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.

 

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

page: 36
34
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


First of all in answer to your BS re the spire you seem to forget this Slim column buckling.


In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding


The important parts are underlined because obviously this subject is way over your head!

Then the collapse YOU keep going on like a stuck record about 15 v 95 floors.

ONLY the floorslab the mass falls on can resist the load NONE of the ones below can help!!!!

If falling mass hits a column then that has support from below BUT the floors DONT they are suspended between the walls and core!

When the falling mass hits a MASSIVE imapct load is generated if that EXCEEDS the strength of the angles the welds that hold them or the bolts they snap its that SIMPLE.

THAT FLOOR can then drop 12 ft to the next hit that at 18mph minimum and all the previous mass continues to fall.

Why dont you re read NEWTONS LAWS when an IMPACT occurs and follow it through.

Here go to Hyperphysics and read about the 1lb duck hitting a plane.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

It generates 12 tons of force!!!!!!!

So how much force would the falling mass which is MILLIONS of times that of the duck generate even if the impact was at 18mph and not 600mph.

Lets see if you can answer that?




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


First of all in answer to your BS re the spire you seem to forget this Slim column buckling.


First of all physics is not BS.


In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding



The important parts are underlined because obviously this subject is way over your head!


LOL I think I know what buckling is, but what has that got to do with the laws of motion?


Then the collapse YOU keep going on like a stuck record about 15 v 95 floors.

ONLY the floorslab the mass falls on can resist the load NONE of the ones below can help!!!!


But what happens when the bolts shear, and all the floors stack up on top of each other? They have nowhere else to fall so they resist anymore movement. But of course the floors didn't stack up because they were ejected during the collapse, so you are losing mass, and Ke, in order to continue crushing floors. Again you can't have it both ways.


If falling mass hits a column then that has support from below BUT the floors DONT they are suspended between the walls and core!


Yes, and again though we don't observe during or post collapse the claims you are making. If it happened as you claim the floors would be stacked up in the footprint, and the core would still be standing.


When the falling mass hits a MASSIVE imapct load is generated if that EXCEEDS the strength of the angles the welds that hold them or the bolts they snap its that SIMPLE.


But where is the evidence the falling load could generate enough energy to snap bolts but NOT also destroy the floors? Do you have ANY evidence the floors themselves could take more load than the bolts and welds?


THAT FLOOR can then drop 12 ft to the next hit that at 18mph minimum and all the previous mass continues to fall.


What has the speed got to do with it? Are you not paying any attention to the laws of motion? Once again forces on two colliding objects are the SAME, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. You are still naively thinking that the object with velocity somehow puts more force on the static object, which is untrue and has been shown to you a billion times now.


Why dont you re read NEWTONS LAWS when an IMPACT occurs and follow it through.


Why don't you, and then explain it to me, OK?


Here go to Hyperphysics and read about the 1lb duck hitting a plane.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

It generates 12 tons of force!!!!!!!


And guess what genius? The plane put 12 tons of force on the duck, equal and opposite reaction, you can't get away from Newtonian physics no matter how hard you try.


So how much force would the falling mass which is MILLIONS of times that of the duck generate even if the impact was at 18mph and not 600mph.


Whatever force is created, the forces on impact would be equal. Velocity increases the forces felt by BOTH objects, how many times do you have to be told this?


Lets see if you can answer that?


I have many many times, so sad you don't get it. Maybe reading this might help you, not going to hold my breath though....


5.1 Newton's third law

...Is one object always the “order-giver” and the other the “order-follower”? As an example, consider a batter hitting a baseball. The bat definitely exerts a large force on the ball, because the ball accelerates drastically. But if you have ever hit a baseball, you also know that the ball makes a force on the bat --- often with painful results if your technique is as bad as mine!

How does the ball's force on the bat compare with the bat's force on the ball? The bat's acceleration is not as spectacular as the ball's, but maybe we shouldn't expect it to be, since the bat's mass is much greater. In fact, careful measurements of both objects' masses and accelerations would show that mballaball is very nearly equal to -mbatabat, which suggests that the ball's force on the bat is of the same magnitude as the bat's force on the ball, but in the opposite direction.

www.lightandmatter.com...

Forces ALWAYS come in pairs, that is a fundamental fact of physics. The forces on colliding objects is always equal regardless of velocity or mass. How much more proof of this do you need?


edit on 10/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Here is more proof for you physics challenged posters...


4. Which of the following statements are true about collisions?

Two colliding objects will exert equal forces upon each other even if their mass is significantly different....

Answer....

a. TRUE - In any collision between two objects, the colliding objects exert equal and opposite force upon each other. This is simply Newton's law of action-reaction.


Pay extra special attention to this one OSers!!!!!!!!! (Do exclamation marks help lol?)


i. When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater collision force.

Answer...

i. FALSE - In any collision, the colliding objects exert equal and opposite forces upon each other as the result of the collision interaction. There are no exceptions to this rule.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Is this 'truther' nonsense also?


edit on 10/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

That old claim is nonsense for many reasons.

For one, no steel column is going to fall straight down, it will fall in an arc at the point of failure.



What about when a column section below gets pushed out by the debris, and the column's bolted connections get snapped apart by the horizontal forces, causing the lower and upper column to buckle out, but keeping the upper sections in line?

Like here:




OH NOEZZ!! Dat tower collapsed straight downz through itz center of mass! Inside job! (Sorry couldnt help my self.)

Actually, it looks awfully similar to how the core's "Spire" collapsed. I'm surprised that never crossed your mind. I thought someone who searches for truth will look high and low to find answers, not stick to one train of thought and shun all others.




Secondly, why would the dust not just follow the column? Why was there so much dust on a column that had just been stripped of all that was attached to it? Wouldn't the dust have all been knocked off already?


Why should it? Is there some sort of precedent that requires the columns to be completely squeaky clean after collapse? Or have you forgotten what the core columns were clad in?




Thirdly, where do you see the column as it falls? Why do we not see it fall? We simply see it start to fall, straight down, and then suddenly nothing but dust.



Well what do you expect with crappy resolution combined with God knows how many video compressions and changes prior to seeing it? Also, what about the fact that sometimes, the colors can wash each other out depending on the shading, color, and light hitting it? Recall the other "no plane" crap theory that the planes were holograms because in one video a wing "disappears" prior to impacting the WTC. But on closer inspection, its due to the fact that the color of wing and lighting of the sky causes the wing to "disappear" when viewed. Is it not possible that this phenomenon was seen here?



Fourthly, steel columns do not fall straight down.


Sure they do! Refer to my video above!



Fifthly, steel columns do not fall straight down.


They sure can when the conditions during the collapse allow for it. Again, refer to first video.




The videos are fine, you are not an expert on video quality, you are simply blindly repeating nonsense that has been claimed for years.




Let us look at the "hologram missing wing" video:



OH NOEZ! Dat wing disappeared! Its fake!!! Inside JOB!!! (Again sorry, couldnt resist!)

Video is pretty decent and yet we can see how the wing seems to disappear. Again, video quality is a big issue as well as color, lighting, and object shading. Very important. Again, you should really try thinking without that conspiracy cap on and see things from all angles.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Neither of those fall straight down the same way the spire did.

If you notice in your vids both the antennas bottoms fell in an arc, and the top section followed to a point, the spire doesn't show any sign the bottom of it fell at an arc in the same manner those vids show. We can't see the bottom section of the spire, but the top is not moving in any way other than straight down.



One thing I learned in the military was attention to detail.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


But we dont see the base ANOK! So how can you say it didnt happen if you also cannot see the base? That is what I was pointing out with the video. The segments of columns were much smaller than the antenna towers segments. So what if a section of columns at the WTC buckled out in the same manner as we saw in the first video, and all we saw was the top section? Sure we dont see the same buckling at the WTC spire, but come on, all we are seeing is the upper 30-40 floors of the Spire. We dont see the base. I mean, to me, they look nearly identical just looking at the top section. Is it not possible at all ANOK? Or are you trying to hand wave away reasonable thinking?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

But what happens when the bolts shear, and all the floors stack up on top of each other? They have nowhere else to fall so they resist anymore movement. But of course the floors didn't stack up because they were ejected during the collapse, so you are losing mass, and Ke, in order to continue crushing floors. Again you can't have it both ways.


Hello!! ANOK! Over here! Still waiting for your evidence of floors being magically ejected! I've been patiently waiting for you to provide some proof to back up your nonsense. I know you are going to ignore me again, as usual, because as everyone knows, a snake oil salesman hates it when someone stands right next to them telling the real facts about how they are being swindled by a fraud! So please, show us in a picture, video, or even a psychic's vision, of floors being ejected outside the footprint, which includes the steel trusses, steel decking and concrete slabs, being ejected intact. Unless you are expecting us to believe that the entire floors structure was magically turned to dust, including steel!



Yes, and again though we don't observe during or post collapse the claims you are making. If it happened as you claim the floors would be stacked up in the footprint, and the core would still be standing.


But they were stacked up in the basement, and the core did (more or less) survive for another 15- 20 seconds before collapsing. Are you still based in reality ANOK?



But where is the evidence the falling load could generate enough energy to snap bolts but NOT also destroy the floors? Do you have ANY evidence the floors themselves could take more load than the bolts and welds?


Dont you know that the weakest part of a structure is usually the connections themselves? Why do you think when they breech doors in Police or military action, they aim for the area where the lock is located, or the hinges? They dont go chopping through a door and wasting time. Which is going to be easier, causing a bolted beam to snap at the connection, or in the middle? Why do you think that the floors are going to be weaker than the bolted ends and seat trusses?
www.steel-insdag.org...



What has the speed got to do with it? Are you not paying any attention to the laws of motion? Once again forces on two colliding objects are the SAME, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. You are still naively thinking that the object with velocity somehow puts more force on the static object, which is untrue and has been shown to you a billion times now.
..............
And guess what genius? The plane put 12 tons of force on the duck, equal and opposite reaction, you can't get away from Newtonian physics no matter how hard you try.



All that means is the forces pair couplet is the same in magnitude in opposite directions. So what? A paint chip in space can put a decent dent in a satellite. A nut in space can destroy a satellite. Forces are the same. But the end result is the two objects will behave differently. I throw a bullet at you, and it will bounce off. I use a gun, then what? The duck still put a hole in the plane.



Whatever force is created, the forces on impact would be equal. Velocity increases the forces felt by BOTH objects, how many times do you have to be told this?


No issue there, but what happens when that force is greater than the object's ability to survive the impact? Have you read into that part of physics ANOK? Everything has its limit to withstand an impact.



Forces ALWAYS come in pairs, that is a fundamental fact of physics. The forces on colliding objects is always equal regardless of velocity or mass. How much more proof of this do you need?


And yet, objects that are far smaller can do a lot of damage to something much larger than it. Equal and opposite only refers to the forces. But the physical aspect is going to be a far different matter. it will not be the same. Like the plane vs duck, a bolt vs satellite, a bullet vs a person. You are arguing from the wrong end ANOK. I dont see what equal and opposite reactions have to do with what physically happens to solid body objects. Also, like my example with a sledgehammer and a brick wall. The brick wall is far larger and more massive than my sledgehammer. If I hold up the end of the sledgehammer against the wall, the forces are the same on the hammer as the wall. Nothing happens. Let me swing the sledge at the wall. What happens then? Is there an equal and opposite reaction? Well, I just put a hole in the wall. Is there a hole in the hammer? Nope! Was there an equal and opposite reaction regarding the forces? Yup. Was there 100N acting on the hammer on impact with the wall? Yup. Was there 100N acting on the wall as the hammer struck it? Yup. But was the end result equal and opposite?
edit on 10/3/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
i.dailymail.co.uk...

Anok, can you explain why the core isn't "telescoping through itself" on this picture?

www.911truth.dk...

Anok, can you explain why so many core columns are outside the footprint on this picture if they telescoped straight down through themselves?

Can you show any picture at all that even remotely supports your nonsense? Where did you get that silly idea in the first place? Made it up yourself or from some silly truther site?
edit on 3-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by joemelon
Direct visual evidence exists in the videos which show...


It's amazing how such smart people can be so wrong. Do you really believe the upper floors should have come to rest on top of the lower section because it was just holding it up a few minutes earlier? That's funny!!!



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by joemelon
Direct visual evidence exists in the videos which show...


It's amazing how such smart people can be so wrong. Do you really believe the upper floors should have come to rest on top of the lower section because it was just holding it up a few minutes earlier? That's funny!!!
No, though it is amazing how people can put words in other peoples' mouths. Why did you not quote my whole post? Would it then have been too obvious that I did not expect that to happen?


If the OS is true (that gravity was the only factor in the "collapse" after the initiation of said "collapse"), then I expect the "collapse" to slow down after the point of initial contact between the top block and bottom block. This is so because there would have to be a net negative force acting on the system at impact.



As far as the duck hitting the plane: ever notice how the duck is completely obliterated by the impact?

Why does the "top block" not get destroyed like the duck does? And if you want to claim that the top block only hits one floor at a time and doesn't meet resistance from the whole bottom block at once, then all you are doing is calling the top block the plane and the bottom blocks' current top floor the duck. Yet you want us to believe that the plane (top block) doesn't take any damage from the duck (top floor of bottom block) in this case.

Trusters are walking contradictions.



The video evidence clearly shows that the "collapse" didn't slow down after the initial contact between the bottom floor of the top block and the top floor of the bottom block. Thus, the OS is an inadequate explanation of the "collapse".



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by joemelon
 

the "top" mass grew larger as it landed on each floor below which became a bigger duck with each floor failure. Don't forget the floors below are not being landed upon with equally distributed mass so your calculations fly out the window. You have no idea from the videos or anything else how each beam and other parts of the structure fell. Once the attachment points between the floors and outer shell are broken with the growing mass on top, all bets are off.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Are there any other examples where the same phenomena is observed happened?
Can this be re-created by experiments?

I would love to hear the answers, I am not totally convinced by the whole 16 crushing one, 17 crushing one, 18 crushing 1 therefore the whole building is destroyed theory, I'm not a clever or technical person so some examples would be great.

The reply is open, it was more addressing bottleslingguy but anyone can answer of course.

reply to post by joemelon
 


It should be expected that people mis-understand just through the process of the bell-curve, with random people replying you will get confusion - however you seem right when you say the OS is not a valid explanation - sometimes its just having the right metaphors to use to explain - what happened to Galileo.
edit on 4-10-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy

I would love to hear the answers, I am not totally convinced by the whole 16 crushing one, 17 crushing one, 18 crushing 1 therefore the whole building is destroyed theory, I'm not a clever or technical person so some examples would be great.



This is basically a question about momentum transfer.

Some dudes here are argueing about the "force" exerted, but it is not a valid way to determine much.

If you want to know whether or not the descending part can or cannot destroy the structure below, then an examination of the energy needed is the way to do it.

here's a simple one to read:

www.911myths.com...

Of course, you'll notice that the issue of equal and opposite rteaction is satisfied in this paper. To explain a little (not sure if these are the figures used in the paper, but they should be close)

The falling block generates ~2Gj of energy during the one story drop onto the uppermost floor of the lower part. 2.0 Gj is available to do work.

The lower part is able to resist 1.5Gj of resistance.

Both the upper and lower blocks experience the same collision - of 1.5Gj. Equal and opposite reaction.

But .5 Gj of energy is left over.

The falling mass again falls through a one story distance and again generates 2.0Gj of energy. So when we add in the .5Gj "left over" from the previous impact, it now has 2.5Gj of energy available to do work.

It impacts the next floor, which "consumes" 1.5Gj of energy again. Which now leaves 1.0Gj of "leftover" energy.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by joemelon

As far as the duck hitting the plane: ever notice how the duck is completely obliterated by the impact?



The 1 lb duck, at 500 mph, brings enough energy to the table to result in a 12 ton impact.

How much energy does the 100,000 lb plane bring?

the fact of these issues is, that impact energy will always be limited to the smaller number. Every time.

And 15 falling floors and their columns, and ceiling tile, and fireproofing, etc, bring enough energy to the table during a single story fall to result in a collapse progression. EVEN IN the impossible situation of columns falling directly onto lower columns - which gives the best possibility of collapse arrest.

The single, lower story is the duck, and it gets obliterated.....



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Are there any other examples where the same phenomena is observed happened?
Can this be re-created by experiments?

I would love to hear the answers, I am not totally convinced by the whole 16 crushing one, 17 crushing one, 18 crushing 1 therefore the whole building is destroyed theory, I'm not a clever or technical person so some examples would be great.

The reply is open, it was more addressing bottleslingguy but anyone can answer of course.

reply to post by joemelon
 


It should be expected that people mis-understand just through the process of the bell-curve, with random people replying you will get confusion - however you seem right when you say the OS is not a valid explanation - sometimes its just having the right metaphors to use to explain - what happened to Galileo.
edit on 4-10-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)


A good example where this phenomena also happened is this:

www.hvnieuws.nl...

The top balcony failed, it fell down on the balcony below, which failed, etc. You can compare the balconies with floors in the WTC. It is the same mechanism.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by joemelon
 


I showed the DUCK EXAMPLE to give you an idea of how collision forces work a 1lb duck at the 600 mph impact created 24,000 lbs of force, 12 tons!!!

Be honest with yourself what would you have given as an answer if asked what force the 1lb duck would generate?

So how much force on impact would 15 floors of concrete and steel generate thats what you guys fail to see!!

So how much would 10,500 tons of concrete and a few thousand tons of steel generate hitting at 18 mph!



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by joemelon
 

the "top" mass grew larger as it landed on each floor below which became a bigger duck with each floor failure. Don't forget the floors below are not being landed upon with equally distributed mass so your calculations fly out the window. You have no idea from the videos or anything else how each beam and other parts of the structure fell. Once the attachment points between the floors and outer shell are broken with the growing mass on top, all bets are off.


The whole OS collapse argument is based on this fallacy.

For this hypothesis to be true the concrete of the floors would have to be able to endure more force than the bolts and welds holding them. How could all the bolts fail from impact but the floors not? Also the collapse would have concluded with floors stacked up like 'pancakes'. Concrete can not both be ejected out of the footprint during collapse, and still be in the footprint to supply a mass for the collapse.

If the floors simply pancaked they would be a pile of floors in the footprint, and the core would still be standing. What we observe during, and post collapse, does not match this hypothesis.

Whatever way the OS residents here want to spin the physics you still have a smaller mass falling on a larger mass, 15 floors falling on 95. Those 95 floors are not going to disappear whether the connections failed or not.
If they all crushed into the basement that still takes energy, over and above the energy needed to break connections. But every time floors impact energy would be lost, Ke would be converted to other energy needed to break connections, overcome resistance, lost in sound and heat, etc. Yet we observe in the collapse no slowing from this loss of energy, the collapse simply continues as if Ke was increased.

If you consider the laws of motion, the forces on each colliding floor are the same, equal opposite reaction (a physics laws that can not change), then you will see that a small mass can not crush a larger mass.

If floors simply lost their connections, and stayed whole, then the collapse would still slow, and arrest, once the floors stacked up and they had nowhere else to go. The lower floors in the stack would be crushed, but the higher you go up the stack the less crushing there would be as the weight is less.

Why do you all insist on arguing for an hypothesis NIST rejected anyway? You are not arguing for the OS here, you are arguing something OS supporters have made up over the years to counter 'truther' arguments.




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by joemelon
 


I showed the DUCK EXAMPLE to give you an idea of how collision forces work a 1lb duck at the 600 mph impact created 24,000 lbs of force, 12 tons!!!

Be honest with yourself what would you have given as an answer if asked what force the 1lb duck would generate?

So how much force on impact would 15 floors of concrete and steel generate thats what you guys fail to see!!

So how much would 10,500 tons of concrete and a few thousand tons of steel generate hitting at 18 mph!
It would generate a huge amount of force.

However, please understand that that force would be acting on both the top and bottom block equally. That is Newton's third law. When the two sides collide, they hit each other equally hard.

Now ask yourself: does the top block appear to encounter resistance equivalent to the damage you claim it is meting out? If not, then you are wrong about how much damage the top block was inflicting on the bottom.

A more probable theory is that something else took out the vertical supports below the collapse zone, thus massively reducing the resistance encountered by the top block.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by joemelon
 


I showed the DUCK EXAMPLE to give you an idea of how collision forces work a 1lb duck at the 600 mph impact created 24,000 lbs of force, 12 tons!!!


But once again you fail to address the physics of your example correctly.

Equal opposite reaction is not just a nice saying, it is a FACT of physics.

No matter how you look at it the forces on the duck and the plane are the same on impact.


For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

This is why the duck is smashed, and doesn't simply continue through the plane. Both objects received damage, but you also have to consider the duck is a small projectile hitting a larger surface area, so the forces of the duck are concentrated. But we need to consider what we are actually disusing, and that is concrete floors falling on concrete floors, so a better analogy would be concrete slabs falling on concrete slabs. So I challenge you to make a stack of concrete floors crush a larger stack of concrete slabs to the ground. When you can do that you will be on to something.


edit on 10/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are arguing against all the physics professors in the world.
You need to accept the simple fact that you are wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join