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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 30
17
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well here is a CHALLENGE for all the truthers on here IF you think that the mass falling on both towers above the aircraft impact points could not cause a total collapse can you please SHOW how you calculated the impact force that was generated.

So for the North Tower what would the impact force be on the floor level when the 15 floors above fell?

The South Tower 31 floors, now to make things easy just use the 700 tons of concrete that each floorslab had!

Lets see how you guys work that out!!!!

So for the North Tower 15x700 tons = 10500 The South 31x700= 21700 tons. Drop distance 12 feet (one floor)

So lets see how you guys work out what force would be generated???


How do you calculate the amount of energy necessary to crush each level of the building when we aren't even told the amount of steel on each level of the building? So build a model that can completely collapse.

www.youtube.com...

The floor slab would have been 600 tons. I have never seen the weight of the pans and trusses specified. But what was the weight of steel in the core on each level. That was not constant down the building.

psik




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   


Well here is a CHALLENGE for all the truthers on here IF you think that the mass falling on both towers above the aircraft impact points could not cause a total collapse can you please SHOW how you calculated the impact force that was generated.

consider this:
**********************************************************************************************************************************
here's some math and physics. "T"=top floors of the tower "B"=bottom floors. "x"= the coefficient of resistance that each floor has. it actually increases as the floors go down, but we'll err heavily on the OS side, and say it's the same for all floors, and that the fire didn't weaken the upper floors at all (heat rises). so in short, "x" is the amount of punishment a floor can take before it is destroyed.

newton's third law means that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. velocity doesn't effect the outcome since the force on both the top and bottom floors is equal.

the plane impacted wtc 1 from floor 92-98, so what the hell, lets just say 20 and above are defined as "T". 90 and below are "B". wtc 1 was 110 stories tall.

our equation looks like this:

Tx-Bx=?

if the result is positive, it means there was enough force/mass for the top floors to destroy the bottom floors without themselves being destroyed (what we witnessed).
a negative means the top floors should have been pulverized because the bottom floors could resist more than the top could dish out.

ok, so we have 20x-90x=-70. hmm, odd. newton's third law seems to be broken if x=x. this means there was either more resistance in the upper floors than the whole rest of the tower (greater than 4 or 5 times as a rough estimate factoring in the increased resistance) or most resistance in the bottom floors was removed.

since "x" DOES equal "x", we have to conclude that resistance was removed by an outside energy force. truthers would say thermate/explosives or something similar. we all agree that there should be a new independent investigation because it just doesn't add up.

for all we know it could have been koalas with blowtorches, but we DO know that resistance was removed.
**********************************************************************************************************************************
your move.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Why is it that almost all of the worlds physics experts have no problem with 911?
Why is it that almost all of the worlds structual experts have no problem with 911?

It seems the only ones with the problem have no expertise and reside on a few conspiracy websites.

It's been this way since 911.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 15FORreal
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Other Skyscraper Fires
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

The One Meridian Plaza fire
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.
The First Interstate Bank fire

The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.
The 1 New York Plaza Fire


1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured.


The Windsor Building fire
A more recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the fires described above, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires.



The Hotel Mandarin Oriental blazes
The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

It is tempting to draw parallels between this spectacle and the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 because of the stark opposites: on 9/11/01, three skyscrapers were transformed into piles of rubble primarily as a consequence, supposedly, of fires -- fires spanning small fractions of each building; and on 2/09/09, a skyscraper remained intact after burning like a torch for hours.


None of your examples were hit by a plane traveling at 500 MPH. It wasn't "fire only" that brought down the towers. It was the plane impact combined with the resulting fires.

Here's 2 over passes that collapsed after their steel was melted from a fire, after tanke trucks crashed on them.

articles.sfgate.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.politicalbyline.com...
edit on 30-9-2011 by AngryAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by malachi777
 


Unless you have 30 years or more experience in steel construction, a grade 1 chemistry paper, and more than a layman's knoweledge of physics, i am inclined not to believe you......
edit on 30-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: Keyboard dying
edit on 30-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
consider this:
**********************************************************************************************************************************
here's some math and physics. "T"=top floors of the tower "B"=bottom floors. "x"= the coefficient of resistance that each floor has. it actually increases as the floors go down, but we'll err heavily on the OS side, and say it's the same for all floors, and that the fire didn't weaken the upper floors at all (heat rises). so in short, "x" is the amount of punishment a floor can take before it is destroyed.




Truther Math + Truther Physics = Truther Entertainment




Well here is a CHALLENGE for all the truthers on here IF you think that the mass falling on both towers above the aircraft impact points could not cause a total collapse can you please SHOW how you calculated the impact force that was generated.


To simplify this question for you what he is asking is: in the formula

F=Ma

how do you calculate "a" ? Can you even describe to us what "a" represents.

We want to know what you think "a" is and put it in a F=Ma equation for us.

The big problem with "a" is the units it can be described and calculated in, every thing from millimetres / square seconds to furlongs / square fortnights. I prefer G units but you can use any units you want just let us know what they are so we can convert them. Looking forward to seeing your results.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


show me how my equation is wrong. use math...go on, i dare you. you can say "eww, truther math is crap" all day, but you never care to show how it is wrong.

to answer your question, my equation is a simplification of F=ma. you'd understand that acceleration doesn't effect the outcome if you understood newton's third law. i'm going to be kind and assume you missed out on highschool physics instead of calling you a troll.

if you want to know the force each can exert/resist, you would merely multiply "T" and "B" by 9.8 m/s.

so (15x*9.8)-(90x*9.8) = -735 (the solution could accurately be called a "deficit", where it is the exact amount of force needed to destroy the rest of the bottom floors) see how acceleration doesn't change anything? for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. the top floors hit the bottom floors as hard as the bottom floors hit the top floors. it's called a "force pair".

OS'er math=non existent

hold on a tick, i can go further with this and maybe teach you something. my equation is basically (m1-m2)a=F. taking "a" out doesn't change anything, since it is multiplied to both sides equally because of newton's third law. m1=Tx
m2=Bx
same equation.
edit on 30-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


hold on a tick, i can go further with this and maybe teach you something. my equation is basically (m1-m2)a=F. taking "a" out doesn't change anything, since it is multiplied to both sides equally because of newton's third law. m1=Tx
m2=Bx
same equation.



What

exactly

do you think "a" represents.

I know what "a" represent, you seem to think it's the force of gravity or 1 G.


Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you would merely multiply "T" and "B" by 9.8 m/s.


If this is what you think....... You are Wrong.

This is what makes Truthers so entertaining.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Every time something collides with something else Ke is lost to resistance, heat, sound etc.


Yep.

And every 12' ke is regained in the space between floors, where it is reaccelerated by gravity.


The 3rd law of motion tells us that when objects collide the forces are equal on both objects, and the one with the most mass wins.


Yep.

Even Gordon Ross agrees with this in his failed paper. He agrees that the (impact) forces are felt by the impacted floor only. They are being impacted by the entirety of the falling mass, which is larger than that single floor.


15 floors can not crush 95 floors to the ground. A small mass can not destroy a larger mass.


True.

But too bad for you, Ross realized the stupidity in trying to make a claim based on larger mass vs smaller mass.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines

There was a whole lot of extra energy involved, and still only one possible answer.....


Yes momentum and gravity supplied the "extra" energy.

Buildings are designed to hold static loads.

Not moving loads.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

show me how my equation is wrong. use math...go on, i dare you. you can say "eww, truther math is crap" all day, but you never care to show how it is wrong.

so (15x*9.8)-(90x*9.8) = -735


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That part is wrong.

It should be:

(15 x 9.8) - (1 x 9.8)

The only guy to ever supply ant calcs to the collapse, Gordon Ross, agrees that the whole lower part of the building supplies resistance at the same time/moment of first impact.

Fail



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


What do you mean by 'static' & 'moving' loads?
The towers were dynamic structures, they moved all the time.
A hard wind would displace the top of the tower by about 7 feet.
The impact from the plane displaced it much less, if the sources are correct, just a few feet.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


That part is wrong.

It should be:

(15 x 9.8) - (1 x 9.8)


There is also a major problem with the 9.8 it should be a positive figure in the first equation and a negative figure in the second equation, unless you think gravity was acting upward on the lower floors. That is if he is trying to show us the forces between the upper and lower block ? That is what he said this equation represents...I think.

Impact forces are nowhere to be found in that equation.


In Truther Physics gravity can act upwards.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 15FORreal
 


For crying out loud, you keep forgetting the 767 that hit one each tower...


What is it with truthers WANTING to forget, or IGNORE FACTS?...

Those buildings you mentioned DID NOT HAVE A BOEING 767 CRASH INTO THEM...

How is this so hard to understand?...



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
How is this so hard to understand?...


What you don't understand is the plane had no effect on the collapses. It may have been part of what caused the collapse initiation, but once underway the only thing acting on the collapse was gravity, according to the OS.

Plane, or no plane, the laws of motion would still apply to the collapses, and 15 floors can not crush 95 floors to the ground, without the removal of resistance from the lower undamaged structural components.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines

What do you mean by 'static' & 'moving' loads?


If you don't understand what the difference is, then you...

Fail



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
How is this so hard to understand?...


What you don't understand is the plane had no effect on the collapses. It may have been part of what caused the collapse initiation, but once underway the only thing acting on the collapse was gravity, according to the OS.

Plane, or no plane, the laws of motion would still apply to the collapses, and 15 floors can not crush 95 floors to the ground, without the removal of resistance from the lower undamaged structural components.


You clearly ignored my post a couple pages back. The force of 15 only had to crush 1 floor at a time. Each floor that was crushed, became part of the downward mass. Gravity does not push up, it goes down. The 95 floors were not acting as 1 force, they were separate. So, it starts at 15 crushing 1 floor, then gains to 16 crushing 1 floor, then 17 crushing 1 floor, then 18 crushing 1 floor, etc. The space in between the floors prevents the lower portion of the tower from acting as one stable mass.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Forget these stupid theories that skeptic and pseudo-truthers are promoting.


So am I a pseudo-truther?

Just asking, because I focus on the physics of the collapses because that is what I know.

AFAIK everything else is simply speculation.

A lot of people can't get their head around physics, ask anyone 'When a bug hits a windshield, which one experiences the most force', and most will get it wrong. Most people think something moving fast is going to put more force on something that is stationary, or the bigger objects will put more force on the smaller object, both are incorrect.

The laws of physics proves the collapses were not as we're told, and therefore puts the whole OS is question.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
You clearly ignored my post a couple pages back. The force of 15 only had to crush 1 floor at a time. Each floor that was crushed, became part of the downward mass. Gravity does not push up, it goes down. The 95 floors were not acting as 1 force, they were separate. So, it starts at 15 crushing 1 floor, then gains to 16 crushing 1 floor, then 17 crushing 1 floor, then 18 crushing 1 floor, etc. The space in between the floors prevents the lower portion of the tower from acting as one stable mass.


For petes sake I didn't ignore anything.

Again you are wrong. It is 15 floors falling on 95. The falling block of floors is the same as the static floors, you can't ignore the mass of the lower undamaged structure. IF the top falling floors could cause the first static floor to fail, then BOTH of those colliding floors would receive damage. Every impact would damage the falling AND static floors, equal opposite reaction law, 15 floors falling on 95, do the maths.

You are simply repeating the Bazant crush down, crush up, nonsense.

IF the force could cause all the bolts to be sheared, and the floors simply dropped, you would have a stack of floors in the footprint, and the core would still be standing. And yes the core could stand by itself, it didn't need the floors to hold it up.

No floors in the footprint means the floors were ejected during the collapse. So you have loss of mass, and you have loss of Ke to other energy required to overcome resistance, and make sound, heat etc. The collapse would stop long before it could be complete. Another energy had to acting on the collapses to overcome loss of Ke, and mass, in order for the collapse to have been complete.

How did the core telescope down through an increasing mass?

This is the NIST core columns data. Watch this gif to see how the core columns were much larger towards the bottom...



And there were 47 of them all cross-braced together masking essentially an extremely strong solid tower structure.


edit on 9/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So in your mind, it should be impossible for a man to break 12 concrete slabs or wooden boards with one swing of his hand, right? I mean equal and oposite reaction, the hand should be stopped, right?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join