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.

 

Simple experiment involving wrecking ball and aviation fuel to prove if 9/11 is true or false

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by ANOK
 


what was the safety factor?


We don't know what the safety factors were. They have to be at least x2 but it changes throughout the structure and some sections will have a safety factor much higher than x2.


What is a Margin of Safety?

Every machine, building and piece of infrastructure is intended to function correctly within a certain range of factors. Weight, temperature, pressure, vibration, quality of contstruction, durability of materials, and climate factors all affect safety. Most buildings and equipment are engineered to ensure that the ability to respond to extreme changes in any of these factors far exceeds the failure point. Engineers are expected to adapt building plans to account for various failure scenarios such as overloads, deliberate destruction or weather.

www.ehow.com...


Buildings commonly use a factor of safety of 2.0 for each structural member. The value for buildings is relatively low because the loads are well understood and most structures are redundant.

pediaview.com...

engr.bd.psu.edu...




posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So according to you, at least 2 is "many times over?"



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Do you want to discuss physics, or waste my time with semantics?

x2 is a minimum for a component, many components welded and bolted together increases the overall redundancy of the structure. x2 is quoted because its the minimum and you can't argue that is would be less, and it's more than would be needed in order to arrest the collapse of falling floors.

This get real old when I have to explain every tiny detail because you come to the discussion thinking you know everything, then you show you fail to understand the basics of structural engineering and physics.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Go ahead and keep pretending to know physics and engineering, ANOK. You're not fooling many with your links to E-How and pediaview.

We can discuss physics all you like, but it is awfully hard to do much of that without at least a little math, which apparently scares you. I have yet to hear your explanation beyond "its obvious...newton's laws...blah,blah,blah." Just go ahead and lay out your explanation in detail.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Do you want to discuss physics, or waste my time with semantics?

x2 is a minimum for a component, many components welded and bolted together increases the overall redundancy of the structure. x2 is quoted because its the minimum and you can't argue that is would be less, and it's more than would be needed in order to arrest the collapse of falling floors.

This get real old when I have to explain every tiny detail because you come to the discussion thinking you know everything, then you show you fail to understand the basics of structural engineering and physics.


Uh, where are you getting this absolute statement that 200% is the minimum safety factor? General rule is that it is 150%. Spent a lot of time reviewing safety factors for steel erections and shop drawings. Never heard of anyone purposely designing to 200%.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


But Hooper, didn't you follow the links to Ehow and Pediaview? Those sources are impeccable, dang it!



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   


So you honestly think that if you removed the second story of a building, hoisted it say 20 feet in the air above the bottom half the building, and let it drop, the first story would not be pulverized by the weight of the second story despite its having held that weight previously?

Are you saying that prior to collapse, the top third of the Tower jumped up twenty feet in the air and then dropped down onto the lower section, crushing it floor by floor? These OS theories are getting more entertaining by the day.



You can't claim that the falling of the material is causing the lower structure to fail AND that it is causing the crushing. To be crushed the material needs to be resisting the collapse, otherwise it can't be crushed.

No doubt OS believers are trying to sell a load of rubbish about the top section of the tower crushing down onto the lower section, when there was little or no resistance to perform this crushing activity. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

There are some estimates which claim that two thirds of the buildings were reduced to dust. Considering the relatively small debris pile, this is a valid estimate. How can all this dust crush two massive skyscrapers to the ground? The answer is easy: it cannot. The towers were blown to smithereens, not crushed, as anyone with one functioning eye can see from the videos.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



There are some estimates which claim that two thirds of the buildings were reduced to dust.

Gee, I wonder where those estimates came from - I am sure the source is impeccable.


Considering the relatively small debris pile, this is a valid estimate.

Say what? Small debris pile? Relative to what? So basically you are using your own phony sources to validate your phony conclusions.

How can all this dust crush two massive skyscrapers to the ground?

It was really heavy dust, in fact I think it was super duper nano dust. It can do anything.

The answer is easy: it cannot.

But it did, isn't that odd.

The towers were blown to smithereens, not crushed, as anyone with one functioning eye can see from the videos.

And yet for the millions of times those videos were viewed by literally billions of people around the world, only a microscopic subset of conspiracy cultist ever saw that. Strange.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ANOK
 

Because bolts and welding offer little to no resistance by comparison to the vast amount of weight that is dropping straight down on top of it as the upper stories slam down on top of them.

If it make you feel better put a few small dabs of white glue on the edges of the cards, but you’ll still end up with the same result. A house of cards will collapse in the exact same manner as a truss constructed building.


The building was designed to hold its weight plus a safety factor that would allow the building to hold its own weight many times over. So sorry but there was no reason at all the building would completely collapse from its own weight. The laws of motion tell us that 15 floors can not crush 95 floors.


Sorry but I need to chime in at this point. This thread is already rife with misconception and misrepresentations.

What laws of motions (and which laws precisely, and by what quantitative result) tell us that 15 floors can not crush 95 floors?

There are many examples of physics phenomena around us that aren't so intuitive but it's silly to reject them just because of that. A bicycle lock can be splashed with liquid nitrogen and then broken by tapping with a hammer. Alternatively, a solid piece of steel can be forged at high temperatures and be completely malleable. Collapsing bubbles of steam inside of liquid can produce tremendous shockwaves which is totally not intuitive.


edit on 4-7-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

What laws of motions (and which laws precisely, and by what quantitative result) tell us that 15 floors can not crush 95 floors?


The 3rd law, equal opposite reaction.

When two objects collide the forces on each object is equal. We know the floors were being destroyed during the collapse. The dropping floors can not stay in one piece, while destroying the floors they were dropping on.

Even if I'm generous and allow two static floors to be destroyed per one dropping floor, 15 floors falling on 95 that still leaves 65 floors that should have been stacked in the footprint.

Momentum conservation tells us that both the dropping floor and the static floors will want to maintain their momentum and will push against each other with equal force. During collisions objects maintain their momentum by either exchanging the momentum between the objects, or the objects are destroyed. The object with the most mass receives the least damage because it's momentum is not slowed as much as the other object. The floors of the WTC were of more or less equal mass, one could not destroy the other and stay intact.

This is simple basic high school physics.

The OS wants you to believe the dropping floors stayed intact until the static floors were destroyed, and then the dropping floors destroyed themselves. That is not how it works in the real world.

A question for you, how do you explain the core collapsing through a path of increasing mass?



wtcmodel.wikidot.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by ANOK
 


Go ahead and keep pretending to know physics and engineering, ANOK. You're not fooling many with your links to E-How and pediaview.


If you know so much then quit just telling me I'm wrong and explain it yourself mate.


We can discuss physics all you like, but it is awfully hard to do much of that without at least a little math, which apparently scares you. I have yet to hear your explanation beyond "its obvious...newton's laws...blah,blah,blah." Just go ahead and lay out your explanation in detail.


I'm not scared of maths it is not needed to explain the laws of motion. I don't have enough information to do any math without having to make assumptions.

You are just simply ignoring the laws of motion because you either don't understand them, or you don't like that fact that it contradicts your claims. I already explained it in detail, you need to learn to read instead of keep asking me to repeat myself. It makes no different what site I link to as long as the information is correct, but it's obvious you either wouldn't know, or don't care.

You can not keep ignoring this...


Newton's third law applies to pairs of bodies. If a body A exerts a force on a body B, then body B exerts an equal and opposite force on body A.

www.splung.com...

...and pretending it doesn't matter.


The Importance of Newton's Laws

Newton's laws are extremely important not just in mechanics but in the whole of physics. When trying to understand a physical process, we often understand it by looking at the forces acting and working out the equations of motion. This is true of the motion of the planets to the flow of electrons in an electric or magnetic field.

www.splung.com...

Can you do the maths to prove complete collapse was possible, without ignoring the mass of the lower structure?
All the maths so far have assumed the full mass of the top, but ignores the full mass of the bottom, which results incorrectly favour complete collapse.

Try answering these questions...

A large truck and a Volkswagen have a head-on collision.

a. Which vehicle experiences the greatest force of impact?
b. Which vehicle experiences the greatest impulse?
c. Which vehicle experiences the greatest momentum change?
d. Which vehicle experiences the greatest acceleration?

If you answer those correctly, then apply that knowledge to the towers you'll see I'm right. I will supply the links to the answer after you reply.


edit on 7/4/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Finally, we've teased it out of you. It's going to take a while to sort through your confusions, ANOK, but I'll get through it. I'm moving house at the moment, so please forgive any delay.

for starters, you can chew on this:

1. The mass of the lower floors really isn't relevant to the question, but rather the capacity of the lower structure actually impacted to resist impact loads created by the falling upper structure. In this case (for purposes of calculating momentum of the upper and lower sections), we could consider the "lower floors" to have the mass of the whole earth, since the columns are rigidly connected to the ground through the foundations, and almost instantaneously transmit loads at the top all the way down. This doesn't help your case though. Let's just call the mass of the lower floors infinite for now, that ok with you?

2. Your discussion of momentum erroneously ignores velocity. This will be a big factor in my explanation of where you've gone wrong.

3. It's fallacious to treat "floors" (as in "the 13th floor") as objects, but for the sake of discussion, I'll ignore that.

4. of course youre ignoring "g". That stands for gravity, as you will know, having many physics and engineering textbooks on hand. This will also be important.

5. "The object with the most mass receives the least damage because it's momentum is not slowed as much as the other object" That is contradicted by the information on the page where you copy-pasted the "pop quiz" from:..."Both the Volkswagon and the large truck encounter the same force, the same impulse, and the same momentum change"Here--->

5a. Not to mention that damage done to non-homogeneous structures will depend on a myriad of factors besides mass. Ever been struck in the head with a cricket bat? Which of you took more damage?

6. "I don't have enough information to do any math without having to make assumptions." Assumptions are actually a necessity in both physics and structural design. It's bad assumptions that we must be on guard for.

Well, that's all I have time for now. I'll nearly have to write a textbook to correct all of your misconceptions. Looking forward to a great discussion.

EDIT to add:

by the way, its erroneous to say that momentum has slowed. It sounds like you're confusing it with velocity, even if you really aren't.
edit on 7/4/2011 by DrEugeneFixer because: additional minor point



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by buddhasystem

What laws of motions (and which laws precisely, and by what quantitative result) tell us that 15 floors can not crush 95 floors?


The 3rd law, equal opposite reaction.

When two objects collide the forces on each object is equal. We know the floors were being destroyed during the collapse. The dropping floors can not stay in one piece, while destroying the floors they were dropping on.


What you said does not buttress your point by an iota. There are also a few laws of thermodynamics, and laws of the State of New York, where the tragedy happened. You just can't prove your claim is in any way correct, period. If you think that you repeat "law of motion" 1,000 time and it makes it true, you are sadly mistaken.

When a mass which is roughly flat in shape is moving downward and is impacting an object which is also roughly flat in shape, it's entirely immaterial whether the upper floors were in one piece or broken in a dozen places. It's a mass traveling down in a particular speed and impacting a structure below. In fact, this mass is impacting just exactly ONE level of the building and not all these mythical 95. That you entirely missed that point as it is stipulated in the "pancake" scenario is staggering.


Even if I'm generous and allow two static floors to be destroyed per one dropping floor, 15 floors falling on 95 that still leaves 65 floors that should have been stacked in the footprint.


Look, it was a single floor every time the impact of 15+ floor happened. It was a progression, 15, 16, 17 etc, each time hitting a single membrane which was the ceiling (or a floor, depending which way you look ) of the next level. When floor 95 gave, it became a part of the 16 floor mass that continued its tragic journey downward.


Momentum conservation tells us that both the dropping floor and the static floors will want to maintain their momentum and will push against each other with equal force.


I don't hold it against you that you don't know physics, let me just remark that there was no collision of 15 floors against 95. Read the above.


This is simple basic high school physics.


I'm fortunate to have studied physics way, way above that level. Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join