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.

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

page: 33
17
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So if we were to drop them from a sufficent distance for them to achieve terminal velocity.......

You realize what you're saying is that only 2 of the lower concrete slabs can be broken.

You are going against the simple laws of momentum and conservation of motion by holding this belief.

you just made a post arguing that the towers weren't even falling at 9.8m/s, and i have no problem with that because "a" is the same for both, and doesn't matter. however, if the concrete slabs are a model of how the towers couldn't collapse, why would they be dropped at freefall?

to answer your question, after the two falling blocks destroy the two top blocks, the damage would end up being a gradient. the top floors would be in smaller pieces, and the bottom in larger and larger pieces as you went down.

the falling blocks would take the most damage out of them all, which isn't what happened at 9/11. they destroyed much more than their weight and durability should allow.

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:34 PM

I just did some quick math

1,646,685 / 43000 is just over 38Lbs per square foot.
Enough to turn concrete into dust?

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So if we were to drop them from a sufficent distance for them to achieve terminal velocity.......

You realize what you're saying is that only 2 of the lower concrete slabs can be broken.

You are going against the simple laws of momentum and conservation of motion by holding this belief.

however, if the concrete slabs are a model of how the towers couldn't collapse, why would they be dropped at freefall?

Thet aren't a model of the collapse.

The example is a direct refutation of your statement that it wouldn't matter what velocity the 2 concrete slabs hit the other 10.

And proof that you are out of your element in discussing physics cuz you are focusing on an erroneous belief that f=ma is all that one needs to solve for, and ignoring impact forces and momentum.

the falling blocks would take the most damage out of them all, which isn't what happened at 9/11. they destroyed much more than their weight and durability should allow.

I'm quite sure that you believe this.

But your ignorance of the facts about momentum and momentun conservation is no excuse.

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

i don't live by what "ross" says.

That's too bad, cuz he recognizes the correct methodology of determining a method of whether or not a progressive collapse could of happened.

you can't count the top falling floors as a single mass, and the impacted floors as individual masses.

I'm reality based, so I think I will.

The upper part is in motion. This is not debatable unless you're insane.

The lower part is set into motion one floor at a time in any reality based analysis, as Ross did. therefore the impacted floors should be treated singly.

this is especially true of wtc 2 because of the angle the building came down at. it would have hit the walls and the floor, which would provide constant resistance.

If it tilts, the columns miss each other. the case for 2 being able to stop the progression is way worse than 1.

Only the insane would claim otherwise.

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

REALLY? Are we still kicking this thing around? The buildlings were "imploded" by high explosives. Oh, and WTC 7 that no plane hit? Did it fall by osmosis? Give me a break. Like Rush Limbaugh says, "you can't fix stupid'....

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:31 PM
Well, it looks like someone pushed Jimmy off the top of the roof...

1: I think the cause of death was the impact on the ground
2: No I think he had a heart attack
1: Idiot! He wouldn't have had time to have a heart attack!
2: No. You're the idiot! I've seen people have heart attacks in two seconds!
1: Well it took him 1.5 seconds to hit the ground!! Explain that!
2: ...
1: ...
...
...on and on...

No one argued that someone pushed Jimmy off the roof, because that was obvious and there are no points to argue about it.
This is why I keep saying, "Why don't we try to prove/disprove Building 7's demise on that day. If this point can't be argued, then all that other jibber-jabber you guys go on about is worthless. NO ONE ARGUES THIS DEFINABLY!

Don't you understand what I'm saying?? If all agree that Bldg 7 is suspicious and remembers that that wasn't investigated by the investigators, then you have no choice but to get mad and demand a decent investigation.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:35 AM
Even physicists that believe airliners could destroy the towers should have been demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers.

What does the 9/11 Decade say about the scientific curiosity of physicists?

But we are supposed to give a damn about neutrinos doing 1/400th of 1% faster than light. YEAH RIGHT!

psik

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:58 AM

What does the 9/11 Decade say about the scientific curiosity of physicists?

It says that they have better things to do than dabble in silly conspiracy theories. Just like the rest of the world.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:16 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

What does the 9/11 Decade say about the scientific curiosity of physicists?

That since they understand how much PE was available to dow work on destroying the structure, that there are no mysteries about how the towers fell?

This doesn't include you, BTW.

Or should I link to Greg's forum where you argue that the PE of the upper part of the towers was zero?

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

What is potential energy Joey?

Potential Energy

An object can store energy as the result of its position.

The top block of floors had no potential energy until it was able to move downwards, once it started to move the potential energy converted to Kinetic energy. Once that block of floors hit the block of floors bellow that Ke was converted to other energy needed to break connections, cause deformation, create heat and sound. Loss of Ke and mass means you are losing energy to cause collapse, not gaining it like you claim.

So what does potential energy have to do with the complete collapse of the buildings? How was the potential energy even calculated when we don't know the safety factor of components, and we don't know the distribution of steel and concrete? Not that it really matters though when you address ALL of the relevant physics involved.

Again your claim does not address equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws.

Also again you are only addressing the part of the collapse NIST failed to cover, no one has yet proved NIST's hypothesis for collapse initiation. You can pick at individual points, but when you look at the big picture your claims contradict themselves.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:40 PM

Name one professional organization that agrees with your assessment.

Just one!

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

The top block of floors had no potential energy until it was able to move downwards

This needs to be Stundied. Too bad I don't have a JREF account....

once it started to move the potential energy converted to Kinetic energy. Once that block of floors hit the block of floors bellow that Ke was converted to other energy needed to break connections, cause deformation, create heat and sound.

So far so good.

Loss of Ke and mass means you are losing energy to cause collapse, not gaining it like you claim.

How much is lost?

How much is gained during the next 12' of fall?

You are scared of the math that proves your claim.

Give it up. Your claim has zero credibility until you do...

So what does potential energy have to do with the complete collapse of the buildings?

He knows.

How was the potential energy even calculated when we don't know the safety factor of components

LMAO.

One has nothing to do with the other

and we don't know the distribution of steel and concrete?

Oh, but we do to within a reasonable error.

Not that it really matters though when you address ALL of the relevant physics involved.

Someone that asks the question you did:

"How was the potential energy even calculated when we don't know the safety factor of components"

...is totally unqualified to make comments on physics.

Again your claim does not address equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws

Yes it does.

Your ignorance of that fact is no excuse.

Also again you are only addressing the part of the collapse NIST failed to cover, no one has yet proved NIST's hypothesis for collapse initiation

Proved? To who? Truthers?

Truthers don't matter, if you haven't noticed.

You can pick at individual points, but when you look at the big picture your claims contradict themselves.

When I personally look at the big picture, I notice that YOUR claim that the whole building was ejected during the collapse to be a lie.

I also notice that while we could agree (if you were rational) that "some" mass was ejected, and would therefore affect ke, you have zero numbers to back up any claim you have.

SO what does this mean?

It means that you're unqualified to make any pronouncements about any physics, and anything you claim can simply discarded as a joke/trolling...

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This needs to be Stundied. Too bad I don't have a JREF account....

Huh? Do you know what Pe is?

Potential Energy

An object can store energy as the result of its position. For example, the heavy ball of a demolition machine is storing energy when it is held at an elevated position.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Before the top became separated from the bottom, the top had no potential energy of its own as it was still part of the whole building. You also forget to consider the potential energy of the bottom pushing up against the falling floors, equal opposite reaction.

So far so good.

Funny but you contradicted that claim in your post in that other thread I just replied to, where you claimed that Ke was conserved because it was an inelastic collision.

How much is lost?

How much is gained during the next 12' of fall?

You are scared of the math that proves your claim.

Give it up. Your claim has zero credibility until you do...

When Ke is lost it is LOST it is not gained. If Ke is lost due to deformation etc., it can only be gained again if another force acts on it to overcome the resistance that was constantly present throughout the whole collapse.

Well I was asking you I'm not the familiar with Ross, you seem obsessed with him.

.One has nothing to do with the other,

Yes it sure does.

Oh, but we do to within a reasonable error.

Really?

Someone that asks the question you did:

"How was the potential energy even calculated when we don't know the safety factor of components"

...is totally unqualified to make comments on physics.

You simply have no idea what a safety factor is do you?

Yes it does.

Your ignorance of that fact is no excuse.

You have not even mentioned the laws of motion, so how can you claim you have addressed it?

Proved? To who? Truthers?

An hypotheses is not proof, no matter to whom. Belief is not proof.

When I personally look at the big picture, I notice that YOUR claim that the whole building was ejected during the collapse to be a lie.

The show me where the majority of the building is still in the footprints, and explain why FEMA also made that claim?

I also notice that while we could agree (if you were rational) that "some" mass was ejected, and would therefore affect ke, you have zero numbers to back up any claim you have.

SO what does this mean?

It means that you're unqualified to make any pronouncements about any physics, and anything you claim can simply discarded as a joke/trolling...

You don't need numbers to use you eyes. If you truly think the majority of the mass landed in the footprints then you are either a complete idiot, blind, or you are simply lying....

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by samkent

Name one professional organization that agrees with your assessment.

Just one!

Name one that contradicts my claims, with unquestionable proof. In seven years it has yet to happen because I am still here with same claims that have yet to be proven wrong. You obvioulsy can't prove me wrong, can you? You would have done it already.

All you have is Bazant, and the NIST report.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
When Ke is lost it is LOST it is not gained. If Ke is lost due to deformation etc., it can only be gained again if another force acts on it to overcome the resistance that was constantly present throughout the whole collapse.

Um, I'm no physicist, but even I know you're using bad reasoning here.

Imagine a system where you have a drop equaling 1 energy accumulation based on size and distance fallen. Now, this overcomes the object below, removing some energy from the initial impact. Let's say it's 0.8. So, there is 0.2 energy leftover, and that accumulates say 1.1 energy due to added mass of the object plus the distance it falls. So, you have 1.3 energy falling on the next floor, and so on and so forth.

Energy would increase or stay static in this situation unless you can prove that the lower floor removed MORE energy than the upper floors were exerting.

Hopefully I was able to explain that right...

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:13 PM

Energy would increase or stay static in this situation unless you can prove that the lower floor removed MORE energy than the upper floors were exerting.

Well that's the whole point isn't it?

The nature of a tall building is that it can support in a static mode multiples of the mass above. Nobody is arguing that the falling top wouldn't break or destroy the lower portion, the whole point is that the fact that the lower portion is being destroyed means it is giving substantial resistance (yes there is some peeling too, but it is not a large proportion of the overall mass).

That resistance, given the safety factor, is greater than the force exerted by the falling top. Given that, it is natural to conclude that this building should behave like all other densely interconnected stable structures behave in this scenario: Decelerate the falling mass.

In fact it can and does halt the mass entirely, as is clearly visible in the first part of the collapse.

The question is: Why does the building fail so uniformly at near free-fall speed?

THE QUESTION IS NOT: Why does the building fail?

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:27 PM

Not sure what you mean? At what point anywhere during the collapse does the building arrest due to being overcome by resistance?

I don't personally understand how it could possibly be imagined that the building would be able to support so much weight on the lateral support beams for even a fraction of a second when coupled with gravitational acceleration. It's baffling how the logic is.

Can someone explain this to me?

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:23 AM

LOL.

ANOK, I'm going to do you a favor and clarify a few issues for you that seem to be hanging you up.

Originally posted by ANOK
Huh? Do you know what Pe is?

Potential Energy

An object can store energy as the result of its position. For example, the heavy ball of a demolition machine is storing energy when it is held at an elevated position.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Before the top became separated from the bottom, as it was still part of the whole building. You also forget to consider the potential energy of the bottom pushing up against the falling floors, equal opposite reaction.

Normally I'd tear into you for claiming "the top had no potential energy of its own" This is nonsense, but it really doesn't matter. The key mistake in this paragraph is when you say the "potential energy of the bottom pushing up against the falling floors". To put it simply, potential energy (in this case due to gravity) does not push up, ever. Then you go on to confuse potential energy with your own special misinterpretation of Newtonian mechanics.

"Someone that asks the question you did:

"How was the potential energy even calculated when we don't know the safety factor of components"

...is totally unqualified to make comments on physics."

You simply have no idea what a safety factor is do you?

Well, ANOK, you've given us no reason to believe that you know what a factor of safety is. In any case it has nothing to do with calculating potential energy which is simply the mass of the object under consideration times the distance from the earth's surface, times acceleration due to gravity.

Please tell us how factors of safety even come into such a calculation.

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:32 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
In seven years it has yet to happen because I am still here with same claims that have yet to be proven wrong.

You've been doing this for 7 years, and yet you haven't bothered to learn what potential energy is? Maybe it's past time that you should.

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:48 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

You also forget to consider the potential energy of the bottom pushing up against the falling floors,

Potential energy pushing up ? This is what makes the Truth Movement so entertaining.

So in Truther World you can actually use the force of gravity to counteract the force of gravity. This has been scientifically proven, using Truther Math, in the Bob Sholtz equation:

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

Truther Math + Truther Physics = Truther Entertainment

new topics

top topics

17