Adblock breaks this site

The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

Discussion in 'Archives' started by Annex, Mar 15, 2007.

  1. Annex

    Annex Ballin'
    Veteran (Ex-Admin)
    PHP Programmers Retired Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Posts:
    2,324
    Referrals:
    3
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    UWotM8?
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    Killing much less people especially the fire fighters, port authority and police and leave the base of the structure intact.
     
  2. mighty pker

    mighty pker Forum Addict

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    as each floor hits the floors below it, the floors build up mass, and a lot of it.

    that's why it would accelerate, after the first few floors, the mass got so great that the floors below couldnt hold up at all.

    also, the fire burned all the stuff in the offices, which got really really hot, which melted the steel columns, which is why it collapsed so fast.

    also, if it was a conspiracy, who was on board all of the planes?
     
  3. Shawn_

    Shawn_ Something for All Don - Shawn passed away. RIP.
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,833
    Referrals:
    1
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    Real people.....
     
  4. Sythe

    Sythe Join our discord

    test

    Administrator Village Drunk

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Posts:
    8,071
    Referrals:
    465
    Sythe Gold:
    5,271
    Discord Unique ID:
    742989175824842802
    Discord Username:
    Sythe
    Dolan Duck Dolan Trump Supporting Business ???
    Poképedia
    Clefairy Jigglypuff
    Who did this to my freakin' car!
    Hell yeah boooi
    Tier 3 Prizebox Toast Wallet User
    I'm LAAAAAAAME Rust Player Mewtwo Mew Live Free or Die Poké Prizebox (42) Dat Boi
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    No this is incorrect. The mass of the collapse above the point of collapse must be equal to or less than the total mass of all the floors above the floor currently collapsing. The mass doesn't come from nowhere.



    It is a gross violation of the laws of preservation of energy to say that a pancake collapse can speed up. It can *only* slow down.


    Consider the physics. It doesn't matter how heavy two objects are, if the have the same air resistance then they will fall at the same speed, and accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second, on earth. So as each floor hits the floor below it, the collapse stops momentarily while the floor gives way. Do you see this happening in the videos? No. The floor coming to rest means that it must accelerate again in order to crush the next floor, from rest. However we observe uniform acceleration in the videos, because the collapse encounters no resistance.

    The resistance of each floor would have become much greater as the collapse entered the non damaged floors. We must remember that the building was built with load bearing walls, and that the trusses of each floor were bolted, not just welded. For the trusses to give way the columns would have to bend outward, something physically impossible, as the columns were girders of 4 inch thick steel.

    Consider walking down steps. Do you accelerate to the bottom with uniform acceleration, as you would if you fell off a building? No. You start to fall and then are caught by each step on your way down. This is because your foot encounters the resistance of each step and the force of gravity is canceled by the force pushing back up against your foot, holding you at a net acceleration of 0.

    The problem with the twin tower physics is very much the same as this. What we observe in the videos is a free fall collapse, what we should observe is a collapse which stops and starts and stops and starts and stops and starts like someone walking down stairs (as in the previous analogy.)

    In addition each of the towers was actually three sky scrapers one on top of each other with a floor of solid concrete in-between. Are you suggesting that these 2 floors of solid concrete were pulverized by a pancake collapse?
     
  5. mighty pker

    mighty pker Forum Addict

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    if I jump out of my window, fall for twenty feet, and hit a net of paper, I will not stop momentarily. I will rip straight through. the mass of the floors became so great that the lower floors could not fully stop them.

    also, the intense heat of the flames weakened the steel throughout the building, so it couldnt handle the weight.

    all of the steel was weakened by the flames, which had long enough to do their work.

    when walking down steps, I do not increase in mass with every step.

    as the collapse started in the damaged area, the floors below could provide little to no resistance to the floors above. as they fell into the less-damaged areas, their mass was too great to fully stop the collapse for a second.

    not pulverized, they were unable to hold the mass of dozens of floors above them, so they fell too.
     
  6. Craydron

    Craydron Guest

    Referrals:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    I dont understand shiat :p
     
  7. mighty pker

    mighty pker Forum Addict

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    then don't post.
     
  8. I_own_most

    I_own_most Forum Addict
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Posts:
    286
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    the heat from the jets was not hot enough to melt the steel

    i agree with sythe everyone here should view the September 11 video called "Loose Change"

    someone should make an iq limit to not allow people with iq's of 80 or less

    mighty pker
    acualy a net of paper would slow you down a little bit and as u (should) know the floors are not paper and (from sythe) "the columns were girders of 4 inch thick steel" that is 4 times the size of your penis that is pretty thick


    no steel framed building have ever collapsed because of fire until 9/11
     
  9. Faskist

    Faskist Tuxhead
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    1,869
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    If you think penises are one inch long you have a birth defect, sir.
     
  10. mighty pker

    mighty pker Forum Addict

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    the heat didn't melt the steel, but at 800 C, steel loses over half its strength. it was greatly weakened.

    the floors were weakly supported by partially melted steel, and as the mass of the floors above it kept on increasing, they were able to withstand the weight for shorter and shorter periods, thus they fell.

    we need a "q" limit? a penis is 1 inch long? what the hell?
     
  11. Sythe

    Sythe Join our discord

    test

    Administrator Village Drunk

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Posts:
    8,071
    Referrals:
    465
    Sythe Gold:
    5,271
    Discord Unique ID:
    742989175824842802
    Discord Username:
    Sythe
    Dolan Duck Dolan Trump Supporting Business ???
    Poképedia
    Clefairy Jigglypuff
    Who did this to my freakin' car!
    Hell yeah boooi
    Tier 3 Prizebox Toast Wallet User
    I'm LAAAAAAAME Rust Player Mewtwo Mew Live Free or Die Poké Prizebox (42) Dat Boi
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    Are you suggesting we should make buildings out of paper to explain 9/11?

    No they did not. In an earlier thread I showed that even if you put one of the towers in a jetfuel furnace fueled by liquid oxygen for a week it would not fall down. The buildings were made to support more than just their exact weight, they were around 250% as strong as they needed to be. Even if the steel had lost 50% of its strength *which it didn’t* then the building would still have been standing.

    You go try make a spoon lose structural integrity with a paper fire and tell me how plausible you really believe that is.


    And do you suppose that if you did it would change the physics? The flight of steps has to hold up all the steps in the flight to begin with. No mass changes, get it? Before: mass above, During collapse: mass above.

    Right but as soon as the debrie hit the undamaged, unheated floors the collapse should have stopped *immediately*.

    Do you understand what I mean? A solid floor. That’s 3 meters x 1 acre of re-enforced structural quality cement. HOW ON EARTH WOULD A PANCAKE COLLAPSE TURN THIS INTO CONCRETE POWER?
     
  12. Spereff

    Spereff Guru
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,649
    Referrals:
    1
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    Wow. This looks like an interesting debate. Unfortunately, I can not keep up with this high of an intellingence. :D

    I was forced to watch a quick documentary on the 9/11 incident, and it kept talking about some stupid "drywall."

    0_o
     
  13. Deacon Frost

    Deacon Frost Grand Master
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Posts:
    2,905
    Referrals:
    3
    Sythe Gold:
    57
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    Offtopic to this point -

    Ah, but if that paper was another person of equal weight and size? you wouldn't fall straight through them bud. All these floors were exactly the same. God bless good architecture.
     
  14. mighty pker

    mighty pker Forum Addict

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    are you seriously thinking that that was my suggestion? I don't think so.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html

    steel retains 10% of its strength at 800 C.

    I would like to see how you proved that they would not fall.

    sorry, not mass, I mean that the force changed.

    F= M x A

    the mass did not change, but the acceleration did, and therefore the force. the floors below the falling ones could not handle the greatly increased force of dozens of floors falling on top of it.

    it wouldn't turn it into powder, but it would break its hold on the walls of the towers and let it fall.
     
  15. Sythe

    Sythe Join our discord

    test

    Administrator Village Drunk

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Posts:
    8,071
    Referrals:
    465
    Sythe Gold:
    5,271
    Discord Unique ID:
    742989175824842802
    Discord Username:
    Sythe
    Dolan Duck Dolan Trump Supporting Business ???
    Poképedia
    Clefairy Jigglypuff
    Who did this to my freakin' car!
    Hell yeah boooi
    Tier 3 Prizebox Toast Wallet User
    I'm LAAAAAAAME Rust Player Mewtwo Mew Live Free or Die Poké Prizebox (42) Dat Boi
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking


    Oh I see so now you think gravity changes? The acceleration was constant, ie 9.8 m/s/s. The mass was constant, therefore the force was constant.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the entire steel structure of the building got to 800 degrees Celsius through an unoxygenated fire? You do know that steel glows bright orange when it is that hot. Surely the whole building should have been bright orange.

    There is no way any part of the building would have been this hot at any point (other than when the explosives were going off.)

    Jet Fuel:
    Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C

    Being non oxygenated it is impossible any steel members would have risen above 300 degrees Celsius, no matter how long they burned. Not that there was much jet fuel to burn in the building, most of it was used up in that big fire ball that came out the other side.

    The whole official story is based on really dodgy physics. I'll try to explain this again in an easier to understand analogy.

    If you shoot a bullet through a house. And it hits the first wall, goes through, hits the next wall goes through that too, and so on. Each time the bullet hits a wall, it transfers some of its momentum into the wall and into the air in the form of heat and sound. Because the bullet only has a fixed amount of kinetic energy to begin with the bullet MUST slow down. If it were to speed up it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

    Now consider the same situation except this time you are shooting your bullet down through the floors of a building, you are on the top floor. The bullet has the assistance of gravity, but it still MUST slow down. Each time it encounters a solid object a large amount of its kinetic energy is transferred in the form of heat and sound to that object. An object only has so much energy.

    Let me explain with some physics:
    KE = 1/2mv^2
    GE = mgh

    The first formula states that the kinetic energy (in joules) of an object is equal to half its mass times its velocity (speed) squared. The second formula states that the gravitational potential energy of an object is equal to its mass times the acceleration due to gravity times the height of the object.

    Now, as stated previously an object in a given situation can only have so much energy, and unless it is gaining energy from somewhere must only maintain that same amount of energy or lose energy.
    The total amount of energy of this bullet is equal to its kinetic energy + its gravitational potential energy. So when it is fired it is at its peak energy, each time it hits a floor it loses some energy, until eventually it doesn’t have enough energy to go through the next floor and comes to a rest.

    With the world trade centers 1 and 2, it is important to understand that the mass of the falling floors is equal the mass that was previously supported. This means that the force pushing down on the building was always countered exactly by the force pushing up from the building. Given that the forces are the same as they ever were and that the falling floors only have a fixed amount of kinetic energy, and are encountering resistance from each floor they collide with, the collapse MUST slow down. If it were to speed up then the collapse would be greater than 100% efficient (e.g. gaining energy from nowehere), a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
     
  16. zerox

    zerox Forum Addict
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Posts:
    542
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    Wow Sythe you are like my teacher, you just stated everything I've learned in my freashman science class in the past three weeks.
     
  17. mighty pker

    mighty pker Forum Addict

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    let's say that I can balance a bowling ball on my head. holding it there does not really hurt me. if that bowling ball is dropped from 100 feet up, however, it probably will kill me.

    I am saying that enough of the central supporting columns/elevator shafts got to 800 C. the entire building would not be that temperature.

    that may be its open-air burning temperature, but its maximum burning temperature is 980 C. that would be enough.

    I see what you're saying.

    however, F = M x A. a speeding bullet obviously has more force than a stationary one.

    as the floors started to fall, they fell through the weakened area, which offered little resistance to the floors above. once they reached the undamaged areas, though, the undamaged floors below were not holding up stationary floors, they were trying to hold up quickly moving ones. the force on the undamaged floors would be greater than when they were simply supporting them.
     
  18. I_own_most

    I_own_most Forum Addict
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Posts:
    286
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    Did you know weeks before 9/11 some guy took a huge insurance polacy on the towers specifically on terorism

    weeks before 9/11 they took out allot valuable equipment

    the government said there was 100million dollars of gold underneath the trade centers however there was over 150 billion dollars

    The main reason people believe its fake is because it fell in a perfect pile and it fell at freefall speed this is not possible unless there were explosives planted in the base of the towers

    listen to the cellphone calls the people made they talk very weird

    btw i did not say penises are 1 inch i meant might pkers was even after he is prooven wrong he still keeps on believing everything the government never lies

    and also most of those so called "suicidal pissed of Muslims" that they say were involved in the plane crash are still alive also the steel the twin towers were made of was much better then average steel

    lets just say the steel was weakened to %.0001 of its full strengh it would not have done what it did it the top floors would have collapsed over and fallen into the street.

    sythe is the nerdy genius that went to your school and you ridiculed him for being better then you mighty pker

    mighty pker is the person who is a 48 year old that lives with his mom and his uncle Ted makes him sit on his lap and play santa clause

    remember only %96 of Muslims are suicidal terrorists
     
  19. mighty pker

    mighty pker Forum Addict

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    it wasn't specifically on terrorism. it included terrorism.

    show me some proof on that.

    do you really think the Bush administration would undertake such a risk to expose themselves?

    about as weird as your voice sounds when you're trapped in a burning tower and could be about to die.

    what the fuck? you know nothing about me. for your information I am a girl, and therefore do not have a penis.

    steel is steel, and the muslims on board the planes are dead.

    not necessarily. are you a construction expert? how do you know which way the buildings would fall?

    sythe is the nerdy genius that went to your school and you ridiculed him for being better then you mighty pker

    actually, I am a 17 year old girl who lives with her Dad after her mother and brother were killed in an auto-accident. have any more guesses about my life, genius?

    actually, extremely few Muslims are suicidal terrorists. take your bigotry elsewhere.
     
  20. I_own_most

    I_own_most Forum Addict
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Posts:
    286
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0
    The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

    listen to the cellphone calls from people on the plane
     
< Iamnotanoob's Official App | rate: My elvemage wana v pure part2 >


 
 
Adblock breaks this site