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.
The degree of concrete pulverization observed during the destruction of WTC 1 would have required over 600 tonnes of high explosives.
Originally posted by Insolubrious
A gravity driven collapse would not 'pulverise' the building!
The degree of concrete pulverization observed during the destruction of WTC 1 would have required over 600 tonnes of high explosives.
600 tons of TNT or should we say 0.6kt nuclear device.
Anyhow, the buildings concrete was not pulverised as the 9/11 commision report would have us call it. Molecular dissociation would be a more accurate term and this is only possible with a nuclear device. Gravity and/or TNT will not cause Molecular dissociation. Gravity driven / pancaked buildings would have produced many large chunks of concrete debris at the base, it would not of even come close to the micron scaled devistation at WTC.
What about an explaination for the pools of molten iron too? I suppose the heat and friction generated by the gravity collapse did this? Charred and burnt out wrecks of cars around the building? Surely if this was true the explaination would tailor for all these 'unexplainable' events.
[edit on 9-11-2006 by Insolubrious]
Originally posted by crowpruitt
Not to mention the steel beams sticking out of surrounding buildings,
Originally posted by crowpruitt
and the bone fragments on the rooftops
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by crowpruitt
Not to mention the steel beams sticking out of surrounding buildings,
How is this relevant to the discussion of the energy required to pulverize concrete?
If you have a specific comment about the above linked paper, then please reference the specific page number. The discussion is about the energy required to pulverize concrete, not how much energy was required to eject steel beams.
Thus we see that the first major energy transfer in the collapse of WTC 1 occurred when 2.1 gigajoules of kinetic energy was delivered to the 627 tonnes of concrete on the first impacted (~95th) floor. We now consider how concrete would behave under this degree of impact loading.
In order to determine the energetics of this collapse we note that the drop distance was 3.7 meters and with the relation v = ?(2gh) we find the impact velocity, vi, was 8.52 m/s.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Since the amount of kinetic energy available would increase as the collapse progressed, this percentage would decrease.
You have voted bsbray11 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.
In this report we will focus on the collapse of WTC 1 since the upper section of this Tower had much less kinetic energy available to pulverize concrete than the energy available from the collapse of WTC 2. It follows that the energy budget for the collapse of WTC 1, compared to WTC 2, represents the more stringent test of the “natural collapse” hypothesis. In other words, if the available evidence demonstrates that the collapse of WTC 1 released sufficient energy to account for the observed pulverization of the concrete in the building, the collapse of WTC 2 would have been even more energetically favorable to the pulverization of concrete.
As described in some detail in Greening’s “Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse” the concrete on the 95th floor of WTC 1 was impacted by the mass of the 15-storey block of floors above the aircraft impact zone.
Originally posted by bsbray11
That paper assumes that the full initial kinetic energy of the falling mass went DIRECTLY to crushing the concrete, NOTHING ELSE.
Thus we see that the first major energy transfer in the collapse of WTC 1 occurred when 2.1 gigajoules of kinetic energy was delivered to the 627 tonnes of concrete on the first impacted (~95th) floor. We now consider how concrete would behave under this degree of impact loading.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Another bad assumption:
In order to determine the energetics of this collapse we note that the drop distance was 3.7 meters and with the relation v = ?(2gh) we find the impact velocity, vi, was 8.52 m/s.
There was no 3.7 meter free-fall when either of the buildings gave out. It wasn't like 3.7 meters of structure just disappeared and the top parts just fell straight down through air. It was resisted the whole way down.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I also see references in his paper to his other paper on WTC momentum transfer, which has already been shown to be total bunk on at least two counts: lack of momentum transfer down the building, and assuming all mass went directly to crushing with 100% efficiency, and each floor condensing back into a single body of twice the mass at each floor.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Since the amount of kinetic energy available would increase as the collapse progressed, this percentage would decrease.
This is another example of a bad assumption Greening makes.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Most of the mass was lost over the sides of both buildings during collapse, as can be gathered not only from Ground Zero, but the massive ejections DURING the collapses.
Thus, less and less mass, not MORE and MORE. And, the structures thickened on the way down, another variable Greening fails to include, surprisingly enough.
Originally posted by bsbray11
What part of that suggests that all mass just fell straight down, increasing from floor-to-floor, with none being lost or ejected over the sides?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Valhall
Uhhhhh...why is he saying that? Not even NIST claims the entire weight above the collapsing floor was falling on a given floor. NIST claims that a given floor collapsed on to the floor below it. Even you have taken that yourself and stated basically that individual floors were collapsing on to the one below them until there was insufficient support for the core to remain standing. But no one floor is theorized to have been smacked by a big block of floors above it.
Right?
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wrong. He started out by calculating the maximum total energy available, then he calculated the amount of energy required to achieve the specified degree of pulverization, then he compared the two.
By what? Buckling columns? Plastic hinges?
Provide some data that shows just how much this resistance energy was.
No, it has been shown that the critiques of his earlier paper were wrong in the way that they “double dipped” into the energy expenditures.
So, are you claiming that a falling body does not gain momentum when it falls?
That makes no sense whatsoever. The falling mass did not get lighter as it fell.