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 Phoenix
Now that you have demonstrated that the panels could move outwards into open air, can you please explain in clear language how panels with a 2" gap between it and the column moves inward without the column moving also.
Originally posted by Valhall
This shows that 7 floors (70 feet) had collapsed on the east side of the building - that would be seven floors that the west side of the building would have to "catch up to" while being in a decreased state of compressive load.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Since there was no lateral stability in the core, it would not have put up much resistance to the collapse.
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
What is your conclusion from all this Valhall?
Are you coming to the obvious and simple conclusion that Professor Jones came to when he said this defied the Law of Increasing Entropy?
Originally posted by bsbray11
A minor thing, but each floor was about 12 or 12.5 feet high rather than 10, which is, I'm assuming, what you used in your calculation here. I would double-check though, because I could be wrong. I did a quick Google search, and those figures seem to come from dividing the height of a tower by the number of floors, but I think there's more to take into account than that.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Nice drawing.
I think from that it would be pretty clear that the core area of the lower portion of the building would be subjected to sideways forces as the top came down. Since there was no lateral stability in the core, it would not have put up much resistance to the collapse.
Originally posted by Valhall
And thank you very much! I really don't have any theory, so I'm open to consideration of just about anything! lol I'm just trying to find out for myself if these damned buildings could fall as they did, naturally. So, if you see something I tended toward that looks like a bad assumption, or a bad calculation, etc. PLEASE POINT IT OUT! I don't want to waste my time on errors.
I started with hand calculations on a 2D shotgun approach, but now I'm going to go to 3D modeling starting with very gross primitive looks at movements (say the angle of the top and getting straight in my mind what all that means to us on a gross level). Then I'd like to start modeling individual structural components and work out a good model that we all agree on. Because if we can't agree on the model, then we'll just keep arguing - for the sake of arguing. lol.
So, what I thought is that I would just check in every step of the way. That way if anybody sees me doing some wrong, they can catch it on that step, and we can work together (no matter what side of the fence a given person may be sitting on - I'm straddle it right now LOL) they can have a voice in it.
SO! In answer to your question(s) - I DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW! But hopefully we can find out together! Which is kind of an exciting adventure, isn't it?
Originally posted by Valhall
Thanks Phoenix!
Steel is .283 lb/cu.in. But SolidWorks incorporates the mass properties of the material you're using, so once I model something, it will automatically calculate that for us.
[edit on 2-21-2006 by Valhall]
Originally posted by HowardRoark
There is a lot of info in the appendixes. It is in scanned format so you have to go through it a page at a time.
Originally posted by craig732
Physics is not my strong suit... can anyone explain why a building that is being imploded would fall faster than a building that is collapsing? Thanks.
Originally posted by bsbray11
external image
Those columns from Ground Zero seem much bigger than any of the core columns NIST tells us about, and yet how do we know that no such columns were present on the relevant floors?
Or just below them? Then NIST wouldn't have to mention them at all, because they only try to explain collapse initiations in their report and only refer to global collapse as "inevitable" without any further information.
Basically I don't trust NIST, and it really annoys me that they're so stingy with info when they have the freaking construction drawings right in their faces. It seems that the best we can do here is about equivalent to getting average floor weights and applying them to the lightest floors, or having to compare the Twin Towers to other skyscrapers just to get an idea of how much they even weighed: we could be much more accurate with more accurate information.
The columns in the lower floors were primarily huge box columns as large as 12 in. by 52 in. composed of welded plates up to 7 in. thick.