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: 31
17
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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.



They are equal to the lower value that any 2 objects bring to the table.

Every time.

Therefore, the laws of motion are satisfied with the "OS" explanation.




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 15FORreal
 


Of the example building fires you gave
How many had aircraft impacts before the fires?
How many had a tube in tube construction like the Twin Towers?

Even more to the point

How many of those buildings were ACTUALLY CONCRETE and not steel??
How of them HAD TO HAVE STEEL replaced due to partial collapse/and other damage!?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 

err... 9.8 m/s is the rate of acceleration due to gravity. as i've already shown, what "a" equals DOESN'T EFFECT THE OUTCOME! at all. a=the acceleration of the mass.

more delay tactics, exactly how PLB sounds..hmmmmm. guess it's an OS'er thing or multiple personality disorder.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

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


Well since the FLOORSLABS are suspended between out walls and core on small pieces of angle with 2 bolts THATS ALL THAT keeps them in position what force is required to shear either the bolts the welds that hold the angles or the angles themseleves.

Floor slab mix was stated as 115lb per cubic foot so some quick maths for you.

115x 43000 sq foot floor area x 4 inch thick (or 0.333 feet) concrete = 1646685 lbs or divide by 2000 for 823 short tons (USA) or divide by 2240 for UK tons=735 tons or divide by 2200 for metric ton= 748 tons

So you seem to think your a PHYSICS and construction whizz use any of the 3 values for the floorslab above and show everyone what force EVEN one slab falling the 12ft floor height would generate.

Now I know you wont do it and you will deflect or change the subject as usual because YOU KNOW the value would show you are talking complete and utter BS re this event!!!!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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

so in your model 15 floors is falling on 1 floor that is on the ground? because that isn't what i saw. the whole mass of floors from the top to the bottom was all connected, not free floating. one solid chunk.

you keep the 15 on the top together, why do you separate the ones on the bottom? oh, right, because then your math fails.

if we were to do it floor by floor, it turns into the same equation. (1*9.8) fifteen of those minus (1*9.8) 90 of these. works out to the exact same thing...



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



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


for your model to be correct, the "tube" would have to be left standing on the outside, yet it was destroyed at the same rate the floors were, meaning it offered it's maximum constant resistance. same for the core columns, they were destroyed completely while becoming stronger on the way down. this means they gave up all of their potential energy, or resistance was removed.

the tube was destroyed, as were the core columns, which means your model of collapse is wrong. constant resistance between floors existed, or SHOULD have existed.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 



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.


If "F" is the force exerted by the object due to gravity then "a" is 9.98 m/s^2, the acceleration an object experiences on earth.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


You guys keep quoting Newtons laws well the IMPACT FORCE GENERATED is part of the laws YOU keep quoting.

When the fall mass impacts the floorslab below you have to look at a WORK DONE EQUATION!! go look it up pipe man.

30+ years in construction and the fact that I advise engineers and architects on structural fixings and test them sometimes to destruction tells me what happened could happen.

As you claim to be taking physics WHY DONT YOU ask your lecturers what they think of the forces generated!

Look at this example

Look at the force a 1lb duck could generate at this speed. 24,000 pounds 12 tons!!!!!!!!!!!!

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Now the Mass falling in the Towers case would reach 18mph (12 foot drop) not 600 mph

BUT the MASS falling in the north tower just using the floorslab concrete 15x700= 10500 tons which is

21,000,000 or 21million times the Ducks mass SO WHAT KIND OF FORCE EVEN AT 18MPH would that give!!!!!


edit on 30-9-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 



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?


they're different materials with different resistances. drop 2 of those concrete slabs on the other 10, then tell me what happens. you can plug it into my formula and find out before hand. the falling 2 will break, and the top 2 will break, depending on how high you drop it from.

however, the top two cannot fare better than the larger bottom structure.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


The FLOORS ARE SUSPENDED , NO floorslab below supports a floorslab above they can fall between the walls and core!!!!

The coulums below support the mass of the column above is that REALLY to difficult for you to understand!!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


you fail to understand F=ma. i rewrote the equation to (m1-m2)a=F as you would to solve a problem of this nature.

acceleration is multiplied by both masses because of newton's third law, which means that acceleration doesn't matter, it will just give you a larger number as the result.

to find the mass that was falling, you would multiply 15 by the mass of the top 15 floors. for the bottom (and we're ignoring the MASSIVE increase in column size as the floors go down) we multiply 90 by the mass of each floor.

each side is multiplied by "a", so use it or take it out, the result is the same. 1/5 is the same as 10/50.

what does this all mean? mass is irrelevant, since it is equal for each floor. (resistance increases on the way down, but i'm heavily erring on the OS side with my math)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


The FLOORS ARE SUSPENDED , NO floorslab below supports a floorslab above they can fall between the walls and core!!!!

The coulums below support the mass of the column above is that REALLY to difficult for you to understand!!


that isn't what we witnessed. the whole tower was destroyed, the outside "tube" AND all the columns. since they were destroyed, this means that they resisted to the utmost potential, unlike what your model shows.

if the core and outside walls still stood, you would be correct, but it all collapsed, so you're wrong.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


No YOU FAIL to understand construction!!!

The MASS falling generates the impact, that floorslab fails that then falls CAN ONLY GO DOWN!!!! that then cause problems with wall stability due to impact etc.

Even if the MASS falling was stopped DEAD! just as the floorslab failed then the whole lot would fall the next 12ft reach 18 mph and the process would happen again!!!

Thats becuase EACH FLOORSLAB was suspended on those angle brackets between the outer walls and the core!

The force that would be generated was so high the floorslabs provided little resistance as I said you only had to shear the bolts, the angles or the welds around the angles!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


You claim to be a technical guy look up slim column buckling!!!

Here let me help!


In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



The force that would be generated was so high the floorslabs provided little resistance as I said you only had to shear the bolts, the angles or the welds around the angles!

then show me the tube of the tower still standing and the columns. the walls didn't peal like a banana, which means the force that impacted them was vertical, which would mean the walls gave constant resistance.

take wtc 2 for instance, the floors didn't go down the tube, because the top part of the tower was tilting madly sideways. this sideways tilting means it hit the walls all the way down AND the core columns, resulting in constant resistance.

this should have prevented the floors from falling in the first place, and stopped them if they started, unless resistance was removed.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


you have connections and have tested things to destruction, so lets see you make a model that reflects the 9/11 collapse. walls destroyed, floors destroyed, and support columns destroyed.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Bob open your eyes when you watch the videos YOU see wall panels falling or are you really that DUMB!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
From a couple of posts above


In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding


Bob its a structure the core coloumns took most of the gravity load the walls most of the wind load the floors help tie the 2 together.

10's of thousands of tons of falling mass which creates HUGE IMPACT LOADS do you honestly think the walls etc would just stand and take it?

Look at construction pictures of the twin towers the wall/core steel was never high above the floorslab trusses and decking why do YOU think that was?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I just found something interesting that people usually do not figure in when making their mathematical formulas.

In the design of the WTC by Minori Yamasaki, the building was indeed a tube frame, but here is the kicker...

The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[48] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[49] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[48] The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs.[50] From the 7th floor to the ground level, and down to the foundation, the columns were spaced 10 feet (3 m) apart.[51] All columns were placed on bedrock, which, unlike that in Midtown Manhattan, where the bedrock is shallow, is at 65–85 feet (20–26 m) below the surface.[52]

en.wikipedia.org...

If the structural steel was progressively LESS the higher the building went, then if the damage weakened an already less strengthened support and that weakened steel is now subject to the heat of the fire, what else could happen? The 96th floor was DESIGNED with LESS strength than the 7th floor. Does that not make a difference in the mathematics?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I've shown this site a billion times, that shows the towers columns tapered as they went up...

This site, and the gifs it presents, are from NIST...



wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

It is always ignored, and just gets buried in all the BS that the OS supporters usually spread to try to cause doubt in our claims.

It shows how much the core columns tapered, and it's A LOT. Of course now the OS supporters are starting to claim the core columns fell over, and didn't fall straight down as we can all see in the videos. Like they try to claim all the floors were still in the footprints post collapse. They hope the casual reader doesn't look to far into their, or our claims, because if you do you realise it's complete BS. Most casual readers are already biased towards the OS simply because of the stigma that has been associated with being a 'truther'. We are not debating with intellectually honest people here, that is obvious.


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



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join