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 ANOK
If you can not figure out why from those two pics then you have no experience with mechanics and should not be supporting the OS that you fail to understand.
Yeah this is my mistake, I should have mentioned it more explicitly. Momentum is not a force, but the momentum of an object does lead to certain forces having to be overcome. In my excuse it was some horrible time in the morning.
However, in reality we both know that it did not and tilted significantly. In this situation, the mass per floor to be accelerated is still the same, and so while the impact floors might cause a minor lowering of required force, the momentum transfer is still identical.
Well again this is very hypothetical, we know that this did not occur in real life, and if the most conservative estimates (allowing for direct column-column impact for example) still causes building failure, then we have to assume that a less optimistic analysis also results in collapse.
This is also not true, the total distance over which WTC7 achieved free fall was 8 floors, and the collapse mechanism is not symmetrical, nor was the damage it sustained.
Even though we disagree Azp. At least you are actually thinking about this from a technical perspective. I appreciate that and will try and point you to whatever sources I think are relevant.
Originally posted by exponent
Please tell us what your experience is, and what your education/experience criteria are for 'official story' supporters.
Originally posted by Azp420
Fair enough. I agree that the falling top section acquired a large amount of momentum, but if the top section impacts something that momentum only exerts a force if the top section is decelerated.
As the momentum transfer is still identical an equal amount of velocity should still be lost at each floor to conserve momentum. Roughly the same amount of force/energy should be required to crush/pulverize the concrete. I would also argue that roughly the same amount of overall force is required to overload each structural element. If less force was required on the side that was tilted down then it would have continued to lean over until the center of gravity was overhanging the edge of the building. One of the towers also had minimal lean.
I have no problem with collapse, I have a problem with the rate of collapse. We know that in the undamaged structure a huge amount of force must have been applied to destroy most of the structural elements, yet the top section continued to accelerate at the same rate it did through the heavily damaged initiation zone, indicating it was doing no more work to destroy the undamaged structure than it was to destroy the initiation zone.
We know something destroyed the columns because it wasn't until the bottom that we had a spire sticking out above collapsed floors (which interestingly did not fail due to bending over a large unrestrained length).
I would call 8 floors pretty sustained in terms of a structure fee falling. That's 8 levels worth of structural members that effectively ceased to exist. I'm not buying that every single column became unrestrained for 8 levels at the same time.
After the 8 floors accelerations still remained close to free fall. The structure crushed itself with less force than it's self weight.
I know the OS says the internal structure was failing asymmetrically, but from what we could see:
...
The overall collapse can't get much more symmetrical than that.
Cheers. It's refreshing to have an intelligent debate with someone on a technical perspective.
Originally posted by ANOK
I've been involved in mechanics and engineering all my life. I'm a certified mechanical drafter, jet engine mechanic, diesel mechanic. I've learned enough over the years to understand how mechanical structures work, how basic physics work and how to apply it in context.
I can tell when someone has had an engineering background simply from how they talk about it. It's not hard mate.
BTW when are you going to actually address my point about the WTC 7 outer walls being on top of the collapsed building, and stop making this personal trying to find ways to discredit my claims. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what you're doing.
Originally posted by GenRadek
ANOK, why did the steel only supported sections of the Windsor Tower collapse from fire alone within 2 hours of being engulfed?
Originally posted by bsbray11
please show pictures of what these steel supports looked like before they collapsed, and then show the perimeter columns from the WTC Towers. Then show us the amount of fire that engulfed those supports in Madrid, and the amount of fire that engulfed them in Manhattan.
If you want to make an honest comparison, let's see you do this.
Originally posted by exponent
I find it funny that you talk about an honest comparison, then ask for pictures. Why, it's as if you know that the pictures would superficially support your case!
It's quite obvious what you're doing
but the fact of the matter is that these steel supports were severely affected by the heat
So you're going to make a comparison to another building, but then refuse to actually show the comparison. It's funny that showing the actual pictures is a "superficial" comparison to you, but empty words based on nothing aren't I guess.
I'll do it for you.
Originally posted by exponent
What a surprise, you not only ignore the fact that it is a superficial comparison, but post the most dramatic pics of one, and presumably the least dramatic pics you could find of the other.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you think the WTC Tower fires were even CLOSE to the Windsor Tower fires? Do you think the column cross-sections are equal?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you think the WTC Tower fires were even CLOSE to the Windsor Tower fires? Do you think the column cross-sections are equal?
This doesn't support what you think. When you quote a picture of the WTCs external wall deforming, and then try and play 'one up' image tag, it's quite sad.
How do you not understand that image comparisons are superficial, that's why I posted them.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I guess it just requires a special level of education to realize the WTC Towers were in a much more dire situation from their much less intense fires and larger columns, than the Windsor Tower with its much more intense fires and much smaller columns. You got me there.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by bsbray11
I guess it just requires a special level of education to realize the WTC Towers were in a much more dire situation from their much less intense fires and larger columns, than the Windsor Tower with its much more intense fires and much smaller columns. You got me there.
It doesn't take a special education, it just takes an honest look at how building fires work, the construction of the two buildings, and the failure modes of both buildings.
I'm not lying to you, I'm not distorting anything.
The reality of the matter is that the WTC towers were much more vulnerable to fire than the Windsor Tower.
Primarily because it was made out of reinforced concrete other than the steel sections. They all failed entirely, the reinforced concrete sagged and spalled, but did not collapse as it is extremely fire resistant.
The same cannot be said for the floors of the WTC
Originally posted by exponent
OK, enough of this. I have reached my limit. You're not even bothering to look at my posts in more than a passing capacity.
The Windsor Tower had a core and transfer structure of reinforced concrete, coupled with protected steel columns below floor #17.
I explained how you couldn't find comparisons without these features in a previous post, and now you don't seem to understand that the unprotected steel failed entirely.
If you want to ignore the construction of the towers and ignore the construction of the Windsor Tower that's up to you.