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 Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Believe it or not, there is more to a collapse than mere crushing.
For now, we're focusing on the physics involved in the collapse, not the specific amount of everything.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Now you're just not making any sense. Again, the floors are not massive solid objects. It wasn't a floor-on-floor perfectly nice pancake collapse... Honestly, if I had the money and time, I would build a model that might accurately reflect some of this stuff, but I don't have money or time.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Believe it or not, there is more to a collapse than mere crushing. I know you won't believe it, but we'll keep arguing until you at least admit that there was more than "A lands on B and crushes it" with regards to the Trade Center collapses.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
So if I were to drop a 30lb bowling ball on your head, from 5 ft over you, you will remain unscathed? You weigh a lot more than a 30lb bowling ball, so does that mean the bowling ball will get damaged more than you?
Also, the lower 80 floors were not just one solid mass, like a tree trunk. Each floor was an individual section, and when the top 30 floors above started to move down as one mass, the immediate resistance would come from the first floor below the mass, and then that floor would add to the mass of the collapsing segment above. It accelerated as momentum grew and grew, as each floor below offered less and less resistance to growing mass collapsing as one unit above.
It would really help if you bothered to research the design of the WTCs first and also relearn the laws of physics. Something isnt clicking right for you when you make your physics arguements.
You are right there is more to a collapse than just crushing, there is Newtons laws of motion. When one floors impacts another floor, both floors would receive equal forces, if the static floor is crushed by the dropping floor then the dropping floor would also receive massage damage (as they were more or less equal mass). The bottom section will provide an equal and opposite reaction force to any downward accelerating force according to Newtons 3rd law.
With 30 floors dropping on 80 floors, the 30 floors would not last in one piece in order to crush 80 floors, the falling floors would all be gone before the static floors would be. There is NO way the 30 floors can continue crushing the 80 floors until the static floors were gone, AND then the 30 falling floors crush themselves. Impossible. The 30 floors would be gone before the 80 floors. This is fact according to known physics.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
You are right there is more to a collapse than just crushing, there is Newtons laws of motion. When one floors impacts another floor, both floors would receive equal forces, if the static floor is crushed by the dropping floor then the dropping floor would also receive massage damage (as they were more or less equal mass). The bottom section will provide an equal and opposite reaction force to any downward accelerating force according to Newtons 3rd law.
With 30 floors dropping on 80 floors, the 30 floors would not last in one piece in order to crush 80 floors, the falling floors would all be gone before the static floors would be. There is NO way the 30 floors can continue crushing the 80 floors until the static floors were gone, AND then the 30 falling floors crush themselves. Impossible. The 30 floors would be gone before the 80 floors. This is fact according to known physics.
Crush, crush, crush. You've got to get away from that simplistic concept of what occured on 9/11. The reactions, loadings, and failures were much more complex than simply one thing "crushing" another. Once you get past that misconception and stop trying to pretend that a building collapse is a high school physics exercise you will be able to see quite clearly why what happened, happened.
Originally posted by hooper
Crush, crush, crush. You've got to get away from that simplistic concept of what occured on 9/11. The reactions, loadings, and failures were much more complex than simply one thing "crushing" another. Once you get past that misconception and stop trying to pretend that a building collapse is a high school physics exercise you will be able to see quite clearly why what happened, happened.
Once you get past that misconception and stop trying to pretend that a building collapse is a high school physics exercise you will be able to see quite clearly why what happened, happened.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
No, but is your head going to destroy the bowling ball? After all, you weigh more and are much larger than the bowling that is dropping on yoru head. So I am just repeating the scenario you are claiming with your rediculous assumption of the floors below destroying the floor impacting it from above because it has similar to more mass, and because there are more floors below.
But it was not just one floor of the WTC coming down on top of the floor below it. How many times must this be repeated till it gets through to your head? We had 30+ floors moving as one unit, one mass, impacting the floor below it. Not just ONE floor byitself. i cannot believe you still dont even know the basics of the collapses! Its only been nearly 10 years!
Originally posted by ANOK
You are ignoring Newton again. For your floor to add to the mass you have to 1, ignore the resistance of the cross bracing and fasteners etc. 2, ignore NEWTONS 3rd LAW, the FACT that the top section would also be crushed and run out of mass before the bottom section was completely crushed.
Originally posted by FDNY343
Originally posted by ANOK
You are ignoring Newton again. For your floor to add to the mass you have to 1, ignore the resistance of the cross bracing and fasteners etc. 2, ignore NEWTONS 3rd LAW, the FACT that the top section would also be crushed and run out of mass before the bottom section was completely crushed.
Wait, so where does that mass go? What about the broken parts of the mass? Does it stop existing? Where does it go? YOUR argument violates the Conservation of Matter.
Where does it go?
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
I'm not sure if it means anything significant, but could the open air between each floor create enough potential energy for each floor as the building collapsed to allow it to keep its momentum and continue collapsing?
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I don't have the calculation, as I'm not an engineer. I have not claimed to have calculations, only a layman's ideas.
It is possible that the core twisted or bent rather than crushed down while the rest of the floor around it caused damage and fell and such. I know for a fact that part of the core in one tower remained intact for a moment after the tower collapsed, so that indicates that the floors around the core were what was mainly being destroyed by the collapse, doesn't it?
Correct me if I'm missing something.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Your admission of not having any information on the amount of energy required to break the floor assemblies loose from the core and perimeter demonstrates that you don't know enough to have a relevant opinion.psik