Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Does it matter? Point is there was plenty.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Does it matter? Point is there was plenty.

Only if you are a BELIEVER in the IMPOSSIBLE collapse.

The only Potential Energy that mattered was the mass of the portion above the impact times the distance it could fall to impact the lower stationary portion. A potential energy calculation ASSUMES a fall through EMPTY SPACE. Once the upper portion impacted the lower portion what mattered was the energy required to collapse each level because that would be subtracted from the kinetic energy of the falling mass slowing it down.

But then we aren't even told the quantity of steel on each level so how are we supposed to compute that crush energy?

www.youtube.com...

Here are the energy calculations for a real gravitational collapse.

www.rationalskepticism.org...

psik

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
There was not enough potential energy available to do that.

There was. About 600GJ.

How can you even make an estimation? What is that based on?

There is more to potential energy than just the weight, you have to consider how far it can drop, where did that figure come from? An assumption? Nobody knows the extent of the damage to the floors, or the core, or any of the load bearing structure. You could assume the whole top block suddenly became completely detached from anything, and was able to fall through air with no resistance for a certain distance, and come up with a figure, but to assume that is how it really happened is beyond reality.

You can not claim that you know how much potential energy there was in the top because we have no way of accurately measuring it.

Also once again it has to be mentioned that you are still not addressing that the potential energy becomes Kinetic once it is moving, and that Ke is going to be instantly reduced once resistance is met, and that energy is required to cause deformation, make sound, create heat from friction etc. which all come from the Ke of the collapsing top.
UNLESS there was another energy source acting on the collapse that is not being addressed (no not gravity lol). That is all that is required for the collapses to be explained, the missing energy that had to have been there.

reply to post by ANOK


The estimations for the available potential energy are readily available and found to be plenty to account for everything that happened. Sure you can just ignore all those estimations and keep shouting there was not enough energy and there had to be some additional unknown source of energy, but since that is a completely baseless claim its not really interesting to discuss any further.

reply to post by ANOK


What is the other energy source?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

The estimations for the available potential energy are readily available and found to be plenty to account for everything that happened. Sure you can just ignore all those estimations and keep shouting there was not enough energy and there had to be some additional unknown source of energy, but since that is a completely baseless claim its not really interesting to discuss any further.

ROFL

Providing links is too much trouble so everyone is supposed to take your word.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


If Purdue had the information, maybe you should contact them and do your own experiment?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

If Purdue had the information, maybe you should contact them and do your own experiment?

I already posted the email responses I got from Purdue. I emailed 3 people. One told me to email Prof. Sozen but he was one of those I emailed. He never responded.

It is curious that so many people BELIEVE without the relevant data and then BELIEVE the data is out there.

Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? Doesn't that mean every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above? Doesn't that mean the designers had to figure out how much steel there had to be on every level?

So why doesn't EVERYBODY expect to have been told that YEARS AGO?

The people who TRUST IN AUTHORITY expect everybody to trust in AUTHORITY and think it is OK for AUTHORITY to leave out whatever information they want.

PHYSICS is the AUTHORITY! Governments and Conspiracies are irrelevant.

psik

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

The estimations for the available potential energy are readily available and found to be plenty to account for everything that happened. Sure you can just ignore all those estimations and keep shouting there was not enough energy and there had to be some additional unknown source of energy, but since that is a completely baseless claim its not really interesting to discuss any further.

I am not ignoring the estimations, I am trying to point out those estimations are bogus, and irrelevant, as there is no way it can be estimated accurately because no one knows the extent of the damage, or the distibution of mass, or the safety foctors. Even IF the potential energy was a million J the laws of motion still apply, and the force on each impacting floor is still the same. So if the top was putting 1 million J of force on the bottom, the bottom would push up with an equal force of 1 million J, both floors being of more or less equal mass then the top floor could not crush the bottom floors and stay intact in order to crush more floors. That is how the laws of motion work. This is evidenced quite well by the ejected concrete, and lack of floors piled (like pancakes) in the footprint.

Potential energy is not the answer to the collapses, no matter how much you think it is. Stop ignoring that the energy will be lost to other forces, deformation, sound, heat etc., and stop ignoring the laws of motion.

Originally posted by ANOK
So if the top was putting 1 million J of force on the bottom, the bottom would push up with an equal force of 1 million J, both floors being of more or less equal mass then the top floor could not crush the bottom floors and stay intact in order to crush more floors. That is how the laws of motion work.

And what is your point? So both floor fail. And they keep falling, including the top section. Now the next floor comes. On it fall the 2 failed floors plus the top section. Multiple choose question for you: which floor has a higher probability of failing.

1) the floor in the lower part that has 2 failed floor + the top section falling on it.
2) the floor in the top section that only has the top section itself above it.
3) both floors have equal probability of failing.

This is evidenced quite well by the ejected concrete, and lack of floors piled (like pancakes) in the footprint.

So you think the floor did not fall on top of each other. Where did they fall to? How did this happen? Isn't it very strange that two floor of 60x60 meter that are exactly on top of each other with only 3.7 meter in between somehow manage not to fall on each other? If you read such a claim in the NIST report, what would you think? How could such a thing happen, even with explosives?

Potential energy is not the answer to the collapses, no matter how much you think it is. Stop ignoring that the energy will be lost to other forces, deformation, sound, heat etc., and stop ignoring the laws of motion.

Energy is lost but there is plenty left. So yes, it is the answer.

Potential Energy below the impact level of the planes is irrelevant.

So we need the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.

psik

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
So if the top was putting 1 million J of force on the bottom, the bottom would push up with an equal force of 1 million J, both floors being of more or less equal mass then the top floor could not crush the bottom floors and stay intact in order to crush more floors. That is how the laws of motion work.

And what is your point? So both floor fail. And they keep falling, including the top section. Now the next floor comes. On it fall the 2 failed floors plus the top section. Multiple choose question for you: which floor has a higher probability of failing.

If both floors fail and are ejected out of the footprint then you are losing mass, for your pancake collapse to work there would have to have been more than 100% of the mass the top could provide. So even of no mass was lost your pancake collapse would still be arrested before it could be complete because Ke is always lost to other energy. Every time I point out why your excuses don't work you switch to another excuse based on ignoring what has already been established, in other words your argument keep going around in circles and getting nowhere.

Try talking two slabs of concrete and smash them together, then take the smashed up bits and drop them on another single slab of concrete, do you honestly think the bits would cause the single slab to be smashed into dust? If you do I'd love to see your proof, go ahead and prove me wrong.

1) the floor in the lower part that has 2 failed floor + the top section falling on it.
2) the floor in the top section that only has the top section itself above it.
3) both floors have equal probability of failing.

You're just making an assumption that 2 floors failed, and that you can add the top mass but ignore the mass of the bottom (equal opposite reaction (which includes momentum conservation) that you keep ignoring.

So you think the floor did not fall on top of each other. Where did they fall to? How did this happen?

Floors were mostly ejected during the collapse, Sheetrock could not have made that much dust.

How that happened is the BIG question. You think it was gravity Ke and Pe, but you ignore the rest of the physics that are explained by the three laws of motion. The only thing that can explain it is there was another energy source acting on the collapse that has not been investigated.

Isn't it very strange that two floor of 60x60 meter that are exactly on top of each other with only 3.7 meter in between somehow manage not to fall on each other? If you read such a claim in the NIST report, what would you think? How could such a thing happen, even with explosives?

Now you are simply projecting your assumptions. The floors did fall on each other, and the laws of motion apply just as I have been explaining to you.

Energy is lost but there is plenty left. So yes, it is the answer.

15 floors would take more energy than gravity to crush 95 floors to the ground, so there was not enough energy even to begin with, let alone after Ke is lost to other energy.

Originally posted by ANOK
If both floors fail and are ejected out of the footprint then you are losing mass, for your pancake collapse to work there would have to have been more than 100% of the mass the top could provide. So even of no mass was lost your pancake collapse would still be arrested before it could be complete because Ke is always lost to other energy. Every time I point out why your excuses don't work you switch to another excuse based on ignoring what has already been established, in other words your argument keep going around in circles and getting nowhere.

You are making a completely baseless assertion here. And I do not switch to other excuses and I do not ignore it, I ask you to back up your assertion which you consistently fail to do.

Try talking two slabs of concrete and smash them together, then take the smashed up bits and drop them on another single slab of concrete, do you honestly think the bits would cause the single slab to be smashed into dust? If you do I'd love to see your proof, go ahead and prove me wrong.

Whether pulverized concrete can smash other concrete to dust it completely irrelevant (I actually don't know what would happen exactly). What matters is that the connections fail. If the connections fail, the floor will fall. If they fall, the smash into each other. If pulverized concrete does not pulverize a floor, surely the next intact floor it smashes into will.

You're just making an assumption that 2 floors failed, and that you can add the top mass but ignore the mass of the bottom (equal opposite reaction (which includes momentum conservation) that you keep ignoring.

Because the mass of the lower section of the building is irrelevant. Only the mass of one floor is relevant. You really need to understand this. Imagine that the lower part exists of only one floor standing on a foundation on the earth. Do you think that we should take in account the mass of the complete earth? Is that relevant for the question if the floor would fail? Is it relevant for the amount of energy that is required to make the floor fail?

Floors were mostly ejected during the collapse, Sheetrock could not have made that much dust.

How that happened is the BIG question. You think it was gravity Ke and Pe, but you ignore the rest of the physics that are explained by the three laws of motion. The only thing that can explain it is there was another energy source acting on the collapse that has not been investigated.

So on what exactly do you base this assertion?

Now you are simply projecting your assumptions. The floors did fall on each other, and the laws of motion apply just as I have been explaining to you.

You are holding contradictory positions. The floors can not both fall on each other and mostly be ejected at the same time. It is either one or the other.

The whole idea that the floors mostly eject is just absurd, no matter if explosives or thermite or whatever was used.

15 floors would take more energy than gravity to crush 95 floors to the ground, so there was not enough energy even to begin with, let alone after Ke is lost to other energy.

A baseless assertion. There was enough energy available. This has been demonstrated with physics, and you can do that too. Or you could of course cause a shock and show the physics that prove there was not enough energy. Which we all know you won't.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

The estimations for the available potential energy are readily available and found to be plenty to account for everything that happened. Sure you can just ignore all those estimations and keep shouting there was not enough energy and there had to be some additional unknown source of energy, but since that is a completely baseless claim its not really interesting to discuss any further.

I am not ignoring the estimations, I am trying to point out those estimations are bogus, and irrelevant, as there is no way it can be estimated accurately because no one knows the extent of the damage, or the distibution of mass, or the safety foctors. Even IF the potential energy was a million J the laws of motion still apply, and the force on each impacting floor is still the same. So if the top was putting 1 million J of force on the bottom, the bottom would push up with an equal force of 1 million J, both floors being of more or less equal mass then the top floor could not crush the bottom floors and stay intact in order to crush more floors. That is how the laws of motion work. This is evidenced quite well by the ejected concrete, and lack of floors piled (like pancakes) in the footprint.

Potential energy is not the answer to the collapses, no matter how much you think it is. Stop ignoring that the energy will be lost to other forces, deformation, sound, heat etc., and stop ignoring the laws of motion.

edit on 7/3/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Its like responding to a brick wall with you ANOK.

Where did the floors go ANOK, and then explain how? You asked where are the floors pancaked, where is the evidence, whine whine whine. I show you the pictures, you ignore them, and continue to boast how there are no floors stacked on top of each other. This willful ignorance is starting to wear thin ANOK. I'm going to post the pictures again, and I want ALL ATS members to redirect ANOK to this post, the moment he forgets and starts to claim there is no evidence of pancaked floors



Even the picture on the right side here shows plenty of evidence:


Once again, you ignore the truss connections, as the ONLY things that were holding up the floors, and they would not give much resistance to 20+ floors crashing down on them. You ignore the question asking you, did the floor truss connections get stronger the lower down you got. etc.

You ignore questions which ask you to explain just how the entire floor got ejected. What is your deal?

reply to post by GenRadek


Sorry, cant see any floors there, you may want to try again...

Originally posted by GenRadek

Its like responding to a brick wall with you ANOK.

I could say the same about you mate.

Where did the floors go ANOK, and then explain how?

The floors were ejected in a 360d arc as reported by FEMA...

You asked where are the floors pancaked, where is the evidence, whine whine whine.

Oh, so now I'm whining? You just don't like what I'm saying because you have no way of proving me wrong.

I show you the pictures, you ignore them, and continue to boast how there are no floors stacked on top of each other.

I did not ignore your picture I counted your one picture with a group of pictures, that you ignored, that shows there was no stack of pancaked floors.

This willful ignorance is starting to wear thin ANOK. I'm going to post the pictures again, and I want ALL ATS members to redirect ANOK to this post, the moment he forgets and starts to claim there is no evidence of pancaked floors.

Great then stop responding to my posts. Sorry but your pic is not evidence of pancaked floors no matter how much you think it is.

Once again, you ignore the truss connections, as the ONLY things that were holding up the floors, and they would not give much resistance to 20+ floors crashing down on them. You ignore the question asking you, did the floor truss connections get stronger the lower down you got. etc.

And you ignore that the majority of the mass was ejected out of the footprint during the collapse. Your idea that a few floors can crush many floors to the ground is complete nonsense that throws the known laws of motion out of the window.

Again I don't know if the trusses got stronger, and it doesn't matter if they did. The core columns DID get stronger, yet they telescoped down through the increasing path of most resistance, so how do you explain that? And please no 'the core couldn't hold itself up without the floors' nonsense.

You ignore questions which ask you to explain just how the entire floor got ejected. What is your deal

I am not ignoring anything, you are. The floors were ejected because there was another energy working on the collapse that was not investigated. You keep asking questions that I have answered and covered in many posts.
I keep asking you questions that you NEVER even try to address without excuses, how about using the known laws of motion to explain why you think the floors would continue to collapse even after Ke was reduced and the majority of the mass was ejected? Explain how the core could telescope through the path of increasing mass?
Why do you argue for pancake collapse when NIST themselves rejected that hypothesis? Why do you use NIST as proof when it is only a hypothesis?

What is my deal? The truth mate, you seem to have a problem with that.



wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Originally posted by -PLB-
You are making a completely baseless assertion here. And I do not switch to other excuses and I do not ignore it, I ask you to back up your assertion which you consistently fail to do.

Yes you do mate, anyone following the debate can see that.

I back up my assertions, all you have to do is follow the debate and anyone can see that. Stop lying.

Whether pulverized concrete can smash other concrete to dust it completely irrelevant (I actually don't know what would happen exactly). What matters is that the connections fail. If the connections fail, the floor will fall. If they fall, the smash into each other. If pulverized concrete does not pulverize a floor, surely the next intact floor it smashes into will.

That is nothing but uneducated assumption. If you don't know what would happen in my little analogy then you have no experience to base any of your claims on. The connections failing have nothing to do with how the concrete and steel floor pans would react when they collided. The laws of motion do explain what would happen, that is why it is imortant to understand those laws and quit ignoring them.

Because the mass of the lower section of the building is irrelevant. Only the mass of one floor is relevant.

Wrong. You can not keep ignoring the total mass of all the floors, in the top and bottom sections. This is the one fundamental mistake of you OSers. By ignoring the mass of the static floors you are ignoring how the laws of motion work and your calculations will incorrectly favour complete collapse. This shows to me you do not understand the physics involved (and please don't say I only say you don't understand, my explanation proceeds my conclusion).

You really need to understand this. Imagine that the lower part exists of only one floor standing on a foundation on the earth. Do you think that we should take in account the mass of the complete earth? Is that relevant for the question if the floor would fail? Is it relevant for the amount of energy that is required to make the floor fail?

LOL no. We are not trying to explain the collapse of floors through the Earth, just through the mass of the lower structure, so YES we need to consider the mass the top fell through.

So on what exactly do you base this assertion?

Post collapse pictures? FEMA?

You are holding contradictory positions. The floors can not both fall on each other and mostly be ejected at the same time. It is either one or the other.

Yes they can, but that wasn't my point.

The whole idea that the floors mostly eject is just absurd, no matter if explosives or thermite or whatever was used.

You are ignoring known evidence.

A baseless assertion. There was enough energy available. This has been demonstrated with physics, and you can do that too. Or you could of course cause a shock and show the physics that prove there was not enough energy. Which we all know you won't.

It is an assertion based on the known laws of motion. Your claims have not been demonstrated, NIST themselves dismissed your pancake collapse hypothesis, so maybe you should question the NIST report if you think they're wrong?

I have shown you the physics, the laws of motion ARE the physics. I don't know what else you would need except an understanding of those physics. Understand those physics, and you'll understand why the towers could not have completely collapsed themselves without another energy source that was not investigated for.

Originally posted by ANOK

The floors were ejected in a 360d arc as reported by FEMA...

Really? NIST says those are floors all scattered about? Where are the corrugated pans from the floors? Where are the floor trusses? Where are the concrete floors in that debris field? All I see are.............. exterior columns!

Oh, so now I'm whining? You just don't like what I'm saying because you have no way of proving me wrong.

Well, arent we entering the self-delusional state? First of all, you are the only person who pulled this gem of a nugget out of God knows where, about how the majority of the floors were ejected, which is entirely based on your own personal incredulity, and nothing to back it up, except for your imagination and wishful thinking, and heaps of personal incredulity. And then, you go and claim victory by stating that I cannot prove you wrong. Well, guess what? I can play that game too. There is ample evidence that the WTC were brought down by magical pixies, using their magic pixy dust, in collusion with reverse vampires, that managed to plant special pixy-laced nano-thermite, developed by hob-goblins. Come on now ANOK. Prove me wrong. They were all using special stealth technology, given to them by the Romulan Empire, also known as cloaking. That is why no one saw them rigging the towers. There was no way to see them. But that is what happened. What else can explain everything we saw? Prove me wrong ANOK!!!

I did not ignore your picture I counted your one picture with a group of pictures, that you ignored, that shows there was no stack of pancaked floors.

Right and that picture that shows floors stacked on top of each other, and the others where they were compressed together were what again?

Great then stop responding to my posts. Sorry but your pic is not evidence of pancaked floors no matter how much you think it is.

So a picture of floors stacked on top of each other, and another picture that shows numerous floors compressed together to a size a fraction smaller than what they were originally, is not evidence of floors that fell on top of each other? Anok, seriously, you are starting to lose touch with reality here, and its sad to see that this cult has grabbed you into a world, where reality is no longer reality, but a state of delusion, which forbids any and all rational thinking, in order to survive. You wanted pictures, I showed them, you say they dont count. That is not rational behavior. Its irrational. Not healthy.

And you ignore that the majority of the mass was ejected out of the footprint during the collapse. Your idea that a few floors can crush many floors to the ground is complete nonsense that throws the known laws of motion out of the window.

Again I don't know if the trusses got stronger, and it doesn't matter if they did. The core columns DID get stronger, yet they telescoped down through the increasing path of most resistance, so how do you explain that? And please no 'the core couldn't hold itself up without the floors' nonsense.

Really? The majority of the mass was ejected? And you base this on, what exactly? Personal incredulity? Watch the collapses again, and watch how the floors collapse internally first, before the exterior columns fall away. In fact, explain just how they managed to expel the floor trusses, the floor pans, etc, out and through the exterior columns? Also, again, your warped and incomplete understanding of physics is causing you to see things that just arent true. For example, you ignore the fact that the ONLY thing that held up each floor were the floor truss seats. THAT was it. It was them that gave resistance. You claim that the floors gave more resistance the lower they went. Ok, well then, I ask you again, did the floor truss seats get stronger somehow? You claim it doesnt matter, but oh, but it does. You forget the design of the WTCs, you ignore how the floors are constructed, you ignore how the floors are held up, and then you go off on about how the core got stronger. Well, for one thing, to hell with the core for this second ANOK.

We are talking about the floors and how they are held up. You claim they dont matter, but obviously you have no clue what you are talking about, but insist that you do. So far you managed to ignore everything, because to you, it does not fit your delusional fantasy. You ignore the exterior columns. YOu ignore the floor trusses. You ignore the floor truss seats. Well then, ANOK, what the hell was holding up each floor? Let's start there. ANOK, tell us all ignorants, what held up each floor. Lets make this easy.

I am not ignoring anything, you are. The floors were ejected because there was another energy working on the collapse that was not investigated. You keep asking questions that I have answered and covered in many posts.
I keep asking you questions that you NEVER even try to address without excuses, how about using the known laws of motion to explain why you think the floors would continue to collapse even after Ke was reduced and the majority of the mass was ejected? Explain how the core could telescope through the path of increasing mass?
Why do you argue for pancake collapse when NIST themselves rejected that hypothesis? Why do you use NIST as proof when it is only a hypothesis?

What is my deal? The truth mate, you seem to have a problem with that.

Really? Another energy? And you base this on????? Oh yes, your own version of events where somehow the floors were ejected magically outside the WTC footprints. And of course this was purely based on................ your own imagination? So, you want me, to debunk something that you created, entirely in your mind, that is based on something that is also created entirely in your mind? I think there is a word for that sort of thinking. Also who said the core telescoped into itself? Another thing you came with in your mind? Gee ANOK, its like the entire argument is based on things that came out of your mind, and not based on fact. So in other words, I'm expected to debunk your dreams? Is that it?

reply to post by GenRadek


Also ANOK, take a look here:



See that jumble of large beams to the left? Those are the remains of the core columns. Dont look like they got telescoped. More like broken apart, and strangely, at the connections. You know what that means?? They failed at their connections!! Gasp! Maybe the damage done by the initial collapse of the top sections, and the collapses of the floors caused enough damage to have the core collapse on its own.

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes you do mate, anyone following the debate can see that.

I back up my assertions, all you have to do is follow the debate and anyone can see that. Stop lying.

Back them up where? Show the physics. Or is it you who is lying?

That is nothing but uneducated assumption. If you don't know what would happen in my little analogy then you have no experience to base any of your claims on. The connections failing have nothing to do with how the concrete and steel floor pans would react when they collided. The laws of motion do explain what would happen, that is why it is imortant to understand those laws and quit ignoring them.

What is your point? That the concrete would not pulverize when 2 intact floors collide? On what exactly do you base that?

Wrong. You can not keep ignoring the total mass of all the floors, in the top and bottom sections. This is the one fundamental mistake of you OSers. By ignoring the mass of the static floors you are ignoring how the laws of motion work and your calculations will incorrectly favour complete collapse. This shows to me you do not understand the physics involved (and please don't say I only say you don't understand, my explanation proceeds my conclusion).

LOL no. We are not trying to explain the collapse of floors through the Earth, just through the mass of the lower structure, so YES we need to consider the mass the top fell through.

I think this is the culprit of your misunderstanding. When the top collides with a floor, it does not matter how much mass is underneath it. All that matter is the strength and deformation of the supports. The 100th floor required the exact same amount of energy to collapse as the 10th floor (given the floors are the same). The amount of mass underneath it has absolutely no relevance on the energy required.

Post collapse pictures? FEMA?

Can you quote FEMA? Its not trivial to determine where the majority of the floors ended up from images of the surface of the debris pile. In the past I already asked you how you made those estimates. Never had a useful response. Still, the fact you mostly see perimeter columns outside the footprint suggests there aren't too many floors there. Or those floors somehow ended up underneath the perimeter columns, but that does not make sense.

Yes they can, but that wasn't my point.

Realy? Can you explain how?

You are ignoring known evidence.

Like?

It is an assertion based on the known laws of motion. Your claims have not been demonstrated, NIST themselves dismissed your pancake collapse hypothesis, so maybe you should question the NIST report if you think they're wrong?

I have shown you the physics, the laws of motion ARE the physics. I don't know what else you would need except an understanding of those physics. Understand those physics, and you'll understand why the towers could not have completely collapsed themselves without another energy source that was not investigated for.

Can you direct me to the post where you show this? So the maths including the actual values and a source or explanation where you got those values from? I know you never did this. I don't think you even know how to do this. You do not understand physics, you just think you do. See my sig.