The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

I did, and it doesn't sound too weird.

 

Everything is fucking equations with you radicals.

The point is: We got attacked.

We are at war.

There is not a single person on sythe that can do shit about it by them selves.

 

Hey mom! I just wanted to tell you i'm gonna die alright.. Don't forget to walk the dog! Oh, and if you could, I left the tea pot on again, I'm really sorry. Well, see you in hell..


Mmmhmm, not that weird.

Also, why were all the calls made at different times..? one right after the other? and why were the families not allowed to speak of what they heard after they were presented with it?

 

Here ya go..

everyone hates loose change... this is a compilation of pictures found around the web>

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.fullscreen&videoid=2015669788


enjoy.

 

the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s. however, this is the rate of acceleration, the rate at which the object can speed up.

so, we'll call it momentum then. say each floor weighs 100 kilograms. after the first few floors collapse past the damaged area, say there are five floors piled up on top of one.

these five floors hit their supporting floor at a certain speed. whatever this speed is, it allows the floors to exert more force on the supporting floor at the moment of impact. this is why I said that a bowling ball dropped on the head will probably kill you.

so, the sixth floor collapses. now, these piled up floors weigh 600 kg. after they slam into the seventh one, which cannot hold 600kg hitting it at a certain rate, it also collapses.

this goes on and on until you have 3,000 kg hitting the lower floors. the upper floors may have been able to hold 600kg hitting them for a second, but the lower ones only offer resistance for a fraction of a second.

perhaps not all of them, but enough of them to collapse the towers.

the fires were not in open air, they were trapped inside the WTC.

it's more liable to kill someone than a stationary bullet.

the floors were always accelerating due to gravity, so as one floor collapsed, the falling floors immediately sped up and smashed into the lower floor.

 

if there is no extra force exerted, then why is it harder to catch a bowling ball rather than hold it in my arms?

an object traveling at a certain speed DOES hit harder than a stationary object.

ok, that I accept.

my point is that a moving object smashes through something holding it back, if it is moving fast enough and has enough mass, or if whatever holding it back is damaged.

if I place a 600 lb weight on my bedroom floor, it will just sit there. if I drop it from a height of 400 metres, then it will smash through. that is what is happened at the WTC.

 

If you hold a bowling ball you don't have any force, If you throw a bowling ball you have placed force on it.

Want an experiment?

Bring two bowling balls 100 ft up in the air, drop one and measure the force it hits the ground with.

Drop the seconds but have 15 concrete blocks 0.5' thick inbetween the 100 ft mark and the ground and measure the force it hits the ground with.

The second ball dropped would be less. Now make them 2' thick and the ball probably wont make it to the ground at all.

 

... Not to mention the ball would roll when it hit the cinder blocks..

Much like the twin towers would have, they wouldn't fall straight down, they would fall, break half the floor, and fall at an angle.

 

They could go straight down but it is unlikely.

 

Not at the angle the planes hit it.. part of it WOULD have shifted to that area..


Think of the titanic.... when it broke, the top half fell, the bottom half sank..

 

here is a situation:

two bowling balls are dropped onto a device that can measure how hard it is struck. the first one is simply placed on the device. the second is dropped from 10 feet up. which one strikes harder?

 

One was assisted by the force of gravity?

What are you trying to prove? Gravity? Because your successful at that.

 

that...

ur not proving ur point.. you're proving sythe right....

 

yes, the one that was dropped from 10 feet is the one that hits harder.

I am trying to prove that the more mass a falling object has, and the faster it is traveling when it hits, the harder it will strike.

when several floors were piled together at the WTC collapse, after they passed the damaged areas, one floor was incapable of holding up five or six as they smashed into it. the next floor was even less capable.

 

Well you only proved that gravity is the only force acting on a falling bowling ball.

The top portion falling had the downward force of gravity and multiple forces pushing against it.

 

what were the other forces?