Gravity Can't Do This!

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Well in the quote PLB provided it says...

The wall thickness and grade of steel in the external columns are varied in successive steps in the upward direction: wall thickness decreasing from 12.5 to 7.5 mm, yield point of the steel from 70.0 to 29.5 kg/mm2.

911research.wtc7.net...

So we know for a fact the core and outer mesh columns tapered in size, and weight, from bottom to top.

Here is the core data again...wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

It's obvious that the towers could not have collapsed through an increasing mass. This is why the OSer are afraid of this evidence of the towers construction. You know they're going to twist this info somehow lol.

Originally posted by ANOK


So we know for a fact the core and outer mesh columns tapered in size, and weight, from bottom to top.

It's obvious that the towers could not have collapsed through an increasing mass. This is why the OSer are afraid of this evidence of the towers construction. You know they're going to twist this info somehow lol.

The truss seats were the same size all the way down the building. As we keep telling you this was flaw in the design of the World Trade Towers.

reply to post by ANOK

Construction of the record-breaking skyscrapers will be a prodigious undertaking. Each will require about 86,000 tons (78,000 tonnes) of structural steel, the whole project about 200,000 tons. (The Empire State Building took 60,000 tons, the huge Pan Am Building, 45,000 tons.) Elevators will be the world's fastest, at 1700 ft per minute, and have by far the largest high-speed cabs ever installed. The project's air-conditioning system will require 40,000 tons of refrigeration and 80,000 gal per min of river water. Electrical needs are estimated to total 60,000 kw, equivalent to that of a city with 400,000 population, such as Syracuse, N.Y. Pressure in water pipes may exceed 500 psi. And these are only a few of the enormous requirements of this colossal project. From Engineering News Record, January 30, 1964.

400,000 tons the 86,000 is the american short ton (2000lb) ie the other a 78,000 metric tonne (2204lb)

No answer on the floor connections yet ANOK i wonder why

Originally posted by waypastvne
The truss seats were the same size all the way down the building. As we keep telling you this was flaw in the design of the World Trade Towers.

How is that a flaw in the design? How do you know they didn't change in size, everything else did.

But what has that to do with the floors stacking up and creating resistance?

I explained this before, the columns could have been toothpicks, with the floors attached using chewing gum, the floors themselves would still stack up and slow the collapse. 15 floors can not crush 95 floors regardless of how they were attached to the columns, or even if there were columns at all.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

No answer on the floor connections yet ANOK i wonder why

Huh? See my post above?

Just because I don't answer every single thread it doesn't mean I am ignoring anything. There is nothing you claim that I have not addressed at some point, it's not like you ever say anything new or different. Sorry but I don't sit here all day waiting for posts to jump on, unlike like you guys I have another life outside of this forum.

Originally posted by ANOK
15 floors can not crush 95 floors regardless of how they were attached to the columns, or even if there were columns at all.

As has been explained to you many times, 15 floors did not crush 95.... 15 crushed 1 floor, then 16 crushed 1 floor etc etc..

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by ANOK
15 floors can not crush 95 floors regardless of how they were attached to the columns, or even if there were columns at all.

As has been explained to you many times, 15 floors did not crush 95.... 15 crushed 1 floor, then 16 crushed 1 floor etc etc..

And as has been explained to you many times, you are wrong. It is not 15 floors crushing 1 floor. Using that logic I could say it was 1 floor dropping on 95 floors, because you keep failing to realise that the 15 floors push down, and the 95 floors push back, and there is nothing that is going to stop the falling floor being crushed when it impacted the stationary floor. When the floors collided the floor impacted is not going to add to the dropping mass, it will slow the collapse, because for that floor to have failed takes energy, and that energy comes from the Ke of the dropping mass. If Ke is being lost the collapse will slow down. Each successive drop would slow the collapse until it runs out of energy to keep crushing an increasing mass.

The falling floors could not have remained undamaged while crushing the stationary floors.

Equal opposite reaction means the forces on both impacting floors was the same, that is what you keep leaving out of your hypothesis. Both floors would be damaged, not just the stationary floor. In any collision its the mass that determines damage, not velocity, as velocity increases the forces on BOTH objects, equally. So once again for the millionth time, even IF the floors falling were only damaged half the amount the stationary floors were, you would still have 65 floors that could not be crushed. You can not make 15 floors crush 95 floors.

Try dropping 15 pancakes on 95 pancakes, and see if it follows your reasoning, any way you want to try it. If your claim is true, then you should be able to easily demonstrate it, that is how science works.

reply to post by ANOK

It is not 15 floors crushing 1 floor. Using that logic I could say it was 1 floor dropping on 95 floors,

Yes you could say that and we would laugh at you. The 15 floors are a combined DYNAMIC mass moving towards a STATIC mass consisting of one floor with 94 others waiting below. The 95 floors have only potential energy and that is pointed at the earths centre of gravity.The 15 floors have kinetic energy that is also pointed at the earths centre of gravity and it will impart a massive force on whatever stands between it and the earths cg.

Since the 95 floors are static they can impart no force on the upper 15 floors other than resistance so there mass is irrelevant. Yes the forces at the point of impact are equal and opposite, BUT this resistance force can not exceed the failure strength of the truss seat connections.

It is beyond obvious that this is what failed.



You do realise that by using your Truther Physics a controlled demolition would be impossible. The mass of the expanding gas in the explosives would be nothing in comparison to the mass of the building and the force on both would be equal and opposite. So in your world the entire mass of the building would cancel out the force of the explosives. That is according to your Truther Physics.

reply to post by ANOK


ÀNOK.it works like this look at a floor plan what will most of the falling mass hit the answer the floorslab.
If any mass hits a wall column or a core column then that will have the resistance of the full length of that column but the floorslabs are independant and are connected to the columns the connections have to be able to resist the load they are the weak point.

No floorslab can assist another to resist the load because they don't have a direct connection from one to the other.

The Empire State building was built with a traditional steel grid ie with columns from floot to floor it does not have large open plan office floors like the tower's had.

So when the mass falls the bulk hits the flooslab as its connections hold the floor in place that's what has to resist the dynamic load a small part of it hits the columns that's what you can't seem to picture how the falling mass interacts with the lower structure.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

ÀNOK.it works like this look at a floor plan what will most of the falling mass hit the answer the floorslab.

NO!

That assumes floorslabs in the falling portion have broken loose from the core. If they remain attached then the mass comes down on the lower stationary core. And then you people ignore the horizontal beams connecting the core columns.

Your assumptions are based on your conclusion.

psik

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

ÀNOK.it works like this look at a floor plan what will most of the falling mass hit the answer the floorslab.

Yes. But you are not addressing the correct physics laws that apply to that action. You are making an incorrect, but very common, mistake in your reasoning.

When the falling mass hits the first 'floorslab' [sic], the forces on both impacting floor slabs is the same, equal opposite reaction. Do you agree? If you answer yes skip to the next section. If you answer no continue reading...

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

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

Ok so the forces on both the impacting floors is the same, regardless of mass or velocity. So if the forces are equal then what causes the damage? Look at this example wmd...

In case B, where car A collides with car B, we have some different force considerations. Assuming that car A and car B are complete mirrors of each other (again, this is a highly idealized situation), they would collide with each other going at precisely the same speed (but opposite directions). From conservation of momentum, we know that they must both come to rest. The mass is the same. Therefore, the force experienced by car A and car B are identical and are identical to that acting on the car in case A.

physics.about.com...

BTW it doesn't matter what direction the objects are moving, or whether they are moving from gravity or their own power. The laws apply to all objects and their movement.

Now imagine that is concrete and steel floor slabs. You have unequal mass because you have 15 floors falling on 95 floors. No floor is going to add to the falling mass, because according to physics the forces on each floor when impacting is equal, so no matter how you look at it the first floor of the falling block will react to the first static floor with equal force. There is nothing causing the impacted floor to be crushed, and the falling floors to not be crushed. So 15 floors will all be crushed before 95 floors are.

Now I know you will try to claim that the floors were still available to do the crushing, because you think the crushed rubble remained in the footprint until it somehow all disappeared after all the crushing was done.
Obviously you only have to watch the collapse and look at post collapse pics to see that was not what happened.

You OSers can't keep pretending there was mass to do crushing, when it's obvious there wasn't.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

ÀNOK.it works like this look at a floor plan what will most of the falling mass hit the answer the floorslab.

NO!

That assumes floorslabs in the falling portion have broken loose from the core. If they remain attached then the mass comes down on the lower stationary core. And then you people ignore the horizontal beams connecting the core columns.

Your assumptions are based on your conclusion.

psik

edit on 31-7-2011 by psikeyhackr because: sp err

Lets see floor slab is connected same way at both end core or wall small section of steel and 2no 5/8" bolts.



On the North Tower the plane hit high up core columns are a smaller section as ANOK always tells us.

So you have
15x700+ tons of floorslabs + 15 floors of wall columns + 15 floors of core columns + the top hat trusses + the radio mast + lift machinery . Quite a lot of mass.

On the South Tower its worse by a big margin.

Like I have say on a few other posts I checked what STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS would consider as the dynamic load of the falling floors they said they would consider it as a MINIMUM of TWICE THE STATIC LOAD.

They also said that the actual load would be far greater but to work it out they would need other info ie time taken for the impacted slab to fail!

YOU DONT KNOW WHAT DAMAGE WAS DONE INSIDE NONE OF US DO SO IT CANT BE RULED OUT !

reply to post by ANOK



You dont have 15 falling on 95 cant you see that!

The floor slabs are independant of each other.

Can you show on this drawing how a load on the top slab is supported by the slab below.



The loads on the floor slab are transmitted to the wall/core columns through the connections to the COLUMNS NOT THE FLOORSLAB BELOW.

If the load is large enough to break the connections the floor drops!

Why are the connections and even the floor trusses the office floorslabs the same size from top to bottom YET your columns have to be thicker, the columns have to be because THEY DO take all the coulmn mass from above. If the floorslabs did take mass from the floorslab above would the connections and THE TRUSSES not be larger lower down NOW HAS IT SUNK IN!

If what you said was true then the very bottom office floor would be taking the mass of all the office equipment services and people for all the floors right to the top and THAT IS NONSENSE!

What you end up with is a series of collisions! not just 2 masses

NOT YOUR SIMPLE SCHOOLBOY STUFF.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
YOU DONT KNOW WHAT DAMAGE WAS DONE INSIDE NONE OF US DO SO IT CANT BE RULED OUT

Therefore, any claims that some core columns were damaged by the planes, are unproven, right?

Second line.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

You dont have 15 falling on 95 cant you see that!

Yes you do.

The floor slabs are independant of each other.

Yes in both the falling block and the impacted block of floors. As I explained.

Can you show on this drawing how a load on the top slab is supported by the slab below.

I'm not sure what you're asking here? You still don't get it that the falling floor will be damaged just as the impacted floors is damaged. Whether it could take the load is irrelevant. You have this incorrect image in your head that the dropping floor will simply cause the impacted floor to fail at the trusses, but the floors stay in one solid piece. That can not happen, and didn't happen if you watch the collapses.

The loads on the floor slab are transmitted to the wall/core columns through the connections to the COLUMNS NOT THE FLOORSLAB BELOW.

The load is going to be transmitted to the floors before the connections.

If the load is large enough to break the connections the floor drops!

And that is a huge IF that you are simply assuming.

Why are the connections and even the floor trusses the office floorslabs the same size from top to bottom YET your columns have to be thicker, the columns have to be because THEY DO take all the coulmn mass from above. If the floorslabs did take mass from the floorslab above would the connections and THE TRUSSES not be larger lower down NOW HAS IT SUNK IN!

No one is saying the floors themselves had anything to do with holding the floors above. Why are you so confused about this?

BTW how do you know the floors and trusses were the same size, another assumption, based on what?

If what you said was true then the very bottom office floor would be taking the mass of all the office equipment services and people for all the floors right to the top and THAT IS NONSENSE!

No because I never said what it is your getting confused about. Maybe you should re-read what I said because you are making no sense to me now.

What you end up with is a series of collisions! not just 2 masses

No you don't. According to the OS* the trusses failed allowing the top section of floors to drop and keep dropping crushing the rest of the building bellow. The top dropped as one whole block of floors still connected together onto another block of floors still connected together. This is where you keep ignoring the laws of motion, that you fail to address in every post, so go back and read what I said about the laws of motion and how they apply I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing.

NOT YOUR SIMPLE SCHOOLBOY STUFF.

Simple? You are the one who keep leaving out the relevant physics. I adequately covered the laws of motion in context with the visual evidence we have, as simply as possible, and you still fail to understand it. Your caps and explanation marks don't make your claims any more real. Please brush up on your physics knowledge.

How many times do I have to show you this until it sinks in?

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

That is what you need to address, if you don't include it in your analysis then you have failed before you start.

And your claim still doesn't address the core columns telescoping down through an increasing mass?



* BTW that is actually not what the NIST report claims, as they didn't cover the collapse itself, and rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis that these OSers here are for some reason still trying to argue for. Muppets.

reply to post by ANOK


Lets go with your car example then ANOK

You are in car A which weighs 1ton, I am in vehicle B which weighs 15ton
You are stationary I am doing 19 mph.

What happens when they collide.

Looking forward to you answer.

So you don't have to think to hard. Click on the links that's important! !!!

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/truckc.html#c2

So now do you see that YOU and others don't really understand the full implications of Newton's Laws.

According to annok…

All the college physics professors in the world are in on the secret.
All the High school physics teachers in the world are in on it.

Or is it that annok has misinterpreted the laws of physics?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
So you have
15x700+ tons of floorslabs + 15 floors of wall columns + 15 floors of core columns + the top hat trusses + the radio mast + lift machinery . Quite a lot of mass.

Notice that you put in the TONS for the floor slabs but you did not put it in for ANYTHING ELSE. Then you have the nerve to talk about MASS.

Guess what? After TEN YEARS we don't have the data to do the analysis regardless of what really happened.

Now why is that? Why haven't our so called PHYSICISTS been demanding it.

I didn't see you mention the horizontal beams in the core that connected the core columns. How many TONS were they. We don't even know how many feet. I am estimating 1500 feet per level but I have never seen it specified.

So at best we don't have the data after TEN YEARS so this is a scientific travesty no matter what happened.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century. But nobody went to war over that.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Now why is that? Why haven't our so called PHYSICISTS been demanding it.

Only two reasons I can think of.
1.All the worlds physicists understand and accept the collapse as a consequence of the airplane(s).
2.They are all in on it and they are teaching all subsequent students differently to keep the secret.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Now why is that? Why haven't our so called PHYSICISTS been demanding it.

Only two reasons I can think of.
1.All the worlds physicists understand and accept the collapse as a consequence of the airplane(s).
2.They are all in on it and they are teaching all subsequent students differently to keep the secret.

What does "in on it" mean?

Is figuring out that it is an up hill battle to explain the obvious to the stupid and not worth the time the same as "in on it"?

No matter what it displays an obvious lack of scientific curiosity. For whatever reason. The most amazing thing about 9/11 is how the top of the south tower tilted 22+ degrees in a couple of second 50 minutes after the building stopped vibrating from the plane impact. That required the bottom of the upper broken portion to move horizontally 20 feet and yet the plane impact only moved the building 15 inches.

Yeah, a serious lack of scientific curiosity there.

So you need to get people to judge on the basis of psychological bullsh# with, "they are all in on it".

So 9/11 is about psychology rather than physics. Facing backwards in the elevator.

psik