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: 64
34
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmm any proof of that. If you do it would be good because it doesn't support your case. If the connections get bigger that would mean even more energy would be required to collapse floors at each lower level. 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. !!!!!!!! (do exclamation marks help lol?)

Another truther physics gem. No, energy does not increase, but it also does not decrease. Ever heard of the law of conservation of energy?

And when something falls down KE increases. This is elementary school physics. One almost can not imagine Anok is for real (and I somehow beginning to doubt he is, he is starting to look more and more like a troll with his complete nonsense physics explanations).

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 03:21 PM

Another truther physics gem. No, energy does not increase, but it also does not decrease. Ever heard of the law of conservation of energy?

I guess you mean that the conserved energy in this case is mass/weight of the rubble working on the intact parts.

But in that case you are wrong. All you have to do to test that is to take a bucket of rocks and poor them out on a scale.

When the top section falls, it starts out with a total mass. But as it breaks up on its way down it looses mass. A floor that breaks of is no longer a part of the total falling mass of the building.

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 08:34 PM

Originally posted by spy66
When the top section falls, it starts out with a total mass. But as it breaks up on its way down it looses mass. A floor that breaks of is no longer a part of the total falling mass of the building.

Another truther classic. Floors that have failed disappear into oblivion, never to be seen again. Or sometimes they just fly away in a horizontal direction as if they have jet engines attached.

Fact: in the real world, stuff that has mass falls down, towards the earth.

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Another truther physics gem. No, energy does not increase, but it also does not decrease. Ever heard of the law of conservation of energy?

I guess you mean that the conserved energy in this case is mass/weight of the rubble working on the intact parts.

But in that case you are wrong. All you have to do to test that is to take a bucket of rocks and poor them out on a scale.

When the top section falls, it starts out with a total mass. But as it breaks up on its way down it looses mass. A floor that breaks of is no longer a part of the total falling mass of the building.

How does it lose mass? It may be broken up into debris, but the mass has not vaporized into the air.

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66

Another truther physics gem. No, energy does not increase, but it also does not decrease. Ever heard of the law of conservation of energy?

I guess you mean that the conserved energy in this case is mass/weight of the rubble working on the intact parts.

But in that case you are wrong. All you have to do to test that is to take a bucket of rocks and poor them out on a scale.

When the top section falls, it starts out with a total mass. But as it breaks up on its way down it looses mass. A floor that breaks of is no longer a part of the total falling mass of the building.

How does it lose mass? It may be broken up into debris, but the mass has not vaporized into the air.

Correct, but the broken of pieces are no longer connected to the main falling structure after it has broken off. Therefore, The main structure looses mass. And the loose part become sits own separate mass in motion. If the broken of pieces are no longer connected, there is air between the broken of part and the main mass. That is why the broken of floors dont share mass with the main structure after they are dismantled by impact.

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:32 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by spy66
When the top section falls, it starts out with a total mass. But as it breaks up on its way down it looses mass. A floor that breaks of is no longer a part of the total falling mass of the building.

Another truther classic. Floors that have failed disappear into oblivion, never to be seen again. Or sometimes they just fly away in a horizontal direction as if they have jet engines attached.

Fact: in the real world, stuff that has mass falls down, towards the earth.

You cant read. I never said the floors disappeared.

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:57 PM

They do still have weight though. That is a fact.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:19 AM

Well what are you saying?

Come out with it.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

They do still have weight though. That is a fact.

Yes of course the broken of pieces have weight.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:03 AM

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Well what are you saying?

Come out with it.

For me to go on; You first have to understand in which direction the building is made to withstand pressure/weight. Because it plays a important role when it comes to the top falling section.

Do you know in which direction the towers are built to withstand weight/pressure?

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:21 AM

It does not matter if the rubble is still attached to a massive block or not. The mass still falls down, right on the next floor below. This next floor was never designed to hold this mass, also not when you place this mass gently on the floor. It does not matter if this mass exists of a million small pieces or just one piece, mass is mass.

Truthers usually invent all kind of weird ideas why this mass no longer plays a role in the collapse. I have heard claim it ejected, I have heard claims it somehow attaches to the vertical columns. Anok seems to claim this mass actually helps resisting the falling top section. All these weird ideas have absolutely no basis in reality, and are purely invented in order to mold reality into a twisted world view. Without it the foundations of the conspiracy theory crumble.

You are of course completely free to believe that the failed floors no longer play a role in the collapse. You are also completely free to believe Santa Claus really exists.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by spy66
For me to go on; You first have to understand in which direction the building is made to withstand pressure/weight. Because it plays a important role when it comes to the top falling section.

Do you know in which direction the towers are built to withstand weight/pressure?

The vertical load-bearing columns were built to withstand the distributed weight of the columns above. The horizontal trusses and braces were built to withstand horizontal pressures such as wind, and were meant to hold the outer columns to the core columns.

When the top section begins to fall, the weight impacts these structures that were only built to withstand horizontal pressures. They cannot take dynamic vertical loading. The vertical columns on the exterior break away and fall, farther when the debris has built up and is pushing them out. The vertical columns in the core are not able to actively resist the debris. That's like saying that if I put some sticks in a bucket and poor gravel on top of them, that they'll resist the gravel. After the debris falls away once the collapse has progressed all the way down, the columns in the cores of both towers remained standing, because they were very strong. However, very quickly from the lack of horizontal support, the columns sway in the open air, and then collapse downward.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 08:56 AM

This next floor was never designed to hold this mass, also not when you place this mass gently on the floor.

I bet you wrote the above without thinking!!

The bottom structure is designed to carry the weight of the whole building over it. That includes the top section.

Your ideas only work if you flip the tower up side down. Only then would the floors below be weaker than the floors above.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66
For me to go on; You first have to understand in which direction the building is made to withstand pressure/weight. Because it plays a important role when it comes to the top falling section.

Do you know in which direction the towers are built to withstand weight/pressure?

The vertical load-bearing columns were built to withstand the distributed weight of the columns above. The horizontal trusses and braces were built to withstand horizontal pressures such as wind, and were meant to hold the outer columns to the core columns.

When the top section begins to fall, the weight impacts these structures that were only built to withstand horizontal pressures. They cannot take dynamic vertical loading. The vertical columns on the exterior break away and fall, farther when the debris has built up and is pushing them out. The vertical columns in the core are not able to actively resist the debris. That's like saying that if I put some sticks in a bucket and poor gravel on top of them, that they'll resist the gravel. After the debris falls away once the collapse has progressed all the way down, the columns in the cores of both towers remained standing, because they were very strong. However, very quickly from the lack of horizontal support, the columns sway in the open air, and then collapse downward.

This is no way near good enough understanding of the structure, to be able to argue your point. Because you are wrong all over the place, and missing important structural knowledge.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66
For me to go on; You first have to understand in which direction the building is made to withstand pressure/weight. Because it plays a important role when it comes to the top falling section.

Do you know in which direction the towers are built to withstand weight/pressure?

The vertical load-bearing columns were built to withstand the distributed weight of the columns above. The horizontal trusses and braces were built to withstand horizontal pressures such as wind, and were meant to hold the outer columns to the core columns.

When the top section begins to fall, the weight impacts these structures that were only built to withstand horizontal pressures. They cannot take dynamic vertical loading. The vertical columns on the exterior break away and fall, farther when the debris has built up and is pushing them out. The vertical columns in the core are not able to actively resist the debris. That's like saying that if I put some sticks in a bucket and poor gravel on top of them, that they'll resist the gravel. After the debris falls away once the collapse has progressed all the way down, the columns in the cores of both towers remained standing, because they were very strong. However, very quickly from the lack of horizontal support, the columns sway in the open air, and then collapse downward.

The Horizontal Beams in THE CORE failed to be mentioned AGAIN!!!

There is no evidence that FLOORS above the impact zone came loose from the core and impacted FLOORS below. What happened when the core hit the core?

psik

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:05 AM

Originally posted by spy66

This next floor was never designed to hold this mass, also not when you place this mass gently on the floor.

I bet you wrote the above without thinking!!

The bottom structure is designed to carry the weight of the whole building over it. That includes the top section.

Your ideas only work if you flip the tower up side down. Only then would the floors below be weaker than the floors above.

Correction. The bottom structure is meant to carry the distributed weight of the floors above through a collection of load-bearing vertical columns. Drop something away from these vertical load-bearers, and it will not encounter nearly as much resistance.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66
For me to go on; You first have to understand in which direction the building is made to withstand pressure/weight. Because it plays a important role when it comes to the top falling section.

Do you know in which direction the towers are built to withstand weight/pressure?

The vertical load-bearing columns were built to withstand the distributed weight of the columns above. The horizontal trusses and braces were built to withstand horizontal pressures such as wind, and were meant to hold the outer columns to the core columns.

When the top section begins to fall, the weight impacts these structures that were only built to withstand horizontal pressures. They cannot take dynamic vertical loading. The vertical columns on the exterior break away and fall, farther when the debris has built up and is pushing them out. The vertical columns in the core are not able to actively resist the debris. That's like saying that if I put some sticks in a bucket and poor gravel on top of them, that they'll resist the gravel. After the debris falls away once the collapse has progressed all the way down, the columns in the cores of both towers remained standing, because they were very strong. However, very quickly from the lack of horizontal support, the columns sway in the open air, and then collapse downward.

The Horizontal Beams in THE CORE failed to be mentioned AGAIN!!!

There is no evidence that FLOORS above the impact zone came loose from the core and impacted FLOORS below. What happened when the core hit the core?

psik

Again, horizontal does not resist vertical very well. Why does this need repeating? It is a simple concept.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by spy66
This is no way near good enough understanding of the structure, to be able to argue your point. Because you are wrong all over the place, and missing important structural knowledge.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Elaborate, please, my good sir? I'm sure I'm making a few generalizations, but my point is still accurate. Perhaps you are assuming something?

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:14 AM

Ok. I am going to ask you something.

If you take the first floor of the falling building and and compare it with the floor it hits below. Which one would be weakest of the two in the direction of impact??.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:19 AM

Originally posted by spy66

Ok. I am going to ask you something.

If you take the first floor of the falling building and and compare it with the floor it hits below. Which one would be weakest of the two in the direction of impact??.

Weakest is a strange term to use. I assume you mean, which would take more damage, and that I'm not entirely sure. Both would take damage, but the energy from gravity will cause a lot of impact damage, so the top would have more energy, and be in effect, stronger.

You have to also remember that the impact was not perfectly uniform, as evidenced by the tilting. This means that the falling weight was concentrated on the horizontal supports of the floor below in a very localized area. Remove a chunk, and the whole loses strength. I'm not really sure of any other way to look at it.

top topics

34