Gravity Can't Do This!

Originally posted by Juanxlink
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Glad to see you comparing ships to skyscrapers... Kinda shows the "potential". Sheeptards at work...

He is not he is showing what impact energy can do something YOU psik and ANOK dont seem to understand!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Juanxlink
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Glad to see you comparing ships to skyscrapers... Kinda shows the "potential". Sheeptards at work...

He is not he is showing what impact energy can do something YOU psik and ANOK dont seem to understand!

I already demonstrated the effect.

www.youtube.com...

I is not my fault that stupid people can't figure out that what they think could happen could not possibly have happened. And then they don't want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. The structure strong enough to support the weight would absorb kinetic energy in the process of being crushed thereby slowing the falling mass until it no longer had sufficient energy to continue the destruction.

Grade school physics.

So we await the Ten Year anniversary of the 9/11 Religion.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

What is the PHYSICAL difference between a car owned by Hertz or Avis and the same make and model car owned by a consumer?

None.

Do the Laws of Physics work differently for the different machines?

I am not sure exactly what you mean - but I am going to say no.

Does one depreciate and one not?

No.

Tell a bank that gives car loans that automobiles owned by consumers do not depreciate.

They do. However -
Consumer and Capital goods are differentiated not by model or color or size or any physical property, It is a difference in definition depending on purpose.

I can spend $1500 on a drill press because my hobby is woodworking. The drill press is then considered a consumer good. If I spend the same $1500 on the same drill press and start making chairs to sell then it is a capital good. I can write off its depreciation against my cost of goods sold. If it is just sitting in my basement waiting for me to make that unbrella stand for the wife then it still depreciates but from an macro economic standpoint - it doesn't matter.

But this not the place to teach you about economics and marketing.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I already demonstrated the effect.

www.youtube.com...

I is not my fault that stupid people can't figure out that what they think could happen could not possibly have happened. And then they don't want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. The structure strong enough to support the weight would absorb kinetic energy in the process of being crushed thereby slowing the falling mass until it no longer had sufficient energy to continue the destruction.

Grade school physics.

So we await the Ten Year anniversary of the 9/11 Religion.

psik

Ok, enough. You keep yammering about how the structure is suppose to be strong enough to absorb the kinetic energy that was crushing the rest. Explain how exactly the structure is suppose to do that, remembering (something you guys just dont seem to be very good at) the specific design details like the floor truss seat connections, the issues with light steel trusses in fires, etc.

You keep asking for the distribution of steel and concrete. Read NIST's report, and please, shut up about it. You have been directed multiple times to it, and you ignored it every time, so, sorry about being snippy, but it is getting ridiculous, so, last time, read the report and stop acting like a child. I bet a steak dinner that you havent even read 1/100th of the report, or even understood the intro.

Your experiment, though valiant and well intended, is not demonstrative of the WTC event. You used paper rings between the washers, which is the equivalent of having internal columns supporting floors and I-beams holding them up, rather than the floors being supported by floor trusses set on seats at each end. Your model needs to be tweaked: instead of having the washers held up by paper rings, have the washers be in an actual tube held up on four sides with paper or small cardboard tabs. This would be a far better scale model of the floor system, and also, the collapse sequence. Your model, had the unintended (or not) consequence of having extra items to be crushed and act like a break to the collapse. The crushing of the paper rings is giving the extra resistance, while in the WTC, it did not have that luxury. All that held up the floors were those seats. So, if I were you, I would remodel your model, use small tabs instead of paper rings to hold up the washers, and try it again. You also should account for the extra affect of the exterior columns being pushed out by the collapsing debris, as any extra horizontal movement of the exterior columns, would sever the connections as well, or at least weaken them to failure on impact of the main mass. Picture an arrow splitting an arrow. As it impacts the back side, the first arrow is being split from tail to nose. That is similar to what happened to the WTC as the top section came down. That force pushed out the exterior columns as well, severing the seats, snapping the bolts, or overextending the connection.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ok, enough. You keep yammering about how the structure is suppose to be strong enough to absorb the kinetic energy that was crushing the rest. Explain how exactly the structure is suppose to do that, remembering (something you guys just dont seem to be very good at) the specific design details like the floor truss seat connections, the issues with light steel trusses in fires, etc.

This has been explained over and over again to you.

Floor truss seats etc., have nothing to do with 15 concrete and steel floors being able to crush 95 to the ground.

Take away your trusses, and try to get 15 concrete slabs to crush 95 to the ground, you can not do it, period.

Physics doesn't care how the building was constructed.

Your use of 'lightweight' trusses is erroneous, lightweight does not equate to weakness, or a failure in design. They are called 'lightweight' because in comparison with conventional beams they are. But they have to be deigned to meet the loads, plus the safety factor just like any building component. They were not a weak point in the system like you want people to believe. Almost every building now use trusses, if they were such a bad design they wouldn't be used at all.

reply to post by ANOK

Physics doesn't care how the building was constructed.

And we have a winner!! Physics doesn't care how the building was constructed????? Its the only thing physics cares about. What it doesn't care about is your opinions about symmetrical, asymmetrical, in the footprint, not in the footprint and half a dozen other irrelevant and poorly worded opinions.

Your use of 'lightweight' trusses is erroneous, lightweight does not equate to weakness, or a failure in design. They are called 'lightweight' because in comparison with conventional beams they are. But they have to be deigned to meet the loads, plus the safety factor just like any building component. They were not a weak point in the system like you want people to believe. Almost every building now use trusses, if they were such a bad design they wouldn't be used at all.

Quick - what was the safety factor for impact load on the truss seats?

Annok you seem to ignore what is obvious to us and the rest of the world.

You refuse to believe that a floor can be overloaded and fail. That’s what it boils down to.
You want to think that floors were being crushed when they weren’t. It was the contents that were crushed. The floors were being snapped off at the ends by excessive weight.

Plus you keep harping on ‘the distribution of steel and concrete’. You wouldn’t know what to do with it if someone handed you a set of the original plans.

reply to post by samkent

Plus you keep harping on ‘the distribution of steel and concrete’. You wouldn’t know what to do with it if someone handed you a set of the original plans.

Uh, I think you may have ANOK confused with another Physics Master, pssiiskyehaccker or some such thing.

reply to post by hooper

I accept my error.

You see i have posted for years on this issue as a structural engineer...and many of these so called people here that i see still speaking the same and not acknowledging the same people they have been talking with over these years......the OS story has failed on the pancake theory and even the NIST report does not support the theory....just as the bazant Zhou report was faulty in how much of the stucture was required to sustain the crush down effect......and also how the crush up effect on the upper structure after the collapse would occur.....Crush up according to bazant does not occur UNTIL AFTER the crush down phase has been executed....in other words the upper block should wholey remain INTACT until the collapse of the lower block has been FULLY completed.
Now i do not need to show anything as all you need to do if you actually care is go through my many postings over the years to quantify what is being stated here.
but just for your own personal entertainment.

time with no resistance....due to gravity.

yet again times assuming no resistance


well folks.....if this was a top top down collapse ....then wow....there would be resistance from the lower structure...SUPRISE!!!

I no longer get baited by the people whom just want to try to pick one thing thing apart....and not look at the whole picture.......And not Even mentioning the collapse time of building seven here.

you Decide A B or C


pancake theory is a joke as the timeline of collapse in no way would support that theory as time by acceleration due to gravity does not allow it to be physically possible due to the fact there would be resistance from the lower structure.

ok lets look at the collapse time of building seven


A compilation

I do not put these here for the OS believers ...as they are already blind....and i can tell by the people in here the same 6 or so people are still agruing their same points over and over....I put these here for people with common sense and the understanding of structures(steel core) and those whom have some understanding of the laws of physics and accelerations due to gravity.

freefall time of buidling 7

Acceleration: 9.8m/s/s
Distance: 186m
Time: 6.161102472242235s
Initial Velocity: 0m/s

freefall time of towers

Acceleration: 9.8m/s/s
Distance: 541m
Time: 10.507528884819024s
Initial Velocity: 0m/s

these are times with no resistance....and there is only one possible way for these structures with their STEEL central cores to even come close to falling at these marked times...and i maen close..as within even times appraoching +5s and that is if their lower structures showed absolutely zero resistance.....and how to achieve this...the only way that we know of to this date is to use CD to remove this resistance.

As has been mentioned time and time again....and even from the day i sat watching this happening.....i said to myself....not a chance those buildings came down due to fires and the impact of the aircraft within some 58 mins after impact and even 1hr 28mins after impact.

to to all those whom think that coming in and just trying to pick apart one item here or one little tidbit there i do not present this to you i present this to people with logic and common sense to understand the improbabilities involved in what the OS states.......the pancake has been squashed and does not fit. TIME does not allow it to occur. The progressive collapse does not work as it fails in Bazant Zhous own work as their own crush up phase does not exsist as from the video evidence the upper block collpases before the the lower block has completed it's collapse.

As i state always...what actually brought these steel structures down is speculation....but what did not bring these structures down is fires and impacts alone.....you decide.

Originally posted by samkent
You refuse to believe that a floor can be overloaded and fail. That’s what it boils down to.
You want to think that floors were being crushed when they weren’t. It was the contents that were crushed. The floors were being snapped off at the ends by excessive weight.

No, I never said a floor could not be overloaded. You are not reading what I have said.

If floors were not being crushed then where did they go? Did they just disappear?

If floors were not being crushed, broken apart, decimated, whatever word you want to use, then the floors would still be visible in the footprint of the building.

Plus you keep harping on ‘the distribution of steel and concrete’. You wouldn’t know what to do with it if someone handed you a set of the original plans

No I don't, you are confusing me with another poster.

When are you going to address the laws of motion, equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws?
If you understand physics you will be able to explain the collapses using those laws. Until you do whatever you say is not science, OK?

Originally posted by hooper
And we have a winner!!

Physics doesn't care how the building was constructed????? Its the only thing physics cares about. What it doesn't care about is your opinions about symmetrical, asymmetrical, in the footprint, not in the footprint and half a dozen other irrelevant and poorly worded opinions.

No, you just fail to understand my point. The floors, regardless of how they were connected to the columns, have to follow the laws of motion when they fall on each other.

Quick - what was the safety factor for impact load on the truss seats?

What is the point of this question? It has to be at least x2. It is the same for static or dynamic loads, so what is your point?

But again you are not paying attention to my point. Regardless of loading, or trusses, or whatever, 15 concrete and steel panned floors can not crush 95. Even if you were to take 15 floors, and drop them from 100ft., they still can't 'crush' 95 floors. Simple physics explains this, equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws, you keep failing to address.

Originally posted by ANOK

But again you are not paying attention to my point. Regardless of loading, or trusses, or whatever, 15 concrete and steel panned floors can not crush 95. Even if you were to take 15 floors, and drop them from 100ft., they still can't 'crush' 95 floors. Simple physics explains this, equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws, you keep failing to address.

No you are like a stuck record answer theses questions TRUTHFULLY then YOU might see the error in your assumption.

1) What held any INDIVIDUAL floor up suspended between the outer wall and the core.

2) When the collapse started what would the BULK of the mass fall onto!

Then look at the answer to question 1.

You also claim that the floors were ejected to back up your wacko ideas.

Please show during the start of this collapse the floors being ejected



Now as you dont see the floors being ejected of that 15 floors of MASS were would the bulk of that fallen onto.

The FLOOR DECK below the collapse now please refer back to answer 1 & 2

I said this to SirMike the other day if you think you are right ANOK PLEASE PLEASE try this!!!!!!

Here is a little experiment for you if you can hold a 50kg weight comfortably get someone to lift that what shall we say ah 12 ft the height of a WTC floor and when they drop it, you catch it see if it still seems to weigh 50kg ! please video it and youtube it with the address to send the flowers to!!!!

If you try that we certainly wont have to listen to your BS again!

Ps re your constant quote of Newtons Laws please look into WORk DONE and impacts!!! all to do with the laws you keep quoting!

reply to post by psikeyhackr


We have already explained to YOU and shown that WHEN the mass falls the DYNAMIC load is MANY MANY times the stactic load!!! GOT IT

reply to post by wmd_2008


I just have to clarify one item here.....the whole upper structure would not just come down onto the floor deck below as though there was nothing there like a void.....you see there would be compression of the central core...as you can see there is the the roofline falling along with the upper block simultaneously.

The item i notice with the official story throughout all discussions is the central core is always neglected, if we follow the senario of the floors just collapsing they would have to fall around the central core....

not once....never...ever.....has anyone one EVER other than CD has explained what happened to the central core.....now CD is speculative....but so far it is the ONLY method of destruction that can plausibly explain the straight down collapse of ANY building constructed around a STEEL central core.....So before you continue with the discussion it is totally upto you at this point to explain how the Central core in ALL three buildings vanish.(if you eat on the word vanish then i know you are either stupid or a troll as people know what i mean by the word vanish here as not some mythical thing where they are beamed away)

But you know what....you can't....you know how i know you can't...because NIST can't...Bazant zhou can't....and i can't....So when you or anyone whom understands the construction of steel structures and the purpose of the central core (which i have stated over and over) you might have a chance at sustaining your arguments.....but until that time your arguments will fail....

Am i here saying it was positively a CD...NO.... I am saying a CD explains the collapse of the central core the best....So whomever you are along with the other Six people in here whom try their hardest to sway the truthers.....you will have to address this Fact....as not ONCE ....never.....nil has this FACT ever been brushed aside......

i will not repost all my findings....as they are all on here for your perusal.....so please refrain from the perception that these structures were vast MT spaces that had not once once of support....the core CANNOT just compress down upon itself.

As in any demolition situation the cantral core is the structure in the buildings that needs to be dealt with in order to bring about a collapse of said structure.....There is not any argument of semantics here it is FACT.

address the issue and stop trying to baffle people with BS

just to be as condescending as yourself toward others

GOT IT!!!!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
1) What held any INDIVIDUAL floor up suspended between the outer wall and the core.

2) When the collapse started what would the BULK of the mass fall onto!

Then look at the answer to question 1.

I will answer your questions, for what they're worth. The trusses held up the floors. The bulk of the mass, the 15 floors as one structure fell onto the 95 floors bellow, as one structure.

Your misunderstanding is coming from the Bazant nonsense. You have to believe it was 15 floors falling on one floor, and thus ignoring the mass of the 95 floors, in order for your hypothesis to work.

If the 15 floors caused the one floor to fail, then the floor itself would be destroyed also, because to make all those trusses fail would take more energy than crushing the concrete. The floor that is falling would also be destroyed as the impact forces would be equal. You can't have it both ways, failure of steel, but no failure of the concrete. If the concrete is being crushed, and pushed out of the way, then you are losing mass, not gaining it. And again no the rubble could not stay in the footprint until all the floors are crushed and then eject itself in a 360d arc around the towers. Anyone who believes that is simply ignorant.

You also claim that the floors were ejected to back up your wacko ideas.

Why do you keep saying this when all evidence shows the floors were ejected out of the footprint? Why do you insist on ignoring your own OS? It is not just me making this claim FEMA did, OK? FEMA supports that claim. Look at the damn post collapse pics, do you see anything in the footprints higher than the lobby levels? No you don't.

If there are no floors in the footprints, then the only conclusion you can come to is they were ejected during the collapse as the floors impacted, which makes sense physically. It makes no sense for the impacted floors to stay in the footprint, what would keep them there, and where did they go once the collapse was finished? When objects collide, and break up, the pieces tend to move horizontally from the impact. Try dropping a plate on the ground, what do the pieces do?

Please show during the start of this collapse the floors being ejected

Tell me what happened to the floors if they were not ejected during the collapse? Where is your evidence the floors were still in the footprint post collapse? Once the collapse was moving, all that dust is the floors being ejected.

Even IF the floors were still in the footprint, you still have to explain how the core failed and telescoped down through an increasing mass. See, whatever way you try to spin the tail you come up against something that doesn't fit in your hypothesis. Try it from any angle you wish there will be physical reality that will contradict the claims you are trying to peddle. It's not even the OS, they rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis you are still clinging to because you have nothing else.

Now as you dont see the floors being ejected of that 15 floors of MASS were would the bulk of that fallen onto.

Again if all the mass stayed in the footprint, the collapse would have slowed before it was complete due to the build up of the floors. We would also see floors stacked up in the footprint. Again, you can't have to both ways.

Here is a little experiment for you if you can hold a 50kg weight comfortably get someone to lift that what shall we say ah 12 ft the height of a WTC floor and when they drop it, you catch it see if it still seems to weigh 50kg ! please video it and youtube it with the address to send the flowers to!!!!

That is nonsense, it does not correlate to the collapse of a building. 15 floors falling on 95 floors is nothing like your ability to hold weight. All it shows is you really don't understand the concepts.

You have 110 floors made of concrete in steel pans. How do you think 20% of that mass can crush 80% of that mass, regardless of trusses or how far they dropped? Try dropping 20% of anything on 80% of the same.

If you try that we certainly wont have to listen to your BS again!

Oh I see, that is the point isn't it, to shut me up? If you really know what you were talking about I wouldn't be able to keep posting, and proving your opinions wrong. Sorry but I will keep repeating my claims, no one has yet proven me wrong.

Ps re your constant quote of Newtons Laws please look into WORk DONE and impacts!!! all to do with the laws you keep quoting!

Huh? You think I don't know that lol? I am the one that has been trying to explain that to you, but you keep ignoring the laws of motion. Not once have you addressed equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, when is that going to happen? Just claiming that the force of 15 floors can overcome 95 floors because of 'dynamic loading', is not addressing the laws of motion, not even close.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

We have already explained to YOU and shown that WHEN the mass falls the DYNAMIC load is MANY MANY times the stactic load!!! GOT IT

edit on 1-9-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

That still does not mean a lesser mass can crush a larger mass. Static, or dynamic load, has nothing to do with it.
I know it's the OSers latest claim, but it's nonsense.

You still have 15 floors falling on 95 floors, no matter how you try to spin it. Take 15 concrete slabs, drop them from 100ft., and see if they keep going straight down crushing 95 concrete slabs. It ain't gonna happen mate. Can't you see how silly that idea is?

reply to post by ANOK


Your theory is basically based on a force you can not explain and incredulity.
There is no force that ejects the majority of the mass of the floors. It is a truther fantasy. There is no such mechanism. The only reason you believe it is because you require it for your theory to work.
You are incapable to comprehend how all those floors compacted into a more or less homogeneous pile of rubble, even though this is shown in nearly all images of ground zero. You believe we should see intact stacked floors for some reason. Your incapability of understanding something is not an argument. Other people are capable of understanding this. The images of ground zero do not show trusses outside the perimeter of the buildings. We mainly see perimeter columns, just as we would expect. This proves that the trusses and concrete were not outside the perimeter. They were elsewhere. They were in the 70 feet high pile within the perimeter and in the basement. Facts you ignore.

I do find it interesting that you seem to be a lot more reluctant to shout the standard "Impossible, third law of motion" mantra. Does that mean that you are slowly starting to grasp that the collapse may actually have been possible when the mass does not magically eject (which it didn't)?

reply to post by -PLB-


Objects flew as far as WTC 7 apparently. Heavy trusses have been ejected wide and far. We can indeed see that in the videos. But 9/11 deniers have a tendency to see something else in the videos than everybody else.

Stack 20 tambourines on top of each other.
Drop a steel weight on to the top surface of the upper one.

Your theory is that the weight would be arrested after a few gives way.
Ours is that if the upper surface gives way so will all the lower ones.