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: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye
I am done playing, and this is why.
You reference pictures than the actual statistics of WTC clean up tonnage.
You told me I could not reference those silly load capacities of WTC floors.
You want to treat the towers as a solid single mass object that cannot be deformed.
Will not define how the force of collapse of the falling floors was instantaneously and informally transferred to the static portion of the towers.
You will not reference how energy was needed to cause pulverization.
You will not state or reference how much mass was pulverized into oblivion vs actual tower mass recovered.
originally posted by: facedye
i did define how the energy was transferred. 30 floors fall on 80. 30 stacked wrecking balls fall on 80 stacked wrecking balls. 30 stacked cars fall on 80 stacked cars. the phenomenon here will always be the same. the 30 cars, in this example, would fall onto 80. the force of the impact is absorbed by the cars at the top as well as the cars on the bottom, dynamically. things get destroyed, absolutely. however, the 30 falling cars *will not* continue to fall straight through the 80 below them.
originally posted by: facedye
again, pulverization is a term used by mainstream media sources. i'm going off of the official story given. are you calling Peter Jennings and George Stephanopolous wrong?
.
originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux
that photograph has MUCH scale and depth. you can easily find very many aerial photographs if you actually wanted to make a case against the photo. too bad you didn't choose to do that.
From: www.uwgb.edu...
Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.
The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.
So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected.
originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: samkent
WTC 1 & 2: 500,000 tons each
and what about WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7? are you saying that 5 additional buildings being completely destroyed can be summed up to only contain 800,000 tons of debris? this is inadequate.
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: facedye
i did define how the energy was transferred. 30 floors fall on 80. 30 stacked wrecking balls fall on 80 stacked wrecking balls. 30 stacked cars fall on 80 stacked cars. the phenomenon here will always be the same. the 30 cars, in this example, would fall onto 80. the force of the impact is absorbed by the cars at the top as well as the cars on the bottom, dynamically. things get destroyed, absolutely. however, the 30 falling cars *will not* continue to fall straight through the 80 below them.
No no no no.
You are treating the objects as solids that cannot be deformed.
You totally ignore the towers are composed of floors with load limits that transfer their stress to vertical columns through connections. Connections that are rated only for a specific amount of load capacity in specific geometries. The floors themselves are not solid pieces of steel of uniform mass. They are composed of concrete and numerous individual steel components.
One, wrecking balls and cars are not buildings that are 95 percent space.
Two, you can collide two wrecking balls with enough force they will deform. Enough force and the will fail. Crack apart.
The cars. The they are not buildings. They are more like a pile of rocks. The have relatively little empty space with very solid engine blocks. The rigidity of a pile of cars does not rely on connections to vertical columns.
But what are you saying, the cars will not deform? You drop 30 cars with payloads on to a free standing pile of 80 cars, cars will not compact? The total height of 110 cars will be the same before and after deformation has occurred. Again. It comes to force of impact.
WTC towers are not solids of uniform mass. They are 95 percent space. You have failed to state how the falling floors transferred their force instantaneously and uniformly to vertical columns. You have fail to state how the static portion of the towers acted as a solid that is impossible to deform.
You ignore the very real deformation to failure of floor connections and the inability to transfer force through those failed connections to the vertical structure.
And you still ignore the statements from the NIST.