It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by samuisteve
The only real question that remains (and will remain) unanswered is - are these (l)OSers merely trolls or are they really poor unfortunates who just can't see beyond their noses.
Either way, I fear the truthers are their wasting time.
Peace to all mankind.
Originally posted by spy66
If you think the floors pancaked to the ground a head of the falling vertical support structure, Or at that the floors and the vertical support structure collapsed at the same time. You have a big issue with explaining the lack of resistance do to acceleration/fall time.
1. If the floors grave away and pancaked before the core and the walls. The floors must have fallen without resistance.
2. If the floors, the vertical support structure and walls collapsed at the same time. That means the structure was in tacked when the top section fell on the bottom section. The bottom section would have put up a lot more resistance and the acceleration speed from the top would not increase.
You must be viewing the whole integrity of the structure all wrong if you think the bottom section could give away this easy.
Or people imagine that falling "debris" from the top section acts as one large mass pushing against the bottom section at once!
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim
here's some math and physics. "T"=top floors of the tower "B"=bottom floors. "x"= the coefficient of resistance that each floor has. it actually increases as the floors go down, but we'll err heavily on the OS side, and say it's the same for all floors, and that the fire didn't weaken the upper floors at all (heat rises). so in short, "x" is the amount of punishment a floor can take before it is destroyed.
newton's third law means that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. velocity doesn't effect the outcome since the force on both the top and bottom floors is equal.
the plane impacted wtc 1 from floor 92-98, so what the hell, lets just say 20 and above are defined as "T". 90 and below are "B". wtc 1 was 110 stories tall.
our equation looks like this:
Tx-Bx=?
if the result is positive, it means there was enough force/mass for the top floors to destroy the bottom floors without themselves being destroyed (what we witnessed).
a negative means the top floors should have been pulverized because the bottom floors could resist more than the top could dish out.
ok, so we have 20x-90x=-70. hmm, odd. newton's third law seems to be broken if x=x. this means there was either more resistance in the upper floors than the whole rest of the tower (greater than 4 or 5 times as a rough estimate factoring in the increased resistance) or most resistance in the bottom floors was removed.
since "x" DOES equal "x", we have to conclude that resistance was removed by an outside energy force. truthers would say thermate/explosives or something similar. we all agree that there should be a new independent investigation because it just doesn't add up.
for all we know it could have been koalas with blowtorches, but we DO know that resistance was removed.
this is the point where you either a) realize your wrong like i did, b) cover your ears and shout "i can't hear you" or c) say my analysis is "wrong/simplistic" without showing how it is wrong or inaccurate.
your move.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)
I think you are missing the point that the load a single floor had to endure was magnitudes greater than the load capacity of all the connections of that floor combined. Redistributing loads to already overloaded connections is not going to be useful.
But the main question remains. On what exactly do you base that the resistance was lower than it should be?
Originally posted by spy66
If you have two "floors" with the same strength and mass hitting each other: What happens when that takes place?
-Do you get reduced falling speed or an acceleration of falling speed at impact point?
The connection points to the floor in the top section weren't stronger built than the connection points to the floors it hit on the section below. Regardless of the weight of the entire top section falling. Because the floor connections of the top section had the same strength as the once they hit bellow. That means the floor connections in the top section would also break do to resistance encountered when it hit the floor under it, and do the push from the falling mass of the top section "Core and walls".
The top section came straight down. That means core against core, wall against wall and floor against floor.
As you companion mentioned in a post earlier; He stated that the floors fell ahead of the rest of the building "core and walls".
Do you agree?
If you do, you have to explain how two "floors" with the same strength hitting each other will accelerate and gather mass, and than fall a head of a much larger constant falling mass "core and walls".
I have to stress the collapse time.
What i am saying is that the top section that fell wasn't stronger built than the bottom section it hit.
They were equal in strength but their mass was different, because one was in motion and the other stationary. The top section had a much lower mass than the bottom section it hit. But the bottom section was built to hold the stationary mass of the top section.
I dont know if you can see the resistance involved here?
If one floor from the top section hit one floor from the bottom section, i am saying that you have two floors with the same strength hitting each other. That means you have great resistance at impact point and reduction in fall speed. Until the next floor comes and hits. But when that floor comes, it is hitting a greater mass because it is now hitting two floors with lower speed. In other words more resistance.
If the falling floor is still intact it would likely fail and reduce in speed. The top section would not. It would reduce in acceleration though.
An intact floor impacting with an intact floor only happens right after collapse initiation. After that it will be already failed floors impacting with intact floors. The intact floors in the lower section will have the failed floors plus the top section falling on it.
It did not come straight down, it tilted. It is physically impossible that the core or walls of top and lower section fell exactly on top of each other.
If the falling floor is still intact it would likely fail and reduce in speed. The top section would not. It would reduce in acceleration though.
Originally posted by spy66
The thing is the top section would also loos speed because the floors are connected to it. Until they break of.
The entire top section would loose speed because the whole thing is hitting the bottom section.
You have watched to many 3d animations.
-Does debris a broken of floor have the same impact mass/force as a intact structure does?
- Each floor is constructed/designed to hold down force not up force. Would that have any impact on the intact top section hitting the bottom section?
-The core is designed to hold up and down force. Wouldn't that create resistance that would slow down the top section?
-The walls are designed to hold up/down force. Wouldn't that create resistance that would slow down the top section?
Now i have to stress the collapse time.
Wrong. It was the vertical support structure between the top and bottom section that collapsed. So the building must have fallen onto its own vertical support structure. That is why it tilted to one side. So don't come and tell me fairy tails. You can even see this on all the YouTube videos that the building came straight down and than tilted.
Explain how you came to the conclusion that the top section pushed down the bottom section?
Originally posted by Darkwing01
You just say that, but on what basis?
Can we have a little evidence for this?
Even in the best case for the OS analogues, dominoes and avalanches, the material causing the local collapse undergoes deceleration.
FORCE is a function of MASS and ACCELERATION. Both object are being subjected to the same FORCE. Since the mass of upper section is unchanged and, because the structure are similar, they are of roughly the same local mass at least in the initial impacts, they must undergo the same acceleration.
Since the lower portion was already resisting acceleration in the collapse direction to the value that the upper body is being accelerated at the impact force it is being subjected to must be greater than the force causing gravitational acceleration of said mass, otherwise it would not cause the lower structure to fail.
That means that the upper body must be subjected to a force greater than the force causing IT to be accelerated.
That means that the resistance (in the form of the normal force the lower structure is able to generate) is greater than the force of gravity.
That means that the upper structure must be decelerating.
Okay, that was terribly verbose and dense reasoning, but the fact of the matter is that this behavior is observed in every single natural collapse event and gravity induced demolition, but not explosive demolition.
The only way that it can carry on accelerating is if the the lower structure were somehow weakened so that it could no longer support the upper.
Again, PLB reveals himself as a truther, because saying that the acceleration decreased but did not become negative is saying that gravity alone was not the cause and that external energy was introduced.
Unless you have some evidence you are not showing PLB? Some physical experiment you may have performed that proves me wrong?