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: wmd_2008
a reply to: dragonridr
Models are fine to show how something looks the problem is the square cube law.
Models under load dont repilcate EXACTLY how the structure would behave, thats why when used in tv/films the results look so false.
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: mrthumpy
Yes I have seen that before but to explain better if you built a 100th scale WTC Tower it would be about 14 ft high and 2 ft x 2ft square.
The decking the concrete floor was poured on was about 2mm thick at 100th scale thats 0.02mm.
Drop a piece or real decking it will fall to the ground like dropping a stone the scale model decking would gently float to the ground thats what I mean about models not showing accurate looking collapses.
It's perfectly possible to make a model which will replicate a pancake collapse it just truther sites go the wrong way about it but a model still looks like a model and could never show what you see with full scale materials and the DYNAMIC loading of the event.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity
No understanding on what you believe?
Not able to piece together a theory of what brought down the towers?
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.
13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST's analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.
In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).
After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity
You are not helping your cause. You really don't understand you cannot treat the towers as a uniform inelastic solid.
Sad that after 15 years you will not give one and outline a theory that can supersede inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
No no... to reiterate... As the building collapsed onto the material below, the resistance from said material would have exerted an upwards force on the material coming down.... that means the rate of collapse would have slowed... in this case when you run the numbers the collpase would have slowed to a standstill..