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 ANOK
And again you are ignoring the 95 floors they are falling on. You main problem here seems to be your lack of understanding of the laws of motion. Falling 18ft is not enough distant to add any more force from velocity. Speed does not increase mass until it gets close to the speed of light and even then it's not much.
.
.
.
You have to calculate the forces of BOTH objects. You have to calculate the force of both the falling block of floors and the impacted block of floors, or the forces of the two impacting floors.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
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.
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 ANOK
Continued...
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
Yes it will cause a problem, but again you seem to think that falling floor would not also be equally effected by the impact.
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.
And again you are ignoring the 95 floors they are falling on. You main problem here seems to be your lack of understanding of the laws of motion. Falling 18ft is not enough distant to add any more force from velocity. Speed does not increase mass until it gets close to the speed of light and even then it's not much.
Originally posted by ANOK
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
How did the lower building section lose its integrity? There was no damage bellow the impact of the aircraft, unless you have new information?
Load bearing makes no difference we're talking about blocks of concrete and steel floor pans crushing themselves to the ground from gravity. You could have taken ALL the resistance of load bearing columns away, and just let the floors fall freely, they would still not completely collapse. There would be floors stacked up in the footprint.
You can try this at home. Take a pile of concrete slabs, and see if you can get 15% of the whole to crush the rest.
Use any method you like to hold them up, separate them with toothpicks, whatever, you will never be able to repeat what happened to the towers. Prove me wrong, or stop with the layman nonsense.
edit on 10/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
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.
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
HELLO HELLO you can get a drawing from the net of the truss layout then you can double that for the connections to the walls and core you can then multiply that answer by the number of fixings on a connection you HAVE been given the information you need to find this out AGAIN so off you go!!!
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
If you want people who ignore the core to stop ignoring it, explain how the core is offering resistance to the falling mass.
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 bottleslingguy
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
another fantasy world physics person..... Who said they gave simultaneously? Not me. My whole point (well at least a good part of it) is that the loads were NOT equally distributed as the upper portion fell. You can't possibly believe, as the upper mass fell, it did so level and plumb equally redistributing the weight on all the connections at the same time (not to mention the skin had to come to rest equally around the perimeter as if some giant hand placed it there slowly) . You just can't and if you do you are as silly as the rest.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The NIST said the core supported 53% of the weight. How could it not offer resistance? The horizontal beams would have to hit each other in any supposed collapse.
Vertical columns would be bent out of position. A random jumble of compressed material would be created between the two impacting blocks. The inertia of the stationary mass would slow the falling mass due to the conservation of momentum. That is why not having accurate data on the steel and concrete level by level is total nonsense.
I have already demonstrated the effect it would just be more complicated in the towers but the principles are the same.
The trouble is that the people who have chosen to BELIEVE in the conclusion of complete collapse must make a big deal of the complexities while leaving out simple distribution of steel and concrete data.
Of course after TEN YEARS they would look pretty stupid admitting they were wrong. That would include PhD physicists who mostly said nothing. How could they let this debate go on along with the wars? So we have to leave out the data necessary to understanding how skyscrapers hold themselves up.
psik
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If they don't give simultaneously then how can the floor slab not tilt and squeeze the core creating LOTS OF FRICTION and therefore not experience free fall?
It's called physics.
psik
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by psikeyhackr
that video is ridiculous. Not even close to matching the forces involved, not to mention matching the structure. Silly
How the WTC was built is no mistery.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
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.
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
HELLO HELLO you can get a drawing from the net of the truss layout then you can double that for the connections to the walls and core you can then multiply that answer by the number of fixings on a connection you HAVE been given the information you need to find this out AGAIN so off you go!!!
I never said I didn't know how many there were I said the pancake people don't talk about it. That would not serve the purposes of their propaganda physics. Like constantly talking about the FLOORS and pretending THE CORE does not matter.
psik