Gravity Can't Do This!

reply to post by ANOK


Like everything else from you it is WRONG!

Deutsche Bank (130 Liberty), Number 20 on map listed as Banker Trust was DIRECTLY across street from
South Tower

Not 600 feet

WTC 7 was about 350 ft due north of North Tower (Number 7 on map)

Winter Garder was about same distance to the Northeast of North Tower

Check the map

reply to post by thedman


Whoops forgot map

Here it is

wirednewyork.com...

reply to post by thedman


Another correction

Winter Garden was West - Northwest of North Tower

Not east

Distance is still about the same - about 300-350 ft

Here is a nice little link for all of you on here that dont understand DYNAMIC force over Stactic so that will be ANOK,Darkwing01,MasterAndrew,psikeyhacker and a whole host of others.

Explained in very simple terms with a very simple demonstration and some results enjoy!

www.burtonsys.com...

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ANOK

 

Like everything else from you it is WRONG!

Deutsche Bank (130 Liberty), Number 20 on map listed as Banker Trust was DIRECTLY across street from
South Tower

Not 600 feet

WTC 7 was about 350 ft due north of North Tower (Number 7 on map)

Winter Garder was about same distance to the Northeast of North Tower

Check the map

The Winter Garden was 600 ft from WTC 1.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Whats up psikeyhackr you were on and you didn't comment on the DYNAMIC load link above I wonder why?

Now do you see what happened and why the towers fell!

was the data collected from sensors in the building, or is all of this from youtube clips ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
was the data collected from sensors in the building, or is all of this from youtube clips ?

What data are you talking about?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

As YOU would no doubt say link to evidence of the mass of the panel please!

Evidence of the mass of the panel? Huh? You doubt the claim of the mass of the panels? They were HEAVY OK? No matter what the numbers say.

Stop trying to avoid the question, and explain how those panels could be ejected so far by gravity?

Worked out that DYNAMIC load equation yet????

What dynamic load equation? There is not enough information to work out any equations. You just use this tactic because you know that. Again you do not need maths to understand the laws of motion, and how objects react when impacted by other objects. This is not rocket science mate.



I fail to understand your points here. I'm tired of giving you long detailed replies to get responses like this.
You need to answer some of the questions I raised, because it is the OS in question here, not me, OK?

Where is your explanation of the collapses using the laws of motion? How did 47 core columns telescope through a path of increasing resistance? How can floors be ejected and crush other floors? How can Ke be lost, and the collapse speed increase?

Can you explain those points, in your own words, using the 'laws of motion' (I am not going to hold you to doing any equations as you do me, you should be able to do it using the laws of motion, if you can't then you need to question your own beliefs not me). Here is an explanation of the laws of motion to help you...

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Be aware of a common misunderstanding of velocity...

This is sometimes summarized by saying that under Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is only a velocity if there is a force, but according to Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As we have noted earlier in conjunction with the discussion of Galileo, Aristotle's view seems to be more in accord with common sense, but that is because of a failure to appreciate the role played by frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found to be in accord with the observations.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

A static object is maintaining its velocity, unless another force acts on it causing it to accelerate. So static floors of the lower part of the tower should have maintained their velocity, zero, with equal force as the top falling floors trying maintain their velocity. This is the momentum conservation principle. This is why the floors falling could not cause the static floors to break, and the falling floors remain intact in order to carry on breaking more floors. Equal opposite reaction is a law that is important to understand.

But that will only make sense if you realise that your claim that it is one block of floors falling on one floor is wrong, and that is ignoring the mass of the lower structure.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Here is a nice little link for all of you on here that dont understand DYNAMIC force over Stactic so that will be ANOK,Darkwing01,MasterAndrew,psikeyhacker and a whole host of others.

Explained in very simple terms with a very simple demonstration and some results enjoy!

www.burtonsys.com...

Hmmmm that doesn't really explain how the collapse was complete and didn't arrest due to resistance.

The pennies falling on paper is not the same as floors of more or less equal mass impacting. Of course more weight is going to rip the paper, the paper has far less mass than a bunch of pennies. How about dropping a stack of 15 pennies on 95 pennies and see if the 15 pennies crush the 95 to the ground, that is a closer analogy.
The top floors were not falling on something of less mass, it was more mass by a large percentage.

Weight and velocity does not change the equal opposite reaction law, the force on both objects is increased, not just the impacted object. The dropping floors could have fell 100ft., at 100mph, the forces would still be equal between the dropping and static floors, the damage would increase for BOTH objects, not just the one that is dropping, or being impacted.

You are simply making very common, and well known, mistakes in your understanding of the physics involved.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by thedman

 

Distance is still about the same - about 300-350 ft

You guys can not explain how panels were ejected so you pick on the numbers used? The distance isn't really the whole point now is it?

600 ft., 300 ft., makes such a difference.

How were those panels ejected AT ALL from a gravity driven collapse? Stop picking on nonsense, and answer the questions.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Here is a nice little link for all of you on here that dont understand DYNAMIC force over Stactic so that will be ANOK,Darkwing01,MasterAndrew,psikeyhacker and a whole host of others.

Explained in very simple terms with a very simple demonstration and some results enjoy!

www.burtonsys.com...

I saw that junk YEARS AGO.

It is so ridiculous that this crap keeps going on. Can't you tell that STATICS and DYNAMICS is involved in my model.

www.youtube.com...

The point is that crushing a SINGLE static support is not supposed to bring it to a stop. But crushing each support in sequence requires more energy and that reduces the kinetic energy of the falling mass until it no longer has enough energy to continue. It is the same principle as crush zones in cars.

People that have chosen to BELIEVE in complete collapse just want to pretend that gravity is going to provide more energy to keep the collapse going. But these same people don't want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete.

So after TEN YEARS physicists are in no position to ask for that informayion because then the question would be, "Why weren't they asking nine years ago?"

psik

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK it shows the principle of a dynamic load the paper could hold many coins when in a static load but when on 5 coins were dropped a DYNAMIC load the paper could not take the force.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Can you prove that the ratio of the compressive strength of your paper rings to the dynamic load of the steel washers falling on them is the same as the strength of the floor connections to the dynamic load the falling floors subjected the floor connections to so lets see your calculations??????????

Shall we have a bet you can't!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Can you prove that the ratio of the compressive strength of your paper rings to the dynamic load of the steel washers falling on them is the same as the strength of the floor connections to the dynamic load the falling floors subjected the floor connections to so lets see your calculations??????????

Shall we have a bet you can't!!!!!!!!

Notice that you keep talking about floor connections and avoid the horizontal beams in the core.

But then THE POWERS THAT BE don't provide data on the BEAMS IN THE CORE so the 9/11 Religion can go on with its belief based on ignorance. But the conservation of momentum alone would have to slow any falling mass but we are not told the distribution of mass in steel and in concrete either.

So you think you accomplish something by demanding proof but without data you can't prove anything either. So why don't you want the data?

But my paper loops are as weak as possible and you or anyone else can reproduce the experiment and test it for yourself. Does anyone think the WTC was designed to be as weak as possible? My model did not have to withstand the wind. The WTC did.

Debating physics without testing anything is so idiotic. What have you actually tested? Without tests you just have rhetorical attempts to rationalize your beliefs.

psik

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

ANOK it shows the principle of a dynamic load the paper could hold many coins when in a static load but when on 5 coins were dropped a DYNAMIC load the paper could not take the force.

Yes it shows the dynamic loading of heavy coins on PAPER. How has that got anything to do with 15 concrete floors falling on 95 concrete floors? I understand what dynamic load is, but that video is not showing dynamic loading of concrete on concrete, which has a completely different outcome than pennies on paper. You have to consider the mass of the objects. The top did not gain any extra mass, and the bottom didn't lose any.

Once again dynamic loading does not change the laws of motion, there is still an equal and opposite reaction when the floors impact, you still have a smaller mass falling on a larger mass. The dynamic loading created by the dropping floors, as I explained in my last reply, does not change the equal opposite reaction law. The force of the 'dynamic loading' on both floors will still be equal, the force of both the falling and impacting floors increases, not just the impacted floor, and the mass of the bottom is still more than the top.

It's amazing that you think that is relevant analogy, yet you completely dismiss psikeyhackr's model, that does actually demonstrate momentum conversation, and equal opposite reaction law.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But my paper loops are as weak as possible....

Prove it. Show us the data.

...and you or anyone else can reproduce the experiment and test it for yourself.

To what end?

Does anyone think the WTC was designed to be as weak as possible?

Kind of, yes. Maybe not as weak as possible, but on the edge between safety and economy. Like most buildings. Do you think your home is as strong as possible? Probably not. But does that mean that it is automatically as weak as possible? No. Plus weak and strong are relative terms and understanding relys greatly on context and audience.

My model did not have to withstand the wind. The WTC did.

And yet you shoved a great big broomstick in the middle and keep pretending that its not there.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
was the data collected from sensors in the building, or is all of this from youtube clips ?

What data are you talking about?

well I would assume anyone making a claim that gravity can't do something provided the calculations used and the data set for independent corroboration and review ?

the data, did it come from sensors located in the building or is it all from youtube video's ?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


When the floors fell all the load landed on the floor they dropped on, the floors had an area of one acre YOU had 2 5/8" bolts at each end of a truss!!! through a section of angle iron thats what held the floors up!!!

Find out how much load to shear a 5/8" or the angle iron.

THE WEAK PART OF THE STRUCTURE WAS THE FLOOR CONNECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU KNOW how to calculate dynamic load ????? ANOK doesn't!!!!!!

The problem was the tube in tube design which meant floors could fall internally!!!!

Have a quick look here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

When the floors fell all the load landed on the floor they dropped on, the floors had an area of one acre YOU had 2 5/8" bolts at each end of a truss!!! through a section of angle iron thats what held the floors up!!!

Find out how much load to shear a 5/8" or the angle iron.

THE WEAK PART OF THE STRUCTURE WAS THE FLOOR CONNECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU KNOW how to calculate dynamic load ????? ANOK doesn't!!!!!!

The problem was the tube in tube design which meant floors could fall internally!!!!

Have a quick look here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your WHEN THE FLOORS FELL assumes that they fell and you are talking about the FLOOR Outside the CORE. It is curious that we never here how many connections there were. How many were there around the core? How many were there around the perimeter? How could fire make them all give way simultaneously?

That still does not explain what happened to the core. There were columns in the core and horizontal beams. But then we are not supplied with a diagram of the beams or how many tons of steel were on each level of the core.

All you can provide is the pancaking fantasy which we have seen graphics of and heard about for years.

www.youtube.com...

So you can BELIEVE something that requires impossible perfection to occur. And did not leave a stack of floors anywhere to be found.

psik