So whilst I think the government conspiracy line is rubbish it is conceivable that for some variations of the theories where the number involved are fairly low it could be kept secret.
Granted, The “whistleblower test” isn’t enough to entirely rule it out in all scenarios.
But when you mix in [b]actual[/b] science, rather than the made up version, and real facts rather than the shite normally peddled by truthers.
You really do need to almost brain dead to believe any of it 😉
Why do I not use tea bags to hammer in nails?
Do you have a figure in mind for the number of times you're going to raise this point and ignore the responses explaining your logic fail? 🙂
Why do I not use tea bags to hammer in nails?Do you have a figure in mind for the number of times you're going to raise this point and ignore the responses explaining your logic fail?
Presumably he thinks this was the work of the big-hobbyist illuminati because the first domino should have stopped when it fell and landed on another.
[img] 
[/img]
lets get it moving by say 1/2m the gap it fall through when it started to fall.
PEi=mgh
Potential energy (i means intial, lets make that zero)
=0.16x450000000x9.8x0.5 =352million joules. That much energy to give up in the first half metre..it is not relatively small its 16% of the total mass below it, and it only needs to destroy one floor below it ie 1%, the mass is now 1% bigger and still accelerating. By a few more meters. Every floor it increases mass and is going faster.
Plug in the original mass, having now moved a single floor (2 metres) and its 4 times as much energy as we had in the beginning..
You’re overlooking the unavoidable resistance that the lower, undamaged portion of the structure provides. There [u]must[/u] be a deceleration as each new layer is reached, no matter what the condition of that layer is. The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the total momentum of a closed system - which is what each tower (and WTC7) were - does not change. So, whatever the momentum of the upper 15% ( for arguments sake) the momentum of the lower 85% is 0 (zero); therefore unless additional energy is introduced to accelerate the upper portion, which is essentially what it is being claimed the upper portion did, Newton’s Third Law dictates that any damage (distortion) that occurs to the lower portion as a result of the impact of the upper portion will [u]also[/u] occur in the upper portion. Kinetic energy is absorbed by both portions until they gradually (a relative term) come to a halt after roughly the equivalent mass of the upper portion has been distorted in the the lower portion. For all intents and purposes, the structure of the upper portion and the lower portion are identical, so the example is even easier to consider than if the upper portion had a greater mass, in which case it might have travelled further into the lower portion before coming to a halt. It’s remarkably easy to test and observe for ones self - go and drop a breeze block onto a breeze block, snowball onto snowball, or pumpkin ont pumpkin - whatever you like and however many times you do it, I guarantee that at no point will the dropped object accelerate through the static object beyond its equivalent mass.
It’s fundamental, foundation physics. Uncomfortable, I know, but physics says that all three buildings were demolished. I’ve absolutely no idea by whom, though looking at who profited (considerably) might shed some light.
physics says that all three buildings were demolished
Nothing you said whether true or false proves that hypothesis
Is the pyramid above a controlled explosion as well?
It’s fundamental, foundation physics.
Seriously? You need to go back to school.
I did promise myself not to get involved but...
No, they weren't closed, they were attached to the earth.total momentum of a closed system - which is what each tower (and WTC7) were
Acceleration is the result of applied force, not energy. In this case, gravity.unless additional energy is introduced to accelerate the upper portion
Try dropping a raw egg onto a raw egg. The structure below was not strong enough to withstand the force necessary to decelerate falling part above. Specifically, the outer columns buckled at the joints; you can see that on the videos, just below the dust cloud.go and drop a breeze block onto a breeze block, snowball onto snowball, or pumpkin ont pumpkin - whatever you like and however many times you do it, I guarantee that at no point will the dropped object accelerate through the static object beyond its equivalent mass.
Three_Fish, i guess being a conspiracy theorist also limits you ability to read?
I explained, in some detail, about 4 pages ago how the structure of the WTC, which differs markedly from most lowrise steel framed buildings results in the floors pancaking very easily compared to a high mass, cross braced steel or concrete building.
Go back and read it.
What is also notable is how many of these nutters happily say things like "Newtons 3rd Law" and then go on to demostrate they haven't got a fricking clue what Newtons 3rd Law actually means in terms of physics!
for example:
"Newton’s Third Law dictates that any damage (distortion) that occurs to the lower portion as a result of the impact of the upper portion will also occur in the upper portion"
er, no. no it doesn't! Here is Newtons actual 3rd law:
[quote=What_Newton_Actually_said_in_his_3rd_law]
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It says nothing about damage, and nothing about accelerations (that's his 2nd law f=ma)
It should also be noted that i (correctly) used Newtons 2nd law about 4 pages ago so simply demonstrate that for the collapsing build to exceed 1g, it would have to experience a net downward force, and due to the buildings huge mass, to make even a noticeable difference to the accelerations, that force would require something like 15 Saturn 5 moon rockets all firing downwards simultaneously in order to be applied.
Now, as we didn't see 15 Saturn 5 moon rockets firing the building downwards into the ground, i think we can safely say your theories are complete twaddle eh.....
dissonance
The Manhattan project was fairly secret
er, nope, not even slightly secret it turns out!
More moles than the average school footy pitch 😉
I recommend reading Richard Rhodes seminal work on the development of the atomic bomb:
[img] 
[/img]
(838 pages of rigorously researched, cross referenced and often first hand information on the project)
Is the pyramid above a controlled explosion as well?
Does it look like a controlled explosion? Would it require a controlled explosion to make 000s of unconnected blocks collapse into a pile? Would the same thing happen if all the blocks were glued to their adjacent blocks?
The structure below was not strong enough to withstand the force necessary to decelerate falling part above
You mean the lower structure was unable to provide [u]any[/u] resistance? None at all? And yet the upper part was strong enough to withstand (resist) the force that destroyed the (structurally identical) lower part?
I explained, in some detail, about 4 pages ago how the structure of the WTC, which differs markedly from most lowrise steel framed buildings results in the floors pancaking very easily compared to a high mass, cross braced steel or concrete building.
No you havent actually explained anything .....Go back and read it.
Are you aware of how the 2 towers were actually constructed,
If you buy into the pancake theory of collapse why did the cores not remain in situ ????
it really is pointless I have more chance of persuading the pope there is no god as his belief is more rational than this guff
it really is pointless I have more chance of persuading the pope there is no god as his belief is more rational than this guff
Why does it always have to be about you ?
It was about me , some folk on here and the pope - Not sure how you missed that as normally you have such a great understanding of things 😉
You mean the lower structure was unable to provide any resistance? None at all?
Of course it provided resistance, but it was so minimal in its effect it may as well be none. Certainly wouldn’t be enough to show any visible signs of deceleration.
therefore unless additional energy is introduced to accelerate the upper portion
The system is the mobile part of the building, which is not closed in that new layers become mobile and are added to the moving mass.
The moving part gains momentum by the addition of more mass by each smashed and now mobile layer releasing its PE as KE, so the energy of the moving bit increases. Note momemtumm is p=mv. The mass of the moving bit increases, it also accelerates, so the v bit goes up too.
It is important only to invoke science if you understand it.
It was about me , some folk on here and the pope - Not sure how you missed that as normally you have such a great understanding of things
You and the Pope eh, two wonderfully well informed patriarchs 😉
It is important only to invoke science if you understand it.
You can say that again.
you could if you used thirty ton tea bags
Precisely!!! I’d need a thirty ton tea bag to stand any chance of hammering in a nail. Why?
it really is pointless I have more chance of persuading the pope there is no god as his belief is more rational than this guff
Indeed; but would it require a controlled explosion to make 000s of unconnected blocks collapse into a pile? Would the same thing happen if all the blocks were glued to their adjacent blocks?
If we took the top glass from a stack of pint glasss and dropped it back in from, say, 50cm*, will it a) fall to earth, breaking all the other glasses before breaking itself, or b) break some glasses and possibly itself before coming to a halt? If we took a steel-framed tower construction, damaged fewer than 20% of supporting columns across less than 5% of its height, would you expect the portion above the damage to fall symmetrically vertical and destroy the entire structure below it [u]before[/u] then destroying itself?
*relatively, way further than the tops of the towers descended
Ok, i say we all agree with Three_braincells that it was a conspiracy, and it was blown up by the US government.
So, now what you gonna moan about Three now that we are all agreed you are right?? 😉
No need to be a dick, maxtorque. And I didn’t say that anything was blown up by the US Government; Congress would never allow it Shirley.
Ok three fish. Imagine you have a building 22 floors high. I remove the 2nd floor, do you agree that the 20 floors above will squash the 1st floor below.?
It’s not in any way a direct comparison, but I’ll go along.
Yes, in your example the first floor would probably be crushed. Also, the third floor would probably exhibit considerable damage. Damage (distortion) would diminish rapidly from this point, though it’s possible that the tower would actually topple over.
I chose this for the soundtrack; other videos are available:
that's his 2nd law f=ma
Erm... Not really.
I only really said the documentary was compelling - not true.
[img] 
[/img]
^^^ look at me! Look a me!!
- ie that thousands of government employees conducted massively destructed and invasive pre-demolition prep on the twin towers which would easily have taken 6 months to a year and no one noticed. No one questioned anything. None of the survivors recall seeing strange men drilling strange holes
Why would it have taken such a massive team? And so long?
Why would it have taken such a massive team? And so long?
They were really big?
Is that a question? Or an answer? It doesn't really explain anything.
Yes, in your example the first floor would probably be crushed. Also, the third floor would probably exhibit considerable damage
Great, your response sounds plausible.
Now lets move the system on.
Do you accept that if the there was a floor below this system we described, then the 22 floors, lets assume the bottom 3 of them are now mobile debris, have mass and are moving at some velocity v? IE the 22 floors have not stopped, and the mass of moving material has increased by the mass equal to 1 floor?
Hmmm. Makes you think...
IE the 22 floors have not stopped, and the mass of moving material has increased by the mass equal to 1 floor?
Has the momentum changed?
Has the momentum changed?
Well the mass has increased and it has been accelerated by gravity. so both v and m are increased, so yes.
[quote=CharlieMungus ]Is that a question? Or an answer? It doesn't really explain anything.
YOU used to use your intelligence for things other than shit blatant trolling
Ok, so F=ma stops working, carry on.
That's pretty much the whole point, its a variable mass system and is hence not closed.
Also F depends on where you measure it..
YOU used to use your intelligence for things other than shit blatant trolling
Not trolling, just keeping the science on track and applying a slightly critical eye to some of the statements being made.
Also, "because they are big" is a bit of a crap answer really isn't it?
applying a slightly critical eye to some of the statements being made.
Mine will need corrections..
Also F depends on where you measure it..
Sure, it's a problem there is some elasticity in the building, more the higher you are. But I think for now we could consider the force at the interface between the falling bit and the bit underneath. So we have the force crushing the floor below and at the same time slowing the mass above, or at least reducing its momentum.
Sure, sounds reasonable.
I have a statement on the relationship between this force you have defined and the reduction of the momentum etc.
But I was hoping to keep three fish in the discussion and see if he or I can pick holes in each others story. So I kind of want his comments before moving it on too far, is that fair enough?
A simple experiment.
Take a raw egg and place in an egg-cup. Now take a 1Kg weight such as that from a set of old fashioned weighing scales and balance it on top of the egg. It will be supported no problem. Now lift the weight a couple of cm and drop it. The egg will crack and break into pieces.
That's the difference between a static and dynamic system.
The lower 85% of the tower was only designed to hold up the mass of top bit "statically". There's some redundancy in the design to allow for excess load but that's usually in the order of a few percent.
It's highly unlikely either top section of the towers would have fallen over. The towers were approximately 70mx70m in cross section so the centre of mass would have had to move at least 35 metres to lie outside the building walls. Each floor of the towers was just under 4m in height. The north tower was hit between the 93rd and 99th floor so there'd only be 11 to 17 floors of material, i.e. a maximum of 68 metres meaning its CofG would be around 35m above the impact. So for it to fall over that point would have to move 35m horizontally. Similar quick calc for the south tower gives a CofG for the section above the impact zone of 60m.
Look at video of the tops of the towers as they begin to fall, they wobble by a few degrees but nowhere near the amount needed for them to topple over. The path of least resistance for the falling mass was through the structure below.
5plusn8, you are completely ignoring resistance. Even if the lower part of the building were just a pile of steel and concrete, there’s going to be resistance, which is why the domino pyramid is actually quite useful - notice how it takes quite some time to overcome what little resistance is present in its system.
The lower 85% of the tower was only designed to hold up the mass of top bit "statically". There's some redundancy in the design to allow for excess load but that's usually in the order of a few percent.
Skyscrapers are designed to transfer force from the top of the structure to the bottom, it’s how they remain stable in high winds. To say they are only designed for static force is not true. With your eggsperiment, try it again with another egg instead of a 1kg weight. The object that fell into the WTC was also WTC, not something materially or structurally different.
The path of least resistance for the falling mass was through the structure below.
The path of least resistance was 80-something floors of solid steel and concrete?
I'm not, I want to get to resistance in a minute, will you answer my question?
Do you accept that if the there was a floor below this system we described, then the 22 floors, lets assume the bottom 3 of them are now mobile debris, have mass and are moving at some velocity v? IE the 22 floors have not stopped, and the mass of moving material has increased by the mass equal to 1 floor?
Demolition of these towers sounds like a piece of piss. Take a floor out (top or bottom, doesn't seem to matter) and it collapses into the basement, sure as eggs is eggs.
But it can't have been a controlled demolition because that would have taken thousands of people and weeks of preparation.
So is it hard or is it easy? I'm confused.
Also, "because they are big" is a bit of a crap answer really isn't it?
You asked why it would take a long time with lots of people. I suggested it was because it was big. Big buildings take lots of time and lots of people to rig for demolition.
Unless you know a quick way. Like fly a plane into it...
