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

Originally posted by ANOK

What difference do the 'conners' [sic] make, in 'OSer world'?

The walls of WTC 1&2 were connected at the corners mostly by the floors that is reason why the walls leaned out after the floors failed. The building no longer had corners.



This also explains why the walls are laying outside of the footprint for WTC 1&2 and on top of the footprint for WTC7. How do you explain this difference in Truther World using explosives or thermite.

reply to post by waypastvne

The walls of WTC 1&2 were connected at the corners mostly by the floors that is reason why the walls leaned out after the floors failed. The building no longer had corners

You mean the core or the building?

The building very much had corners, and the floors were not only attached to the core at the corners either.

Anyway, the official theory is a pull-in theory, not push-out. Here it is as "debunked" by a "debunker":


I always love hearing what OS'ers think actually happened because it invariably has no connection to either the reality or the OS they claim to subscribe to.

Originally posted by waypastvne

The core columns were cross braced but not diagonally braced. Diagonal bracing is what keeps the core columns from falling over. The diagonal bracing was provided by the spandrel plates in the walls. After the walls were gone the core columns fell over.

Cross bracing is diagonal bracing, and yes they core did have cross bracing...



The core columns did not fall over, they fell straight down. The spandrel plates are not diagonal bracing, they were to hold the floors up. The core had its own cross bracing, it didn't need anything else, just look at it, if you have ANY engineering experience at all you would be able to see the core is a solid structure able to hold itself up.

Where are you OSers getting this BS that the floors stopped the core from falling over, it's one of the most ridiculous thing you guys claim.

When you are you going to address the laws of motion, or even mention the laws of motion? Unless you do you have not addressed the physics of the collapses, you are just spreading BS you read somewhere. Your collapse hypothesis has to abide by the laws of motion, and if you really know what you're talking about you will be able to explain the laws of motion in context with your claim. Unless you can do that then you are just repeating the tired old claims you read somewhere, and you have no idea if those claims are really correct or not, you just think they are.

the os'ers want everyone to believe that the twin tower floors were attached with toothpicks and marshmallows, and that the lateral support both offered no resistance, AND was destroyed.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I love what the poster said above 'The building no longer had corners.' I would like to know exactly when and how this happened.

But I really wanted you to elaborate on your post on page 26

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.

Now, this makes sense to me but others have pointed out its a dynamic load which would increase the weight of the 20 floors that are falling, I might not have the right terms but its like a hammer hitting a nail, its stronger from a greater height idea. So in conversation some folk have said to me that that top portion can destroy the bottom portion because that is what happened. How can I show this to be false (if it is indeed false)?

Also other arguments include that the above does not include laws of thermodynamics but from my five minutes on wiki this does not seem true either.

Anyways lots of questions and its not fair for me to expect you to answer them all.

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


the strength of the tower increased dramatically in the lower floors. on the last page, ANOK posted a very enlightening gif that demonstrates the size difference between the support columns at the top and at the bottom.

the collapse outlined isn't feasible. it sounds good on paper, but it simply doesn't happen like that. drop one cinder block on two others that are stacked up. downward force is converted to lateral kinetic energy. pieces fly in all directions. both mass and energy are removed. the top block will do less damage to what it hits than it actually takes itself.

here is a video illustrating that the mass of the falling object can't exert force AND retain it's energy. the top floors fell into a greater mass with greater resistance, yet they kept going. this means resistance was removed.

to your friends. ask them what would happen if the bottom 80 or so floors was dropped 5 stories onto the 15 top floors. they'd say "well, the top would crush the bottom". it's all perspective, and 80 floors falling 5 stories onto 15 floors is the same as 15 floors falling 5 stories onto 80 floors. same amount of energy, yet people think the falling block always does more damage, when newton's third law tells us that equal energy is imparted.

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


You can read my (pretty much completely ignored) post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

That explains why the force on the lower floors is greater than the force on the top floors: it has to endure the load as result of its own weight and the forces as result of the mass of the already failed floors falling on them. That is why the floors in the bottom fail easier than the floors in the top. It also explains why the collapse can be so fast. Momentum increases from both mass added to the crushing mass as well as from increase in velocity from gravitational pull. Increasing momentum means that the crushing mass is slowed down less with each floor it hits, as the resistance the floors are offering is pretty much the same for all floors.

reply to post by -PLB-


Competing hypotheses, which one is true, ATS user Bob Sholtz or your idea. Now your idea on page 31 is

15 floors in the top hit the upper floor of the lower 85 floors. Both a floor in the bottom and top fail. Now you have 16 floors falling. 14 floors in the top + 2 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 84 floors. The floor fails as result of the 2 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 17 floors falling.

14 floors in the top + 3 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 83 floors. The floor fails as result of the 3 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 18 floors falling. 14 floors in the top + 4 failed floor hit the upper floor of the lower 82 floors. The floor fails as result of the 4 failed floors and top hitting it. Now you have 19 floors falling. You can of course make variations on this, where more floors in the top fail. But even a truther should be able to understand that the lower floors that have all the failed floors plus the top section falling on them fail easier than floors in the top that do not have the failed floors falling on them.

Well I want to leave it to experiments, so it becomes planes plus fire equals total global destruction versus planes and fire plus any amount of explosive equals global destruction. I know the CD idea could recreate the events of that day - not so sure the OS would but your saying it is possible to re-create this?

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

his mode of collapse would mean that the vertical support columns should have remained. they could not both offer little resistance AND be destroyed.

the pancake theory violates newton's third law, and in experimentation we see that the falling blocks do not gain mass and energy on the way down. something can only do as much damage as it can resist. as we see with the falling blocks, the falling block and the first block hit destroy each other while all the other blocks remain.

a simple experiment that shows the OS theory of collapse is crap.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

 

his mode of collapse would mean that the vertical support columns should have remained. they could not both offer little resistance AND be destroyed.

How does it violate N3rdL? Are you just repeating ANOK's flawed version as well?
Well in an idealized collapse scenario, the vertical supports would have remained, if it was JUST the floors collapsing internally down. However, in the WTC Towers, the vertical supports for the floors were the floor truss seats that were welded onto the exterior and interior columns. I cannot believe I still have to remind people how the freaking building was designed. The seats themselves offered very little resistance (but just enough to slow down the collapse and not have it in real freefall as observed by the actual falling debris outpacing the collapse). Since the truss seats failed, that allowed for the floors to continue down, gaining mass as each floor now dislodged is now part of the collapsing mass.

the pancake theory violates newton's third law, and in experimentation we see that the falling blocks do not gain mass and energy on the way down. something can only do as much damage as it can resist. as we see with the falling blocks, the falling block and the first block hit destroy each other while all the other blocks remain.

a simple experiment that shows the OS theory of collapse is crap.

The collapsing floors inside the WTC were gaining mass on the way down. Each floor dislocated from the end connections was now a part of the collapsing front. Resistance of the floors below was the same as above, however, in relation to the growing and falling mass, the resistance was getting smaller and smaller. Towards the end, the lowest floor was being impacted by 80+ floors traveling down as one unit. Show me where the floor was supposed to withstand that sort of impact and survive. Sorry chief, but the observed collapse and theory is actually far better than anything the truthers bring up.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

 

here is a video illustrating that the mass of the falling object can't exert force AND retain it's energy. the top floors fell into a greater mass with greater resistance, yet they kept going. this means resistance was removed.

But that video is crap in comparison to the WTC. The WTCs were not solid blocks of ice, or solid blocks of concrete, or anything like that. The video falls on its face with trying to equate a solid body with the WTC design.

Just like ol Richard "Boxboy" Gage, this video is not even close to representative of the WTC collapse. Its just too bad the truther community is so behind and underinformed of the WTC design and its structural behavior.

reply to post by GenRadek

did you see the video i posted? you should watch it. the pancake theory of collapse doesn't work. there is nothing wrong with ANOK's reasoning/application of physics.

the especially damning evidence are those three botched demolition jobs. the whole weight of the building dropped several stories can't destroy itself, which is essentially the OS model of collapse. they either stop falling, or fall sideways. the pancake theory sounds good on paper, it really does, but it doesn't work.

the only way it COULD work is with resistance removed.

Originally posted by ANOK

Cross bracing is diagonal bracing, and yes they core did have cross bracing...

Sorry ANOK, but you are wrong. (again)

Did you notice what is on the ends of all four corners during construction? I count four cranes on each corner. Tower cranes require crossbracing to keep them from collapsing. Notice how the structure for the cranes is all crossbraced. Once the cranes' job was complete, that crane structure was removed.

Look here:


See the crossbracing of the Tower Crane? Where is it? Just under the crane and in between the columns of the core! Just like how a tower crane seen here:


The crossbracing has already been shown to be a part of the tower cranes used in construction, NOT for the actual core. Once again, a truther does not have all the facts, or tries to hide the facts. If you were not aware of this fact, then just admit it. It is better to admit something you didnt know, than to pretend like you do.

The core columns did not fall over, they fell straight down. The spandrel plates are not diagonal bracing, they were to hold the floors up. The core had its own cross bracing, it didn't need anything else, just look at it, if you have ANY engineering experience at all you would be able to see the core is a solid structure able to hold itself up.

Wrong, no crossbracing in the core. The core was just vertical columns with sections for the floor areas and elevator shafts and stairwells which were all covered in sheetrock. There were some horizontal beams inside the core for the floor areas, and for some structural members, but there was no cross bracing. Also, the columns were observed to fall over in sections. Hell just watch some of the collapse videos. The spire just came down the way it did due to the way the structure below failing.

Where are you OSers getting this BS that the floors stopped the core from falling over, it's one of the most ridiculous thing you guys claim.

And once again a truther has shown himself to have little knowledge of what he is trying to argue against.
The central core was designed to take the gravity loads of the building while the exterior columns and floors took the wind bracing. The core was not designed to survive on its own, as a stiff wind would have knocked it over easily. Hence why the floors and exterior columns were designed to act as buffers to the wind hitting the exterior columns. You should have known this already ANOK.

"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.

www.greatbuildings.com...

More info regarding the core and its design, which also answers your questions or concerns can be fond here:
ebtx.com...
I do realize that the above link also is done b ya truther, but at least he is a lot closer to the facts about the collapses than any of the truthers here on ATS. I do not agree with a few of his assumptions, but he actually brought up some decent points that support what we've been saying.

When you are you going to address the laws of motion, or even mention the laws of motion? Unless you do you have not addressed the physics of the collapses, you are just spreading BS you read somewhere. Your collapse hypothesis has to abide by the laws of motion, and if you really know what you're talking about you will be able to explain the laws of motion in context with your claim. Unless you can do that then you are just repeating the tired old claims you read somewhere, and you have no idea if those claims are really correct or not, you just think they are.

Blah blah blah, I take your version of physics with a very large grain of salt, since you have incorrectly applied it time and again to the WTC collapse. Once again, you stil cannot read a report and correctly comprehend was was written, so I am very weary of your "expertise" with physics. If you cannot correcting comprehend something simple like reading a paragraph and correctly deducing what is being said, I have bigger worries about you trying to explain something 100X more complex like physics.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by GenRadek

 

did you see the video i posted? you should watch it. the pancake theory of collapse doesn't work. there is nothing wrong with ANOK's reasoning/application of physics.

the especially damning evidence are those three botched demolition jobs. the whole weight of the building dropped several stories can't destroy itself, which is essentially the OS model of collapse. they either stop falling, or fall sideways. the pancake theory sounds good on paper, it really does, but it doesn't work.

the only way it COULD work is with resistance removed.

I did. And its a joke. Why? The WTC was not a solid block of ice, or concrete, or a solid tree trunk. That is why. The WTC was a very light structure, in comparison to the Empire State Building for example. Taking a solid block of ice and dropping on another solid block of ice is not representative of the WTC structure. AT ALL. Its high time truthers understand this FACT, before trying to make an argument. Sure, ANOK's repeating of N3rdL and such is only a small part, in comparison to the main picture. But according to his version, I should not be able to push a car down the street due to "equal and opposite" rules. I weigh 170lbs soaking wet, my car weighs about 1 1/2 tons. I push on the car and it pushes back on me with the same amount of force. According to ANOK, since the car is larger than me, and has a far larger mass, I should not be able to get the car rolling. But I can. In fact i can exert just enough force to get the car rolling and once it is, it does not take as much force to keep it going once it is. ANOK cannot comprehend it and ignores it everytime I bring it up. According to him, I should not be able to push my car due to (his version of) N3rdL. But I can.

Would looooooooooooooove to see EVIDENCE, regarding this "collapse", that everyone seems to be stuck on saying. The towers DID NOT COLLAPSE.....THEY WERE PULVERIZED TO DUST...USING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY!

Here's the million dollar question....what happened to all the office furniture, computers, printers, fax machines, vending machines, file cabinets, etc, etc,? Anyone?

The only thing that was left of those towers.........WAS STEEL; which, by the way...was conveniently stacked in a nice big pile....just waiting to be picked up and recylcled.
Stick to the facts

Building collapse


Dustification

reply to post by GenRadek

I did. And its a joke. Why? The WTC was not a solid block of ice, or concrete, or a solid tree trunk. That is why. The WTC was a very light structure, in comparison to the Empire State Building for example. Taking a solid block of ice and dropping on another solid block of ice is not representative of the WTC structure. AT ALL. Its high time truthers understand this FACT, before trying to make an argument. Sure, ANOK's repeating of N3rdL and such is only a small part, in comparison to the main picture. But according to his version, I should not be able to push a car down the street due to "equal and opposite" rules. I weigh 170lbs soaking wet, my car weighs about 1 1/2 tons. I push on the car and it pushes back on me with the same amount of force. According to ANOK, since the car is larger than me, and has a far larger mass, I should not be able to get the car rolling. But I can. In fact i can exert just enough force to get the car rolling and once it is, it does not take as much force to keep it going once it is. ANOK cannot comprehend it and ignores it everytime I bring it up. According to him, I should not be able to push my car due to (his version of) N3rdL. But I can.

i like how you don't address the cinder blocks. they weren't solid, and both the full and half blocks gave the same exact results.

the car analogy shows the limit of your physics knowledge. find a semi truck that is parked. get your car about 15 feet in front of it. now, push as hard as you can and ram your car into the semi. the semi probably won't even move, whereas your car will come to a complete stop. 1 1/2 tons is a downward force NOT a horizontal force, so you aren't pushing with a force of 1 1/2 tons unless you can actually pick up your car, then i would be impressed.

the weight of the car represents a balanced equation between the car and earth. you don't factor in. as long as you can overcome the coefficient of friction, you can push something, and the car's wheels make the coefficient of friction very low comparatively.

reply to post by nuttin4U

yes, those are called pyroclastic clouds and are always seen in explosive demolitions. of course, the OS'ers will just tell you its drywall. poor wankers.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
his mode of collapse would mean that the vertical support columns should have remained. they could not both offer little resistance AND be destroyed.

The columns were not destroyed. They were mainly broken off on the place they were connected to each other. The falling mass consisting of failed floors had plenty of volume to push all columns over horizontally. Pushing over columns horizontally offer a lot less resistance and consumes very little energy.

the pancake theory violates newton's third law, and in experimentation we see that the falling blocks do not gain mass and energy on the way down. something can only do as much damage as it can resist. as we see with the falling blocks, the falling block and the first block hit destroy each other while all the other blocks remain.

a simple experiment that shows the OS theory of collapse is crap.

It only violates the truther version of newton's third law, not the real one. The WTC towers did not behave like blocks. Just like they didn't behave like paint cans or cardboard boxes. They behaved like the WTC buildings.

reply to post by -PLB-

until you explain my equation (m1-m2)*a=F that i've given time and again, you've lost the privilege of my time. good day.

anyone who takes my lack of response as a cop out, i'd advise you to go back a few pages and read.

Originally posted by -PLB-
It only violates the truther version of newton's third law, not the real one.

The why don't you explain the collapses using the real third law of motion then?

While you're at it don't forget to address the momentum conservation, and action-reaction laws.

Until you do then you have not debunked anything, or explained anything. It's so easy to say you're wrong, but not so easy to explain why, is it PLB?

Just for a reminder this is what the third law says...

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

And this is momentum conservation....

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

The law of action-reaction...

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Just explain them, please don't cop out and claim the WTC collapses were not isolated systems, or some other BS excuse to not address those laws, that apply to ALL collisions between ALL objects in EVERY situation. There are no excuses to ignore these laws, doing that just shows your real agenda in this forum, and that would not be the truth.

Isolated Systems

A system in which the only forces that contribute to the momentum change of an individual object are the forces acting between the objects themselves can be considered an isolated system.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

So if you believe that the collapse was because of the mass and force of the upper block of floors, then the collapse was an isolated system. The only way it would not be an isolated system is if an outside force, like explosives of some kind, was acting on the collapse. Gravity doesn't count, if it did there would be no such thing as an isolated system because gravity acts on everything.