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 GenRadek
Did you forget those lovely little floor trusses? You remember those right? The ones that helped initiate the collapse by sagging, pulling in the exterior columns prior to the global failure? Yeah those trusses. The very light steel trusses that are very susceptable to fires when fireproofing is dislodged.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally you were arguing that they WERE a valid comparison.
Now you're saying they're NOT a valid comparison because of the core structures differing.
Consider this proof that your argument has been defeated. You are now arguing AGAINST their comparison while earlier you were arguing FOR their comparison. This is hilarious.
Can you show me the experiments where NIST verified this, or else admit the fact that you are offering an unsubstantiated hypothesis as if it has already been proven?
Sure, but deceleration is a result of any impact, so that force is exerted in all impacts.
It's even more annoying than that if we deal with energy because we have to estimate how much energy was expended in destruction too. This has been done in the Bazant series of papers though.
Not disagreeing here, but the next paragraph seems to contradict your view on this?
In the previous paragraph, you agree that the momentum transfer is identical, and this is what determines the collapse rate primarily,
as even if the lower sections provide significantly more force, if the energy required to decelerate the object is significant, the results become relatively insensitive to the force applied.
Plus, lets face it, the measurements of descent acceleration are not hugely accurate as they are based off video records which are several metres per pixel. Deceleration by a fraction of this would simply not be detectable in the data we have.
Well those columns previous held 50% of the mass of the towers, so it's not hugely surprising they didn't fail in compression. They did actually fail at the bottom, but we don't know whether this was due to moment or shear or what exactly.
That's definitely not what happened, the internal structure was destroyed horizontally across the building, until it could not hold up its own self weight. At this point failure is extremely rapid and will be progressive. An analogy I've used before is taking a weight, tying it to a hook with three strings under equal tension, where the load is 80% of the maximum load of all three strings. If you were to then cut one string, the other two would fail almost instantaneously. This is the mechanism behind progressive collapse.
Who said that if the force was less than the static force, then it must be suspicious.
However, the equations he uses to determine this only equal static force in one condition: the building doesn't collapse.
Using his logic, any collapse is suspicious, because the resultant force calculations taking into account only acceleration over a large period result in less force than the self weight.
There are three noticable things about this gif:
1. It ignores the collapse of the east penthouse, which occured 6 seconds before this begins. This was asymmetric, caused by the failure of a single column, and is what caused the damage that resulted in the collapse
2. The central penthouse began to collapse before the western penthouse, and before the exterior of the building.
3. The period at which it reached free fall occurs a couple of seconds after the global initiation. If this was caused by explosives taking out all of the columns, what structural element resisted the collapse for so long?
Originally posted by Azp420
So if the impacts are significantly lessened with controlled demolition techniques the decelerations are also lessened.
Which is why I prefer to deal with accelerations. Conservation of energy requires a lot of estimation which can be biased towards a predetermined conclusion.
The first paragraph explained how a tilting top section would not be immune to the expected decelerations. The second paragraph explained that I don't have a problem with collapse initiating, just with the rate it maintained through undamaged structure. I don't see the contradiction?
...
I agree that the momentum transfer would be the same for a leaning and non-leaning top section to crush the lower structure, however I never said that is the primary factor in determining collapse rate. Yielding of steel structural elements and crushing of concrete would also be large factors requiring large forces.
The columns around the top half failed during collapse, probably in compression, only at the bottom did they remain and form a spire. This spire was unlikely to have failed due to moment, as it remained straight and didn't topple over (as if something blew the bottom out).
The weight with three strings would fail asymmetrically (not straight down).
If it was legitimately weakened to the point where it was providing the same resistance to collapse as a structure made of marshmallows then what was it waiting for?
No, the only suspicious gravitational collapses are those which experience no deceleration once undamaged structure is being destroyed. David has done the same analysis on gravitational explosiveless demolitions and the results were as expected:
I'm not that familiar with the OS version of what happened during 7s collapse. If the internal structure had already collapsed, then why would the outer structure even collapse at all, and how could it come down at and near free fall? If it is not supporting the inner structure, then it is very minimally loaded. It would be like a birdcage. Sorry if I've missed something.
Above I'm asking you the same thing for your version of events. My answer is the explosives were timed that way - drop the inner before the outer to ensure a nice tidy collapse.
Force is mass times acceleration, and it's true that Newton's third law does state in simplistic form that the two forces are equal. However, this is not to be applied in a general sense between two complex bodies, it applies purely to the molecules the substance is made from.
According to Merriam-Webster and the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word "molecule" derives from the Latin "moles" or small unit of mass.
Molecule (1794) – "extremely minute particle," from Fr. molécule (1678), from Mod.L. molecula, dim. of L. moles "mass, barrier". A vague meaning at first; the vogue for the word (used until late 18th century only in Latin form) can be traced to the philosophy of Descartes.
If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Oh wait, they are equal?
Stop talking out your butt and spreading lies.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Oh wait, they are equal?
Stop talking out your butt and spreading lies.
If you don't know what you're talking about, it's not a good idea to try and burn someone else. Do you think that only discovered objects at the time of a theory's construction can be applied? That is just silly.
Nothing I've said in my post contradicts newton's third law, it is just that Chandler tries to aggregate all collisions together and measure them as a whole, and then claim that this proves something that it does not. Care to explain the criticisms I have made?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Chandler is specifically discrediting the State official conspiracy of PANCAKE COLLAPSE
This requires large bodies (ie floors) smashing into each other as the cause of destructive force.
This official conspiracy theory is what Chandler is debunking in his videos.
Why you are trying to drag molecular physics in to this debate is beyond me.
Originally posted by exponent
I know what he's trying to debunk, but he uses the principles in the video incorrectly. By measuring the aggregated acceleration, he ignores any energy transfer, and proudly proclaims that there should be a jolt, by comparing it to a building of completely different construction and with a different collapse method.
I'm not trying to drag molecular physics into the debate, i'm pointing out that forces are not applied universally and instantaneously. A common place this is demonstrable is in suspension design. Suspension has what's called compression damping, which is a resistance to the forces applied when compressing the spring. This resistance however will not stop massive instantaneous forces being felt by the end of the suspension, even though the two are connected the forces do not transfer instantaneously. This is why many modern suspension systems have seperate high speed and low speed compression, to deal with different criteria.
By ignoring the fact that these collisions are independent, and that the analysis must be carried out on them, Chandler ignores the reality of the collapse, and tries to provide a superficial case which favours some unnamed alternate hypothesis. Let's remember that the acceleration remains constant, so if the logic being used is correct, the conspirators either allowed the impact zone to collapse normally and calibrated their explosives to do the same damage to each subsequent floor, or they added extra damage to the impacted floors and matched that damage further down.
Seems rather unlikely doesn't it. In no way does his theory make sense, it's just superficially plausible if you don't fully grasp the physical interactions he's discussing.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Chandler is applying the physics correctly, it is you who are obfuscating the matter.
Continuous acceleration through the path of highest resistance is IMPOSSIBLE, we should see DECELERATION as energy is bled off in each sequential impact of floors.
Chandler also points out correctly that, at most, only the top 24 floors could possibly be destroyed in such a manner before all of the energy would have been dissipated.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Chandler is applying the physics correctly, it is you who are obfuscating the matter.
Continuous acceleration through the path of highest resistance is IMPOSSIBLE, we should see DECELERATION as energy is bled off in each sequential impact of floors.
What about the massive amounts of gravitational potential energy that is converted into kinetic energy? You seem to forget it exists:
Chandler also points out correctly that, at most, only the top 24 floors could possibly be destroyed in such a manner before all of the energy would have been dissipated.
Gravitational energy is = mgh, it's not limited by the number of floors involved. Perhaps this is where your confusion is arising from
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm not the one who is confused here. You are essentially making the claim there is no kinetic energy lost in the impacting of floors.
Originally posted by exponent
momentum transfer (accelerating the various objects which are minimally destroyed), concrete crushing (mostly identical floor by floor with some minor differences) and yielding of steel structural elements (increasing strength as the building collapses)
What we should see is a neat stack of pancaked floors tightly packed into each other about 12 floors below the impact point if "pancaking" was to blame.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
The paper is demonstrably wrong for several reasons.
www.ae911truth.org...
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by mnemeth1
The paper is demonstrably wrong for several reasons.
www.ae911truth.org...
Anders Bjorkman has said before that the towers would not collapse if you were to drop a section on top of another from miles up. He has been repeatedly debunked on JREF and in all manner of papers. He just doesn't listen to anything you say. I've debated him a few times but it just ends up being tedious.
Which of his criticisms do you understand, and can you explain how they are valid?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
The floors of the upper portion must necessarily collapse together as each successive floor beneath them is destroyed. - this is the only mechanism by which additional kinetic energy can be applied to the keep the collapse going.
What you are claiming is that the above statement is not true, and that kinetic energy is not dissipated and does not need to be applied through the collapsing of the upper floors.
Apparently it just magically comes from space aliens - right?
Originally posted by exponent
Not at all. For every floor destroyed, a certain amount of energy is removed, then, the debris accelerates through 12 feet under gravity. This adds more energy than was taken away, that's what Bazant et al have repeatedly proven.
It comes from the stored potential energy due to gravity.