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 bottleslingguy
reply to post by ANOK
but the 15 floors aka bulk is falling and the lower floors aka bulk has lost its integrity as a complete structure and has become unstable not to mention the upper bulk is not hitting the supports dead on center so any load bearing ability has flown out the window.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Torn to shreds or not, all it needs to damage the lower structure is mass and velocity. whether the upper structure is 'torn to shreds' is beside the point. I don't see how this impacts the 'collapse due to impact and fires' theory.
Originally posted by ANOK
Yes, but what is stopping the top section from being torn to pieces in your world?
Originally posted by ANOK
According to you guys the top had to stay in one piece in order to crush the lower floors, Bazants crush down crush up hypothesis, but this is impossible. The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.
Understand equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, and you will understand why your hypotheses would not work in the real world.
Originally posted by ANOK
The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by ANOK
The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.
what do you mean "to crush more mass than itself"?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by ANOK
The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.
what do you mean "to crush more mass than itself"?
Again the claim of our resident OSers is that the top floors crushed the lower floors. as in the crush-down crush-up hypothesis of Bazant.
So the small mass is the top floors, the larger mass is the lower floors. One tower was 15 floors falling on 95 floors, 95 floors is a larger overall mass than 15.
The OSers want to ignore the mass of the undamaged floors and pretend, as in the NIST report, that complete collapse was inevitable. They also want you to believe that the mass of the top falling floors was only effecting one floor at a time, which is a reasonable claim until you realise that if you look at it that way you also have to consider that the top section impacting was only effecting the bottom floor of the upper falling block, and the force of the floors above that impacting floor, 14 floors, would effect that floor more than the top floor of the lower block. (I know that might be confusing but read it through a few times). So both impacting floors would be damaged causing, along with other factors, a loss of Ke and mass. Loss of Ke and mass means the collapse should have slowed down, and could not have been complete.
So in conclusion another energy must have been acting on the collapses that was not investigated.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by ANOK
The top floors would also have to be 'torn to shreds', and could not possibly have survived long enough to crush more mass than itself.
what do you mean "to crush more mass than itself"?
Again the claim of our resident OSers is that the top floors crushed the lower floors. as in the crush-down crush-up hypothesis of Bazant.
So the small mass is the top floors, the larger mass is the lower floors. One tower was 15 floors falling on 95 floors, 95 floors is a larger overall mass than 15.
The OSers want to ignore the mass of the undamaged floors and pretend, as in the NIST report, that complete collapse was inevitable. They also want you to believe that the mass of the top falling floors was only effecting one floor at a time, which is a reasonable claim until you realise that if you look at it that way you also have to consider that the top section impacting was only effecting the bottom floor of the upper falling block, and the force of the floors above that impacting floor, 14 floors, would effect that floor more than the top floor of the lower block. (I know that might be confusing but read it through a few times). So both impacting floors would be damaged causing, along with other factors, a loss of Ke and mass. Loss of Ke and mass means the collapse should have slowed down, and could not have been complete.
So in conclusion another energy must have been acting on the collapses that was not investigated.
Originally posted by ANOK
According to you guys the top had to stay in one piece in order to crush the lower floors
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
the problem I see with all these hypothetical calculations is that you can't assume the floors were all contacting evenly across the entire structure. What if a corner of the upper mass landed first? That area of the floor/walls had no chance withstanding the concentrated pressures applied to it.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.
Propaganda Physics!
psik
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well mr physics are you willing to even TRY to work out the impact force generated by the falling mass like I have said to YOU and others lets see your calculations!!!
Lets make it simple for you just use one floorslab that 700 tons of concrete forget the steel just use that to make it simple,so 700,000kg of concrete drops one floor to impact the next with the height of a WTC floor that will reach 18mph or just over 8 m/s.
You love newtons laws so why dont you use them to work out the impact force once YOU prove that 700,000kg hitting at 18mph hour or 8 m/s wont cause a problem then people would believe you.
Originally posted by GenRadek
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Notice they don't talk about how many connections there were all around the core and all around the perimeter for each floor slab. About 80 around the core and 120 around the perimeter. How could they all give simultaneously? But we see picture of individual connections all of the time to impress us with how WEAK they were.
Propaganda Physics!
psik
In comparison to steel I-beams welded and bolted to columns to create floors, yes, the floor truss design was far lighter and weaker and more prone to failure when faced with a vertical dynamic loading. The floor truss seats were not designed to take on the impact of 15 + floors hitting it at the same time. Why dont you read up on what they found in regards to the truss seats:
www.aws.org...
Now since you like physics and newtons laws so much lets link back to this in case others haven't seen this before.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
That example shows that a 1lb duck (0.5kg) hitting a plane at 600mph generates 12ton or 24,000 lbs of force
YES 24,000 times its weight!!!. (high velocity)
So do you really think that a FLOORSLAB which is 1,540,000 lbs (1.5 million times the ducks weight) impacting at 18 mph or 8 m/s (lower velocity than the duck impact but 1.5 million times the mass) really wont cause a problem
Now thats JUST one slab North Tower another 15 of those plus the heavier roof slab plus steelwork, South Tower 30 floors plus roof slab plus steelwork.
Now once you work out the energy the falling mass has just as it impacts the floorslab below it then becomes a work done equation thats the hard part working out how far the falling mass travels now since there are pictures showing sheared seats (the angle iron which the floorslab trusses were connected to) and sheared bolts that distance wasn't far.
So ANOK you have all the information you need to try and PROVE it couldn't happen lets see you work it out using NEWTONS laws you always preach.
I will make a prediction YOU and the others will deflect this question because of 2 reasons
1) YOU cant actually work it out.
2) YOU wont because it will show you are wrong
The other problem YOU always ignore is the fact each floorslab is independant of the other below due to being supported by the angle seats on the outer walls and core, and the fact that if a floorslab is not there the walls are not stable.
The problem with impacts is the more an object resists the GREATER the force thats why cars have front and rear crumple zones, if the force is disippated over a greater distance the impact on the occupants is less!.
Here is a calculator for impact force
www.livephysics.com...
wtc floor height was about 3.6 mtrs.
Lets put some figs in height 3.6 lets use a 100kg mass lets vary distance after impact try 1cm 10 cm 100cm
so that hard softer and even softer ground.
Using 3.6mtr drop height 100 kg and 1cm (thats 0.01 mtrs) in the calculator answer 352800 newtons using 10n/kg thats 35280 kg that 1cm use 0.1mtr and 1mtr results are 3528kg and 352.8 kg
You see impact forces are massive WAY above safety factors
Once the impact force reach the limit the bolts or angles could take they FAIL and the only way is DOWN thanks to gravity.
So do you see NOW how they came down!!!
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You keep talking about those 15+ floors OUTSIDE THE CORE but you provide no evidence that those floors became detached from the core. So the upper portion of the core would have had to come down on the stationary core below and all of those connections outside of the core are irrelevant. So your argument is built on ignoring what you want to ignore.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by ANOK
According to you guys the top had to stay in one piece in order to crush the lower floors
I wonder which resident "OSers" you are talking about. In fact, I only see truthers making claims like "the top had to be intact else the collapse would arrest".
Originally posted by ANOK
But for your crush down crush up hypothesis to work, the top block would have had to stay in one piece. That is what you are claiming right? That is what Bazant claims.
If the top was destroyed as it fell, then, as I keep saying, you are losing Ke and mass, thus the collapse could not have been complete. Floors would not be added to the mass, because they are being broken up and ejected away from the towers footprint.