Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Heiwa]

C7 answer this question please. How, using equations, does the law of conservation of momentum prove that the building did not collapse.

My physics may be a bit rusty, but I cannot see how this rule proves the collapse is impossible. I am not asserting that if I cannot see it, it must be impossible, I am asking you to show me that it is the case. Until then I will trust my knowledge of physics. Momentum before equals momentum after. Show how one floor can transfer the momentum of the collasping other floors, without collapsing itself. Show how this is possible, through use of equations please. Show that the connections between the structural memebers could sustain such a load. Show it, prove it. Until then all what Gage says is a LIE.

I am certain if Gage said that all buildings are actually suspended by magic invisible flying pigs and WTC could not have collapsed because the pigs would have kept it from collapsing, that statement would undoubtably be repeated by his followers. I find such a statement equally impossible and ridiculous as the statement that the law of conservation of momentum proves that the collapse is impossible.

Read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm where it is all explained.

 

[dtugg]

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant.
The law of conservation of linear momentum states that the total momentum of a closed system of objects (which has no interactions with external agents) is constant. One of the consequences of this is that the center of mass of any system of objects will always continue with the same velocity unless acted on by a force from outside the system

This is the same as Newton 1st law
1) "A particle will stay at rest or continue at constant velocity unless acted on by an external unbalanced force."

The result is, falling debris uses some of its kinetic energy to break all the truss seat connections. This will slow its rate of fall.
The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly. I other words, it would take nearly all the kinetic energy of 7 floors hitting an intact floor at the same time to break the floor supports.

In the case of the north tower, all 12 floors did not impact the floor below the collapse at the same time.
The weight of most of those floors was carried by the core and exterior columns above the collapse and that weight was pushing down on the core and perimeter columns below, not on the floor around the core.
At no time did 7 or more floors suddenly [simultaneously] come in contact with the floor below the collapse.

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually.

You copied those definitions straight from Wikipedia without even giving a proper source. Proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_momentum#Conservation_of_linear_momentum

Thanks for proving that you had no idea what they are without looking it up. You still don't know what they mean.

1) The WTC towers were not isolated systems.
2) You will have provide calculations for the rest of your nonsensical drivel. Unless you can do that, it doesn't prove anything.
3) It has been proven that there was more than enough potential energy to destroy the towers.

 

[Christopher7]

Could I suggest that you read Frank Greening's analysis of the collapse energy and gravitational potential energy of the collapses over at 911 Myths? It's a simplified discussion for the layman, showing that there was a very large excess of potential energy in the towers over that required for a collapse of the type that was observed.

I have read Mr. Greening's analysis.
His theory requires that all the accumulated weight is applied evenly over the entire one acre area. He does not take into consideration the fact that most of the debris was ejected outside the building and therefore his theory does not work.

That assertion is completely incorrect. The core was incapable of standing unsupported by the lateral bracing provided by the connection of the floor trusses to the perimeter columns.

Dave

Where did you get that ridiculous idea?
The core had a great deal of lateral bracing. It was a matrix of 47 columns with connecting girders at every floor and a box of 4 columns with diagonal bracing at each corner.

 

[buka001]

Take a house of cards! Drop a card on it and all the cards of the house may drop on the table but they - the cards - are still there, intact, on the table. Just build up the house of cards again.

Yes, because the complex structural elements of WTC is comparable to that of a house of cards ... in twoofer land.

Simpler speaking, you cannot destroy anything by dropping a piece of anything on it.

We dropped a steel beam onto some bricks the other day. The bricks were pulverised. I guess we broke the law of conservation of momentum then?

 

[buka001]

He does not take into consideration the fact that most of the debris was ejected outside the building and therefore his theory does not work.

Where did you get that ridiculous idea?
The core had a great deal of lateral bracing. It was a matrix of 47 columns with connecting girders at every floor and a box of 4 columns with diagonal bracing at each corner.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7323/frame2edn8.jpg

Most? Any proof for that claim? Any calculations showing that this is the case?

I'm not too familiar with the exact structural layout of WTC etc, but aren't those 4 Box columns at the corners for the cranes? Or did they leave that in the structure?

 

[Seymour Butz]

In my video, in all cases the detonations of demolitions charges are much louder (and of course sharper and more percussive) than the building collapses.

I agree.

But you can show them a video of the Hallmark(?) Tower demo, point out to them that this had all the pre-weakening done to it and thus would need fewer and less powerful cutter charges, and point out that this is a very large structure, and thus would also be very loud during the collapse, point out that the cutter charges are MUCH louder than the collapse anyways, and on and on, and they won't listen. We all know they run from reality.

The point is, without some data showing how loud the actual collapses were, they can always run away from reality and claim that the collapses were probably louder than any explosives.

However, if we had the actual dB levels, and using known dB levels of cutter charges, we can prove that this couldn't be the case.

Then, if they continue to wallow in denial, which is the most likely of course, then that's their business, and they have now put themselves into the "ridicule at your leisure" column.

 

[DGM]

I have read Mr. Greening's analysis.
His theory requires that all the accumulated weight is applied evenly over the entire one acre area. He does not take into consideration the fact that most of the debris was ejected outside the building and therefore his theory does not work.

Where did you get that ridiculous idea?
The core had a great deal of lateral bracing. It was a matrix of 47 columns with connecting girders at every floor and a box of 4 columns with diagonal bracing at each corner.

[qimg]http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7323/frame2edn8.jpg[/qimg]

Do you know how much of that corner bracing is temporary for the tower cranes? I do. (I suspect you do too, that's why you posted that particular picture)

 

[Christopher7]

1) The WTC towers were not isolated systems.

The isolated system in this case is the falling top floors of the building.

2) You will have provide calculations for the rest of your nonsensical drivel. Unless you can do that, it doesn't prove anything.

I used the calculations from the NIST FAQ.

3) It has been proven that there was more than enough potential energy to destroy the towers.

But it has not been shown how that energy caused the collapse of one floor or the core, much less the entire building.

 

[Christopher7]

Most? Any proof for that claim? Any calculations showing that this is the case?

It would be impossible to calculate with accuracy but someone on your side of this debate estimated 90 - 95%. That's probably a little high. Judging from the photographs 80% would be a reasonable guess.

I'm not too familiar with the exact structural layout of WTC etc, but aren't those 4 Box columns at the corners for the cranes? Or did they leave that in the structure?

They were part of the structure. To build and then remove them would be very costly.

 

[twinstead]

But it has not been shown how that energy caused the collapse of one floor or the core, much less the entire building.

Just because you SAY it has not been shown, doesn't make it true. Reality doesn't rely on what you think. It is what it is.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The result is, falling debris uses some of its kinetic energy to break all the truss seat connections. This will slow its rate of fall.

Correct, although the amount by which it will slow the rate of fall has yet to be determined.

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly. I other words, it would take nearly all the kinetic energy of 7 floors hitting an intact floor at the same time to

break the floor supports.

No. Completely, utterly wrong. The vertical capacity of the columns was sufficient to carry the load of six additional floors if the load was applied suddenly, but with a zero initial velocity; in other words, the potential energy released by the compression of the lower structure would not be enough to break the supports. This is a very different situation from an upper block falling on to the lower block, because there is then the velocity produced by the additional potential energy released during the fall. This is many times greater; the fall is expected to be through something like 3 metres, whereas even Heiwa's carefully inflated overestimate of the spring compression is less than 2 metres, and in reality we would expect it to be much less. Therefore, although a suddenly applied load of 13 additional floors will only overload the floors by a factor of about two, the kinetic energy of a falling block will overload them far more.

Dave

 

[dtugg]

The isolated system in this case is the falling top floors of the building.

Wrong. Do you know what the word "isolated" means?

I used the calculations from the NIST FAQ.

You didn't use any of your own calculations to show your conclusions are correct. You just hand-waved a bunch of stuff away. Why should anybody listen to you over NIST if you don't even offer any kind of proof?

But it has not been shown how that energy caused the collapse of one floor

Do you even know what the explanation for collapse initiation is? If so, please refute it. Hint: I already know you can't. To my knowledge no twoofer has even attempted.

or the core,

As has been explained to you many times, once the lateral bracing was lost, the core could not stand up on it's own.

much less the entire building.

Once it got going couldn't be stopped. It was a dominoe effect. I find it amazing that you people can't understand this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have read Mr. Greening's analysis.
His theory requires that all the accumulated weight is applied evenly over the entire one acre area. He does not take into consideration the fact that most of the debris was ejected outside the building and therefore his theory does not work.

"Most" of the debris was not ejected early in the collapse. Greening has analysed the effects of mass shedding and found it to be insignificant.

Where did you get that ridiculous idea?

Reality.

The core had a great deal of lateral bracing. It was a matrix of 47 columns with connecting girders at every floor and a box of 4 columns with diagonal bracing at each corner.

This is well known to be untrue. The diagonal bracing was temporary for the cranes used in construction, and is clearly absent from the structural drawings released by the truth movement as well as all other drawings ever seen of the WTC structure. I suggest you take a look at them.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

They were part of the structure. To build and then remove them would be very costly.

No. they are not, they are jacking sections, They climb with the crane. They are removed on completion because they are part of the equipment. For a carpenter you havent been working many construction sites have you? what is it you build? birdhouses?

 

[funk de fino]

Cross diagonal bracing on the corner box sections??

The core would have stood unsupported??

At the beginning of the cllapse 80% of the mass was outside the footprint??

This is unbelievable stuff from C7.

Even though he doesnt want to, I suggest he slink back to his WTC7 thread.

 

[A W Smith]

You sure picked a poor example Chris, It debunks your "braced" assertion

Did you even look closely at the image you posted Chris? Not only is your "corner bracing" not even attached to the core columns, But ANY core bracing is absent from that image, In fact the floor girders that are in place connecting each core column, are quite narrow and few,

 

[Christopher7]

Just because you SAY it has not been shown, doesn't make it true. Reality doesn't rely on what you think. It is what it is.

Indeed, it is what it is and what it is is what isn't in the NIST FAQ. i.e. an explanation of the collapse of the core. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself: NIST FAQ 12 14 07
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

 

[Christopher7]

Did you even look closely at the image you posted Chris? Not only is your "corner bracing" not even attached to the core columns, But ANY core bracing is absent from that image, In fact the floor girders that are in place connecting each core column, are quite narrow and few,

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/corecranestowers.jpg

The framework is not all in yet. What do you think holds up the floors? There has to be girders between the columns to hold up the floors.

 

[funk de fino]

Indeed, it is what it is and what it is is what isn't in the NIST FAQ. i.e. an explanation of the collapse of the core. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself: NIST FAQ 12 14 07
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Why did large amounts of the core remain standing after the perimeter columns and floors had collapsed? As shown in the videos.

Then they fell because they had no support.

Or are you denying this happened?

How did explosives or thermite leave these core sections standing?

 

[funk de fino]

The framework is not all in yet. What the hell do you think holds up the floors? There has to be girders between the columns to hold up the floors.

Why dont you tell us what held up the floors?