Gravity Can't Do This!

reply to post by tezzajw


You never did answer my question.

Can you overload a floor with too many cans of corn?

If the floor collaspes because of too many cans why would the floor below arrest the fall of the cans?

reply to post by TupacShakur

At the absolute maximum, a Boeing 767 weighs 450,000 lbs, or 225 tons. The twin towers weighed around 500,000 tons. Lets say the mass is distributed perfectly evenly among the 110 floors, that would give us 4545 tons of mass for each floor. Would an extra 225 tons really be the factor that causes the towers to collapse? Don't forget, 225 tons was the extremely generous estimate, that's assuming maximum fuel and passenger capacity. More realistically, it was probably around 100 tons.

That’s funny I don’t remember the plane hitting the 12th floor. Nor do I think any of the parts landed of the 40th floor. In my recollection all the plane parts landed on a couple of floors.

Now if someone had disassembled the plane into small pieces you could have distributed the parts evenly on every floor. But that’s not what happened.

Yes....take a look at this image and answer a few questions:

Are the floors underneath the red line supporting the weight of the floors above + the contents of the above floor?

No the lower floors were not supporting anything from above. That’s where too many people get confused about the whole issue. This building was not built like your normal house where interior walls were supporting the floors above.

WTC was built more like a series of hammocks stacked vertically on two poles.
If the weight is too great for one hammock it will fail. That same weight will fall to the next hammock.

The external steel columns are more like a series of pencils glued end to end. As long as you don’t let them move side to side they can support a lot of weight. That’s what the floors did. They prevented the exterior columns from moving.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by WarminIndy
We can say that the amount of empty space between the the floors would not buffer a load greater than the weight of the air. But that air in the spaces was sucked up toward the massive fire, leaving those empty spaces as a vacuum.

Seriously?

You want us to believe that there was a vacuum between the floors?

Really?

Wow...

What creates a vacuum? The absence of air. Why causes air to move out? The need to fuel. What happens in a vacuum? The velocity of objects increase no matter the weight.

Have you ever seen the experiment in school with a vacuum tube? A tin ball and feather fall at the same speed.

Please stfu how could their have been a vacuum the building wasn't airtight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact is it would act like a HUGE chimney that could have helped increase the heat that was produced like a blacksmith does with a set of bellows but there would be NO VACUUM.

reply to post by samkent

That’s funny I don’t remember the plane hitting the 12th floor. Nor do I think any of the parts landed of the 40th floor. In my recollection all the plane parts landed on a couple of floors.

Now if someone had disassembled the plane into small pieces you could have distributed the parts evenly on every floor. But that’s not what happened.

Right, and I never said that's what happened. The distribution of the weight that I referred to was the weight of the towers, if the 500,000 tons was distributed evenly it would be arouned 4545 tons per floor. I was saying the weight of the airplane, something like100 tons, wouldn't be the factor that causes the one floor that it's situated on to collapse. If that was the case, it wouldn't have been a whole hour before the collapse began, it would have taken like a minute for the floor to fall.

No the lower floors were not supporting anything from above. That’s where too many people get confused about the whole issue. This building was not built like your normal house where interior walls were supporting the floors above.

WTC was built more like a series of hammocks stacked vertically on two poles.
If the weight is too great for one hammock it will fail. That same weight will fall to the next hammock.

The external steel columns are more like a series of pencils glued end to end. As long as you don’t let them move side to side they can support a lot of weight. That’s what the floors did. They prevented the exterior columns from moving.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life. Of course the bottom floors are supporting the weight above them, they're not just floating in the air being supported by some anti-gravitational voodoo.

Also, you forgot to answer this question from my last post: Do you understand Newtons Third Law of Motion? Are the towers in that image in another dimension of space and time where the universally applicable laws of physics don't apply?

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I don't doubt that. There is a difference between what they are saying and what I am saying, however.

There should have been large equal and opposite forces occurring at the collision of each floor. As F=ma, these large forces should have decelerated the falling mass.

But instead we have an average ~2/3rds free fall acceleration of the falling top section. The only way this massive acceleration can be achieved is if both the equal and opposite average crushing forces and average structural resistance forces were ~1/3rd of the static weight of the top section.

edit on 28-7-2011 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)

What happens in this situation then say a floor takes Y tons to fail BUT the load that is imposed on it is 15 x Y tons moving at 19 mph

Have a look here at this link

www.nmsr.org...

Look at what they say BUT what I will say I dont agree with their fig for the mass of the upper section I would say it would be nearer 22,000 tons or 22,000,000 kg.

Their is a link to the companion article have a read its about the dynamic load.

Lets us know what you think.

reply to post by TupacShakur


NO the wall columns were designed for the wind loads the core for the gravity load.
Each FLOORSLAB is suspended between the walls and the core.
No floor below supports a floor above if they did why were the connection size for the floors the same from top to bottom? A section of angle iron with 2no 5/8" bolts
Any load on a floorslab would pass to the colums either side of the trusses through the floor connections!
What happens when the load is to large for the connections to support?
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Or do you think the 2 little bits of angle which held each truss were a strong as the 5" thick steel at the base of the columns!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by WarminIndy
We can say that the amount of empty space between the the floors would not buffer a load greater than the weight of the air. But that air in the spaces was sucked up toward the massive fire, leaving those empty spaces as a vacuum.

Seriously?

You want us to believe that there was a vacuum between the floors?

Really?

Wow...

What creates a vacuum? The absence of air. Why causes air to move out? The need to fuel. What happens in a vacuum? The velocity of objects increase no matter the weight.

Have you ever seen the experiment in school with a vacuum tube? A tin ball and feather fall at the same speed.

Please stfu how could their have been a vacuum the building wasn't airtight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact is it would act like a HUGE chimney that could have helped increase the heat that was produced like a blacksmith does with a set of bellows but there would be NO VACUUM.

Did you not realize that a vacuum does not have be in an airtight container? Even when nuclear bombs explode, it creates a vacuum momentarily before sucking all the air in toward the fire to fuel it. Outer space is not air tight, and yet it is a vacuum.



NOUN:
pl. vac·u·ums or vac·u·a (-y-) KEY

1 Absence of matter.
2 A space empty of matter.
3 A space relatively empty of matter.
4 A space in which the pressure is significantly lower than atmospheric pressure.
5 A state of emptiness; a void.
6 A state of being sealed off from external or environmental influences; isolation.
pl. vac·uums A vacuum cleaner.
education.yahoo.com...

Would you now care to say the only definition of vacuum is an airtight container, which is merely the sixth definition?

reply to post by TupacShakur

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life. Of course the bottom floors are supporting the weight above them, they're not just floating in the air being supported by some anti-gravitational voodoo.

No they are not.
There are no internal poles or walls going from floor to floor.

The floor was a line of trusses that ran from the outside walls to the interior core. There were no internal supports.

Go look at any modern office building that's going up. Floor trusses.

Go to Home Depot and ask how you support floor trusses.

Floor trusses are designed to be attached at the ends and not in the middle. It gives the maximum floor space with out internal walls or poles getting in the way of design ideas.

reply to post by WarminIndy


When the hot air rose it was replaced by cooler air that's why no vacuum OK!

reply to post by samkent

If the floor collaspes because of too many cans why would the floor below arrest the fall of the cans?

Newton's Third Law of Motion --That's why [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0becb4735fb.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by wmd_2008

NO the wall columns were designed for the wind loads the core for the gravity load.
Each FLOORSLAB is suspended between the walls and the core.
No floor below supports a floor above if they did why were the connection size for the floors the same from top to bottom? A section of angle iron with 2no 5/8" bolts
Any load on a floorslab would pass to the colums either side of the trusses through the floor connections!
What happens when the load is to large for the connections to support?
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Or do you think the 2 little bits of angle which held each truss were a strong as the 5" thick steel at the base of the columns!

It doesn't matter what I think, what I know is the lack of deceleration when the top section contacts the bottom section is impossible.

It doesn't matter if the floors are supported by toothpicks and scotch tape, when the top section slams into the floor below it, the inelastic collision would slow down the top section due to the loss of Kinetic Energy to sound, friction, heat, and so on.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9629646198b.jpg[/atsimg] If the top section smashing into the bottom section was energetic enough to pulverize it into dust, then the laws of physics apply to it just like every single other situation on planet Earth.

You guys keep side-stepping the Laws of Motion in an attempt to justify the impossible collapse, but you must be forgetting that those laws are universal. Do you understand what that means? They apply to everything, every single situation that you can possibly imagine. The only situations in which Newtons Laws of Motion do not apply are with subatomic particles or anything moving near light speed. Other than that, there are no exceptions.

E-mail any Physics professor, and ask if Newtons Laws of Motion only apply to basic, ideal situations like pool balls colliding, or if they are universally applicable. Every single one of them will tell you that they are universally applicable, meaning that they apply to everything that isn't the size of an atom or moving near light speed.

u·ni·ver·sal
   [yoo-nuh-vur-suhl] Show IPA

–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.

2.
applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.

universal

The twin towers are included in "all cases". Even if the laws of physics contradict your official story, that sucks, becuse the official story isn't a universal concept, the laws of physics are.

Laws of Physics > Official Story

reply to post by samkent

No they are not.
There are no internal poles or walls going from floor to floor.

The floor was a line of trusses that ran from the outside walls to the interior core. There were no internal supports.

Go look at any modern office building that's going up. Floor trusses.

Go to Home Depot and ask how you support floor trusses.

Floor trusses are designed to be attached at the ends and not in the middle. It gives the maximum floor space with out internal walls or poles getting in the way of design ideas.

Some proof to back this up would be nice but I'll take your word.

So, the top section collides with the bottom section with enough force to turn it to dust. Please explain how the universal Laws of Motion do not apply to this situation.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I like to call the official story about what actually occured (beyond the point of hypothetical "collapse initiation") regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center - The Foot of God Hypothesis.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

When the hot air rose it was replaced by cooler air that's why no vacuum OK!

Then objects on fire falling into that vacuum means no more cool air and more air to fuel the fire. The question then becomes this, "What happens when the rate of objects on fire fall into a vacuum is greater than the speed of the incoming cooler air?"

Here is an example of a fire event that caused a vacuum...

www.andras-nagy.com...

I will say that this was the Tunguska event that was thought to be caused by a nuclear explosion. This event occurred outdoors where there was plenty of air.

www.ldolphin.org...
And yet another one about vacuums created by fire.

readingeagle.com...
And now, the reporter, and not the minister, says there was a vacuum created by the fire that the firemen had to deal with.

A backdraft is a fire event in which air is suddenly reintroduced.Have you never studied fires?

Originally posted by samkent
You never did answer my question.
Can you overload a floor with too many cans of corn?
If the floor collaspes because of too many cans why would the floor below arrest the fall of the cans?

Casual readers to the thread, fellow members and Moderators, enjoy the following script and see how samkent fails to support his claim.

samkent: On Earth mass = weight.

me: Huh? Prove it. Describes the effects on weight when in an elevator.

samkent: Restates that on Earth mass = weight. Supplies a link that describes gravity on other planets, something he doesn't understand.

me: Huh? Seriously... you need to prove that mass = weight.

samkent: Still insists that on Earth mass = weight. Then he starts describing stacking corn cans on a floor.

me: Explains that mass is scalar and weight force is a vector.

samkent: Still avoids proving that on Earth mass = weight. Then tries to divert the attention away from his failure to understand basic science, by insisting that I answer his smokescreen question about corn cans!

samkent, I don't care about your stacked corn cans. samkent stack corn and I don't care!

You made the claim that on Earth mass = weight. You won't admit to being wrong, which makes the fact that you want me to answer your corn can question even more laughable than it already is.

No, samkent, I will not answer your corn can question. You have displayed a basic misunderstanding of science by claiming that on Earth mass = weight. How can you possibly understand more complicated scenarios when your basic conceptual ideas are flawed???

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Of course the bottom floors are supporting the weight above them

No.

The columns were. This why the columns got incresingly larger and stronger towards the bottom.

And this is where truthers jump the shark, cuz they are unable to distinguish the difference, or just enjoy trolling their lies....

reply to post by tezzajw


That says a lot about your understanding of the real world. Go get some construction experience, then your view of the world will be different.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Can you provide me with some blueprints to back up what you're saying? I hate having discussions when people just say things with no evidence to back it up.

How about you explain to me how the Laws of Motion didn't apply to the collapse of the twin towers? Since you claim I'm just "trolling", enough of my posts, let's hear your scientific explanation over how the universal laws of physics didn't apply to a situation that they should have applied to.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
when the top section slams into the floor below it, the inelastic collision would slow down the top section due to the loss of Kinetic Energy to sound, friction, heat, and so on.

Correct.

How much it should slow down is the issue, and requires an engineering study.

You believe that every collision should have decelerrated the descending mass. Engineering studies indicate that it should have only resulted in less than freefall acceleration.

This is another example of truthers jumpimg the shark - you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no idea of the difference between deceleration and less than freefall acceleration.

So a little analogy to explain the difference:

1-you floor your pickup's throttle and your pickup will accelerate from 40-80 in 10 seconds. We will equate this with freefall acceleration - nothing holding it back, zero resistance
2- now you floor it again, but drag the brakes lightly the whole time -which applies resistance to the acceleration - and your pickup accelerates from 40-80 in 13 seconds. This lesser acceleration, and using the analogy of #1, is less than freefall acceleration.
3- you floor it again, but at the same time stand on the brakes. Now, instead of accelerating, your pickup loses velocity - 35, 30, 25, 20.... This is deceleration, even though the same amount of yorque is being applied to accelerate the pickup.

Do you understand the difference?

And herein lies the truther problem - you are trying to say that application of the brakes WILL result in deceleration, no matter what.

However, as any intelligent person can see by reading my analogy, it depends on how hard you apply the brakes. Or, to tie it back into the collapses, how much resistance is applied to the descending mass.

This takes engineering - and as quite a few have pointed out to you, stuff falls on floors, so the amount of resistance that the floors can give to the descending mass is the key thing to consider.

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Can you provide me with some blueprints to back up what you're saying? I hate having discussions when people just say things with no evidence to back it up.

Really?

If you need blueprints to understand that columns hold the gravity loads, then you are out of your depth, and will never understand.

If you are questioning the fact that the columns got larger and stronger towards the bottom, then ANOK has provided a few links to a wikidot that details it. This is not in dispute.

reply to post by tezzajw


You are hilarious, that was funny u crack me up!