reply to post by The X
I would love to see how clever you really are, this is an opportunity to earn yourself 1million euros, and, my deepest respect.
Let me see if I can reply to your post.
This is after all your field, is it not?.
Yes it is. I stare at I beams all day long. Talking to iron workers and every other construction industry in the field.
Buildings perform their "Duty" even outside of design specifications as a matter of the structural building codes.
Even after sustaining structural damage such as this?
Can you please show me another example of a building at this height that sustained similar structural damage and stood upright? I think that the
towers did a good job of absorbing the impact. It is amazing that they still stood for an hour and a half or so.
Please, show me how clever you are.
From your link.
The bottom part A is the 9/10th bottom of the total structure. It has mass 9 M kilograms. It means A is 9 times bigger than C!
When top part C with mass M impacts bottom part A from above after a free fall drop of 3.7 meters by gravity (g = 9.82 m/s²), it applies 36.334 M
Joule energy to the (total) structure with mass 10 M.
Will bottom part A with mass 9 M be crushed into rubble by top part C with mass M? Can 3.63 Joule energy initiate a collapse destruction of 1 kilogram
of A?
your link
The bottom 9/10th's of the building has an upper floor. This upper floor is held together by connections. As seen in the diagram.
The weight of the upper floor collapsing is not falling on a solid mass. The weight is falling on the truss and beam connections, which are connected
to the inner and outer perimeter. These connections of the uper "still intact" portion of the building are the objects absorbing the energy, not the
whole lower mass of the building.
Like I stated in my post before. All of the math and "physics" models that like to get thrown around are simply using the total weight and mass of
the building, ignoring the connections that hold the building together.
Here is a pic of one of the dampers that was pulled from the wreckage.
This single piece is just a part of the connection that was responsible for taking the brunt of the impact by the weight of the falling debris.
Here is a diagram of an undamaged one.
I ask you this.
Can this single part hold up the entire weight of the upper floors? Can a hundred parts hold up the weight?
These parts have a weight and stress limit that they can handle.
It really is simple..........The weight fell on these connections. The outer load bearing wall was designed to withstand the potential load of the
building, with added dampers for a determined amount of side to side sway.
The load bearing perimeter and inner core were not designed to withstand, or absorb kenetic energy of a downward motion of collapsing weight. An
astounding amount of weight at that.
My favourite debunking tactic, put your brains/mouth where the money is.
With all due respect your debunking tactic means nothing. It is just another failed attempt to try to make math and physics a "truther friend".
The buildings are not a solid mass. It is mass that is held up by thousands of connections. This is what the weight of the upper floors is impacting,
the connections, not the entire mass of the lower building. One connection at a time, one floor at a time.
It is 3.7 meters to the next connection, and the 4 inches of lightweight concrete sitting on metal decking, which is connected(welded or screwed) to
the trusses.
I mean seriously, the link you provided is a one sided argument. That is ok though, I know that even after taking the time to try to explain the
complexity of multiple building connections verses solid mass will go upon deaf ears(or blind eyes).
I am used to it around here.
edit on 24-5-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)
