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 oniongrass
Mass times velocity is called momentum. Momentum (added up over everything) is conserved in collisions and all other times. So if something with a lot of momentum runs into something else, it's likely to transfer some of its momentum to that other thing.
What causes damage is energy.
When a car strikes another object, such as another vehicle or a telephone pole, the car is subjected to a rapid deceleration. Some of the energy is absorbed by the car, and some is absorbed by the other object. A collision is generally a combination of a plastic collision, where all energy is absorbed by the two colliding objects, which then come to rest, and an elastic collision, where all energy is transmitted through the two objects, forcing them to bounce back in different directions (think of billiard balls).
When analysing collisions... best to think in terms of Momentum and Impulse. Physically... Impulse = Change in momentum. F t = m v Now the force of collision is the same for both Truck and VW (due to Newton III)... and the time of contact is the same. But if you look at the momentum side... The Truck has more mass... so its v will be small. where as the VW... the mass is small.. so the v will be large... If the v is large... there is a lot more chance that the VW will crumble... or deform... and hence.. not only you'll get the VW changing it's motion more...you're more likely to get deformity of the shape.
Originally posted by oniongrass
I agree with the conclusion but for the reason the VW has thinner sheet metal.
True story:
I was waiting many years ago at a traffic light in Chicago, in my old rusted VW Beetle. An ambulance pulls up next to me in the lane to my left (no flashing lights, he was not in a hurry but an ambulance is a big heavy thing) but, not seeing me, starts to pull into the space I am occupying. I don't remember if I honked, or maybe he heard the sheet metal crumple as he smashed in my left front wheel well, almost to where it was touching my left leg.
This was all at no more than five mph, we were in front of a red light.
My whole left front got crumpled in and my front axle bent. He did not even have a scratch on his paint!
No, it doesn't It means there is more force down than resistant force up.
Originally posted by Azp420
Now that you agree that the mass of the top section is governed by F=ma could you please state to what you believe to be the upwards and downwards forces acting on the top section? We'll keep it simple and describe the forces at the moment the top section impacts the undamaged lower structure (after accelerating through the heavily damaged initiation zone).
Originally posted by Azp420
I don't know much about the NWO but from what I understand they conduct a lot of business around lower Manhattan. Just speculation though.
It's more difficult to sell that middle eastern terrorists have got around security and planted multiple bombs throughout both towers and 7. And what I said about a spectacular fear based event of multiple simultaneous hijackings of planes then flown into buildings.
Money is no problem for them. Terror acts are not about taking the simplest approach, they're about being spectacular and generating maximum public fear. Plenty of buildings have been bombed before without having to go to war over it.
Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I don't mean the individual "squib" type ejections. I mean the leading edge of the wave of ejections which accelerates uniformly down the building. The video in this post at 8:30 talks about what I mean.
I can see your point but I don't think it can prove anything. Both sides can only speculate as to their opinion. It is why I like to stick to what can actually be proved, either with physics and mathematics or some other evidence.
I really can't imagine anyone attempting to extort money from a powerful ex-employer at the risk of being tortured to death. There's no amount of money you could pay me in exchange for having to look over my shoulder for the rest of my life.
MK Ultra was pretty disgusting. I think most people research the type of organization they get into bed with.
[edit on 6-9-2010 by Azp420]
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Outer structure is part of the structure and each column is doing its job. it is not redundant. It is necessary. Each column was around the floor and supporting it.. Again. What was the redundancy of the WTC structure. Was there any?
Your grammar has to many lys.
When the plane it, the outer structure was compromised.
Add in the termite to the inner structure and there's barely a structure left.
Inner structure fails first
The outer structure just chills
Originally posted by Gorman91
Perhaps, before you assume a government source is correct, you should try to visualize it. because this is what you are telling me:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/3358c093f0121656.png[/atsimg]
Structures can be composed of a few or hundreds of parts. The shape that can withstand the most external force without moving is a triangle. Structures that are composed of many triangular shapes are inherently strong. Bridges, buildings, vehicles, and roof trusses all employ structures made up of triangles. The following series of video clips illustrates the effect of applying a force to different structural shapes.
Fair enough. But then why do it there at all? Wall Street still ground to a halt.
Hardly difficult to sell since they'd tried it once before.
Well, if the idea is to make money then controlling costs is important too. Every layer of complexity would require more manpower and more specialists who must be very expensive.
Fair enough. I have to say that I haven't seen any compelling physics that disproves the traditional take on what happened.
What I have seen is a lot of made up "science" trying to prove a CT of the event. I'm not tarring you with that brush but it remains true that there are significant numbers of people who simply make stuff up or bend evidence to produce an outcome they want. This has generated an awful lot of "noise" (in the evidential sense) around 9/11 science and makes investigation quite arduous.
There is for me. I'd take ten billion, for example. And then I'd hire some of my ex colleagues to guard me and buy an island.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I do not trust government agencies. I do my own work.
The mass of one tower was 450 million kg. Are you telling me that the WTC structure could support up to 2,500,000 tons? Really? So if I cut the Pyramid of gaza into three pieces and put one of those pieces on top of the WTC, you're telling me the structure would not collapse?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The exterior columns only supported about 50% of the weight of the building. The other 50% was supported by the 47 CORE COLUMNS. But there were 238 perimeter columns. FIVE TIMES as many perimeter columns as core columns but you respond with this ENTIRE BUILDING GARBAGE.
Originally posted by ANOK
From what I've read the inner structure held about 80% of the weight and the outer mesh columns were designed mostly to allow lateral movement. The central columns were a lot larger, and cross braced, than the outer mesh columns.