Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
Dr. G wrote:Heiwa:
I will answer your question with this:
I think you are familiar with the "verinage" demolition of the Balzac (ABC) building in France since it was discussed on this website a few months ago. An upper block of floors of the building was made to drop on the lower part using hydraulic rams, (No explosives - sorry!)
According to your "axiom" this is impossible; so it looks like your axiom has been falsified!
David B. Benson wrote:From a variety of simulations, not just mine, the fact that the tower mas per story declined slowly with height makes very little difference. One can hardly tell the difference between a uniform structure and the mass distribution worked out by Greg Ulrich or available from NIST's SAP stuff, now publically available.
David B. Benson wrote:psikeyhackr --- Mass certainly declined slowly going up; common sense shows that, but also read NCSTAR1--6D.
The towers were designed, under maximum wind load, not to have more than 60 seconds of arc local deflection; the columns members basically just sat on top of the members below. See NCSTAR1--2A.
There is a difference between the resistive force, solely vertical, and other expenditures of energy. So I'd take off the vertical lines along the walls. Similarly, there is a difference between the resistive force as we attempt to determine it from the drop of the antenna mast and the ability of some core columns to resist falling apart into mere column members (thus forming the spire). This I would treat as merely random for simplicity. So just a horizontal green line, because I have no way to differential between floors with trusses and the core. In any case, assuming a vertical avalanche, just a short time after the passage of the crushing front, the different materials would be increasingly thoroughly mixed, remains of trusses, lightweight concrete, ordinary weight concrete and floor pans well jumbled together.
Thanks for these pix which I had not previously seen! I agree that this small portion of the core was not impacted in a way such as to cause the column splices and some of the beam connections to fail. (I doubt there is any flooring left.) Not clear this contributed any appreciable vertical resistive force slowing the main advance of the crushing front.Major_Tom wrote:... trapped within the perimeter caging but obviously tending toward the chutes and away from the core.
Dr. G wrote:Heiwa:
It is interesting, and very telling, that you dismiss the demolition of the ABC Balzac building as not a ligitimate candidate for your "axiom" because it is (according to you) an example of a collapse with M(upper)/M(lower) ~ 0.5. Your axiom applies (according to you) only to collapses with M(upper)/M(lower) = 0.1.
What about a case with M(upper)/M(lower) = 0.15 ?
Is that outside your axiomatic range?
I agree that this small portion of the core was not impacted in a way such as to cause the column splices and some of the beam connections to fail. (I doubt there is any flooring left.) Not clear this contributed any appreciable vertical resistive force slowing the main advance of the crushing front.
Part of the reason for moving away from that section might be the peeling off of the perimeter walls.
psikeyhackr wrote:A lot of people are making fun of my demonstration because it uses WASHERS though they are not explaining how that invalidates the point.
But it has just occurred to me what else could be used for falling masses.
HARD DISK DRIVES!
What to use as crushable supports that would still be strong enough for the static load though?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest