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 spy66
Actually, once the vertical supports are not directly contacting each-other, as is the case in the collapse, there is much less resistance. The collapse did not initiate with the floor below completely intact, and even if it did, the acceleration of the mass would have overcome the horizontal supports and caused shearing, the debris then twisting and bending the vertical supports down with them.
But that's how I see it, and it is an unpopular view here.
On videos you can see several perimeter columns still standing well above the collapse front during the collapse. A significant part of the core survived after all floors had already collapsed. Both these observations support a type of collapse where failing floors are the key. It contradicts the theory that charges took down the columns.
This is a structure if one part fails it can cause other parts to fail this was a TOTALLY CHAOTIC SYSTEM you cant MODEL IT !!!
Originally posted by Darkwing01
The collapses were uniform but not THAT uniform. Looking at them from the top the towers were in the shape of a square within a square. The one side of the square was falling faster than the other side, so that means that for your theory to work not only was the floors falling perfectly evenly in three dimensions, but were also stepped, so that one of the sides was higher than the other.
How do you explain the floors getting into that state?
I am waiting for you to admit that you were wrong about the calculation of the impact force. Common decency man, stop changing the topic.
Just say: "I was wrong when I claimed that the impact velocity could be non-circularly calculated in this instance given the data presented and the unknowns to be calculated".
I will respect you more, not less, I promise. You can even copy/paste the apology. Everybody makes simple physics mistakes every now and again, man up.
I read it two times, but what you write does not make much sense. Maybe you can explain it in a more coherent way?
And you still do not understand how velocity is one of the factors that determine the impact force.
Shear happens faster than compression = faster collapse.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
IT DOESN"T MATTER PLB!
The MAXIMUM force that the top of the building can possibly exert on the lower structure is the force required to accelerate the body 9.8m/s^2.
You cannot calculate the impact force without knowing how long it will take for object to stop after the collision.
WE ARE TRYING TO WORK OUT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE FOR THE OBJECT TO STOP AFTER THE COLLISION!
The impact force is a function of the deceleration experienced by the object, which is a function of the initial velocity at impact and the distance traveled before it stops.
i.e. how long it takes for it to be decelerated to 0.
Do you see kinetic energy or velocity in that calculation PLB, because I sure don't. Perhaps you should contact Newton and inform him of his error because WTC sure proved that velocity should be in there..... Or not....
You are trying to claim that it will accelerate, which introduces an infinity into the equation, rendering it meaningless.
See the problem?
Originally posted by -PLB-
Acceleration does not introduce an infinity. Acceleration can happen when the (average) resistance is lower than the gravitational force. And that is exactly what I am saying.
There is a reason for that, not enough energy from gravity for the concrete to completely pulverize itself. So the floors stack up, and create resistance that stops the floors continuing to fall through themselves.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
what i CAN show you is yellow hot steel, which means a massive amount of energy was introduced. the OS has nothing to account for it.edit on 20-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by shagreen heart
ok so i ctrl+F'd the whole thread with the term "wood", and dr. judy wood did come up a few times, but apparently everyone in this thread is too busy with their pissing contests to even look at the evidence presented. any truther that doesn't know who she is or denies her outstanding research and contributions are a complete shill and disinfo agent, or truly, truly ignorant, no exaggeration. this thread is a joke until the discussion about her research begins.
Originally posted by humphreysjim
Originally posted by shagreen heart
ok so i ctrl+F'd the whole thread with the term "wood", and dr. judy wood did come up a few times, but apparently everyone in this thread is too busy with their pissing contests to even look at the evidence presented. any truther that doesn't know who she is or denies her outstanding research and contributions are a complete shill and disinfo agent, or truly, truly ignorant, no exaggeration. this thread is a joke until the discussion about her research begins.
Space beams Judy???
Originally posted by shagreen heart
Originally posted by humphreysjim
Originally posted by shagreen heart
ok so i ctrl+F'd the whole thread with the term "wood", and dr. judy wood did come up a few times, but apparently everyone in this thread is too busy with their pissing contests to even look at the evidence presented. any truther that doesn't know who she is or denies her outstanding research and contributions are a complete shill and disinfo agent, or truly, truly ignorant, no exaggeration. this thread is a joke until the discussion about her research begins.
Space beams Judy???
what about the theory has to do with space? she states explicitly that she makes no claims what platform the energy was directed from, and if the term "star wars" technology is confusing you, these weapons are being developed anyway, it doesn't mean they go straight to space and are solely used there.
her credentials are perfectly suited to be an expert on the only thing that could have happened on 9/11, without question.