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: 42
34
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

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

False Fronts For a False Flag


Nope. That forum post is delusional. It combines wishful thinking and jumping to conclusions.

The floor trusses and pans were installed at the same time as the exterior columns and the core. The concrete floor slabs would be poured soon after, maybe 1 or 2 stories behind the construction of the columns.

In fact, the trusses and slabs were necessary for the sturdiness of the towers. Read up on Euler's column buckling equation to find out why. It's simply not the case that the floors could have been left out at the last minute as some kind of cost saving measure. If anything, some of the finishes, such as carpet and paint and signage might have been left unfinished, but not something as substantial as floors. Such an omission would require a substantial redesign of the structural elements.




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


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!


You keep asking for calculations that are not needed. Calculations are not needed to understand Newtonian physics. Nowhere have I seen ANY of you explain the collapses using the laws of motion. If your links did that then why are you all so lost when it comes to explaining it? I mean you get all your info from very few sources, I know the arguments they put forth, so don't tell me something is there when I know it isn't. I am way ahead of you mate because you are so predictable. I can guess every time what OSers will reply to a given point, there has been nothing new since I started debating this 8 years ago.

No one can do any calculations without all the relevant information that we don't have anyway, even YOU, who has not done any calculations yourself relying on an 'authority' to tell you.

Don't tell me to shut up. I understand it is frustrating though, having your fantasies torn apart with facts and reality.


BTW no one is forcing you to read my posts, maybe you should ignore me if it gets you so upset, hmmmm?


edit on 10/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   


Calculations are not needed to understand Newtonian physics.
reply to post by ANOK
 


Right, but in order to make an empirical claim about a specific situation, you need calculations.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
A simple thought experiment which our engineering schools should have been able to simulate some time ago would be to merely remove five simulated levels from the north tower, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Then let gravity take its usual immutably boring course. The bottom of the 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph or 65 feet per second.

The 90 stories should be 1080 feet tall so if the 15 stories could maintain a constant 65 ft/sec while destroying them the collapse would take 16.6 second plus the 2 seconds totaling 18.6 seconds. But that is significantly longer then most estimates of collapse time therefore the 15 stories would have to accelerate while crushing stories heavier and stronger than themselves.

Now completely eliminating 5 stories to make that 2 seconds of acceleration possible is more damage than the airliner impact and fire could have done so we know that 60 feet of empty space never existed. But that thought experiment eliminates all argument about how hot the fires got because they could not instantaneously disappear five stories.

The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90? Even assuming a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing which is not what happened on 9/11. So if that simulation is done and it comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for more than TEN YEARS?

So why hasn’t any engineering school done such a simple simulation?

psik



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Most of the relevant software doesn't probably have a button labelled "gravity off", that the professors can push when the tower begins to collapse.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up.

It was not a pyramid. The building was significantly uniform in construction. Just a quick look at the photos will tell you that.

So how could 15 stories destroy all 90?

They didn't "destroy" the stories. The weight and energy of the falling section challenged the connections of the structural elements of the lower sections in a manner that they were not designed to resist. End of "story".



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90? Even assuming a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing which is not what happened on 9/11. So if that simulation is done and it comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for more than TEN YEARS?

So why hasn’t any engineering school done such a simple simulation?

psik


So what happens to the mass of the top section and failed floor in your thought experiment? Does it disappear? Does it eject horizontally? Or does it come to a rest?



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by septic

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

False Fronts For a False Flag


Nope. That forum post is delusional. It combines wishful thinking and jumping to conclusions.

The floor trusses and pans were installed at the same time as the exterior columns and the core. The concrete floor slabs would be poured soon after, maybe 1 or 2 stories behind the construction of the columns.

In fact, the trusses and slabs were necessary for the sturdiness of the towers. Read up on Euler's column buckling equation to find out why. It's simply not the case that the floors could have been left out at the last minute as some kind of cost saving measure. If anything, some of the finishes, such as carpet and paint and signage might have been left unfinished, but not something as substantial as floors. Such an omission would require a substantial redesign of the structural elements.


I disagree, the post explains the reasoning behind the hypothesis that most of the floors were never installed.

It's interesting that people find it easier to discuss "outside energy" and various physics proofs behind how the floors were so completely pulverized, but refuse to consider that most floors may not have been there to begin with.

The towers had so much flex and twist, that on really gusty days the freight elevators couldn't run. That's a lot of stress on poured in place concrete. The floor panels needed to accommodate for the inherent flex the towers had. There would be dozens of photos and videos of the acres of concrete being poured, mixed at, or delivered to the towers. The contractors would have hundreds of glossy photos showing their handiwork in the tallest buildings in the world, but no records of that concrete is available, save a few black and white photos, and some short videos.

It makes sense from a business and construction stand point to build a building that didn't need all the floors installed to stand, and to be able to build them out as the 10 million square feet of new office space was leased.

The floors were modular:



Throw in the Galvanic Corrosion issue and the argument that the towers were slated for decommissioning and demolition by the mid-to-late 80's makes much more sense than the other rather weak attempts to explain how thirty floors can crush 80.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


The no floors installed thing is a myth imo, the floors were constructed as the core was built, they would have no reason to not build floors. The floors would have acted as platforms to build up the core and the outer mesh. If they left floors out it would have made construction very difficult, and almost impossible to add afterwords.


www.city-data.com...



edit on 10/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

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


You're giving physics a bad name so you should stop waving the banner. How much does physics account for unknowns as far as the integrity of the core post impact? How do you know some of the columns that got sheared by the jets didn't actually initiate the upper floors to fall? How does physics account for the condition of the core columns that were damaged but not sheared (they certainly wouldn't be straight and able to hold the load they once did)? What was holding up the immensely heavy upper core assemblies that got cut in half? How does physics account for them essentially floating in mid air?



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
The towers were probably built without most of their floors installed:



The floors were the only thing keeping the sides from bowing out or in. The towers could not be built with just the skin and core. The planes destroyed several of these very integral parts of the structure. That's why the upper sections fell.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

You just can't accept the fact your education made you no smarter.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


I'll contribute as well...










posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


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.


I wouldn't pat myself on the back just yet. Like I said there is no way you can account for every detail of the condition of the towers post impact. You can't say perfect floor was impacting perfect floor evenly therefore they would cancel out because there is no way you can say what was going on inside the buildings. What was sheared, bent, twisted? How were the loads shifted? It's as simple as one piece of hanging/swinging steel breaking loose taking out one crucial piece of the floor or one core section dropping down the interior weakening connections as it made it's way down tipping the scales in favor of total collapse. Anybody who wants to try to apply halfbaked physics to prove something that is impossible to prove has wasted their money and eight years.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It's interesting to note how the North Tower was hit off center and actually tilted to that side as it fell indicating a good portion of the core put up some resistance.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Seems like not all the floors were needed.








posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 

are you saying the picture with the sunshine coming through it shows the towers with no floors? that's an illusion, the skin went up with the floors as a unit, one depending on the other. The floors kept the skin rigid and I don't think there are any others built that way to that scale to compare them to.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
All the physics gobbldegook in the world will not explain away the FACT that both Towers showed NO deformity and each one blasted apart into fine dust. There is no way...totally impossible..for the core and all supports to give way at exactly the same moment, and what we see in all pictures is a complete destruction and not a collapse. Vast dust clouds and people being reduced to tiny shards blown hundreds of feet away to later be found on top of adjacent buildings CANNOt be assigned to a gravity driven collapse.

The top section that tilted should have continued the tilt and fallen over...but instead the underneath just erupts into massive explosions of dust and steel beams hurled far away....GRAVITY? Impossible. Gravity cannot account for what is seen...only massive energy could destroy the core and expel steel as seen...anyone who pretends that gravity can explain this event is delusional or biased...or uneducated.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

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


You're giving physics a bad name so you should stop waving the banner. How much does physics account for unknowns as far as the integrity of the core post impact? How do you know some of the columns that got sheared by the jets didn't actually initiate the upper floors to fall? How does physics account for the condition of the core columns that were damaged but not sheared (they certainly wouldn't be straight and able to hold the load they once did)? What was holding up the immensely heavy upper core assemblies that got cut in half? How does physics account for them essentially floating in mid air?


So you can ask questions. None of that explains why we don't even have accurate data on the distribution of steel down the building after TEN YEARS? Why wasn't the physics profession demanding that in 2002?

What EVIDENCE do you have that ANY core columns were sheared by the impact? NOBODY HAS ANY SUCH EVIDENCE. It is only GUESSWORK!

FEMA said the fuselage missed the core of the south tower. But then the NIST makes a diagram showing it going into the core at the corner. One of them must be wrong.

psik



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Most of the relevant software doesn't probably have a button labelled "gravity off", that the professors can push when the tower begins to collapse.


It must have a "start simulation button" and previous to pushing that button initial conditions can be set up. So until then gravity is off.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join