What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Even if the collapse did start out as explained, the top portion of the building falling 30-50 feet would not provide enough inertia to collapse more than 1-2 stories before losing all its inertia due to resistance.

As I stated above. The force and inertia will increase because of the weight of the debris increasing.

The resistance you speak of is connections, not a solid block. Each floor has only 4 inches of lightweight concrete on top of metal decking connected to trusses which are connected with dampers.

Why are you failing to take into account the connections, after all it is the connections which are offering the resistance?

How would four inches of concrete and some connections by dampers and bolt offer up enough resistance to stop thousands of tonnes of force which is rapidly increasing due to added weight?

When we do multiple floor construction, the engineers will not allw certain scissor lifts on the above decks. They say that the weight cannot exceed 100-200 pounds per square foot. Which we all laugh because I weigh more than that and if I stand on one foot I will exceed the weight limit.

How would 4 inches of concrete offer enough resistance to stop the weight of the upper floors. A weight which is increasing?

Liejunkie #01..... after this....

Personally, I stay away from the building 7 issue because I feel that it is a distraction from the real issue which is the towers.

There is no need for you to say anything else.

Thank you for your service.

Maybe I could have said it a little different. As you can see since I posted some info from wikipedia, is that I really do not take interest in building number 7.

I do not see any refutable evidence on anything that I have stated.

I only see a truther mentality and the simple fact that this statement is the only statement in which you are interesting in tells me that you have a "sheeple" mentality and are not educated enough to engage in a proper discussion. A discussion in which is appearant to me that you personally know nothing about. The only information that you think you know, you get from equally useless truther sites.

Your demeanor is why I do not frequent the 9/11 forum.

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Even if the collapse did start out as explained, the top portion of the building falling 30-50 feet would not provide enough inertia to collapse more than 1-2 stories before losing all its inertia due to resistance.

As I stated above. The force and inertia will increase because of the weight of the debris increasing.

The resistance you speak of is connections, not a solid block. Each floor has only 4 inches of lightweight concrete on top of metal decking connected to trusses which are connected with dampers.

Why are you failing to take into account the connections, after all it is the connections which are offering the resistance?

How would four inches of concrete and some connections by dampers and bolt offer up enough resistance to stop thousands of tonnes of force which is rapidly increasing due to added weight?

When we do multiple floor construction, the engineers will not allw certain scissor lifts on the above decks. They say that the weight cannot exceed 100-200 pounds per square foot. Which we all laugh because I weigh more than that and if I stand on one foot I will exceed the weight limit.

How would 4 inches of concrete offer enough resistance to stop the weight of the upper floors. A weight which is increasing?

This is exactly the kind of thinking that spawned the "magic bullet theory" Funny they claimed that was supported by physics also:

en.wikipedia.org...

You are claiming that the collapse gains energy as it falls. That defies physics, sorry. Where is the extra energy coming from, something would have to be applying it. Remember, energy is not gained or lost, it only changes form. What could have added to the energy? I'll let you figure that one out.

Originally posted by scully222

You are claiming that the collapse gains energy as it falls. That defies physics, sorry. Where is the extra energy coming from, something would have to be applying it. Remember, energy is not gained or lost, it only changes form. What could have added to the energy? I'll let you figure that one out.

The energy gaining business can only come from gravity. This involves the supposed Potential Energy of the tower. The equation is m * g * h, for mass gravity and height. But that equation is based on the assumption that gravity causes the mass to fall through EMPTY SPACE.

In a supposed top down collapse the falling mass must crush the mass below which requires energy. And that mass below has to be stronger and heavier than the mass falling on it. So the supports must be broken and the mass must be accelerated. And that takes ENERGY and brings in the issue of the Conservation of Momentum.

So the Physics Profession should have been demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete just to do an accurate calculation of the supposed Potential Energy.

So regardless of what the truth is the 9/11 decade is the fault of the physics profession.

They should have explained this one way or the other while including all of that data.

psik

reply to post by scully222

You are claiming that the collapse gains energy as it falls.

As the object accelerates (usually downwards due to gravity), the drag force acting on the object increases, causing the acceleration to decrease. At a particular speed, the drag force produced will equal the object's weight . At this point the object ceases to accelerate altogether and continues falling at a constant speed called terminal velocity (also called settling velocity). An object moving downward with greater than terminal velocity (for example because it was thrown downwards or it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere or it changed shape) will slow down until it reaches terminal velocity.

link

In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. In other words, a force is that which can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity. Newton's second law, F = ma, was originally formulated in slightly different, but equivalent terms: the original version states that the net force acting upon an object is equal to the rate at which its momentum changes.

link

Do not forget about acceleration due to gravity and mass increasing due to more floors collapsing which causes more force to be falling down.

Both gravity and an increase in mass causes there to be more force.

the original version states that the net force acting upon an object is equal to the rate at which its momentum changes

That defies physics, sorry.

I think you should touch up on your physics, sorry.

Where is the extra energy coming from, something would have to be applying it.

The velocity is increasing because it is being being pulled down from gravity along with the increasing mass of the debris.

Remember, energy is not gained or lost, it only changes form.

Would that form be in the form of force? Possibly the increasing velocity? How about the increasing mass?

What could have added to the energy?

Read above.

I'll let you figure that one out.

I have had this one figured out since like 6th or 7th grade.

I think that you need to touch up on your physics a little.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Do not forget about acceleration due to gravity and mass increasing due to more floors collapsing which causes more force to be falling down.

That is a complete fallacy, because there is no reason falling floors should have caused other floors to fail.

Remember the connections were extremely strong. You have to agree if you to support the OS, because otherwise they would have failed before the trusses could pull in the columns, let alone the fact that sagging trusses can't put a pulling force on the columns in the first place.

Weight and gravity are not the only forces acting on the collapse, you all seem to ignore resistance, and you never seem to account for it. Buildings are designed with mass resistance. For the collapse to have continued to failure the KE would have had to increase which of course it cannot as it would be lost to deformation, heat, sound etc. The only way it could increase is if something was acting on it other than gravity.

The rubble of the floors did not stay in the towers footprint in order to increase any mass, post collapse shows the majority of the rubble was ejected in 360d arc around the towers. Even if it did a building can not simply collapse itself from it's own weight, as all buildings are designed with an FoS, of at least 4-6 for high rise buildings.
Which means redundancy, the buildings connections could hold far more weight than they were required to.
If they had the force to not break allowing the trusses to pull in columns, there is no reason they would fail from a floor dropping on them. Remember it all started with one floor falling, which would not cause the top to fall as the floors were not connected together. For the top to collapse the way it did, both towers, the core itself is what must have failed not the floors. Which by the way is evidenced by the antenna dropping before anything else.

So there are a couple of contradictions you need to solve before you make that claim.

reply to post by liejunkie01


ROFLMAO

All of that blather about physics and no mention of energy required to destroy supports strong enough to hold the mass for 28 years or the Conservation of Momentum and the distribution of mass down the buildings.

So people who believe they are intelligent also believe in magic physics which only works in favor of their conclusion.

So where is the physical model that can duplicate this phenomenon and completely collapse?

psik

reply to post by ANOK


Last I checked, static floors are not meant to be able to resist falling floors. Never heard of a building designed to resist its own moving weight falling in non-uniform ways. I mean, that's like saying a piece of glass that's two meters wide should be able to resist another piece of glass the same size falling on it, all because it could resist it when it was laid flat.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


All of that blather about physics and no mention of energy required to destroy supports strong enough to hold the mass for 28 years

Silly Truther. For 28 years the truss seats only had 1 static floor siting on them. Then suddenly they had multiple dynamic floors impacting them. That's why connections that worked for 28 years suddenly stopped doing their job.

You've been this many times by many people.

...

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Last I checked, static floors are not meant to be able to resist falling floors. Never heard of a building designed to resist its own moving weight falling in non-uniform ways. I mean, that's like saying a piece of glass that's two meters wide should be able to resist another piece of glass the same size falling on it, all because it could resist it when it was laid flat.

If the connections were strong enough to not fail when the trusses pulled in the columns, then why did they fail when a floor dropped on them? And no 'static load' is not the answer. Your magic term that you think explains everything explains nothing.

Your glass analogy has nothing to do with it, the fact that you seem to leave out pertinent physical facts does.

So can you explain why the connections were strong enough to pull in columns but not resists the collapse of a floor? Remember the floors were not that heavy relative to the core that held them all up.

But again even if it all happened as you claimed the collapse still could not have been complete. The connections had to be able to resist the collapse. If all the floors stayed in one piece, and pancaked, there would be a stack of floors in the footprint. But we know for a FACT that floors did not stay in one piece, and it is evident post collapse that the floors were ejected during the collapse.

Then there is the smoking gun, the antenna fell first which proves my point, the core had to have failed not the floors. The core failed bringing everything down with it, not the other way around as you are claiming. Collapsing floors would not cause the core to fail.

reply to post by ANOK


Lots more kinetic energy in a falling floor. A floor in a building is meant to hold against static forces that are distributed evenly among the rest of the floor. A moving, uneven kinetic force is practically impossible for any building to compensate for. The floors weren't made of elastic, after all.

reply to post by ANOK


Core + floors + outer perimeter walls. They were 'sagging' which means that gravity is pulling the tons of material it cannot distribute. It was, in part of the building, falling into itself. When it finally gave way, there was nothing to hold it. It is very simple and there is no need for even 7th grade physics.

It was not one floor that caused it, it was one floor that initiated it. Big difference. Once one floor is removed, the design and development that went into the building is out the window. There were will structural damage.Distribution, even distribution, is what allows a marvel like this to be built.


The dampers were the last line.

When I come along a individual that believes the OS. I go about it this way. It's a three part exposure. I first ask if they know about building codes and construction. Then I tell them how the buildings fell, rapid onset of collapse and speed of collapse. I tell them it fell in 9.8 seconds, thats about 11 floors per second> Then I ask them to clap their hands 11 times in one second. When they can't do it, I say and what makes you think that building fell down in 9.8 seconds without explosives taking out the parts below the collapse. That normally gets their attention.

Then I show them the Pentagon before the wall collapsed, That normally does it. We will never ever get the real truth about that day, just like Kennedy, Moon Missions, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, Waco, Etc,etc,etc.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

Core + floors + outer perimeter walls. They were 'sagging' which means that gravity is pulling the tons of material it cannot distribute. It was, in part of the building, falling into itself. When it finally gave way, there was nothing to hold it. It is very simple and there is no need for even 7th grade physics.

It was not one floor that caused it, it was one floor that initiated it. Big difference. Once one floor is removed, the design and development that went into the building is out the window. There were will structural damage.Distribution, even distribution, is what allows a marvel like this to be built.


The dampers were the last line.

ROFL

Complete idiocy!

You can't even tell us the total weight of the steel pans and trusses in a single floor assembly.

so why can't you or any engineering school build a physical model that can completely collapse due to the drop of its top 15%?

psik

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Lots more kinetic energy in a falling floor. A floor in a building is meant to hold against static forces that are distributed evenly among the rest of the floor. A moving, uneven kinetic force is practically impossible for any building to compensate for. The floors weren't made of elastic, after all.

What's happening to the north side of this building?

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Lots more kinetic energy in a falling floor. A floor in a building is meant to hold against static forces that are distributed evenly among the rest of the floor. A moving, uneven kinetic force is practically impossible for any building to compensate for. The floors weren't made of elastic, after all.

What's happening to the north side of this building?

The glass is breaking and the entire face is deforming. There's nothing unusual there.

reply to post by Varemia


Then, please explain why that is the only side of the building with glass breaking...Disinfo if I've ever seen one.....They are quite clearly the glass breaking from BOMBS! When was the last time a building has ever fallen simply on it's own? What about Larry Silverstein saying they decided to 'pull' Building 7 for safety reasons?

killtown.blogspot.com...

Don't you dare pull some cock and baloney excuse about my source isn't reputable. Prove that it doesn't mean that, or if you can't it's up to you to find your own source. There are several more.

Also if you take one of my debunking tactics, granted that Building 7 was a controlled demolition, there would not have been enough time to set up the bombs impromptu the day of. The bombs MUST have been set up prior to the event, which raises it's own questions...

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Varemia

 

Then, please explain why that is the only side of the building with glass breaking...Disinfo if I've ever seen one.....They are quite clearly the glass breaking from BOMBS! When was the last time a building has ever fallen simply on it's own? What about Larry Silverstein saying they decided to 'pull' Building 7 for safety reasons?

killtown.blogspot.com...

Don't you dare pull some cock and baloney excuse about my source isn't reputable. Prove that it doesn't mean that, or if you can't it's up to you to find your own source. There are several more.

Also if you take one of my debunking tactics, granted that Building 7 was a controlled demolition, there would not have been enough time to set up the bombs impromptu the day of. The bombs MUST have been set up prior to the event, which raises it's own questions...

edit on 25-5-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

It's probably because the side was still mostly intact. Less surface area probably means less deformation. I wonder why you guys only have one answer for everything without first considering physics and building design?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Lots more kinetic energy in a falling floor. A floor in a building is meant to hold against static forces that are distributed evenly among the rest of the floor. A moving, uneven kinetic force is practically impossible for any building to compensate for. The floors weren't made of elastic, after all.

What's happening to the north side of this building?

The glass is breaking and the entire face is deforming. There's nothing unusual there.

Whos' face is deforming ?

Originally posted by maxella1
Whos' face is deforming ?

The face of the building. The north face. What, are you high or something?