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 bsbray11
reply to post by Griff
I was talking about the physical possibility of transferring as much as 70% of all the loads through the core, but there's yet another ratio closer to 50/50 from NIST's numbers I guess.
Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by Griff
does that take into consideration the action of the hat truss?
Originally posted by billybob
i just met one of the original architects of the WTC
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by billybob
i just met one of the original architects of the WTC
A few questions. Where, when, how, and why? Just wondering how you got to ask him these questions. Not that I disbelieve you. I'm just curious.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Also, did you ever do anything else with the woodstove thing?
ETA: I looked a little. WIKI - heat of combustion. Wood has 6000BTU/lb. So 40k BTU would need about 6.66lb of wood at 100%efficiency? Where were we with this problem? I can't even remember the thread any more....
Originally posted by TheRandom1
Hmm... You don't know much about building demolition, if they plan to take it down, they will do it the fastest cheapest way possible, setting up charges and blowing it up in a controlled demolition,
While controlled implosion is the method that the general public often thinks of when discussing demolition, it can be dangerous and is only used as a last resort when other methods are impractical or too costly.
. . . they never take cranes and take it down piece by piece, not a building that big, it would take too much time and it would cost WAY too much. Think before you speak next time you say such nonsense.
-Lahara
The original World Trade Center was designed by Minoru Yamasaki in the early 1960s using an innovative tube-frame structural design for the twin 110-story towers. In gaining approval for the project, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey agreed to take over the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad which became the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH). Groundbreaking for the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966. The North Tower was completed in December 1970 and the South Tower was finished in July 1971.
The tallest lawfully-demolished building (of that era) was the 47-story Singer Building of New York City, which was built in 1908 and torn down in 1967-1968 to be replaced by One Liberty Plaza.
As early as the 1960’s, Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) was using precision explosive methods to bring problems associated with the demolition of tall, steel towers, down to controllable levels. The US Navy's plans for replacement of their Atlantic antenna array in Annapolis, Maryland called for the demolition of six (6), 600 foot tall towers, and one (1), 1,200 foot tall guyed tower.
Controlled Demolition Incorporated used bulk explosives to shear sections of supporting legs and anchor plates to permit the staged, controlled felling of the towers without risk to personnel or adjacent transmission operations to remain in use.
CDI’s implosion of Hudson’s set three new records:
At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.
At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded.
LANDMARK TOWER (formerly Continental National Bank & The Texas Building) - 200 W. 7th St. - 1952; 1956/57 - Imploded March 18, 2006. At the time of demolition, it was the Second Tallest Building in the World to be Imploded by Controlled Demolition, Tallest Building in the State of Texas to Be Imploded, and the Tallest Building in the State of Texas to be Demolished. It was also the first time in Fort Worth's History that a former tallest building in the city was torn down. The Landmark Tower was 30 stories and 380 feet tall. At one time, it had the World Largest Digital Clock, Revolving Clock, and 4 Sided Sign. It also had one of the longest straight run fire escapes at 31 floors from the main roof to the ground.
Originally posted by Griff
MWatts are a unit of energy (I believe off the top of my head) while BTU (British Thermal Units) are a thermal unit. I know a BTU equates into MWHr (MegaWattHour), but where does the hour come into play?
1 (btu per second) hour = 3 798 201.07 joules
Originally posted by bsbray11
So 10kW is 10kJ every second, and if you run that much power for an hour, then you have 10kWh.
Originally posted by Griff
So, if NIST used 1.9 to 3.2 MWatts of energy for 30 minutes (1/2 hour), does that equate to 0.95 to 1.6 MWHr?
Or better yet. Let me ask. What does 40,000 BTU/Hr equate to in MWatts?
Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm getting that that's 11.111... BTU a second. 11.111 BTU is 11.722 Joules, x 3600 is 42199.2 Watts or 42.2MW.
While an open fire is a joy to watch, fireplaces are generally very inefficient - only around 5 - 10%.
Originally posted by Griff
Wouldn't that actually be 42.2 KW? And .0422 MW?
That now becomes 332.5 to 645 for the lower end.
And 540 to 1080 for the higher end.
Originally posted by bsbray11
They never actually tried to physically recreate what happened in the towers.
Originally posted by billybob
i think it worthwhile to point out that the landmark tower took over twenty seconds to hit the ground after the first explosions.
Originally posted by Griff
1-So, if one wood stove burning at 75% efficiency can produce .0422 MW then NIST used 1.9/.0442=43. 43 stoves worth in their test for the lower end? And 3.2/.0442=72. 72 stoves for the higher end?
2-Also, remember that an open air fire would only produce 5-10% efficiency of the burn.
While an open fire is a joy to watch, fireplaces are generally very inefficient - only around 5 - 10%.
3-Now, can we put this to rest and conclude that NIST did in fact use a high energy output that would be hard for a real fire to accomplish? I think so.