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

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If they don't give simultaneously then how can the floor slab not tilt and squeeze the core creating LOTS OF FRICTION and therefore not experience free fall?

It's called physics.

psik

You're giving physics a bad name so you should stop waving the banner. How much does physics account for unknowns as far as the integrity of the core post impact? How do you know some of the columns that got sheared by the jets didn't actually initiate the upper floors to fall? How does physics account for the condition of the core columns that were damaged but not sheared (they certainly wouldn't be straight and able to hold the load they once did)? What was holding up the immensely heavy upper core assemblies that got cut in half? How does physics account for them essentially floating in mid air?

So you can ask questions. None of that explains why we don't even have accurate data on the distribution of steel down the building after TEN YEARS? Why wasn't the physics profession demanding that in 2002?

What EVIDENCE do you have that ANY core columns were sheared by the impact? NOBODY HAS ANY SUCH EVIDENCE. It is only GUESSWORK!

FEMA said the fuselage missed the core of the south tower. But then the NIST makes a diagram showing it going into the core at the corner. One of them must be wrong.

psik

That's exactly right, questions you have no answers for. So now since your physics can't be applied you go into this hissy fit with the caps lock

If the structure has lost enough integrity it is no better than the Titanic.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic

 

are you saying the picture with the sunshine coming through it shows the towers with no floors? that's an illusion, the skin went up with the floors as a unit, one depending on the other. The floors kept the skin rigid and I don't think there are any others built that way to that scale to compare them to.

The skin was purposefully built to be flexible, to move with the flexible towers, so much flex freight elevators couldn't run on really gusty days. That skin coupled with the salt-air and the steel frame created the conditions for "galvanic corrosion", something that ails the Statue of Liberty.
Galvanic Corrosion in the Statue of Liberty

Weakened by corrosion, the towers were allegedly slated for demolition in the 80's.

Some WTC History You Might Not Know

The sun could not shine through solid floors, nor could the landscape be seen through them if they were there.. Trusses sure, but not solid floors. The blue image was taken after the towers were supposedly occupied, I think it was in 1978, but I could be wrong...what, no dividers or cubicles?

Speaking of dividers and cubicles, here's a video about the missing contents of all those occupied floors:

Where did the contents go?

reply to post by septic


RE this image



Look at the position of the sun in the image!

This image is used by various truther sites and some truthers as avatars the position of the sun and the resolution of the image all contribute to the apparent lack of floors.

On some truthers sites they have even used trig to try and prove at what angle the sunlight can shine through from one side to another they dont consider any of the optical properties of the equipment used to take the picture, well thats because they dont have them so focal length of the lens, distance from the subject,also height taken from and other optical effects cause the image to look like it does.

The North Tower has the mast on it and is complete the South Tower has a crane so not quite finished.

As you can see the sun doesn't shine through the South Tower so it looks more solid, also if you zoom in close to the North Tower image the left hand wall were the sun is looks like it is not complete another optical effect due to over exposure.

Now if we look at this image



The sun is in a different position and everything changes.

These images are used by truthers quite often the ones who dont know anything about photography swallow the BS presented a bit like the Moon landing hoax believers.

reply to post by ANOK


The laws of physics etc allow you to do calculations thats the point of them so buildings can be designed!!

Why are you so affraid of them! that speaks volumes ANOK! as I said before to cant or you wont because they show you are WRONG!

reply to post by septic

so if the towers were suffering from galvanic corrosion they would have been even more susceptible to collapse the way they did. Thanks for adding that important point.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic

 

so if the towers were suffering from galvanic corrosion they would have been even more susceptible to collapse the way they did. Thanks for adding that important point.

Agreed. Thanks for noticing that important point.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Recall that each floor included ducting, electrical and plumbing, and ceiling coverings.

Here's a post where the poster calculated the angle of the light and the allegedly installed floors.

A Simple Mathematical Proof of Missing Floors at the World Trade Center

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
That's exactly right, questions you have no answers for. So now since your physics can't be applied you go into this hissy fit with the caps lock

If the structure has lost enough integrity it is no better than the Titanic.

So where is your physical model that can completely collapse? I built and made a video of mine that does not.

If the EXPERTS can't even tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on each level of the towers what do you expect? The NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete though they do it for the steel.

The question is why do so many idiots BELIEVE that an airliner could totally destroy a skyscraper more than 2000 times its own mass in less than two hours without demanding accurate distribution of steel and concrete data? Do they think 1360 foot skyscrapers could hold themselves up and withstand the wind without getting that right?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Re your model you have been asked on more than one occasion how you worked out how the mass and strengths of your components for the model matched the components they represent on the WTC Towers.

So I will ask again how did you work that out!

We of course will not get an answer to that will we!!!

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Recall that each floor included ducting, electrical and plumbing, and ceiling coverings.

Here's a post where the poster calculated the angle of the light and the allegedly installed floors.

A Simple Mathematical Proof of Missing Floors at the World Trade Center

It may have been calculated but that doesn't take into account resolution, exposure and other optical properties does it!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

The laws of physics etc allow you to do calculations thats the point of them so buildings can be designed!!

Why are you so affraid of them! that speaks volumes ANOK! as I said before to cant or you wont because they show you are WRONG!

Where are your calculations? How can anyone calculate anything without the info needed?

You just harp on this so you can ignore the physics I talk about. No calculations are needed to understand the laws of motion. You need no calculations to know that equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, were for some reason having no effect on the collapses, that can only mean one thing mate no matter what the calculations would be.

Here's a calculation you can do, the mass of 15 floors falling on the mass of 95 floors. Can you do the calculations to prove that a lesser mass can crush a larger mass? Giving me the Pe, or velocity, of the top 15 floors is not the answer, you also have to calculate the forces of the lower static floors pushing back against the falling mass. That is what you keep ignoring in all your impressive 'calculations'.

You want me to do complicated calculations without the info needed, all I am asking you to do is explain the collapsed in the most simple way, using the known laws of motion. Is that fair? You can explain what will happens in a collision using the laws of motion.

You don't need calculations to know a small mass can never destroy a larger mass, regardless of velocity. Calculations will prove that fact obviously as it is a known, so why should I need to offer anymore proof?

Action reaction...

The Law of Action-Reaction (Revisited)

A collision is an interaction between two objects that have made contact (usually) with each other. As in any interaction, a collision results in a force being applied to the two colliding objects. Newton's laws of motion govern such collisions. In the second unit of The Physics Classroom, Newton's third law of motion was introduced and discussed. It was said that...

... 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...
...Newton's third law of motion is naturally applied to collisions between two objects. In a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Such forces often cause one object to speed up (gain momentum) and the other object to slow down (lose momentum). According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the accelerations of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[2] and can be summarized as follows:...

secure.wikimedia.org...

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic

 

so if the towers were suffering from galvanic corrosion they would have been even more susceptible to collapse the way they did. Thanks for adding that important point.

Please explain how the towers would have had galvanic corrosion?

Where in the core were there dissimilar metals that came in contact?

Where is the evidence of this from the columns that were recovered from the rubble?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The question is why do so many idiots BELIEVE that an airliner could totally destroy a skyscraper more than 2000 times its own mass in less than two hours without demanding accurate distribution of steel and concrete data? Do they think 1360 foot skyscrapers could hold themselves up and withstand the wind without getting that right?

psik

It was the design that did it, the planes that did it, the fires and possibly even the steady wind contributed. Once that outer skin was breached on that one side what was supporting the mass above the impact? Didn't all that load burden just get redistributed to the remaining skin? The fires burning had to have some effect on the floor truss systems in the very least allowing them to bow in from their own weight. That would be pulling inward on the skin around the impact zone where all that new load burden was just placed. Some of the core columns were cut in half so what was holding them up? Just because the exterior of the upper floors seemed to be all intact you can't say what the condition was inside with the core and floor panels. A few of the core columns could have initiated the entire upper section falling by pulling the floor panels inwardly pulling inward on the upper skin allowing it to act as a wedge to the lower section popping outer connecting plates even before the upper floors hit them. In some of the footage you can see dust/debris flying out lower windows under the upper section as if they were already falling before they were impacted. If there were no planes involved I would say you had a case but seriously are you one of those who believe they were holograms? I am open to believe some pretty wild stuff (check out my youtube channel) and fully concur there are evil elements in our government, but to say these buildings couldn't fall as they did after being struck by jets is in my opinion really dumb. You smart guys should spend more energy on curing pollution or cancer.

reply to post by ANOK


you should ask septic I didn't initiate that

reply to post by ANOK


We have a mass for the concrete in a floorslab we can use that to show impact forces generated using newton/physics see we pratice what you preach!

Can you show how a floorslab was held in position then can you show how the floorslab below that supports the floorslab above?

When you can prove the mass of the INDIVIDUAL FLOOR SLABS can act as one you might be able to prove your point but I wont hold my breath!

reply to post by septic

.....allegedly installed floors.

???

Oh, this is certainly a new one, I must say. Does this relate to that iconic and artful photo taking with the setting (or rising?) Sun making the silhouette through the Towers while they were still under construction?

And, is it fair to infer that a claim is being made that floors were not "installed", based on that photo??

But, in the decades that the two buildings, after being built, were occupied with tenants...(all of which can be check from historical records)....not ONE person ever came forward to mention there were any "missing" floors??

Really, the illogic of this is stunning..........


AS TO the title of the thread....really, when it comes to "outside energy" being "introduced"....well, that would be something known in physics as "Potential Energy". Not really from *outside*, per se....many will understand it by another name: Gravity.

Feel free to Google the phrase 'potential energy' in order to understand the implications, as related to gravity. They are intimately connected, in Earth's gravitational field, when considering the height of an object above the Earth's surface, and the initial expenditure of energy imparted into that object when it was raised to whichever height it achieved.

Physics.

Potential Energy.

Gravity.

This is Grade School physics (or, should be).

.

Originally posted by ANOK
Here's a calculation you can do, the mass of 15 floors falling on the mass of 95 floors. Can you do the calculations to prove that a lesser mass can crush a larger mass?

...You don't need calculations to know a small mass can never destroy a larger mass, regardless of velocity. Calculations will prove that fact obviously as it is a known, so why should I need to offer anymore proof?

Anok for expecting such detail you sure do leave a lot of them out of the equation. I can prove how a smaller mass takes down a larger one by the example of an axe and a tree. You are imaging the upper section as a solid block with a smooth surface falling on another bigger one sort of like if I tried to chop a tree down with a hammer. You seem to conveniently leave out the fact the inside of the building above and below the impact zone were full of sharp heavy steel beams and very unstable at that. Can you explain what would happen to the structure with several core columns sheared in half? Consider the design of this specific building not wooden blocks stacked on top of each other either. Wouldn't this new load be applied at various angles to the remaining columns putting new stresses on them they were not intended to bear ala the design of the building? Instead of balanced static forces there are now millions of tons coming from a variety of directions. It's obvious there was a steady wind blowing that morning, why is it impossible to imagine a slight swaying of the towers initiated the collapse? You can't apply physics to this missing so much data and if you're only looking for approximations to support your ideas you should get off the physics high horse.

www.youtube.com...

this one shows significant shearing of the core columns. What impact did fifteen floors of floating core columns have on the upper floors and outer skin according to physics?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

We have a mass for the concrete in a floorslab we can use that to show impact forces generated using newton/physics see we pratice what you preach!

Can you show how a floorslab was held in position then can you show how the floorslab below that supports the floorslab above?

When you can prove the mass of the INDIVIDUAL FLOOR SLABS can act as one you might be able to prove your point but I wont hold my breath!

You need a lot more than just the mass of a concrete slab to do any calculations. Those floors were not held up by thin air. Do you have any idea how much pressure those truss connections were able to withstand before failure for example, because if you don't knowing the weight of the floors is not going to tell you squat. The floors could weigh 10 tons but if the connections, as a whole, were able to hold hold the pressure of 20 tons then it will give you a completely different calculation than if the connections could hold the pressure of 40tons. (I say pressure because that is how they measure the holding ability of comments, measured in Psi or Psf)

I never said the floors supported the floors above, why are you making that assumption?

I also never said that the individual floor slabs acted as one, you just fail to understand what I am trying to explain.

I know you cling to the idea that each dropping floor added mass to the collapse, but that simply does not fit the evidence we have, and doesn't follow the laws of motion. Which is what I have been trying to explain, but trying to explain it to someone who is clueless about physics, and engineering in general. is pretty tough. Or if they keep denying obvious facts.

If it had happened that way all the floors could not have been crushed, or ejected in the 360d arc they were (a fact you keep denying).

But having said that the Bazant collapse model, that you all seem to cling to, claims that the top block of floors stayed intact and crushed the other floors to the ground and then crushed itself, the crush-down, crush-up hypothesis. You do understand that it is what you're supporting here right?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Anok for expecting such detail you sure do leave a lot of them out of the equation. I can prove how a smaller mass takes down a larger one by the example of an axe and a tree.

Such detail lol, you're asking me to do calculations we don't have the information to do, and all I ask is you to explain a simple physics problem.

No, chopping a tree with an axe is not what were talking about lol. Do I have to hold ya'lls hands in every step? Please try to keep it in context, because your analogies are so off the mark it's sad.

Try this, take 100 slabs of concrete and then make 20% of that pile crush the 80%. That would be a small mass trying to destroy a larger mass, and it won't work. Do you know why? Because of the equal opposite reaction law, and momentum conservation. You don't need calculations to understand that, you need to take a physics course.

Originally posted by ANOK
...If it had happened that way all the floors could not have been crushed, or ejected in the 360d arc they were (a fact you keep denying).

That supposed "debris arc" is the outer skin peeling away like a banana skin as the upper mass/core fell inside it like a wedge. In one of those videos I posted at the end you can see some of the core columns swaying and eventually falling.