Common Sense

[defaultdotxbe]

he also used to catch those fish using a petrol electric generator and a long copper rod..somehow.

BV

i think ive heard of someone doing that, they electrified the water and all the stunned fish float to the top and they just scopp them up

figured it would make a good darwin award if someone did that in an aluminum boat, lol

 

[Mr.D]

I only want to reassure our international readers that, while we are still a savage nation, we are not entirely a lawless one...

my uncle bought a LAW rocket from a gun show (yes, and the kit to re-arm it)

Nor, apparently are we a LAW-less one.

 

[pvt1863]

An excuse to post my wife's and my favorite picture of us!

Luckily I have an NWO job that lets me own those.

And the evil government that the troofers say is bent on tyranny helped me buy the AR-15.

 

[28th Kingdom]

So... if we all agree that the lower structure (below impact floors) could have held the weight of the upper mass in a hypothetical situation where the impact floors were removed, and the upper mass was slowly lowered onto the lower floors/structure... than what we are saying is that the force from this weight (of the upper mass) falling 50-70 feet is what caused all of the lower floors to fail.

Now NIST...claims this force increased as the collapse progressed because the upper mass was increasing in size (presumably from the floors stacking in some capacity) so, my question is... when the upper floors fell down, and first made impact with the lower structure (below the impact floors) did those floors create any resistance... or do the laws of science not apply here? If they did absorb some of the energy released by the falling upper mass... than did the floors below this point, create any resistance to the upper mass that was hurling downward? And, if so... did they absorb any of the energy? Repeat scenario for remaining floors...

The point I am trying to make... is why doesn't the resistance from each floor... slow the movement of the upper mass... and if you say the mass was growing in size due to pancaking... than what happened to the core columns, since we have all seen that a pancaking of floors wouldn't have taken out the core columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weqBynRZGG8

Bonus Video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Awq6q5ZZUO4

Thanks.

 

[Arus808]

you guys make a nice looking couple.

 

[Arus808]

so, my question is... when the upper floors fell down, and first made impact with the lower structure (below the impact floors) did those floors create any resistance... or do the laws of science not apply here?

What do you mean it "doesn't apply".. You forgot about gravity deary. Its a force that is acting on you 24/7/365.

ONce an object is in momentum, the only thing that will stop it is a force of EQUAL or greater force acting against it. Please show how something falling at speed, can be stopped (that doesn't have wings, or a parachute attached to it)....

brush up on your newton's laws.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

is why doesn't the resistance from each floor... slow the movement of the upper mass...

the resistance does slow the collapse (thats why it wasnt at freefall speeds) but gravity also accelerates it

if R is less then G, it accelerates, simple math

 

[R.Mackey]

so, my question is... when the upper floors fell down, and first made impact with the lower structure (below the impact floors) did those floors create any resistance... or do the laws of science not apply here? If they did absorb some of the energy released by the falling upper mass... than did the floors below this point, create any resistance to the upper mass that was hurling downward? And, if so... did they absorb any of the energy? Repeat scenario for remaining floors...

The point I am trying to make... is why doesn't the resistance from each floor... slow the movement of the upper mass... and if you say the mass was growing in size due to pancaking... than what happened to the core columns, since we have all seen that a pancaking of floors wouldn't have taken out the core columns.

The lower floors did resist, and it did slow the movement of the upper mass, as already answered and even quantified for you here, O proven liar and slanderer. Quit playing dumb.

 

[WildCat]

than what happened to the core columns, since we have all seen that a pancaking of floors wouldn't have taken out the core columns.

The core columns could not stand on their own. This is pretty basic stuff 28th...

 

[28th Kingdom]

the resistance does slow the collapse (thats why it wasnt at freefall speeds) but gravity also accelerates it

if R is less then G, it accelerates, simple math

Doesn't NIST say... the collapse increased in speed as it progressed downwards? Meaning the resistance from the lower floors didn't slow the momentum of the upper mass, but actually increased it.

 

[pvt1863]

The point I am trying to make... is why doesn't the resistance from each floor... slow the movement of the upper mass... and if you say the mass was growing in size due to pancaking... than what happened to the core columns, since we have all seen that a pancaking of floors wouldn't have taken out the core columns.

There are competing effects. It is essentially the increase in momentum due to increased mass and velocity versus the resistance offered by each floor. Multiple calculations presented in this forum show that the force created by the collapsing floors was orders of magnitude greater than the force each floor was designed to hold. Because of that, the resistance offerred by each floor is comparatively small. The collapsing floors drive through the intact floor, gain mass, and hit the next floor at an even greater speed (since the collapsing mass has a non-zero initial velocity when it starts towards the next floor).

As for the cores, there are a few reasons why they could fail. First of all, there was a lot of debris flying around, and it is not inconceivable that he core could be damaged by it. Secondly, the force distribution is not all vertical since the system is so chaotic. Third, the floors can pull down on the core. Finally, the floors supported the core by bracing it against buckling. Remember that the force necessary to buckle is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between supports. Without the floors, the core would probably buckle under its own weight.

you guys make a nice looking couple.

Thanks!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Doesn't NIST say... the collapse increased in speed as it progressed downwards? Meaning the resistance from the lower floors didn't slow the momentum of the upper mass, but actually increased it.

if R is less than G, it accelerates


or do you still think objects fall at a constant velocity?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Secondly, the force distribution is not all vertical since the system is so chaotic.

I talk about probabilities and that makes me a loon... but yet, all of you get to explain your theories with an inexplicable element like chaos. It's the whole... hey man - 4455 happens... anything is possible... it's all left up to chance.

You call this science?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Back to freefall:

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

So... you all disagree with NIST that the buildings fell at near free fall speeds?

 

[pvt1863]

Saying a system is chaotic is a world different from saying that anything can happen. I am claiming that there may be enough horizontal force in the crashing floors to fail the increasingly unsupported core. You are saying that the horizontal forces are enough to throw 20 floors worth of building off to the side.

 

[The Doc]

Where does that say that the building fell at free-fall?

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

If you remove those two words NIST is on your side! Go ahead - edit your post. We all know you have made a habit of that.

 

[Mobyseven]

Doesn't NIST say... the collapse increased in speed as it progressed downwards? Meaning the resistance from the lower floors didn't slow the momentum of the upper mass, but actually increased it.

The resistance from the floors was not enough to actually slow the SPEED of the fall.

In fact, the resistance provided was not enough to even slow the ACCELERATION (more than a tiny, tiny bit, and only for a short moment).

In other words, the lower floors provided resistance, but not enough. Try dropping a VERY heavy rock from a height onto a few sheets of paper that are spaced out vertically from eachother. This is a (more extreme) way to demonstrate what I am talking about.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Another simple question... so if the material from the collapsing floors was stacking - wherein increasing the size of the upper mass... what was this material made out of? We know that the large steel outer columns were being blown to bits... and lots of concrete was being smashed into dust... so what indestructible material was the floors made out of?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Where does that say that the building fell at free-fall?

If you remove those two words NIST is on your side! Go ahead - edit your post. We all know you have made a habit of that.

Let's do a simple math problem... if the section above (upper mass of floors) came down at essentially freefall speeds, and the lower structure/floors were directly below this upper mass... how could the lower structure come down any slower than essential freefall...

 

[pvt1863]

Another simple question... so if the material from the collapsing floors was stacking wherein increasing the size of the upper mass... what was this material made out of? We know that the large steel outer columns were being blown to bits... and lots of concrete was being smashed into dust... so what indestructible material was the floors made out of?

Why does the material have to be indestructible? Rubble has mass too, you know.

There was a lot of steel that was used within the area defined by the outer columns -- you do realize that something was holding up each floor, right? So we have steel, concrete, office supplies, and basically everything that was inside the building.