It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OrionStars
youre saying that compressed air has a lot of force yeah?
Your question begs this question. Have you ever stood in front of an air compressor and been hit with a blast of compressed air? If so, please tell us if you think it lacked pressure.
so, based on what you wrote, would you admit its possible that the "squibs" MAY NOT have been explosives?
Now that I saw my specific cited reference, I can properly answer the question. Why are you asking me about "squibs" I did not mention. Exactly which squibs would those be?
Critical failure in understanding how structures work.
Zeuzzz has made a very critical error in his not quite so free-body diagram (there's actually more than just one, but I'll just touch on the important one).
The lower structure cannot impart a horizontal force of any magnitude into the upper block. The force he labels as Rf has two components, a vertical and a horizontal. I show the horizontal below. See the second figure below.
A normal undamaged structure can resist horizontal forces (typically referred to as a shear) such as wind and earthquake. In the case of wind forces, the wind pushes against the exterior frame work/columns, this force is delivered to the diaphragm (the flat plate you laymen call concrete floors) to the lateral elements that are parallel to that force. In our problem here, the diaphragm (floor plates) have been destroyed on the upper floors of the lower block. With an angle of 20 degrees and a tower width of 208ft we know that the height of the upper triangle is 71 ft. That's over 5 stories that have lost their diaphragm (no jokes please). The two column lines (that's half the tower, see the third figure below) that are normal to this force have no lateral capacity. The columns on the line that is parallel with the lateral force do have some lateral resistance, but not much without a diaphragm (this is due to stability, which is a textbook worth of information).
Ultimately, the only force the lower block applies on the upper block is a pure vertical force. But even then we need to step back and look at what is really happening. Zeuzzz makes the same error all the want to be scientist truthers make in assuming that the upper and lower block are homogeneous solid objects. They are not. They are an intricate lattice work of discrete steel members. These steel members are not falling on top of each other, they are eccentric and they are punching directly through the concrete without ever developing anything close to their full compressive capacity. It's not even the same order of magnitude.
If I were his professor, I'd give him an F. Not because of his lack of understanding of how buildings work, I'd never expect a physicist to have an understanding of that, but rather in the failure of being able to draw a simple moment diagram. Zeuzzz only shows the forces that INCREASE the rotation, he conveniently forgets a force that decreases the amount of rotation, which I've labeled as F4 in my first figure. F4 is larger than F1 (and not just because I made it a bigger font, ah hah!) because the force is based upon the size of the red triangle, or the weight above. For the enlightenment of the laypeople here, F1 would equal F4 when the angle of rotation is 45 degrees.
And for the record Zeuzzz, you didn't draw a MOMENTUM diagram, you drew a MOMENT diagram. Go take some basic courses.
Originally posted by UofCinLA
I see major flaws in your assumptions and therefore claim they are all invalid. Who's claim is better, mine or yours since that's all there is. The facts are long gone and buried (as rubble) and unless you had strain sensors and g meters on the damn buildings there are no facts anyway - only conjectures.
ha. Real physics based on real facts and data = cool, fake physics based on conjectures = stupid wannabees looking for attention....
It was 6+ years ago, move on and get a life. What good does it do to keep harping on your version of physics.
Originally posted by Conspiriology
Truthers will NEVER stop and
Originally posted by Sublime620
Those guys are jerks. How is a bunch of arrogent intellictuals spewing hatred "crushing" anyone. To be honest, I'm not sure I can call anyone who lacks that much courtesy and civility an intellectual.
[edit on 31-12-2007 by Sublime620]
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
If they are right, and clearly so, why are they "arrogant intellectuals"? Who spewed hatred? Honestly, it sounds like your calling them mean because they don't agree with you and have answered these same questions many times over.
"Honestly, it sounds like your calling them mean because they don't agree with you "
As I read your post, I see now where you might get such an idea about people.
that is one of the nicer rebuttal post's I have seen from a JREF debunker.
What I find interesting is the OP goes to great pains to "educate" the rest of of on the "correct" understanding of the physics involved. However, it appears the only person who doesn't understand "...the basic physics involved..." is the OP.
Really?? you find that interesting do you? Perhaps, rather then grand standing as if you're this guys answer to Ed McMahon,,, you could be more direct? If I didn't know better,, I'd say you were calling him an idiot and that stupid people,, especially "truthers" are the sort that really get under your nerves.
The JREF post doesn't correct Zeus at all. It explains very well how Zeus would have given erroneous suppositions for his physics had Zeus presented a model that didn't include explosives as part of the scenario. In the context he outlines his reasons why it had to be a CD, Or is the jref post saying that explosives or not, either scenario, a cd adds no entirely different dimension his physics.
Basically, the OP relies on those of us who are honest to admit we can't discuss physics in that kind of detail. The only problem is, the people who can discuss physics in that kind of detail do,
That's why I go ask Bill Nye the science guy,, he is a good teacher which is the REAL problem here. I never seen anyone learn any faster by belittling them. Perhaps cheaply enhancing ones ego by belittling others what you mean by referring to his calling us "lay People", I appreciate the consideration nevertheless and find your intolerance of us common folk or truthers, to be a strong indication you should take a vacation from all this.
once again, we have a truther very selectively looking at data and relying on conjecture built on conjecture built on conjecture, making seriously incorrect assumptions and flat out ignoring any data that doesn't support their theory.
You got all that from his off hand remarks about "those guys being a bunch a jerks at jref" ? or is this tirade have a point that goes beyond you loathing of people that just don't get it on purpose.
making seriously incorrect assumptions and flat out ignoring any data that doesn't support their theory.
Mmmmm sounds like NIST where they fit data to fit the theory, then fema,, they speculate, then we have the 911 commision and they just omit critical data entirely.
[edit on 4-1-2008 by Conspiriology]
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
ZEUS Gets His Hypothisis Crushed............
Seems Zeus has taken his case to the guys/ gals at Jref where he pretty much got shut down... FAST.
My guess is that the resistive force generates much less of a moment than F4 does. But I cannot quantify this force since I do not have any details on the connections in the towers. These will fail long before the columns will.
I assumed you were the typical truther and were intentionally trying to mislead people and doing put F4 in your diagram on purpose, seeing that you can actually admit to a mistake is... refreshing. I'll try to give you more of the benefit of the doubt in the future.
This video shows that there is initial rotation in the north tower collapse but that the antenna comes back, www.youtube.com..., assuming the top section is more or less intact that should be due to the vertical resistive forces.
Zeuzzz, I scanned this thread quickly and I think you mean that the top section of the south tower would fall outside the building if it didn't provide any resistance. That is indeed true using the laws of conservation of angular momentum and the fact that the centre of gravity follows the same path it would follow if it were a point mass. But from the wtc1 video it is clear that the vertical forces are highly relevant. I agree with you that describing what happens is not the same as proving that it should happen in that way, that is in fact an interpretation of the event. I have an other video that shows that indeed a very large amount of mass of the top section of wtc2 falls on ground zero, I will upload it later. The theory is that the top section initiates a pancaking/funneling of mass/progressive collapse and we have also to take into account that those vertical forces are different when the mass is already pancaking under that block. I'm at the moment not able to comment on this because I first need to read this toppling math stuff in depth (not my highest priority).
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
I figured i would put my diagram to the test to see what the skeptics at JREF made of it
Originally posted by Skeptik101
Very bad idea, you will never make them change their minds on anything there, so you really are wasting your time.
And they are not skeptics there, they are DEBUNKERS. There is a real difference between being a "skeptic"
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
He put his thoughts out there on his own accord. He also heaped a large helping of condescension on top of what he claims are facts. When you do that, you are submitting your thoughts for, essentially, peer review.
He's been peer reviewed and found to be wrong.
[edit on 5-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]