Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia

 

i was merely trying to demonstrate the simple physical principle that when a small object and a much larger object collide (being made of the same material) the small object will be destroyed.

if you can't understand this, there is no helping you. i wasn't actually picturing solid concrete blocks either, but these:

you would agree they're mostly hollow, right?

Yes, but it is not that simple in the tower collapse. You have individual floor against floor, and then it is heavy debris versus intact floors once the initial section has been completely destroyed.

I don't see any way that the towers could have been built to resist the weight of dozens of floors of debris.

reply to post by Varemia

now we're just circling talking points that have already been used. the sure sign of defeat.

see the orange-yellow, and how it is still solid? aluminum melts before it even starts glowing. yup, this SOLID piece of steel has definitely been contaminated, which is why it is glowing so bright

reply to post by Varemia


it's simple. each floor that the above floors hit would detract energy until it would stop falling. a little thing can't destroy a bigger thing without itself being destroyed. it can't even destroy it's own weight completely.

you're ignoring the walls and vertical support. that would be a constant resistance. a greater resistance than the energy of the falling tower.

Interesting thread..

Kinda seems like the paid OS informants work in shifts..

Why would any member of a conspiracy site work so hard to shove the official story down others throats??

The path of least resitance is NOT through the center of a structure.

I understand and fully support anyones search for, and defense of truth, but obvious trolls are obvious...

I agree.
I watch’t the video and almost every thing turned to Dust and molten metal?
there mad to be some out side help.
a weapon from space!!! firing a low level microwave.
that had some kind of low level sonic effect.
that broke up the concrete or the microwave did this?
all the molten metal could be made from a very powerful
microwave beams. only metal at the very bottom stayed mostly intact.
thermite would have to have been on all of the metal!!

reply to post by Varemia


I remember them talking about using nano fine aluminum to power rockets.
so fine it behaves like a liquid. never heard about it again?
maybe it give out to much heat!!!!
found it!
New Rocket Fuel Mixes Ice and Metal
But a new mixture of nano-aluminum powder and frozen water could make rocket launches more environmentally friendly, and even allow spacecraft to refuel at distant locations such as the moon or
www.space.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">link
www.space.com...

Buy some nano-aluminum powder.
you to can bring buildings down!
link

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Solid works are not parametric symmetric.

Tiny thing can bring down big thing while remaining in tact. It all depends on density, energy, and mass. Size alone is not enough.

In which case, the towers were minimalist designs. Designs not mean to take the load of more than what they were intended to + furniture.

There is nothing abnormal about the collapse. It was a piss poor design style, and if you look at the new tower, you can see the huge redundancy in design, now that they've learned their lesson.

reply to post by Varemia


Each floor demands that it feels all the energy of the dust clouds that surround it,,,,

Amazing how all the people managed to run away,, from the amazing destruction surrounding them,,,, ehhhh

The more one watches any videos of said event, the more they cannot believe the insanity told to them...

Keep trying though, you are about to hit TOTAL DESTRUCTION... ENERGY...


Nothing we can do,,,, for you......

Man , those planes hit the #,, and they stored energy until needed, COLLAPSE TIME.


Thank the GODS, or whatever,, that those buildings didn't collapse till most everyone was out !!!


Sure thing though, we could have had a more monstrosity going on if not....

SOO.....be happy, and enjoy those clouds,, they were fueled by OUTSIDERS,,, and only them,, too bad i cannot,, like you,,,, examine that the difficulty could not have been done by our ,, :MORON LEADERS....

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it's simple. each floor that the above floors hit would detract energy until it would stop falling. a little thing can't destroy a bigger thing without itself being destroyed. it can't even destroy it's own weight completely.

you're ignoring the walls and vertical support. that would be a constant resistance. a greater resistance than the energy of the falling tower.

edit on 18-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

However, when asked how you determined that the energy decrease as result of resistance is larger than the energy increase as result of gravity accelerating the mass, there is no answer, and phrases like "laws of motion" and "conservation of momentum" are repeated. Or maybe you can show us some calculations?

Originally posted by -PLB-

However, when asked how you determined that the energy decrease as result of resistance is larger than the energy increase as result of gravity accelerating the mass, there is no answer, and phrases like "laws of motion" and "conservation of momentum" are repeated. Or maybe you can show us some calculations?

Laws of motion and conservation of momentum are not just phrases they are the physical laws that explains the reaction between objects. You do not need calculations to apply those laws. Those laws tell us that the energy decrease due to resistance IS greater then force of the falling mass. Gravity only accelerated the mass as far as the distance between ONE floor, once the floors impacted then those laws you keep hand waving away come into affect. At that point is where YOU need to explain why you think the laws of motion and conservation of momentum didn't slow the collapse. You need to explain why a loss of mass and Ke did not slow the collapse. You can use those laws to explain that, no calculations are needed. Can you do that PLB? Can any of you do that?

Quit pretending they are not relevant because you can't explain them without contradicting your claims.

Originally posted by ANOK

Quit pretending they are not relevant because you can't explain them without contradicting your claims.

In Thruther World is boot straping possible using Truther Physics ? Can you reach down, grab ahold of your boot straps, apply a lifting force greater than your weight, and lift your self off the ground ?

Just curious still trying to figure out the laws of Truther Physics.

reply to post by ANOK


I have explained so many times to you that conservation of momentum does not apply to building collapses that is it no longer funny. You just don't understand the physics.

For anyone else reading this and wondering about it, conservation of momentum only applies to closed systems, so systems without external forces acting on them. In a building collapse there is gravity, an external force. This force increases the momentum of the falling mass constantly.

reply to post by -PLB-

how wrong you are.

The forces internal to a system are of two types. Conservative forces, such as gravity; and dissipative forces such as friction. Internal forces arise from the natural dynamics of the system in contract to external forces which are imposed from an external source.

ocw.mit.edu...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by -PLB-

However, when asked how you determined that the energy decrease as result of resistance is larger than the energy increase as result of gravity accelerating the mass, there is no answer, and phrases like "laws of motion" and "conservation of momentum" are repeated. Or maybe you can show us some calculations?

Laws of motion and conservation of momentum are not just phrases they are the physical laws that explains the reaction between objects. You do not need calculations to apply those laws. Those laws tell us that the energy decrease due to resistance IS greater then force of the falling mass. Gravity only accelerated the mass as far as the distance between ONE floor, once the floors impacted then those laws you keep hand waving away come into affect. At that point is where YOU need to explain why you think the laws of motion and conservation of momentum didn't slow the collapse. You need to explain why a loss of mass and Ke did not slow the collapse. You can use those laws to explain that, no calculations are needed. Can you do that PLB? Can any of you do that?

Quit pretending they are not relevant because you can't explain them without contradicting your claims.

edit on 9/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo

I suppose scientists and engineers should stop doing math altogether! Why did they even go to school, when the all-knowing ANOK has discovered that math doesn't matter!

You don't need calculations to know anything anymore, huzzah!

No. That is not how it works. There is a reason math is used, and there is a reason calculations are done. These things cannot be determined through visual evidence alone.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia

 

it's simple. each floor that the above floors hit would detract energy until it would stop falling. a little thing can't destroy a bigger thing without itself being destroyed. it can't even destroy it's own weight completely.

you're ignoring the walls and vertical support. that would be a constant resistance. a greater resistance than the energy of the falling tower.

edit on 18-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

How have you determined the exact amount of resistance that would be exerted by each object? I'm not educated enough to check your work, but I would at least like to see if you've done the work, and not just assumed that you know.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

how wrong you are.

The forces internal to a system are of two types. Conservative forces, such as gravity; and dissipative forces such as friction. Internal forces arise from the natural dynamics of the system in contract to external forces which are imposed from an external source.

But then you have to add the planet earth in to the system, and unless you can prove the earths orbit or rotation has changed........then no laws of physics have been broken.

reply to post by Varemia

No. That is not how it works.

it actually is. it's a physical law, and holds true, no matter what the numbers are.

How have you determined the exact amount of resistance that would be exerted by each object?

no, i've tried to find the specific specs on the wtc in terms of the margin of error they were built with, but i haven't been able to find it so that i could plug it in and use it.

consider this, you can only hit something as hard as it can resist. the bottom floors hit the top floors as hard as the top floors hit the bottom floors. for the OS to be true, you have to say that the bottom floors hit the top floors with more force than they could resist.

what fell on what is irrelevant, as is the speed and energy present in the collision. a smaller object colliding with a bigger object made of the same material cannot do more damage than it sustains.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Oh, well then I guess all the formulas on this page are there for aesthetics?

Newton's Laws

No. It is not as simple as "big beats small." The position of the small, and whether its mass remains after its design is destroyed will affect the equation. You have gravity, inertia, friction, momentum, conservation of mass, conservation of energy, acceleration, velocity, mass, energy, etc.

It is not possible to make an assertion without doing the math, and saying "I couldn't find the info" does not make you right. It makes your point unproven and thus, an opinion.

reply to post by Varemia

and whether its mass remains after its design is destroyed will affect the equation.

ahh, but that isn't what we observed! you would be right, but the top floors survived intact all the way down!!! the design was never destroyed, but it did destroy. this is not possible. the resistance of the bottom floors would be equal to the resistance of the falling floors, because they are the same material and construction. since there is much more mass on the bottom than the top, the top would be destroyed before the bottom would be. infact, the top could, at maximum, destroy only it's own weight before it took the same amount of damage it caused.

what we saw was that the top floors resisted more than the rest of the whole building. this is illogical, because the resistance of both bodies would have the same coefficient, but the bottom floors had a much larger mass. you want a formula? here you go.

wtc 1: plane impact damage between 92-98 floors. around 96 suffered the most damage, so "T" will represent floors 97 and above, or the amount of falling mass. 95 and below is "B", the mass of the bottom floors. "x" represents the coefficient of resistance, and is multiplied by the weight of "T" and "B". "x" is a constant because the top floors and bottom floors have the same kind of structure and materials. therefore, their resistance is based off of how many floors there are multiplied by the numerical value of resistance (which doesn't need to be known for this equation. the result is the same)

Tx-Bx=?

now, if this formula as it is set up gives a positive number, the top floors would have more resistance than the bottom floors and the OS is true, if it is zero, then the top and bottom colliding parts would destroy eachother equally, and if it is negative, the bottom floors would offer more resistance than the top floors, and the OS is impossible.

the tower was 110 stories, so 110-97=13. so "T" = 13. (floor 96 won't be attributed to either the top or bottom, so the total will add up to 109). 109-13=96.

so we have 13x-96x=-83x.

therefore, the bottom floors offered substantially less resistance than they possessed. what actually caused this? explosives, thermate, no one can say for sure, which is why there needs to be an independent investigation.