s^2 is the simplified gravitational acceleration of objects on earth? or are you still struggling with newton's third law? we don't disagree on the mass of the towers. so put them all together, and you get the equation i gave.

the towers should never have started to collapse in the first place, let alone a symmetrical and universal collapse. the top dropped evenly, which couldn't be caused by a plane crash and fire, both uneven processes. then we have building 7, and free fall speed acceleration. three steel buildings all collapsing against the greatest resistance in a symmetrical fashion.

can you show me an example of a steel structure collapse that behaved like the twin towers did that wasn't controlled demolition?

still waiting for you to refute me using numbers

by the way, this last argument is the same argument you made a few pages ago "you didn't incorporate acceleration". i've already showed how velocity doesn't change newton's third law. more rehashing...

sometimes i think you keep this going in an attempt to confuse people who come and try to educate themselves on 9/11. i'm done discussing this with you. you've been wrong time and again, you don't refute arguments, neither logical nor mathematical, and you're trolling.
edit on 25-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:00 AM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

How about this, lets wait until you have your degree in physics and then continue this conversation. If you are unable to see that your "model" is totally flawed, even when explained why, it is rather pointless to continue it now.

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:56 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

How about this, lets wait until you have your degree in physics and then continue this conversation. If you are unable to see that your "model" is totally flawed, even when explained why, it is rather pointless to continue it now.

That wont help, Not even the so called experts on this field can agree on this.

The NIST report is only a probable cause.

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:31 AM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Concrete used in the WTC: 780,000 metric tons

This statement made me wonder what percentage of the concrete would fit into the basement of the building. I'll do the math right here to find out:

The basement was up to 80 feet deep according to:
globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...

The towers are 208ft x208ft wide according to:
www.memorialcircle.com...

The density of concrete is 2.4g/cc according to:

208ft x 208ft wide x 80ft deep = 3,461,120 ft^3 = 98,008,005cc concrete capacity

98,008,005cc capacity x 2.4g/cc = 235,219,210kg concrete = 235,219 metric tons

235,219 metric ton capacity / 780,000 metric tons actual weight = 0.30156 = 30.2%

Therefore, 30.2% of the concrete used in the construction could have collapsed into the basement, if it were perfectly compacted and the only thing allowed in the basement was concrete. That would not happen however, because there would be air pockets, drywall, steel, and the contents of the building to consider.

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by seachange

The basement was up to 80 feet deep according to:
globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...

The towers are 208ft x208ft wide according to:
www.memorialcircle.com...

The density of concrete is 2.4g/cc according to:

208ft x 208ft wide x 80ft deep = 3,461,120 ft^3 = 98,008,005cc concrete capacity

98,008,005cc capacity x 2.4g/cc = 235,219,210kg concrete = 235,219 metric tons

235,219 metric ton capacity / 780,000 metric tons actual weight = 0.30156 = 30.2%

Therefore, 30.2% of the concrete used in the construction could have collapsed into the basement, if it were perfectly compacted and the only thing allowed in the basement was concrete. That would not happen however, because there would be air pockets, drywall, steel, and the contents of the building to consider.

Oh boy Truther Math. I love Truther Math. According to your Truther Calculations, the WTC floors were over two feet thick.

Try this one: multiply 4.5" of concrete by 110 floors and see what you get.

edit on 29-9-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

But stuff falls on floors, not on columns.

So, why weren't the columns still standing?

Edit: added the two other parts of the video

-Alien
edit on 9/29/2011 by Alien Abduct because: added the two other parts of the video

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

So, why weren't the columns still standing?

The outer walls of WTC 1&2 were mostly attached together at the corners by the floors. After the floors pancaked the walls leaned out snapped there connecting bolts and fell. The core was the last to fall.

WTC 7 's 4 walls were well attached at the corners, and the outer walls did stand for several seconds after the internal collapse started.

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by Alien Abduct

According to the resident OS supporters the floors held up the core, and the core could not stand once the floors failed. I've been over this with them so many times, but of course they are going to stick with what supports their OS, and not reality as the rest of us know it.

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by waypastvne

WTC 7 's 4 walls were well attached at the corners, and the outer walls did stand for several seconds after the internal collapse started.

Oh boy OSer Logic.

Yes they conveniently waited for the buildings interior to collapse perfectly timed in order to allow themselves to fall inwards, resulting in the majority of the building landing in its own footprint causing minimal damage to very close surrounding buildings.

All from sporadic fires, and asymmetrical damage that did nothing to the buildings load bearing structure.

edit on 9/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

At 4:27 he makes his first mistake, Everything else after that becomes meaningless.

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:39 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Alien Abduct

According to the resident OS supporters the floors held up the core, and the core could not stand once the floors failed.

The floors stabilised the core. That is what we are saying. What are you saying they did ?

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Oh boy OSer Logic.

Yes they conveniently waited for the buildings interior to collapse perfectly timed in order to allow themselves to fall inwards, resulting in the majority of the building landing in its own footprint causing minimal damage to very close surrounding buildings.

All from sporadic fires, and asymmetrical damage that did nothing to the buildings load bearing structure.

Would you care to describe the difference in how the conners were connected together between WTC 1&2 and WTC 7 Truther ?

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:41 PM

Originally posted by waypastvne

The floors stabilised the core. That is what we are saying. What are you saying they did ?

I know, and you'd be wrong. The core required no stabilizing.

But regardless, the problem is you seem to think 47 columns crossed braced together would fall straight down from the lack of the stabilizing floors. Nothing, stabilized or not, can collapse down through itself, especially when the mass increases on the way down.

I've provided this evidence many times and it is ignored by the OSers, or they make fun of it. Even though this is the info NIST used for their computer modelling....

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

This is one column, watch this gif as it demonstrates the size from bottom to top...

As you can see the mass increases significantly towards the bottom of the column. You have 47 columns of a similar design, all connected together, essentially making one solid structure. That structure is not going to collapse straight down, period. If it completely failed it would simply topple at that point, like WTC 2 did, but unlike WTC 2 it would have kept its angular momentum, and fallen off, through an arc, leaving the rest of the core still standing.

Again, the only way something can fall straight down is if there is no resistance impeding it.

edit on 9/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:45 PM

Originally posted by waypastvne
Would you care to describe the difference in how the conners were connected together between WTC 1&2 and WTC 7 Truther ?

What's with the 'truther' at the end of everything, like it's an insult?

I'm not sure the point of your question? What difference do the 'conners' [sic] make, in 'OSer world'?

edit on 9/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:24 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

the problem is you seem to think 47 columns crossed braced together would fall straight down from the lack of the stabilizing floors.

The core columns were cross braced but not diagonally braced. Diagonal bracing is what keeps the core columns from falling over. The diagonal bracing was provided by the spandrel plates in the walls. After the walls were gone the core columns fell over.

new topics

top topics

34