Physics of 9/11...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

OK...I'll try to field this...iamcpc can jump on if I miss something...

Here's the analogy...it's not an extra 500 lbs, that was just an figure used to illustrate that --- ...oh, I see where you are thinking "extra"...he's talking about the added impetus due to motion, so it's that which supplies added energy. The "500 lbs" signifies the static upper floors of the buiilding, being supported from below, as originally designed.

As long as the mass above is stationary, he is capable of supporting the unmoving mass, as his arms exhibit the required strength. Actually, for the analogy, ignore the muscles, and their influence in balance, etc, for that dynamic aspect isn't part of this...it's the image of the static weght, and the structure beneath...the bones of the arms, let's say. They certainly are strong enough.

Now...one arm bone is fractured...say a bullet is fired, and hits it.

Let's also take the image of the traditional barbell out of our minds, for this mental excerise...see why? Because we want all of the mass that's being supported centered, without the excessive overhang seen with a "barbell"....

So, in this simplified image, one arm is damaged...hence the other arm is overstressed, since it is insuffiently strong.

Below that, is ANOTHER man, and set of arms...he has been supporting the entire mess above, and even with two good, undamamged arms, they are overwhelmed and will fail because of the kinetic energy of acceleration, and increased force presented by the mass above, as it begins to move downward. And so on....

Of course, some may try to argue that it will become "unbalanced" and topple to the side...but, no, because there must be an initial horizontal vector of force for that to happen...that's why we had to remove that "barbell" image, so as not to confuse the analogy. (The misconception is that one heavy end of the unbalanced barbell would 'pull' sideways, due to gravity...which is possible, again ONLY if there is a great deal of overhang to begin with).

Now, the kicker (to me) as it relates to the design of the Towers...the "Achille's Heel", once the kinetic energy of acceleration, due to motion, and gravity, gets started is the fact that although EACH individual steel component is plenty strong, on its own...especially lengthwise, they are still weakest where they are attached to other pieces.

Here is where the "two arms" similarity ends...it gets more complex, of course. And, for our earlier purposes, we were imaging "solid" arms, without the weak attachment points...but, you could think of the elbows and shoulders in that scenario, as comparison....

I probably botched that up, it's hard to convey what's in mind's eye into a post, sometimes....

My point is that people, according to both of my physics professors, have confused a basic principle of physics when they say that the towers collapsed through the path of greatest resistance. They didn't if they were demolished or not they still fell through the path of least resistance.

Like when dropping weight with X amount of force on a trampoline or a weightlifter or a pop can that support a fraction of X amount of force the weight will go through resistance (through the trampoline or through the weightlifter or through the pop can) and still be following the path of least resistance.

I'm just making up numbers to prove the point that me and my professors came to.

Amount of force needed to crush the undamaged portion of towers X.

Amount of force in the falling top portion of the buildings 5X

Amount of force needed to change the momentum of the top floors that started falling downward 2X

So the path of least resistance, in that scenario, is crushing the undamaged portion of the building.

if anyone is interested in helping i would like to calculate how much avaition fuel was on the planes when they hit the towers and how deep a puddle would it had made on the floor of a building that is 63m by 63 meters assuming none of the fule flew out the side of the building.

my guess is it would be about an inch deep from the top of my head.

Also would it be possible for fuel to burn near the central core due to the depleasion of oxegen and being some 25 meters from the outer edge of the building.

if air was being feed in to the building via gusts of wind then would that not remove a lot of the heat.

i suspect you could take double the amout of fuel on the planes to account for combustable materia in the building and still not produce egnough heat to even damage the thin steel sections holding the celling up that would be ten feet above the flames for the most part and even if you can then it would collpase sections of the floor at difrent times which would put the next floor about 30 ft above the flame so the main damage must had been to the central core by creating an uneven exspansion of the core.

if we have a known amout of heat then we have a known result without all the butter fly flapping it's wings theory being thrown in just to say this was a unique incident.

i know as hard as i try that i can not flick a marble at my bar-b-q and make it faill over unless it's a very windy day but i just don't know all the sums involved to prove it so called it so call it common physics but between a few of us we should be able to come up with answers just as good as any scientists instead of just taking what we are told from any side in the debate.

Did you know that a massive petrol storage containers caught fire in the UK and the metal was quite thin and yet it managed to hold up for days with only small buttling and that can also be proved by maths and gives us a starting point using absolute perfect fire conditions to see if the NIST report is any better than tolet paper.

Originally posted by ProRipp
WOW ! At last we know the truth ! OFFICE PAPER BROUGHT DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS ! I can see tomorrows The Sun headlines !

What conspiracy theory is more likely:

1. The worlds largest demolition project was carried out, in top secret, in the middle of new york city, in occupied buildings, and then completed (silently) in front of millions and millions and millions of people without anyone knowing or suspecting anything.

2. Death star lazer beams were shot at the twin towers.

3. super ultra high tech silent micronukes were either planted in the building or shot at the building.

4. someone delievered a few more pallets of office paper than they should have during the weekly office paper deliveries for a month or two prior to the attacks.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Are you saying that the support structure of these massive buildings provided less resistance than the empty space (air) on the side of the building?

Of course not.

However, for the upper part to shed over the side, rather than straight down, the lower part must *FIRST* halt the upper part.

What he's saying, is that by taking the path straight down, it will encounter less resistance than if it is first halted, and then redirected over the side.

Determining that it would NOT halt has been determined by several independent investigations by well published and scholarly structural engineers, structural engineering firms, and structural engineering professors and instructors.

The TM has this:

1-

2-

IOW, zero engineering facts or knowledge....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

OK...I'll try to field this...iamcpc can jump on if I miss something...

Here's the analogy...it's not an extra 500 lbs, that was just an figure used to illustrate that --- ...oh, I see where you are thinking "extra"...he's talking about the added impetus due to motion, so it's that which supplies added energy. The "500 lbs" signifies the static upper floors of the buiilding, being supported from below, as originally designed.

Let me help you out.

originally posted by iamcpc
Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it.

This 500 pounds is not part of the existing structure if they are dropped from a height onto the structure.

In case you were not aware, the parts of the buildings above the impact zones were part of the existing structure.






Got anything on all that heavy paper taking the buildings down too?



[edit on 24-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by ProRipp
WOW ! At last we know the truth ! OFFICE PAPER BROUGHT DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS ! I can see tomorrows The Sun headlines !

What conspiracy theory is more likely:

1. The worlds largest demolition project was carried out, in top secret, in the middle of new york city, in occupied buildings, and then completed (silently) in front of millions and millions and millions of people without anyone knowing or suspecting anything.

2. Death star lazer beams were shot at the twin towers.

3. super ultra high tech silent micronukes were either planted in the building or shot at the building.

4. someone delievered a few more pallets of office paper than they should have during the weekly office paper deliveries for a month or two prior to the attacks.

weedwhacker....


got an answer? I am curious which one you think is most likely and why.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I'll try again, because you must have missed my reference to the guy BELOW..the other "weightlifter"... in my enhanced analogy. HE would represent the rest of the building, and its inability to withstand the increasingly accelerating mass from above, as it fell...

Let me help you out.
~
This 500 pounds is not part of the existing structure if they are dropped from a height onto the structure.

Yes, it is, in the analogy:

originally posted by iamcpc
Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it.

Once more, as I understood iamcpc, and it made a perfect and simple mental image, the "500 pounds" represents the floors of the Towers ABOVE the damage, at the impact location. As a group, in total, they constitued a mass...connected together, the portions that were undamaged, initially.

(This is the bit that "Dr." Richard Gage attempted to "prove" with his silly ---and EMPTY--- cardboard box 'demonstration'...and he claims to be an engineer???)

OK...stay with me...below the undamaged mass, is an area that suffered severe damage. The structural integrity was compromised, and it was under strain, having lost a good deal of its strength.

Added to this strain was the tremendous heat, from the fires. This further compromised the former strength of the steel, AND due to thermal expansion effects, caused additional strains to occur, at connection points...strains that were not designed for. Things began to rapidly fail, sequentially at first, some would just by chance happen nearly simultaneously.....pop, pop, pop-pop-pop-pop, pop, pop-pop...SNAP! SNAP!-SNAP!...bend...bend SNAP! pop-pop-pop---SNAP! (etc).

The (until now) undamaged sections below the severely affected areas would soon feel the effects of the MOMENTUM of all that mass, as it began to accelerate downward. Again, the lower portions wer designed to accept a STATIC load, and to support it...but NOT when the KE was added in, due to the force of acceleration due to gravity.

It really is quite simple to see. The "500 pounds dropped on him" is the mass above the damage, and it had a certain height to begin the acceleration, so that, once it contacted the lower undamaged sections, they had no chance of withstanding the barrage.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, I see your added challenge there....about the "paper"...

I may be wrong, but when I read the post about the "pallets of paper" I took it as I thought it was intended...irony. Maybe irony isn't the right word...how to define it?

Oh...mockingly ironic? Does that help?








[edit on 24 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

In case you were not aware, the parts of the buildings above the impact zones were part of the existing structure.

In case you were not aware, the building above the impact zone fell, from a height, onto the building below the impact zone.

Got anything on all that heavy paper taking the buildings down too?

Oh you don't seem to understand. I'll generalize the wtc twin tower collapse theories into two very broad groups.

truther theories: Airplane impact damage, fire damage, and ______________ caused the collapse of the twin towers.

debunker theories: Airplane impact damage, and fire damage cause the collapse of the WTC towers.



This theory:

Airplane impact damage, fire damage, and ______________ caused the collapse of the twin towers.

That blank has been filled in with missles, micronukes, explosives, bombs, thermite, thermate, nano-thermite, death star lazerbeams etc. etc. etc.


The adding of extra weight is something that fits in that blank also. Do you seriously believe that the death star (in addititon to airplane impace damage and fire damage) is more likely to have caused the collapse of the twin towers than the delivery of 15 pallets of paper on the upper floors?

I'll even give you a hint.

(the death star is not real)

In this next video you can see not only flashes but explosions 20+ floors below the collapse zone. Review it multiple times and notice how the building collapsed. 2 building that day fell in a similar fashion yet suffering different damage the 3rd building came down like a controlled demo and the excuse is fire. It is amazing how stupid some of these people think you guys are.
Understand the truth and what the 3-4 people here who attempt to debunk are just liars.


Good video except for the bad music at the beginning.


[edit on 24-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]

As for the ridiculous analogy of the weightlifter and that the top fell from a great height destroying 70+floors to the base...Stupid.


Wtc 7 anyone? even the 2 towers come to mind

There should of been many floors left pancaked if these silly debunker logics were somewhat fathomable in the real world.






[edit on 24-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Youtube videos are not equal to engineering studies.

Ya got one of those?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Are you saying that I am wrong for taking iamcpc serious about the paper? It was just bad irony? So then the rest of what he is saying that is based on that theory is more irony?

iamcpc, before I can even begin to follow along now, I need to know. Is ww correct and you are just kidding about the paper or did you really mean that question about the 4 different options?

If you were serious, then I return my question to you, weedwhacker.

Thanks in advance, iamcpc for clarifying whether or not you were serious with -

What conspiracy theory is more likely:

1. The worlds largest demolition project was carried out, in top secret, in the middle of new york city, in occupied buildings, and then completed (silently) in front of millions and millions and millions of people without anyone knowing or suspecting anything.

2. Death star lazer beams were shot at the twin towers.

3. super ultra high tech silent micronukes were either planted in the building or shot at the building.

4. someone delievered a few more pallets of office paper than they should have during the weekly office paper deliveries for a month or two prior to the attacks.

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by jthomas

 

With no stuctural damage underneath the point of impact, there should have been major resistance to slow the collapse of the building, if not stop it entirely, at least for a moment if not forever. I expected the bulding to fall using the path of least resistance, which would have been around the rest of the building.

I've shown, using my handy dandy free fall physic calculator:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

That, at free fall speed, the twin towers should have collapsed in about 9 seconds.

If they collapsed in 12 seconds or 17 seconds then there was tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons..... etc etc etc etc of resistance to slow the collapse of a building that size by even 1 second.

measuring complete collapse is debatable. however, in the first video, it is shown that wtc 7 falls at near freefall speed for quite some time(and without a jolt), and since there are no floors with compromised structural support, there would be plenty of resistance. also, fire is an organic process, following a path of combustibles, and unless the fire burned at the same temperature on multiple floors, for the same duration (ignoring the fact that such a fire isn't hot enough to compromise insulated structural steel) the downward force would be uneven and the building would topple to the side.

as for the "can senario", it is rubbish. yes, if you drop a brick onto a can of aluminum, it will get crushed straight down. try chopping the top 1/8th of the can off and dropping it onto the can, did it get crushed? see the problem? you are assuming even damage, which is wrong, and you are also dropping something that is much much much heavier than the can. since it takes 32.516 12 ounce aluminum cans to equal one pound, and the average cement block weighs about 40 lbs, in your senario, the tower was crushed by something that weighs 65 MILLION tons. silly person is silly =P

reply to post by iamcpc


what would 15 pallets of paper do? literally nothing. paper burns at 451 F, and in blocks, oxygen would have a hard time fueling the inner pieces, so barely any of the potential heat energy would actually be exerted. also, it would be at 451 F, which wouldn't do anything to steel.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

and the building would topple to the side.

How uneven do you want?

Towards the end, it can be seen leaning ~10-15 degrees towards where the north tower was.

Do you have any engineering paper that you based your decision on?

Who am I kidding? Ya got nuthin' but your incredulity and lack of knowledge.

reply to post by iamcpc


you're forgetting something. gravity is strange, and perspective is everything. a small force over a large distance equals a large force over a small distance.(how is that relevant you ask?, the potential energy of the damaged section is based on how far it can fall before it comes to a rest, which would be the ground, so that small section falling the height of the tower is equal to the undamaged section falling the length of the damaged section) so, lets say the tower is flipped over, and the hit section of the tower is near the ground, and the floor levels of the tower are in the air, what would happen? the top would crush the bottom, and then stop/fall over. you can only hit something as hard as it can resist.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

and the building would topple to the side.

How uneven do you want?

Towards the end, it can be seen leaning ~10-15 degrees towards where the north tower was.

Do you have any engineering paper that you based your decision on?

Who am I kidding? Ya got nuthin' but your incredulity and lack of knowledge.

its pretty simple actually. if you have a sponge, and a brick next to it, at the same height, (lets say the sponge and the brick are squares, 5 inches by 5 inches by one inch) and you put another brick evenly across the two, what will happen? the brick on top will squish the sponge, and lean in that direction. back to the towers, the heavy top will fall towards the weakest side, which on towers one and two would be the impacted side, and on wtc 7, the burning floors.

it seems you're kidding yourself =P lets keep comments about how intelligent the other side is out of the conversation, its counter productive, and doesn't affect what happened that day.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

its pretty simple actually. if you have a sponge, and a brick

Cool.

Now we're gonna compare 7 to sponges and bricks. I hope lemons and pizza boxes don't come next.

Here's the thing. Comparing these buildings to things you know is useless.

In order to have an informed opinion, you must have studied buildings.

Theologians, software engineers, failed cold fusion researchers, antenna designers, ships welders, etc...... don't have an opinion that matter to anyone that matters, and can do anything about looking into whether or not the building should have tipped over as it fell.


it's as simple as that.


And that wasn't a shot at yourintelligence. It was a wakeup call.

You have zero engineering knowledge, nor do you have any engineering paper that backs your statement. You know this as well as I do, so stop the charade.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]

reply to post by Joey Canoli


i'm a certified structural welder. i see every day what happens to steel when it gets hot, when it melts, and when it bends. my analogy wasn't rocket science, it was a simple explanation of why the tower would topple over.
as i've stated, (and i think this actually applies more to the twin towers, because a relatively small office fire can't collapse a building) as the planes struck the towers, more damage would be done at the point of impact than any other part of the tower, specifically the side the plane crashed into. my earlier analogy comes into play, and of course, the tower would give in on the side that is weakest, toppleing that direction. there is simply not enough potential energy stored in the damaged top for the piledriver model of collapse to be a feasible explanation.

now, i would like for you to tell me where my train of thought is wrong, instead of replying with "you're not an engineer, so you can't say that".

to assume or dismiss information as wrong based on the source of information is a logical fallacy.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

i'm a certified structural welder. i see every day what happens to steel when it gets hot, when it melts, and when it bends. my analogy wasn't rocket science, it was a simple explanation of why the tower would topple over.
as i've stated, (and i think this actually applies more to the twin towers, because a relatively small office fire can't collapse a building) as the planes struck the towers, more damage would be done at the point of impact than any other part of the tower, specifically the side the plane crashed into. my earlier analogy comes into play, and of course, the tower would give in on the side that is weakest, toppleing that direction.

now, i would like for you to tell me where my train of thought is wrong, instead of replying with "you're not an engineer, so you can't say that".

Your train of thought is proven wrong in the first video. It defies the laws of physics. Had the towers collapsed as you surmise they would not have free fallen without obstruction as they did. They would have hit the lower undamaged floors and stopped. Did you watch the video? If so then maybe you can explain where he is wrong?