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
Originally posted by Azp420
but the bottom of the wave of destruction accelerates at a very uniform rate of about 2/3rds free fall.
See.... this is why many people just don't get physics. I don't mean to be an ass but you can not have acceleration and at the same time have uniform rates of speed. That contradicts itself in physical terms.
Originally posted by Azp420
Cantilever floor slab, ever heard of it? I shouldn't have to explain the principles of it to you.
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by Azp420
Cantilever floor slab, ever heard of it? I shouldn't have to explain the principles of it to you.
Please don't embarrass yourself any further. There were no cantilever floor slabs. Do you even know what cantilever means? Do you even know what makes the difference mathematically? I do. Let me give you a hint: Moment.
Originally posted by Azp420
There was a wave of destruction which traveled down the building. The bottom point of this wave of destruction accelerated constantly at ~2/3rds free fall.
I will ask you again, is it your opinion that the falling top section maintained a constant velocity, or did it decelerate?
Edit: I hope you were not confused when I said "uniform rate of acceleration". This does not mean uniform velocity. It is possible to have uniform acceleration.
Originally posted by Azp420
I didn't say they were employed on the towers. I was just correcting you when you said they did not exist on any structure, hoping to save you from any further embarrassment next time you wanted to make an uneducated statement like this.
Haha good one, ask if I know what cantilever means when I educated you about it.
This destruction of the bodies assured that no exact determination could ever be made regarding who was piloting the jets at impact, and the condition of the people on board.
The aircraft impacts and fires in all probability would not have destroyed a single body beyond positive identification. Nor have building collapses ever been known to destroy human remains beyond recognition. However, the buildings were destroyed in a manner that converted most of their non-metallic contents to homogeneous dust, including the bodies. This destruction of the bodies assured that no exact determination could ever be made regarding who was piloting the jets at impact, and the condition of the people on board.
This is one of many examples in which evidence which could either confirm or refute the official story was destroyed. For example, a finding that the people onboard Flights 11 and 175 had been killed by some means before reaching the Towers would undermine the official story of multiple hijackings. The effective cremation of the bodies eliminated most of the evidence that would support such a finding.
Originally posted by Azp420
Haha good one, ask if I know what cantilever means when I educated you about it.
How did you measure the costant acceleration of 2/3thrds free fall? That's pretty precise you know.
Either or is not acceleration.
It is possible but then there is what is known as "terminal velocity" which means constant speed but zero acceleration. I know I'm being an ass with the physics terms but it's good to get them right. Correct?
Yet I'm the nutter?
The thickness of the concrete slabs varied from perimeter to core.
What? No they didn't. And no they don't in every single building out there.
Originally posted by Nutter
And did I ever say that his experiment was null and void? No, I didn't. Just not conclusive as I have shown a thermite type reaction with gypsum.
How can you prove that this kind of environment will naturally produce your drywall-thermite?
How did he conclusively prove that it didn't?
Why do you think I HAVE taken an intersest in this?
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by Azp420
Haha good one, ask if I know what cantilever means when I educated you about it.
HaHa. I asked you what the mathematical difference was. If you can show me, then I'll continue to speak with you. If not, then you are not worth my time.
BTW, I gave you a hint above.
[edit on 22-8-2010 by Nutter]
Originally posted by Azp420
The thickness of the concrete slabs varied from perimeter to core.
What? No they didn't. And no they don't in every single building out there.
Ah that's the one. Now you know. You're welcome.
Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Originally posted by Nutter
And did I ever say that his experiment was null and void? No, I didn't. Just not conclusive as I have shown a thermite type reaction with gypsum.
The difference is, he took all the materials and threw them together and lit them up to simulate Ground Zero. There was no corrosion to the beam. Not even with drywall pulverized to a fine dust and with molten aluminum all over it.
You only posted videos of a guy making the stuff himself, intelligently and with human control, which is light-years of difference.
But what do you think he did wrong, that no such reaction as you're claiming took place?
If so, the burden isn't his, but your own, to recreate the environment like he did to test and show how this can be possible in the circumstances.
It's a purely theoretical interest, until you actually demonstrate that this is a real threat to buildings or even smoldering debris of buildings.
I see what you are saying now. It actually helps to quote what you are replying to. I guess I should have said that "every single building built with a floor between two columns out there". But, I thought it was a given. My bad.
Originally posted by Azp420
In a basic cantilever moment is max at the support end (negative from a structural point of view under the normal direction of forces) and varies down to zero at the free end. The rate at which it varies depends on the forces applied. Because there is progressively less moment that needs to be carried the further from the support, the cantilever may also decrease in size as it gets further from the support.
BTW, exactly what does this have to do with the 2 pieces of WTC7 again?
Originally posted by Azp420
A simple beam is simply supported at each end against vertical displacements only, not against any rotational displacements, therefore under normal loading it only experiences positive moments. If the loading is uniform, such as self-weight, the max moment in the middle of the beam is equal to w*L^2/8, where w=load per unit length, L=length of member.
By the 2 pieces do you mean the external and internal structures?