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

reply to post by -PLB-

Its simple physics.

Simple physics is empirically based.

Empiricism says you are wrong.

So whatever it is, it is not simple physics.

This is not correct. The resistance of the floor is, generously, 5 times its own weight. The weight falling on it was at least 12 times the weight of a floor. So there is a net acceleration as result of gravity. Would you have placed the mass carefully on the floor instead of dropping it, the floor would also have failed and there would also have been acceleration. No impact forces here.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed PLB.

The acceleration due to gravity is a constant in this equation.

When the top section is doing more work than the force of gravity alone could have done the only way it can do so is by reducing the kinetic energy involved, there is simply no other place where the energy could conceivable come from to do the work. Reducing the kinetic energy means reducing the velocity if the mass is held constant.

The extra force comes from the dissipation of kinetic energy.

Nobody is saying that the impacted floors would not be broken, please stop regurgitating this pathetically simplistic canard.

I-T-E-R-A-T-I-O-N

Look it up if you have trouble understanding what it means.

reply to post by Darkwing01


All evidence I know of shows that the top section indeed accelerated. Feel free to demonstrate me wrong.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Energy cannot be created or destroyed PLB.

The acceleration due to gravity is a constant in this equation.

When the top section is doing more work than the force of gravity alone could have done

It didn't do more work than gravity could provide. I will repeat it again, even when you carefully place the mass of the top section on an intact floor, it would still accelerate through it, even without any initial velocity. It would be purely the force of gravity accelerating it.

reply to post by -PLB-

The weight of the top section is much greater than the supports of a single floor can carry. When resistance is lower than gravitational load it means there is acceleration.

LoL, Here we go again. You are suggesting that the top section is built a stronger than the bottom section.

The Bottom section is strong enough to hold the top section stationary. That is the first thing you have to think about.

The second is that; when the vertical support structure between top and bottom section collapse. You have two floors touching first. The bottom of the top section and the top of the bottom section. GET IT?

The floors in the bottom section are designed to hold down force. The floors in the top section are designed to hold down force, not up force. Now; the top section is coming down. Do you see the issue now?

Which floor is the weakest? The bottom of the top section floor or the top floor of the bottom section?

Further;
You are suggesting that the core of the top section is built stronger than the core on top of the bottom section. That is not the case. The bottom section is designed to hold the top section. The reason it is not able to hold the top section stationary is because, there is damage on the vertical structure "core + walls" at the impact point.

The core at the bottom of the top section is not any stronger than the core on top of the standing building.

There are two issues here:

1. Mass in motion hitting stationary mass.
2. A intact floor hitting another intact floor.

The floor(s) at the impact point are damaged. They are the cause for the collapse.

No, the top section did not fall on the lower support structure. This is an extremely unrealistic scenario, even impossible when there is tilt. But even without tilt, its like throwing a stool from 2 meters high on top of another stool that is upside down, with the legs damaged and twisted. Its not going to happen.

Funny that you deny this, Because the building is connected from the ground up.

At best the top section would slide of the core and than tilt. But if that is the case you have more issues with your theory. If you are suggesting that the core of the top section sidestepped of the core of the bottom section. You have to take a look that how large the core was. If the core of top section sidestepped of the bottom core. The top section would have fallen of to the side of the building.

Never at any moment can we observe the building sidestep of the core. We would be able to observe that.
The only thing we are able to observe is that the top section tilts to one side. And that is because it is collapsing down onto the core of the lower section.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Darkwing01

 

All evidence I know of shows that the top section indeed accelerated. Feel free to demonstrate me wrong.

Yes, and that is the big issue. It never should have.

Originally posted by spy66
LoL, Here we go again. You are suggesting that the top section is built a stronger than the bottom section.

The Bottom section is strong enough to hold the top section stationary. That is the first thing you have to think about.

But not the floors. And that is what the top would fall on. Recollect my analogy with the stools.

The second is that; when the vertical support structure between top and bottom section collapse. You have two floors touching first. The bottom of the top section and the top of the bottom section. GET IT?

The floors in the bottom section are designed to hold down force. The floors in the top section are designed to hold down force, not up force. Now; the top section is coming down. Do you see the issue now?

Which floor is the weakest? The bottom of the top section floor or the top floor of the bottom section?

I already answered this, and asked what your point is. So what that after initiation both the lower and upper floor failed? Why is that an issue?

Further;
You are suggesting that the core of the top section is built stronger than the core on top of the bottom section. That is not the case. The bottom section is designed to hold the top section. The reason it is not able to hold the top section stationary is because, there is damage on the vertical structure "core + walls" at the impact point.

The core at the bottom of the top section is not any stronger than the core on top of the standing building.

Incorrect. I am saying that the core didn't play much of a role during the collapse.

There are two issues here:

1. Mass in motion hitting stationary mass.
2. A intact floor hitting another intact floor.

The floor(s) at the impact point are damaged. They are the cause for the collapse.

Why are those issues?

Funny that you deny this, Because the building is connected from the ground up.

At best the top section would slide of the core and than tilt. But if that is the case you have more issues with your theory. If you are suggesting that the core of the top section sidestepped of the core of the bottom section. You have to take a look that how large the core was. If the core of top section sidestepped of the bottom core. The top section would have fallen of to the side of the building.

Never at any moment can we observe the building sidestep of the core. We would be able to observe that.
The only thing we are able to observe is that the top section tilts to one side. And that is because it is collapsing down onto the core of the lower section.

You seem to think the core was one large massive block. That is incorrect. The core exists of columns. The columns relatively have a small area compared to the area of the towers. Displacement only required to be 50cm or so, and with tilting even less. Again, recollect my analogy with the stools.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

So what do you think happens to your "equal and opposite reaction" when there are failed floors between the top and lower section?

oh, it's not MY "equal and opposite reaction". it's newton's third law of motion.

Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

taking into account the fire damaged floors in the fall would even further distance the results from what is physically possible. those floors would be soft, but collapse wouldn't happen at 9.8m/s^2. the top part of the towers shouldn't have even fallen at all.

you've already asked this question, a stalling tactic because you know you're wrong. it would lessen the mass of "T". it leaves us with an inescapable conclusion that most of the resistance for 90 floors was removed.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


So according to you, floors that failed ejected. (or where else did they go according to you?). The next step would be to show evidence for this, and explain how this is physically possible.

reply to post by -PLB-

All evidence I know of shows that the top section indeed accelerated. Feel free to demonstrate me wrong.

Exactly PLB.

The fact that it accelerated shows that the lower structure was not able to even resist the static load, nevermind the dynamic.

Imagine a series of evenly spaced dominoes on a flat surface. How do you get the rate at which the domino chain get knocked down accelerate? Why, by knocking down bricks ahead of the front of course.

You cannot achieve acceleration in a natural collapse of this type, if you think you can you will need to show me that empirical proof. You can readily and demonstrably achieve it in a controlled demolition...

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Exactly PLB.

The fact that it accelerated shows that the lower structure was not able to even resist the static load, nevermind the dynamic.

You are wrong. You can achieve acceleration during a collapse even if the structure is capable of holding the top section in a static situation. I have already explained how in quite some detail, including examples (remember the example with the brick and plate?).

But forget that as it is not relevant here, because in the case of the WTC towers, the floors would indeed not be able to resist the static load of the top section. You don't really seem to be able to understand this, as I have written this multiple times by now.

The really bizarre thing is, we had a pretty detailed discussion about this earlier. And you agreed that the weight of the top would be too much for a floor to carry. But then you claimed that the collapse would still arrest because the floors would eject. Your explanation for ejecting floor was "the electromagnetic force". After that you acknowledged that that was not an explanation at all (you even tried to ridicule me for implying so). The conversation basically ended with you totally being incapable of substantiating what your were saying.

So did you forget all that? Do you no longer agree that the weight of the top would be too much for a floor to carry, even in a static situation?

Imagine a series of evenly spaced dominoes on a flat surface. How do you get the rate at which the domino chain get knocked down accelerate? Why, by knocking down bricks ahead of the front of course.

You cannot achieve acceleration in a natural collapse of this type, if you think you can you will need to show me that empirical proof. You can readily and demonstrably achieve it in a controlled demolition...

edit on 22-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

Your analogy is flawed in several aspects. Firstly, domino's are not a very meaningful model for a tower collapse. Secondly, the domino's will actually accelerate until a certain speed is achieved.

reply to post by -PLB-

I already answered this, and asked what your point is. So what that after initiation both the lower and upper floor failed? Why is that an issue?

Do you know the difference between down force and up force resistance?

All the floors in the building are just designed to withstand down force. That is my point. And that is a big issue when it comes to your pancake theory. The floors could never have fallen a head of the rest of the collapsing building.

reply to post by spy66



You are not a native english speaker or you are about 6 because what you write doesn't make sense!

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

So what do you think happens to your "equal and opposite reaction" when there are failed floors between the top and lower section?

oh, it's not MY "equal and opposite reaction". it's newton's third law of motion.

Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

taking into account the fire damaged floors in the fall would even further distance the results from what is physically possible. those floors would be soft, but collapse wouldn't happen at 9.8m/s^2. the top part of the towers shouldn't have even fallen at all.

you've already asked this question, a stalling tactic because you know you're wrong. it would lessen the mass of "T". it leaves us with an inescapable conclusion that most of the resistance for 90 floors was removed.

The metal might be soft but its MASS would be the same!!

The top part of both towers fell due to the damage around the impact area.

OBVIOUS in the videos





Oh and by the way on the videos you can see the DROP spy66!!!

reply to post by spy66


Ok, I don't have any issues with that. When failed floors fall on an intact floor, the intact floor will also fail. The floors in the top section did not have failed floors falling on them.

reply to post by -PLB-


no, according to me, resistance was removed. i'm still waiting for you to show me how my math is wrong. that equation i posted means that resistance was removed, it is the only logical explanation.

care to show me how the smaller top floors can dish out more damage than they can take? oh, you can't? then why are you still talking?

Originally posted by Cassius666
www.opednews.com...

High school teacher-level Physics calculations show Gravity ACTION on 9/11 Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent ENERGY, and then debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of 'TNT' ENERGY in REACTION. No spin, FACT: 0.1 KT ACTION not equal 8.5 KT REACTION Who dunnit? ::::::::

Getting back to the opening post.

The Truth Movement has provided us with Truther Evidence, using Truther Math, and Truther Physics, to give us Truther Proof, that 8.5 KiloTons of explosives were secretly planted in WTC 1 & 2.

This is the evidence the Truth Movement is presenting us.......Yes ?

That's about 85 tons per floor.

Even If they could sneak it in one tone at a time, that is still 8,500 elevator trips from the loading dock, to the designated floor, without any one asking "what's that" per building.


This is why the Truth Movement is so entertaining.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

i'm still waiting for you to show me how my math is wrong.

It appears you have underestimated the mass of the lower part of building in your Truther Equation, you have totally left out the planet it was attached to and it's gravitational pull.

reply to post by waypastvne


velocity doesn't effect newton's third law, because the top and the bottom both are affected by the same amount of force. it's called a force pair, and it's basic physics. no matter how fast the top goes towards the bottom, they both are subject to the same amount of force. ergo, the top shouldn't have survived intact past it's own weight, yet it survived all the way down.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I have told you several times now, but you seem to miss it. It were not the floors attached to the top section destroying the lower floors, it was the mass of the already failed floors that were destroying the lower floors. If you somehow think those failed floors ejected, explain how. If you think they were still there, your "math" is wrong.

Both Anok and Darkwing have been claiming the failed floors somehow ejected when they were confronted with this. Neither have been able to show evidence, nor been able to explain the physics behind it. It will probably not surprise you that I don't expect you to come with some ingenious idea either, meaning you are just plain wrong.

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Here is why this is incorrect:



As you can see, the floor was a bit lower than you thought. No need to thank me. Your understanding is all I care about.