The NIST report, start to finish

reply to post by bsbray11


No that is not my argument, it is a mystery how you came to that conclusion. I am saying momentum increases as long as debris is falling. Once a floor has failed the next floor will be hit even harder as there is both more mass and higher velocity. This whole "collapse must arrest because of newtons laws of motion" is nothing more that an argument of incredulity.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11

 

No that is not my argument, it is a mystery how you came to that conclusion. I am saying momentum increases as long as debris is falling. Once a floor has failed the next floor will be hit even harder as there is both more mass and higher velocity. This whole "collapse must arrest because of newtons laws of motion" is nothing more that an argument of incredulity.

I am not a scientist and don't play one on ATS, just want to get that out of the way, but I'm puzzled as to how how the floors would gain velocity. Gaining mass is obvious, but velocity seems pretty illogical. There was, afterall, a whole lot of building directly in its path. Gravity pulls at a constant rate, and regardless if a 100 lb woman or 300 lb man jump from an airplane, they both accelerate at the same speed and reach the same terminal velocity, don't they?

This is a serious question, so please respond courteously. Thanks

Originally posted by -PLB-
This whole "collapse must arrest because of newtons laws of motion" is nothing more that an argument of incredulity.

This ^ is where you show you misunderstand the physics involved in the collapses.

Newtons laws of motion ARE the physics that explains motion, and how objects react in collisions. It IS all that is needed to explain why the collapses should have arrested (IF the collapse could have even been initiated in the first place that is).

This is why we say you do not have a good grasp of psychics.

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws which provide relationships between the forces acting on a body and the motion of the body. They were first compiled by Sir Isaac Newton in his work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica ( 1687). The laws form the basis for classical mechanics and Newton himself used them to explain many results concerning the motion of physical objects.

schools-wikipedia.org...

You don't even realise when you harp on about KE and gravity, it's all covered in the laws of motion. But you miss half the physics that you need to include, and then try to convince educated people that they're wrong when they include and address all the relevant physics.

(next you'll try to argue that it only pertains to humans because it says 'body' in the description, that really is the extent of your intellect)

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Do you realize that the potential energy stored in the building is equivalent to over 100 ton TNT?

Do you even realise that is a meaningless statement? So what released all that energy lol? Do you think all that it takes to release all the potential energy of an object is for it to start collapsing? You think potential energy acts like a bomb waiting to go off?

Where do you come up with that figure anyway?

Potential energy is the stored energy of position possessed by an object.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

So you're saying the potential energy of the whole building came into play from the failure of a few floor trusses?
All the potential energy of floors 1-95 came into play when one floor fell from truss failure? Even if you want to claim the whole top block fell as one it's still not the whole building.

Saying gravity alone is not enough is a completely baseless assertion.

No it's not, it is a statement based on known physics, the laws of motion.

The only reason you make this assertion is because of your presupposition that there were explosives involved.

Wrong, I come to the conclusion that there must have been another energy acting on the towers, other than gravity, because the laws of motion explain how the collapse could not have been complete, and global, without an extra energy that the OS does not consider. What that energy is I have no idea.

As for the rest, well I think I've said enough.

reply to post by ANOK

It IS all that is needed to explain why the collapses should have arrested....

Ok, then please explain why the collapse should have arrested, but please include a thorough explanation that includes the actions of every single individual element in the entire building. No treating the upper portion as "obejct A" and the lower portion as "object B" like it was some high school science test involving two rubber balls on a ping pong table. Everything - every truss, every square foot of concrete, every bolt, every weld, every connection, every wall partition, every ounce of the airplane, everything.

Or you can just keep repeating phrases like "conservation of moment" like that solves everything.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

It IS all that is needed to explain why the collapses should have arrested....

Ok, then please explain why the collapse should have arrested, but please include a thorough explanation that includes the actions of every single individual element in the entire building. No treating the upper portion as "obejct A" and the lower portion as "object B" like it was some high school science test involving two rubber balls on a ping pong table. Everything - every truss, every square foot of concrete, every bolt, every weld, every connection, every wall partition, every ounce of the airplane, everything.

Or you can just keep repeating phrases like "conservation of moment" like that solves everything.

Wow, that sounds like desperation to me hooper. Although I couldn't account for every bolt, truss, or foot of concrete, I can point out the obvious fact that all of those things (every ounce of the building) were designed specifically to resist the force of gravity by holding up the entire building! BWAHAHA!!

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

It IS all that is needed to explain why the collapses should have arrested....

Ok, then please explain why the collapse should have arrested, but please include a thorough explanation that includes the actions of every single individual element in the entire building. No treating the upper portion as "obejct A" and the lower portion as "object B" like it was some high school science test involving two rubber balls on a ping pong table. Everything - every truss, every square foot of concrete, every bolt, every weld, every connection, every wall partition, every ounce of the airplane, everything.

Or you can just keep repeating phrases like "conservation of moment" like that solves everything.

Wow, that sounds like desperation to me hooper. Although I couldn't account for every bolt, truss, or foot of concrete, I can point out the obvious fact that all of those things (every ounce of the building) were designed specifically to resist the force of gravity by holding up the entire building! BWAHAHA!!

Sorry, but that is an oft repeated but very erroneous statement. The building was meant to "hold itself up" under very specific conditions. Vary those conditions - eccentric loading - and the whole thing comes tumbling down. That's basically what happened on 9/11. If you live in a typical wood frame house everything is fine if the loads are being transfered along the design lines. Alter the lines and the same material that was holding up your roof a second ago begins to snap like twigs. If the upper stories of the towers are properly aligned with the structural elements of the lower floor (within design tolerances) than the structure works. That is to say the structural elements do what they are supposed to, transfer the loads to its ultimate resting place, the foundation and the earth. But the impact of the plane, the explosive force of the exploding jet fuel and the fires alter the structure overloading some member until they reached their limits and when those elements failed the gravity load of the upper section began to load the remaining parts of the structure in ways that they were not design to be loaded and failure and collapse followed.

reply to post by ANOK


You just shut your ears and repeat what you have been repeating all the time. I am a lot more forgiving than hooper, you may use a 2 object model to demonstrate that collapse can only arrest. Show the calculations and I will point out your mistakes. Although I predict you never did any calculation and you never got any further than the "newtons laws of motion" mantra. As if it is a magic sentence that explains why no building in the world can ever collapse without explosives.

reply to post by budaruskie


I think the best way to explain this is by using an example. The first floor fails and the top section fall down about 4 meter. During this fall its speed increased from 0 to ~9m/s due to gravity. After falling 4 meter, the top section crashes into to the floor below which offer resistance. Depending on the amount of resistance, the top section slows down to, for example, 5m/s. Now there is a top section plus one additional floor falling down 4 meter to the next floor, but now with an initial speed of 5m/s. So after falling 4 meter again, the speed at which it hits the next floor ~10m/s. Again it is slowed down by the resistance of the floor, but since its speed is higher and the mass is larger it is slowed down less than before. And so on.

reply to post by ANOK


It is not a meaningless statement. It explains that the destructive power of the actual collapse is magnitudes greater than any type explosive charges. It explains that any damage you see is caused by the gravity and not by explosives, even if they were used. Explosives used to demolish a building do minor damage, but at critical points. It weakens the building and gravity does all the rest. So your argument that there must have been an "external force much more powerful than gravity" is total rubbish. Pure fantasy.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

It is not a meaningless statement. It explains that the destructive power of the actual collapse is magnitudes greater than any type explosive charges. It explains that any damage you see is caused by the gravity and not by explosives, even if they were used. Explosives used to demolish a building do minor damage, but at critical points. It weakens the building and gravity does all the rest. So your argument that there must have been an "external force much more powerful than gravity" is total rubbish. Pure fantasy.

No mr. electrical engineer, who could not answer a very simple physics question, what you are claiming is nonsense.

Your continues Ignoring of the laws of motion is getting boring. No matter how 'powerful the destructive power of the collapse' was the laws of motion STILL APPLY.

And a few falling floors would not create that much energy. You are just once again proving you fail to understand the physics terms you are using. Potential energy is dependent on the position of the body, if the body is stopped because of resistance of say another floor then the potential energy is lost. The actual potential energy released is dependent on it's movement, it's not what makes it move, it's just a measurement of the amount of force used when the object is allowed to move. You can't take the potential energy of the whole building and claim that it means anything compared to the energy of explosives.

What will you make up next?

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. This stored energy of position is referred to as potential energy. Similarly, a drawn bow is able to store energy as the result of its position. When assuming its usual position (i.e., when not drawn), there is no energy stored in the bow. Yet when its position is altered from its usual equilibrium position, the bow is able to store energy by virtue of its position. This stored energy of position is referred to as potential energy. Potential energy is the stored energy of position possessed by an object.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Originally posted by -PLB-
No that is not my argument, it is a mystery how you came to that conclusion. I am saying momentum increases as long as debris is falling. Once a floor has failed the next floor will be hit even harder as there is both more mass and higher velocity.

How is that not saying that once a floor started falling, it would be impossible to stop it no matter how strong the supports were? You obviously aren't even mentioning how much energy would be lost to destroying each floor, so you are the one making an argument from incredulity, because you simply don't think there would be any way to stop a single floor from falling, based on nothing.

reply to post by bsbray11


Because it isn't. The first floor of course failed because it was weakened. It can well be possible that the next floor is strong enough to arrest the collapse. However, once an undamaged floor fails, the next undamaged floor inevitable will also fail. It is impossible to arrest collapse at this point as both mass and velocity increases with each floor that fails.

Originally posted by ANOK

No mr. electrical engineer, who could not answer a very simple physics question, what you are claiming is nonsense.

Hello mister slander who comes with false claims about me.

Your continues Ignoring of the laws of motion is getting boring. No matter how 'powerful the destructive power of the collapse' was the laws of motion STILL APPLY.

Yes. Problem is that you do not understand how to apply them.

And a few falling floors would not create that much energy.

Yes they would. This is one of your baseless assertions. Show the math.

You are just once again proving you fail to understand the physics terms you are using. Potential energy is dependent on the position of the body, if the body is stopped because of resistance of say another floor then the potential energy is lost.

Ehhh, no, it is only decreased by the amount of displacement. The portion it is decreased is transformed to kinetic energy which in turn is partly transformed into energy forms like heat and sound.

The actual potential energy released is dependent on it's movement, it's not what makes it move, it's just a measurement of the amount of force used when the object is allowed to move. You can't take the potential energy of the whole building and claim that it means anything compared to the energy of explosives.

When the complete building has collapsed, there is no potential energy left (taking ground level as reference). All of it is transformed into another form of energy. Your point that there isn't enough energy for the building to collapse by gravity only is nothing but a baseless assertion. You haven't done any calculations to come to this conclusion, it is nothing more than your uneducated opinion. So show the math to support your baseless assertions and I will point out where you went wrong.

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, but that is an oft repeated but very erroneous statement. The building was meant to "hold itself up" under very specific conditions. Vary those conditions - eccentric loading - and the whole thing comes tumbling down. That's basically what happened on 9/11. If you live in a typical wood frame house everything is fine if the loads are being transfered along the design lines. Alter the lines and the same material that was holding up your roof a second ago begins to snap like twigs. If the upper stories of the towers are properly aligned with the structural elements of the lower floor (within design tolerances) than the structure works. That is to say the structural elements do what they are supposed to, transfer the loads to its ultimate resting place, the foundation and the earth. But the impact of the plane, the explosive force of the exploding jet fuel and the fires alter the structure overloading some member until they reached their limits and when those elements failed the gravity load of the upper section began to load the remaining parts of the structure in ways that they were not design to be loaded and failure and collapse followed.

I'm only going to point out that the building was designed to bare "eccentric" loads as you call it, all you have to do is look at the data collected by A&E911...and it was all data that was available before 9/11. Furthermore, your house example is not accurate for several reasons. First off, houses are typically made of pine and sheetrock while the towers were made of hardened steel and concrete, very different as you know. All of the trusses (if any) in a home as well as all other components (unless built in "hurricane zones") are held together by various sizes of nails, except maybe the ceiling sheetrock which would be small screws. The components in the WTC buildings were either welded together or bolted together or both, again very different. Now here comes the really really big problem with the example. Have you ever seen a house catch on fire? I have personally seen it up close and VERY personal. In fact, I've personally seen a house newer than any of the WTC buildings burn unchecked for over an hour before firefighters got water on it. In the end, the entire roof and second story of the house were burnt to ash, as well as parts of the first. You know what NEVER DID HAPPEN, the house NEVER COLLAPSED, NEVER TURNED TO DUST, MOST OF THE 1ST FLOOR WAS STILL INTACT.

Again, that house was made of combustable material i.e. pine 2X's....and it survived a longer fire than a well known over-engineered steel and concrete high rise building. Really makes you question the OS when you see that with your own eyes. Oh yeah, please don't tell me the plane made the building fall, not even the gov't agrees with that and you can find plenty of videos on the net of vehicles driving into houses that don't turn to dust.

reply to post by budaruskie


I don't really follow your line of reasoning. First you explain how a house is not at all like the WTC tower and then you make a case how it is strange that a burning house doesn't behave the same as a WTC tower which had a Boing 737 crashed into it.

reply to post by hooper


One note about this, Bazant proved that even if for some freaky reason the supports in the top section would fall exactly on the supports in the lower section, exactly as it was design to be, the dynamic load would still be a factor 8 greater than the supports could carry. So even in the most simplistic model assuming the most optimistic case for arrest the building would still collapse.

The most damning thing about a couple truthers is that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Just shout "there was not enough energy" as loud as you can, repeat it as many times as you can, and they start believing in the lie. Without doing any calculations whatsoever. All while shouting how everyone who disagrees doesn't understand a thing about physics. I will predict we won't see any calculation whatsoever from ANOK to prove there was not enough energy. We will only see personal attacks.

reply to post by -PLB-


In most cases they do not need to make sense because if one other person agrees then it is fact and not an opinion and that is not how the real world operates.

Also, many of these same folks do not comprehend what NIST does or if they do, they ask questions as to why NIST did not include something in the report that they feel relevant but was not relelvant to the actual investigation. One good example is when people ask why NIST did not investigate the use of explosives. They did not have to as this was the job of the FBI who was onsite at the WTC from the moment after it occurred and continued its investigation as PENTTBOM. They did not find trace explosives and not one cap from CD as it indicated by many truthers.

NIST is an organization that investigates accidents and makes recommendations as to how it will not happen again, which they did, and implemented with the new WTC7.