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 Nutter
The very fact it is opposing the motion means it is decelerating.
(countable) The amount by which a speed or velocity decreases (and so a scalar quantity or a vector quantity).
The brakes produce a deceleration of 10 metres per second per second.
Originally posted by GenRadek
Originally posted by ANOK
The observation of a lack of resistance
Originally posted by GenRadek
Originally posted by ANOK
Heat has to transfer through air to reach all that steel blah blah...You guys can't even explain how it's done,
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by ANOK
The observation of a lack of resistance
Quantify this statement, since you've now changed it, hopefully cuz you've realized you're wrong.
Before, you've said ZERO resistance. Now, LACK of resistance, which is vague.
Originally posted by ANOK
Any resistance in any point of the mechanism will cause the collapse to become asymmetrical as objects ALWAYS fall to the path of least resistance.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to post by Lillydale
I have no idea what you're looking for.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No.
Objects always fall down - the direction that gravity dictates.
After impact, they may be deflected to other paths.
If what you're saying is true, then you should feel safe holding a bowling ball overhead, since according to you, it will not drop on your head, since that is the path of higher resistance vs missing your head.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Objects always fall down - the direction that gravity dictates.
After impact, they may be deflected to other paths.
If what you're saying is true, then you should feel safe holding a bowling ball overhead, since according to you, it will not drop on your head, since that is the path of higher resistance vs missing your head.
Originally posted by ANOK
Your questions are answered already read them...
Originally posted by ANOK
What may? The buildings? So why then did this not happen?
The undamaged floors are the resistance.
The tower were steel falling on steel not a harder heavier object falling on a lighter softer one.
Originally posted by ANOK
I already proved you wrong so good luck with that.
Admit it you're flailing, you have no clue how to address my posts, the proof is in the thread.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Now you've changed your statement again. I just quoted you saying (correctly) that the undamaged floors provided the resistance.
Do some math, and figure out what the %age of the 206' x 206' footprint was covered by the floors. I'll guess it's something like 99% or so vs 1% steel columns.
So 99% of the debris will fall on the floors.
Now all you need to do is answer the question about whether or not the floors had the capacity to halt the debris.