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: 38
34
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I have no problem applying simple high school physics, thanx.



I have another Truther Physics Question:

In Truther World Is the gravitational centre of the earth located between the upper and lower blocks of the WTC Towers ?

That would kind of make sense, because so many Truthers are drawn to it, and.... That is the only way you can have equal and opposite gravitational forces applied to the top and bottom of the building.

On planet Earth the gravitational field is fixed on the centre of the planet and it applies a gravitational force to both the upper and lower block of the towers, pulling them both towards the core of the planet. So the gravitational force on the upper and lower masses of the building are equal, but, they are definitely not opposite.

Whenever you talk about the impact forces being equal and opposite you never add "plus the force of gravity for the top and minus the force of gravity for the bottom". Why is that ? Is gravity not a constant force on Planet Truther ?


The only other explanation there could be for a force counteracting gravity is ... there was a giant superconductor located on the mechanical floors that only Truthers know about.





posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Why do you think that balconies do not offer vertical resistance? Of course they do. They have to resist their own mass (mass causes a force in a vertical direction as result of gravity) and the load of anything that is on the balconies (people for example). Exactly like the floors in the WTC, no difference.

Of course the collapses are not the same, but the mechanism is. A balcony that was otherwise capable of holding its own weight and people walking on it failed as result of a similar balcony falling on it. And there you have your progression.

Any argument that the floors in the WTC must have been much stronger is pretty much irrelevant, as my image shows that the mechanism indeed worked in other situations too. So the argument that it is physically impossible is proved false.

When you claim that the floor connections in the WTC were relatively stronger than those of the balconies, you of course have to prove this instead of asserting it. And then you have to prove that they were so strong that progression is impossible. When anyone is going to do some actual calculations, take in account that ~14 floors were initially falling in case of the WTC and not just one like with the balconies. (Though this will of course never happen. Math is not a popular subject among truthers).
edit on 4-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 

you must not have progressed terribly far in school, or you're trolling.

if something is at rest, like the bottom floors of the wtc buildings, this means that either no forces are acting on it, or two forces are cancelling out. gravity is one of the forces that is cancelled out. if an equation representing the tower's resistance had a negative product, this would mean it couldn't support it's own weight, and was in the process of collapsing.

if the sum of the forces acting on something aren't zero, there is movement. zero isn't negative, therefore, you are suggesting that the towers couldn't support themselves ever. obviously you're wrong.

for example:

a 100kg person standing on a wooden floor exerts a force of 980 newtons on the floor.(100*9.8=980) the person is at rest, yet "a" is still equivalent to acceleration due to gravity. if "a"= 0, then F=0. this clearly isn't the case, and would mean a piece of paper could support any weight, provided that weight doesn't move.





edit on 4-10-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


So you seem to imply that your fairytale physics allow for the upper level to be gravity bound, but not the lower ones right? Or you mean the lower ones are gravity bound but not the higher ones, or something in between?
So how is it in your fairytale world? Where the government is good and skyscrapers fall due to office fires? Or arternatively, where airplanes can vaporize on impact with a structure, or dig themselves down in a hole. Yes your fairytaler world must be a nice place to be, unreal and retarded, but nice nonetheless.

So, are you going to bring something that makes sense to the table? Or are you just going to keep trying to smear us? I already told you fairytalers, the more attention you draw to the OS, the more the people will see through it, but Im glad you lads are too retarded to even see that.

Ill put this question forward again, see if you can debunk it: how can assimetrical damage produce simmetrical collapses? If you are too stupid to get it alone I will give you a hint, it cant.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz



you must not have progressed terribly far in school, or you're trolling.


Oh this is extra funny coming from you Bob. You are the one who used the gravitational force on the lower part of the building to counteract the gravitational force on the top of the building in your Truther Equation. You placed 9.8 m/s on both sides of the equation and said "see they equal out". Just like they were equal and OPPOSITE.

But they are not really opposing forces are they ? They're acting together to destroy the building are they not ?


Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


if something is at rest, like the bottom floors of the wtc buildings, this means that either no forces are acting on it, or two forces are cancelling out. gravity is one of the forces that is cancelled out. if an equation representing the tower's resistance had a negative product, this would mean it couldn't support it's own weight, and was in the process of collapsing.

if the sum of the forces acting on something aren't zero, there is movement. zero isn't negative, therefore, you are suggesting that the towers couldn't support themselves ever. obviously you're wrong.



Gravity is constant, forever, eternally, inescapable, ever-present, ineluctable, pervasive force that is patiently waiting for something to happen. And as long as nothing happens, yes the net force will be zero. But when the top part of the building smacked into bottom part something happened, And the net force was no longer zero.

So come on Thruther PLEASE, give us some more Truther Equations showing how the force of gravity can cancel out the force of gravity. We love those. Please Please Please with sugar on top.



edit on 4-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello


So you seem to imply that your fairytale physics allow for the upper level to be gravity bound, but not the lower ones right? Or you mean the lower ones are gravity bound but not the higher ones, or something in between?


Both are bound by gravity and believe or not both are bound in the direction. (centre of the Earth) How does gravity work on truther world.

Who said the collapse was semetrical ? The most damaged part of the building collapsed first, That is why the top tilted.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 

arguing with these OS'ers feels like teaching a particularly dull class of students.


lets try this a different way. the top floors are exerting "x" amount of force as they impact the bottom floors. according to newton's third law which i will quote so you can look it up:


The third law states that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. For example, if you push on a wall, it will push back on you as hard as you are pushing on it.


top floors exert "x" amount of force on bottom, bottom floors exert "x" amount on top floors. since the falling floors and the impacted floors have the same resistance and F=ma accounts for mass, how did the smaller top floors survive to destroy the much more massive bottom floors?

when something exerts a gravitational force on something else, both objects move. the whole planet with the tower moved towards the falling floors. sure, it's acceleration was very VERY small, but the mass was HUGE because it included the whole planet. to simplify this, i merely multiplied the tower's mass by gravitational acceleration on earth. the numbers come out exactly the same.

those numbers would be very messy, but they equal out to the same equation as multiplying the tower's bottom floors by the acceleration of gravity on earth.

here is a great paper on the subject and why the NIST model doesn't work. it may be a bit scientific for you though. tell me what you think.
edit on 4-10-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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.



but once the upper part started falling you can't surmise it was falling level and plumb the whole way down. That's why I said earlier that after the upper block started falling all bets were off as far as calculating loads and stresses. You can't say "it should fall this way" when there's no way you can determine what the loads were on any given point. Once the upper part was even a little off level the structure was doomed to fail. You're almost to the point of absurdity with the floor-stacking-because-the-top-floor-didn't-have-any-load-on-top-of-it thinking, sort of like how Bugs Bunny steps off the falling rock right before it hits the ground.

Do I believe the government lies to us? yes
Do I believe the government benefited from this event? yes
Do I believe the government actually pulled this off to the point of holographic planes "hitting" the buildings and explosives taking the remains down? no



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Your thought experiment works fine in your head but when you take it outside it doesn't fly. The damage caused by the plane took out several floors below the impact so their integrity was compromised. To what degree? Who knows? again, at this point all calculations fly out the window.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

here is a great paper on the subject and why the NIST model doesn't work. it may be a bit scientific for you though. tell me what you think.



personally, I think that these guys also "get" how to do an analysis on the probability of collapse progression. Namely, they never make any references to f=ma, nor any variation of it. They use energy equivalents - energy "generated" by the falling mass vs energy "consumed" doing work.

The other thing I noticed, is that they compare observations to a theoretical model that assumes dircet column to column impacts all the way down that "do work" crushing and buckling both core and ext columns.

But since this effect on neither column set is seen to any great degree, their papercan be used as evidence NOT as proof that collapse was NOT unevitable, but that a more in depth analysis must be performed.

ANd since we're gonna match observables, then the first step is to observe that due to tilting, the column ends never meet as specified in the Bazant model, and thusly in this paper either.

So it once again boils down one simple question:

Can 15 falling stories worth of mass be stopped by a single floor?

Care to explore this?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

top floors exert "x" amount of force on bottom, bottom floors exert "x" amount on top floors.


The bottom of the building supplies a resisting force not an acting force. There is no force pushing the top of the building up only structure holding it there. If the bottom of the building did supply an acting force equal to or greater than the weight of the top of the building, then you could attach some motors to them and fly them around manhattan like zeppelins. You do know how blimps, balloons, and dirigibles work...Right ?

Now add some gravity to your equation and remember, gravity is constant resistance force is not.

I'll look at your paper after I stop laughing at you.
edit on 4-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

it did damage to several floors, it didn't take them out. most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireball, and the rest was gone within minutes. the maximum damage from the plane was done in under 10 minutes. yes, office fires existed, but they've never caused a skyscraper to collapse, despite much worse fires that lasted much longer.

in light of all this, and the physics proofs i provided, what "doesn't fly" in your mind?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

The core didn't eject, that is truther fantasy. What happened is that (part of) the spire fell over like a tree, as can be seen in the image I posted in the post you replied to.


Can you repost it for him again?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
yes, office fires existed, but they've never caused a skyscraper to collapse, despite much worse fires that lasted much longer.

in light of all this, and the physics proofs i provided, what "doesn't fly" in your mind?


Your incredulity exhibited in the previous paragraph.

This is not evidence.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   


The bottom of the building supplies a resisting force not an acting force.

yes, which means that the bottom won't throw the top off, and it also means the top won't crush the bottom. the total force interaction equals zero.


There is no force pushing the top of the building up only structure holding it there.

if there was no force resisting gravity, the building would collapse on it's own. gravity is pushing down on the structure, and the structure pushes back with the same exact force. they're called "force pairs". if F doesn't equal 0 between the top and bottom, then there is movement. since you're saying the top has "x" force, and the bottom has 0, then the tower couldn't stand on it's own. your assumptions are obviously wrong, else the tower would collapse.


If the bottom of the building did supply an acting force equal to or greater than the weight of the top of the building

remember "equal and opposite". the bottom floors push up against the top floors with the same force that the top floors push down with. if it WASN'T equal, this would cause the top floors to crush the bottom floors in order to find the point of rest.

when F=0, the object is at rest. just because F=0 when an object is at rest, does not mean F=0 when acceleration is applied. inertia, an object's resistance to change, will come into effect if you attempt to move it.

that paper i linked outlines the relatively constant downward acceleration of the top floors, showing that they didn't impact a floor, slow down, then fall 12 feet and accelerate, then continue. this did not happen.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



So it once again boils down one simple question: Can 15 falling stories worth of mass be stopped by a single floor?


no, once again it boils down to:

can one floor do more damage than it can take? newton's third law says no.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
yes, office fires existed, but they've never caused a skyscraper to collapse, despite much worse fires that lasted much longer.

in light of all this, and the physics proofs i provided, what "doesn't fly" in your mind?


Your incredulity exhibited in the previous paragraph.

This is not evidence.


consider this story: someone strikes a match in a house, the whole house then explodes into flame and burns in a few minutes.

i say "a match alone cannot cause this to happen so quickly"
you say "that isn't evidence that a match CAN'T, therefore a match must have been solely responsible"

your logic is flawed. how can you not support a new independent investigation?
edit on 4-10-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

here is a great paper on the subject and why the NIST model doesn't work. it may be a bit scientific for you though. tell me what you think.



From that paper:

"Some mass is accreted after each collision.....someof which will accrete."

I love it.

You have debunked ANOK's statement that all the mass being ejected.........

Thank you...



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

no, once again it boils down to:

can one floor do more damage than it can take? newton's third law says no.


Ok, let's say you're right. Let's say that both are destroyed.

There is still 2 floors worth rubble now descending, and its mass doesn't disappear just because it's rubble.

Plus, there is now 2 floors worth of rubble falling onto the next floor, in addition to the upper core columns, the hat truss, the elevator equipment, the HVAC equipment........

Let's do the math for this,,,,



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

i believe ANOK said some mass is lost, and some energy is lost, with each impact. that's what he meant by "floors ejected" as pulverized concrete. the proper term for those clouds are "pyroclastic clouds", and they're always seen in demolitions.

kind of like that block dropping video i showed, mass is ejected to the sides when the impact occurs.

furthermore, how does it make sense for you to agree with a small line from the paper, then toss out the conclusion as bunk?



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join