It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 41
34
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

And again you are ignoring the 95 floors they are falling on. You main problem here seems to be your lack of understanding of the laws of motion. Falling 18ft is not enough distant to add any more force from velocity. Speed does not increase mass until it gets close to the speed of light and even then it's not much.
.
.
.
You have to calculate the forces of BOTH objects. You have to calculate the force of both the falling block of floors and the impacted block of floors, or the forces of the two impacting floors.

Another physics lecture from professor ANOK.

of course falling 18 feet is far enough to 'add force from velocity'. If you don't believe me, jump off a 20 foot ladder and see if it's worse than jumping off a 2 foot ladder. LOL.

If you knew anything about Newton's laws you'd know that the second part there is pure bunko. Another example of why you shouldn't be telling anybody they don't know physics.

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:11 AM

You hate it when your fantasies are torn to shreds by reality don't you?

C'mon now admit it. You all hate debating physics. For the longest time the OSers here wouldn't even attempt to. If you wanted to end a 911 thread, bring up the physics. You've all gotten braver lately, but you're still failing badly to spin the physics to fit your OS fantasies.

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:26 AM

I notice you never bother to respond to my criticisms anymore, because you can't, except with more of these lame declarations of victory.

Quit pretending to know physics, ANOK, and I will have no issue with you.

How could you possibly be so ignorant of physics, yet have the gall to lecture others. It blows my mind more and more each time.

Oh, and please tell us again how it is that potential energy pushes up.

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:34 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
the problem I see with all these hypothetical calculations is that you can't assume the floors were all contacting evenly across the entire structure. What if a corner of the upper mass landed first? That area of the floor/walls had no chance withstanding the concentrated pressures applied to it.

Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.

Propaganda Physics!

psik

HELLO HELLO you can get a drawing from the net of the truss layout then you can double that for the connections to the walls and core you can then multiply that answer by the number of fixings on a connection you HAVE been given the information you need to find this out AGAIN so off you go!!!

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:40 AM

LISTEN look at any physics site re impacts YOU work out the energy in the object just before impact as the impact occurs it becomes a work done problem the info was in the links given they use what you talk about all the time like a stuck record so the challenge is to show its wrong PROVE IT, using some kind of calculations YOU have to because these links are using the LAWS YOU LOVE TO PREACH.

SO PROVE THEM WRONG or SHUT UP!

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 03:03 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
Continued...

So do you really think that a FLOORSLAB which is 1,540,000 lbs (1.5 million times the ducks weight) impacting at 18 mph or 8 m/s (lower velocity than the duck impact but 1.5 million times the mass) really wont cause a problem

Yes it will cause a problem, but again you seem to think that falling floor would not also be equally effected by the impact.

Now thats JUST one slab North Tower another 15 of those plus the heavier roof slab plus steelwork, South Tower 30 floors plus roof slab plus steelwork.

And again you are ignoring the 95 floors they are falling on. You main problem here seems to be your lack of understanding of the laws of motion. Falling 18ft is not enough distant to add any more force from velocity. Speed does not increase mass until it gets close to the speed of light and even then it's not much.

All 95 floorslabs are independant suspended between the wall and core steel when the North Tower collapse happened the lower part OF THE FALLING MASS hits the floor below first (WE NEVER CLAIM EVERYTHING STAYS INTACT) the floor hit fails that now joins the falling mass the process repeats as for your comment above re speed of light absolutely PRICELESS lets all now make you look a total a** you are, so you claim a drop of 18ft wont put much energy into the impact lets have a look at that.

Using 2 calculations. back to this link but I will use 12ft as a maximum

www.livephysics.com...

use a 1 mtr drop 100kg weight then a 3.6 mtr drop (wtc floor height) same 100kg weight distance travelled after impact 10cm or 0.1 mtr.

For 1mtr drop velocity at impact 4.33 mts/sec ke 980 j impact force 9800n or 980kg
For 3.6 drop velocity at impact 8.4 mts/sec ke 3528j impact force 35280n or 3528kg

Now a 2.6 mtr change in height has increased impact energy by 3528/980= 3.6 times

Now thats worked out using the LAWS YOU PREACH care to explain your speed of light comment NOW

I suggest you find your physics teacher and give them a good kick up the a** but I think the problem really is you and NOT them!

Speed increases the ENERGY !!! got it NOW!

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 06:44 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

The OSers want to ignore the mass of the undamaged floors and pretend, as in the NIST report, that complete collapse was inevitable. They also want you to believe that the mass of the top falling floors was only effecting one floor at a time, which is a reasonable claim until you realise that if you look at it that way you also have to consider that the top section impacting was only effecting the bottom floor of the upper falling block, and the force of the floors above that impacting floor, 14 floors, would effect that floor more than the top floor of the lower block. (I know that might be confusing but read it through a few times). So both impacting floors would be damaged causing, along with other factors, a loss of Ke and mass. Loss of Ke and mass means the collapse should have slowed down, and could not have been complete.

So in conclusion another energy must have been acting on the collapses that was not investigated.

You might want to start using the word "AFFECTING" not "EFFECTING" Mr Physicsbrain.

i69.photobucket.com...

Again you are imagining this collapse in an unrealistic way. You can not say the lower floors were AFFECTED by the falling weight equally distributed over the entire structure. As the upper bulk fell specific parts of the lower bulk were being impacted unevenly putting massive stresses where they weren't designed to withstand. You can't say each floor connection had an equal amount of stress put on it therefore it should have held. AND you keep ignoring the extremely heavy steel columns that didn't turn to dust as they fell and again these would essentially be perforating the floor slabs further reducing their load carrying ability. Once the integrity of the structure was compromised your calculations in a perfect world fly out the window.

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 06:54 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
How did the lower building section lose its integrity? There was no damage bellow the impact of the aircraft, unless you have new information?

Load bearing makes no difference we're talking about blocks of concrete and steel floor pans crushing themselves to the ground from gravity. You could have taken ALL the resistance of load bearing columns away, and just let the floors fall freely, they would still not completely collapse. There would be floors stacked up in the footprint.

You can try this at home. Take a pile of concrete slabs, and see if you can get 15% of the whole to crush the rest.
Use any method you like to hold them up, separate them with toothpicks, whatever, you will never be able to repeat what happened to the towers. Prove me wrong, or stop with the layman nonsense.

edit on 10/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo

The integrity was lost after the planes impacted the skin and core. Liken it to denting the side of a soda can as I've been saying for like forever. The buildings were designed as a unit body construction and once you basically redesign the unit the loads are now unevenly distributed and it has now lost its integrity.

You need to stop thinking the floors were pancaking evenly flat across the lower floors. It's asinine to think that way but essentially that's the only way your theory can work. And your concrete slab experiment is silly.

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:59 AM

In fact, it does not matter if the floors fall evenly or unevenly, the load is way too big either way, even when you place the mass of the top section carefully and symmetrically on a floor. So even without any impact forces, the floor would fail. A floor is designed to carry its own weight plus a live load and can never carry the weight of at least 12 floors + loads + columns + antenna etc.
edit on 20-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
the problem I see with all these hypothetical calculations is that you can't assume the floors were all contacting evenly across the entire structure. What if a corner of the upper mass landed first? That area of the floor/walls had no chance withstanding the concentrated pressures applied to it.

Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.

Propaganda Physics!

psik

HELLO HELLO you can get a drawing from the net of the truss layout then you can double that for the connections to the walls and core you can then multiply that answer by the number of fixings on a connection you HAVE been given the information you need to find this out AGAIN so off you go!!!

I never said I didn't know how many there were I said the pancake people don't talk about it. That would not serve the purposes of their propaganda physics. Like constantly talking about the FLOORS and pretending THE CORE does not matter.

psik

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:57 AM

If you want people who ignore the core to stop ignoring it, explain how the core is offering resistance to the falling mass.

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:46 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-

If you want people who ignore the core to stop ignoring it, explain how the core is offering resistance to the falling mass.

The NIST said the core supported 53% of the weight. How could it not offer resistance? The horizontal beams would have to hit each other in any supposed collapse. Vertical columns would be bent out of position. A random jumble of compressed material would be created between the two impacting blocks. The inertia of the stationary mass would slow the falling mass due to the conservation of momentum. That is why not having accurate data on the steel and concrete level by level is total nonsense.

I have already demonstrated the effect it would just be more complicated in the towers but the principles are the same.

The trouble is that the people who have chosen to BELIEVE in the conclusion of complete collapse must make a big deal of the complexities while leaving out simple distribution of steel and concrete data.

Of course after TEN YEARS they would look pretty stupid admitting they were wrong. That would include PhD physicists who mostly said nothing. How could they let this debate go on along with the wars? So we have to leave out the data necessary to understanding how skyscrapers hold themselves up.

psik

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.

Propaganda Physics!

psik

another fantasy world physics person..... Who said they gave simultaneously? Not me. My whole point (well at least a good part of it) is that the loads were NOT equally distributed as the upper portion fell. You can't possibly believe, as the upper mass fell, it did so level and plumb equally redistributing the weight on all the connections at the same time (not to mention the skin had to come to rest equally around the perimeter as if some giant hand placed it there slowly) . You just can't and if you do you are as silly as the rest.

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:04 AM

that video is ridiculous. Not even close to matching the forces involved, not to mention matching the structure. Silly

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:05 AM

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.

Propaganda Physics!

psik

another fantasy world physics person..... Who said they gave simultaneously? Not me. My whole point (well at least a good part of it) is that the loads were NOT equally distributed as the upper portion fell. You can't possibly believe, as the upper mass fell, it did so level and plumb equally redistributing the weight on all the connections at the same time (not to mention the skin had to come to rest equally around the perimeter as if some giant hand placed it there slowly) . You just can't and if you do you are as silly as the rest.

If they don't give simultaneously then how can the floor slab not tilt and squeeze the core creating LOTS OF FRICTION and therefore not experience free fall?

It's called physics.

psik

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The NIST said the core supported 53% of the weight. How could it not offer resistance? The horizontal beams would have to hit each other in any supposed collapse.

Do you think the horizontal beams have the same vertical load capacity as the vertical columns? What happens when the horizontal beams fail? Will the vertical columns still offer support to the mass that was first resting on the horizontal beams?

Vertical columns would be bent out of position. A random jumble of compressed material would be created between the two impacting blocks. The inertia of the stationary mass would slow the falling mass due to the conservation of momentum. That is why not having accurate data on the steel and concrete level by level is total nonsense.

And the gravity pulling the mass down would speed it up again. Thats the reason why the exact mass isn't that important. When the mass is large, sure, the inertia of floors that are hit is also large, and so is the resistance of the floor connections. But the momentum of the falling mass would also be large (you know, p=mv, where m is the mass), so relatively it does not matter.

I have already demonstrated the effect it would just be more complicated in the towers but the principles are the same.

The trouble is that the people who have chosen to BELIEVE in the conclusion of complete collapse must make a big deal of the complexities while leaving out simple distribution of steel and concrete data.

Of course after TEN YEARS they would look pretty stupid admitting they were wrong. That would include PhD physicists who mostly said nothing. How could they let this debate go on along with the wars? So we have to leave out the data necessary to understanding how skyscrapers hold themselves up.

psik

You have already agreed that your model isn't anything like the WTC and practically says nothing about the WTC collapse. Since we agree on that it is useless to discuss it.
edit on 20-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If they don't give simultaneously then how can the floor slab not tilt and squeeze the core creating LOTS OF FRICTION and therefore not experience free fall?

It's called physics.

psik

Squeeze the core? Do you see the floor slabs as indestructible squares around the core that can not deform or break into pieces? If so, you should revise your view.
edit on 20-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

that video is ridiculous. Not even close to matching the forces involved, not to mention matching the structure. Silly

There is a slight difference between 3.5 pounds and 400,000+ tons.

That is why the square cube law matters and the supports are PAPER not steel.

So where is your model that can completely collapse? Where is the engineering school that charges \$100,000+ for 4 years of education that has built a model that can completely collapse?

People that can't figure out the obvious have to call things silly.

So how can these forces be computed if we can't even get the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level? And then we have to put up with the silly people that won't even demand the information.

psik

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:36 AM

How the WTC was built is no mistery.

I don't know...I bet it's a bigger mystery than most folks guess.

The towers were probably built without most of their floors installed:

False Fronts For a False Flag

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
the problem I see with all these hypothetical calculations is that you can't assume the floors were all contacting evenly across the entire structure. What if a corner of the upper mass landed first? That area of the floor/walls had no chance withstanding the concentrated pressures applied to it.

Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.

Propaganda Physics!

psik

HELLO HELLO you can get a drawing from the net of the truss layout then you can double that for the connections to the walls and core you can then multiply that answer by the number of fixings on a connection you HAVE been given the information you need to find this out AGAIN so off you go!!!

I never said I didn't know how many there were I said the pancake people don't talk about it. That would not serve the purposes of their propaganda physics. Like constantly talking about the FLOORS and pretending THE CORE does not matter.

psik

Lets see re the core your horizontal steel you talk about is shown on this drawing can you spot it.

Bottom of drawing right hand side the welded channel used to fix the truss connection to.

We talk about the trusses ALL the time and the connections because thats what HOLDS the floor in position thats what supports the floorslab NOT the other 95 slabs below like in ANOK's world.

With the north tower the plane hit high up mid elevation and would have done some damage to the core!
With the south tower the shear mass of 30 floors moving did the damage to the core!

The impact forces WHICH you guys all ignore did the rest!!!!

top topics

34