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 ANOK
I have no problem applying simple high school physics, thanx.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you must not have progressed terribly far in school, or you're trolling.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
if something is at rest, like the bottom floors of the wtc buildings, this means that either no forces are acting on it, or two forces are cancelling out. gravity is one of the forces that is cancelled out. if an equation representing the tower's resistance had a negative product, this would mean it couldn't support it's own weight, and was in the process of collapsing.
if the sum of the forces acting on something aren't zero, there is movement. zero isn't negative, therefore, you are suggesting that the towers couldn't support themselves ever. obviously you're wrong.
Originally posted by Saltarello
So you seem to imply that your fairytale physics allow for the upper level to be gravity bound, but not the lower ones right? Or you mean the lower ones are gravity bound but not the higher ones, or something in between?
The third law states that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. For example, if you push on a wall, it will push back on you as hard as you are pushing on it.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by joemelon
the "top" mass grew larger as it landed on each floor below which became a bigger duck with each floor failure. Don't forget the floors below are not being landed upon with equally distributed mass so your calculations fly out the window. You have no idea from the videos or anything else how each beam and other parts of the structure fell. Once the attachment points between the floors and outer shell are broken with the growing mass on top, all bets are off.
The whole OS collapse argument is based on this fallacy.
For this hypothesis to be true the concrete of the floors would have to be able to endure more force than the bolts and welds holding them. How could all the bolts fail from impact but the floors not? Also the collapse would have concluded with floors stacked up like 'pancakes'. Concrete can not both be ejected out of the footprint during collapse, and still be in the footprint to supply a mass for the collapse.
If the floors simply pancaked they would be a pile of floors in the footprint, and the core would still be standing. What we observe during, and post collapse, does not match this hypothesis.
Whatever way the OS residents here want to spin the physics you still have a smaller mass falling on a larger mass, 15 floors falling on 95. Those 95 floors are not going to disappear whether the connections failed or not.
If they all crushed into the basement that still takes energy, over and above the energy needed to break connections. But every time floors impact energy would be lost, Ke would be converted to other energy needed to break connections, overcome resistance, lost in sound and heat, etc. Yet we observe in the collapse no slowing from this loss of energy, the collapse simply continues as if Ke was increased.
If you consider the laws of motion, the forces on each colliding floor are the same, equal opposite reaction (a physics laws that can not change), then you will see that a small mass can not crush a larger mass.
If floors simply lost their connections, and stayed whole, then the collapse would still slow, and arrest, once the floors stacked up and they had nowhere else to go. The lower floors in the stack would be crushed, but the higher you go up the stack the less crushing there would be as the weight is less.
Why do you all insist on arguing for an hypothesis NIST rejected anyway? You are not arguing for the OS here, you are arguing something OS supporters have made up over the years to counter 'truther' arguments.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
here is a great paper on the subject and why the NIST model doesn't work. it may be a bit scientific for you though. tell me what you think.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
top floors exert "x" amount of force on bottom, bottom floors exert "x" amount on top floors.
Originally posted by -PLB-
The core didn't eject, that is truther fantasy. What happened is that (part of) the spire fell over like a tree, as can be seen in the image I posted in the post you replied to.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
yes, office fires existed, but they've never caused a skyscraper to collapse, despite much worse fires that lasted much longer.
in light of all this, and the physics proofs i provided, what "doesn't fly" in your mind?
The bottom of the building supplies a resisting force not an acting force.
There is no force pushing the top of the building up only structure holding it there.
If the bottom of the building did supply an acting force equal to or greater than the weight of the top of the building
So it once again boils down one simple question: Can 15 falling stories worth of mass be stopped by a single floor?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
yes, office fires existed, but they've never caused a skyscraper to collapse, despite much worse fires that lasted much longer.
in light of all this, and the physics proofs i provided, what "doesn't fly" in your mind?
Your incredulity exhibited in the previous paragraph.
This is not evidence.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
here is a great paper on the subject and why the NIST model doesn't work. it may be a bit scientific for you though. tell me what you think.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
no, once again it boils down to:
can one floor do more damage than it can take? newton's third law says no.