Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
aquatus1

The Line

338 posts in this topic

The point?

Were any of these unclear?

I was waiting for you to make a point of what happens after the impact since that should have been the point.

but your point is just that the impact forces were "unbelievably" huge or something. these are just adjectives and tell us nothing about the behaviour of objects.

well some context, drop a 1kg widget 3 meters, how many newtons of force does it strike the ground with?

1 newtons?

2 newtons?

20 newtons?

2000 newtons?

which one is the closest number and do you consider the number tiny or huge?

once you've answered that, make your guess about what happens in a collision scenario, then you can surely construct an experiment building your rigid tower of widgets and tell us what happens when you drop a widget on it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You never discuss the science in your posts. You make claims. You post other peoples videos and arguments. You make claims. But getting you to actually discuss anything is like pulling teeth.
nonsense.

all you are doing is putting a straight jacket on anything opposing you with ever contracting restrictions. i've discussed the science documented and experimental

do you dismiss the experiments because "I" did not perform them?

Edited by Little Fish
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was waiting for you to make a point of what happens after the impact since that should have been the point.

Yes, exactly what I was thinking also – aquatus’ point, that dynamic loads are greater than static loads, is not in dispute and therefore rather... pointless... and by not accounting for how the upper block actually broke apart in the early stage of collapse, it certainly does not answer the question that he thinks it does: “the question of how just a few floors collapsing could result in a catastrophic failure of the entire tower”. Good work in making that real point, LF, and excellent suggestion that official apologists should try replicating their theory in experiment – of course, they never will achieve the impossible.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly what I was thinking also – aquatus’ point, that dynamic loads are greater than static loads, is not in dispute and therefore rather... pointless... and by not accounting for how the upper block actually broke apart in the early stage of collapse, it certainly does not answer the question that he thinks it does: “the question of how just a few floors collapsing could result in a catastrophic failure of the entire tower”.

What structure supported the floors and tied the inner core with the facade of the WTC towers? What did eyewitnesses report just before the WTC tower collapsed? Buckling and bowing of the facade. The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What structure supported the floors and tied the inner core with the facade of the WTC towers? What did eyewitnesses report just before the WTC tower collapsed? Buckling and bowing of the facade. The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above.

That has nothing to do with what I actually said. And more - it has nothing to do with topic of the thread at all, which deals with what occurs after collapse initiation. I have never known a poster on any forum anywhere who is permitted to constantly derail and distract from discussion like you do.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has nothing to do with what I actually said.

I knew where you were going, so I added facts that are supported by the laws of physics. You posted the following:

: “the question of how just a few floors collapsing could result in a catastrophic failure of the entire tower”.

And, I answered the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quickly now aquatus, you need to remind skyeagle about this being about the science and stuff and tell him what he can and cannot say, or do you only do that to those that disagree with your conclusions?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right then, I thought a good example to start with is the collapse of the WTC floors. I've been seeing a claim that expresses incredulity at the claim that such a small portion of the tower could result in the total collapse of the floors underneath it unless there were explosives involved. This is usually backed up with videos of regular demolitions where the demolished building is cut more along the middle than the top (which, of course, begs the question as to how this wouldn't contradict the previous claim of explosives being placed at the top, but let's skip that for now).

Now, most people know the rejoinder to this is usually "Kinetic Energy!", but with little else to follow. While it is true that velocity adds energy to a moving object, few people really bother to take a good look at just how much energy we are talking about. Of course, in the real world there are many, many more variables involved, but for the purpose of answering the question of how just a few floors collapsing could result in a catastrophic failure of the entire tower, here is a very simplified version of how I understand it. I am by no means a master of physics, and mediocre at best on math, so feel free to correct me if you spot a mistake.

Let's start with our mental model of a tower: We have seven floors, each consisting of a slab of concrete, each with a mass of 200kg, which when converted to Newtons (a measure of force including the gravitational constant) results in 1960N. Magic support beams (no mass) hold the floors 3 meters from each other.

Now, between floors 5 and 6, a magic sword slices and vanishes the support beams. No longer supported, floors 6 and 7 succumb to the pull of gravity.

Floor 6 is 200kg of mass falling from a height of 3m at gravity constant (9.8m/s/s). Our formula for calculating kinetic energy (KE=1/2mv2) tells us that by the time floor 6 strikes floor 5, it will be moving at about 7.6m/s. That gives us our Velocity, but in order to calculate the force of the impact, we also need to know how much the floor continued to travel after striking. Let's be generous (to keep the math simple) and say that floor 6 "bounced" about .25m after hitting floor 5. Using our Force equation (Favgd=-1/2mv2), and plugging in the numbers (a 200kg floor falling 3m at a velocity of 7.6m/s with a stopping distance of .25m) and get an Impact Force of...23,104N.

Floor 5 was originally designed to hold the weight of 2 floors above it. Recall that each floor is 1960N, which means Floor 5 had to push up with at least 3960N to support both floors. Do the math and we get a downward force of 23,104N vs. an upward force of 3960N, which results in a downward force of 19,144N. Downward force wins. By more than x5.

But we are just getting started!

You are right on the money, because the downward force does win! It is inconceivable to think that the lower floors had the ability to arrest the downward momentum of that much overhead mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pulling perimeter columns inward
ah those magic columns again, strong enough to resist thermal expansion of the trusses and yet not strong enough to resist "sagging".
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
inconceivable to think that the lower floors had the ability to arrest the downward momentum of that much overhead mass.
and yet there have been many failed demolitions that have resisted and arrested the downward momentum, thus PROVING it is "conceivable".
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building 7 wasn't hit by force like the Twin towers , the fires were small and scientifically it should not have collapsed, but wait, someone said they were going to pull it? What exactly did "pull it " refer to? B.T.W let's not overlook that Newton law was based on bouncing balls, not towers of steal.

[media=]

[/media]

When not taken out of context it is obvious that the "it" in the "pull it" comment was the rescue operation. Also, I would not consider a fire insignificant when it takes out 3 structural walls.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When not taken out of context it is obvious that the "it" in the "pull it" comment was the rescue operation. Also, I would not consider a fire insignificant when it takes out 3 structural walls.

In this context...

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building...”

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, Fox News

“… all I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down.” [the interviewer asks who told her this and if the words “brought down” were actually used] “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’…”

Indra Singh, EMT

“We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down”

FDNY Lieutenant Rastuccio

“It’s blowin’ boy”… “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”

“The building is about to blow up, move it back.”

“Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up.”

WTC emergency responder

“… I think that they made a decision based on the danger that it [WTC7] had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion.”

John Kerry – Presidential Candidate

“They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards…

This is a controlled demolition…

Absolutely. It’s been imploded. This was a hired job performed by a team of experts.”

Danny Jowenko – controlled demolition expert

... the “it” in “pull it” refers to the demolition of WTC7.

wtc7collapselgiy8.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please take all the discussion based on anything other than the science involved to the other 9/11 threads.

I would remind everyone of the parameters set for this discussion, that being the scientific support for or against the collapse hypothesis. This does not include lists of 'who said what to whom' or 'what secrets this one leaked to that one'.

Stick to the science used to support your hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lilly they all talk to the Hand about this topic ,Sad but true More research would be nice on the parts of these C.T`s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the “it” in “pull it” refers to the demolition of WTC7.

wtc7collapselgiy8.gif

Let's take another look because the when Silverstein said; "pull it," he was not referring to explosive demolition of WTC7. Check this video and afterward, please explain to us all, what Silverstein meant when he said: "Pull it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

ah those magic columns again, strong enough to resist thermal expansion of the trusses and yet not strong enough to resist "sagging".

At 1500 degrees F., steel will begin to weaken. The observed buckling of the WTC buildings was a prime example of how temperatures from the fires were affecting their steel structures, and remember, after the collisions, structural loads were redistributed within the WTC buildings.

In regards to sagging of steel from heat, let's look at things from another perspective.

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled."

"The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse."

sagt.jpg

Midwest roads and rails buckle under intense heat

The intense heat wave enveloping much of the country is causing metal railroad rails and asphalt roads in some Midwestern states to expand and buckle, forcing transportation officials to scramble to make repairs and causing rail operators to pay extra-close attention to the safety of their tracks.

Omaha-based Union Pacific Railroad said Wednesday that the heat has affected the operations of its entire northern division and that it is having workers inspect its tracks up to twice a day.

"In extreme heat, you get a phenomenon called a 'track buckle' or 'sun kink,'" Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis said. "When you get extreme heat and the metal rail wants to expand, it looks for a weak spot in the track structure itself to do that.

"What will literally happen is, the track will bend in either direction at the weakest point of the track structure."

http://journalstar.c...8a84962414.html

What heat can do to railroad tracks.

Rail_buckle.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yet there have been many failed demolitions that have resisted and arrested the downward momentum, thus PROVING it is "conceivable".

You have to look at the structure of each building, and remember, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all suffered from massive impact damage. According to one witnesses, WTC7 had a hole on the south side about 20 stories high.

The 20-Story Hole on the South Side of WTC7

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If this is going to end up being yet another thread where Skyeagle is allowed to just regurgitate more and more of the same links and pictures and anecdotes etc. with no regard for what this thread is actually about or why it was started, close it now, or merge it with any one of the other threads where he has been allowed to run roughshod without recourse.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right then, I thought a good example to start with is the collapse of the WTC floors.

I wanted to add that when eyewitnesses reported buckling of the WTC buildings, it was clear that fires were weakening the structure and it was inevitable the buildings were in the process of collapsing. Once the collapse was initiated from above, there was no way the floors below the collapse had the strength to totally resist the collapse. The floors were designed to handle certain loads and beyond those loads, subject to failure, which they did as the overhead mass descended upon each floor, which only added to the mass, one floor at a time.

We have evidence of such bowing and when the load-bearing perimeters began to buckle, it was just a matter of time before the collapse sequence would be initiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is going to end up being yet another thread where Skyeagle is allowed to just regurgitate more and more of the same links and pictures and anecdotes etc. with no regard for what this thread is actually about or why it was started, close it now, or merge it with any one of the other threads where he has been allowed to run roughshod without recourse.

Just responding to another poster, you understand!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Skyeagle, stop it.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the individual points using applicable science. Don't just spam unrelated articles and videos.

Specific points, specific calculations. If you cannot keep it simple, don't post.

Edited by aquatus1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle, stop it.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the individual points using applicable science. Don't just spam unrelated articles and videos.

Specific points, specific calculations. If you cannot keep it simple, don't post.

I tried to keep it as simple as possible in post #94.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not discussing any specific points. You are just relating what witnesses said. This thread is not specifically about the collapse of the WTC towers. It isn't about any particular conspiracy. It is about specific fallacies that are created in their argument. Whether it is a failure of formal logic and critical thinking, or a simple misunderstanding of some basic fundamentals of science, it is those fallacies that this thread is intended to address. Conspiracies theories are where we can draw our examples from, but do not argue about the conspiracy itself. That is not the purpose of this thread.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not discussing any specific points. You are just relating what witnesses said. This thread is not specifically about the collapse of the WTC towers. It isn't about any particular conspiracy. It is about specific fallacies that are created in their argument. Whether it is a failure of formal logic and critical thinking, or a simple misunderstanding of some basic fundamentals of science, it is those fallacies that this thread is intended to address. Conspiracies theories are where we can draw our examples from, but do not argue about the conspiracy itself. That is not the purpose of this thread.

Okay!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we also need to know how much the floor continued to travel after striking. Let's be generous (to keep the math simple) and say that floor 6 "bounced" about .25m after hitting floor 5.
Now floors 5 and 6 are travelling downwards, but unlike before, they are not beginning from an At Rest position. Now the two floors have a mass of 400kg, and are moving downwards at a speed of 6.6m/s, slowed down a bit by the impact

these two statements are contradictory.

floor 6 bounces (up presumably) in the first statement, yet in the second statement it coalesces with floor 5 and has a initial velocity of 6.6m/s, if it bounces up its going to have an initial velocity of zero when it starts to come back down again, with a slight increase in height. i'm confused.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.