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.
Simply put, big thing falls, makes bigger force than if big thing was laying down stationary. If you reject that, I don't care about the rest of your post.
Reason why big thing fell is because fires made the materials incapable of generating resistant force. Material property changes in different conditions.
Failure to understand that is also disturbing.
So what forces? We're done with that topic. How about you prove that those forces at work remain constant in different temperatures.
Well that's nice and all but I already explained to you why the collapse happened the way it did. The hiearchy detached.
Now maybe you reject the physics of a big thing falling making more force than the same big thing stationary. But the forces of nature disagree. because every time you look at the moon, the proof is right there in the craters.
You can claim I don't understand, but you have yet to say how.
First you have to explain how something in motion hitting does not generate more force than the same thing stationary resting on something.
FYI, I'm typing. Typing is the same thing. My fingers are in motion, causing more force than if they simply were resting on the key.
I really fail to see how hard it is to understand.
n the WTC, the big thing was the part that fell. The little thing was the inner structure. The floors are irrelevant to strength at that point. The hierarchy detached, the inner structure fell. The outer structure stood but fell a few moments after because nothing was supporting it. A tesseract.
Your taking a situation seriously that I honestly cannot find serious enough to care about.
Yes my math is sometimes wrong. Yes the exact term I use is many times wrong. But the basic idea has not changed nor has been disproven. And the videos I posted prove that, which you conveniently ignore.
Honestly I stopped taking this issue seriously years ago. So sorry if I'm wrong, but in order to care about being 100% right I'd actually have to care about dedicating my life to the topic.
HOW do they? You can't merely say they do. Define your terms.
The masses accelerated. This is called gravity. The moon has no atmosphere to decelerate. Items either stayed at constant speed because moon gravity is borderline irrelevant or sped up.
Upon impact, their motion was transfered into heat energy and the items came to a hault. That would be your deceleration. But that does not change the fact that energy was transfered.
When an item in motion hits a stationary item that will not move in response
The example you are using is not related to items that cannot move to respond.
The deceleration you speak of is the transfer of force.
And if this transfer of force is straight down onto a pinned item, the two will break and collapse down together.
Please learn what you speak.
Originally posted by Azp420
Now that Gorman has stopped reading I'll explain why. For some reason Gorman doesn't really understand the concept of force, especially how it relates to velocity (he maintains it is proportional to velocity rather than acceleration). When the "big thing falls" it only applies a greater force (than when it was stationary) to the thing trying to hold it up IF the thing trying to hold it up decelerates the big falling thing, as F=ma. For the big falling thing to uniformly and constantly accelerate the thing holding it up MUST apply less upwards force than if it were only supporting the big things stationary weight.
1. The WTC was not homogeneous. The force is not applied constantly, but periodically as floors impact one another
2. You are ignoring conservation of momentum. While force scales to the acceleration, momentum scales to velocity.
If you take these two factors into account, you end up with instantaneous forces well in excess of column capacity.
Originally posted by Azp420
But when the top section first impacts the undamaged lower section, there is no way I would expect anything near this kind of acceleration to be uniformly and constantly maintained. There was very little difference in the resistance provided by the heavily damaged and on fire initiation zone and the resistance provided by the undamaged structure. I would have expected the net upwards reactional force provided by the lower structure to be greater than ~1/3rd of the net upwards reactional force provided before collapse had begun. I would have expected the top section to begin to crush the undamaged lower structure with a net force greater than ~1/3rd of the weight of the top section.
There is no way I would have expected the leading edge of the wave of ejections to accelerate down the building overall at the same rate that the top section accelerated through the initiation zone.
momentum is not a force
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by exponent
Well lets look at some evidence...
The top did not pancake the lower floors.
The top did not pancake the lower floors.
The problem is that you are still making the same mistake as you were making before, in fact I will even quote it explicitly:
momentum is not a force
If these columns can shorten 5% before fracture, and are 11m long (columns in the WTC were each 3 storeys long) then this momentum must be dissipated within 0.55m.
Now, obviously the columns cannot survive this (in a hypothetical scenario of course) and if they cannot survive it, they will not halt the block completely.
The question now becomes: is the distance between this storey and the next enough for the block to accelerate to a high enough energy to destroy the columns on the floor below?
Again I will ask you to refer to the various Bazant papers which analyse this topic much more in depth.
can any engineers reading this please confirm, or disprove my theory?
Originally posted by Azp420
The problem is that you are still making the same mistake as you were making before, in fact I will even quote it explicitly:
momentum is not a force
I don't see how this is a mistake. Momentum is not a force and is therefore not considered in my free-body diagram.
Originally posted by Azp420
I don't see how this is a mistake. Momentum is not a force and is therefore not considered in my free-body diagram.
I'm not saying the falling top section should have come to an abrupt halt within half a meter. I'm saying as it applied enough force to yield each of the structural members level by level, at the very least it should have accelerated at an overall significantly lower rate than when it was accelerating through the almost resistance-less initiation section.
Of-course, but they should have applied to the block an equal and opposite force equal to the amount it takes to fail the column, decelerating the block in the process.
...
Agreed, there should have been accelerations between floors and decelerations as floors impacted, especially when undamaged structure was impacted for the first time.
I've read some of Bazant's work. There is no explanation as to how the top section is able to accelerate through undamaged structure at the same rate that it accelerates through the highly damaged initiation zone.
WTC7 also achieved massive accelerations (including a period of sustained free fall), meaning its structure also provided minimal resistance to collapse (in another perfectly symmetrical fashion despite asymmetrical damage).