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: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: mrthumpy
I really don't see how anyone can think a floor can hold up more weight than it is capable of holding. How does that work?
Think of it this way... each floor was capable of holding X maximum where X is a variable dependant on a number of factors.
If the load of the floor is beyond X it would collapse... agreed?
So the calculation for this would have to include the weight of the falling material minus the tolerance value X of each floor compounded. Now given that there was a great deal less material above the collapse than was below the collapse then the calculations show that what we should have seen is a slow down in the rate of collapse.
There simply wasn't enough energy in the collapsing part of the building to pulverise the entire building into dust.
This is not theory, it is defined by the very Laws of Physics themselves.
What we actually observed was in fact the exact opposite of what physics state should have happened.... an acceleration in the rate of collapse...
The only way the collapse could accelerate at the rate it did would be if there was next to zero resistance to the material falling... and that is why the OS doesn't add up.
Do you see?
Korg.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity
After 15 years, you cannot layout and explain a theory on the WTC towers to supersede and cause me to abandon inward bowing and failing of vertical columns do to floor beam contraction.
Very sad........
Your lack of logic in this respect is very telling of your shallow level of thought in general.
Cases that are unsolved, are so because there is not enough data to define exactly what happened.
This is not the same however, as looking at what has been said happened and then being able to say for certain that could not be the case because of various reasons.
The above is a founding principle of both the Judiciary system, and in fact our democracy. Something, that over the last few decades has been eroded away I might add... more so recently or has become more visible at least.
Korg.
originally posted by: mrthumpy
OK so how much energy was there and how much would be required?
originally posted by: neutronflux
If you cannot offer and debate an alternate theory than inward bowing and collapse, your efforts here are pretty useless. Especially when you do not hold conspiracy theories to the same scrutiny as inward bowing.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
To answer your question is a little hard as there are some variables that we simply do not know. It is clear however that the OS which is based upon the NIST report doesn't give an answer to this either, or rather an inadequate partial answer.
Korg.
www.nist.gov...
12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
originally posted by: neutronflux
Remember this? The NIST doesn't have an answer? Why does the movement only deal in half truths or flat out innuendo.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity
Repost the answer then
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity
Going to refute this with facts? Or just rant and speculate?
Surely you can muster more than a few of your own words though on this subject right? other than shoving a page of the NIST report in front of me and asking for my analysis??
O.K. then, shall we in brief breakdown what that wall of text from the report basicly means??
It basically states the obvious, that something in a gravitational field will fall... its that simple...
It then goes on to define the various values of the area undergoing collapse at the point of collapse. Note this is not about the entire collapse, just the area of initiation.
It then states that the conservation of energy was satisfied with the calculations.... that's because the calculations only take into account the section under collapse... it does not calculate the ENTIRE collapse...
A rather odd thing to do wouldn't you say?
Especially Given the report was about you know the ENTIRE collapse of the building!!
Korg.
a reply to: Korg Trinity
No it's not.
The falling mass had enough force and weight to overcome any rated load capacity of any given floor. The falling mass acted as a piston hitting the next static floor, shearing the floor connections. The horizontal bracing for the vertical columns was provided by the floors, the vertical columns lost stability as each floor section was stripped away. When enough horizontal support was gone, portions of the columns would topple. It only took about 10 seconds for all the floors to shear away and crash to the ground. It took longer for the vertical columns to completely topple over. Vertical columns were left standing for a few seconds after all the floors sheared and fell to the ground as documented in video.
Prove the first static floor hit by the falling mass could withstand the applied load of the equivalent of being hit by the mass of more than six floors.
Prove that a falling mass greater than any load capacity of an individual floor, and growing in force, would have been stopped.
If vertical columns thickness and capacity is adequately designed, prove individual floor strength and load capacity is a function of building mass.
Remember... What was observed was an actual acceleration in the rate of Collapse....
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Having watched the videos I somehow find it incredulous how no one can account for the acceleration in the rate of collapse. In my mind this can never be adequately explained away