|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2006 : 21:45:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave: How do the joists get over loaded? How does the 2" pipe fit in the 1" hole?
I was under the impression that the elastic and plastic phases were what occurred prior to buckling--and that buckling is what happened after the material exhausted its capacity to resist additional force; that buckling represented material failure. If I got this wrong I stand corrected--Ross clearly includes those phases in his calculations. But why shouldn't he? is it incorrect to account for those properties of steel?
And if the bulk of the support came from the core support structure, how would the buckling of one perimiter wall cause a complete collapse of the building?
And WTC 7 had no buckling perimiter wall yet it fell in the same manner as WTC 1 & 2.
As for the speed of the collapse, let's just take this one step at a time.
Are you saying Ross' model is wrong because his model includes the propagation of force that put the steel through its elastic and plastic phases? If so, why is this model incorrect?
As far as my building method comment, I was limiting my comment to non-absurd methods of construction.
marknox: no, I was not implying that. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2006 : 22:08:10 [Permalink]
|
The wall and support on the side of the impacted plane was weakened by the impact. This put more stress on the remaining support, but it also starts to bend the support on the "healthy" side of the building and in the building core.
When the top floors starts to topple over, not only do the supports experience pressure force, but also bending force. Steel, and especially concrete have a much lower breaking-point when bent, than by sheer pressure along the beam's axis. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 10/03/2006 : 05:16:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Valiant Dancer: What about WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6? There were all struck by debris and had fires. So did buildings across the street from WTC 1 & 2. The only buildings that collapsed were ones owned by Silverstein (WTC 1, 2 & 7). And why would it have mattered (in your mind) whether the plane hit by accident or on purpose?!
Because they were
1) much smaller than WTC7
2) Did not have raging diesel fires
3) Had firefighting apparatus in operation
Bad luck does not a conspiracy make.
I mentioned it because the primary consideration for the building was wind load and accidental aircraft strikes. Nobody at the time of the construction was building to take a deliberate aircraft strike. One where the fuel load would be close to maximum. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 05:26:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Dude: Like I said before. I'm going to hold off on that issue (how it was done) until I'm convinced that it couldn't be due to gravity alone. So far, no one has provided any convincing evidence for the conspiricy theory that includes a gravity-only component to explain the collapse of WTC 1,2 & 7. But it's only been about 24 hours.
That is because no one here has suggested such a scenario, oh lord of the strawmen.
I'll number them this time so you wont miss it again.
The problems which caused the collapse were
1) A raging fuel fire
2) gravity
3) inoperative fire suppression mechanisms due to aircraft strikes (WTC 1&2) or maintainance issues (WTC 7)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 09:59:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Dave: How do the joists get over loaded? How does the 2" pipe fit in the 1" hole?
It doesn't. Why are you so obsessed with having a broken building fit neatly inside itself? If you were to take the 16 top floors, drop them by 3.7 m onto something that'd stop their fall in less than a quarter second or so, there would be more than enough momentum in the floor concrete itself - of every floor - to snap the floor joists off their anchors, and you're left with a mostly-hollow 16-story box containing more than 9,250 metric tons of free-falling broken slabs of concrete, steel joists, office furniture and filing cabinets. That is what was smacking into the "impact floor," not some pristine set of sixteen floors with columns between each as in Ross' model.quote:
I was under the impression that the elastic and plastic phases were what occurred prior to buckling--and that buckling is what happened after the material exhausted its capacity to resist additional force; that buckling represented material failure.
The energies Ross included in the plastic and elastic phases were indeed the energies necessary to buckle a steel column. It is the energies to continue deformation of the same column after it has buckled that Ross correctly points out are dramatically lower, and so which he ignores. Ross is claiming that all of the steel columns between the first impacted floor and the one below it must buckle for the collapse to continue, while you recently claimed that there's an energy deficit even if one ignores the energies required to buckle columns. Given the design of the Twin Towers, the former claim isn't true, and given that Ross' energy balance depends on buckling the columns, the latter claim is not true.quote:
If I got this wrong I stand corrected--Ross clearly includes those phases in his calculations.
Yes, he does.quote:
But why shouldn't he? is it incorrect to account for those properties of steel?
No, it's absolutely correct to include buckling columns if the building is designed in such a way that columns have to buckle in order for the floors to collapse. The Twin Towers were not such a design. Ross' calculations depend upon the energy crushing a column, from top-to-bottom, so much that it buckles. If the floors of the Twin Towers collapse, however, the buckling will be caused by the perimeter columns being pulled inwards by the flooring systems (energies Ross doesn't account for at all).quote:
And if the bulk of the support came from the core support structure, how would the buckling of one perimiter wall cause a complete collapse of the building?
It didn't, and it didn't. For the Twin Towers, the load was shared between the core and the perimeter columns. If I understand the NIST theory correctly, for 1 WTC, an airplane removed or deformed many of the columns on the north face, so support for the outer flooring on the above stories was transferred - through the "hat trusses" near the roof - to the core. After the fire weakened the flooring system of several floors, causing them to sag and pull inwards on the perimeter, the south face buckled, and so its load was also transferred to the core. The core, of course, had sustained major damage in the crash and was also weakened by the fires, so it failed. The east and west perimeters, having also been weakened by the fire, were no match for the load, so the whole thing started coming down. The flooring systems below the crash zone couldn't take the load of the crap falling on them, and rapidly failed, one after the other, pulling all of the perimeter columns inward and the core columns outward, though the core managed to stay up for quite some time even though tons of collapsing concrete flooring was battering it with downward and lateral forces.quote:
And WTC 7 had no buckling perimiter wall yet it fell in the same manner as WTC 1 & 2.
Who says it fell in the same manner? The descriptions I've read paint quite a different tale, and there were internal design issues with 7 WTC, as well.quote:
As for the speed of the collapse, let's just take this one step at a time.
You brought it up.quote:
Are you saying Ross' model is wrong because his model includes the propagation of force that put the steel through its elastic and plastic phases? If so, why is this model incorrect?
Ross' model is incorrect because it depends upon the columns all failing from stress placed directly on top of them. This would be true in a more traditionally-constructed building, with a whole slew of internal columns all bearing the weight of the floors above, where the floor won't fail so long as the columns remain in place. The Twin Towers' floors could fail without buckling any columns at all. That's one of the reasons why nobody built an Olympic-sized pool on the 98th floor.quote:
As far as my building method comment, I was limiting my comment to non-absurd methods of construction.
Doesn't much matter, since understanding the architecture of the towers is vital to understanding why they collapsed like they did, and why Ross' model is inappropriate to such an analysis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 11:09:39 [Permalink]
|
Id like to add that just because buildings are constructed differently doesnt mean they will collapse in vastly different ways. All tall buildings pancake their floors on collapse unless demolitioned. Gravity is too strong once the building starts to fall to make them tip over for example. On the first collaspe the top of the building tipped a bit before the cascade began, because the failure was in the middle on a large section of one side, after that it fell straight down.
The initial failure which caused the pancaking is the key, Id bet that tower 7 had part of the floor slab collapse which pulled the rest of that floor down with it onto the next, and once it starts there is little you can do to stop it. As an office tower manager I can tell you it doesnt take a plane to make that crappy fireproofing fall off, moisture + 20 years and it will fall off by itself. This is beside the fact that it got hit by the largest falling building in the world, which I doubt it was designed to do. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 12:08:58 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer: First of all, it makes no difference whether a plane that hits a building was an accident or not. With 3 major airports in the vacinity, a full load of fuel shouldn't have been a surprise.
And you keep mentioning "raging fires." The firefighter on the crash zone floor in one tower mentioned 2 small fires. And people can be seen in the gashes left by the planes--no raging fires to be seen. Black smoke billowing out of the towers--indicating incomplete combustion: a symptom of a non-raging fire. Sensor readings showed a peak of under 500*F. And experts have commented that much of the fuel burned off in the fireball that occured on impact. So please take "raging fires" off your list.
Gravity, while obviously present, has been shown to create insufficient energy to put the upper blocks of floors through even the first impacted floor. So while gravity certainly contributed to the energy in the system, it alone is not enough to bring the towers down to the ground. SO either take gravity off your list or add in "plus some unknown source of energy."
No buildings before of since 9/11 that were steel & concrete construction have ever collapsed due to fire--even after burning for nearly 24 hours. So take fire suppression issues off your list.
Let's review what's left on your list of reasons the towers fell...
Dave W: RE: "Why are you so obsessed with having a broken building fit neatly inside itself? If you were to take the 16 top floors, drop them by 3.7 m onto something that'd stop their fall in less than a quarter second or so, there would be more than enough momentum in the floor concrete itself - of every floor - to snap the floor joists off their anchors, and you're left with a mostly-hollow 16-story box containing more than 9,250 metric tons of free-falling broken slabs of concrete, steel joists, office furniture and filing cabinets. That is what was smacking into the "impact floor," not some pristine set of sixteen floors with columns between each as in Ross' model."
How would all 16 floors fall on the "first impacted floor" at the same time? Your description of events just doesn't make sense (given the laws of physics) or match what we saw when the buildings came down. It's as if you think the builders of the towers put 287 support collumns to hold up the buildiing and used tooth picks to secure the floors to the sides of the towers. Or that somehow, all 16 upper floors fell off their joist attachments in such a way so as to slam into that first impacted floor at the same time. And if the top 16 floors did what you hypothesize, the shell of the building would have remained standing--which it didn't. So on this issue, we either all saw it wrong, or your hypothesis is wrong.
All the damage and weakening of support columns you mention is localized. I don't see how that local damage compromises the structural integrity of the entire building. Of course, that doesn't mean it didn't. I'll look for the NIST report.
As for WTC 7, what about Barry Silverstein saying they were going to pull the building. I think that should be factored into why Building 7 fell...
But if the floors all fell without buckling the columns, why were the columns also destroyed? There must have had some energy put into them such that they sheared into nice 30' sections. Where did this energy come from. And by Hoffmans calculations, if one floor hits the next and pulverizes the concrete, there isn't enough energy to collapse that floor. So I guess maybe the concrete didn't pulverize. And it's the clean-up workers and the inhabitants of Manhattan who are trying to pull the wool over our eyes... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 12:20:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Valiant Dancer: First of all, it makes no difference whether a plane that hits a building was an accident or not. With 3 major airports in the vacinity, a full load of fuel shouldn't have been a surprise.
And you keep mentioning "raging fires." The firefighter on the crash zone floor in one tower mentioned 2 small fires. And people can be seen in the gashes left by the planes--no raging fires to be seen. Black smoke billowing out of the towers--indicating incomplete combustion: a symptom of a non-raging fire. Sensor readings showed a peak of under 500*F. And experts have commented that much of the fuel burned off in the fireball that occured on impact. So please take "raging fires" off your list.
It cannot be taken off because of the billowing smoke which indicates the presence of a fire. It still produces heat and the paper I linked to discussed the heat question in detail.
quote:
Gravity, while obviously present, has been shown to create insufficient energy to put the upper blocks of floors through even the first impacted floor. So while gravity certainly contributed to the energy in the system, it alone is not enough to bring the towers down to the ground. SO either take gravity off your list or add in "plus some unknown source of energy."
I think Dave has adequately shown that gravity, specifically the force of the collapse of floors to be sufficient without adding explosives into it.
quote:
No buildings before of since 9/11 that were steel & concrete construction have ever collapsed due to fire--even after burning for nearly 24 hours. So take fire suppression issues off your list.
The only ones I have seen linkage to were largely abandoned and empty buildings that did partially collapse under the fire. The WTC towers were not empty of office supplies.
quote:
As for WTC 7, what about Barry Silverstein saying they were going to pull the building. I think that should be factored into why Building 7 fell...
And what did he mean by it? Without knowing that, the quote is useless. It could also mean pulling fire suppression from that building to focus on the others.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 12:28:11 [Permalink]
|
Hello?!? No burning buildings have collapsed? Hom many of those were either A) hit by a plane full of jet fuel or B) was smashed by a ginormous falling building.
I dont know where you get your gravity data, but as far as I know no office building could handle a fully loaded floor collapsing onto another. This alone could bend an I beam in half, let alone falling many floors.
1)This is not a standard fire, (Extreme heat and extreme amounts of fuel from wind/gas and debris) these things are not present in your other building fires.
2)Fire supression was knocked out
3)Major structural damage occured
4)These are not average buildings for which your data represents.
5)The floor is connected to itself, if one section collapses it can pull down the rest of the floor with it.
6)Floors arent made of magic computer simulated concrete which explode into dust when collapsing they are full of steel decks and pipes and a million tonnes of other crap.
7)You are a moron, who will latch onto the first peice of data which confirms what you beleive and ignore everything else and are therefor not worth talking to.
8-50)Other glaingly obvious faults in your logic.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 13:20:57 [Permalink]
|
Okay: We can argue points left and right about whether the fire was hotter or cooler than other fires, whether there was more or less structural damage here or there, and your speculations of how floors work or not. But I'm looking for hard answers, not bickering.
Contrary to "papasmurf," I am not a moron who will latch onto the first piece of data confirming what I believe. I am looking for 2 things. First, I am looking for factual support for the government's conspiracy theory--especially the part about how the buildings supposedly pancaked, but in a way that was unlike any othe rpancaked building in that the support columns were not left standing and were instead destroyed in the collapse, leaving a pile of rubble less than half the height it should have.
Second, I'm looking for evidence that disproves Ross' work. But I don't consider "he's wrong because this other guy said so," as evidence.
Maybe the oddities in the official conspiracy theory don't bother you, but they send my skeptic radar into approaching bogey mode. All I've heard or seen, including here, is a solution to one aspect of the scenario here and another solution there--but frequently the "here" solution and the "there" solution can't both happen--like pancaking while pulverizing the floor and its contents and destroying the support columns at the same time. It's like you people don't look beneath the surface of your own solutions. You have a dynamic system to solve and you use discrete, static solutions to try to solve it. It's like you are afraid to connect the dots. And you obviously are not schooled in the hard sciences or you would see that statements like smurf's #6 actually work against the official theory.
At least one person pointed me to the NIST report... Maybe that will clear up some things for me. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 13:22:03 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, and sorry, that's "Bigpapasmurf"... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 13:22:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
As for WTC 7, what about Barry Silverstein saying they were going to pull the building. I think that should be factored into why Building 7 fell...
And what did he mean by it? Without knowing that, the quote is useless. It could also mean pulling fire suppression from that building to focus on the others.
The pull quote is the most fustrating thing I have come across. Check this link out: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
It goes over both sides, but I think it is telling that:
1. "Pull" is not a slang term used by the demolision industry to mean demolish a building.
2. Larry Silverdtein was not a demolition contractor, so why would he be using that slang?
3. It has been suggested that the Fire Department did the demolition. However, when do Fire Departments blow up building with fires they can't put out? This doesn't make sense.
Read the whole artical yourself and check out the links in there, but it is very unlikely that "pull" ment demoliting the building. It is more likely it ment for them to pull back from the building. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 13:42:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
How would all 16 floors fall on the "first impacted floor" at the same time?
They don't have to. What the heck are you talking about?quote:
Your description of events just doesn't make sense (given the laws of physics) or match what we saw when the buildings came down.
I'd like to find out just what it is, exactly, you think the "laws of physics" are that prevent this design from collapsing at it did (Ross' analysis isn't the answer, since he's not talking about the design used in the Twin Towers).quote:
It's as if you think the builders of the towers put 287 support collumns to hold up the buildiing and used tooth picks to secure the floors to the sides of the towers.
The attachments of the floor joists of one floor to the columns only needed to be strong enough to hold up that one floor. Why would they make them any stronger? We have established (or at least, you haven't disputed) that the floors could hold 1,300 tons more than their own mass. 1,301 tons of debris would therefore collapse a floor, without needing to buckle any columns at all. Why do you have a problem with this?quote:
Or that somehow, all 16 upper floors fell off their joist attachments in such a way so as to slam into that first impacted floor at the same time.
Where did you get "at the same time" from? I certainly didn't say it, and it doesn't need to happen that way. 9,250 tons of concrete is more than any floor in the building could support, whether it got there "at the same time" or not. But really, only 1,301 tons of anything, whether concrete or not, was more than any floor could support, whether it got there "at the same time" or not.quote:
And if the top 16 floors did what you hypothesize, the shell of the building would have remained standing--which it didn't.
Your assertion that the shell would have remained standing is ludicrous considering that the floors, while collapsing, would have pulled in on all the columns.quote:
So on this issue, we either all saw it wrong, or your hypothesis is wrong.
No, your strawman caricature of my hypothesis is what is wrong.quote:
All the damage and weakening of support columns you mention is localized. I don't see how that local damage compromises the structural integrity of the entire building.
You don't see how thousands of tons of concrete crushing the base of the core might compromise the entire building?!quote:
Of course, that doesn't mean it didn't.
Of course not.quote:
I'll look for the NIST report.
You haven't read the "government conspiracy" report on how the Towers fell, but you think it's wrong?!?!?!quote:
As for WTC 7, what about Barry Silverstein saying they were going to pull the building. I think that should be factored into why Building 7 fell...
Why does it matter towards countering your assertion that it fell the same way as the towers?quote:
But if the floors all fell without buckling the columns, why were the columns also destroyed?
You're misunderstanding my points: the floor systems were designed in such a way that it was possible for the floors to fail without harming the columns. In the case of the actual collapse, the floors would have all been pulling the columns inwards.quote:
There must have had some energy put into them such that they sheared into nice 30' sections.
I have seen no evidence that they were sheared into 30' sections. Given that they were welded together vertically in three 3.7-m sections (and then these sections were simply bolted together), I would be surprised if they didn't break into nice 36'5" sections.quote:
Where did this energy come from.
The collapsing floors and gravity.quote:
And by Hoffmans calculations, if one floor hits the next and pulverizes the concrete, there isn't enough energy to collapse that floor.
If Hoffman is assuming that 100% of the concrete was pulverized, then he is obviously wrong, since there would have been nothing left to landfill (the steel was recycled).quote:
So I guess maybe the concrete didn't pulverize. And it's the clean-up workers and the inhabitants of Manhattan who are trying to pull the wool over our eyes...
The people trying to pull the wool over your eyes are the people who think that there wasn't hundreds of thousands of metric tons of debris which had to be landfilled. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 13:54:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
First, I am looking for factual support for the government's conspiracy theory--especially the part about how the buildings supposedly pancaked, but in a way that was unlike any othe rpancaked building in that the support columns were not left standing and were instead destroyed in the collapse, leaving a pile of rubble less than half the height it should have.
You clearly don't have a clue as to what the "government's conspiracy theory" is, since the NIST report specifically rejects the "pancake theory."quote:
Second, I'm looking for evidence that disproves Ross' work. But I don't consider "he's wrong because this other guy said so," as evidence.
Apparently, you won't consider "he's wrong because the building wasn't built like Ross' model would require," either.quote:
Maybe the oddities in the official conspiracy theory don't bother you, but they send my skeptic radar into approaching bogey mode.
Maybe you should find out what the official collapse theory is before even turning on your "skeptic radar."quote:
All I've heard or seen, including here, is a solution to one aspect of the scenario here and another solution there--but frequently the "here" solution and the "there" solution can't both happen--like pancaking while pulverizing the floor and its contents and destroying the support columns at the same time.
The only times I hear all those things are necessary is from the people who deny the official version of events. NIST certainly doesn't think the "pancake" theory is valid, so why are you criticizing them for it?quote:
It's like you people don't look beneath the surface of your own solutions.
It's like you're criticizing things you haven't even bothered to read.quote:
You have a dynamic system to solve and you use discrete, static solutions to try to solve it. It's like you are afraid to connect the dots.
You're the one who is inventing dots to connect.quote:
And you obviously are not schooled in the hard sciences or you would see that statements like smurf's #6 actually work against the official theory.
I don't see anywhere in the official theory that 100% of the concrete "pulverized," and BPS's #6 is arguing against that idea, too.quote:
At least one person pointed me to the NIST report... Maybe that will clear up some things for me.
Your arrogance is simply unbelievable. Again: you don't even know what the official story is, but you're sure that it includes "pancaking" (nope) and the complete pulverization of all the concrete in the building (nope). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 14:33:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And by Hoffmans calculations, if one floor hits the next and pulverizes the concrete, there isn't enough energy to collapse that floor.
If the first hit pulverizes the floor that gets hit, then there's not any floor left to stop the top from falling down to hit the next foor.
If only 50% of the concrete gets pulverised, then the structural integrity of that floor will be reduced by at least 50%, probably much more since the impact impulse will affect the entire floor, not just the part if it that got pulverised. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The physics behind the collapses
Topic Locked
