Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by waypastvne

 

velocity doesn't effect newton's third law,

This crater in Arizona was caused by a 30 m wide, 100,000 ton meteor. The impact crater is 1.1 kilometers wide and 200 m deep.

The meteorite that made this crater weighed 100,000 tons.

The falling top of the building has been estimated (by a truther in this thread) at 90,000 tons.

Does 10,000 tons make that big of a difference in how hard it hits.

Care to explain ?

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Are you seriously using the above as in support of the OS?

It proves fairly conclusively that it is the velocity and acceleration (in laymen's terms, speed) which determines how hard something hits something else. That was a lot of force, wasn't it?

Originally posted by waypastvne
Care to explain ?

Easy, it hit soft earth, made a dent, and it was destroyed. It didn't continue on undamaged once it hit resistance. The meteor received far more damage than the planet. Small things do not destroy big things, remember?

But again why do you insist on making analogies like that when the most relevant, and simple, would be 15 concrete floors falling on 95 concrete floors? A smaller mass falling on a larger mass.

Originally posted by Varemia

It proves fairly conclusively that it is the velocity and acceleration (in laymen's terms, speed) which determines how hard something hits something else. That was a lot of force, wasn't it?

That is true, but you still can't ignore the equal opposite reaction law, which means an increase in velocity causes an increase in force on BOTH colliding objects.

That is what you keep leaving out, and makes your claims bogus (in layman's terms).

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia

It proves fairly conclusively that it is the velocity and acceleration (in laymen's terms, speed) which determines how hard something hits something else. That was a lot of force, wasn't it?

That is true, but you still can't ignore the equal opposite reaction law, which means an increase in velocity causes an increase in force on BOTH colliding objects.

That is what you keep leaving out, and makes your claims bogus (in layman's terms).

Yes, but the steel wasn't destroyed in the tower when it collapsed. Only the connections were broken. This is a completely different equation. It is the weight versus the connections, not the entire mass versus the other mass.

This is why the plane practically disintegrated when it entered the tower (not literally into microscopic particles. It shredded into many pieces). It was going very fast, and so the force was much higher on both the tower and the plane. So, the plane broke through the steel connections and the steel destroyed the plane.

It isn't that complicated, nor is it against physics.

Originally posted by ANOK
Small things do not destroy big things, remember?

This crater in Arizona was caused by a 30 m wide, 100,000 ton meteor. The impact crater is 1.1 kilometers wide and 200 m deep.

The amount of dirt missing from the crater 1.1 kilometers x 200 meters. Weight God only knows.

Meteorite 30 meters x 30 meters 100,000 tones.

The amount of damage done to the planets surface far exceeds the damage done to the meteorite in volume.

Doesn't this defy the Truther Physics Law: Force equals Mass largest or F=ML commonly known as:

Small things do not destroy big things.

reply to post by waypastvne


i've actually been to that crater.

the meterorite was made primarily of iron, and all they've found of it are pebble sized pieces. dirt is MUCH softer than iron, whereas the top wtc floors were made of the same material as the bottom (but a bit weaker).

sure, more velocity, more damage, but each object is effected by the same amount of force. the smaller object cannot impart more force than is exerted on it. care to show me otherwise? you could be famous for rewriting physics as we know it!

by your reckoning there should be a crater 90% as large as that one in new york.

reply to post by ANOK

Small things do not destroy big things, remember?

No one had said it 'destroyed' the building. It just damaged the structual integrety to the point where fire finished it off.

Besides Zeros didn't destroy ships in WW2 did they?
Bullets don't destroy humans do they?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

by your reckoning there should be a crater 90% as large as that one in new york.

Yes if the falling top block of WTC 1 actually was falling at "free fall speed" (terminal velocity) as the Truthers keep saying, the crater left would be 90% as large as the one in the photo.

WTC 2 however, would leave a larger crater.

reply to post by Cassius666


You could not bring those towers down using conventional demolition means I dont care how much thermate you had.

You would have to dismantle the towers or
D.E.W Directed Energy Weapon

Originally posted by superluminal11

D.E.W Directed Energy Weapon

Can you tell us more about the Truther Physics used to power this D.E.W. Weapon. Did it produce a 8.5 KiloTon blast ? How did they harness the power of the hurricane. Please tell us more.

reply to post by waypastvne


by your estimates it was going around 65% freefall speed, so we should see a crater that's 58.5% of that, right? but we don't. we see a nice small rubble pile.

you're seriously arguing that newton's third law is wrong and that the base of the wtc buildings has the resistance of dirt, while the top floors have the resistance of solid iron? and you're trying to say my physics are off?

errr......i'm going to stop talking to you.

but before i'm done....the meteor that made that crater was travelling at 26,000 mph! you're saying free fall speed =26,000 mph AND that the top floors of the wtc would achieve that velocity falling 90 stories?

the collision energy between the earth and the meteor was equivalent to 20 MILLION TONS of TNT and you're saying that is equal to the wtc?

yeah...i gotta go...away.......and laugh.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
but before i'm done....the meteor that made that crater was travelling at 26,000 mph! you're saying free fall speed =26,000 mph AND that the top floors of the wtc would achieve that velocity falling 90 stories?

the collision energy between the earth and the meteor was equivalent to 20 MILLION TONS of TNT and you're saying that is equal to the wtc?

yeah...i gotta go...away.......and laugh.

Isn't it obvious that he wasn't saying that at all? You are taking an example of physics and blowing it way out of proportion. He was demonstrating a simple concept, and instead of understanding the concept, you are taking it as if he literally meant that the top of the tower was a meteor.

If this is how your mind works, debating with logic and reason may not be the path for you. In other words, you are doing it wrong.

reply to post by Varemia

Yes if the falling top block of WTC 1 actually was falling at "free fall speed" (terminal velocity) as the Truthers keep saying, the crater left would be 90% as large as the one in the photo.

the one in the photo was created by the equivalent of 20 million tons of TNT. now, take 90% of that...

so we have top floors of wtc1 multiplied by free fall speed = 18 million tons of TNT.

that is what he just said. he doesn't want to accept newton's third law, when it has been proven through experiments and logic time and again. it's a simple fact, but when it comes to the top floors of the twin towers, he doesn't want to apply it because it means he's very wrong.

wait. i can take this further. so 18 million tons of TNT = free fall speed energy equivalent of the top 15 or so floors. by OS'er math, the towers fell at about 65% freefall speed. 18*.65=11.7 million tons of TNT.

that's way more explosives than even the most radical truther would ever claim. that makes you an ultra-mega-super radical truther with those numbers.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia

 

Yes if the falling top block of WTC 1 actually was falling at "free fall speed" (terminal velocity) as the Truthers keep saying, the crater left would be 90% as large as the one in the photo.

so we have top floors of wtc1 multiplied by free fall speed = 90% of 18 million tons of TNT.

that is what he just said. he doesn't want to accept newton's third law, when it has been proven through experiments and logic time and again. it's a simple fact, but when it comes to the top floors of the twin towers, he doesn't want to apply it because it means he's very wrong.

Actually, that was just a bad example. He didn't consider that the meteor would be traveling far faster than free-fall terminal velocity, and had different aerodynamics. The point is that a smaller part can still cause a lot of damage.

reply to post by Varemia

yes, it can, but it cannot cause more damage than it takes. newton's third law.

are we atleast in agreement that newton's third law is true? i don't think there is a single learned person who disagrees.

back to my original argument. same resistance, different mass. smaller mass takes less damage than the much bigger mass (same resistance). this violates newton's third law. resistance had to be removed.

it's simple.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia

 

yes, it can, but it cannot cause more damage than it takes. newton's third law.

are we atleast in agreement that newton's third law is true? i don't think there is a single learned person who disagrees.

back to my original argument. same resistance, different mass. smaller mass takes less damage than the much bigger mass (same resistance). this violates newton's third law. resistance had to be removed.

it's simple.

What if you restrict the damage imparted to simply the connections and the crushing of concrete/drywall? That significantly reduces the amount of energy needed, and the energy lost/taken by the steel above is not necessarily overcoming.

reply to post by Varemia


then the same equal amount of concrete and steel in the top would be equally damaged. you'd run out of top floors before bottom floors.

it's a pickle isn't it?