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.
Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
A: Matter in motion equals energy. A collapsing structure of this mass would generate an enormous amount of heat. Elementery physics.
B: Cascade falures do this. It's almost impossible for a structure to fall to the side. Note when south tower went down in the video footage. The upper floor started a tilt but with the tug of gravity and the overstressing on components it had no where to go but almost straight down. Also consider the steel curtain wall construction that acted like pipe attempting to contain the pressures.
C: Remember the innercore was concrete clad columns, they too once overstessed by the shifting weight lost integrety. Once a cascade starts unstoppable.
D: I can't truly answer this not being there but more than likely mangled up with the rest of the reckage.
I would like to believe the CTs but physics and science tells me otherwise. Maybe I read a lot and work with metal bulding engineers that spoils all the fun but makes sense when all the factors are brough in. I was one of the people watching the live feed saying those two would survive. When they did collapse I was dumbfounded and searching for answers until the farensics came in. I would also like to see them finding some cordite or other incindiary in the pile just to remove the regime from the beltway but it's not going to happen.
Originally posted by Masisoar
Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
A: Matter in motion equals energy. A collapsing structure of this mass would generate an enormous amount of heat. Elementery physics.
B: Cascade falures do this. It's almost impossible for a structure to fall to the side. Note when south tower went down in the video footage. The upper floor started a tilt but with the tug of gravity and the overstressing on components it had no where to go but almost straight down. Also consider the steel curtain wall construction that acted like pipe attempting to contain the pressures.
C: Remember the innercore was concrete clad columns, they too once overstessed by the shifting weight lost integrety. Once a cascade starts unstoppable.
D: I can't truly answer this not being there but more than likely mangled up with the rest of the reckage.
I would like to believe the CTs but physics and science tells me otherwise. Maybe I read a lot and work with metal bulding engineers that spoils all the fun but makes sense when all the factors are brough in. I was one of the people watching the live feed saying those two would survive. When they did collapse I was dumbfounded and searching for answers until the farensics came in. I would also like to see them finding some cordite or other incindiary in the pile just to remove the regime from the beltway but it's not going to happen.
A) And that energy seemed to make it hot enough to keep the molten steel/iron weeks after the collapse? I don't buy your theory first of all, of the momentum and force causing high thermal activity resulting in molten steel. Have you seen the NASA thermal imaging? How does that explain away the case for World Trade Center 7?
B) Yes but it managed to symmetrically bring down the whole building. You're putting more force on one side than the other, how do you intend to have a symmetrical collapse? My point is --> Symmetrical collapse out of an uneven applied force. It fell like World Trade Center 2.
C) Obviously
D) How about pre-collapse?
Science also tells a lot of other people otherwise. What factors? Are those the same engineers that claimed steel melting caused the building to collapse?
[edit on 9/11/2006 by Masisoar]
Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
This will answer you semitry problem. www.zombietime.com...
Observe the debris on the other buildings in the second pic southeast corner.
[edit on 12-9-2006 by AlabamaCajun]
Originally posted by Masisoar
Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
This will answer you semitry problem. www.zombietime.com...
Observe the debris on the other buildings in the second pic southeast corner.
[edit on 12-9-2006 by AlabamaCajun]
The symmetry problem was answered by showing pictures of a bottom corner bunch of exterior columns - that solves the symmetry problem - How does that solve the symmetry problem?
Originally posted by Masisoar
Because everything relatively falls to the center, or the middle of the building, tha tis, if the inner core was completely taken out, which it was apparently "for some odd reason" - for WTC 2's scenario, it began to tilt at initation of collapse, that doesn't mean the whole building's going to get up and say "well, if your going down, I might as well go down too" - if you've got angular momentum/force, pushing a majority in one direction, you're going to have more destruction in that part of the building, not simultaneously throughout the whole World Trade Center til it hits ground zero.
That's pure none-sense.
Symmetrical collapse with WTC 2 impossible? In this case, yes. Well, that is of course, unless the fulcrum's taken out (i.e. inner core miraculously) then you get your simultaneous collapse.
Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
They were designed to handle many times the weight of fixtures, people and office supplies etc. They were not designed for the total mass + inertia of falling upper levels.
Stack a few folding bingo/meeting tables 2 to 3 high. Now get 2 to 3 men to climb upon them.
Originally posted by bsbray11
No, they were designed to hold many times the maximum expected loads (dead AND live). You cannot rate a dynamic load in terms of a static load. Momentum would be transferred down the building just as the static weight is transferred down the building. A floor's worth of trusses and columns wouldn't just burst all at once and continue along without losing any velocity in the process, the whole way down.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Stack a few folding bingo/meeting tables 2 to 3 high. Now get 2 to 3 men to climb upon them.
This would only be relevant if the structure you've just described would be capable of holding some 6 to 10 men at the same time without failing, but only 2 to 3 climbed on top, and the structure was also efficient at transferring loads and ran into a firm structure in the ground. In this case I think you could pick the men up and drop them all you want (jumping introduces additional energy from muscle contractions, etc.).
It also wouldn't pancake, or fall table-by-table.
[edit on 15-9-2006 by bsbray11]
Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
L+D+W are only used in the calculation of static and mometary forces. Down sheer of truss hangers and welded truses are not calculated with the kind of force applied.
And yes it is true that all moments of inertia are transfered down through the columns, trees, lobby and sublevel loading transfer to bedrock. This is in the origional design but was comprimised by the lose of floor diafragm support.
More than likely the center would break collapsing down upon the table below resulting in it collapsing also.
Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
If you are attempting to do a brick by brick comparison of buildings to folding tables there lies your confusion. The tables are only a dramatization of systems collapse including consecutive collapses.