It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
with each successive floor the momentum should be slowed as the floors below are absorbing the energy
Originally posted by abcddcba
in the second case where the only thing holding up the floors are joints then 28 floors dropping 1 floor down should have destroyed the floors below it and with each successive floor the momentum should be slowed as the floors below are absorbing the energy released when those 28 floors suddenly dropped 1 floor height, or level.
Originally posted by abcddcba
anyone should be able to see that in either scenario the towers should not have collapsed the way they did. if the floors below are holding up the floors above then you have to use the what im going to call pyramid theory because i cant remember the law right now.
again you like the other guy are forgetting resistance. the only way it would just keep going is if it fell 28 stories/floors before making contact with the next level/floor below. whats with this semantics you guys are playing with the word floor? it means the **** thing you are standing on right now that is being supported by the floor and beams below it unless you live an a basement. if you have a 5 floor/story(its the same thing dont play word games with me) building and you suddenly make the 2nd floor dissapear the top 3 floors will fall down 1 floor/level/story and the combined weight with the force of gravity (Fg=m(m=mass)*g(g=9.81m/s/s)) will crush the floor that they fell on in this case being the bottom floor. if you have a 100 story building and you make the 77th floor dissapear, the 23 floors above will not ave enough force to just destroy the remaining 76 floors below them its physically ***** impossible. this is why the wtc shouldnt have fallen down like they did. even if you took out 10 floors its still not enough. you would have had to have taken out the middle 3rd of the building for there to be enough energy to destroy the rest.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by abcddcba
in the second case where the only thing holding up the floors are joints then 28 floors dropping 1 floor down should have destroyed the floors below it and with each successive floor the momentum should be slowed as the floors below are absorbing the energy released when those 28 floors suddenly dropped 1 floor height, or level.
You seem to forget that after every floor that collapses, the entire top section plus that extra floor is pulled down again for several meters by gravity, speeding it up and generating all fresh and new momentum to crush the next floor. This momentum can only be larger than it was on the previous floor because the crushing mass increased by one floor and there is residue momentum from the collision from the previous floor. So with each floor, momentum increases. The model in that video is flawed as it does not represent the actual structure.
also where are you getting this idea that the mass increased?
So that brings us back to the issue of why we don't have that information after NINE YEARS and why supposed experts haven't been demanding that information for all of that time.
Originally posted by samkent
So that brings us back to the issue of why we don't have that information after NINE YEARS and why supposed experts haven't been demanding that information for all of that time.
Because the real experts don’t have any issue with the OS of the collapse. It’s only the ‘web experts’ who do.
in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up every LEVEL must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the LEVELS above
People can't comprehend that in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up every LEVEL must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the LEVELS above therefore the designers had to figure out how much steel was needed on each LEVEL.
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by psikeyhackr
in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up every LEVEL must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the LEVELS above
Are you simply ignoring my posts ? I have explained this to you over and over .
The "levels" DID NOT support the levels above them ! Why do you keep ignoring this ???
As for increased mass , I'm really puzzled by your question . If five floors drop onto another floor , you now have six floors dropping . when those six floors drop onto another floor , you now have seven floors dropping . When those seven floors drop onto a floor , you now have eight floors dropping . With each successive floor failure , the mass that is dropping increases by the weight of one more floor level . Can you not see that ? So , how does the momentum decrease , while the mass that is falling , increases ? Physically impossible
Since the floors were never build to carry the weight of the top section, it seems to me they would fail easily. Especially when you consider the dynamic load was equivalent to 30 times the top section weight (according to Wikipedia).
So on what exactly do you base that this is "inconceivable"? Which scientific study?
Originally posted by Nathan-D
You actually see the top-section pivot outwards in one of the videos, which means it couldn't have collapsed symmetrically straight down through the building, unless it straightened up. Why don't you tell us all about this gigantic dynamic load that contains the mass distribution information to show how it got around the conservation of angular momentum to straighten up after reaching unstable equilibrium?
Before disappearing from view, the upper part of the South tower was seen to tilt significantly and of the North tower mildly. Some wondered why the tilting did not continue, so that the upper part would pivot about its base like a falling tree see Fig. 4 of Bažant and Zhou 2002b. However, such toppling to the side was impossible because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elastoplastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3x Bažant and Zhou 2002b.
We see the same exact symmetrical global unified descent at an unnatural consistent unwavering near-free-fall rate despite different damage and vastly different weights above. The towers were designed to support their weight, so the idea they could have crashed themselves at essentially freefall while simultaneously being pulverised to dust due to gravity alone seems highly improbable to me.
And you ask me for a scientific study, well, I could ask you the same thing. NIST haven't even explained in detail how the towers collapsed, in fact, their computer models inexplicably stop at the collapse initiation. I would like to see a scientific study proving a natural collapse.
I linked to a study in my previous post. Look at the references in that paper for more details. So why are you asking? Are you rejecting that study? Why?
Although I am unable to confirm the validity of this without doing a lot of studying, as I am no expert in this field.
Originally posted by Nathan-D
I've explained my case above. The towers came down at essentially freefall which violates basic physics. There is nothing exceptionally hard about knowing what G is. Free-fall acceleration is acceleration of an object acted on only by force of gravity. You're telling me this is too hard to understand and this is possible in a gradational collapse of a steel-framed building?
Right. So you admit you don't understand it enough to confirm its validity. If that is the case, then why are standing by it? As I said, if the top-section begins to pivot away from its centre of mass it cannot straighten up unless acted on by an equal and opposite force.