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

reply to post by ANOK


but the 15 floors aka bulk is falling and the lower floors aka bulk has lost its integrity as a complete structure and has become unstable not to mention the upper bulk is not hitting the supports dead on center so any load bearing ability has flown out the window.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by ANOK

 

but the 15 floors aka bulk is falling and the lower floors aka bulk has lost its integrity as a complete structure and has become unstable not to mention the upper bulk is not hitting the supports dead on center so any load bearing ability has flown out the window.

How did the lower building section lose its integrity? There was no damage bellow the impact of the aircraft, unless you have new information?

Load bearing makes no difference we're talking about blocks of concrete and steel floor pans crushing themselves to the ground from gravity. You could have taken ALL the resistance of load bearing columns away, and just let the floors fall freely, they would still not completely collapse. There would be floors stacked up in the footprint.

You can try this at home. Take a pile of concrete slabs, and see if you can get 15% of the whole to crush the rest.
Use any method you like to hold them up, separate them with toothpicks, whatever, you will never be able to repeat what happened to the towers. Prove me wrong, or stop with the layman nonsense.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Torn to shreds or not, all it needs to damage the lower structure is mass and velocity. whether the upper structure is 'torn to shreds' is beside the point. I don't see how this impacts the 'collapse due to impact and fires' theory.

Yes, but what is stopping the top section from being torn to pieces in your world?

According to you guys the top had to stay in one piece in order to crush the lower floors, Bazants crush down crush up hypothesis, but this is impossible. The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.

Understand equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, and you will understand why your hypotheses would not work in the real world.

Originally posted by ANOK

Yes, but what is stopping the top section from being torn to pieces in your world?

Pretty much nothing. This is what I was trying to say. It is not necessary that the upper section retain its entire structural integrity for the collapse to proceed.

Originally posted by ANOK
According to you guys the top had to stay in one piece in order to crush the lower floors, Bazants crush down crush up hypothesis, but this is impossible. The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.

Understand equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, and you will understand why your hypotheses would not work in the real world.

Bazant's analysis demonstrated that there was not enough structural strength present in the lower part of the towers to resist the falling structure and mass above, even under ideal conditions. It is not a precise description of the events that actually transpired, but rather it concludes that once initiated, collapse was inevitable.

You still fail to understand that even torn to shreds, the 'fallling block' still has mass and velocity, and thus can damage structures below.

For a guy who recently told us that potential energy "pushes up", you are awfully confident in your physics knowledge. One might think that error would stop you prattling on about how we should all 'understand equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws'. We certainly won't be learning anything about them from you.

And again, you persist in comparing the masses of the upper and lower sections, as if that were somehow decisive.

reply to post by ANOK

what I'm saying is that once the upper part starts falling nobody can determine what condition the lower floors were in. If the connecting points of the outer skin of the lower floors was forced outward as the upper section fell it would have opened up like a zipper. My other point is that at this time when the upper floor mass overcomes the load carrying ability of the lower remaining structure the plumb/level aspect is now gone resulting in racking forces and torques on beams and connections they are unable to withstand. So now with this unstable falling bulky mass hitting the remaining lower bulk that was built to support itself as a unit with floor connections keeping the integrity of the outer skin, it would be popping the outer floor/skin connections 15 floors against one, then sixteen against one, then seventeen and so on. Can you tell me what was going on inside? From what I've seen nothing indicates CD.

Originally posted by ANOK
The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.

what do you mean "to crush more mass than itself"? everything was crushed by the time the last floor came down and it wouldn't be coming down level and hitting a perfectly flat pile of rubble and would have enough uneven/unbalanced forces working against its intended design and wouldn't have a chance to survive all by itself. I think the people having a problem with this are the ones thinking about it in a world where everything is flat and straight.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by ANOK
The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.

what do you mean "to crush more mass than itself"?

Again the claim of our resident OSers is that the top floors crushed the lower floors. as in the crush-down crush-up hypothesis of Bazant.

So the small mass is the top floors, the larger mass is the lower floors. One tower was 15 floors falling on 95 floors, 95 floors is a larger overall mass than 15.

The OSers want to ignore the mass of the undamaged floors and pretend, as in the NIST report, that complete collapse was inevitable. They also want you to believe that the mass of the top falling floors was only effecting one floor at a time, which is a reasonable claim until you realise that if you look at it that way you also have to consider that the top section impacting was only effecting the bottom floor of the upper falling block, and the force of the floors above that impacting floor, 14 floors, would effect that floor more than the top floor of the lower block. (I know that might be confusing but read it through a few times). So both impacting floors would be damaged causing, along with other factors, a loss of Ke and mass. Loss of Ke and mass means the collapse should have slowed down, and could not have been complete.

So in conclusion another energy must have been acting on the collapses that was not investigated.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by ANOK
The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.

what do you mean "to crush more mass than itself"?

Again the claim of our resident OSers is that the top floors crushed the lower floors. as in the crush-down crush-up hypothesis of Bazant.

So the small mass is the top floors, the larger mass is the lower floors. One tower was 15 floors falling on 95 floors, 95 floors is a larger overall mass than 15.

The OSers want to ignore the mass of the undamaged floors and pretend, as in the NIST report, that complete collapse was inevitable. They also want you to believe that the mass of the top falling floors was only effecting one floor at a time, which is a reasonable claim until you realise that if you look at it that way you also have to consider that the top section impacting was only effecting the bottom floor of the upper falling block, and the force of the floors above that impacting floor, 14 floors, would effect that floor more than the top floor of the lower block. (I know that might be confusing but read it through a few times). So both impacting floors would be damaged causing, along with other factors, a loss of Ke and mass. Loss of Ke and mass means the collapse should have slowed down, and could not have been complete.

So in conclusion another energy must have been acting on the collapses that was not investigated.

So what happens to the mass of the floor that is destroyed by the falling mass? Does it disappear? Because it sounds like you are suggesting that the mass of the floors was magically disappearing. You say that no way the top section of 15 floors can damage the rest; so what then, when the top 15 floors crash down on the floors below? Do those just disappear? Are you seriously suggesting the mass of the destroyed floors just disappear? If so, how? Pixie dust? Wormhole? Black hole? Dr. Judy's magic lazars from space??

And you wonder why I or anyone with a rational understanding of physics cannot take you seriously when you open your mouth about physics?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by ANOK
The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.

what do you mean "to crush more mass than itself"?

Again the claim of our resident OSers is that the top floors crushed the lower floors. as in the crush-down crush-up hypothesis of Bazant.

So the small mass is the top floors, the larger mass is the lower floors. One tower was 15 floors falling on 95 floors, 95 floors is a larger overall mass than 15.

The OSers want to ignore the mass of the undamaged floors and pretend, as in the NIST report, that complete collapse was inevitable. They also want you to believe that the mass of the top falling floors was only effecting one floor at a time, which is a reasonable claim until you realise that if you look at it that way you also have to consider that the top section impacting was only effecting the bottom floor of the upper falling block, and the force of the floors above that impacting floor, 14 floors, would effect that floor more than the top floor of the lower block. (I know that might be confusing but read it through a few times). So both impacting floors would be damaged causing, along with other factors, a loss of Ke and mass. Loss of Ke and mass means the collapse should have slowed down, and could not have been complete.

So in conclusion another energy must have been acting on the collapses that was not investigated.

Well mr physics are you willing to even TRY to work out the impact force generated by the falling mass like I have said to YOU and others lets see your calculations!!!

Lets make it simple for you just use one floorslab that 700 tons of concrete forget the steel just use that to make it simple,so 700,000kg of concrete drops one floor to impact the next with the height of a WTC floor that will reach 18mph or just over 8 m/s.

You love newtons laws so why dont you use them to work out the impact force once YOU prove that 700,000kg hitting at 18mph hour or 8 m/s wont cause a problem then people would believe you.

Now since you like physics and newtons laws so much lets link back to this in case others haven't seen this before.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

That example shows that a 1lb duck (0.5kg) hitting a plane at 600mph generates 12ton or 24,000 lbs of force
YES 24,000 times its weight!!!. (high velocity)

So do you really think that a FLOORSLAB which is 1,540,000 lbs (1.5 million times the ducks weight) impacting at 18 mph or 8 m/s (lower velocity than the duck impact but 1.5 million times the mass) really wont cause a problem

Now thats JUST one slab North Tower another 15 of those plus the heavier roof slab plus steelwork, South Tower 30 floors plus roof slab plus steelwork.

Now once you work out the energy the falling mass has just as it impacts the floorslab below it then becomes a work done equation thats the hard part working out how far the falling mass travels now since there are pictures showing sheared seats (the angle iron which the floorslab trusses were connected to) and sheared bolts that distance wasn't far.

So ANOK you have all the information you need to try and PROVE it couldn't happen lets see you work it out using NEWTONS laws you always preach.

I will make a prediction YOU and the others will deflect this question because of 2 reasons

1) YOU cant actually work it out.
2) YOU wont because it will show you are wrong

The other problem YOU always ignore is the fact each floorslab is independant of the other below due to being supported by the angle seats on the outer walls and core, and the fact that if a floorslab is not there the walls are not stable.

The problem with impacts is the more an object resists the GREATER the force thats why cars have front and rear crumple zones, if the force is disippated over a greater distance the impact on the occupants is less!.

Here is a calculator for impact force

www.livephysics.com...

wtc floor height was about 3.6 mtrs.
Lets put some figs in height 3.6 lets use a 100kg mass lets vary distance after impact try 1cm 10 cm 100cm
so that hard softer and even softer ground.

Using 3.6mtr drop height 100 kg and 1cm (thats 0.01 mtrs) in the calculator answer 352800 newtons using 10n/kg thats 35280 kg that 1cm use 0.1mtr and 1mtr results are 3528kg and 352.8 kg

You see impact forces are massive WAY above safety factors
Once the impact force reach the limit the bolts or angles could take they FAIL and the only way is DOWN thanks to gravity.

So do you see NOW how they came down!!!

Originally posted by ANOK
According to you guys the top had to stay in one piece in order to crush the lower floors

I wonder which resident "OSers" you are talking about. In fact, I only see truthers making claims like "the top had to be intact else the collapse would arrest".

the problem I see with all these hypothetical calculations is that you can't assume the floors were all contacting evenly across the entire structure. What if a corner of the upper mass landed first? That area of the floor/walls had no chance withstanding the concentrated pressures applied to it. That would be like opening a soda can by prying one little section in order to open the rest of the hole. Once the integrity of the structure's design was compromised you can't apply fantasy world calculations that one square foot of floor was impacting one other square foot of floor evenly. It could have been nine hundred thousand tons hitting one hundred square feet of floor that wasn't designed to hold that much weight in that small of an area. I'll refer back to my soda can analogy: the can can support a lot of weight as long as it is held evenly across the top. Once the integrity of the sides has been compromised or the weight above is being applied unevenly across the top the can loses the battle. I think these people are building imaginary hypotheses in a perfect world scenario. Not to mention the tangled mess of steel beams had a lot to do with shredding the structure below, it was not two slabs of concrete falling flatly and evenly across the surface, it was a shredded mess falling on a damaged soda can whose sides had lost all integrity. Imagine the core columns being pushed to the side and twisted as the upper unit was wrenched from level, once that happens nobody can claim the lower unit had enough integrity to hold the moving mass above it.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Its looking like ANOK is thinking that the mass is disappearing when the floors impact during the collapse. Or his hilarious idea that the mss was being ejected outside the footprint, which is why the collapse should have stopped after only 15 floors / 30 floors were destroyed. As if the floor's mass disappeared after being destroyed. I have to see ANOK show any evidence that the majority of the mass was ejected outside the footprint. Its been nearly 2 months I believe. Still nothing.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
the problem I see with all these hypothetical calculations is that you can't assume the floors were all contacting evenly across the entire structure. What if a corner of the upper mass landed first? That area of the floor/walls had no chance withstanding the concentrated pressures applied to it.

Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.

Propaganda Physics!

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.

Propaganda Physics!

psik

In comparison to steel I-beams welded and bolted to columns to create floors, yes, the floor truss design was far lighter and weaker and more prone to failure when faced with a vertical dynamic loading. The floor truss seats were not designed to take on the impact of 15 + floors hitting it at the same time. Why dont you read up on what they found in regards to the truss seats:

www.aws.org...

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Well mr physics are you willing to even TRY to work out the impact force generated by the falling mass like I have said to YOU and others lets see your calculations!!!

Why are you so obsessed with calculations that can not be calculated because we don't have enough information?

You don't need calculations to see when something is not abiding by the known laws of physics. You don't need calculations to understand the laws of motion.

When we know the distribution of concrete and steel calculations could be done.

Where are the official calculations that prove your hypothesis?

Lets make it simple for you just use one floorslab that 700 tons of concrete forget the steel just use that to make it simple,so 700,000kg of concrete drops one floor to impact the next with the height of a WTC floor that will reach 18mph or just over 8 m/s.

But you are not looking at the event correctly. You also have to consider the equal oposite reaction and momentum laws. Just saying the top had X amount of Pe means nothing if you do not also consider the force of what it is falling on, mass etc.

For an example, if a bug hits the windshield of a bus it will always lose no matter how fast it was moving, or how much Ke it had. You can calculate the force of the bug, and it might be a huge impressive number, but unless you consider the bus, and its force on the bug, you have not fully assessed the event. You can claim that the bug had X amount of force, but if you ignore the bus you have only done half the work, ignoring the force of the bus on the bug. You are ignoring the forces of the lower static floors in your 'calculations'.

The force of the falling top is only half the calculations you need to do.

You love newtons laws so why dont you use them to work out the impact force once YOU prove that 700,000kg hitting at 18mph hour or 8 m/s wont cause a problem then people would believe you.

Again the impact forces are effecting both the falling floors AND the static floors, you seem to want to believe that only the falling floors created any forces, and only the static floors would be effected, leaving the falling floors unaffected by impact forces.

BTW I don't love Newtons laws, they are the basis of what mechanics is based on.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.

Propaganda Physics!

psik

In comparison to steel I-beams welded and bolted to columns to create floors, yes, the floor truss design was far lighter and weaker and more prone to failure when faced with a vertical dynamic loading. The floor truss seats were not designed to take on the impact of 15 + floors hitting it at the same time. Why dont you read up on what they found in regards to the truss seats:

www.aws.org...

You keep talking about those 15+ floors OUTSIDE THE CORE but you provide no evidence that those floors became detached from the core. So the upper portion of the core would have had to come down on the stationary core below and all of those connections outside of the core are irrelevant. So your argument is built on ignoring what you want to ignore.

So the physics profession does not demand information as simple as the tons of steel in the core at each level. The tons of steel in the perimeter columns at each level. How can you talk about this weight coming down without that information?

Propaganda Physics!

psik

Continued...

Now since you like physics and newtons laws so much lets link back to this in case others haven't seen this before.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

That example shows that a 1lb duck (0.5kg) hitting a plane at 600mph generates 12ton or 24,000 lbs of force
YES 24,000 times its weight!!!. (high velocity)

And again you are ignoring that the force the duck puts on the plane is equal to the force the plane puts on the duck, that is the equal opposite reaction law.

So do you really think that a FLOORSLAB which is 1,540,000 lbs (1.5 million times the ducks weight) impacting at 18 mph or 8 m/s (lower velocity than the duck impact but 1.5 million times the mass) really wont cause a problem

Yes it will cause a problem, but again you seem to think that falling floor would not also be equally effected by the impact.

Now thats JUST one slab North Tower another 15 of those plus the heavier roof slab plus steelwork, South Tower 30 floors plus roof slab plus steelwork.

And again you are ignoring the 95 floors they are falling on. You main problem here seems to be your lack of understanding of the laws of motion. Falling 18ft is not enough distant to add any more force from velocity. Speed does not increase mass until it gets close to the speed of light and even then it's not much.

Now once you work out the energy the falling mass has just as it impacts the floorslab below it then becomes a work done equation thats the hard part working out how far the falling mass travels now since there are pictures showing sheared seats (the angle iron which the floorslab trusses were connected to) and sheared bolts that distance wasn't far.

It's just an assumption that you all have made that the sheared trusses were cause by falling floors. Those connection had to be able to hold more force than the floors themselves. So it would take more work to break those connection than to break the concrete and steel pans. So if the connections simply failed you would have floors stacked up in the footprint. But we know from visual evidence, and FEMA, that the rubble was ejected in a 360d arc around the towers. That means mass and Ke was lost during the collapse, and could not have cuaased its own collapse, period.

So ANOK you have all the information you need to try and PROVE it couldn't happen lets see you work it out using NEWTONS laws you always preach.

So how have I done done so far?

I will make a prediction YOU and the others will deflect this question because of 2 reasons

1) YOU cant actually work it out.
2) YOU wont because it will show you are wrong

Don't give up your day job.

The other problem YOU always ignore is the fact each floorslab is independant of the other below due to being supported by the angle seats on the outer walls and core, and the fact that if a floorslab is not there the walls are not stable.

That is not true, and you have no evidence to support such a claim. The walls held up the floors, not the other way around.

The problem with impacts is the more an object resists the GREATER the force thats why cars have front and rear crumple zones, if the force is disippated over a greater distance the impact on the occupants is less!.

Huh? What force is greater?

Here is a calculator for impact force

www.livephysics.com...

wtc floor height was about 3.6 mtrs.
Lets put some figs in height 3.6 lets use a 100kg mass lets vary distance after impact try 1cm 10 cm 100cm
so that hard softer and even softer ground.

Using 3.6mtr drop height 100 kg and 1cm (thats 0.01 mtrs) in the calculator answer 352800 newtons using 10n/kg thats 35280 kg

that 1cm use 0.1mtr and 1mtr results are 3528kg and 352.8 kg

You see impact forces are massive WAY above safety factors
Once the impact force reach the limit the bolts or angles could take they FAIL and the only way is DOWN thanks to gravity.

So do you see NOW how they came down!!!

Way above safety factors? How can you make such a claim? Your numbers might look impressive, but again you are only doing half the work required for the complete picture.

You have to calculate the forces of BOTH objects. You have to calculate the force of both the falling block of floors and the impacted block of floors, or the forces of the two impacting floors.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You keep talking about those 15+ floors OUTSIDE THE CORE but you provide no evidence that those floors became detached from the core. So the upper portion of the core would have had to come down on the stationary core below and all of those connections outside of the core are irrelevant. So your argument is built on ignoring what you want to ignore.

What do you think will happen when the top core fall on the lower core? I will make it easy for you:

a) The heads of the core columns will hit each other

b) The beams that interconnect the core columns will hit each other

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
According to you guys the top had to stay in one piece in order to crush the lower floors

I wonder which resident "OSers" you are talking about. In fact, I only see truthers making claims like "the top had to be intact else the collapse would arrest".

But for your crush down crush up hypothesis to work, the top block would have had to stay in one piece. That is what you are claiming right? That is what Bazant claims.

If the top was destroyed as it fell, then, as I keep saying, you are losing Ke and mass, thus the collapse could not have been complete. Floors would not be added to the mass, because they are being broken up and ejected away from the towers footprint.

Originally posted by ANOK
But for your crush down crush up hypothesis to work, the top block would have had to stay in one piece. That is what you are claiming right? That is what Bazant claims.

If the top was destroyed as it fell, then, as I keep saying, you are losing Ke and mass, thus the collapse could not have been complete. Floors would not be added to the mass, because they are being broken up and ejected away from the towers footprint.

Didn't I previously explain to you that Bazants model is not modeling reality? That his model does not represent what actually happened, but is extremely simplified in order to prove a case? Ah yes, I did, you must have forgotten that.

Besides that, a total collapse did not require the top to stay (more or less) intact. That does not mean that it did not happen. In fact, for as far we can observe, it actually did stay largely intact during its fall.

If the top section was rigged with explosives that blew up all the supports, the mass of the floors and other rubble would still cause a global collapse, even when no explosive are set off in the lower part of the building. According to real world physics that is. According to Truther Physics™, the mass would have flown away horizontally.