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

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by -PLB-
It only violates the truther version of newton's third law, not the real one.

The why don't you explain the collapses using the real third law of motion then?

Easy to do.

The falling mass fell on the floors, and the floors are able to supply resistance to momentum equal to x.

The falling mass had momentum >x.

Therefore there is't enough resistance to stop the collapse.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

i like how you don't address the cinder blocks. they weren't solid, and both the full and half blocks gave the same exact results.

Cinder blocks failed under compression, Towers failed under shear.

Sheared truss seat:

Originally posted by ANOK

And this is momentum conservation....

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

This is correct.

But after this collision, there is a 12' air space whereby the new, larger mass is accelerated again by gravity.

Thusly there is more momentum availablr for the subsequent collision.

And the progressive collapse continues

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


You want me to explain an equation that does not have any sensible relation with reality. I can't do much more than point out how it is flawed, and I have done so a couple of time. You didn't understand it, and I advised you to get your degree in physics first.

reply to post by ANOK


I have explained it to you like 10 times by now. Each time you just ignore it and ask it again a couple of days/weeks later. Maybe you should read some old topics if you are really interested.

reply to post by -PLB-

the equation i just posted is F=ma. it's the same equation i've been using this whole time. care to say it's wrong? there are two masses, bottom subtracted from top, times 9.8m/s = force. it comes out negative, which means the top cannot destroy the bottom.

F=ma is a very sensible equation, and every person who has completed high school physics would laugh at you if they saw what you just posted.

reply to post by waypastvne


as i've explained many times. we don't know what part of the tower that came from, or which side was facing "up". since there was no resistance on the top floors of the tower, when they impacted the rest of the rubble pile, i wouldn't be surprised if bolts sheered after falling 90+ stories. since it survived, i'd say it's most likely from the top floors, which invalidates your whole point.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

what happened to the vertical resistance then? if no force was exerted on it, it should have been left standing right? since the top floors fell, and there was 10-12' of space between each floor "free fall space" as you would say, you're saying that the vertical supports for the tower offered no resistance to the falling mass.

your model doesn't match the evidence.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

The falling mass fell on the floors, and the floors are able to supply resistance to momentum equal to x. The falling mass had momentum >x. Therefore there is't enough resistance to stop the collapse.

incorrect. equal and opposite, remember? you acknowledge that the bottom floors would take damage equal to "x", but you blatantly ignore the equal and opposite force the top floors would be subjected to.

besides, you aren't even demonstrating that the falling mass had a greater momentum than "x". i'd like to see some facts supporting your claim.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

i like how you don't address the cinder blocks. they weren't solid, and both the full and half blocks gave the same exact results.

the car analogy shows the limit of your physics knowledge. find a semi truck that is parked. get your car about 15 feet in front of it. now, push as hard as you can and ram your car into the semi. the semi probably won't even move, whereas your car will come to a complete stop. 1 1/2 tons is a downward force NOT a horizontal force, so you aren't pushing with a force of 1 1/2 tons unless you can actually pick up your car, then i would be impressed.

the weight of the car represents a balanced equation between the car and earth. you don't factor in. as long as you can overcome the coefficient of friction, you can push something, and the car's wheels make the coefficient of friction very low comparatively.

The cinderblock is still a block. It is still not anywhere close to the WTC. Another fail.

And your example with the truck, still a fail. Why? Well for starters, I've seen people pull a semi down the road. Hell I saw a bunch of midgets pull a 747. The laws still apply, "equal and opposite" forces. However, you are failing to understand how ANOK is implementing and failing at understanding how it works in this scenario. Hence why I used an example that violates ANOK's version. His claim is that "equal and opposite" forces and different masses means that the larger object will always beat out the smaller object's mass, no matter what, even though I have shown that is entirely false, ie me pushing a car down the road. Either way, the car is far more massive than I am, and yet, I can get it to move, sure horizontally, but nonetheless, I made a far more massive object move without any external help. Sure lifting it would be a feat, but let us go with that for a second:
Let's say, you can lift a VW Bug over your head. Its pretty heavy, but I've seen people do it before in strongman competitions. Ok, well he is holding it up and its not crushing him. Now, let us take that VW and lift it just five feet over him. What is going to happen then? Will the guy be able to catch the car? My money is riding on the VW crushing him like a bug. That is pretty much how the floor truss' connections reacted. Sure it has no problem holding itself up with of course its safety buffer, but, what happens when you drop a few floors onto it? Just like the strongman trying to catch the falling VW, those truss seats are going to give way quickly.

Me crashing a car into a truck, still does not equate what the WTC floors were going under. It was not one solid block impacting another larger solid block, like Richard "Boxboy" Gage shows. That is not how the structure was built, and it is not how the floor built. The "cinder block" example would apply to a conventional building built with concrete columns and floors. Big differences. It was more like a truck impacting a car. 10 floors moving down as one unit, impacted the floor immediately below it. That dislodged the floor, snapped or sheered off the truss seats, and now, you have 11 floors moving down and impacting the floor below. Then the same procedure occurs, and so on and so on until you have a cascading failure.

The floors were all independent of the floors above and below. That means that the floor itself gave no vertical support to the structure. It was suspended inside the "tube" created by the core columns and exterior lattice columns. It was connected by nothing more than truss seats that were welded on to the columns. It just hung there between the columns, with the same floor connections on top as on the bottom.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


incorrect. equal and opposite, remember? you acknowledge that the bottom floors would take damage equal to "x", but you blatantly ignore the equal and opposite force the top floors would be subjected to.

besides, you aren't even demonstrating that the falling mass had a greater momentum than "x". i'd like to see some facts supporting your claim.

And herein lies the misconception. Equal and opposite refers to the forces imparted on the objects. Me pushing on a wall, has the wall "pushing" back on me with the same force. Let us say, I push on the wall with 10 Newtons. The wall is pushing back with the same amount of Newtons in the OPPOSITE direction:

ME ===============> [] Wall
ME

The cinderblock is still a block. It is still not anywhere close to the WTC. Another fail.

it accurately represents newton's third law where little thing cannot destroy big thing.

And your example with the truck, still a fail. Why? Well for starters, I've seen people pull a semi down the road. Hell I saw a bunch of midgets pull a 747.

i guess you missed the part about weight being a vertical force, not horizontal. since both have wheels, their coefficient of friction is very small, and only inertia has to be overcome to move them.

Either way, the car is far more massive than I am, and yet, I can get it to move, sure horizontally, but nonetheless, I made a far more massive object move without any external help.

again, with wheels, all that must be overcome is the coefficient of friction and inertia, not the whole weight of the object you are moving. you aren't pushing the 1 1/2 ton weight of the object, but a much lesser force.

Let's say, you can lift a VW Bug over your head. Its pretty heavy, but I've seen people do it before in strongman competitions. Ok, well he is holding it up and its not crushing him. Now, let us take that VW and lift it just five feet over him. What is going to happen then?

if we parallel your model with the VW to the twin towers, the bottom portion weighed less, and was made out of a less substantial material than the top. this is the complete opposite of what is true. a smaller, lighter human made of protein opposed by a bigger, heavier car made of metal? your analogy doesn't reflect reality. yes, a block of metal will crush a human. big thing with more resistance wins, unlike what we saw with the wtc collapse.

That dislodged the floor, snapped or sheered off the truss seats, and now, you have 11 floors moving down and impacting the floor below. Then the same procedure occurs, and so on and so on until you have a cascading failure.

now you're completely ignoring the vertical support. they should have been standing with your model of collapse, because not much energy was imparted to them, yet they are not.

The floors were all independent of the floors above and below. That means that the floor itself gave no vertical support to the structure. It was suspended inside the "tube" created by the core columns and exterior lattice columns.

so why wasn't the shell left? what made it collapse? it didn't split like a banana, which means it offered vertical resistance all the way down.

i will be back to this discussion later, as it is friday night, and i have a life.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

I have explained it to you like 10 times by now. Each time you just ignore it and ask it again a couple of days/weeks later. Maybe you should read some old topics if you are really interested.

No you haven't. You have not explained the laws of motion correctly, if you did then you wouldn't still be making these erroneous claims.

Maybe I missed something you said, so if I did just give me a link to your reply, and I will be sure to read it and comment, OK?

BTW what difference does it make how often I post? I have a life outside of this forum and this debate, I don't live here like you seem to do waiting for a post to reply to.

Post a link to what you think explains what I asked for and I will reply, thank you.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the equation i just posted is F=ma. it's the same equation i've been using this whole time. care to say it's wrong? there are two masses, bottom subtracted from top, times 9.8m/s = force. it comes out negative, which means the top cannot destroy the bottom.

F=ma is a very sensible equation, and every person who has completed high school physics would laugh at you if they saw what you just posted.

Let me make it easy for you and give you multiple guess question.

What exactly do you think the "a" in F=ma represents ?

(A) 9.8

(B) the rate of change of velocity with time.

(C) Potato

reply to post by ANOK


Too lazy to search yourself, don't expect me to do your homework for you. Besides, I included an easy to grasp explanation in this thread:www.abovetopsecret.com...

How about this, you apply the laws of motion to this explanation to show how it is wrong. This means you will have to show some actual math. Prediction: this will be ignored using evasive tactics.

reply to post by -PLB-


Not too lazy, I just know it isn't there to find, so why should I waste my time?

Where in those posts do you mention the laws of motion? Or momentum conservation, or action-reaction law?

Huh?

You didn't.

All I can see on that page is the same thing happening here, you ignore the laws of physics completely in order to make claims that do not abide by those laws.

An explanation of the physics that doesn't address those laws is not a valid explanation.

I asked you to explain those physical laws as they relate to the collapses, you have not done that PLB. If you think you did then you are in lala land.

So what is it I am ignoring exactly, your lame attempt to explain a physical act without mentioning the actual laws that physics abides by? All you do is explain things from a layman's point of view. You can't explain those laws because you either do not understand them, or you know it contradicts your claims. Your tactics might work with layman but I am not one of those, so you need to step up to the challenge PLB, and take your claims into the realm of higher education and reality.

I don't want to hear what you think happened, I want an explanation using the laws of motion. Unless you do that you have not addressed the physics of the collapses, period. Is that so hard to understand?

reply to post by waypastvne


The problem with the math is that you only want to work out the force of the falling floors, and you ignore the force of the static floors that push back against the falling force. The equation is the same for both, if you only do one you have only done half the maths. Equal opposite reaction law.

I'll bet if you do those equations you'll find that there is more force pushing up than pushing down, go ahead maths expert lets see your result for that.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

what happened to the vertical resistance then?

The vertical rsistance of the columns was mostly bypassed, since stuff falls on floors, not columns.

The only vertical resistance provided was from the floor to column connections.

if no force was exerted on it, it should have been left standing right?

If that's how you envision it, then fine.

Reality says that the tops tilted, therefore, the columns can't impact on each other, therefore, they would have punched through the inside-the-core flooring, presumably also taking out some of those floor beams.

There's also HVAC equipment, etc, and of course the very heavy hat trusses coming down too that would take these out.

So now you're left with core columns that have lost much of their lateral restraint, while at the same time experiencing impacts from various angles. Remember the early claims from truthers of all the neat 36' long columns? That because once the core columns have lost their lateral bracing, the welds broke off. You're the welder guy, right? They were welded to about 1/3-1/2 depth, from photo inspections. SO they are the weakest link.

since the top floors fell, and there was 10-12' of space between each floor "free fall space" as you would say, you're saying that the vertical supports for the tower offered no resistance to the falling mass.

I'd say very little, since 90%+ would logically fall on the floors, and NOT make direct impact with the tops of broken columns.

Remember, the "OS" states that the core column strength was bypassed for the most part. NOT that they offered zero resistance.

your model doesn't match the evidence.

It exactly matched the evidence. perhaps the words are difficult to get across to you, but I'm certain that given paitence, you could understand just exactly what the "OS" says, and reject the misinterpretation that you've been exposed to.

Wanna give it a whirl?

Originally posted by ANOK

The problem with the math is that you only want to work out the force of the falling floors,

According to Gordon Ross, this is 2.1GJ.

and you ignore the force of the static floors that push back against the falling force.

Again, according to Gordon Ross. momentum losses would equate to 1.3GJ.

The equation is the same for both, if you only do one you have only done half the maths. Equal opposite reaction law.

ANd that equal number will always be the lower value.

Remember the bug on the windshield question you asked?

Both the truck and the bug feel the same impact. And it is the lower number.

Every time....

I'll bet if you do those equations you'll find that there is more force pushing up than pushing down, go ahead maths expert lets see your result for that.

Debunked by Gordon Ross

Originally posted by waypastvne

Oh boy Truther Math. I love Truther Math.

According to your Truther Calculations...

Shut up with the disgusting attitude. Its unacceptable. Got it? I don't wish to be called any names such as "truther". You are welcome to call me either right or wrong, and thats the extent of it. Any other names are trash-talk that I don't accept. ATS has no place for trash-talk, and YOU have no place on ATS if you engage in that. You used "truther" in your post as an insult, and had you called me a "mother @#$%er" I frankly would have been less insulted because at least it would have been a more honestly pointless name-calling as opposed to an effort to smear me.

Whats particularly bizzare about your claim is that when I started doing the math I had the opinion that it would turn out that all of the concrete could have fit into the basement. So, I started writing the post with a bias against the people you degrade with name-calling. Had I ended up with a figure of 400% I still would have posted it and you'd probably have starred my post.

, the WTC floors were over two feet thick.

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

So in your belief if I use the 800,000 ton figure I'm a complete idiot, but apparently if I use your number I'm a genius. No. You took the wrong approach. What you SHOULD have said if you had any shred of respect, and you don't, would be "you're wrong about how much concrete". The more accurate figure for the total concrete in WTC1 and WTC2 is X. And more importantly, you should have cited a source for your numbers. Its not good enough for you to simply say "I've got the real figures and its X". You have to use a source that will lead me to believe I can determine with reasonable accuracy how much concrete was actually in the buildings.

After finding that out, then I could do further research to try and account for how much rubble would be created. For example, I might want to look at other demolished buildings and use video analysis to try to determine how compacted the debris will be at the end of the demolition.