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 Griff
That's what I've been wondering. How do columns that have supposedly buckled become severed in the first place?
Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by bsbray11
That's what I've been wondering. How do columns that have supposedly buckled become severed in the first place?
Buckling is an extreme form of deformation (permanent) not a tensile failure where the column actually separates from itself.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It would be akin to dropping a knife tip onto another knife tip and expecting them to meet perfectly and not have the falling knife slide off in some manner.
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
I keep seeing buckling of columns brought up by both sides, but has anybody yet shown proof of any buckled columns? Maybe I have missed it, but the only column I've seen pictures of that wasn't straight, was that one bent over(and it showed no signs of buckling).
Originally posted by Griff
How did the top knife separate from the bottom knife to begin with?
YADA YADA YADA
- NASA Scientist Ryan Mackey
Entire quote here
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Are you of the opinion that even under the idealized situation of a straight down collapse initiation - which didn't happen, btw - they would impact each other and have a reasonable chance of NOT sliding off each other in some manner?
Originally posted by Griff
Why not answer how this happened in the first place. Bowing floors? That the columns were designed to carry the load of their entire life x2-3?
Originally posted by Griff
BTW, BsBray brought up initiation on the top of this page. Therefore, still on-topic.
Originally posted by Griff
Just using your tactics back at you. Discouraging isn't it?
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It's an attempt to show that even given the impossibility of such an idealized collapse, it will not be able to stop collapse progression.
Originally posted by Griff
It's also an attempt to put fantasy into mathematical equations and come out with a right number.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
If you feel differently about that: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
To explain the collapse, it was proposed (on September 13, 2001; Baˇzant 2001; Baˇzant and
Zhou 2002) that viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns caused the top part of
tower to fall through the height of at least one story, and then shown that the kinetic energy of
the impact on the lower part must have exceeded the energy absorption capacity of the lower
part by an order of magnitude.
Originally posted by Griff
Do you also agree that it would only take one level's worth of explosives to collapse a tower?
Originally posted by Griff
You still have yet to prove what caused this "dynamic load" to begin with.