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 -PLB-
reply to post by hooper
One note about this, Bazant proved that even if for some freaky reason the supports in the top section would fall exactly on the supports in the lower section, exactly as it was design to be,Text the dynamic load would still be a factor 8 greater than the supports could carry. So even in the most simplistic model assuming the most optimistic case for arrest the building would still collapse.
The most damning thing about a couple truthers is that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Just shout "there was not enough energy" as loud as you can, repeat it as many times as you can, and they start believing in the lie.`
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by budaruskie
I don't really follow your line of reasoning. First you explain how a house is not at all like the WTC tower and then you make a case how it is strange that a burning house doesn't behave the same as a WTC tower which had a Boing 737 crashed into it.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Because it isn't. The first floor of course failed because it was weakened. It can well be possible that the next floor is strong enough to arrest the collapse. However, once an undamaged floor fails, the next undamaged floor inevitable will also fail. It is impossible to arrest collapse at this point as both mass and velocity increases with each floor that fails.
Originally posted by -PLB-
It is something called physics.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by hooper
One note about this, Bazant proved that even if for some freaky reason the supports in the top section would fall exactly on the supports in the lower section, exactly as it was design to be,Text the dynamic load would still be a factor 8 greater than the supports could carry. So even in the most simplistic model assuming the most optimistic case for arrest the building would still collapse.
The most damning thing about a couple truthers is that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Just shout "there was not enough energy" as loud as you can, repeat it as many times as you can, and they start believing in the lie.`
What does this mean?
the dynamic load would still be a factor 8 greater than the supports could carry
Supports on WHICH LEVEL of the building?
If the falling top of of the north tower hit the top of the stationary portion then the impacting level would BOTH have their static load capacities exceeded. TWO LEVELS would be crushed simultaneously.
Bazant is full of crap with the upper portion remaining intact while the lower portion is destroyed. Crushing those two levels would require energy and the only source is the kinetic energy of the falling portion. Therefore it would slow down.
Then the next two levels would have to be crushed etc, etc. The 14 or 15 levels coming down from the top would run out long before the 90 stationary levels below would.
The phenomenon has already been demonstrated.
The GREAT Ryan Mackey has already done an incompetent job of explaining the model.
www.youtube.com...
The only way for the entire north tower to have come down in less than 18 seconds is for the supports to have been destroyed from below. But then the GLORIOUSLY SCIENTIFIC NIST report does not even tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the tower to be crushed from above. So how can a good computer simulation be done.
Excellent science for the nation that put men on the Moon.
letsrollforums.com...
psik
Originally posted by -PLB-
So you think like some delusional truthers that all that mass of collapsed floors magically disappeared or ejected? It is indeed a requirement to dismiss a natural collapse. The consequence though is that you have to accept that magic exists. Or you will have to explain how this mass was ejected and could not possibly make the collapse progress. But its not like that is going to happen.
I'm only going to point out that the building was designed to bare "eccentric" loads as you call it, all you have to do is look at the data collected by A&E911...and it was all data that was available before 9/11.
Furthermore, your house example is not accurate for several reasons. First off, houses are typically made of pine and sheetrock while the towers were made of hardened steel and concrete, very different as you know.
All of the trusses (if any) in a home as well as all other components (unless built in "hurricane zones") are held together by various sizes of nails, except maybe the ceiling sheetrock which would be small screws. The components in the WTC buildings were either welded together or bolted together or both, again very different.
Now here comes the really really big problem with the example. Have you ever seen a house catch on fire? I have personally seen it up close and VERY personal. In fact, I've personally seen a house newer than any of the WTC buildings burn unchecked for over an hour before firefighters got water on it. In the end, the entire roof and second story of the house were burnt to ash, as well as parts of the first. You know what NEVER DID HAPPEN, the house NEVER COLLAPSED, NEVER TURNED TO DUST, MOST OF THE 1ST FLOOR WAS STILL INTACT.
Again, that house was made of combustable material i.e. pine 2X's....and it survived a longer fire than a well known over-engineered steel and concrete high rise building. Really makes you question the OS when you see that with your own eyes.
Oh yeah, please don't tell me the plane made the building fall, not even the gov't agrees with that and you can find plenty of videos on the net of vehicles driving into houses that don't turn to dust.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So build a physical model that can completely collapse.
Has Bazant done it? Has anybody done it? Lying with mathematics is still lying. Physics does not give a damn about mathematics. So liars want people to be dumb enough to not figure out the defective math.
Gravity was there for 28 years without the building collapsing. Once the kinetic energy is lost due to crushing supports the remaining structure would continue to support the now static load.
So you can call people things like delusional. That does not mean you can make the physics do what you say. You can call any model you try to make that does not do what you say "delusional" also. The physics will not give a damn. Words have no effect on physics. You just think psychological BS can influence people that know what they are talking about. You can only use the psychological BS on the ignorant.
But now our engineering schools have a problem for not settling this in SIX MONTHS. They need to keep people ignorant to keep the lie going.
But how can the math be correct if we don't even have correct data on the distributions of steel and concrete? Claiming to do math for physics without even having correct data on the mass is certainly delusional. At least we can be sure the WTC was not designed to be as weak as possible like my model. And any grade school kid can duplicate my model even if the don't know the math.
After TEN YEARS grade school kids can show that PhD physicists have been going along with silly bullsh# in the nation that put men on the Moon.
psik
Originally posted by -PLB-
I think the best way to explain this is by using an example. The first floor fails and the top section fall down about 4 meter. During this fall its speed increased from 0 to ~9m/s due to gravity. After falling 4 meter, the top section crashes into to the floor below which offer resistance. Depending on the amount of resistance, the top section slows down to, for example, 5m/s. Now there is a top section plus one additional floor falling down 4 meter to the next floor, but now with an initial speed of 5m/s. So after falling 4 meter again, the speed at which it hits the next floor ~10m/s. Again it is slowed down by the resistance of the floor, but since its speed is higher and the mass is larger it is slowed down less than before. And so on.
Yes, yes it does. If, in fact, that is your only experience with structures and fires. Now what do you tell me - I've seen buildings burn and collapse. I've seen bridges fully charged with explosives that didn't collapse and I've seen buildings come tumbling down because one exterior wall was removed (the building, having its lateral support removed racked and then the eccentric loading caused by the racking caused the building to collapse - it was a steel frame building with metal panel walls and standing seam roof).
Originally posted by -PLB-
I talk about the the complete top section falling down and taking the floors below with it.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Hello mister slander who comes with false claims about me.
Yes. Problem is that you do not understand how to apply them.
Yes they would. This is one of your baseless assertions. Show the math.
Ehhh, no, it is only decreased by the amount of displacement. The portion it is decreased is transformed to kinetic energy which in turn is partly transformed into energy forms like heat and sound.
When the complete building has collapsed, there is no potential energy left (taking ground level as reference). All of it is transformed into another form of energy.
Your point that there isn't enough energy for the building to collapse by gravity only is nothing but a baseless assertion.
You haven't done any calculations to come to this conclusion, it is nothing more than your uneducated opinion. So show the math to support your baseless assertions and I will point out where you went wrong.