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: 39
34
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:01 PM

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.

But it was 15+ floors impacting the floor below it. So, it still remains the same: can one floor resist the impact of 15+ floors landing on it?

Also, N3rdL says no such thing. N3rdL is in reference to the force couplet being the same magnitude. Not "the damage will be exactly the same to both bodies. One floor impacting the floor below it will cause that floor's connections to sever (depending if the entire floor lands on top at the same time). The floor was designed to hold its own weight plus a safety margin. It was not designed to take an entire floor impacting it at once. At best it may strain the connections or cause some failures, at worst, it can completely destroy the connections, allowing that floor to break free and impact the floor below with the floor that was above it. How can both floors be obliterated to nothing? Newton's 3rd Law says absolutely nothing of the sort. It is just a common misconception that plagues physics teachers everywhere.

As an example, on Easter, my brother and I each take an Easter egg that is hardboiled, and one holds it up and the other strikes it with the end of the other. The first one that breaks loses. Same egg, same impact, one eventually breaks, the other doesnt. Why is that? According to you, they should both be destroyed in the same manner at the same time on impact due to "even and opposite reaction". But they don't. One breaks, the other doesnt. Oops! Looks like your (and ANOK's) version of N3rdL has just been broken. Or maybe you are reading it and applying incorrectly?

Another way to look at it is when you are climbing up a wooden ladder, and one rung is slightly rotted or very loose. You step on it, it breaks, and your foot ends up going down and knocks out two or three more rungs below. Its happened once to me before, not fun, hurts like hell.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

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.

SO then your incredulity is indeed evidence, to your way of thinking?

Amazing............

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

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

mass from floors was lost in those pyroclastic clouds, but yes, others would descend down...at a slower pace with less energy all the while subject to constant resistance. that paper i linked to demonstrates the constant acceleration of the floors, which either means newton's third law is wrong, or the OS is wrong.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

and the structure pushes back with the same exact force.

The structure does not push back it only HOLDS THE FORCE PLACED ON IT. The structure is not an acting force.

The upwards thrust created by a helicopters main rotor is an acting force and it actually does counteract the force of gravity. See the difference ?

You cannot use the force of gravity to counteract the force of gravity. Are there perpetual motion machines on Planet Truther ?

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

But it was 15+ floors impacting the floor below it. So, it still remains the same: can one floor resist the impact of 15+ floors landing on it?

*sigh* no.

how many floors were touching in the collision? two. one versus the other with an equal amount of energy. i can't believe you don't get this.

you can do the math two different ways, but the result is the same. either do 15(1 floor) versus 90(1 floor) or 15 versus 90.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by waypastvne

The structure does not push back it only HOLDS THE FORCE PLACED ON IT. The structure is not an acting force.

and what has to happen for something to support something else? total force must equal zero.
lets see 15 newtonsX -15 newtonsY= 0

"X" is the object pushing down with 15 newtons, and for "Y" to support it (ie, F=0), it has the capacity to push back with 15 newtons, and does. yes, if you remove "X", then "Y" doesn't exert force on "X", but if "X" exerts force on "Y", then "Y" DOES exert the EQUAL AND OPPOSITE force on"X".
edit on 4-10-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.

That is an incorrect term, "pyroclastic cloud". Those are only found at volcanic eruptions and refer to searing hot ash and gases that travel and very high speeds, obliterating everything in its path, like on the island of Martinique with Mt. Pelee. There are no volcanoes in NYC. (Except for that bizarre movie Disaster Zone: Volcano In New York). I have yet to see a pyroclastic cloud at a demolition.

What happened here:

Similar dust clouds, and no demolition.

This is why I do not take A&E9/11T seriously, because they cannot even use a geologic term correctly. Instead they bastardize it to mean something else. A true scholar or professional would use correct terminology. But instead, they show their inexperience and prey on those that are not informed on the facts, ie "pyroclastic clouds".

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

*sigh* no.

how many floors were touching in the collision? two. one versus the other with an equal amount of energy. i can't believe you don't get this.

you can do the math two different ways, but the result is the same. either do 15(1 floor) versus 90(1 floor) or 15 versus 90.

From what I saw in the South Tower, I saw 30 floors tip as one unit, and then come down on the floor immediately below it. The floor on the lowest part of the collapsing unit did not impact the floor directly flat on top. It was a unit of 30 floors impacting the floor below.

North Tower you had 10-15 floors moving down as one unit. Yes the lower floor of the unit impacted the floor of the remaining structure, but it also has 14 more floors coming down with core and exterior columns. After that, the rest of the floor began their descent. And either way, it was 15 -30 floors vs one. I'm sure some of the lowest section of the floor was destroyed, but that didnt matter because now, the floor that was hit is now part of the mass falling down. And the falling mass was gaining mass. That is why you are wrong. It was 15 vs 1, then 16 vs 1, then 17 vs one, and so on. Did you believe that once the floors were destroyed their mass ceased to exist?

So one floor is magically going to be destroyed on contact with the other below it? Like obliterated to the point of dust? No.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

The whole building was ejected out of the footprints, as evidenced by the post collapse pics and FEMA.

Quoted for Bob.

See?

He says that the whole building was ejected.

Do you agree that this is a delusional claim?

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

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

I explained to you why.

I cited the paper because contrary to delusional claims, the mass was accreting.

And because it uses the correct methodology to determine whether or not the collapse will progress. That is, to examine the energy balance.

So to summarize, we have ross and this paper you cited using energy balance to disprove the likelyhood og collapse progression, and Bazant and Greening using energy balance to analyze the same thing.

None of them use the arguement of f=ma etc.... nor do any of them use the smaller things can't crush larger things due to gravity.

AT this point it should be dawning on you that neither you nor ANOk have been using a valid argument method to make your case.

WIll you now abandon it and begin afresh, using the correct method?

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

that paper i linked to demonstrates the constant acceleration of the floors, which either means newton's third law is wrong, or the OS is wrong.

There's another option called reality.

The paper examines observables(reality) and compares them to a perfect model of square column to column impacts that rely on every column being buckled and crushed to slow the collapse progression.(not reality)

It therefore has the same flaw as the Szamboti missing jolt stundielicious paper.

Once you get your head around the fact that direct column to column impacts all the way down didn't happen, then it becomes clear just what the question is:

Can this:

Stop this?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LOL
edit on 4-10-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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?

I may have overstated the damage to the floors impacted by the plane but you are downplaying the damage. My point is your calculations are based on lower floors in perfect condition with loads impacting evenly over the entire area. You have to admit you can't apply your calculations in the post impact scenario. Come on, admit it.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:40 PM
the bulk of the upper mass was not only impacting the outer shell columns from various angles, it was also shearing off those angle iron attachments like a zipper. At some point you can see dust (some call it explosions) coming out of several floors below the collapse indicating the floors were pancaking even before the upper mass landed on them.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:01 PM
(rhetorically)
How many floors were damaged by the planes and to what degree were they compromised? So it's wrong to use calculations based on one pristine floor falling 12 feet vertically level and evenly across the one below. You can't factor one perfect building falling squarely on top of another one. The loads were all redistributed after the skin and floors were damaged undoubtedly resulting in a torque or racking pressure on the skin. Try standing on an aluminum can and then tapping the sides.

www.youtube.com...

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:53 PM
The missing energy is coming from the massive weight of the tower and its height... you neglected to account for the potential energy stored within in the building itself. I fully believe the U.S. is responsible, but we'll never REALLY know, there will always be debate.

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
the bulk of the upper mass was not only impacting the outer shell columns from various angles, it was also shearing off those angle iron attachments like a zipper. At some point you can see dust (some call it explosions) coming out of several floors below the collapse indicating the floors were pancaking even before the upper mass landed on them.

You don't have any evidence about what the BULK of the mass was doing. You are just talking. You people just deemphasize the core as much as you want. The NIST says 53% of the weight was on the core so how much of the BULK was that?

psik

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You don't have any evidence about what the BULK of the mass was doing. You are just talking. You people just deemphasize the core as much as you want. The NIST says 53% of the weight was on the core so how much of the BULK was that?

psik

What the heck are you asking PSK? Bulk is not a physics or engineering term to my knowledge. Enlighten us.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You don't have any evidence about what the BULK of the mass was doing. You are just talking. You people just deemphasize the core as much as you want. The NIST says 53% of the weight was on the core so how much of the BULK was that?

psik

The upper bulk was falling on and tearing to shreds the lower bulk regardless of whether or not a bunch of eggheads say the numbers add up.
edit on 17-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
The upper bulk was falling on and tearing to shreds the lower bulk regardless of whether or not a bunch of eggheads say the numbers add up.

...And regardless of the numbers the lower bulk would not simply be tore to shreds, without the falling bulk also being tore to shreds. 15 floors would be torn to shreds long before the 95.

That is the fundamental mistake OS supporters make.

edit on 10/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 10:41 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
the lower bulk would not simply be tore to shreds, without the falling bulk also being tore to shreds. 15 floors would be torn to shreds long before the 95.

That is the fundamental mistake OS supporters make.

Torn to shreds or not, all it needs to damage the lower structure is mass and velocity. whether the upper structure is 'torn to shreds' is beside the point. I don't see how this impacts the 'collapse due to impact and fires' theory.

top topics

34