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: 65
34
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

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.

the energy from gravity will cause a lot of impact damage, so the top would have more energy, and be in effect, stronger.

If the floor above, impacts the floor below with force. The floor above suddenly becomes stronger the the floor it hits below it??.

How did you draw the conclusion that the falling floor become stronger than the one below??.

Dose it say somewhere that a structure and all its connection points gain strength when it gains momentum??.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by spy66
If the floor above, impacts the floor below with force. The floor above suddenly becomes stronger the the floor it hits below it??.

How did you draw the conclusion that the falling floor become stronger than the one below??.

Dose it say somewhere that a structure and all its connection points gain strength when it gains momentum??.

Again, really strange use of the words weak and strong. No, neither becomes stronger or weaker in terms of connection point strength. As it gains momentum and energy from gravity and weight, it will impact with greater force. Because the mass is great, the energy is great. Do we understand each other now?

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66
If the floor above, impacts the floor below with force. The floor above suddenly becomes stronger the the floor it hits below it??.

How did you draw the conclusion that the falling floor become stronger than the one below??.

Dose it say somewhere that a structure and all its connection points gain strength when it gains momentum??.

Again, really strange use of the words weak and strong. No, neither becomes stronger or weaker in terms of connection point strength. As it gains momentum and energy from gravity and weight, it will impact with greater force. Because the mass is great, the energy is great. Do we understand each other now?

Yes, correct the initial impact mass is great. But only one floor at a time from the top section can hit the lover section. Do you agree to that??

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:01 AM

Originally posted by spy66

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?

Yes, the towers were built to withstand straight vertical dead loads and lateral loads from wind, and some live loads from people etc moving around on all the floors...

But I don't think you can argue that they were designed to support a sudden and immense vertical dynamic load. Take WTC2- are we to believe that the 79th floor was supposed to stop the sudden force of a 30 story building being dropped from 12 feet above?

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:07 AM

Originally posted by spy66
Yes, correct the initial impact mass is great. But only one floor at a time from the top section can hit the lover section. Do you agree to that??

Yes. Very much so.

Each time a floor is impacted and fails, the mass from the destroyed floor is also falling with the mass above. As a result, the energy is actually increasing as the tower collapses.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66
Yes, correct the initial impact mass is great. But only one floor at a time from the top section can hit the lover section. Do you agree to that??

Yes. Very much so.

Each time a floor is impacted and fails, the mass from the destroyed floor is also falling with the mass above. As a result, the energy is actually increasing as the tower collapses.

I think you have to ponder this a bit more. You are not quite there yet.

The destroyed floor do not fall with the same mass as the rest of the intact top section. And the rest of the intact top section have lost mass (1 floor).
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:46 AM

Originally posted by spy66
I think you have to ponder this a bit more. You are not quite there yet.

The destroyed floor do not fall with the same mass as the rest of the intact top section. And the rest of the intact top section have lost mass (1 floor).

How has the above section lost mass? Mass is always conserved.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:04 AM

It seems to me you are talking to yourself here. You indeed are not quite there yet, even though I explained it in a previous post already. The mass of the failed floor falls alongside the rest of the top. It does not matter it is not attached. I have no idea on which truther site you read this, or maybe you invented this nonsense yourself, but the idea that the mass has become less because it is not attached is just plain wrong.
edit on 6-11-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

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.

Where is there any information of how many horizontal beams were connected to the verticals in what way? How would the verticals bend when the horizontals were hit. So this would be happening to the bottom of the falling portion and the top of the stationary portion simultaneously. So compressed jumbled up garbage builds up between the two. For the north tower it was 15 stories against 90+. The top would run out of momentum.

psik

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Where is there any information of how many horizontal beams were connected to the verticals in what way? How would the verticals bend when the horizontals were hit. So this would be happening to the bottom of the falling portion and the top of the stationary portion simultaneously. So compressed jumbled up garbage builds up between the two. For the north tower it was 15 stories against 90+. The top would run out of momentum.

psik

Unless every connection broke perfectly, there would be a pulling force causing by the falling parts on the vertical supports. The compressed jumbled up garbage has too much weight for the horizontal supports to hold, so those fail, and then it is essentially falling compressed garbage.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed quote

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Varemia
Unless every connection broke perfectly, there would be a pulling force causing by the falling parts on the vertical supports. The compressed jumbled up garbage has too much weight for the horizontal supports to hold, so those fail, and then it is essentially falling compressed garbage.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed quote

How can it suddenly be too much weight for the tower to handle?

You don't seem to understand a building is designed to hold much more weight than itself, by at least x2 for each component. When components are joined together, with cross bracing etc., then that ability to carry weigh far over its own weight is increased substantially.

You are just making assumptions based on a lack of experience with such matters.

Why don't you think about why the tops tilted, and the antenna fell first, if it happened as you claim? Both those events contradict your claims. The top floors cannot both tilt, and fall directly on top of lower floors in order for all the connection to receive equal force, at the same time. If it wasn't all at the same time, then the collapse would not have continued the way it did. It's obvious that the top could not have causes the bottom to collapse, and was a separate event to the bottom collapse.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66
I think you have to ponder this a bit more. You are not quite there yet.

The destroyed floor do not fall with the same mass as the rest of the intact top section. And the rest of the intact top section have lost mass (1 floor).

How has the above section lost mass?.

How that can be is what you have to figure out.

The downward mass of the main falling structure will decrease as parts break of it. The main falling structure will decrease in weight an have less downward force. And that spells out reduction in acceleration downwards.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:29 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
Unless every connection broke perfectly, there would be a pulling force causing by the falling parts on the vertical supports. The compressed jumbled up garbage has too much weight for the horizontal supports to hold, so those fail, and then it is essentially falling compressed garbage.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed quote

How can it suddenly be too much weight for the tower to handle?

You don't seem to understand a building is designed to hold much more weight than itself, by at least x2 for each component. When components are joined together, with cross bracing etc., then that ability to carry weigh far over its own weight is increased substantially.

You are just making assumptions based on a lack of experience with such matters.

Why don't you think about why the tops tilted, and the antenna fell first, if it happened as you claim? Both those events contradict your claims. The top floors cannot both tilt, and fall directly on top of lower floors in order for all the connection to receive equal force, at the same time. If it wasn't all at the same time, then the collapse would not have continued the way it did. It's obvious that the top could not have causes the bottom to collapse, and was a separate event to the bottom collapse.

Um, what? Horizontal supports are not designed for more than distributed maximum vertical weight loading. Period. I don't know how it's possible to imagine them putting up resistance to 15+ floors collapsing down onto them.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by spy66

How has the above section lost mass?.

How that can be is what you have to figure out.

The downward mass of the main falling structure will decrease as parts break of it. The main falling structure will decrease in weight an have less downward force. And that spells out reduction in acceleration downwards.

Really. So that's how you're going to play this game. I ask you how it's possible for the mass to disappear, and you say "figure it out." There is no way. The exterior columns fell away, and some of the debris poured off the sides, but there was not enough time for it to significantly decrease the collapsing mass. You're acting as if all the mass was magically moving away from the tower as it collapsed, all because it wanted to protect the poor floors below.

Get real. Stop playing games and think critically.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66

How has the above section lost mass?.

How that can be is what you have to figure out.

The downward mass of the main falling structure will decrease as parts break of it. The main falling structure will decrease in weight an have less downward force. And that spells out reduction in acceleration downwards.

Really. So that's how you're going to play this game. I ask you how it's possible for the mass to disappear, and you say "figure it out." There is no way. The exterior columns fell away, and some of the debris poured off the sides, but there was not enough time for it to significantly decrease the collapsing mass. You're acting as if all the mass was magically moving away from the tower as it collapsed, all because it wanted to protect the poor floors below.

Get real. Stop playing games and think critically.

I never said the structural mass disappeared/vanished. I said the structure that is torn of the main falling structure on impact is no longer a part of the intact top section downward mass/force. That is a big difference.

Rubble or fallen of parts (floor) dont carry the same downward mass as the rest of the top section. Because when these parts are torn of they are no longer a part of the main top sections down force. These parts if still in the fall path wont be affected by the falling structure until they get hit from above. (There is a space between each floor).

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

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by spy66
I never said the structural mass disappeared/vanished. I said the structure that is torn of the main falling structure on impact is no longer a part of the intact top section downward mass/force. That is a big difference.

Rubble or fallen of parts (floor) dont carry the same downward mass as the rest of the top section. Because when these parts are torn of they are no longer a part of the main top sections down force.

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

That makes no sense at all. If they're being pushed downward by the same force, then they'll have the same energy. How do parts of the falling mass suddenly stop acting on the building below? Do they get bored or something?

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 02:34 PM

Lets see first of all we know an approximate mass for the concrete in a floor slab around 700 tons so lets do some quick maths add 100 tons that will cover the truss and decking weight so thats now 800 tons use a FOS of 3 thats now 2400 tons round it up to 3000 tions that covers for live load people office equipment etc.

Use any physics site with an impact calculator and put the figs in if the reusultant load for one floor falling is greater than 3000 tons guess what the floor would FAIL!

Now since we know that angle seats sheared & bolts sheared then we know that the floors connections COULDN'T resist the impact

Now for the fire, YOU were the guy that claimed that the fire COULDN'T reach a high enough temperature within an hour, I showed you a link to PROVE it could from the cardington tests now you are trying to use the results againt the OS
just F******N

Did they crash a plane into there structure NO
Did they use the same truss system NO

As for repeated quote of the laws of motion can you actually point out were we have ever said there isn't an equal and opposite reaction.

If the bottom part of the falling mass impacts the floor below it, the floor it hits fails DUE to the vast impact force way above the FOS SO THAT MASS CAN NOW FALL WITH THE REST SO THAT ANOTHER 700+ TONS ADDED.

EVEN IF THE BOTH BREAK INTO A THOUSAND PIECES GUESS WHAT ITS STILL 700+ TONS PER FLOORSLAB THATS FALLING.

Thats why I asked you to look at the first 7 seconds of that video 15 x700 thats 10500 tons just in the floorslabs
falling!

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by spy66
I never said the structural mass disappeared/vanished. I said the structure that is torn of the main falling structure on impact is no longer a part of the intact top section downward mass/force. That is a big difference.

Rubble or fallen of parts (floor) dont carry the same downward mass as the rest of the top section. Because when these parts are torn of they are no longer a part of the main top sections down force.

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

That makes no sense at all. If they're being pushed downward by the same force, then they'll have the same energy. How do parts of the falling mass suddenly stop acting on the building below? Do they get bored or something?

Don't you get it; if something falls of or is broken of an object, it looses mass "both structural and in weight"??.

If the top section crushes its first floor against the one under it. Don't you see that the structure has lost mass and weight? It has just lost one floor do to impact.

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 02:58 PM

You are just stating something obvious without making any point at all. When a piece breaks off of something, that something now weight less. Duh...

As I explained to you two times already, it does not matter that the mass is separated from the top section. It is still falling on the floors below making them fail. Unless of course the mass somehow disappeared or ejected outside the footprint. Which is what most truther start claiming once they understand this very simply fact.

So do you understand that the mass of the failed floors is still helping the subsequent floors fail, regardless whether it is still attached to the top section? Or is this a bit too hard to grasp?

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:27 PM

Originally posted by spy66
Don't you get it; if something falls of or is broken of an object, it looses mass "both structural and in weight"??.

If the top section crushes its first floor against the one under it. Don't you see that the structure has lost mass and weight? It has just lost one floor do to impact.

The mass from the destroyed floor does not magically disappear into thin air. It is still there, in pieces, exerting the same amount of weight as before. It is not lost in any shape or form.

top topics

34