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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.
Originally posted by ANOK
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 waypastvne
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.