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.
In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
First of all in answer to your BS re the spire you seem to forget this Slim column buckling.
In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding
The important parts are underlined because obviously this subject is way over your head!
Then the collapse YOU keep going on like a stuck record about 15 v 95 floors.
ONLY the floorslab the mass falls on can resist the load NONE of the ones below can help!!!!
If falling mass hits a column then that has support from below BUT the floors DONT they are suspended between the walls and core!
When the falling mass hits a MASSIVE imapct load is generated if that EXCEEDS the strength of the angles the welds that hold them or the bolts they snap its that SIMPLE.
THAT FLOOR can then drop 12 ft to the next hit that at 18mph minimum and all the previous mass continues to fall.
Why dont you re read NEWTONS LAWS when an IMPACT occurs and follow it through.
Here go to Hyperphysics and read about the 1lb duck hitting a plane.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
It generates 12 tons of force!!!!!!!
So how much force would the falling mass which is MILLIONS of times that of the duck generate even if the impact was at 18mph and not 600mph.
Lets see if you can answer that?
5.1 Newton's third law
...Is one object always the “order-giver” and the other the “order-follower”? As an example, consider a batter hitting a baseball. The bat definitely exerts a large force on the ball, because the ball accelerates drastically. But if you have ever hit a baseball, you also know that the ball makes a force on the bat --- often with painful results if your technique is as bad as mine!
How does the ball's force on the bat compare with the bat's force on the ball? The bat's acceleration is not as spectacular as the ball's, but maybe we shouldn't expect it to be, since the bat's mass is much greater. In fact, careful measurements of both objects' masses and accelerations would show that mballaball is very nearly equal to -mbatabat, which suggests that the ball's force on the bat is of the same magnitude as the bat's force on the ball, but in the opposite direction.
4. Which of the following statements are true about collisions?
Two colliding objects will exert equal forces upon each other even if their mass is significantly different....
Answer....
a. TRUE - In any collision between two objects, the colliding objects exert equal and opposite force upon each other. This is simply Newton's law of action-reaction.
i. When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater collision force.
Answer...
i. FALSE - In any collision, the colliding objects exert equal and opposite forces upon each other as the result of the collision interaction. There are no exceptions to this rule.
Originally posted by ANOK
That old claim is nonsense for many reasons.
For one, no steel column is going to fall straight down, it will fall in an arc at the point of failure.
Secondly, why would the dust not just follow the column? Why was there so much dust on a column that had just been stripped of all that was attached to it? Wouldn't the dust have all been knocked off already?
Thirdly, where do you see the column as it falls? Why do we not see it fall? We simply see it start to fall, straight down, and then suddenly nothing but dust.
Fourthly, steel columns do not fall straight down.
Fifthly, steel columns do not fall straight down.
The videos are fine, you are not an expert on video quality, you are simply blindly repeating nonsense that has been claimed for years.
Originally posted by ANOK
But what happens when the bolts shear, and all the floors stack up on top of each other? They have nowhere else to fall so they resist anymore movement. But of course the floors didn't stack up because they were ejected during the collapse, so you are losing mass, and Ke, in order to continue crushing floors. Again you can't have it both ways.
Yes, and again though we don't observe during or post collapse the claims you are making. If it happened as you claim the floors would be stacked up in the footprint, and the core would still be standing.
But where is the evidence the falling load could generate enough energy to snap bolts but NOT also destroy the floors? Do you have ANY evidence the floors themselves could take more load than the bolts and welds?
What has the speed got to do with it? Are you not paying any attention to the laws of motion? Once again forces on two colliding objects are the SAME, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. You are still naively thinking that the object with velocity somehow puts more force on the static object, which is untrue and has been shown to you a billion times now.
..............
And guess what genius? The plane put 12 tons of force on the duck, equal and opposite reaction, you can't get away from Newtonian physics no matter how hard you try.
Whatever force is created, the forces on impact would be equal. Velocity increases the forces felt by BOTH objects, how many times do you have to be told this?
Forces ALWAYS come in pairs, that is a fundamental fact of physics. The forces on colliding objects is always equal regardless of velocity or mass. How much more proof of this do you need?
Originally posted by joemelon
Direct visual evidence exists in the videos which show...
No, though it is amazing how people can put words in other peoples' mouths. Why did you not quote my whole post? Would it then have been too obvious that I did not expect that to happen?
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by joemelon
Direct visual evidence exists in the videos which show...
It's amazing how such smart people can be so wrong. Do you really believe the upper floors should have come to rest on top of the lower section because it was just holding it up a few minutes earlier? That's funny!!!
Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
I would love to hear the answers, I am not totally convinced by the whole 16 crushing one, 17 crushing one, 18 crushing 1 therefore the whole building is destroyed theory, I'm not a clever or technical person so some examples would be great.
Originally posted by joemelon
As far as the duck hitting the plane: ever notice how the duck is completely obliterated by the impact?
Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by bottleslingguy
Are there any other examples where the same phenomena is observed happened?
Can this be re-created by experiments?
I would love to hear the answers, I am not totally convinced by the whole 16 crushing one, 17 crushing one, 18 crushing 1 therefore the whole building is destroyed theory, I'm not a clever or technical person so some examples would be great.
The reply is open, it was more addressing bottleslingguy but anyone can answer of course.
reply to post by joemelon
It should be expected that people mis-understand just through the process of the bell-curve, with random people replying you will get confusion - however you seem right when you say the OS is not a valid explanation - sometimes its just having the right metaphors to use to explain - what happened to Galileo.edit on 4-10-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by joemelon
the "top" mass grew larger as it landed on each floor below which became a bigger duck with each floor failure. Don't forget the floors below are not being landed upon with equally distributed mass so your calculations fly out the window. You have no idea from the videos or anything else how each beam and other parts of the structure fell. Once the attachment points between the floors and outer shell are broken with the growing mass on top, all bets are off.
It would generate a huge amount of force.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by joemelon
I showed the DUCK EXAMPLE to give you an idea of how collision forces work a 1lb duck at the 600 mph impact created 24,000 lbs of force, 12 tons!!!
Be honest with yourself what would you have given as an answer if asked what force the 1lb duck would generate?
So how much force on impact would 15 floors of concrete and steel generate thats what you guys fail to see!!
So how much would 10,500 tons of concrete and a few thousand tons of steel generate hitting at 18 mph!
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by joemelon
I showed the DUCK EXAMPLE to give you an idea of how collision forces work a 1lb duck at the 600 mph impact created 24,000 lbs of force, 12 tons!!!
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.