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: 61
34
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 10:57 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Your link is of a SINGLE COLLISION and assumes the tree does not move.

Suppose the problem consisted of 20 smaller trees in a row and car completely breaks the first tree loose from the ground. What will be the force applied to the second tree? Oh damn, you don't know the mass of the first tree. How much did the car slow down? What about the force at the third tree and the fourth? Does it stop at the 7th tree?

What if the car is suspended 100 stories above the ground, and the trees are all horizontally placed along a wall going up towards the car? What will happen then?

Which way did the Towers and the floors fall? Which direction was the collapse?

Here-in lies the problem and error with you and ANOK.

Unless you have data on every tree how can you figure out what will happen?

Oh yeah, oversimplify the problem on the basis of STUPID ASSUMPTIONS and then assume you are INTELLIGENT.

We are talking about 15 levels impacting 90+ levels. How much energy is absorbed when the first two levels impact? How much does that slow the falling mass?

No, we are talking about 15 levels imp[acting one level, then 16 levels impacting 1 level, then 17 levels impacting one level. I dont understand how this is so hard to grasp or understand, especially when I am told how great you all are in physics. Also, are you taking into account the constant acceleration and accumulating mass? Your model is flawed because your washer's supports were being crushed and slowing down and eventually arresting the "collapse". The WTC floors had NO such support. Will you be doing another updated model?
edit on 11/3/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:05 AM

Can you please explain why the towers collapsed into their own foot print in a symmetrical fashion?

considering it experienced asymmetrical damage and all.
edit on 11/3/2011 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:12 AM

"Also, are you taking into account the constant acceleration and accumulating mass?"

How does something constantly accelerate while engaging something? I guess you could say it is constantly being accelerated downward by gravity. However, by engaging the floors below, some of the energy has to going into dispersing said floor out of the way or destroying it. so how does the top of the building accelerate all the way down, while having to disperse 6x the matter of itself?

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by hooper

Unless you have data on every tree how can you figure out what will happen?

There's your problem, you're confusing what is required to predict behavior with what is needed to analyze an event that has already taken place.

There is your problem. YOU ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

Then you dismiss any data that indicates what you know is WRONG.

The plane only deflected the south tower 15 inches on impact. So how did the bottom of the 29 stories move horizontally 20 feet when it broke loose 50 minutes later? Oh yeah, let's ignore that.

psik

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We are talking about 15 levels impacting 90+ levels. How much energy is absorbed when the first two levels impact? How much does that slow the falling mass?

No, we are talking about 15 levels imp[acting one level, then 16 levels impacting 1 level, then 17 levels impacting one level. I dont understand how this is so hard to grasp or understand, especially when I am told how great you all are in physics. Also, are you taking into account the constant acceleration and accumulating mass? Your model is flawed because your washer's supports were being crushed and slowing down and eventually arresting the "collapse". The WTC floors had NO such support. Will you be doing another updated model?

So let's see you build it and make it completely collapse.

I built 33 levels and dropped 4 onto 29. The levels crush each other and that crushing requires 0.118 Joules per LEVEL which can only come from the falling mass thereby slowing it down. Gravity does not provide a sufficient increase in energy to keep the reaction going.

You can TALK but you can't build the PHYSICS.

None of our engineering schools has built it in TEN YEARS. Of course they don't even talk about it. They need this swept under a rug.

psik

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:27 AM

What exactly do you mean by "into their own footprint" and how did you determine that the towers fell into their own footprint? Where would you expect the rubble to fall and why do you think this?

Originally posted by VonDoomen
How does something constantly accelerate while engaging something? I guess you could say it is constantly being accelerated downward by gravity. However, by engaging the floors below, some of the energy has to going into dispersing said floor out of the way or destroying it. so how does the top of the building accelerate all the way down, while having to disperse 6x the matter of itself?

It can accelerate because the net deceleration as result of the resistance (inertia, failing supports) is lower than the acceleration as result of gravity. The net motion is acceleration.
edit on 3-11-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So let's see you build it and make it completely collapse.

I built 33 levels and dropped 4 onto 29. The levels crush each other and that crushing requires 0.118 Joules per LEVEL which can only come from the falling mass thereby slowing it down. Gravity does not provide a sufficient increase in energy to keep the reaction going.

So the conclusions is that your model is not adequately imitating the WTC collapse.

None of our engineering schools has built it in TEN YEARS. Of course they don't even talk about it. They need this swept under a rug.

psik

No, engineers understand the mechanism and do not require a model. I have told you this several times before. Do you disagree with this? if so why?

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:32 AM

why don't you try dropping the washers from a greater height, say 12 feet, and see if more of the paper rings aren't crushed.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:44 AM

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

why don't you try dropping the washers from a greater height, say 12 feet, and see if more of the paper rings aren't crushed.

Why don't you build a bigger model with heavier weights?

Guess what? Heavier weights would mean the supports would have to be stronger and would require more energy to destroy and force the greater masses down. Gravity and the conservation of momentum make the whole thing IMPOSSIBLE. Gravity determines how strong the supports of the static loads must be and collapsing them will require ENERGY!!!

Do it and don't just TALK!

psik

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 12:07 PM

There is your problem. YOU ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

I didn't say I know what happened (even though I do) but I do know what was observed. And that is what you are trying to explain. What was observed.

Then you dismiss any data that indicates what you know is WRONG.

Data? Such as?

The plane only deflected the south tower 15 inches on impact. So how did the bottom of the 29 stories move horizontally 20 feet when it broke loose 50 minutes later?

The bottom 29 stories, by which I guess you mean basically the lobby to floor 28 or so, broke loose and moved 20 feet 50 minutes later? Huh?

Oh yeah, let's ignore that

Well, since that was not observed I think I will ignore that.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 12:13 PM

Nice dodge there, psik.

You know for certain that the higher you drop the washers from, the more damage they will do. And if you drop it from high enough, all the paper will be crushed.

I think you are afraid to try.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Nice dodge there, psik.

You know for certain that the higher you drop the washers from, the more damage they will do. And if you drop it from high enough, all the paper will be crushed.

I think you are afraid to try.

Not to mention that paper compresses, and it ignores many of the fundamental functions of collapse, which is chaos. There is no sure-fire way to predict which direction everything will go, and there is no logical way for the supports to encounter zero horizontal force, falling perfectly on top of one another in a crushing fashion. Most of the destruction of the towers involved failure of horizontal support systems and the trusses outside the core. That is why much of the core remained standing momentarily after the collapse.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 12:57 PM

Also, are you taking into account the constant acceleration and accumulating mass?

Again you talk about acceleration, when that is what I and others here have shown you will not happen.

How can there be constant acceleration against an accumulating resisting mass?

But again you are looking at it incorrectly. You are ignoring the laws of motion.

You have a block of 15 floors all held together in the same way the 96 floors were. The 15 floors had less mass than the 95, not only because it's less floors, but because the steel got thinner and lighter as they went up.

When that 15 floors dropped (something that hasn't been explained either), there is as much force on the dropping floors as the impacted floors, equal opposite reaction. The lowest floor of the 15 has all the other floors above pushing down on it, with the same force the 15th floor is pushing down on the first static floor, which will want to keep moving (momentum conservation) and crush that 15th floor as much as it crushes the first static floor. 15 floors could not all stay as one while crushing 95 floors, period. ALL the floors must be considered, not your twisted version that pretends the 15 floors would act like one block but the 95 would act like single floors.

Also Ke, and momentum, would be lost to deformation, sound, heat, etc. You're losing mass and Ke, momentum is slowed. But when we observe the collapses there is no slowing of the collapse, it accelerates instead.

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Nice dodge there, psik.

You know for certain that the higher you drop the washers from, the more damage they will do. And if you drop it from high enough, all the paper will be crushed.

I think you are afraid to try.

You can call it a dodge all you want. I already told you how much energy was required to crush a loop. You are talking about lifting the mass to be dropped to 12 feet on a model that is only 2 feet tall. If I made a stack of washers 7 feet tall I would have to make the supports stronger toward the bottom to hold 15 washers for every foot of height. I would probably have to use cardboard and wood instead of just paper. So your 12 foot drop still would not work.

You are just dishing out BS.

It isn't a dodge. The physics is obvious.

psik

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 01:56 PM

....15 floors could not all stay as one while crushing 95 floors, period. ALL the floors must be considered, not your twisted version that pretends the 15 floors would act like one block but the 95 would act like single floors.

What's with all the "crushing"? All that happened that day was the total force of the upper floors in motion challenged the load capacity of the connecting elements and the buildings fell apart.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

You are right they had zero momentum, and zero Ke.

but what you keep failing to realise, and what has to be repeated nonstop, is that when two objects collide the forces on each object is EQUAL, regardless of velocity. Something I have shown to you in a myriad of different ways.

Let me state this for the record, and you can quote me if you like.......

For every force there is an equal and opposite force.

Our little internet squabble happened because you stated I was ignoring Newtons third law. I asked you when I did this and the best you could do was quote something that does not and cannot go against the third law by the simple fact it was a correct statement. You are still stating I am ignoring Newtons third law but you cant show me where.

The real fact of the matter is you ANOK are the one who ignores Newtons third law.

The center of the Earth places a force on every atom that makes up the WTC, and every atom that makes up the WTC places an equal and opposite force on the center of the earth.

This is a constant force.

All of the impact examples you give us, do not have a constant force. Therefor you are the one ignoring newtons third law by ignoring this force after impact.

You also seem to have some weird opinions on the conservation of matter law.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 05:35 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You are talking about lifting the mass to be dropped to 12 feet on a model that is only 2 feet tall.

Yep. So what? your model doesn't follow any particular systemic relationship to the towers' construction. Put more kinetic energy into the washers, and you'll crush more loops. maybe all of them. According to you, that would prove that the towers' collapse could have happened without outside energy.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 08:08 PM

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You are talking about lifting the mass to be dropped to 12 feet on a model that is only 2 feet tall.

Yep. So what? your model doesn't follow any particular systemic relationship to the towers' construction. Put more kinetic energy into the washers, and you'll crush more loops. maybe all of them. According to you, that would prove that the towers' collapse could have happened without outside energy.

My supports strength is in proportion to the weight they support and I already drop the mass from the height of of the model farther up. Using 12 feet from the WTC on that size model is absurd.

If I was willing to make a stack of 110 washers I would do it just to shut you up but of course that still wouldn't shut you up with the nonsense you are talking.

psik

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:01 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Using 12 feet from the WTC on that size model is absurd.
psik

Why is it absurd? Surely, you accept that you can't scale the drop to the same scale as the model . This is because you can't scale the acceleration due to gravity. On what basis did you decide on a 2' drop?

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:59 AM

There is not an accumulating mass of resistance EACH floorslab is INDEPENDENT from the OTHERS below as mass drops on a slab only the connections that hold that slab in position can provide resistance to the impacting mass, and THATS what you and psik cant see!

If the slabs below take any load from the slabs above the CONNECTIONS would have been LARGER the lower down the building you went JUST LIKE THE WALL AND CORE STEEL WAS!!

So as described any falling mass on a slab an taking into account the size ONE ACRE the bulk of falling mass would hit the floorslabs THATS why the impact loads are so important!

Look at this video from the start of the collapse until about 7 seconds into it.

For about the first 7 seconds the falling mass all drops inside NO great quantities are being ejected!
So were do you think ANOK & PSIK that all those 700+ tons floorslabs from above the impact are and what do you think they are doing!

Also ANOK further to a previous comment you made re the fires on that video you see a whole foor on fire BELOW the impact point.

top topics

34