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: 63
34
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Because gravity goes down, it can be assumed that the debris will likely travel down. Physics!




posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Because gravity goes down, it can be assumed that the debris will likely travel down. Physics!


LOL you're hilarious.

Why do you keep ignoring resistance? Why does an explanation of why gravity couldn't have caused the buildings to completely collapse go so far over your head? We couldn't be making the explanation any simpler. Maybe because you are an anthropology student, and not a physics student?

Go take a physics class mate, your circular arguments are going nowhere. This debate has turned into school from hell.


edit on 11/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Quit making layman mistakes, and using them as debating points.


In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. SECONDARY steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.



The layman mistake in your debating point has been underlined.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Originally posted by ANOK

Go take a physics class mate, your circular arguments are going nowhere. This debate has turned into school from hell.



PHYS201: Physics from hell: A radical interpretation of Newtonian Mechanics. Professor A. Nok. Meets in every 9/11 truth thread on ATS, monday thru friday. Topics to be discussed include potential energy pushing up, why Factors of Safety are measured in pounds/square inch, the kinetic energy and momentum of stationary objects, and why elastic collisions don't conserve momentum. No calculator is required for this class, mates.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
Because gravity goes down, it can be assumed that the debris will likely travel down. Physics!


LOL you're hilarious.

Why do you keep ignoring resistance? Why does an explanation of why gravity couldn't have caused the buildings to completely collapse go so far over your head? We couldn't be making the explanation any simpler. Maybe because you are an anthropology student, and not a physics student?

Go take a physics class mate, your circular arguments are going nowhere. This debate has turned into school from hell.


edit on 11/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo


It's not that it goes over my head. It's that it's downright wrong. Gravity is the accelerating factor here. The building's outer columns were the restraining force that kept the debris inside the footprint until the volume was simply too much to maintain as an aggregate mass of debris. I mean, during the collapse, there's no way that it will stay solid. It will become kind of similar to a flood of material raining down hundreds of tons of pounds of weight on the floors below. The building didn't stand a chance.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



My supports strength is in proportion to the weight they support....

How can you say that? You've already said that you don't know how to calculate the strength of paper loops. Maybe your supports are way out of proportion.

No, in order for you to go any further you need to prove the strenght of your supports.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



My supports strength is in proportion to the weight they support....

How can you say that? You've already said that you don't know how to calculate the strength of paper loops. Maybe your supports are way out of proportion.

No, in order for you to go any further you need to prove the strenght of your supports.


I said the supports are as weak as I can make them. I tested the loops to see how many washers it took to crush them. A single loop will collapse under a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 17 washers. That is why there are 11 single loops at the top. I am limited by how much control I have over the loops. I tried using a paper punch to make the loops weaker but that does not really work. The strength does not gradually decrease. It just suddenly drops off with more holes.

So the way to make a better model would be heavier weights and every level would have to have its own support designed to be as weak as possible to hold all of the weights above. An engineering school would have the money equipment and manpower to do it. So after TEN YEARS no school has done it.

Very curious. Great science.

psik



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Why do you think it "accelerated"? Please explain what caused it to do that


You are asking me why i think the building accelerated to free fall speed for nearly 2,4 seconds?

For a building to accelerate to free fall speed. The building must fall without resistance. The building must fall without resistance to accelerate to free fall speed of 9,8m/sec2.


Yes, I understand the concept of free fall. I was more curious to understand how you think anything other than the failure of lower level support columns contributed to the acceleration once the collapse had already started.


1. That can only be done if the bottom section of the standing part of the building is taken out.

2. Since the building fell top down. Each floor under the "top falling section" must have been weakened in sequence such that the falling top section didn't encounter resistance on its way down.


No, the collapse initiated on the lower levels. No from the top.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
Because gravity goes down, it can be assumed that the debris will likely travel down. Physics!


LOL you're hilarious.

Why do you keep ignoring resistance? Why does an explanation of why gravity couldn't have caused the buildings to completely collapse go so far over your head? We couldn't be making the explanation any simpler.


Yes ANOK, please, refresh my memory what was giving resistance of each floor. I'll give you a hint:
Something with a truss seat ...... oops, i gave it away. Darn.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Why do you think it "accelerated"? Please explain what caused it to do that


You are asking me why i think the building accelerated to free fall speed for nearly 2,4 seconds?

For a building to accelerate to free fall speed. The building must fall without resistance. The building must fall without resistance to accelerate to free fall speed of 9,8m/sec2.


Yes, I understand the concept of free fall. I was more curious to understand how you think anything other than the failure of lower level support columns contributed to the acceleration once the collapse had already started.


1. That can only be done if the bottom section of the standing part of the building is taken out.

2. Since the building fell top down. Each floor under the "top falling section" must have been weakened in sequence such that the falling top section didn't encounter resistance on its way down.


No, the collapse initiated on the lower levels. No from the top.






I dont really want to argue this topic. Because it dosent matter any more. There will always be two sides to 911. I know which side i am on, and that is all that matter to me.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Yes ANOK, please, refresh my memory what was giving resistance of each floor. I'll give you a hint:
Something with a truss seat ...... oops, i gave it away. Darn.


So what? You all keep harping on about truss seats like they are the answer to impossible physics.

I have gone over this with you so many times now, I'm not going to bother again.

You are simply here to distract the discussion.

Until you can tell me what pressure those connections could withstand before failure, you cannot make the claims you are. The truss seats would have resisted the collapse, whatever you might think. They were designed to hold the weight of the floors many times over, that is how they are designed. The don't make them to just about hold what they are deigned to do, and any slight pressure over that would cause failure. Complete nonsense.

And you still keep failing to explain the cores collapse in this 'pancake collapse' of yours, that NIST themselves dismiss. And no, before you say it they did not dismiss pancake as the 'initiation', pancake collapse is not an initiation, it is the result.

Keep picking and failing Joey, you're good at that.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
Yes ANOK, please, refresh my memory what was giving resistance of each floor. I'll give you a hint:
Something with a truss seat ...... oops, i gave it away. Darn.


So what? You all keep harping on about truss seats like they are the answer to impossible physics.

I have gone over this with you so many times now, I'm not going to bother again.

You are simply here to distract the discussion.

Until you can tell me what pressure those connections could withstand before failure, you cannot make the claims you are. The truss seats would have resisted the collapse, whatever you might think. They were designed to hold the weight of the floors many times over, that is how they are designed. The don't make them to just about hold what they are deigned to do, and any slight pressure over that would cause failure. Complete nonsense.


Really? Show me where exactly they were meant to take on a large vertical dynamic load. You do know the difference between a static load and a dynamic load correct Mr. Physics? You say I am speaking nonsense?



And you still keep failing to explain the cores collapse in this 'pancake collapse' of yours, that NIST themselves dismiss. And no, before you say it they did not dismiss pancake as the 'initiation', pancake collapse is not an initiation, it is the result.


Ah, so we finally got somewhere! You finally admit that the floors did pancake after initiation and NIST also corroborates the event. But NIST dismisses pancake collapse as initiation. Good. Good, now we can move on. As for the core, didnt we already go over this? The section of the core found in the moving block went down with the main block in collapse. As it went down, it also took out the columns directly below it, but eventually, due to the chaotic collapse of debris, a large segment of the core survived. It later collapsed when either it got dislodged below by the collapsing debris, or fell over due to gravity. Really i do not see the complications here ANOK that you are trying to pull up.



Keep picking and failing Joey, you're good at that.


Excuse me, what is my name again? Reading comprehension fail?



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
Yes ANOK, please, refresh my memory what was giving resistance of each floor. I'll give you a hint:
Something with a truss seat ...... oops, i gave it away. Darn.


So what? You all keep harping on about truss seats like they are the answer to impossible physics.

I have gone over this with you so many times now, I'm not going to bother again.

You are simply here to distract the discussion.

Until you can tell me what pressure those connections could withstand before failure, you cannot make the claims you are. The truss seats would have resisted the collapse, whatever you might think. They were designed to hold the weight of the floors many times over, that is how they are designed. The don't make them to just about hold what they are deigned to do, and any slight pressure over that would cause failure. Complete nonsense.


Really? Show me where exactly they were meant to take on a large vertical dynamic load. You do know the difference between a static load and a dynamic load correct Mr. Physics? You say I am speaking nonsense?


NO!- ANOK doesn't understand the difference between static and dynamic loads. It's either that, or he's completely ignored it... If he understood the difference he wouldn't be making such assertions as "the truss seats would have resisted collapse."

That's utter nonsense.

Those seats and connections were never meant to resist a dynamic load of the size and nature that we saw with the Twin Tower collapse. Think about it- For WTC2- essentially a 30 story building fell 12 feet onto the floor below it. The structure of the 79th floor was not designed to prevent a sudden vertical impact force such as that and would've provided little resistance as the collapse progressed to the 78th floor, then 77th floor and so on...

At this point I'm sure every site on 9/11 has been seen 10x over. But regardless I think this one provides a pretty sound argument...

Static vs Dynamic Loading: Why the towers fell so fast



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

I dont really want to argue this topic. Because it dosent matter any more. There will always be two sides to 911. I know which side i am on, and that is all that matter to me.



Well damn, why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and say la-la-la I can't hear you......

Typical truther...



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Until you can tell me what pressure those connections could withstand before failure, you cannot make the claims you are.



It's in the NIST report, and I believe it takes 11 million pounds to shear off the truss seats.

If I find the passage to confirm, will you accept it?

If not, what will it take to convince you?



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

The NIST report show that the building accelerated to free fall (look at the NIST graph). That is something different. And shouldn't be possible with a intact building up to the impact point.



No, it doesn''t state that the entire building falls at ffa. Whoever told you this is lying to you. They measured a single point on the north side. This says nothing about what the other 3 sides were doing.

Quit repeating the lie, unless you want to be a proven liar.
edit on 5-11-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

1. That can only be done if the bottom section of the standing part of the building is taken out.



By making this claim, you set yourself up for failure. You're basically saying that 8 stories worth were "removed"

1- if thermite was used, it would need to heat 8 stories worth to failure. But there's a problem with that. The columns would be heated to the buckling point, but according to truthers, those buckling columns would still provide some resistance and ffa would STILL be impossible.

2- if explosives were used, then the exterior columns would be included in the demo plan. So then your claim requires that 40+ - 8 story ext columns were not just cut top and bottom with cutter charges, but "cleared" with kicker charges. there's no way that any sane person can claim that this much explosives couldn't have been heard. To do so proves your insanity.


The reality is that 7 didn't fall at ffa.

Only a single point did.

So quit repeating THIS lie, unless you want to be a proven liar.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So where is that mass of floors going then?


You stated that once a mass is set into motion its pe is converted into ke. It is being accelerated by gravity, therefore that mass is going down, onto the next floor.


Again you can't make that claim without knowing what pressure the connections can withstand.


Will you accept NIST's numbers on this?


But the fact that there is not a stack of floors in the footprint proves you wrong.


That you use this as an argument proves you to be a troll or ignorant.


I'll ask this once again, IF the falling floors caused the first static impacted floor connections to fail, then what kept the connections of the first falling/impacting floor of the top block from also failing causing the mass of the rest of the falling floors to fall on it also? That would destroy both floors.


The impacted floor floor is already under a gravity load. So is the impacting floor. But the impact would ADD load to the impacted floor's connections and REMOVE load from the impacting floor's connections to an equal and opposite amount. And even if BOTH floors are turned to rubble, the mass doesn't vanish.


If the connections get bigger that would mean even more energy would be required to collapse floors at each lower level.


True, but since they don't, more energy for each successive floor isn't needed.


Energy doesn't increase in a collapse, it decreases as energy is transferred. Ke does not increase, it is transferred to cause deformation, sound, heat etc.


Your understanding of physics involved is limited to horizontal collisions.If you would listen and understand that once a floor is broken off the columns, its accumulating mass adds to the ke available to do work. Your claim that accumulating mass would result in more resistance is only true in a series of horizontal collisions.


Where are they post collapse is what is important.


LOL....

Only if you're a physics denier or delusional.

Where the mass is during the collapse is most important. What happened upon impact with the ground is less important.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The crazy thing is no amount of logic will persuade the truthers into thinking that explosives were not used.

The logic of a truther:

[truther] "OH OH the building fell at free fall speed so that means no resistance was present. Which then means that something must've completely cleared the path of potential resistance (i.e steel beams, concrete, dry wall, desks, elevators etc etc etc) to allow for such a collapse to happen. Must've been controlled demo. What else could it be? I say the physics are impossible dang blammit! Explosives had to have been used to completely pulverize the internal structure so as to allow for such a free fall collapse. Because let's face it, free fall speed collapse is the ultimate goal of controlled demo. Right? Yeah! High-five! So I wonder how much explosives would be needed to completely pulverize the insides so that no resistance is present? Hmmmmm, Bah!- Doesn't matter, because thermite was used to. But Where's the evidence for explosives? Bah! Doesnt matter... But what about the firefighters who knew ahead of time that the structure was in danger of collapse? Bah to them too!- they were in on it. It's my understanding of physics that says it's impossible to have happened with out explosives! You know, the completely invisible and silent kind....And that's all that matters! High fives all around !"[/truther]



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Those seats and connections were never meant to resist a dynamic load of the size and nature that we saw with the Twin Tower collapse


They were also not designed to hold a static load of at least 12 floors, core columns, mast, perimeter columns etc etc. even when that mass was placed gently on a floor. I have written this a couple of time but it went completely ignored by truthers. Probably because they have to invent some serious crazy stuff in order to be able to reject that fact. Its easier to just ignore reality than to invent all kind of nonsense in order to make reality fit in your crazy world view.




top topics



 
34
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join