| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | paulsouthend wrote: | | LOL and we get called the loons... Basically, a falling object will always fall to the path of lest resistance, Not thru thousands of tonnes of steel. A building will only come straight down if that resistance is removed. If resistance is not removed it won't. It will take the path of lest resistance. Basically |
I understand the concept of a path of least resistance, but how does it really apply to the collapse of the twin towers?
Let's take that moment in the collapse scenario where the 12 (or 24) floors fall onto the first floor below. Are you suggesting that rather than hitting the floor below the mass of debris would rather search around it for a less resistent route? Obviously it cannot because it has its own momentum - to do anything but go forward (down) would be impossible. Surely we all agree it has to hit the floor below.
Now IF the floor doesn't provide enough resistance to stop or deflect the mass of debris, it JOINS the debris and goes in which direction? That's right, DOWN again. So a (theoretically) larger mass of debris continues to travel down, accelerating to a greater velocity by the time it hits the next floor. We have the same situation again (only moreso) - will this greater mass of debris defy its own greater momentum or hit the floor below?
The path of least resistance, therefore is straight down, because to follow any other path would be to resist the downwards momentum, essentially the forces of gravity.
I find your assertion similar to suggesting that a bullet would never hit its victim, because rather than penetrate the skin it would look for a 'less resistant' path around the victim's body. Inanimate objects do not have minds of their own - they react perfectly to the forces placed upon them. |
Alex_V, can you please educate yourself in how the twin towers were constructed. The floors collapsing would have had no affect on what the core was doing. Get your facts straight before talking such *.
Bullets, flesh, give me a break |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
landless peasant
Moderate Poster
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 137
Location: southend essex
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Inanimate objects do not have minds of their own"
Did I say they did?
How does " A falling object follows the path of lest resistance" translate to objects thinking and searching for the path?
Issac Newton sorted this out years ago |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | paulsouthend wrote: | | LOL and we get called the loons... Basically, a falling object will always fall to the path of lest resistance, Not thru thousands of tonnes of steel. A building will only come straight down if that resistance is removed. If resistance is not removed it won't. It will take the path of lest resistance. Basically |
I understand the concept of a path of least resistance, but how does it really apply to the collapse of the twin towers?
Let's take that moment in the collapse scenario where the 12 (or 24) floors fall onto the first floor below. Are you suggesting that rather than hitting the floor below the mass of debris would rather search around it for a less resistent route? Obviously it cannot because it has its own momentum - to do anything but go forward (down) would be impossible. Surely we all agree it has to hit the floor below.
Now IF the floor doesn't provide enough resistance to stop or deflect the mass of debris, it JOINS the debris and goes in which direction? That's right, DOWN again. So a (theoretically) larger mass of debris continues to travel down, accelerating to a greater velocity by the time it hits the next floor. We have the same situation again (only moreso) - will this greater mass of debris defy its own greater momentum or hit the floor below?
The path of least resistance, therefore is straight down, because to follow any other path would be to resist the downwards momentum, essentially the forces of gravity.
I find your assertion similar to suggesting that a bullet would never hit its victim, because rather than penetrate the skin it would look for a 'less resistant' path around the victim's body. Inanimate objects do not have minds of their own - they react perfectly to the forces placed upon them. |
You must have missed my earlier posts in this thread - however please address the matter of the tilt of the top 25 or so stories of WTC2. It isn't coming straight down, it is falling and rotating, moving clear of the building that you need it to destroy right down to the bottom. Are you with me so far? Conservation of momentum dictates that those intact stories can't move back and become a driving force again - in fact some of the the very top of the building has only fresh air underneath it and therefore has no further effect on the rest of the building. Consequently one side of the tower has virtually no weight bearing down on it - the force would be more of a sideways one tending to pull it towards the direction of the tilt.
So explain to me how this tilting mass has the ability to bear down on the building all the way down. And where the tilting mass ended up - given the large amount of it that had just fresh air between it and the ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: |
I would suggest that you find some examples of high-rise steel collapses to see how buildings really behave when faced with any sort of structural failure. |
If you remember you failed before to find any examples of buildings collapsing in the way you think they should, despite your earlier boast that there were many such instances.
Can you really see no difference between the structure supporting the static load of the upper floors, as it had for 30 years, and the dynamic load of the same mass dropped on to it when the fire floors gave way? |
And can you not see that the upper section does not fall onto the lower section. Where is the dynamic load? |
Of course the upper section falls on the lower section!!!!!!!
Even if you think like many here, that columns of the fire floor were demolished with unknown heat and impact resisting explosives, the floors above would then fall. Or do you have some new personal variation of the demolition theory in which the fire floor and some floors immediately below were demolished simultaneously, before the remaining ones were destroyed with explosives rippling down them in succession? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: |
I would suggest that you find some examples of high-rise steel collapses to see how buildings really behave when faced with any sort of structural failure. |
If you remember you failed before to find any examples of buildings collapsing in the way you think they should, despite your earlier boast that there were many such instances.
Can you really see no difference between the structure supporting the static load of the upper floors, as it had for 30 years, and the dynamic load of the same mass dropped on to it when the fire floors gave way? |
And can you not see that the upper section does not fall onto the lower section. Where is the dynamic load? |
Of course the upper section falls on the lower section!!!!!!!
Even if you think like many here, that columns of the fire floor were demolished with unknown heat and impact resisting explosives, the floors above would then fall. Or do you have some new personal variation of the demolition theory in which the fire floor and some floors immediately below were demolished simultaneously, before the remaining ones were destroyed with explosives rippling down them in succession? |
Did the upper section drop vertically down onto the tower below? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| paulsouthend wrote: | "Inanimate objects do not have minds of their own"
Did I say they did?
How does " A falling object follows the path of lest resistance" translate to objects thinking and searching for the path?
Issac Newton sorted this out years ago |
Objects fall vertically, right?
So the top sections of the towers dropped on to the bottom sections when the fire floors gave way, even though the resistance they encountered there was greater than if they had moved sideways.
Isaac Newton would have pointed out that since there was no sideways force acting on the top sections they would not move sideways, even to find lower resistance.
Why do you think they should have moved sideways? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| But the top section did not fall onto the lower section to initiate collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: |
I would suggest that you find some examples of high-rise steel collapses to see how buildings really behave when faced with any sort of structural failure. |
If you remember you failed before to find any examples of buildings collapsing in the way you think they should, despite your earlier boast that there were many such instances.
Can you really see no difference between the structure supporting the static load of the upper floors, as it had for 30 years, and the dynamic load of the same mass dropped on to it when the fire floors gave way? |
And can you not see that the upper section does not fall onto the lower section. Where is the dynamic load? |
Of course the upper section falls on the lower section!!!!!!!
Even if you think like many here, that columns of the fire floor were demolished with unknown heat and impact resisting explosives, the floors above would then fall. Or do you have some new personal variation of the demolition theory in which the fire floor and some floors immediately below were demolished simultaneously, before the remaining ones were destroyed with explosives rippling down them in succession? |
Did the upper section drop vertically down onto the tower below? |
Yes, tilting as it did so in the case of WTC2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | But the top section did not fall onto the lower section to initiate collapse. |
What did it do then, float in the air until the lower section got going on its own? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, the lower section broke into pieces causing the upper section to rotate and fall. But that rotation soon stopped when the lower tower below broke up thus removing the points of connection which the upper section was using to tilt against.
Kind of makes your dynamic load nonsense, well.......nonsense! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | On 9/11 of course we had 3 such buildings fall into their own footprint. Now that's truly amazing and I feel little else needs be added to the argument ... |
That would be an excellent point if it weren't a total lie. Buildings which fall into their own footprint do not damage neighbouring buildings, and we all know that several neighbouring buildings were damaged by the collapsing towers. Its been six years, are you just going to tell the same lies over and over again or are you going to at least come up with some new ones?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | On 9/11 of course we had 3 such buildings fall into their own footprint. Now that's truly amazing and I feel little else needs be added to the argument ... |
That would be an excellent point if it weren't a total lie. Buildings which fall into their own footprint do not damage neighbouring buildings, and we all know that several neighbouring buildings were damaged by the collapsing towers. Its been six years, are you just going to tell the same lies over and over again or are you going to at least come up with some new ones? |
Pepik, that's very selective quoting from you, as usual. What about this line which I wrote in the same post?
| James C wrote: | | The fact that these were such massive buildings led to an enormous spread of debris at ground level but the overall heap left on the ground fitted mostly into the original WTC site |
I think that answers your question or do you need me to explain further?
Yes its certainly strange that you critics try to educate us in how high-rise buildings are as happy falling vertically in on themselves as they are falling over sideways without offering proof that this has ever happened before and yet evidence shows that several large girders where thrown out horizontally to hit surrounding buildings. Amazing. How could these huge pieces of steel have been thrown out sideways when all the mass was apparently proving to be destructive in the vertical plane?
By the way, did you watch that film clip? I notice you haven't commented on it. What did you think to the noises?
Oh, and it's been 6 years and no sign of a report from NIST on WTC7. When are they going to do this? Perhaps they should be talking to the critics because you all seem to be the experts on the WTC - not! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | No, the lower section broke into pieces causing the upper section to rotate and fall. But that rotation soon stopped when the lower tower below broke up thus removing the points of connection which the upper section was using to tilt against.
Kind of makes your dynamic load nonsense, well.......nonsense! |
Ah, now we are back to what you failed to explain earlier, your theory of why the rotating mass of the top floors stopped rotating as a result of the lower tower breaking up. Don't feel daunted by your earlier avoidance of the question, take all the space you need on this page, and in relation to the principle of conservation of angular momentum, don't forget to explain where the torque came from to halt the rotation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | No, the lower section broke into pieces causing the upper section to rotate and fall. But that rotation soon stopped when the lower tower below broke up thus removing the points of connection which the upper section was using to tilt against.
Kind of makes your dynamic load nonsense, well.......nonsense! |
Ah, now we are back to what you failed to explain earlier, your theory of why the rotating mass of the top floors stopped rotating as a result of the lower tower breaking up. Don't feel daunted by your earlier avoidance of the question, take all the space you need on this page, and in relation to the principle of conservation of angular momentum, don't forget to explain where the torque came from to halt the rotation. |
No, the only failure has been your argument to pursuade myself and others that there was a dymanic load crashing down onto the lower building when in fact nothing of the sort happened.
My explanation is clear. Nothing more is required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | No, the lower section broke into pieces causing the upper section to rotate and fall. But that rotation soon stopped when the lower tower below broke up thus removing the points of connection which the upper section was using to tilt against.
Kind of makes your dynamic load nonsense, well.......nonsense! |
Ah, now we are back to what you failed to explain earlier, your theory of why the rotating mass of the top floors stopped rotating as a result of the lower tower breaking up. Don't feel daunted by your earlier avoidance of the question, take all the space you need on this page, and in relation to the principle of conservation of angular momentum, don't forget to explain where the torque came from to halt the rotation. |
No, the only failure has been your argument to pursuade myself and others that there was a dymanic load crashing down onto the lower building when in fact nothing of the sort happened.
My explanation is clear. Nothing more is required. |
I quite understand why you wish to ignore the principle of conservation of angular momentum, as it does conflict drastically with your theory about the rotating section of WTC2. Clearly, this is a conclusive indication that your theory is wrong.
Equally nonsensical is your idea that somehow the lower section avoided being crushed by the falling upper section through breaking up first, a strange idea supported by no evidence at all, and obviously only put forward by you to avoid having to consider what actually happened to the lower section when the upper dropped on it.
Why not just stop trying to justify the unjustifiable and accept reality? You convince no one, probably not even yourself fundamentally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | No, the lower section broke into pieces causing the upper section to rotate and fall. But that rotation soon stopped when the lower tower below broke up thus removing the points of connection which the upper section was using to tilt against.
Kind of makes your dynamic load nonsense, well.......nonsense! |
Ah, now we are back to what you failed to explain earlier, your theory of why the rotating mass of the top floors stopped rotating as a result of the lower tower breaking up. Don't feel daunted by your earlier avoidance of the question, take all the space you need on this page, and in relation to the principle of conservation of angular momentum, don't forget to explain where the torque came from to halt the rotation. |
No, the only failure has been your argument to pursuade myself and others that there was a dymanic load crashing down onto the lower building when in fact nothing of the sort happened.
My explanation is clear. Nothing more is required. |
I quite understand why you wish to ignore the principle of conservation of angular momentum, as it does conflict drastically with your theory about the rotating section of WTC2. Clearly, this is a conclusive indication that your theory is wrong.
Equally nonsensical is your idea that somehow the lower section avoided being crushed by the falling upper section through breaking up first, a strange idea supported by no evidence at all, and obviously only put forward by you to avoid having to consider what actually happened to the lower section when the upper dropped on it.
Why not just stop trying to justify the unjustifiable and accept reality? You convince no one, probably not even yourself fundamentally. |
I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Alex_V, can you please educate yourself in how the twin towers were constructed. The floors collapsing would have had no affect on what the core was doing. Get your facts straight before talking such *. |
I don't really understand what you're getting at. How do you think 'what the core was doing' affects my points on the path of least resistance? Whatever the core was doing the basic theory remains the same. Doesn't it? If not, please explain why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| paulsouthend wrote: | "Inanimate objects do not have minds of their own"
Did I say they did?
How does " A falling object follows the path of lest resistance" translate to objects thinking and searching for the path?
Issac Newton sorted this out years ago |
I didn't say that you said they did  . Please try to respond to my arguments rather than trying to score cheap points - I will respond in kind.
Do you agree with what I said? That the debris HAD to hit the floor directly beneath it? And that if that floor or section of the building collapsed, that it in turn would hit whatever was beneath it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | You must have missed my earlier posts in this thread - however please address the matter of the tilt of the top 25 or so stories of WTC2. It isn't coming straight down, it is falling and rotating, moving clear of the building that you need it to destroy right down to the bottom. Are you with me so far? Conservation of momentum dictates that those intact stories can't move back and become a driving force again - in fact some of the the very top of the building has only fresh air underneath it and therefore has no further effect on the rest of the building. Consequently one side of the tower has virtually no weight bearing down on it - the force would be more of a sideways one tending to pull it towards the direction of the tilt.
So explain to me how this tilting mass has the ability to bear down on the building all the way down. And where the tilting mass ended up - given the large amount of it that had just fresh air between it and the ground. |
A quick search indicates that FEMA reported that sections from the tilted portion of WTC2 hit the bankers trust building. Estimations of the amount of tilt go from 3% to 7%. As I understand it, the centre of gravity was still well within the footprint of the building. Once collapse was initiated gravity took over - I don't agree that force would be more of a sideways one.
If what you're saying is that a corner of the building would have had less debris falling on it, then I agree. But what this corner does as the rest of the building collapsed I do know - it collapses too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section. |
This is where you lose me I'm afraid, James. I'm really struggling to understand what the heck you're talking about.
Is what you are saying that explosives 'removed' the lower section, and that the top section essentially fell through the air that was remaining?
If so, that is a hypothesis which may or may not be true. What we are talking about here is a collapse scenario. We are talking about whether or not the building could have collapsed IF explosives were NOT used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | No, the lower section broke into pieces causing the upper section to rotate and fall. But that rotation soon stopped when the lower tower below broke up thus removing the points of connection which the upper section was using to tilt against.
Kind of makes your dynamic load nonsense, well.......nonsense! |
Ah, now we are back to what you failed to explain earlier, your theory of why the rotating mass of the top floors stopped rotating as a result of the lower tower breaking up. Don't feel daunted by your earlier avoidance of the question, take all the space you need on this page, and in relation to the principle of conservation of angular momentum, don't forget to explain where the torque came from to halt the rotation. |
No, the only failure has been your argument to pursuade myself and others that there was a dymanic load crashing down onto the lower building when in fact nothing of the sort happened.
My explanation is clear. Nothing more is required. |
I quite understand why you wish to ignore the principle of conservation of angular momentum, as it does conflict drastically with your theory about the rotating section of WTC2. Clearly, this is a conclusive indication that your theory is wrong.
Equally nonsensical is your idea that somehow the lower section avoided being crushed by the falling upper section through breaking up first, a strange idea supported by no evidence at all, and obviously only put forward by you to avoid having to consider what actually happened to the lower section when the upper dropped on it.
Why not just stop trying to justify the unjustifiable and accept reality? You convince no one, probably not even yourself fundamentally. |
I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
Very simple, you now require the building below to fall faster than the top section in order to free the top section from it - why should it do that? And you invent the idea that the top section would be lighter at the top, which of course ignores the top-hat truss which braced the inner core to the perimeter structure at the very top. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | You must have missed my earlier posts in this thread - however please address the matter of the tilt of the top 25 or so stories of WTC2. It isn't coming straight down, it is falling and rotating, moving clear of the building that you need it to destroy right down to the bottom. Are you with me so far? Conservation of momentum dictates that those intact stories can't move back and become a driving force again - in fact some of the the very top of the building has only fresh air underneath it and therefore has no further effect on the rest of the building. Consequently one side of the tower has virtually no weight bearing down on it - the force would be more of a sideways one tending to pull it towards the direction of the tilt.
So explain to me how this tilting mass has the ability to bear down on the building all the way down. And where the tilting mass ended up - given the large amount of it that had just fresh air between it and the ground. |
A quick search indicates that FEMA reported that sections from the tilted portion of WTC2 hit the bankers trust building. Estimations of the amount of tilt go from 3% to 7%. As I understand it, the centre of gravity was still well within the footprint of the building. Once collapse was initiated gravity took over - I don't agree that force would be more of a sideways one.
If what you're saying is that a corner of the building would have had less debris falling on it, then I agree. But what this corner does as the rest of the building collapsed I do know - it collapses too. |
Sections of the tilted portion? There is about a quarter of the whole tower there, a high rise building in its own right - surely it should be a huge mass of debris reaching many stories in height. Where did it go to? Would there not have been an enormous bang not to mention a sizeable crater when it came to ground? I am yet to see a reasonable answer to this question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Sections of the tilted portion? There is about a quarter of the whole tower there, a high rise building in its own right - surely it should be a huge mass of debris reaching many stories in height. Where did it go to? Would there not have been an enormous bang not to mention a sizeable crater when it came to ground? I am yet to see a reasonable answer to this question. |
Yes I would guess there was a loud noise, to go with all the noises as the building collapsed. I don't see that it could have been a quarter of the building though, as the overhanging portion of a 3-7% tilt of the top section only. Although granted there seemed to be some rotation as the building collapsed also. I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, as this issue would be exactly the same whether it was a CD or a collapse, and there was a large field of debris at ground zero. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Sections of the tilted portion? There is about a quarter of the whole tower there, a high rise building in its own right - surely it should be a huge mass of debris reaching many stories in height. Where did it go to? Would there not have been an enormous bang not to mention a sizeable crater when it came to ground? I am yet to see a reasonable answer to this question. |
Yes I would guess there was a loud noise, to go with all the noises as the building collapsed. I don't see that it could have been a quarter of the building though, as the overhanging portion of a 3-7% tilt of the top section only. Although granted there seemed to be some rotation as the building collapsed also. I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, as this issue would be exactly the same whether it was a CD or a collapse, and there was a large field of debris at ground zero. |
The tilting is just an unusual aspect to the fact that the mass above and gravity are the 2 forces you have to work with. Tilt or not, the top 25 stories have to be on the ground roughly around the area formerly owned by WTC. You can say "large field of debris" but take a look at the overhead shots, where are the 25 stories of debris never mind what should have happened to the other 185 stories of twin towers. That debris pile should be deep .... very very deep ... why isn't it? Any ideas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | No, the lower section broke into pieces causing the upper section to rotate and fall. But that rotation soon stopped when the lower tower below broke up thus removing the points of connection which the upper section was using to tilt against.
Kind of makes your dynamic load nonsense, well.......nonsense! |
Ah, now we are back to what you failed to explain earlier, your theory of why the rotating mass of the top floors stopped rotating as a result of the lower tower breaking up. Don't feel daunted by your earlier avoidance of the question, take all the space you need on this page, and in relation to the principle of conservation of angular momentum, don't forget to explain where the torque came from to halt the rotation. |
No, the only failure has been your argument to pursuade myself and others that there was a dymanic load crashing down onto the lower building when in fact nothing of the sort happened.
My explanation is clear. Nothing more is required. |
I quite understand why you wish to ignore the principle of conservation of angular momentum, as it does conflict drastically with your theory about the rotating section of WTC2. Clearly, this is a conclusive indication that your theory is wrong.
Equally nonsensical is your idea that somehow the lower section avoided being crushed by the falling upper section through breaking up first, a strange idea supported by no evidence at all, and obviously only put forward by you to avoid having to consider what actually happened to the lower section when the upper dropped on it.
Why not just stop trying to justify the unjustifiable and accept reality? You convince no one, probably not even yourself fundamentally. |
I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
Very simple, you now require the building below to fall faster than the top section in order to free the top section from it - why should it do that? And you invent the idea that the top section would be lighter at the top, which of course ignores the top-hat truss which braced the inner core to the perimeter structure at the very top. |
Did I say the lower section fell away due to gravity faster than free fall speed - no, so stop your frothing at the mouth. Clearly I am asserting that explosives were used which caused faster destruction than gravitational collapse and which left, for a very brief moment, the top section with nothing below it at all.
Can you prove that the structure at the top was heavier not that it really matters? You asked that I show you what torque could suddenly have been applied and I've answered it for you - gravity. If the upper section hadn't become detached so fast then the rotation would have continued but as the building was destroyed below it by explosives, thereby removing any support, the lower weight of the upper section was subject to acceleration due to gravity, just like the top part, and thus counteracted the motion taking place. Simple observation will prove that rotation stopped or are you denying this is what happened?
Last edited by James C on Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:01 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | James C wrote: | | I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section. |
This is where you lose me I'm afraid, James. I'm really struggling to understand what the heck you're talking about.
Is what you are saying that explosives 'removed' the lower section, and that the top section essentially fell through the air that was remaining?
If so, that is a hypothesis which may or may not be true. What we are talking about here is a collapse scenario. We are talking about whether or not the building could have collapsed IF explosives were NOT used. |
Try and keep up Alex_V.
If you can't follow the thread then don't post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think that answers your question or do you need me to explain further? |
Well of course it doesn't answer my question, and of course you know it doesn't. The neighbouring buildings weren't damaged at ground level. You really should stop lying, it isn't helping you at all. | Quote: | | How could these huge pieces of steel have been thrown out sideways when all the mass was apparently proving to be destructive in the vertical plane? |
Smash a plate on the floor. Do pieces go flying sideways? Yes. Now where does the energy come to move them sideways James? | Quote: | | Oh, and it's been 6 years and no sign of a report from NIST on WTC7. |
Oh dear, they do have reports out on WTC 7. Poor James, you are woefully uninformed and you lie constantly. How can you possibly hope to win debates?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | I think that answers your question or do you need me to explain further? |
Well of course it doesn't answer my question, and of course you know it doesn't. The neighbouring buildings weren't damaged at ground level. You really should stop lying, it isn't helping you at all. | Quote: | | How could these huge pieces of steel have been thrown out sideways when all the mass was apparently proving to be destructive in the vertical plane? |
Smash a plate on the floor. Do pieces go flying sideways? Yes. Now where does the energy come to move them sideways James? | Quote: | | Oh, and it's been 6 years and no sign of a report from NIST on WTC7. |
Oh dear, they do have reports out on WTC 7. Poor James, you are woefully uninformed and you lie constantly. How can you possibly hope to win debates? |
I'll never answer your questions because you can't understand them
Notice you're still avoiding discussing that film clip.
The difference in the case of your plate analogy is that the plate hit a floor. The girders that hit other buildings were several storeys up in the air. Are you saying they bounced off the ground? Besides, what type of floor are we talking about here?
Where is the definitive account of what happened to WTC7? Yes we've had some reports as a lead up to this but nothing to offer a conclusion. After 6 years! How hard can it be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | Try and keep up Alex_V.
If you can't follow the thread then don't post. |
What you seem to be doing is just point-blank refusing to even consider the hypothesis that the building collapsed. Your answer to questions of the physics of collapse seem to be "but explosives were used". An utterly blinkered approach.
If you can't even accept that the floors above the impact zone 'could' have collapsed onto the floors below then it's not even a debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | No, the lower section broke into pieces causing the upper section to rotate and fall. But that rotation soon stopped when the lower tower below broke up thus removing the points of connection which the upper section was using to tilt against.
Kind of makes your dynamic load nonsense, well.......nonsense! |
Ah, now we are back to what you failed to explain earlier, your theory of why the rotating mass of the top floors stopped rotating as a result of the lower tower breaking up. Don't feel daunted by your earlier avoidance of the question, take all the space you need on this page, and in relation to the principle of conservation of angular momentum, don't forget to explain where the torque came from to halt the rotation. |
No, the only failure has been your argument to pursuade myself and others that there was a dymanic load crashing down onto the lower building when in fact nothing of the sort happened.
My explanation is clear. Nothing more is required. |
I quite understand why you wish to ignore the principle of conservation of angular momentum, as it does conflict drastically with your theory about the rotating section of WTC2. Clearly, this is a conclusive indication that your theory is wrong.
Equally nonsensical is your idea that somehow the lower section avoided being crushed by the falling upper section through breaking up first, a strange idea supported by no evidence at all, and obviously only put forward by you to avoid having to consider what actually happened to the lower section when the upper dropped on it.
Why not just stop trying to justify the unjustifiable and accept reality? You convince no one, probably not even yourself fundamentally. |
I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
Very simple, you now require the building below to fall faster than the top section in order to free the top section from it - why should it do that? And you invent the idea that the top section would be lighter at the top, which of course ignores the top-hat truss which braced the inner core to the perimeter structure at the very top. |
Did I say the lower section fell away due to gravity faster than free fall speed - no, so stop your frothing at the mouth. Clearly I am asserting that explosives were used which caused faster destruction than gravitational collapse and which left, for a very brief moment, the top section with nothing below it at all.
Can you prove that the structure at the top was heavier not that it really matters? You asked that I show you what torque could suddenly have been applied and I've answered it for you - gravity. If the upper section hadn't become detached so fast then the rotation would have continued but as the building was destroyed below it by explosives, thereby removing any support, the lower weight of the upper section was subject to acceleration due to gravity, just like the top part, and thus counteracted the motion taking place. Simple observation will prove that rotation stopped or are you denying this is what happened? |
I really think you have lost it completely, James. You assert that the bottom of the top section is heavier than the top without any reason why it should be so, and ignoring the fact that there was a huge top-hat truss on top, but now you say it does not really matter. It doesn't because in the absence of a fulcrum, gravity does not supply a torque anyway. You are simply thrashing about, asserting anything that you think will help your utterly implausible case that the building was destroyed by silent explosives, timed in such a way at the top that floors were blown away before the section above could fall, but better timed lower down so that it looked like progressive collapse. You seem to be so desperate to avoid the obvious fact that the top section fell on the bottom, despite this not being necessary for the demolition theory anyway, that you will say literally anything to bolster that idea, however devoid of truth or logic. There really is little point continuing a discussion with you, I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
