Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
Free petrol saving tips (from NIST):

-Look for a large mass on the side of a highway.
-Collide with the large mass hard enough that it gets stuck to your car.
-Congratulations, you now have extra momentum.
-Turn off engine and repeat for duration of journey.

That is an incorrect analogy. A car on the highway is not powered by the force of gravity. Instead you have to use engine power to increase momentum, costing additional energy.

reply to post by -PLB-

After distance x, increase in velocity is vx.

What is v? Some sort of non-linear function? Or has there been a mix-up with time and distance?

Whatever it is is also besides the point because any increase in velocity is due to gravity. You can't then perform an equation involving additional mass and claim this is what caused the momentum increase...

reply to post by -PLB-

That is an incorrect analogy. A car on the highway is not powered by the force of gravity. Instead you have to use engine power to increase momentum, costing additional energy.

It appears my analogy has worked as intended!

Substitute engine power for gravity then read what I have been saying the whole time. Engine power (gravity ) is responsible for increasing momentum, not additional mass.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by -PLB-

 

After distance x, increase in velocity is vx.

What is v? Some sort of non-linear function? Or has there been a mix-up with time and distance?

Whatever it is is also besides the point because any increase in velocity is due to gravity. You can't then perform an equation involving additional mass and claim this is what caused the momentum increase...

There is no v, but v underscore x, as in gain in velocity as result of falling the distance x. This value is indeed nonlinear but can easily be calculated for each floor. On the first drop vx=~8m/s.

And you can create an equation involving additional mass that represents increase in momentum. In fact, I just did. The term (vx m2) represents this.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
Substitute engine power for gravity then read what I have been saying the whole time. Engine power (gravity

) is responsible for increasing momentum, not additional mass.

In my opinion you are paying a game of semantics. NIST didn't say that the additional mass was responsible, they said it was "due to". If it is just the wording you disagree with, but you agree that momentum indeed increased more because there was more mass, then this is rather a fruitless conversation.

reply to post by -PLB-

In my opinion you are paying a game of semantics.

Analogy working, you're coming around?

NIST didn't say that the additional mass was responsible, they said it was "due to".

If ever there was a game of semantics it was this sentence here. Is there a difference?

but you agree that momentum indeed increased more because there was more mass

At no point did momentum increase because there was no mass. You're not going to back out of this by playing the semantics card.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
And you are saying v_x is a standard variable, not a non-linear function?

No I am saying that v_x is a nonlinear function.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


How would you call the effect of extra momentum as result of more mass? Not "responsible", not "due to". Is "as result of" the correct terminology? If not, what do you propose?

reply to post by -PLB-


Out of this world.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Not out of this world, it is rather simple physics. I already showed you the equation and isolated the term that describes the additional momentum as result of additional mass. Are you saying my equation is wrong? (could be of course). If so, why is it wrong? If not, how would you describe the term (m2 vx)?


Just something I realized, I did make a mistake. vx is larger in case a mass is added so they can not be compared. However, a larger vx only means that P2 is also larger, so it is only in favor of the added mass scenario.

reply to post by -PLB-

Not out of this world, it is rather simple physics.

the effect of extra momentum as result of more mass, as you put it, is not possible, unless that extra mass is bringing some velocity to the table.

And you can create an equation involving additional mass that represents increase in momentum. In fact, I just did.

In your equation the increase in momentum was caused by gravity. You may "represent" this extra momentum however it pleases you, but increasing mass is not the cause.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Acceleration as result of gravity is a given constant. You don't use given constants to indicate a difference between situations. You use a variable that changes, in this case the mass. We have situation one with m1, and we have situation two with m1+m2. In situation two the momentum is larger than in situation one after a fall of distance x.

Anyway, it seems the only thing we disagree on is that NIST was trying to deceive. We seem to agree on the actual physics, so thats good. Lets just leave it at that.

reply to post by -PLB-

Acceleration as result of gravity is a given constant.

Acceleration as a result of some ever changing net force is not a given constant.

In situation two the momentum is larger than in situation one after a fall of distance x.

As a result of a net downwards force accelerating the mass. It is the increase in velocity, NOT the increase in mass which causes an increase in momentum.

We seem to agree on the actual physics, so thats good.

I disagree that it perpetually gains momentum as a result of it it collecting more and more mass and find the overall rate of acceleration of the collapse to be highly suspect.

Lets just leave it at that.

I'm off now anyway, have a good one.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
As a result of a net downwards force accelerating the mass. It is the increase in velocity, NOT the increase in mass which causes an increase in momentum.

I would say it is both increase in velocity and increase in mass. If the increase in velocity (vx) would have been the same in situation 1 and situation 2, you still have increase in momentum. Momentum is directly related to mass.

But what does it all matter? You agree that in the scenario where mass is added, the momentum is larger after distance x, despite of what wording you use or how you call it, right? And that is what is relevant.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The majority of energy went into destroying a lot more than just angles and bolts. This would be of no relevance.

Well since the bulk of the falling mass would hit the floor slab it is relevant, and if the floor slab fails that would cause problems for the stability of the walls.

Also if we know a ballpark figure of what a connection could hold we know the number of connections we can work out what a floor could hold.

So do you have any idea of the top of your head what load a 5/8" bolt would take before failure?

As a structural engineer you will have easy access (or should) to such data so quote everyone some figures I mean what harm could that do.

Originally posted by ANOK

I know what 'initiation' means thank you, you seem to be confused about what a 'pancake collapse' actually is, and what NIST says.

You claimed NIST rejected 'pancake collapse' as the initiator of the collapse, which is illogical nonsense because 'pancake collapse' is the result of collapse initiation, not something that initiates a collapse. NIST rejected the hypothesis that the collapse, after initiation, was a pancake collapse and instead ONLY covered the collapse initiation, choosing to ignore the actual collapse.

Pancake collapse was never anything to do with what initiated the collapse. The only people still claiming pancake collapse are you lot, against all known physics that shows pancake collapse did not happen.

Once again, reading comprehension failure.

The original idea about what caused the collapse was "Pancake collapse". Remember that NOVA special? That is what they thought started the collapse. The floor trusses failed one by one until one floor pancaked onto the floor below it, causing it fail, starting the collapse. That is what was believed FIRST. That floors pancaking STARTED the collapse.

NIST investigated the entire series of events leading up to the collapse, and after careful review, dismissed the notion that "pancake collapse" is what started the collapse. THAT is the whole point that you keep on failing to understand, and your star fans too. NIST also states that "pancake collapse" is NOT what started the collapse. That is their entire discovery. What happened afterward is obvious, and the floors pancaked onto each other.

Its quite sad how you cannot even get the idea of what someone says, and continue to insist that you are right, even though you are totally, hopelessly, wrong wrong wrong. The floors had to land on top of each other, as where else where they going to go? When one floor lands on top of another floor, what do you call that? What do you call it when clean up crews cutting into the pile, discover 10-30 floors compressed into a thin block? Gee, if that is not evidence of floors that pancaked onto each other I dont know what is. A stack of floors laying in the debris is not called pancaked?

Sorry ANOK, but if you cant even figure out what NIST is saying correctly, then I have some serious doubts about your ability to understand anything more complex like the laws of physics. Take a look at the actual original theory behind "Pancake Collapse". But then again, why would you want to fix your errors? Hell, even your fellow truther sites explain it, exactly the same way, and geeze, to see a truther site be correct about something, is quite a big deal:

911research.wtc7.net...

The truss failure theory, a key ingredient of the better known floor pancake theory, was endorsed by FEMA in its 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It invites us to imagine the floors assemblies detaching from their connections to the columns of the core and perimeter walls, precipitating a chain reaction of floors falling on one another. Without the lateral support of the floors, the columns, FEMA tells us, buckled and precipitated total building collapse.

So that is what "pancake collapse" is and was. Floors fell onto each other first, cause the lateral support to be removed, and allowing the exterior columns to buckle. THAT is the pancake collapse theory. NIST has discovered this was NOT the case. Geeze ANOK. Do you ever do research at all??

The floors after collapse HAD to fall onto themselves because they were stacked up on top of each other at the base, or more like in the basement. Simple test. Take one slab of drywall and drop it on another slab of drywall. What happens? Does the slab shoot off to the side and fly into the air? No. It just lands on the slab below. And that is what happened to the floors. Explain why workers discovered 10-30 floors compressed into a thin layer in the rubble below? How did that happen ANOK, if as you claim, the floors somehow were magically ejected in powder form outside the footprint (including the floor trusses, concrete slabs, steel decking).

Start understanding the simple concepts fully first, before you want to tackle Newton. Newton is probably spinning in his grave at how badly you are mangling his work. You cant figure out what "pancake theory" even is, or what it entailed, and yet you expect us to listen to your version of N3rdL?

By the way ANOK, here is what FEMA stated in their initial investigation about pancake theory even though it was not called that yet:

As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these elements can lose rigidity and sag into catenary action. As catenary action progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs become tensile elements, which can cause failure of end connections (Figure 2-21) and allow supported floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts of debris on some floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more susceptible to this behavior. In addition to overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors, local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin. As indicated in Appendix B, the propensity of exterior columns to buckle would have been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the vertically stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would be even more likely to occur in a fire that involves several adjacent floor levels simultaneously, because the columns could effectively lose lateral support over several stories (Figure 2-22).
...........................
Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 1011 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8 x 109 joules of potential energy were stored in the upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact. Once collapse initiated, much of this potential energy was rapidly converted into kinetic energy. As the large mass of the collapsing floors above accelerated and impacted on the floors below, it caused an immediate progressive series of floor failures, punching each in turn onto the floor below, accelerating as the sequence progressed. As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed. Perimeter walls of the building seem to have peeled off and fallen directly away from the building face, while portions of the core fell in a somewhat random manner. The perimeter walls broke apart at the bolted connections, allowing individual prefabricated units that formed the wall or, in some cases, large assemblies of these units to fall to the street and onto neighboring buildings below.
www.fema.gov...

Gee ANOK, thats the "Pancake Theory" right there, which NIST correctly discredits after further in depth investigation. But hey, its ok to admit you were wrong ANOK. But if you continue to say this is not so, well then, you are nothing more than lying now. Lying to keep another lie floating. So sad, especially coming from someone who claims to be for the truth. Its funny how cant even figure out "Initiate" means, and what NIST says.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Is it seeping through yet ANOK? All along it was about what INITIATED COLLAPSE. Not what happened after initiation. I dont care how much you stick your fingers in you ears and shout "LALALALALALA I'm right, you're wrong. LALALALA!!!" Facts are facts ANOK. And you have been shown AGAIN, that you are wrong. You are starting to act like this:

reply to post by GenRadek


FYI, lets use the examples of what they thought initially and after:

FEMA:

As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these elements can lose rigidity and sag into catenary action. As catenary action progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs become tensile elements, which can cause failure of end connections (Figure 2-21) and allow supported floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts of debris on some floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more susceptible to this behavior. In addition to overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors, local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin.

NIST:

Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.

How about that. One said that the floor trusses were the ones that failed first and caused the floor to fall onto the one below, causing the floor below to collapse. (That is what is meant by "failure of end connections").
The corrected one states that the floor truss ends were still connected on collapse initiation.

reply to post by -PLB-

I would say it is both increase in velocity and increase in mass.

Then you would be wrong. In my car analogy is it both the engine and increase in mass that contribute to momentum or just the engine? If it is just the engine (it is), what is the difference between acceleration provided by engine power and acceleration provided by a net downwards gravitational force?

If the increase in velocity (vx) would have been the same in situation 1 and situation 2, you still have increase in momentum.

Thanks to the increase in velocity. Momentum increases as velocity increases. It does not increase at the instant extra mass is acquired. I'm sorry but that is fact and really low level physics.

Momentum is directly related to mass.

And velocity, so that at the instant more mass is acquired velocity is decrease so that momentum is conserved..

But what does it all matter?

It matters to those who care about the government lying to us and using deception. Why did they have to rely on this incorrect description to sell their version of events? It's just more fuel on the fire.

You agree that in the scenario where mass is added, the momentum is larger after distance x, despite of what wording you use or how you call it, right? And that is what is relevant.

It is of course larger, but whether the huge momentum of falling mass was able to be achieved after initiation by gravity alone is another story.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Well since the bulk of the falling mass would hit the floor slab it is relevant, and if the floor slab fails that would cause problems for the stability of the walls.

I still maintain my original reasoning of why this would be a pointless exercise.

Also if we know a ballpark figure of what a connection could hold we know the number of connections we can work out what a floor could hold.

And do you know what the force applied to a floor slab was during collapse? Did you take into account the trusses under the floor slabs damping the impact? The energy that went into pulverizing concrete?

So do you have any idea of the top of your head what load a 5/8" bolt would take before failure?

What mode of failure? What grade steel? How tensioned was the nut?

As a structural engineer you will have easy access (or should) to such data so quote everyone some figures I mean what harm could that do.

I don't think you realise how much it would take to produce something remotely accurate or even ball park. I am also not just hiring myself out to any member that wants some calculations done on a whim, especially for an irrelevant result.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


In my opinion you are just nitpicking. You agree that momentum is higher when mass is added, so I do no see why you think NIST is deceiving. You just disagree with the exact wording, not with the end conclusion. It is a bit like saying "He died because he was hit by a car" and then you coming along saying "No you are deceiving everyone, he died because internal organs failed".

reply to post by -PLB-

You agree that momentum is higher when mass is added

I disagree that momentum is higher than the instant before mass is added (meaning the addition of mass does not increase the momentum).

You just disagree with the exact wording, not with the end conclusion.

They are making a flat out incorrect statement. Don't attempt to steer this towards arguing semantics because it is not.

It is a bit like saying "He died because he was hit by a car" and then you coming along saying "No you are deceiving everyone, he died because internal organs failed".

It's not like that at all. Both those statements would be true. The statement NIST made is false and cannot also be true.

You didn't answer my question about what is the difference between acceleration provided by engine power in my analogy and acceleration provided by a net downwards gravitational force? Are you on a quest for truth or a quest to relentlessly defend the OS?