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

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


Its part of the argument. Equally important is the question, could have the pancake collapse occoured to the extent it did without introducing additional Energy. If that is not given, then any of the floors turning into rubble or even dust pretty much seals the deal about a theory NIST established. A theory that can not necessarily be seen unfolding in the video of the collapse. Examples of the Verinage demolition technique and the exploding buildings look nothing alike. But the latter comment is not the topic of the debate.

edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


I think it likely could have. The potential energy was pretty high, given the weight and mass of the tower above the impact point, along with 12 feet of space to accelerate.

Also, in no pancake collapse will the floors collapse symmetrically onto each-other. This was one of the reasons cited for the straight downward momentum. The collapse was non-uniform, and was thus able to continue applying force downward using gravity as the main driving force, the space in-between the floors acting as an accelerator.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


Its part of the argument. Equally important is the question, could have the pancake collapse occoured to the extent it did without introducing additional Energy. If that is not given, then any of the floors turning into rubble or even dust pretty much seals the deal about a theory NIST established. A theory that can not necessarily be seen unfolding in the video of the collapse. Examples of the Verinage demolition technique and the exploding buildings look nothing alike. But the latter comment is not the topic of the debate.

edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


I think it likely could have. The potential energy was pretty high, given the weight and mass of the tower above the impact point, along with 12 feet of space to accelerate.

Also, in no pancake collapse will the floors collapse symmetrically onto each-other. This was one of the reasons cited for the straight downward momentum. The collapse was non-uniform, and was thus able to continue applying force downward using gravity as the main driving force, the space in-between the floors acting as an accelerator.


The potential energy is the topic of the thread and discussed in the opening thread. Id like some input into weather the figures given are realistic. Also the quote I provided and the link argues why the potential energy wouldnt have been enough.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Okay then.

Using your weights, it is 770 tons/ floor

Times 220 floors = 169,000 metric tons.


And you just missed the entire point of our little discussion, didn't you?

I'm getting the ACTUAL MASS of the steel and the concrete from HERE:

www.infoplease.com...

*YOU* are just making up absurd red herring calculations that do not actually reflect reality.



Which Destroys your ENTIRE ARGUMENT!




No.

It destroys yours.

I used your figures to figure the weight of concrete per floor.

The area inside/outside the cores is known.

Therefore the weights are known.

To deny it is irrational.


If I may.

hypertextbook.com...

I am sorry but it looks like 150.000 is way off.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
for simplicity, let's say the towers were 100 stories tall. now, lets say the top nine stories fell ten feet onto the bottom 90 . now, lets reverse this and see if it makes sense. 90 stories fall 10 feet on to 9 stories. you're suggesting that the 9 stories on the bottom survive, and the 90 stories on the top are utterly destroyed.

does this make logical sense? no. for the math to work, there would have to be zero resistance.

9 stories falling 910 feet is the same as 90 stories falling 91 feet. do the math, it works out.


Actually, in one case you have 9 stories of mass/weight beginning the collapse from the top down.

In the second case, you have 90 stories of mass/weight (that is ten times the mass) falling on 9 stories. The 9 stories would be instantly crushed, and then the 90 stories would be destroyed by gravity and there being no way for the building to come to rest without a solid foundation.

In my opinion, this argument is empty and does not say anything about the collapse.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



No.

It destroys yours.


You are stunningly Ignorant.


I used your figures to figure the weight of concrete per floor.

The area inside/outside the cores is known.

Therefore the weights are known.

To deny it is irrational.


To deny that your Back of the envelope calculations for the total mass of the concrete in the twin towers are more accurate than the official sources for those figures?

Really?

As I said before.... Stunningly Ignorant.


200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex


425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

And since 425,000 cubic yards equals roughly 600,000 - 800,000 short tons, we can conclude that the concrete in the twin towers outnumbered the steel 3:1



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
The potential energy is the topic of the thread and discussed in the opening thread. Id like some input into weather the figures given are realistic. Also the quote I provided and the link argues why the potential energy wouldnt have been enough.


I think that is assuming that the energy is being expended uniformly and efficiently. The collapse was decidedly non-uniform, and even if the energy did become expended, what would have happened to the weight resting on the trusses and horizontal beams of the core below? Would it just magically be held up, or would the braces fail under non-designed stresses? I'm of the opinion that horizontal structures are not designed to hold up much tolerance for vertical stress along the body of the structure. It's like putting a few pounds of pressure on the center of a toothpick. It will break.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


No, in a top down demolition the top part crushes the bottom part as long as it stays intact. It does not work on every building though, such as steel framed building.

But that isnt the topic of the thread. The topic is about checking the numbers of the OP.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



And there's the handwave.

Nevermind then.

We know how you look now...


Oh please... His assumptions are fallacious, and hist conclusions FROM those assumptions are equally wrong.

Im not "Handwaving" them... I am REJECTING it, because it is wrong.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666



Okay then.

Using your weights, it is 770 tons/ floor

Times 220 floors = 169,000 metric tons.


If I may.

hypertextbook.com...

I am sorry but it looks like 150.000 is way off.


Do you agree or disagree that if we know the floor area, and we know the weight of the 2 types of concrete, that we THEN can figure out weight of the concrete per floor, irregardless of what your source states?

Can that source be wrong?

Could it be that a journalist took a total amount of concrete used in the construction project and just didied it up between the 2 towers?

Is that total weight broken down into how much was used in the construction of the bath tubs???



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Cassius666
The potential energy is the topic of the thread and discussed in the opening thread. Id like some input into weather the figures given are realistic. Also the quote I provided and the link argues why the potential energy wouldnt have been enough.


It's like putting a few pounds of pressure on the center of a toothpick. It will break.


Think about what you said. How much do you think a toothpick weighs? "A few pounds of pressure" for a toothpick that barely weighs a gram is a whole lot. Now imagine the toothpick is not a toothpick, but something bigger, like a tree or a steele beam. How much pressure would be needed now?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


hypertextbook.com...

According to this link the weight of the tower was about 450.000 tons if that helps.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



He assumes nothing.



"If we consider that the total mass of the concrete in the two towers was about 150,000 tons...


Page 16, from your report.

He never cites his reasoning for this assumption, nor does he back it up with sources.

He is wrong, You are wrong for citing this PDF.

Have a nice day.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


No, in a top down demolition the top part crushes the bottom part as long as it stays intact. It does not work on every building though, such as steel framed building.

But that isnt the topic of the thread. The topic is about checking the numbers of the OP.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


That has not been tested though, so your statement is not yet proven. Still, once the top portion has become destroyed, its mass is still present, continuing to fall and press down on the structure below it, gathering the further destroyed floors into its mass and ejecting the mass which doesn't fit with the excess energy. I honestly can't think of another way this would work, but if you can explain it to me, I'll try to see if it makes sense.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
for simplicity, let's say the towers were 100 stories tall. now, lets say the top nine stories fell ten feet onto the bottom 90 . now, lets reverse this and see if it makes sense. 90 stories fall 10 feet on to 9 stories. you're suggesting that the 9 stories on the bottom survive, and the 90 stories on the top are utterly destroyed.

does this make logical sense? no. for the math to work, there would have to be zero resistance.

9 stories falling 910 feet is the same as 90 stories falling 91 feet. do the math, it works out.


Actually, in one case you have 9 stories of mass/weight beginning the collapse from the top down.

In the second case, you have 90 stories of mass/weight (that is ten times the mass) falling on 9 stories. The 9 stories would be instantly crushed, and then the 90 stories would be destroyed by gravity and there being no way for the building to come to rest without a solid foundation.

In my opinion, this argument is empty and does not say anything about the collapse.


yes, 10 times the mass, falling .1 the distance. if you cannot understand this, i don't know what to tell you. the math is incredibly simple. it equals out perfectly. you agree that the smaller portion of mass would be destroyed instantly when the large mass falls upon it, but then you say the small mass can pulverize the larger one if it is falling towards it? you can only hit something as hard as it can resist, and there is more resistance in the 90 stories than there is in the 9.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Oh please... His assumptions are fallacious, and hist conclusions FROM those assumptions are equally wrong.

Im not "Handwaving" them... I am REJECTING it, because it is wrong.


Which part is an assumption?

We fixed his concrete weights. You MUST agree with the weights per floor. They are you numbers.

His reasoning behind is claim for saying that only 1/3 of the concrete was given. It is based on a study done by Risk Management Solutions and environmental reports by P. J. Lioy et al. in Vol. 110, page
703, of Environmental Health Perspectives, J. K. McGee et al. in Vol. 111, page 972, of
Environmental Health Perspectives , and by G. P. Meeker in the USGS Report No. 2005–
1031.

What is your rational objection to them?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It has been tested and applied. Its called the Verinage or French demolition technique. You dont see the top part initiating the collapse and turning into dust. The dop part drives the collapse and stays intact till the bottom or till its out of juice.

But we are going offtopic here.

hypertextbook.com...

The weight of the tower was 450.000 tons if that helps.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


It has been tested and applied. Its called the Verinage or French demolition technique. You dont see the top part initiating the collapse and turning into dust. The dop part drives the collapse and stays intact till the bottom or till its out of juice.

But we are going offtopic here.

hypertextbook.com...

The weight of the tower was 450.000 tons if that helps.


I meant it has never been tested in a steel-framed building, so it cannot be conclusively stated that it is impossible. That is a fact.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

He never cites his reasoning for this assumption, nor does he back it up with sources.



Sure he does. He gave the floor area inside/outside the core, and the weight for each type of concrete.

You objected to his weights for the 2 types and so I used your weights.

You have no rational reason to object to the weight per floor now.

You cannot object.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



We fixed his concrete weights. You MUST agree with the weights per floor. They are you numbers.


You are assuming that your "Calculations" actually represent the amount of concrete per floor.

and this is why you are mistaken.

This is a Red Herring, because you are attempting to distract from the original point of this thread.

AND THAT POINT IS: that the energy that was put into the concrete dust clouds to cause them to expand to their ending volume was GREATER than the potential energy of the towers by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.


FACT: There was MORE CONCRETE than STRUCTURAL STEEL in those buildings.

I have already proven this, as have the GOVERNMENT FACTS about the buildings.


His reasoning behind is claim for saying that only 1/3 of the concrete was given.


And what context does this sentence fit into?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Sure he does. He gave the floor area inside/outside the core, and the weight for each type of concrete.


You are ignoring the concrete around the columns, the concrete in the columns in the core, and other essentials.

You have nothing but guesses for those figures, and frankly I'm a little tired of you asserting that your red herrings actually make one IOTA of difference to the topic of discussion.


You have no rational reason to object to the weight per floor now.

You cannot object.


But I AM objecting, because you do not posses all of the facts, and this is clear, because you are merely guessing about your calculations on the amount of concrete per floor, your calculations are childish in the extreme, and you are presenting them as FACT.

THAT is why I object.

and that is why I am right!





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join