Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11
I suspect both of you are oversimplifying.
Yes, sadsack, the forces presented by dropping something twelve feet are greater than those presented by that same weight sitting still.
However the upper stories were not air dropped (contrary to the analysis in the Gordon Ross paper cited above, which explicitly states that it ignores "losses of energy due to the residual strength within the failing columns of the failed section".)
Well, to be more precise, the upper stories probably -were- air dropped, but this could only have happened if some rather sudden and, dare I say, explosive expenditure of energy removed more or less all structural support provided by an entire story.
Can we get real here, guys? Can we get past the point of scoring debating points and heaping scorn, to consider what actually happened?
I submit that the Gordon Ross paper is unrealistically simplified, for the purposes of making its analysis tractable, but that it still makes an important point. It's saying that if the upper stories were air dropped say twelve feet onto the lower stories, then the loss of energy spent crushing each level would slow the fall, eventually leaving "insufficieint energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all the energy demands of the collision."
Originally posted by skyson
Originally posted by sadsack
Yes, sadsack, the forces presented by dropping something twelve feet are greater than those presented by that same weight sitting still.
However the upper stories were not air dropped (contrary to the analysis in the Gordon Ross paper cited above, which explicitly states that it ignores "losses of energy due to the residual strength within the failing columns of the failed section".)
Well, to be more precise, the upper stories probably -were- air dropped, but this could only have happened if some rather sudden and, dare I say, explosive expenditure of energy removed more or less all structural support provided by an entire story.
Can we get real here, guys? Can we get past the point of scoring debating points and heaping scorn, to consider what actually happened?
I submit that the Gordon Ross paper is unrealistically simplified, for the purposes of making its analysis tractable, but that it still makes an important point. It's saying that if the upper stories were air dropped say twelve feet onto the lower stories, then the loss of energy spent crushing each level would slow the fall, eventually leaving "insufficieint energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all the energy demands of the collision."
Comment