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 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.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.
consider this story: someone strikes a match in a house, the whole house then explodes into flame and burns in a few minutes.
i say "a match alone cannot cause this to happen so quickly"
you say "that isn't evidence that a match CAN'T, therefore a match must have been solely responsible"
your logic is flawed.
There is still 2 floors worth rubble now descending, and its mass doesn't disappear just because it's rubble.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
and the structure pushes back with the same exact force.
But it was 15+ floors impacting the floor below it. So, it still remains the same: can one floor resist the impact of 15+ floors landing on it?
The structure does not push back it only HOLDS THE FORCE PLACED ON IT. The structure is not an acting force.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Joey Canoli
i believe ANOK said some mass is lost, and some energy is lost, with each impact. that's what he meant by "floors ejected" as pulverized concrete. the proper term for those clouds are "pyroclastic clouds", and they're always seen in demolitions.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
*sigh* no.
how many floors were touching in the collision? two. one versus the other with an equal amount of energy. i can't believe you don't get this.
you can do the math two different ways, but the result is the same. either do 15(1 floor) versus 90(1 floor) or 15 versus 90.
Originally posted by ANOK
The whole building was ejected out of the footprints, as evidenced by the post collapse pics and FEMA.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
furthermore, how does it make sense for you to agree with a small line from the paper, then toss out the conclusion as bunk?
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
that paper i linked to demonstrates the constant acceleration of the floors, which either means newton's third law is wrong, or the OS is wrong.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by bottleslingguy
it did damage to several floors, it didn't take them out. most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireball, and the rest was gone within minutes. the maximum damage from the plane was done in under 10 minutes. 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?
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
the bulk of the upper mass was not only impacting the outer shell columns from various angles, it was also shearing off those angle iron attachments like a zipper. At some point you can see dust (some call it explosions) coming out of several floors below the collapse indicating the floors were pancaking even before the upper mass landed on them.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You don't have any evidence about what the BULK of the mass was doing. You are just talking. You people just deemphasize the core as much as you want. The NIST says 53% of the weight was on the core so how much of the BULK was that?
psik
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You don't have any evidence about what the BULK of the mass was doing. You are just talking. You people just deemphasize the core as much as you want. The NIST says 53% of the weight was on the core so how much of the BULK was that?
psik
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
The upper bulk was falling on and tearing to shreds the lower bulk regardless of whether or not a bunch of eggheads say the numbers add up.
Originally posted by ANOK
the lower bulk would not simply be tore to shreds, without the falling bulk also being tore to shreds. 15 floors would be torn to shreds long before the 95.
That is the fundamental mistake OS supporters make.