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: 53
34
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:55 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
So no takers huh?

No one jumping all over this post huh?

Afraid of the physics huh?

www.fearofphysics.com...

Here are two objects of the same mass hitting each other at the same velocity...

The redtruck came into the collision at 40.23 meters per second (90.00 miles per hour)
It left moving at -40.23 meters per second (-90.00 miles per hour)
It was jolted so much by the collision that it was sent back in the opposite direction!

The redtruck came into the collision at -40.23 meters per second (-90.00 miles per hour)
It left moving at 40.23 meters per second (90.00 miles per hour)
It was jolted so much by the collision that it was sent back in the opposite direction!

Both objects reacted equally in the collision, equal mass, equal result. Consider momentum conservation, and both trucks would receive more or less equal damage.

15 floors can not cause 95 floors to collapse, crush, whatever term you like.

made this just for you... enjoy... I know I am laughing my ass off right now

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:57 PM
edit on 27-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:00 PM

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
edit on 27-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

Copy paste only the numbers after the = sign
Xxo8VWLa9o8
edit on 27-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:03 PM

thank you

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:08 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

That is the total PHYSICS Bullsh# people insist on believing.

15 LEVELS would crush the 16th and 15th LEVELS simultaneously. The 16th would accelerate from zero to some degree and slow down 15, 14, 13,...3, 2 & 1 to some degree.

Say WHAT?

You pulled this nonsense out of your backside and say what I posted is BS?

I cannot even begin to follow your backward thinking. Are you forgetting gravity?

AND THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO CRUSH THOSE TWO LEVELS would slow down the entire mass also.

Then LEVELS 17 and 14 would crush each other and the process would repeat. The starting 15 LEVELS would run out long before the 90. The people who insist on believing the collapse nonsense have to come up with ridiculous rationalizations.

That magical acceleration of more and more mass while being destroyed is energetically IMPOSSIBLE.

So in other words, the mass of the floors that are being destroyed by the falling mass is disappearing? Is this what you are saying?

As my model demonstrates. Mass must be accelerated and supports destroyed, which requires energy and the only source of energy SUPPOSEDLY is the kinetic energy of the mass falling from the top. Any other energy sources would mean that the Official Conspiracy Theory is crap.

psik

Your model is not a representation of the WTC design. not by a long shot. Therefore, do not bring this up again as it does not apply. Mass is being accelerated, by the number one thing we learn in physics: GRAVITY!!!!!!!!!! The only supports holding up floors? SEAT TRUSSES!

I didn't say FLOORS I said LEVELS. The talk about FLOORS and SEAT TRUSSES helps people ignore the CORE and the horizontal beams in the core , so the idiotic paradigm of FLOORS pancaking can be maintained. It was the amount of steel in the CORE and the perimeter columns that increased down the building that our physicists seem to be so good at not talking about for TEN YEARS.

That is the insanely ironic thing about 9/11 and the 9/11 Decade. An airliner is an inanimate object. A skyscraper is an inanimate object. This should be a simple problem. It should have been solved in 2002. If a complete collapse was possible then the importance of the problem should have justified an expensive physical model to demonstrate the collapse long ago. But since no expensive engineering school even mentions trying in TEN YEARS then the situation is certainly interesting.

So the 9/11 Decade presents a serious psychological problem. Millions of people refusing to come up with the obvious solution to a simple Newtonian Physics problem must indicate an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

So we get people like Chris Mohr who can't even get the quantity of jet fuel correct after ten years.

psik

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:14 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So we get people like Chris Mohr who can't even get the quantity of jet fuel correct after ten years.

psik

Big deal. You can't even get the distribution of concrete and steel on every level correct after ten years.
edit on 27-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:38 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
...both floors would lose Ke instantly...

That's not really a possibility, as the floor attached to the lower section has no kinetic energy to begin with, being stationary.

given that Ke=1/2*MV^2,
and if V=0,
then Ke=0

Aww #...

Looks like another 'ANOK physics blooper.'TM

Back to the old drawing board.

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:03 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I didn't say FLOORS I said LEVELS. The talk about FLOORS and SEAT TRUSSES helps people ignore the CORE and the horizontal beams in the core , so the idiotic paradigm of FLOORS pancaking can be maintained. It was the amount of steel in the CORE and the perimeter columns that increased down the building that our physicists seem to be so good at not talking about for TEN YEARS.

Because the FLOORS DID PANCAKE!!!! They were found all stacked and squashed down in the footprint.
Who gives a rip about the horizontal beams? What did they do to hold the floors up? The core's vertical columns held up the floor truss end to the core, while the exterior columns had their own truss seats to hold up THAT end of the floor. When the collapse started, these floors pancaked down, while the core was stripped of its surroundings. It then collapsed as the top segment crashed down onto it, knocking over and severing the column's end connections.

That is the insanely ironic thing about 9/11 and the 9/11 Decade. An airliner is an inanimate object. A skyscraper is an inanimate object. This should be a simple problem. It should have been solved in 2002. If a complete collapse was possible then the importance of the problem should have justified an expensive physical model to demonstrate the collapse long ago. But since no expensive engineering school even mentions trying in TEN YEARS then the situation is certainly interesting.

Sorry chief, but when you simplify to that extent, you are just dumbing down the whole thing into stupidity. That is the issue with the Truth Movement. They have tried to so oversimplify it that it is a damn joke.

So the 9/11 Decade presents a serious psychological problem. Millions of people refusing to come up with the obvious solution to a simple Newtonian Physics problem must indicate an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

So we get people like Chris Mohr who can't even get the quantity of jet fuel correct after ten years.

psik

Right, or the league of A&E "experts" that claim that it was an inside job with virtually nothing to back it up other than their own egos and poor reading comprehension skills. Or the "Dr." that promised us another corrected test regarding the paint chips, on which we are still waiting.

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

So what was the FoS then? Do you know every component had an FoS, and when components are combined the overall FoS increases?

Sorry ANOK but that statement ranks high up there with other truther statements like.

The cores were reinforced concrete
which we know was wrong
The core steel was tested to 2500 degress for several hours

Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1130 °C (2066 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1315 °C (2400 °F)

Lets look ANOK, the FOS used by engineers in the UK for metal structural fixings is usually 3 so if a componant has to take a load of 1 ton they will ask for a test to 3 ton or higher and use statistics from a number of tests to work out the load the fixing can take. Now although it may be tested to 3 ton the ultimate load that fixing will take may be a good deal higher than that.

Now lets look at the truss angle seat which held a floorslab up, its welded to the wall or core steel and the truss is bolted to the angle.

Each one of those items might have a different FOS but you cant add them together when a load is applied to that connection that exceeds the ultimate load one of the items can take it will fail be it the weld, the angle or the bolts or even the end of the truss steel.

A chain is only as strong as the WEAKEST LINK!!!

Thats why we keep tell ing YOU that you look at this the wrong way when the collapse starts the lower mass is not the FALLING MASS its the FLOORSLAB IT HITS, each slab is independent its supported by its OWN connections ANY MASS hitting that slab can ONLY BE ABSORBED/SUPPORTED by the connnections of that slab!!! when that fails the MASS from that joins the falling mass.

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:24 AM

Sorry but the truss seat at the core side were attched to the horizontal steel shown in the drawing below
bottom right welded channel.

www.911review.org...

The main problem is ANOK and PSIK seem to think the core steel and wall steel was crushed or telescoped down
as ANOK always says sorry lads it wasnt look at the picture.

How many sections of wall still connected how many lengths of steel NOT crushed but straight lengths so do you want to expain that?

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

How many sections of wall still connected how many lengths of steel NOT crushed but straight lengths so do you want to expain that?

Again you pick on terminology and take it too literally, and you don't really pay attention.

I never said the core was crushed, all I ask is how it could collapse straight down, as it obvioulsy did. At least until most of it was gone.

I do mention the concrete floors being crushed, if that is what you're getting all confused about?

So how about you check out this website? It is quite interesting in context of this discussion and my main point in all this, the physics of the collapses....

www.fearofphysics.com...

Instead of wasting time trying to debunk me, do something constructive and honest, check out that website and do the demonstration. Learn what happens in a collision, and how velocity and mass effect that collision. It demonstrates the laws of motion, the third to be specific, equal opposite reaction. It leaves out momentum conservation, which in reality would cause the objects to be deformed X amount, in accordance with the amount they are reversed in direction from the impact. You might learn something, or you might just make another relevant thread trying to deflect from this. Oh well, everyone can see what ya doing. I'll just leave it with you for a while....

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:52 AM
Just a reminder as to how the core was designed and how that design makes it impossible to fall straight down, or to break into pieces all the way down, whatever way you want to claim to happened....

This is one of 47 core 'box' columns, very strong and as you can see from this gif if tapered from 52"x22"x5", down to about 13"x10"x0.7". Quite a huge difference, in size and weight, I think you would agree?

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

How did the core collapse? And please forget the 'it couldn't stand without the floors' nonsense. 47 massive columns tied together do not need lightweight trusses to keep them from collapsing completely to the ground, crushing, bending, breaking, whatever...

edit on 10/28/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 06:23 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
Just a reminder as to how the core was designed and how that design makes it impossible to fall straight down, or to break into pieces all the way down, whatever way you want to claim to happened....

This is one of 47 core 'box' columns, very strong and as you can see from this gif if tapered from 52"x22"x5", down to about 13"x10"x0.7". Quite a huge difference, in size and weight, I think you would agree?

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

How did the core collapse? And please forget the 'it couldn't stand without the floors' nonsense. 47 massive columns tied together do not need lightweight trusses to keep them from collapsing completely to the ground, crushing, bending, breaking, whatever...

edit on 10/28/2011 by ANOK because: typo

If it was blown up then how is it still standing after the initial collapse?

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:03 AM

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So we get people like Chris Mohr who can't even get the quantity of jet fuel correct after ten years.

psik

Big deal. You can't even get the distribution of concrete and steel on every level correct after ten years.
edit on 27-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

I don't get that correct because it is not available. Mohr got available information WRONG.

psik

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:10 AM

Right, or the league of A&E "experts" that claim that it was an inside job with virtually nothing to back it up other than their own egos and poor reading comprehension skills. Or the "Dr." that promised us another corrected test regarding the paint chips, on which we are still waiting.

Those clowns talking about "INSIDE JOB" without explaining the grade school physics. I asked Richard Gage about the steel and concrete on every level myself. Who did it and why is irrelevant. Solve the physics first.

They want people to BELIEVE them because they can wave degrees in people's faces. The don't actually try to EXPLAIN anything. Has Richard Gage ever explained the Conservation of Momentum and why it is relevant.

At Illinois Institute of Technology the standard joke was "architects study funny physics and funny math".

The trouble is that if the grade school physics is explained then this should have been resolved in 2002. So the entire physics profession has a 9/11 problem.

psik

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:29 AM
Can't believe this debate still rages on.....

explosives bought these buildings down pure and simple.

911research.wtc7.net...

Until all missing evidence is bought forward one would have to asume explosives were used.

911research.wtc7.net...

It's a debate that can't be won by the deniers because all their evidence has been destroyed or misappropriated in such a way that they will be hard pressed trying to prove the contrary.

911research.wtc7.net... Crime of the century. 20mil cover up.

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:54 AM

The trouble is that if the grade school physics is explained then this should have been resolved in 2002.

No wait, I thought you said you resolved it all in 2001, are you saying you're still on the fence about whether the plane impact and fires caused the collapse?

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by hooper

The trouble is that if the grade school physics is explained then this should have been resolved in 2002.

No wait, I thought you said you resolved it all in 2001, are you saying you're still on the fence about whether the plane impact and fires caused the collapse?

I resolved it to MY SATISFACTION. It is not my fault that you think 2 + 3 = 7.

Every level had to be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above. That meant more steel toward the bottom. That means SUPPOSEDLY the top 14% of the north tower destroyed everything below in less than 18 seconds. NO WAY JOSE! So everybody that believes that is idiotic. So why doesn't everybody want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete? Oh yeah, BELIEVING does not need data!

How much concrete was in the sub-basements and lower 10 stories so the building could withstand the wind. Where is that discussed in the last TEN YEARS? The NIST does not even specify the total for the concrete.

You need to change the subject from grade school physics to EGO, like how dare you think they you are so smart.

So why can't our physicists and engineering schools build a physical model that can completely collapse?

Yeah, 9/11 is a HUGE psychological issue now. Like who tells who what to think about grade school physics and what not to think for themselves. And yet our politicians talk about STEM education.
Anybody that wants to can duplicate my model and test it for themselves. Where is the model they can build that will completely collapse?

psik

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 10:35 AM

I resolved it to MY SATISFACTION.

Well, there you go then. We're all done here. You're satisfied. You don't need any more information or anything else. Doesn't mean you're right or even close to right, but you're satisfied.

It is not my fault that you think 2 + 3 = 7.

Yes it is not so much so. Long live nonsense!

Every level had to be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above. That meant more steel toward the bottom.

How much more 1%? .01%? 100%? 1000%?

That means SUPPOSEDLY the top 14% of the north tower destroyed everything below in less than 18 seconds. NO WAY JOSE!

No that's not what that means. Stop trying to get other people to rationalize your hyperbole. Reality is not dependent on your semantics. The top 14% did not "destroy everything" below it. It caused it to stop functioning as uniform structure.

So everybody that believes that is idiotic.

You're right - anyone (you) that thinks everything was "destroyed" is an idiot.

So why doesn't everybody want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete? Oh yeah, BELIEVING does not need data!

Yeah, 9/11 is a HUGE psychological issue now.

No, its really not. At least not any aspect about how it happened. Not an issue at all.

Anybody that wants to can duplicate my model and test it for themselves. Where is the model they can build that will completely collapse?

Broomhandle, copy paper loops and washers. Not even a good grade school project.

edit on 28-10-2011 by hooper because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So why can't our physicists and engineering schools build a physical model that can completely collapse?

Yeah, 9/11 is a HUGE psychological issue now. Like who tells who what to think about grade school physics and what not to think for themselves. And yet our politicians talk about STEM education.
Anybody that wants to can duplicate my model and test it for themselves. Where is the model they can build that will completely collapse?

psik

Maybe because our physicists and engineering schools know that it's a completely pointless exercise.

Let's get down to it then- you all keep suggesting that the physics of a complete collapse is impossible without some sort of "outside energy" assisting in it's initiation and progression. But since no evidence has been found of this "outside energy" :

What do you believe the outside energy was and how did it assist in the collapse?

Make no mistake that the "what" and 'how" are very vital to your theory on the physics of the collapse. Without them your theories are totally worthless and just taking up bandwidth.

So if you're certain your physics can show how the towers couldn't have completely collapsed the way they did (with airplanes, fires, and subsequent failure of steel columns). Then your physics should be able to show how they could collapse using some sort of alternative outside assistance. What role did your outside energy play and how did it play it?

It's been 10 years so get on with it already

new topics

top topics

34