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
reply to post by ANOK
www.civil.northwestern.edu...
So then why are these people saying it is what happened to the WTC, and that you are wrong?
Originally posted by GenRadek
Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems
fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...
We did test the floor models in August 2004,” Ryan said, “and those tests disproved the primary theory behind the collapse of the buildings.”
“The floor models didn’t collapse in the tests,” Ryan said, “and these (models) were in furnaces in much hotter temperatures, for a longer period of time (as compared with the temperature and endurance of the fires on 9-11). Yet, they still did not collapse.”
Eventually, NIST was forced to substitute the “pancake theory” (which wrongly hypothesized that the combined force of the upper floors began a domino effect downward) for the “inward bowing theory,” which argues that the floors and walls of the WTC buildings buckled to the point where they could no longer support the weight of the structure – an equally implausible explanation for the collapses, given the low temperatures inside the structures.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by FDNY343
But, again, you still do not understand what my point was. The MASS part is not as important to KE as the SPEED part is! GD!! Why is this so hard for you to understand?
You are wrong once again.
If a fly hits a car windshield, remember Newtons 3rd law equal opposite reactions, the force on the windshield is the SAME as on the bug. What makes the bug go splat, KE or MASS?
It's the mass mate. Both objects are putting the same force on each other, the only difference is the mass.
Consider this question...
3. Miles Tugo and Ben Travlun are riding in a bus at highway speed on a nice summer day when an unlucky bug splatters onto the windshield. Miles and Ben begin discussing the physics of the situation. Miles suggests that the momentum change of the bug is much greater than that of the bus. After all, argues Miles, there was no noticeable change in the speed of the bus compared to the obvious change in the speed of the bug. Ben disagrees entirely, arguing that that both bug and bus encounter the same force, momentum change, and impulse. Who do you agree with? Support your answer.
www.physicsclassroom.com...
Ben Travlun is correct.
The bug and bus experience the same force, the same impulse, and the same momentum change (as discussed in this lesson). This is contrary to the popular (though false) belief which resembles Miles' statement. The bug has less mass and therefore more acceleration; occupants of the very massive bus do not feel the extremely small acceleration. Furthermore, the bug is composed of a less hardy material and thus splatters all over the windshield. Yet the greater "splatterability" of the bug and the greater acceleration do not mean the bug has a greater force, impulse, or momentum change.
Answer
Originally posted by nh_ee
Underwriters Laboratory aka (UL), a nationally recognised testing firm, had performed tests on model replicas of the WTC towers's girders/trusses and heated them well beyond the temperatures in which the WTC structures were exposed to.
We did test the floor models in August 2004,” Ryan said, “and those tests disproved the primary theory behind the collapse of the buildings.”
“The floor models didn’t collapse in the tests,” Ryan said, “and these (models) were in furnaces in much hotter temperatures, for a longer period of time (as compared with the temperature and endurance of the fires on 9-11). Yet, they still did not collapse.”
Originally posted by nh_ee
Kevin Ryan was fired from his job with Underwriters Laboratory one week after he challenged the results of the NIST report, the US government’s official version of the reasons for the WTC collapses.
rt.com...
The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the
floor below was found to be about 8.4X larger than the plastic
energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably
higher than that if fracturing were taken into account
(Bažant and Zhou 2002a). This fact, along with the fact that
during the progressive collapse of underlying stories [Figs. 1(d)
and 2] the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater
than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and
Zhou (2002a) to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the
tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through
the height of one story (or even 0.5 m). It was also observed that
this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive
collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous.
* Newton's third law is frequently stated in a simplistic but incomplete or incorrect manner through statements such as
Action and reaction are equal and opposite
To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
These statements fail to make it clear that the action and reaction apply to different bodies. Also, it is not because two forces happen to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction that they automatically form an action-reaction pair in the sense of Newton's Third Law.
Here is an interesting article on the common misconceptions of Newtons Third Law: www.eric.ed.gov... Page 16 and 17 of the paper are most important.
A possible solution to students' difficulties with the concept of force as an innate or acquired property of objects is to simply re-label their naive concept of force by calling it, for example, "momentum" or "kinetic energy"
1) Momentum or kinetic energy do not cause motion (as students view force causing motion), they are simply properties of a moving object arising as a result of the motion of that object.
2) Momentum and kinetic energy vary with the fame of reference. If a student were to simply re-label his conception of force to be, for example, momentum, she might well ask how an object could have a lot of force (or strength of forcefulness) in one frame of reference, and none from another perspective.
3) If a student is encouraged to equate momentum with her naive conception of force, she is likely to add momentum to force in problem solving, or be confused about why it is improper to do so.
For the above reasons, re-labeling the student's naive concept of force is not a satisfactory solution to the problem of the naive view of force as a property and may lead to an even greater confusion (how many times have the students used the words "the force of momentum" in a physics class)...
A number of studies conducted in recent years have demonstrated a wide range of beliefs about physical phenomena which students have apparently formed on their own without the benefit of formal instruction. Particularly well documented have been student beliefs which are in contradiction with the ideas of Newtonian mechanics. For example, many students hold the belief that there is a force on or in an object in the direction of the object's motion, when in fact no force is necessary to keep an object moving at constant velocity...
...Thus some students view objects as inherently more "force-full" by virtue of their mass, speed, activity, etc.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
How about rather than either side talking about blocks, we should treat every single one as sets of individual floors.
If you think about it that way, then you have the first impact of collapse being 1 floor versus 1 floor with the weight of the section above.
Both floors would be destroyed and turned into a mass of debris within the tower.
Then, the second floor from above drops down without any supports to hold it up.
It impact the debris of two floors and makes it crash down into the floor below, essentially creating an additional floor of impact below for every single floor on the above collapsing section until the majority of the tower (say, 60 floors or more) has been destroyed simply by the merit of the initial energy of the falling section of building. Then, the rest would naturally fail from the weight and acceleration by gravity, allowing the collapse to continue downward to the ground, with every space between floors acting as a debris dropping mechanism.
One might be able to see this with x-ray vision and slow motion replay, but that's not quite possible, so we'll have to deal with the visualization for now and see if it fits the outward behavior that was perceived.
Edit: as for sagging, consider a string between two objects. If you put your finger anywhere on the string and push down, it will tug on one or both objects connected to it.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Yankee451
The point was, Yankee451, that though its true that there are always forces acting in the collapse of the event, that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are far more things to talk about rather than just saying: Equal and opposite reaction".
You have to deal with energy, momentum, mechanics, etc. Just saying something won't happen because of a simplistic view of N3rdL, (like how ANOK is so apt at doing), is a very bad misconception that opens up more erroneous assumptions.
NrdL deals with force. But just saying "N3rdL says it cant happen" is ignoring all aspects of classical mechanics, acceleration, velocity, kinetic energy, etc. Plus it means nothing when you cannot show how it doesnt work. ANOK's simplistic view of "equal-action equal-reaction" is meaningless. That is what I was conveying.
Now you have just contradicted yourself. I floor vs 1 floor does not include the weight above, that would be one block falling on one floor. It doesn't work like that because of NEWTONS 3rd LAW, opposite and equal reactions. If you want to consider the top as one block, with all that weight, then you have to consider the mass of the block its falling on, not just one floor, and the fact that it will put as much force on the falling section, as the falling section puts on it. Equal opposite reactions.
Conservation of momentum, the top will want to continue falling down, the bottom will want to continue pushing up equally. Mass is what decided which object wins that battle.
The bottom is going to put the SAME force on the top, as the top puts on the bottom. If you take it by one floor landing on one floor you have more or less equal masses, we KNOW the floors were destroyed, so this MUST be when they were destroyed, so you would run out of floors before the collapse was complete. If you take it by blocks you have a 30 floor block falling on an 80 floor block (not just one floor, you have to consider the bottom is the same as the top, one block). This means you have a smaller mass, 30 flrs, overcoming a larger mass of 80 flrs, it won't work either.
The destruction of the World Trade Center _WTC_ on September 11, 2001 was not only the largest mass murder in U.S. history but also a big surprise for the structural engineering profession, perhaps the biggest since the collapse of the Tacoma Bridge in 1940.
No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse. No skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to fire. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons deep examination.
Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it was only local. Without stripping of a significant portion of the steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire would likely not have led to overall collapse _Bažant and Zhou 2002a; NIST 2005_. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering _though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives_, the failure scenario was as follows:
In this paper _based on Bažant and Verdure’s _2006_ identical report presented at the U.S. National Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Boulder, Colo., June 26, 2006; and posted on June 23, 2006, at www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html_
, attention will be focused on the progressive collapse, triggered in the WTC by fire and previously experienced in many tall buildings as a result of earthquake or explosions_including terrorist attack_.
A simplified one-dimensional analytical solution of the collapse front propagation will be presented. It will be shown how this solution can be used to determine the energy absorption capability of individual stories if the motion history is precisely recorded.
Because of the shroud of dust and smoke, these histories can be identified from the videos of the collapsing WTC towers only for the first few seconds of collapse, and so little can be learned in this regard from that collapse.
However, monitoring of tall building demolitions, which represent one kind of progressive collapse, could provide such histories. Development of a simple theory amenable to inverse analysis of these histories is the key. It would permit extracting valuable information on the energy absorption capability of various types of structural systems in various collapse modes, and is, therefore, the main objective of this paper.
Many disasters other than the WTC attest to the danger of progressive collapse, e.g., the collapse of Ronan Point apartments in the United Kingdom in 1968 _Levy and Salvadori 1992_
The Ronan Point Apartment Tower was constructed using the Larsen-Neilsen system. Developed in Denmark in 1948, the Larsen-Neilsen system was “composed of factory-built, precast concrete components designed to minimize on-site construction work. Walls, floors and stairways are all precast. All units, installed one-story high, are load bearing” (ENR 1968), p. 54). The ‘know how’ of the Larsen-Neilsen system is a combination of production techniques, erections methods, and jointing details (Griffiths et al. 1968). The system was not intended for buildings over six stories (Wearne 2000, p. 140).
Designed as a precast concrete flat-plate structure, each floor of Ronan Point was supported by the load-bearing walls directly beneath. The only path of gravity load transfer was through these loadbearing walls.
the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Okla., in 1995, where the air blast pressure sufficed to take out only a few lower floors, whereas the upper floors failed by progressive collapse;
Oxford University in 1992 published this on the WTC concrete cores:
Modern Skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center, New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core, a reinforced concrete tower, contains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts. From this core the concrete and steel composite floors span on to a steel perimeter structures: a lightweight aluminum and glass curtain wall encloses the building.
In January of 1971, half of the 16-story, #2000 Commonwealth Avenue condominium in the suburbs of Boston, Massachusetts collapsed. High winds had blown over space heaters on the top floor, causing a fire in the timber shoring underneath the concrete pour made at roof level the day before...the shoring under the roof slab failed.
Many buildings in Armenia, Turkey, Mexico City, and other earthquakes, etc.
A number of ancient towers failed in this way, too…