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 MindfulReason
THATS IT!!
Im declaring a war on gravity.
Originally posted by jumbojimbo
Originally posted by MindfulReason
THATS IT!!
Im declaring a war on gravity.
It would seem that some people's understanding of gravity and Newton's 3rd Law of Motion are gleaned from watching a Michael Bay movie. I know he's a great director and makes it plausible to be able to fly a tank, but it's not real. It's all special effects and cgi.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I think your model is wrong.
Try using small washers for the steel supports and playing cards for the floors.
Place a playing card on the floor.
Then place a stack of washers 1 inch high at each of the corners of the card. But only covering the card by 1/8 inch.
Place another card on top of the stack of washers. Place 10 washers around the interior of the card to simulate interior walls and office equipment.
Continue to stack floor after floor up to about 10 floors.
Then overload the top floor with washers to simulate an airplane sitting on a floor that wasn’t designed to support it. I think you will find that each floor will collapse in turn and the exterior washers will fall as well.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Answer 2 simple questions then
What holds the floor is position IE the office floors
Do you KNOW how to calculate the the dynamic load of the falling mass YES OR NO
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Do you KNOW how to calculate the the dynamic load of the falling mass YES OR NO
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
Well as you cant answer DYNAMIC loading has everything to do with it, when the falling mass hits a floor what has to take that increased load the FLOOR CONNECTIONS.
But when do we ever hear that from the people claiming pancaking was possible. How could they all break simultaneously for the floor to remain horizontal as it fell.
You have no doubt looked at the video of the rice bag as an example when an object falls it generates MANY TIMES its static load.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by wmd_2008
You have no doubt looked at the video of the rice bag as an example when an object falls it generates MANY TIMES its static load.
Nobody is arguing, or has ever argued in this context to my knowledge, that it wouldn't.
What you have failed to establish is that such a dynamic load would cause a complete failure such as observed in WTC.
I take it you saw how many times greater than the rice bag static load the maximum load was now multiply the falling mass in the towers around 15 floors for the north and around 30 floors for the south by similar amounts. Also remember dropping the height of one floor around 12 ft the impact speed was around 19 mph. When the mass drops a fraction of that mass hits wall or core coulmns the bulk of it hits the floor slab what holds the floors in position the connections that's all. For example if all the floors above floor 94 drop on 94, then the connections of floor 94 have to try to support all that load, the connections of any floor below that can't help, the mass below that can't help and that is the real problem.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Darkwing01
( drop produced 31 times static load!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Now above loads are just the concrete none of the steel work, service, lift machinery etc etc.
Then you guys wonder why it fell down!!!edit on 24-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by samkent
Did you see the pictures of how the core was constructed?
It was mostly a large hollow concrete box containing elevators and hallways and other equipment. It wasn't a solid filled concrete monolith. I don't know how thick the walls were but if you had the floor truss bolts being ripped out, that would likely have an large impact on the integrity of the structure as a whole.
Plus it was likely that the plane punched one or more holes through it. Yes it had rebar inside it but that stuff would bend like a coat hanger. They bust up these kind of things with a swinging steel ball all the time.
Originally posted by samkent
Did you see the pictures of how the core was constructed?
Here
Look at the diagrams down the page.
It was mostly a large hollow concrete box containing elevators and hallways and other equipment. It wasn't a solid filled concrete monolith. I don't know how thick the walls were but if you had the floor truss bolts being ripped out, that would likely have an large impact on the integrity of the structure as a whole.
Plus it was likely that the plane punched one or more holes through it. Yes it had rebar inside it but that stuff would bend like a coat hanger. They bust up these kind of things with a swinging steel ball all the time.
Take a good look at how the core was really constructed and the size of the 47 columns. Take special note how they taper in size, and weight, getting smaller and lighter towards the top, and the fact that to have collapsed the way you claim they would be collapsing through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance.
How do you explain that using the known laws of motion, and momentum conservation? No links to crappy web sites please. Gravity can't do this!