WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

page: 19
18
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14
People such as Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant.


Lol yeah I should have guessed. You should try doing your own research and ignore those shills.


I dont think the hat trusses would survive the collapse in one piece do you? All the connections are going to withstand the collapse?


I think it would. What would cause the massive hat truss to be destroyed?

But you miss the point, if the collapse happened as claimed by Greening et al, the hat truss and all the floor assemblies would have to be in the footprint as his hypothesis is based on the mass of the floors causing the crushing. If mass was lost during the collapses, then his hypothesis is nonsense.


Each floor was not destroyed as one if you like, as I say there would more likely be local crush fronts some ahead of others. The mass although some is being ejected laterally is gaining as each floor and its contents gets destroyed. The momentum increases and each floor is subjected to a bigger mass than the one before it.


But again the mass would not be enough to overcome resistance. The building was designed to hold the weight.
The core columns get larger towards the bottom, an increasing resistance. If it was simply floors pancaking then the core would not have been effected. The increase in resistance, and the loss of Ke, would be more significant that the build up of mass from the floors.

But having said that you only have to look at the collapses and see that the top sections started collapsing ahead of the bottom sections, proving the tops did not cause the bottoms to collapse. Many floors are being crushed before the bottoms even started, that is why WTC 2 tilted so much before the bottom started to collapse.


Lets go back to basics, how do you expect the top floor on the lower section, knowing its not designed to deal with even one floor falling onto it, to survive several floors (the whole top section) falling on it? How are the connections supposed to withstand this dynamic loading?


How do you know it was not able to resist the weight of another floor falling on it? That is simply speculation.

Remember according to NIST the connections were strong enough to allow the sagging trusses to pull in the columns. That would take an enormous amount of force. So why would they fail from another light-weight floor assembly falling on them? (and no, dynamic loading is not the answer). Remember for a floor to fall, as they did, it would take every connection to fail instantly. The top of WTC 2 was tilting at an angle, how did it manage to hit the lower floor squarely enough for all the connections to fail at the same time? It couldn't, think about it.




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


i'd give you two stars for that one if i could - you are precisely pointing to the gaping hole in the logistics of thinking that a dynamic load of 30 floors can totally negate the idle force of 60+ floors below them. it is simply impossible for such a clean, symmetrical collapse given these circumstances. if it were my guess, and the top of the buildings really collapsed due to natural damage from the planes, there should have been at least 20 standing floors, heavily damaged. the towers would have also mostly collapsed onto neighboring buildings in huge chunks. this is of course besides the point.

we can even make up simple philosophical analogies to convey this point without even going into the complex dynamics of motion - when a force of a thousand pounds of kinetic energy meets say.. 10 thousand pounds of force of potential energy, there is no way in hell the kinetic load will override the potential load in a way that decimates the totality of its structure.

simply put, dropping 30 floors of steel onto 80 floors of steel won't disintegrate 80 floors of steel. there will be damage, but there cannot be total destruction. i'm not sure if this is the absolute point you were trying to convey anok, but i believe we are reaching the same point of interest here.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14
People such as Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant.


Lol yeah I should have guessed. You should try doing your own research and ignore those shills.


I dont think the hat trusses would survive the collapse in one piece do you? All the connections are going to withstand the collapse?


I think it would. What would cause the massive hat truss to be destroyed?

But you miss the point, if the collapse happened as claimed by Greening et al, the hat truss and all the floor assemblies would have to be in the footprint as his hypothesis is based on the mass of the floors causing the crushing. If mass was lost during the collapses, then his hypothesis is nonsense.


Each floor was not destroyed as one if you like, as I say there would more likely be local crush fronts some ahead of others. The mass although some is being ejected laterally is gaining as each floor and its contents gets destroyed. The momentum increases and each floor is subjected to a bigger mass than the one before it.


But again the mass would not be enough to overcome resistance. The building was designed to hold the weight.
The core columns get larger towards the bottom, an increasing resistance. If it was simply floors pancaking then the core would not have been effected. The increase in resistance, and the loss of Ke, would be more significant that the build up of mass from the floors.

But having said that you only have to look at the collapses and see that the top sections started collapsing ahead of the bottom sections, proving the tops did not cause the bottoms to collapse. Many floors are being crushed before the bottoms even started, that is why WTC 2 tilted so much before the bottom started to collapse.


Lets go back to basics, how do you expect the top floor on the lower section, knowing its not designed to deal with even one floor falling onto it, to survive several floors (the whole top section) falling on it? How are the connections supposed to withstand this dynamic loading?


How do you know it was not able to resist the weight of another floor falling on it? That is simply speculation.

Remember according to NIST the connections were strong enough to allow the sagging trusses to pull in the columns. That would take an enormous amount of force. So why would they fail from another light-weight floor assembly falling on them? (and no, dynamic loading is not the answer). Remember for a floor to fall, as they did, it would take every connection to fail instantly. The top of WTC 2 was tilting at an angle, how did it manage to hit the lower floor squarely enough for all the connections to fail at the same time? It couldn't, think about it.



I am simply using their names in regard to their calculations, please dont assume I subscribe to their theories.
The connections holding the hat truss in place are designed to do so with minimal movements, not 1000' drops. Also the fact we dont see an intact hat truss is enough evidence to suggest the connections holding the truss together failed.

Buildings have FOS like the WTC did but these do not take into account above floors collapsing onto them, they are for increases in static loading for example like when the airliners removed some of the core and perimeter columns, it left the remaining ones with more to do which is fine, however weaken said remaining columns with fire and you have a problem.

Try not to concentrate on the fact the columns were thicker down the building, because the collapse wasn't columns vs columns, it was the connections between columns and in some cases the columns themselves buckling and shearing.

I think the tilting occurred due to the area of impact and weakening. so you're suggesting something blew the lower section up?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by facedye
simply put, dropping 30 floors of steel onto 80 floors of steel won't disintegrate 80 floors of steel. there will be damage, but there cannot be total destruction. i'm not sure if this is the absolute point you were trying to convey anok, but i believe we are reaching the same point of interest here.


Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying.

In the case of the north tower it was only 15 floors falling on 95.

The OSers want to believe that the 15 floors fell on one floor, and the one floor joined the 15 making 16 falling floors etc.

But they fail to address Newtons 3rd law, equal and opposite reaction. The force on two colliding objects is the same. So when that block of 15 floors hit the one floor, not only does the one floor feel the force of the falling block, but also the impacting floor of the 15 will feel the force of the impact and the other 14 floors on top of it.

So if the top floor of the bottom block is deformed, the floor that impacted it will also be deformed and have the mass of the 14 floors falling on it. As the collapse progresses it would slow simply from lack of mass, and loss of Ke to cause deformation etc., to overcome the increasing mass. It would take either removing resistance ahead of the collapse, or somehow increasing the Ke to be a complete collapse.

I hope that makes sense because it's hard to put into words. Essentially the OS treats the top 15 floors like they are a solid block, but treats the lower floors as independent objects. A nice little trick to confuse, and appear to by apply the physics correctly. Easy to believe if you don't have an understanding of elementary physics, and basic engineering.

edit on 7/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by facedye
reply to post by ANOK
 


i'd give you two stars for that one if i could - you are precisely pointing to the gaping hole in the logistics of thinking that a dynamic load of 30 floors can totally negate the idle force of 60+ floors below them. it is simply impossible for such a clean, symmetrical collapse given these circumstances. if it were my guess, and the top of the buildings really collapsed due to natural damage from the planes, there should have been at least 20 standing floors, heavily damaged. the towers would have also mostly collapsed onto neighboring buildings in huge chunks. this is of course besides the point.

we can even make up simple philosophical analogies to convey this point without even going into the complex dynamics of motion - when a force of a thousand pounds of kinetic energy meets say.. 10 thousand pounds of force of potential energy, there is no way in hell the kinetic load will override the potential load in a way that decimates the totality of its structure.

simply put, dropping 30 floors of steel onto 80 floors of steel won't disintegrate 80 floors of steel. there will be damage, but there cannot be total destruction. i'm not sure if this is the absolute point you were trying to convey anok, but i believe we are reaching the same point of interest here.


Why should there be 20 damaged floors visible, by what calcs have brought you to that deduction?

why would large chunks of building fall onto others? Define chunks?

Remember over 90 percent of each tower was air, so the perimeter columns acted almost like a skin, these were not solid blocks, but sections made up of connections which are going to fail when loads are exerted on them them that breaches their design limit.

How can that top floor on the bottom section arrest the falling top section? When the connections connecting the floor trusses to the columns are not designed to do so?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
somehow increasing the Ke to be a complete collapse.


and as the mass increases, the Ke increases also - what is so hard for you to understand about that?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14
I am simply using their names in regard to their calculations, please dont assume I subscribe to their theories.


But their calculations are based on their flawed hypothesis. They should be taken no more seriously.


The connections holding the hat truss in place are designed to do so with minimal movements, not 1000' drops. Also the fact we dont see an intact hat truss is enough evidence to suggest the connections holding the truss together failed.


I wasn't talking about the hat truss connections. This is the hat truss...



If the collapse was simply floors dropping then the hat truss would have followed right behind, and would be sitting in the footprint, on top of collapsed floors. A thousand foot drop would not cause it break apart.


Buildings have FOS like the WTC did but these do not take into account above floors collapsing onto them, they are for increases in static loading for example like when the airliners removed some of the core and perimeter columns, it left the remaining ones with more to do which is fine, however weaken said remaining columns with fire and you have a problem.


FoS takes everything into account, as it a design parameter that a component has to conform to .


If a component needs to withstand a load of 100 Newtons and a FoS of 4 is selected then it is designed with strength to support 400 Newtons...


www.roymech.co.uk...

The Fos is factored by taking the potential load over it's lifetime. As you can see all the components in the WTC would have to have an FoS of at least 4. So for anything to overload it, it would have to be at least 4x the load it's capable of withstanding. There was nothing that happened to the towers could do that.


Try not to concentrate on the fact the columns were thicker down the building, because the collapse wasn't columns vs columns, it was the connections between columns and in some cases the columns themselves buckling and shearing.


So what caused the core to collapse? This isn't just a floors collapsed discussion, it is a building collapsed discussion. The core also collapsed straight down though an increasing mass and path of resistance.

And where did the core go, as it would also have to be in the footprint for the OS to be correct? You can't both have floors stay in the footprint with the core somehow being ejected out.


I think the tilting occurred due to the area of impact and weakening. so you're suggesting something blew the lower section up?


Regardless of how the tilt happened for it to have caused lower floors to break connections, and drop, the force would have to be centered on the floors. Otherwise it wouldn't drop. Try forcing a square peg into a square hole at an angle, what will happen? For the floors to drop as they did all the connections would have to fail simultaneously.

The top and bottom were two separate collapses.

edit on 7/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
and as the mass increases, the Ke increases also - what is so hard for you to understand about that?


You can not increase Ke against resistance, without a force acting on it other than gravity.

You ignore that Ke is lost to breaking connections, deformation, friction/resistance, heat, sound. How are you getting that Ke back?

How do you address the fact that the north tower collapse you can see floors being crushed before the bottom starts to collapse?

How do you address the tilt of WTC 2? Where did the hat truss go? Where did all the core columns go?

How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns, and how do they do that without either the truss itself failing, or the connections?

You all should look at Plube's posts here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=14648663#pid14648663

Those pics tell the true story if you know what you're looking at.

edit on 7/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You ignore that Ke is lost to breaking connections, deformation, friction/resistance, heat, sound. How are you getting that Ke back?


By the increase in mass....


How do you address the fact that the north tower collapse you can see floors being crushed before the bottom starts to collapse?


Why do you think the bottom of the tower should be crushed first?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

By the increase in mass....


You keep repeating that but it doesn't make it true. Again the increase in mass is disproved by the lack of mass in the footprints post collapse.

But the increase in mass can't happen if the Ke is being lost, can't you understand that? If Ke is being lost the collapse slows, Ke can not increase against resistance, once lost it would take an outside energy to regain it (no not gravity). The floors collapsing and increasing mass is nonsense, as once again post collapse proves. You can't have mass outside the footprint, and expecting lesser mass than it started with to be able to destroy itself.

The towers components would be able to hold their own weight many times over.


FoS = Strength of Component / Load on component

If a component needs to withstand a load of 100 Newtons and a FoS of 4 is selected then it is designed with strength to support 400 Newtons...


Basic Notes on Factor of Safety


Why do you think the bottom of the tower should be crushed first?


Huh? Because it's the top that was supposed to have crushed the bottom? How would the top be crushed before the bottom?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I have a question. Who hired you to tell such lies? Are you a structural expert or explosives expert? An analyst? How about I show you video of the news casters saying wtc 7 has also collapsed 45 mins before it collapses ?

Back to your handlers..



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14

Originally posted by facedye
reply to post by ANOK
 


i'd give you two stars for that one if i could - you are precisely pointing to the gaping hole in the logistics of thinking that a dynamic load of 30 floors can totally negate the idle force of 60+ floors below them. it is simply impossible for such a clean, symmetrical collapse given these circumstances. if it were my guess, and the top of the buildings really collapsed due to natural damage from the planes, there should have been at least 20 standing floors, heavily damaged. the towers would have also mostly collapsed onto neighboring buildings in huge chunks. this is of course besides the point.

we can even make up simple philosophical analogies to convey this point without even going into the complex dynamics of motion - when a force of a thousand pounds of kinetic energy meets say.. 10 thousand pounds of force of potential energy, there is no way in hell the kinetic load will override the potential load in a way that decimates the totality of its structure.

simply put, dropping 30 floors of steel onto 80 floors of steel won't disintegrate 80 floors of steel. there will be damage, but there cannot be total destruction. i'm not sure if this is the absolute point you were trying to convey anok, but i believe we are reaching the same point of interest here.


Why should there be 20 damaged floors visible, by what calcs have brought you to that deduction?

why would large chunks of building fall onto others? Define chunks?

Remember over 90 percent of each tower was air, so the perimeter columns acted almost like a skin, these were not solid blocks, but sections made up of connections which are going to fail when loads are exerted on them them that breaches their design limit.

How can that top floor on the bottom section arrest the falling top section? When the connections connecting the floor trusses to the columns are not designed to do so?


Avada, i'm really glad you brought that up. let me address these as you've presented them:

by no means have i calculated my quote as saying "there would be at least 20 floors left" as a definite mathematical deduction - these are simply my opinions, in which i stated in my post right before making them. they are meant to be my personal inclinations. if you mean to ask me by which method i've reached that conclusion, then i would answer that i'm making a vague estimate of what should have happened vs. what actually did happen. it should be taken with a grain of salt, and is merely a representation of my personal opinion of a mental picture of what should have happened. i would rather we focused on the mathematical totality of what's being said.

the bottom floors, as you correctly implicate, cannot arrest (as in stop the force of) the top floors which are falling onto them. this makes no physical sense, and that i agree with. what i am saying specifically, is as anok has stated, a reference to basic newtonian physics. to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. this is really as far as we need to go to really see the simplicity of this situation - the top floors fall, the bottom floors react with an equally applied force. this is what we should have seen.

instead, what we have seen is a total destruction of 3 towers, symmetrically (even though they were damaged non-symmetrically). TOTAL destruction, as in, there was relatively little rubble left compared to the overall composition of the formerly standing buildings. most of it turned to dust on the way down. i urge anyone to point out how this is not so, as it is what i can clearly see and examine. even if the connections gave way, how can it be that the steel columns disappear on the way down, however damaged they may be?

i also fully realize the fact that the steel columns did not make up for most of the building's "perimeter" composition. this train of thought works despite this notion - even so, the steel columns of the bottom 60+ floors should have been left damaged, yet somewhat intact (or at the very least, recognizable). i have personally found this to be irrefutable. what about you?

and more interestingly, if you do not find it irrefutable, then what other historical instance can you point to which clearly shows a natural relationship between how these three towers fell in one day vs. any other damaged tower in history? it would be an interesting read, indeed.

i'd like to also make a note that i'm really not begging the question by having you commit to providing such an instance. it's just that i personally have not been able to find one. if this can be laid to rest by proving that this is what would happen in every instance of such a case, i'm all for it. the sooner the better!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK



But their calculations are based on their flawed hypothesis. They should be taken no more seriously.



Can you prove their calcs wrong?


Originally posted by ANOK



I wasn't talking about the hat truss connections. This is the hat truss...



If the collapse was simply floors dropping then the hat truss would have followed right behind, and would be sitting in the footprint, on top of collapsed floors. A thousand foot drop would not cause it break apart.


That's just speculation that a 1000' drop would not break it apart.

Maybe it was sitting in the footprint but broken up? much of the debris once hitting the bottom of the collapse is projected laterally, just like when you drop gravel from a height some will be projected away from the centre of mass upon impact with the ground. Again I think it high unlikely the connections holding the hat trusses components in place could all survive such a collapse.


Originally posted by ANOK



FoS takes everything into account, as it a design parameter that a component has to conform to .


If a component needs to withstand a load of 100 Newtons and a FoS of 4 is selected then it is designed with strength to support 400 Newtons...


www.roymech.co.uk...

The Fos is factored by taking the potential load over it's lifetime. As you can see all the components in the WTC would have to have an FoS of at least 4. So for anything to overload it, it would have to be at least 4x the load it's capable of withstanding. There was nothing that happened to the towers could do that.



But engineers cannot design structures and expect several floors collapsing on top of one floor to arrest that collapse, or can you show me a steel framed high-rise that is designed with this safety measure?


Originally posted by ANOK


So what caused the core to collapse? This isn't just a floors collapsed discussion, it is a building collapsed discussion. The core also collapsed straight down though an increasing mass and path of resistance.


No one can be sure, but the core would not have stood alone, its stability was helped by being connected to the floors. As we see the remnants of the core collapse as they cannot support their own weight.


Originally posted by ANOK


And where did the core go, as it would also have to be in the footprint for the OS to be correct? You can't both have floors stay in the footprint with the core somehow being ejected out.


It was a messy collapse, both parts of the core and floors would have been ejected outside the centre of mass, how do you know there is no remnants of core in the GZ rubble pile?


Originally posted by ANOK


Regardless of how the tilt happened for it to have caused lower floors to break connections, and drop, the force would have to be centered on the floors. Otherwise it wouldn't drop. Try forcing a square peg into a square hole at an angle, what will happen? For the floors to drop as they did all the connections would have to fail simultaneously.

The top and bottom were two separate collapses.

edit on 7/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


As we observe the perimeter column are pulled in and fail causing collapse initiation, there is no way the lower structure floor by floor can arrest this collapse.
edit on 29-7-2012 by AvadaKedavra14 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-7-2012 by AvadaKedavra14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by facedye



Avada, i'm really glad you brought that up. let me address these as you've presented them:

by no means have i calculated my quote as saying "there would be at least 20 floors left" as a definite mathematical deduction - these are simply my opinions, in which i stated in my post right before making them. they are meant to be my personal inclinations. if you mean to ask me by which method i've reached that conclusion, then i would answer that i'm making a vague estimate of what should have happened vs. what actually did happen. it should be taken with a grain of salt, and is merely a representation of my personal opinion of a mental picture of what should have happened. i would rather we focused on the mathematical totality of what's being said.


That' fine I actually have no reason to believe there should be 20 floors stacked on top of one another albeit damaged.



Originally posted by facedye


the bottom floors, as you correctly implicate, cannot arrest (as in stop the force of) the top floors which are falling onto them. this makes no physical sense, and that i agree with. what i am saying specifically, is as anok has stated, a reference to basic newtonian physics. to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. this is really as far as we need to go to really see the simplicity of this situation - the top floors fall, the bottom floors react with an equally applied force. this is what we should have seen.


Of course Newtons 3rd law applies I agree, the top part of the tower when descending has a momentum vector which is pointing downwards because it is accelerating due to gravity. Once it hits the bottom section of the tower, the bottom section must apply a contact force to the top section which changes it's momentum (deceleration). The Newton's third law part of this contact force is the contact force acting on the bottom section of the tower, this is what causes the damage to the bottom section of the tower, simply put the force required to arrest the upper tower would be equal to the required change in momentum of the upper block divided by the time in which this change is made.


Originally posted by facedye



instead, what we have seen is a total destruction of 3 towers, symmetrically (even though they were damaged non-symmetrically). TOTAL destruction, as in, there was relatively little rubble left compared to the overall composition of the formerly standing buildings. most of it turned to dust on the way down. i urge anyone to point out how this is not so, as it is what i can clearly see and examine. even if the connections gave way, how can it be that the steel columns disappear on the way down, however damaged they may be?


The columns do not disappear, maybe they're obscured from view yes. Also there was tons of Gypsum wall board in those towers which easily can be crushed into fine particulate. The concrete some of which would have been turned to dust, would be broken up into much smaller chunks given the energy in the collapse. Also the towers were 90+ percent air, so why would we expect to see a huge pile of debris?


Originally posted by facedye


i also fully realize the fact that the steel columns did not make up for most of the building's "perimeter" composition. this train of thought works despite this notion - even so, the steel columns of the bottom 60+ floors should have been left damaged, yet somewhat intact (or at the very least, recognizable). i have personally found this to be irrefutable. what about you?


No the perimeter columns I feel apart from some that were attached to the ground, would all peel outward during the collapse which we observe. some of the core columns did survive but later collapsed which is what we observe.



Originally posted by facedye


and more interestingly, if you do not find it irrefutable, then what other historical instance can you point to which clearly shows a natural relationship between how these three towers fell in one day vs. any other damaged tower in history? it would be an interesting read, indeed.

i'd like to also make a note that i'm really not begging the question by having you commit to providing such an instance. it's just that i personally have not been able to find one. if this can be laid to rest by proving that this is what would happen in every instance of such a case, i'm all for it. the sooner the better!


No, as the whole event is unique.
edit on 29-7-2012 by AvadaKedavra14 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-7-2012 by AvadaKedavra14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


I have to agree with Anok on this...where is this increase in mass coming from...It is not accumulating....It is be expelled laterally in large amounts...also the perimeter columns are never at any point adding the the mass as they are pushed outside of the structure...Just in that alone there is a huge loss of mass...i will venture a guess here...that for all the perimeter walls that do not accumulate in the overall collapsing mass...it complete negates the accumulating mass of the APPARENT dropping floors....so when you can explain this in you mass accumulation you might be able to get some where...but you can't every time more perimeter wall sections alone get displaced to outside the structure...it is less mass accumulating.

I have a thread going right now called the steel down of 911 and it seems the OS supporters are not able to deal with real facts....now that is interesting do you not think.....also the upper floors above the 76th mechanical level used a much lighter steel than between the 40th...and 76th floors....and there was a extreme difference in the thickness of the steel below the 40th floor mechanical level....i would show you here...but i have already put it all in the other thread here.....www.abovetopsecret.com...

when hit with hard facts the OS supporters seem to vanish...but I will keep going on it....as it will become a good source of reference material.....heck you can always go into my images if you want and pull out a few to peruse for your own gratification.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by facedye
 


you might like to check out my thread here...you will find some very interesting information on the steel....I starred you for your description of collapse arrest...I agree...the collapse should have been arrested in at least the north Tower alone because of the mass collapsing was such a small percentage of the overall structure.

Also the thickness of the steel in the upper sections...above 76th....were of a much thinner composite than the lower sections.

you can find it here...the STEEL DOWN of 911....www.abovetopsecret.com...

can always use more people who really want to look into the whole aspect of the towers.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by spoor
 


I have to agree with Anok on this...where is this increase in mass coming from...It is not accumulating....It is be expelled laterally in large amounts...also the perimeter columns are never at any point adding the the mass as they are pushed outside of the structure...Just in that alone there is a huge loss of mass...i will venture a guess here...that for all the perimeter walls that do not accumulate in the overall collapsing mass...it complete negates the accumulating mass of the APPARENT dropping floors....so when you can explain this in you mass accumulation you might be able to get some where...but you can't every time more perimeter wall sections alone get displaced to outside the structure...it is less mass accumulating.
.


So lets take the centre of mass alone for an example, once said mass contacts the first floor on the below sections, should the floor and or connections be strong enough to arrest a collapse? Or should they fail and fall down to the next floor etc etc...?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by spoor
 


I have to agree with Anok on this...where is this increase in mass coming from...It is not accumulating....It is be expelled laterally in large amounts...also the perimeter columns are never at any point adding the the mass as they are pushed outside of the structure...Just in that alone there is a huge loss of mass...i will venture a guess here...that for all the perimeter walls that do not accumulate in the overall collapsing mass...it complete negates the accumulating mass of the APPARENT dropping floors....so when you can explain this in you mass accumulation you might be able to get some where...but you can't every time more perimeter wall sections alone get displaced to outside the structure...it is less mass accumulating.
.


So lets take the centre of mass alone for an example, once said mass contacts the first floor on the below sections, should the floor and or connections be strong enough to arrest a collapse? Or should they fail and fall down to the next floor etc etc...?


aaahh, i feel as if we are reaching an equilibrium here. avada, i'm going to present a scenario, and i'd like for you to demonstrate the same scenario to see where our ideas come together, and where they do not:

as the falling top section falls on the bottom floors, it meets their resistance, though they do not arrest, or suspend the momentum of the falling section. it will continue to fall downwards with the weight of its load + gravity until its momentum is extinguished as it meets the resistance of the 60+ bottom floors. as you have correctly stated, if this were a naturally occurring collapse, the top section would at this point experience deceleration. as this process continues, and if it has occured naturally, then by the time the top section's momentum has traveled around 20 floors down, it should have either a) fallen over to one side because of asymmetrical damage or b) asymmetrically lodged itself into the remaining 30+ floors that haven't experienced fires or bent steel (as plube's thread points out - if i am understanding it correctly, the lower floors seemed to be split from one another rather than being bent and heated to the point of exhaustion). instead of a natural collapse, the steel columns were no longer visibly standing once the destruction has ended and the smoke has cleared. they have been neutralized - somehow taken apart in a symmetrical fashion. a natural collapse, dare i say, would never cause such an instance.

how does your idea of the building's demise differ or correlate with mine?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by facedye
 


you might like to check out my thread here...you will find some very interesting information on the steel....I starred you for your description of collapse arrest...I agree...the collapse should have been arrested in at least the north Tower alone because of the mass collapsing was such a small percentage of the overall structure.

Also the thickness of the steel in the upper sections...above 76th....were of a much thinner composite than the lower sections.

you can find it here...the STEEL DOWN of 911....www.abovetopsecret.com...

can always use more people who really want to look into the whole aspect of the towers.


plube, i commend your efforts in that thread, and am very familiar with it! i've been a long time lurker, and that thread of yours plus other insights i have seen you post elsewhere in these forums has made a very positive impression on me. i have learned things about this scenario i wouldn't have otherwise, and for that i thank you.

with that being said, i am still uncertain of what to make of it all. even though i feel as if i can understand the dynamics of what happened to those three towers, it still makes me nervous to realize that i simply do not understand the mechanic that was used to get that effect. i have felt for a while, and still do feel today, that we have been exposed to something very new on that day. not in terms of false flag operations, since those have been around forever, but in terms of the kind of weaponry used.

i make no inductions here. i only mean to say that if three steel towers came down because of two planes (which is completely absurd to even imagine), i can't see how that was physically done. if, on the other hand, it was a type of highly professional demolition, then i can't really see the physics behind that either. the two look similar (wtc collapses vs. demolitions), but there are such profound, subtle differences that one can only come to the conclusion that at the very least, it was in no way a typical demolition.

on a side note, what do you make of the sound of collapse? every time i hear it (both towers 1 and 2), it is unlike anything i've ever heard before - even a collapsing building! to me it always registers as a surge of constant noise, from a cause i still can't even hypothetically identify. do you have any thoughts on this, or am i too far off the deep end?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
edit on 30-7-2012 by AvadaKedavra14 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
18
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join