"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

reply to post by Varemia

Not sure what you mean? At what point anywhere during the collapse does the building arrest due to being overcome by resistance?

If you look carefully at the start of the collapse you will the initial phase is of the top of the building collapsing apparently in on itself, meaning that the lower floors are not continuing down at the same rate as the upper. In fact there is no debris ejection below the initial failure for this phase.

Then it is as if the the rubble "coalesces" and starts a second phase.

Somebody once did a chart with arrows and colored lines, I'd be darned if I can find it. But it is clearly visible without that aid though it does happen quite quickly.

Originally posted by Darkwing01


Then it is as if the the rubble "coalesces" and starts a second phase.

That must be were the potential energy started pushing back up and the gravity equalised.

reply to post by ANOK

Name one that contradicts my claims, with unquestionable proof. In seven years it has yet to happen because I am still here with same claims that have yet to be proven wrong. You obvioulsy can't prove me wrong, can you? You would have done it already.

Precisely all you have is claims.

You don’t even have a degree to back them up, let alone any proof.

This debate is old. There are literally thousands of pages with the exact brainless discussion.

Focus on the real evidence of 911. The real evidence exists before the 1st plane hits anything after is a well crafted rut to keep the controlled truth movement in stasis.

I find it both amusing and sad how most people can't answer that question. And this is coming from a recent Truther convert. Come on people, I don't understand why you can't do some actual research and find the answers.

All the towers that came down that infamous day of death and destruction were brought down by explosives.

However this in itself does not prove inside job. I have heard unnamed sources say that all tall rise buildings have explosives built-in during their construction so that in case of emergency were toppling over becomes a real possiblility they can simply trigger the explosives and limit much of the collateral damage. I think I head this on a documentary about the petronas towers in malaysia, among other voices.

In any case, regardless if they assisted al-queda or simply let them fulfill their wishes, a real investigation should have taken place and everyone found guilty punished. The fact that the government prefers killing al-queda suspects abroad rather than bringing them to the USA for trial is highely suspect of "I have something to hide".

When you have nothing to hide, then you let justice take place. The USA government has actually been obstructing justice which is actually a crime of its own. No wonder so many people abroad have hate for america and especially the cia.

Originally posted by samkent
You don’t even have a degree to back them up, let alone any proof.

I don't? How would you know that?

I actually have a two year degree in Mechanical Engineering fundamentals, which includes physics I & II. A two year degree in Engineering Drafting. I also have a lot of experience in mechanics, including jet engines.

The proof of my 'claims' are in the physics which you OSers have proven over and over again you fail to understand.

What degree do you have? All you have is faith in the OS. You have no proof the OS is correct, even NIST has no proof their hypothesis is correct.

The burden of proof is not on me, it's on the government as it was their task to explain the towers collapses, not mine. All I have to do is show there is a problem with the NIST hypothesis, and I have done that, why you would care so much that you would feel the need to constantly defend the OS against what you claim is nonsense is the big mystery to me.

The hypothesis you are trying to claim about the towers collapse is not even in the NIST report, you are not defending the NIST report you are making excuses for what they couldn't do. The only paper you have that makes an attempt to explain it is Bazant, and we know that report is not correct either.

Why are you not questioning why NIST didn't explain the collapses?

Where are the papers from the thousands of professional you all claim support the OS?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by ANOK
In seven years it has yet to happen because I am still here with same claims that have yet to be proven wrong.

You've been doing this for 7 years, and yet you haven't bothered to learn what potential energy is? Maybe it's past time that you should.

Potential Energy is mgh. Mass times gravitational acceleration times height.

But what was the mass on each level of the building? How much steel was on each level? How much concrete was on each level?

So if we don't have that data the PE cannot be accurately computed. So the entire physics profession has a problem for not demanding that information back in 2002. The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total for the concrete in 10,000 pages. So a TEN YEAR debate without demanding accurate data is pretty ridiculous.

Richard Gage looked silly when I asked him about that in 2008. He said the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blue prints.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But what was the mass on each level of the building? How much steel was on each level? How much concrete was on each level?

Yet you were able to determine, conclusively, that the building could NOT have collapsed as a result of the plane impacts without any of that information. Unless, of course, you are reconsidering your position now? Maybe they could have collapsed as a result of the impacts, huh? I mean without the info you can't know for sure, correct?

Originally posted by ANOK

The proof of my 'claims' are in the physics which you OSers have proven over and over again you fail to understand.

That's a pretty bold assertion coming from someone who just said that the potential energy of the bottom of the twin towers would 'push upward'.

This is such a fundamental misunderstanding that I'm tempted to disbelieve your claimed credentials. Regardless, you need a refresher course before you go around trashing other people's understanding of physics. It's really silly of you to do so, considering what comes out of your keyboard in this very thread.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But what was the mass on each level of the building? How much steel was on each level? How much concrete was on each level?

Yet you were able to determine, conclusively, that the building could NOT have collapsed as a result of the plane impacts without any of that information. Unless, of course, you are reconsidering your position now? Maybe they could have collapsed as a result of the impacts, huh? I mean without the info you can't know for sure, correct?

Already demonstrated dude.



It certainly says very interesting things about the psychology of Western culture if a physical model that can completely collapse hasn't been built yet. If it can't be done then why hasn't this been settled?

Where is your demonstration that can have COMPLETE DATA which shows anything?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Psikey, why don't you just figure it out?

Using publicly available information and engineering formulas, and a few textbooks to help with the construction details, you could probably figure all this out within a few percent error. Then you could build a model in LS dyna and show the world.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Psikey, physical models are not used to design the load bearing structure of any building, unless they are portions of the structure mocked up at near full scale. Engineers use computer models, mathematics, and empirically derived formulae to design buildings.

The reason that nobody has built a collapsible model of the twin towers is that only conspiracy theorists think that they can prove anything with a collapsing physical model. It's not impossible, but it would prove nothing, just as your washers and broomstick prove nothing.

reply to post by ANOK

The burden of proof is not on me, it's on the government as it was their task to explain the towers collapses, not mine.

Well, actually it is on you. You see its been 10 years, the reports have been out there for years now, they explained the collapse. You got a problem with all that then you are hereby burdened with providing some solid reason why we should trash the report. You haven't. You just keep throwing around the word "physics". That doesn't count.

All I have to do is show there is a problem with the NIST hypothesis, and I have done that....

First, you have only shown that you have a problem with the "physics", that doesn't count for anything. Second, at this point you have to start coming up with something testable and substantial. Not your personal incredulity.

....why you would care so much that you would feel the need to constantly defend the OS against what you claim is nonsense is the big mystery to me.

There's a lot of mystery out there.

The hypothesis you are trying to claim about the towers collapse is not even in the NIST report, you are not defending the NIST report you are making excuses for what they couldn't do.

They used PHYSICS so they must be right.

The only paper you have that makes an attempt to explain it is Bazant, and we know that report is not correct either.

Uh, we?

Why are you not questioning why NIST didn't explain the collapses?

Because they did explain. Why don't you explain why it couldn't?

Where are the papers from the thousands of professional you all claim support the OS?

Well, we got letters from the AIA, the ASCE and SEI. I hear they represent a few professionals.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


There is absolutely no way the towers could fall on their own footprint without well placed explosives and a great timing sequence. I am sorry but anyone that has a fundamental understanding of physics knows the NIST report is full holes, worse than swiss cheese!

Again this does NOT prove anything other than what I just said. Take it or leave it. If you leave it, then you lack common sense.


Not well planned demolition goes horribly wrong

AND


Near perfect top-down implosion, similar to the buildings brought down in nyc on 9-11-2001.

Two short videos proving the NIST report of 2,000 pages is full of unadulterated BS!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


That wasn't a reply to anything in my post, so I'll ignore it.
If you want a discussion of those videos, perhaps you should start a thread about them.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

That wasn't a reply to anything in my post, so I'll ignore it.
If you want a discussion of those videos, perhaps you should start a thread about them.

Refusing evidence that directly contradicts(DEBUNKS) the NIST report is an example of unsportsmanlike conduct. Here is something to study: Why are tall buildings prone to toppling over? I bet if I asked a thousand people on the street of nyc they would all have different answers but they would all agree TALL BUILDINGS DO TOPPLE OVER!

Thanks for your precious time.

Originally posted by ANOK
You also forget to consider the potential energy of the bottom pushing up against the falling floors, equal opposite reaction.

.

This stupidity has been addressed.

LOL @ pushing up.....

When Ke is lost it is LOST it is not gained. If Ke is lost due to deformation etc., it can only be gained again if another force acts on it to overcome the resistance that was constantly present throughout the whole collapse.

There was in fact a force constantly present working on ALL of the building.

Gravity.

Yes it sure does.

I'm guessing that you will have zero response explaining how a FOS determines PE.

Go ahead and prove me wrong...

Really?

Yes. Really.

Greg Urich did this years ago. It is found here:

911research.wtc7.net...

You have not even mentioned the laws of motion, so how can you claim you have addressed it?

Cuz when using ke/impacts/ke "absorbed" by the resisting structure to determine whether or not the collapses should continue, the conservation of motion, and equal and opposite reaction are accounted for.

It works like this:

A falling body brings 2GJ to the impact, and the resisting body resists and "uses up" 500MJ of that ke.

Everything that you ask for is in that simple statement. Towhich, Bazant has indeed stated so very eloquently:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

"As explained at the outset in every course on
mechanics of materials, this law is automatically satisfied,
since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or
internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of
equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined
cut through the material or structure. This concept is so
central to the discipline of structural mechanics and selfevident
to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is
never even mentioned in publications."

You don't need numbers to use you eyes. If you truly think the majority of the mass landed in the footprints then you are either a complete idiot, blind, or you are simply lying....

No, you need numbers.

Anything else is just trolling your own incredulity.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Varemia

 

Energy would increase or stay static in this situation unless you can prove that the lower floor removed MORE energy than the upper floors were exerting.

Well that's the whole point isn't it?

Yes it is.

The nature of a tall building is that it can support in a static mode multiples of the mass above

Yep.

But what about when it is set into motion?

Nobody is arguing that the falling top wouldn't break or destroy the lower portion, the whole point is that the fact that the lower portion is being destroyed means it is giving substantial resistance (yes there is some peeling too, but it is not a large proportion of the overall mass).

Quantify "substantial". With numbers. Do not use incredulity.

That resistance, given the safety factor, is greater than the force exerted by the falling top

Bare assertion.

Given that, it is natural to conclude that this building should behave like all other densely interconnected stable structures behave in this scenario: Decelerate the falling mass.

And yet you also said, " Nobody is arguing that the falling top wouldn't break or destroy the lower portion,"

SO which is it?

Pick one, for they are contrary points.

The question is: Why does the building fail so uniformly at near free-fall speed?

It didn't fail uniformly.

If you're the same Darkwing that posts over here:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Then you are well aware that the floor failures were wildly uneven, and that so was the debris pattern after the collapse.

Originally posted by Varemia

Not sure what you mean? At what point anywhere during the collapse does the building arrest due to being overcome by resistance?

I don't personally understand how it could possibly be imagined that the building would be able to support so much weight on the lateral support beams for even a fraction of a second when coupled with gravitational acceleration. It's baffling how the logic is.

Can someone explain this to me?

Not likely that it could be logically explained.

It requires one to be ignorant of physics...