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 Varemia
reply to post by GenRadek
I think that ANOK is assuming that the floor which gets destroyed will remove kinetic energy from the above falling mass and no longer contribute.
When a system is composed of several objects it is the total mass that matters.
What he forgets is that there is a space in each floor which will allow for some acceleration by gravity for the added debris and initial falling mass.
That is also one of the major problems with psikeyhackr's model. It does not have a space in-between each floor, making the collapse appear to be the above floors as a solid mass impacting another solid mass with lighter mass in-between each floor, but still a great deal heavier than air. It's true that if the towers had no air and all of the in-between floor space was filled with Styrofoam or something, then the collapse would have likely arrested. The simple fact is that the towers were not filled with Styrofoam.
Originally posted by esdad71
There was no pancake collapse either.
If the inner columns or outer columns only had failed, and the fires were brought under control, it think they would have stood. But they had a weakened inner core and you had the outer columns fail after trying to compensate. I have said before I think they withstood what they could and it may have been worse. The fact that 2 planes smacked them and neither immediately collapsed is a testament to the design.
However, it was a tube design that was very unique and that was not a bad thing unless you had an event such as 9/11.
The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which Khan designed and was completed in Chicago by 1963.[5] This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
Your post never have any content man. Nothing. The example I gave was perfect and is a basic physics experiment.
So tell me, where did all the energy go when it hit the lower floors?
It's true that if the towers had no air and all of the in-between floor space was filled with Styrofoam or something, then the collapse would have likely arrested. The simple fact is that the towers were not filled with Styrofoam.
In the case of the WTC would it be elastic since it struck a non moving object and since there was no loss in KE
You may be able to hold a 20 lb barbell in one hand over your head. Now, Have someone stand 6 inches above you and drop that same barbell. Not that far to fall but you will have a difficult time catching and holding it, right?
Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by Varemia
Styrofoam is providing more resistance than columns these days?
No, it was simply to give an idea of what psikeyhackr's model lacked: space in-between floors.
Columns will provide resistance, yes, but the horizontal supports still matter. You can't ignore them and assume that they will withstand high stress vertical impacts just because they're connected to vertical columns.
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Ben81
There's a difference between a giant 500MPH missile hitting a building and a earth quake.
STILL BELIEVE BASIC PHYSICS?!
Originally posted by Azp420
I was under the impression that the model represented the columns between floors, which were just strong enough to support the entire structure.
The concrete/truss floors? They contain mass, lots of it. It takes energy to accelerate that mass. I don't think anyone's claiming they should withstand high impacts, but it costs energy to crush them too. Amazing then, that despite all these energy losses, the top section was able to almost maintain free fall (~2/3rds) through the undamaged structure.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Airliners are so much more impressive when they are called GIANT. The building was only 2000 times the mass of the plane.
Considering that the earth all around a skyscraper must be moving to move the skyscraper I would think the earthquake must be applying more energy. But since it is applied evenly it is more like the wind than the airliner. But the wind applies the force in the same area as the airliner.
The question is can the building withstand it. Considering that the south tower only moved 15 inches I would have to say yes. But then no one compares the FIFTEEN INCHES at impact to the 20 feet and tilt 54 minutes later and accounts for how fire could do that.
It is all BELIEF without explanation.
Physics has sure gone down the tubes since 2001.
psik
Originally posted by Varemia
At least I don't have faith that something else had to have happened. I look at what is available to me and draw conclusions based on what I can verify. You and many others deny what is available to you and draw conclusions based on your denial. That is not science and though physics may be applied somewhat correctly, your method is all wrong.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFLMAO
You can't verify that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. LOL
FAITH is irrelevant to PHYSICS. You just don't comprehend the difference between understanding what is necessary to KNOW and BELIEVING.
So you can't notice the obvious absurdities of what is obviously being not made available.
The Empire State Building is 80 years old and was designed without electronic computers because they did not exist. That was 38 years before the Moon landing. Now here we are 41 years after the Moon landing and have computers all over the place and the nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings supposedly TOTALLY OBLITERATED by planes 1/2000th their mass in less than TWO HOURS.
I don't know which is more incredible.
That stupid liars expect people to believe really stupid lies.
or that
So many people prefer to believe really stupid lies than notice the obvious.
If the top of the north tower could destroy everything below the impact zone it should be relatively easy for physicists at our engineering schools to build a model demonstrating the effect.
www.youtube.com...
But when do any physicists even discuss the idea? No, this is a very strange global psychological problem. But there were many things demonstrating that psychology before 9/11 just nothing on this scale. Like IBM selling computers and never saying they were von Neumann machines even though IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1952. The system depends on leaving out information so most people don't even know what questions to ask.
www.youtube.com...
And now we need computers with gigabytes of RAM even though before 1990 multi-million dollar corporations could do business with mainframes with less then 100 meg. Now we need operating systems that take up 10 gig of disk space. People allow their thinking to be distorted due to bombardment with disinformation.
The liars just need to speak confidently and they get the push button emotional reactions they want. Our schools do not encourage, much less teach kids to think for themselves and verify the facts to think with.
psik
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can't verify that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. LOL
What the heck is this supposed to mean? It was visibly seen that the towers did hold themselves up for a while after impact. That is verifiable.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The towers held themselves up for THIRTY YEARS.
That means the designers had to figure out how much steel to put where to support all of that concrete and the steel had to be distributed to support itself plus its other load.
So how was the steel distributed down that building?
What were the TONS OF STEEL on each and every level all of the way down? When does Richard Gage talk about that? Discussing this subject for NINE YEARS without getting that information correct and not even asking about it is utterly absurd.
What is there to do besides laugh about it after all of this time? Better childish than REALLY STUPID!
There are 200 buildings around the world more than 800 feet tall. Gravity works the same way all over the planet.
psik
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The towers held themselves up for THIRTY YEARS.
That means the designers had to figure out how much steel to put where to support all of that concrete and the steel had to be distributed to support itself plus its other load.
So how was the steel distributed down that building?
What were the TONS OF STEEL on each and every level all of the way down? When does Richard Gage talk about that? Discussing this subject for NINE YEARS without getting that information correct and not even asking about it is utterly absurd.
What is there to do besides laugh about it after all of this time? Better childish than REALLY STUPID!
There are 200 buildings around the world more than 800 feet tall. Gravity works the same way all over the planet.
psik
I'm pretty sure it's not so black and white. If you want to look up how much material they ordered for the towers and then used based on their blueprints, then go right ahead.
Also, there you go again with the CAPS LOCK. WE'RE NOT BABIES, STOP USING IT.
And another also, if you didn't realize, a big hole with fire is not the same as being undamaged and standing for 30 years. Conditions may be slightly different.
Seriously, I will soon refuse to act like a decent human being toward you if you don't get your act together.
The so called BLUE PRINTS don't even show the positions of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core.
Not having info that simple just shows how RIDICULOUS this entire issue is.
Architects, structural engineers and physicists are being silly not pointing out the lack of that information since the impacts and collapses can't be analyzed without it.
The horizontal beams in the core would have to impact each other in any collapse. Those beams provided the stiffness for the structure to resist the wind.
So 9/11 is a scientific FARCE. It should have been resolved in SIX MONTHS. So how do our physicists explain not doing it and how can they ever change their minds.
They have painted themselves into a corner. They have mostly remained silent about what should have been obviously impossible.
But they are supposed to TEACH PHYSICS at out engineering schools.
If you can't build a model that can COMPLETELY COLLAPSE then your act must be a JOKE.
www.youtube.com...
Truth is whatever the majority of morons believe regardless of what information they leave out and cannot model. Computers can be programmed to LIE.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The so called BLUE PRINTS don't even show the positions of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core.
Really? Did you finally get your hands on the as-builts to confirm this?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The so called BLUE PRINTS don't even show the positions of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core.
Really? Did you finally get your hands on the as-builts to confirm this?
Do you know about an Internet link to any blue prints that have the horizontal beams? Do you know of any physicists or structural engineers that have been mentioning them on the net?
One person has provided a link to blueprints in one thread hear and I specified one of them that clearly showed 8 columns with no horizontal connections to any other columns.
psik