I believe, or better, I'm convinced that wtc7 has been imploded.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 26 2007, 02:32 PM)
I believe, or better, I'm convinced that wtc7 has been imploded.
Which is of course ABSURD.
No one KNEW ahead of time that WTC 1 would fall or that WTC 7 would even BE damaged, so the idea of hiding explosives in a building that you have no idea would provide cover for said implosion is SILLY.
Assuming you were dumb as a box of hammers and decided ahead of time that you WERE going to implode it regardless of what happened with WTC 1, the chances of your explosives actually working in a coordinated manner after damage from the impact of debris from WTC 1 and the fires left unchecked for 7 hours would be NIL.
Once again, no physics, yet another CT'er is CONVINCED.
Arthur
Which is of course ABSURD.
No one KNEW ahead of time that WTC 1 would fall or that WTC 7 would even BE damaged, so the idea of hiding explosives in a building that you have no idea would provide cover for said implosion is SILLY.
Assuming you were dumb as a box of hammers and decided ahead of time that you WERE going to implode it regardless of what happened with WTC 1, the chances of your explosives actually working in a coordinated manner after damage from the impact of debris from WTC 1 and the fires left unchecked for 7 hours would be NIL.
Once again, no physics, yet another CT'er is CONVINCED.
Arthur
Hear no damage, see no damage, speak no damage. 
Hear no fire, see no fire, speak no fire.
Hear no fire, see no fire, speak no fire.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 26 2007, 06:35 PM)
And none explain the observed pull-in of the walls.
Only NIST explains that.
The alleged pull-in of the walls
The presented evidence is feeble at best.
Only NIST explains that.
The alleged pull-in of the walls
The presented evidence is feeble at best.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2007, 08:16 PM)
Which is of course ABSURD.
No one KNEW ahead of time that WTC 1 would fall or that WTC 7 would even BE damaged, so the idea of hiding explosives in a building that you have no idea would provide cover for said implosion is SILLY.
Assuming you were dumb as a box of hammers and decided ahead of time that you WERE going to implode it regardless of what happened with WTC 1, the chances of your explosives actually working in a coordinated manner after damage from the impact of debris from WTC 1 and the fires left unchecked for 7 hours would be NIL.
Once again, no physics, yet another CT'er is CONVINCED.
Arthur
I don't really care about how you call me, I know my mental status is healthy. Physics, which physics do you want to see, the physics that removes all supports simultanueously at some t=t1 ? FEMA didn't provide math, could you prove that fire is able to initiate collapse at the bottom while there where fires on two stories much higher and a hole somewhere.
And Jowenko has studied the construction of the building afterwards and confirmed it was absolutely a CD, he still insists now. There are more experts who agree and there are a lot of CD experts (in the USA) that don't want to talk about building 7.
If you disagree with people that blow up buildings for almost 30 years then there is also something that can be called silly. No Adou, it is not silly to think this was a CD. Please come up with your equations, apply Newton in a proper way and show how fire can bring it down in the way we've seen. You can't.
No one KNEW ahead of time that WTC 1 would fall or that WTC 7 would even BE damaged, so the idea of hiding explosives in a building that you have no idea would provide cover for said implosion is SILLY.
Assuming you were dumb as a box of hammers and decided ahead of time that you WERE going to implode it regardless of what happened with WTC 1, the chances of your explosives actually working in a coordinated manner after damage from the impact of debris from WTC 1 and the fires left unchecked for 7 hours would be NIL.
Once again, no physics, yet another CT'er is CONVINCED.
Arthur
I don't really care about how you call me, I know my mental status is healthy. Physics, which physics do you want to see, the physics that removes all supports simultanueously at some t=t1 ? FEMA didn't provide math, could you prove that fire is able to initiate collapse at the bottom while there where fires on two stories much higher and a hole somewhere.
And Jowenko has studied the construction of the building afterwards and confirmed it was absolutely a CD, he still insists now. There are more experts who agree and there are a lot of CD experts (in the USA) that don't want to talk about building 7.
If you disagree with people that blow up buildings for almost 30 years then there is also something that can be called silly. No Adou, it is not silly to think this was a CD. Please come up with your equations, apply Newton in a proper way and show how fire can bring it down in the way we've seen. You can't.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 26 2007, 07:32 PM)
I believe, or better, I'm convinced that wtc7 has been imploded.
Funny, the firemen WHO WERE THERE were convinced it was going to collapse from impact and fire... Lets see... Who to believe...
Funny, the firemen WHO WERE THERE were convinced it was going to collapse from impact and fire... Lets see... Who to believe...
Another smoking gun (would link the video but big brother has removed it):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824
http://thumbsnap.com/images/7X8e7XT6.gif
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824
QUOTE
On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.
This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.
9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.
What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.
Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.
So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.
Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.
No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.
This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.
9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.
What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.
Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.
So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.
Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.
No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.
http://thumbsnap.com/images/7X8e7XT6.gif
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 26 2007, 09:00 PM)
Another smoking gun (would link the video but big brother has removed it):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824
http://thumbsnap.com/images/7X8e7XT6.gif
That would make it the first time in history a reporter got something wrong.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824
http://thumbsnap.com/images/7X8e7XT6.gif
That would make it the first time in history a reporter got something wrong.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 26 2007, 03:56 PM)
Jowenko has studied the construction of the building afterwards and confirmed it was absolutely a CD, he still insists now. There are more experts who agree and there are a lot of CD experts (in the USA) that don't want to talk about building 7.
If you disagree with people that blow up buildings for almost 30 years then there is also something that can be called silly. No Adou, it is not silly to think this was a CD. Please come up with your equations, apply Newton in a proper way and show how fire can bring it down in the way we've seen. You can't.
Jowenko did not CONFIRM it was a CD.
He said it LOOKED LIKE a CD.
Big difference.
Oh, and now you have "unnamed experts"?
Nope, I won't speculate on WTC 7, I'll wait for NIST to complete their report.
But what I KNOW is in the meantime, NO ONE has shown ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that it was a CD.
You know like STEEL that shows CHARACTERISTIC damage from High Explosives.
Or explain WHY no CHARACTERISTIC LOUD CRACKS from the High Explosives going off were captured on any of the videos of the collapse.
Arthur
If you disagree with people that blow up buildings for almost 30 years then there is also something that can be called silly. No Adou, it is not silly to think this was a CD. Please come up with your equations, apply Newton in a proper way and show how fire can bring it down in the way we've seen. You can't.
Jowenko did not CONFIRM it was a CD.
He said it LOOKED LIKE a CD.
Big difference.
Oh, and now you have "unnamed experts"?
Nope, I won't speculate on WTC 7, I'll wait for NIST to complete their report.
But what I KNOW is in the meantime, NO ONE has shown ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that it was a CD.
You know like STEEL that shows CHARACTERISTIC damage from High Explosives.
Or explain WHY no CHARACTERISTIC LOUD CRACKS from the High Explosives going off were captured on any of the videos of the collapse.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 26 2007, 04:00 PM)
Another smoking gun (would link the video but big brother has removed it):
ROTFLMAO
Now the BBC is IN ON IT.
Arthur
ROTFLMAO
Now the BBC is IN ON IT.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2007, 09:10 PM)
Jowenko did not CONFIRM it was a CD.
He said it LOOKED LIKE a CD.
Big difference.
Oh, and now you have "unnamed experts"?
Nope, I won't speculate on WTC 7, I'll wait for NIST to complete their report.
But what I KNOW is in the meantime, NO ONE has shown ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that it was a CD.
You know like STEEL that shows CHARACTERISTIC damage from High Explosives.
Or explain WHY no CHARACTERISTIC LOUD CRACKS from the High Explosives going off were captured on any of the videos of the collapse.
Arthur
Lets not forget the most important... NO PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE TO BACK IT UP! Lots of excuses though.
He said it LOOKED LIKE a CD.
Big difference.
Oh, and now you have "unnamed experts"?
Nope, I won't speculate on WTC 7, I'll wait for NIST to complete their report.
But what I KNOW is in the meantime, NO ONE has shown ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that it was a CD.
You know like STEEL that shows CHARACTERISTIC damage from High Explosives.
Or explain WHY no CHARACTERISTIC LOUD CRACKS from the High Explosives going off were captured on any of the videos of the collapse.
Arthur
Lets not forget the most important... NO PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE TO BACK IT UP! Lots of excuses though.
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 26 2007, 01:07 PM)
That would make it the first time in history a reporter got something wrong.
She dint get it wrong, she obviously just read the script to early.
She dint get it wrong, she obviously just read the script to early.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 26 2007, 03:55 PM)
The alleged pull-in of the walls
The presented evidence is feeble at best.
The presented evidence is feeble at best.
lozenge124 --- The wall pull-in. Pictures in the NIST report. Observed by the NYPD helicopter observer. What, exactly, is feeble about that? 
When you see a quote like this:
Which includes the OBVIOUS LIE that WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically in 6.5 seconds, certainly makes you wonder about the veracity of the rest of the post.
Arthur
QUOTE
On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.
This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.
9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.
What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.
Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.
So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.
Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.
No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.
This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.
9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.
What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.
Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.
So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.
Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.
No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.
Which includes the OBVIOUS LIE that WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically in 6.5 seconds, certainly makes you wonder about the veracity of the rest of the post.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2007, 09:22 PM)
ALLEGED????
http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats25069_bowing1.JPG
NOT
Arthur
If someone had posted something like that in defence of a CT hypothesis, you would be leading the peanut gallery here in posting emoticons galore.
It's easy to tell the honest OCT'ers from the dishonest ones. The honest ones don't claim the NIST report is good science even if they believe in a gravity driven collapse.
http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats25069_bowing1.JPG
NOT
Arthur
If someone had posted something like that in defence of a CT hypothesis, you would be leading the peanut gallery here in posting
emoticons galore.It's easy to tell the honest OCT'ers from the dishonest ones. The honest ones don't claim the NIST report is good science even if they believe in a gravity driven collapse.
And your ISSUE with this picture is?
And your ISSUE with the NIST report is?
Arthur
And your ISSUE with the NIST report is?
Arthur
Proof the WTC 7 did NOT collapse in 6.5 seconds or any where near it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 26 2007, 09:52 PM)
Proof the WTC 7 did NOT collapse in 6.5 seconds or any where near it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
Aaahhh you mean you see some movement at the top, another feature of controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab0CSd-SSBQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
Aaahhh you mean you see some movement at the top, another feature of controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab0CSd-SSBQ
QUOTE
What wavelength do you use to split the nucleus?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What wavelength do you use to split the nucleus? |
Arthur
I figured you would enjoy that.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 26 2007, 04:18 PM)
Aaahhh you mean you see some movement at the top, another feature of controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab0CSd-SSBQ
No, I wuold say that that is a feature of a non-symetrical collapse that took over 10 seconds.
BTW, since when is "early movment" a feature of a controlled demolition?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab0CSd-SSBQ
No, I wuold say that that is a feature of a non-symetrical collapse that took over 10 seconds.
BTW, since when is "early movment" a feature of a controlled demolition?
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 26 2007, 05:35 PM)
since when is "early movment" a feature of a controlled demolition?
When you are a CT'er and you are DESPERATE.
Arthur
When you are a CT'er and you are DESPERATE.
Arthur
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 26 2007, 09:30 PM)
If someone had posted something like that in defence of a CT hypothesis, you would be leading the peanut gallery here in posting emoticons galore.
Only if were accompanied by an explanation like:
Honey, I shrunk the floor trusses!
emoticons galore.Only if were accompanied by an explanation like:
Honey, I shrunk the floor trusses!
According to seismic evidence WTC7 took at least 18 seconds to fall. Add in the six seconds for debris to fall from the roof and it took 24 seconds from beginning to the time we can see the north curtain wall falling. The penthouse collapsed into the space once occupied by the southeast portion of the building, then the southwest portion collapsed, all before the north wall fell.
Grumpy
Grumpy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 26 2007, 06:35 PM)
And none explain the observed pull-in of the walls.
Only NIST explains that.
Explained by the weak connectors that couldn't have resisted the fall, but pulled in robust perimeter columns.........BS.
Only NIST explains that.
Explained by the weak connectors that couldn't have resisted the fall, but pulled in robust perimeter columns.........BS.
roves shill --- If you have actually read the NIST explanation and wish to raise questions, Ill be happy enough to attempt to explain the physics and engineering.
Once the upper mass is in motion, the energy available goes way up! The wall connections were amply designed to withstand 98 mph wind loads. They were not designed for the effect of the upper block falling, wedged in.
Once the upper mass is in motion, the energy available goes way up! The wall connections were amply designed to withstand 98 mph wind loads. They were not designed for the effect of the upper block falling, wedged in.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 12:16 AM)
roves shill --- If you have actually read the NIST explanation and wish to raise questions, Ill be happy enough to attempt to explain the physics and engineering.
Once the upper mass is in motion, the energy available goes way up! The wall connections were amply designed to withstand 98 mph wind loads. They were not designed for the effect of the upper block falling, wedged in.
So every connector sheared or failed?
Once the upper mass is in motion, the energy available goes way up! The wall connections were amply designed to withstand 98 mph wind loads. They were not designed for the effect of the upper block falling, wedged in.
So every connector sheared or failed?
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 27 2007, 12:26 AM)
So every connector sheared or failed?
Almost all above floor 11 or so. But that is at Ground Zero. Surely there are visuals showing a mass of several wall sections, still connected to each other, falling together.
Furthermore, the evidence suggests that an entire side of one of the towers fell over, still connected together, into West Street.
Almost all above floor 11 or so. But that is at Ground Zero. Surely there are visuals showing a mass of several wall sections, still connected to each other, falling together.
Furthermore, the evidence suggests that an entire side of one of the towers fell over, still connected together, into West Street.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 12:16 AM)
roves shill --- If you have actually read the NIST explanation and wish to raise questions, Ill be happy enough to attempt to explain the physics and engineering.
Once the upper mass is in motion, the energy available goes way up! The wall connections were amply designed to withstand 98 mph wind loads. They were not designed for the effect of the upper block falling, wedged in.
Where in the NIST report does it say that the upper block was falling "wedged in"?
Once the upper mass is in motion, the energy available goes way up! The wall connections were amply designed to withstand 98 mph wind loads. They were not designed for the effect of the upper block falling, wedged in.
Where in the NIST report does it say that the upper block was falling "wedged in"?
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 27 2007, 12:51 AM)
Where in the NIST report does it say that the upper block was falling "wedged in"?
NCSTAR1-6 or NCSTAR1-6D, in the chapter describing the collapse initiation sequence. This is easiest to understand for WTC 1.
Chapter 5 in 1-6D
NCSTAR1-6 or NCSTAR1-6D, in the chapter describing the collapse initiation sequence. This is easiest to understand for WTC 1.
Chapter 5 in 1-6D
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 12:56 AM)
NCSTAR1-6 or NCSTAR1-6D, in the chapter describing the collapse initiation sequence. This is easiest to understand for WTC 1.
Chapter 5 in 1-6D
Please provide a quote, thanks.
Chapter 5 in 1-6D
Please provide a quote, thanks.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 27 2007, 01:03 AM)
Please provide a quote, thanks.
Read the publically available document!
NIST WTC Webpage
The link you want is in the upper right section. Download your very own copy.
Read the publically available document!
NIST WTC Webpage
The link you want is in the upper right section. Download your very own copy.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 01:07 AM)
Read the publically available document!
NIST WTC Webpage
The link you want is in the upper right section. Download your very own copy.
I thought so.
Please be sure to separate what is in the NIST report from your personal speculation, thanks.
NIST WTC Webpage
The link you want is in the upper right section. Download your very own copy.
I thought so.
Please be sure to separate what is in the NIST report from your personal speculation, thanks.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 27 2007, 01:09 AM)
Please be sure to separate what is in the NIST report from your personal speculation, thanks.
I try, but of course do not always succeed.
To what are you referring?
I try, but of course do not always succeed.
To what are you referring?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 01:11 AM)
I try, but of course do not always succeed.
What are you referring to?
Being disingenuous again?
If you profess to be answering questions about the NIST report, you should make it clear when you are bringing in your own explanations and speculations that are not in the NIST report - such as the upper block falling "wedged in".
You should also provide quotes from the NIST report to back up your statements rather than a general hand-waving to a large chunk of the report.
What are you referring to?
Being disingenuous again?
If you profess to be answering questions about the NIST report, you should make it clear when you are bringing in your own explanations and speculations that are not in the NIST report - such as the upper block falling "wedged in".
You should also provide quotes from the NIST report to back up your statements rather than a general hand-waving to a large chunk of the report.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 26 2007, 10:18 PM)
Aaahhh you mean you see some movement at the top, another feature of controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab0CSd-SSBQ
"Movement at the top"? You mean the penthouse falling into the building? That's some "MOVEMENT!"
Can we at least agree it wasn't 6.5 seconds?
Be it fires that weakened and collapsed the columns below the east penthouse or explosives, the point is it took longer than conspiracy theorists insist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab0CSd-SSBQ
"Movement at the top"? You mean the penthouse falling into the building? That's some "MOVEMENT!"
Can we at least agree it wasn't 6.5 seconds?
Be it fires that weakened and collapsed the columns below the east penthouse or explosives, the point is it took longer than conspiracy theorists insist.
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 27 2007, 01:35 AM)
"Movement at the top"? You mean the penthouse falling into the building? That's some "MOVEMENT!"
Can we at least agree it wasn't 6.5 seconds?
Be it fires that weakened and collapsed the columns below the east penthouse or explosives, the point is it took longer than conspiracy theorists insist.
nonsense, there is a phase in which structure is weakened and a collapse phase. I dont' care about the time of that first phase een the 2nd although > 9 m/s^2 isn't interesting, it should not collapse in that way
Here is Danny again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4
Can we at least agree it wasn't 6.5 seconds?
Be it fires that weakened and collapsed the columns below the east penthouse or explosives, the point is it took longer than conspiracy theorists insist.
nonsense, there is a phase in which structure is weakened and a collapse phase. I dont' care about the time of that first phase een the 2nd although > 9 m/s^2 isn't interesting, it should not collapse in that way
Here is Danny again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4
lozenge124 --- 1-6D page 314 (378 ordinal)
Since you don't care to trust me, why would you believe anything I quoted?
Since you don't care to trust me, why would you believe anything I quoted?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 01:44 AM)
lozenge124 --- 1-6D page 314 (378 ordinal)
Since you don't care to trust me, why would you believe anything I quoted?
Quote it anyway, I can always check it.
And the majority of forum readers will not go to the source, so you are doing everyone a disservice by not quoting anything.
Since you don't care to trust me, why would you believe anything I quoted?
Quote it anyway, I can always check it.
And the majority of forum readers will not go to the source, so you are doing everyone a disservice by not quoting anything.
I don't need the NIST. I can see with my own eyes the top is wedging into the bottom section..
www.debunking911.com/wtc1top.htm
www.debunking911.com/wtc1top.htm
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 26 2007, 05:55 PM)
I don't need the NIST. I can see with my own eyes the top is wedging into the bottom section..
www.debunking911.com/wtc1top.htm
This has to be a morphed CS (common sence, commen sence, now FactCheck).
Who else would reference his website?
www.debunking911.com/wtc1top.htm
This has to be a morphed CS (common sence, commen sence, now FactCheck).
Who else would reference his website?
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 27 2007, 01:55 AM)
I don't need the NIST. I can see with my own eyes the top is wedging into the bottom section..
www.debunking911.com/wtc1top.htm
What your debunking sequence doesn't show is the antenna dropping first and I think the wedging occured on the other tower.
www.debunking911.com/wtc1top.htm
What your debunking sequence doesn't show is the antenna dropping first and I think the wedging occured on the other tower.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 26 2007, 08:21 PM)
You should also provide quotes from the NIST report to back up your statements rather than a general hand-waving to a large chunk of the report.
The NIST report does NOT allow quoting.
None of us have the spare time to retype the text.
Arthur
The NIST report does NOT allow quoting.
None of us have the spare time to retype the text.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 27 2007, 02:24 AM)
This has to be a morphed CS (common sence, commen sence, now FactCheck).
Who else would reference his website?
.....Doreen, Chuckles, Gatekeeper. I love em' all!!!
Who else would reference his website?
.....Doreen, Chuckles, Gatekeeper. I love em' all!!!
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 02:54 AM)
The NIST report does NOT allow quoting.
None of us have the spare time to retype the text.
Arthur
Good thing Arthur(s) edited this, I was wondering why he had changed from ***** to putz.
None of us have the spare time to retype the text.
Arthur
Good thing Arthur(s) edited this, I was wondering why he had changed from ***** to putz.
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 26 2007, 09:54 PM)
What your debunking sequence doesn't show is the antenna dropping first and I think the wedging occured on the other tower.
Read the NIST report.
The antenna didn't drop first, its an illusion based on where the cameras were, but when you see all the videos (as NIST did) they found that what appears to be the antenna dropping is because the top tilted away from the video camera.
Both towers failed essentially the same way, with an external wall buckling.
This caused both towers to tilt.
This would cause both towers to also wedge inward.
Arthur
Read the NIST report.
The antenna didn't drop first, its an illusion based on where the cameras were, but when you see all the videos (as NIST did) they found that what appears to be the antenna dropping is because the top tilted away from the video camera.
Both towers failed essentially the same way, with an external wall buckling.
This caused both towers to tilt.
This would cause both towers to also wedge inward.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2007, 06:54 PM)
The NIST report does NOT allow quoting.
None of us have the spare time to retype the text.
Arthur
As shagster posted before:
http://www.crackpdf.com/
Free download and you can cut and past. No more excuses (I want to see the quotes about the wedging).
The wedge would bend the columns at each floor unless it snapped all the brackets on 3 story's at one time (the direction the brackets were strongest).
None of us have the spare time to retype the text.
Arthur
As shagster posted before:
http://www.crackpdf.com/
Free download and you can cut and past. No more excuses (I want to see the quotes about the wedging).
The wedge would bend the columns at each floor unless it snapped all the brackets on 3 story's at one time (the direction the brackets were strongest).
reasonwhy
Are you suggesting tha adoucette or anyone else BREAK THE LAW just because your sorry butt is too lazy to read it yourself??? NOT LIKELY, DA!!!
Grumpy
Let’s start with the premise that a single set of floor trusses began to sag. For now, let us also completely ignore the pull inn forces exerted by a floor truss in a
This is your premise, not mine. You have no proof for this premise. If so provide.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (adoucette @ Feb 26 2007, 06:54 PM) The NIST report does NOT allow quoting. None of us have the spare time to retype the text. Arthur As shagster posted before: http://www.crackpdf.com/ Free download and you can cut and past. No more excuses. |
Are you suggesting tha adoucette or anyone else BREAK THE LAW just because your sorry butt is too lazy to read it yourself??? NOT LIKELY, DA!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 02:54 AM)
The NIST report does NOT allow quoting.
None of us have the spare time to retype the text.
Arthur
That's rich coming from someone who has time to post hundreds if not thousands of inane posts here
I respectfully suggest that you cut your prolific output to 5 or 10% of what it is now, and make some posts of substance backed by quotes from the NIST report instead of the usual one liners. This forum certainly needs all the quality posts it can get at this point
None of us have the spare time to retype the text.
Arthur
That's rich coming from someone who has time to post hundreds if not thousands of inane posts here
I respectfully suggest that you cut your prolific output to 5 or 10% of what it is now, and make some posts of substance backed by quotes from the NIST report instead of the usual one liners. This forum certainly needs all the quality posts it can get at this point
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 26 2007, 07:34 PM)
reasonwhy
As shagster posted before:
http://www.crackpdf.com/
Free download and you can cut and past. No more excuses.
Are you suggesting tha adoucette or anyone else BREAK THE LAW just because your sorry butt is too lazy to read it yourself??? NOT LIKELY, DA!!!
Grumpy
Talk to your OCT law breaking buddies about that.
I couldn't understand how they were quoting NIST so easily.
Are the NIST police going to write tickets or do they put you in prison?
As shagster posted before:
http://www.crackpdf.com/
Free download and you can cut and past. No more excuses.
Are you suggesting tha adoucette or anyone else BREAK THE LAW just because your sorry butt is too lazy to read it yourself??? NOT LIKELY, DA!!!
Grumpy
Talk to your OCT law breaking buddies about that.
I couldn't understand how they were quoting NIST so easily.
Are the NIST police going to write tickets or do they put you in prison?
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 26 2007, 06:10 PM)
Explained by the weak connectors that couldn't have resisted the fall, but pulled in robust perimeter columns.........BS.
Rove’s shill, let me introduce you to the work of Leonhard Euler (pronounced Oiler). Euler lived over 250 years ago. He was so much smarter than you that it’s not even funny.
Anyway, Euler developed a simple principle of engineering by which the critical load at which a column will buckle. This principle can be expressed by the following formula:
more
Notice that all other factors being equal, the critical buckling load is dependent on the inverse square of the length.
You do understand the implications of an inverse square law, don’t you?
Let’s start with the premise that a single set of floor trusses began to sag. For now, let us also completely ignore the pull inn forces exerted by a floor truss in a catenary configuration.
Let’s just start with the simple fact that a sagging floor slab and truss system will no longer be providing lateral pinning action for the perimeter columns. Thus the effective length of the column will have essentially doubled. What will this do to the critical buckling load of your “robust” columns?
If you remember that this is an inverse square law, doubling the length will reduce the critical load which will cause the columns to buckle 1/4 of its original value.
Now if two adjacent floors began to sag, then the length would be tripled and the critical buckling load would be reduced to 1/9th of its original value.
This is all without even considering effect of the pull in of the floors themselves.
So before you start slinging around the term B.S., remember what another famous mathmatician said: "Read Euler, read Euler, he is a master for us all.”
Rove’s shill, let me introduce you to the work of Leonhard Euler (pronounced Oiler). Euler lived over 250 years ago. He was so much smarter than you that it’s not even funny.
Anyway, Euler developed a simple principle of engineering by which the critical load at which a column will buckle. This principle can be expressed by the following formula:
more
Notice that all other factors being equal, the critical buckling load is dependent on the inverse square of the length.
You do understand the implications of an inverse square law, don’t you?
Let’s start with the premise that a single set of floor trusses began to sag. For now, let us also completely ignore the pull inn forces exerted by a floor truss in a catenary configuration.
Let’s just start with the simple fact that a sagging floor slab and truss system will no longer be providing lateral pinning action for the perimeter columns. Thus the effective length of the column will have essentially doubled. What will this do to the critical buckling load of your “robust” columns?
If you remember that this is an inverse square law, doubling the length will reduce the critical load which will cause the columns to buckle 1/4 of its original value.
Now if two adjacent floors began to sag, then the length would be tripled and the critical buckling load would be reduced to 1/9th of its original value.
This is all without even considering effect of the pull in of the floors themselves.
So before you start slinging around the term B.S., remember what another famous mathmatician said: "Read Euler, read Euler, he is a master for us all.”
I'll have you know that site gets as much traffic than st911 or 911scholars. 
www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=debunking911.com
Just add st911.org and 911scholars.org under "Compare sites:"
Seems like the conspiracy "movement" isn't moving...
www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=debunking911.com
Just add st911.org and 911scholars.org under "Compare sites:"
Seems like the conspiracy "movement" isn't moving...
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 03:17 AM)
Read the NIST report.
The antenna didn't drop first, its an illusion based on where the cameras were, but when you see all the videos (as NIST did) they found that what appears to be the antenna dropping is because the top tilted away from the video camera.
Both towers failed essentially the same way, with an external wall buckling.
This caused both towers to tilt.
This would cause both towers to also wedge inward.
Arthur
Simple as that. It was an optical illusion. The firefighters heard something else. The survivors didn't hear what they thought. Two towers hit in two different spots fail in same way and time it takes to pancake is within a second of each other. I got it now Arthur, thanks.
The antenna didn't drop first, its an illusion based on where the cameras were, but when you see all the videos (as NIST did) they found that what appears to be the antenna dropping is because the top tilted away from the video camera.
Both towers failed essentially the same way, with an external wall buckling.
This caused both towers to tilt.
This would cause both towers to also wedge inward.
Arthur
Simple as that. It was an optical illusion. The firefighters heard something else. The survivors didn't hear what they thought. Two towers hit in two different spots fail in same way and time it takes to pancake is within a second of each other. I got it now Arthur, thanks.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 26 2007, 07:49 PM)
Rove’s shill, let me introduce you to the work of Leonhard Euler (pronounced Oiler). Euler lived over 250 years ago. He was so much smarter than you that it’s not even funny.
Anyway, Euler developed a simple principle of engineering by which the critical load at which a column will buckle. This principle can be expressed by the following formula:
more
Notice that all other factors being equal, the critical buckling load is dependent on the inverse square of the length.
You do understand the implications of an inverse square law, don’t you?
Let’s start with the premise that a single set of floor trusses began to sag. For now, let us also completely ignore the pull inn forces exerted by a floor truss in a catenary configuration.
Let’s just start with the simple fact that a sagging floor slab and truss system will no longer be providing lateral pinning action for the perimeter columns. Thus the effective length of the column will have essentially doubled. What will this do to the critical buckling load of your “robust” columns?
If you remember that this is an inverse square law, doubling the length will reduce the critical load which will cause the columns to buckle 1/4 of its original value.
Now if two adjacent floors began to sag, then the length would be tripled and the critical buckling load would be reduced to 1/9th of its original value.
This is all without even considering effect of the pull in of the floors themselves.
So before you start slinging around the term B.S., remember what another famous mathmatician said: "Read Euler, read Euler, he is a master for us all.”
Only a complete M@ron would compare a truss to a rope or chain (catenary configuration).
I realize you are a TOTAL idiot but try to do a little RESEARCH on trusses before you make an even BIGGER fool of yourself.
Anyway, Euler developed a simple principle of engineering by which the critical load at which a column will buckle. This principle can be expressed by the following formula:
more
Notice that all other factors being equal, the critical buckling load is dependent on the inverse square of the length.
You do understand the implications of an inverse square law, don’t you?
Let’s start with the premise that a single set of floor trusses began to sag. For now, let us also completely ignore the pull inn forces exerted by a floor truss in a catenary configuration.
Let’s just start with the simple fact that a sagging floor slab and truss system will no longer be providing lateral pinning action for the perimeter columns. Thus the effective length of the column will have essentially doubled. What will this do to the critical buckling load of your “robust” columns?
If you remember that this is an inverse square law, doubling the length will reduce the critical load which will cause the columns to buckle 1/4 of its original value.
Now if two adjacent floors began to sag, then the length would be tripled and the critical buckling load would be reduced to 1/9th of its original value.
This is all without even considering effect of the pull in of the floors themselves.
So before you start slinging around the term B.S., remember what another famous mathmatician said: "Read Euler, read Euler, he is a master for us all.”
Only a complete M@ron would compare a truss to a rope or chain (catenary configuration).
I realize you are a TOTAL idiot but try to do a little RESEARCH on trusses before you make an even BIGGER fool of yourself.
You can cut and paste from the draft versions
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm
just remember that these may not be entirely the same as the final report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm
just remember that these may not be entirely the same as the final report.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 27 2007, 03:49 AM)
Let’s start with the premise that a single set of floor trusses began to sag. For now, let us also completely ignore the pull inn forces exerted by a floor truss in a
This is your premise, not mine. You have no proof for this premise. If so provide.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 26 2007, 09:57 PM)
Only a complete M@ron would compare a truss to a rope or chain (catenary configuration).
I realize you are a TOTAL idiot but try to do a little RESEARCH on trusses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
So, I guess that the leading research university in the U.K. churns out complete morons and idiots, eh?
http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Down...C_Baltimore.pdf
I realize you are a TOTAL idiot but try to do a little RESEARCH on trusses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
So, I guess that the leading research university in the U.K. churns out complete morons and idiots, eh?
http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Down...C_Baltimore.pdf
reasonless
Actually, only a complete m@ron would try to deny caternary forces of a sagging structure. It is a well known effect in engineering, which you would realize if you knew anything about the subject.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Only a complete M@ron would compare a truss to a rope or chain (catenary configuration).
Actually, only a complete m@ron would try to deny caternary forces of a sagging structure. It is a well known effect in engineering, which you would realize if you knew anything about the subject.
Grumpy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 01:44 AM)
lozenge124 --- 1-6D page 314 (378 ordinal)
Since you don't care to trust me, why would you believe anything I quoted?
p314(378):
3 sections:
Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections
Bowing of South Wall
Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation
The third section is the only relevant one in terms of describing collapse initiation:
dbb please explain how you extrapolate from the above that there is an "upper block falling, wedged in". The south wall is "buckled inward" according to NIST, there is a tilt to the south, but this doesn't necessarily imply a wedge at all.
In addition, the NIST only describes collapse initiation, anything after that is pure speculation on your part. NIST's famous "Global collapse ensued" blanket statement says nothing about what follows initiation. The NIST does not describe a wedge falling all the way down, floor by floor, at all.
So again, if you are going to make it appear like all your statements are solidly backed by the NIST report you should make it clear when you are presenting your own unbacked theories. I also implore you to please quote from the NIST report directly when you make claims like this; this is after all a Physics forum. I called your bluff on this one, but how many people are going to take the time to do so? Or are you just shooting for proof by intimidation?
Since you don't care to trust me, why would you believe anything I quoted?
p314(378):
3 sections:
Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections
Bowing of South Wall
Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation
The third section is the only relevant one in terms of describing collapse initiation:
QUOTE
Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation
With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall significantly unloaded ( Fig.5-3 )redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. The onset of this load redistribution can be found in the total column loads in the WTC 1 global model at 100 min in the bottom line of Table 5-3. At 100 min, the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone titled to the south ( observed at about 8°, Table 5-2 ) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls ( see Fig.5-8 ), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.
With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall significantly unloaded ( Fig.5-3 )redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. The onset of this load redistribution can be found in the total column loads in the WTC 1 global model at 100 min in the bottom line of Table 5-3. At 100 min, the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone titled to the south ( observed at about 8°, Table 5-2 ) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls ( see Fig.5-8 ), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.
dbb please explain how you extrapolate from the above that there is an "upper block falling, wedged in". The south wall is "buckled inward" according to NIST, there is a tilt to the south, but this doesn't necessarily imply a wedge at all.
In addition, the NIST only describes collapse initiation, anything after that is pure speculation on your part. NIST's famous "Global collapse ensued" blanket statement says nothing about what follows initiation. The NIST does not describe a wedge falling all the way down, floor by floor, at all.
So again, if you are going to make it appear like all your statements are solidly backed by the NIST report you should make it clear when you are presenting your own unbacked theories. I also implore you to please quote from the NIST report directly when you make claims like this; this is after all a Physics forum. I called your bluff on this one, but how many people are going to take the time to do so? Or are you just shooting for proof by intimidation?
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 26 2007, 10:02 PM)
This is your premise, not mine. You have no proof for this premise. If so provide.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 26 2007, 08:08 PM)
reasonless
Actually, only a complete m@ron would try to deny caternary forces of a sagging structure. It is a well known effect in engineering, which you would realize if you knew anything about the subject.
Grumpy
Might be for hanging flexible chain or cable
Show me were NIST claims the floors trusses were caternary.
I remember this caternary myth from NOVA, FEMA and now Palpatane's report (above). The floors were composite with CROSS TRUSSES embedded in concrete.
Actually, only a complete m@ron would try to deny caternary forces of a sagging structure. It is a well known effect in engineering, which you would realize if you knew anything about the subject.
Grumpy
Might be for hanging flexible chain or cable
Show me were NIST claims the floors trusses were caternary.
I remember this caternary myth from NOVA, FEMA and now Palpatane's report (above). The floors were composite with CROSS TRUSSES embedded in concrete.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 26 2007, 10:50 PM)
The floors were composite with CROSS TRUSSES embedded in concrete.
Which would not have prevented sagging once the diagonals started to buckle.
Which would not have prevented sagging once the diagonals started to buckle.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 27 2007, 04:15 AM)
p314(378):
3 sections:
Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections
Bowing of South Wall
Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation
The third section is the only relevant one in terms of describing collapse initiation:
dbb please explain how you extrapolate from the above that there is an "upper block falling, wedged in". The south wall is "buckled inward" according to NIST, there is a tilt to the south, but this doesn't necessarily imply a wedge at all.
In addition, the NIST only describes collapse initiation, anything after that is pure speculation on your part. NIST's famous "Global collapse ensued" blanket statement says nothing about what follows initiation. The NIST does not describe a wedge falling all the way down, floor by floor, at all.
So again, if you are going to make it appear like all your statements are solidly backed by the NIST report you should make it clear when you are presenting your own unbacked theories. I also implore you to please quote from the NIST report directly when you make claims like this; this is after all a Physics forum. I called your bluff on this one, but how many people are going to take the time to do so? Or are you just shooting for proof by intimidation?
www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg
How could it NOT wedge?
3 sections:
Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections
Bowing of South Wall
Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation
The third section is the only relevant one in terms of describing collapse initiation:
dbb please explain how you extrapolate from the above that there is an "upper block falling, wedged in". The south wall is "buckled inward" according to NIST, there is a tilt to the south, but this doesn't necessarily imply a wedge at all.
In addition, the NIST only describes collapse initiation, anything after that is pure speculation on your part. NIST's famous "Global collapse ensued" blanket statement says nothing about what follows initiation. The NIST does not describe a wedge falling all the way down, floor by floor, at all.
So again, if you are going to make it appear like all your statements are solidly backed by the NIST report you should make it clear when you are presenting your own unbacked theories. I also implore you to please quote from the NIST report directly when you make claims like this; this is after all a Physics forum. I called your bluff on this one, but how many people are going to take the time to do so? Or are you just shooting for proof by intimidation?
www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg
How could it NOT wedge?
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 26 2007, 08:55 PM)
Which would not have prevented sagging once the diagonals started to buckle.
You and Grumpster are claiming the trusses were in a caternary configuration , not sagging.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
Show me were NIST claims the floors trusses were caternary.
You and Grumpster are claiming the trusses were in a caternary configuration , not sagging.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
Show me were NIST claims the floors trusses were caternary.
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 26 2007, 09:01 PM)
www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg
How could it NOT wedge?
How much money do you make every time someone goes to your site?
How could it NOT wedge?
How much money do you make every time someone goes to your site?
Wrong AGAIN.
Both counts.
Big surprise?
Nope.
Both counts.
Big surprise?
Nope.
QUOTE (Reasonwhy+Feb 26 2007, 11:50 PM)
Show me were NIST claims the floors trusses were caternary.
For NIST description of Catenary Action of Floor Trusses see NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 5.2 Catenary Action of Floor System - pg 311.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf Pages 170 171 (252 & 253 ordinal)
palpatine, you JO, the heading of the report clearly states "probable". This is your proof? C'mon buddy, bring it! Photos, metalurgy.....something.
[here
Sorry about the tags, but you get the gist. Everything was not melting and sagging. Foxx and others have proven this over and over.
For NIST description of Catenary Action of Floor Trusses see NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 5.2 Catenary Action of Floor System - pg 311.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 26 2007, 11:50 PM)
I remember this caternary myth from NOVA, FEMA and now Palpatane's report (above). The floors were composite with CROSS TRUSSES embedded in concrete.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6B Chap 3-1 and Fig 4-5 Bridging Truss (pg 19 of same report)
While the knukles of the Main truss extended into the concrete, the Bridging Truss was not embedded in anything.
Arthur
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6B Chap 3-1 and Fig 4-5 Bridging Truss (pg 19 of same report)
While the knukles of the Main truss extended into the concrete, the Bridging Truss was not embedded in anything.
Arthur
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 26 2007, 10:35 PM)
That's rich coming from someone who has time to post hundreds if not thousands of inane posts here
I respectfully suggest that you cut your prolific output to 5 or 10% of what it is now, and make some posts of substance backed by quotes from the NIST report instead of the usual one liners. This forum certainly needs all the quality posts it can get at this point
That's rich coming from a deluded conspiracy theorist.
Nope, I've read the reports, several times now and I prefer to just post the reference.
If you are too lazy to read them, that's YOUR problem.
Of course LAZY and CT'er seem pretty synonymous.
Arthur
I respectfully suggest that you cut your prolific output to 5 or 10% of what it is now, and make some posts of substance backed by quotes from the NIST report instead of the usual one liners. This forum certainly needs all the quality posts it can get at this point
That's rich coming from a deluded conspiracy theorist.
Nope, I've read the reports, several times now and I prefer to just post the reference.
If you are too lazy to read them, that's YOUR problem.
Of course LAZY and CT'er seem pretty synonymous.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2007, 09:43 PM)
Wrong AGAIN.
Both counts.
Big surprise?
Nope.
For NIST description of Catenary Action of Floor Trusses see NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 5.2 Catenary Action of Floor System - pg 311.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6B Chap 3-1 and Fig 4-5 Bridging Truss (pg 19 of same report)
While the knukles of the Main truss extended into the concrete, the Bridging Truss was not embedded in anything.
Arthur
Well, you are correct about NIST claiming the trusses had Catenary Action .
That explains how NIST figured the mythical lateral loads.
NIST take the composite floors and just model a single truss (without cross trusses or connecting steel floor pans), heating it until the diagonals buckle then measure the force as if it were a cable.
Of course this did not happen when they tested the real composite floor assemblies.
Of course this also did not happen when NIST modeled the entire floors, shown in figure 5-4. Only 2 or 3 of the trusses sagged to the max displacement per floor. That is without even modeling the cross trusses. Then NIST claims these trusses became disconnected before collapse so the 20 some , none sagging trusses would have to pull in the wall. What a joke (no wonder NIST did not even try to model the collapse).
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
If they leave the cross trusses and steel floor pan of the model it does not matter if the knuckles extend into the concrete.
Both counts.
Big surprise?
Nope.
For NIST description of Catenary Action of Floor Trusses see NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 5.2 Catenary Action of Floor System - pg 311.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6B Chap 3-1 and Fig 4-5 Bridging Truss (pg 19 of same report)
While the knukles of the Main truss extended into the concrete, the Bridging Truss was not embedded in anything.
Arthur
Well, you are correct about NIST claiming the trusses had Catenary Action .
That explains how NIST figured the mythical lateral loads.
NIST take the composite floors and just model a single truss (without cross trusses or connecting steel floor pans), heating it until the diagonals buckle then measure the force as if it were a cable.
Of course this did not happen when they tested the real composite floor assemblies.
Of course this also did not happen when NIST modeled the entire floors, shown in figure 5-4. Only 2 or 3 of the trusses sagged to the max displacement per floor. That is without even modeling the cross trusses. Then NIST claims these trusses became disconnected before collapse so the 20 some , none sagging trusses would have to pull in the wall. What a joke (no wonder NIST did not even try to model the collapse).
QUOTE
If the bowing was caused as Nist describe, then that would require that the floors are still connected to the East perimeter wall columns in order to pull them in, but the report shows disassociation of many of these connections. Those floor areas could not both be disconnected and contribute to a pulling action. This reduction in the number of floor to column connections would severely limit the total load which could be applied
Note also that while there is evidence in their report to show sagging did take place perpendicular to the direction required, there is no evidence presented that any sagging took place actually in the direction required.
Note also that while there is evidence in their report to show sagging did take place perpendicular to the direction required, there is no evidence presented that any sagging took place actually in the direction required.
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
If they leave the cross trusses and steel floor pan of the model it does not matter if the knuckles extend into the concrete.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 27 2007, 04:24 AM)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf Pages 170 171 (252 & 253 ordinal)
palpatine, you JO, the heading of the report clearly states "probable". This is your proof? C'mon buddy, bring it! Photos, metalurgy.....something.
[here
Sorry about the tags, but you get the gist. Everything was not melting and sagging. Foxx and others have proven this over and over.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 27 2007, 07:00 AM)
Of course this also did not happen when NIST modeled the entire floors, shown in figure 5-4. Only 2 or 3 of the trusses sagged to the max displacement per floor. That is without even modeling the cross trusses. Then NIST claims these trusses became disconnected before collapse so the 20 some , none sagging trusses would have to pull in the wall. What a joke (no wonder NIST did not even try to model the collapse).
Reasonwhy, figure 5-4 of what?
Either follow your own advice and crack the relevant pdf and copy, or at least identify the sections of the documents you are commenting on.
Either follow your own advice and crack the relevant pdf and copy, or at least identify the sections of the documents you are commenting on.
Tilting and wedging are two different things. But as long as everything that happens after collapse initiation is not peer-reviewed it is just speculation.
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 27 2007, 09:19 AM)
palpatine, you JO, the heading of the report clearly states "probable". This is your proof? C'mon buddy, bring it! Photos, metalurgy.....something.
Maybe if you read beyond the title, you might actually learn something.
There are 50 other volumes to the NIST report, chock-full of photos, and believe it or not, even some metallurgy.
There are 50 other volumes to the NIST report, chock-full of photos, and believe it or not, even some metallurgy.
QUOTE
Souvenirs from the towers, that's your proof of an inside job?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| here |
Souvenirs from the towers, that's your proof of an inside job?
Sorry about the tags, but you get the gist. Everything was not melting and sagging. Foxx and others have proven this over and over.
Sorry about the tags, but you get the gist. Everything was not melting and sagging. Foxx and others have proven this over and over.
If you had read the NIST report, you would know that there are no claims of any building structures melting.
As for the case of sagging floor trusses, which the NIST report supports with legitimate research, what qualified opinion can you put forth to contradict it?
If Foxx is the best you can do, your worse off than I thought.
As for the case of sagging floor trusses, which the NIST report supports with legitimate research, what qualified opinion can you put forth to contradict it?
If Foxx is the best you can do, your worse off than I thought.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 27 2007, 09:47 AM)
Tilting and wedging are two different things. But as long as everything that happens after collapse initiation is not peer-reviewed it is just speculation.
Are you suggesting that all speculation is equal?
Tilting is an observed fact in the collapse of both towers.
If the contents of one or many stories, empty into and overburden the structural capacity of a lower story, wouldn't wedging fit that description?
Are you suggesting that all speculation is equal?
Tilting is an observed fact in the collapse of both towers.
If the contents of one or many stories, empty into and overburden the structural capacity of a lower story, wouldn't wedging fit that description?
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 27 2007, 03:19 AM)
palpatine, you JO, the heading of the report clearly states "probable". This is your proof? C'mon buddy, bring it! Photos, metalurgy.....something.
"JO?" I must have struck a nerve, since you seem to be resorting to insults like a typical CTer.
btw, did you read this yet?
"JO?" I must have struck a nerve, since you seem to be resorting to insults like a typical CTer.
btw, did you read this yet?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 27 2007, 01:00 AM)
Only 2 or 3 of the trusses sagged to the max displacement per floor.
please clarify.
Is this your claim, or is this what you claim that NIST states.
please clarify.
Is this your claim, or is this what you claim that NIST states.
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 27 2007, 10:50 AM)
Are you suggesting that all speculation is equal?
Tilting is an observed fact in the collapse of both towers.
If the contents of one or many stories, empty into and overburden the structural capacity of a lower story, wouldn't wedging fit that description?
I hear so many stories, the wedge effect could be a reason to explain the ejection of perimeter material, but an other story says the core columns where still standing at the end of the collapse. Please provide an animation of your wedge model in the same way as Lozenge provided an animation, or a couple of gifs.
how does the wedge work, the block wedges, the floors are not detached from the core columns and are still attached to the block, because at the first collision we have
N m_floor g h < N E1, you can solve this assuming some stepwise process detachs the first collided floor and so on, a kind of pancaking within the block and in the building but how does that wegde effect work ? Do the core columns also wedge into the core columns of the building ? Or are all floors detached from the tilting block and merge together with the detached floors of the building. If that is the case we have some random material of broken floors that cannot function as a wedge because a wedge requires a kind of solid block during the whole collapse.
Tilting is an observed fact in the collapse of both towers.
If the contents of one or many stories, empty into and overburden the structural capacity of a lower story, wouldn't wedging fit that description?
I hear so many stories, the wedge effect could be a reason to explain the ejection of perimeter material, but an other story says the core columns where still standing at the end of the collapse. Please provide an animation of your wedge model in the same way as Lozenge provided an animation, or a couple of gifs.
how does the wedge work, the block wedges, the floors are not detached from the core columns and are still attached to the block, because at the first collision we have
N m_floor g h < N E1, you can solve this assuming some stepwise process detachs the first collided floor and so on, a kind of pancaking within the block and in the building but how does that wegde effect work ? Do the core columns also wedge into the core columns of the building ? Or are all floors detached from the tilting block and merge together with the detached floors of the building. If that is the case we have some random material of broken floors that cannot function as a wedge because a wedge requires a kind of solid block during the whole collapse.
einsteen,
If you DON'T accept NIST and Bazant then you FIRST have to disprove that before you can go further.
If you accept NIST and Bazant's explanation for the LOCAL COLLAPSE the rest BECOMES an interesting speculation and NO SIMPLE mathematical model is going to EXPLAIN the chaotic collapse.
Statements like
Arthur
If you DON'T accept NIST and Bazant then you FIRST have to disprove that before you can go further.
If you accept NIST and Bazant's explanation for the LOCAL COLLAPSE the rest BECOMES an interesting speculation and NO SIMPLE mathematical model is going to EXPLAIN the chaotic collapse.
Statements like
QUOTE
that cannot function as a wedge because a wedge requires a kind of solid block during the whole collapse.
are just silly and result from taking the ANALOGY of a wedge to the EXTREME.Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 02:18 PM)
If you DON'T accept NIST and Bazant then you FIRST have to disprove that before you can go further.
Where did I say that I didn't accept it ? Do a search for wedg* within wtc.nist.gov and you will not find anything. And Bazant is a 1d continuous collapse model, a nice mathematical generalization of Dr. Greening, why would that conclusion be different than Greening's one ?
I think Lozenge already pointed it out.
Where did I say that I didn't accept it ? Do a search for wedg* within wtc.nist.gov and you will not find anything. And Bazant is a 1d continuous collapse model, a nice mathematical generalization of Dr. Greening, why would that conclusion be different than Greening's one ?
I think Lozenge already pointed it out.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 27 2007, 09:47 AM)
Tilting and wedging are two different things. But as long as everything that happens after collapse initiation is not peer-reviewed it is just speculation.
Wedging is the product of a tilting structure, as in a tree when it falls or does not fall.
This tree did not fall because it wedged as it tilted. splitting the tree up the middle so that the tree balanced on he stump. The reason for that was an incorrectly cut hinge joint.
The reason many people die cutting trees is they do not understand the concept of wedging.
Also no it is not speculation to anyone bright enough to look at the videos with an open mind and understand the concepts, it is evident that wedge in occurred, there is visual evidence of it on the videos that is unquestionable.
Tilting, Hinging, and wedging can all be observed as well as a funnel effect.
Wedging is the product of a tilting structure, as in a tree when it falls or does not fall.
This tree did not fall because it wedged as it tilted. splitting the tree up the middle so that the tree balanced on he stump. The reason for that was an incorrectly cut hinge joint.
The reason many people die cutting trees is they do not understand the concept of wedging.
Also no it is not speculation to anyone bright enough to look at the videos with an open mind and understand the concepts, it is evident that wedge in occurred, there is visual evidence of it on the videos that is unquestionable.
Tilting, Hinging, and wedging can all be observed as well as a funnel effect.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 27 2007, 02:00 AM)
NIST take the composite floors and just model a single truss (without cross trusses or connecting steel floor pans), heating it until the diagonals buckle then measure the force as if it were a cable.
Of course this did not happen when they tested the real composite floor assemblies.
Of course this also did not happen when NIST modeled the entire floors, shown in figure 5-4. Only 2 or 3 of the trusses sagged to the max displacement per floor. That is without even modeling the cross trusses. Then NIST claims these trusses became disconnected before collapse so the 20 some , none sagging trusses would have to pull in the wall.
If they leave the cross trusses and steel floor pan of the model it does not matter if the knuckles extend into the concrete.
What a crock.
Go back and read NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chapter 5 Full Floor System.
Cross Trusses and the floor plan (and everything else about their construction) were included in the Full Floor Model and the cross trusses only removed in the GLOBAL model (outside of the 2 way zones) because they were found to FAIL so EARLY in the thermal loading that they added little ACCURACY to the model. The tests of the SIMPLIFIED floor model found that it was computationally much faster but STILL ACCURATE.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chap 5 Fig 5-38 Comparison of detailed and simplified truss models.
See here is where Gordon and you are just LYING.
NIST didn't just LEAVE OUT things.
They MODELED their effects and made SIMPLIFICATIONS which had LITTLE impact on the GLOBAL MODEL.
There were NO COMPUTER SYSTEMS capable of doing a GLOBAL MODEL at the FULL RESOLUTION that NIST used for its SUB ASSEMBLIES. Thus they used these COMPLEX models in isolation to find WHAT were the KEY parts that they had to model in the global model.
Since its somewhat obvious that you have at least read parts of the NIST document, I no longer am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Oh and as far as being conservative consider that:
NIST left OUT and thermal spalling or cracking of the concrete (which the Fire test showed does occur) so the stiffness of the NIST models was greater than reality.
NIST left OUT any insulation removal that wasn't caused by DIRECT IMPACT of debris, thus being conservative since tests showed that the impact vibration would have disloged insulation.
Arthur
Of course this did not happen when they tested the real composite floor assemblies.
Of course this also did not happen when NIST modeled the entire floors, shown in figure 5-4. Only 2 or 3 of the trusses sagged to the max displacement per floor. That is without even modeling the cross trusses. Then NIST claims these trusses became disconnected before collapse so the 20 some , none sagging trusses would have to pull in the wall.
If they leave the cross trusses and steel floor pan of the model it does not matter if the knuckles extend into the concrete.
What a crock.
Go back and read NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chapter 5 Full Floor System.
Cross Trusses and the floor plan (and everything else about their construction) were included in the Full Floor Model and the cross trusses only removed in the GLOBAL model (outside of the 2 way zones) because they were found to FAIL so EARLY in the thermal loading that they added little ACCURACY to the model. The tests of the SIMPLIFIED floor model found that it was computationally much faster but STILL ACCURATE.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chap 5 Fig 5-38 Comparison of detailed and simplified truss models.
See here is where Gordon and you are just LYING.
NIST didn't just LEAVE OUT things.
They MODELED their effects and made SIMPLIFICATIONS which had LITTLE impact on the GLOBAL MODEL.
There were NO COMPUTER SYSTEMS capable of doing a GLOBAL MODEL at the FULL RESOLUTION that NIST used for its SUB ASSEMBLIES. Thus they used these COMPLEX models in isolation to find WHAT were the KEY parts that they had to model in the global model.
Since its somewhat obvious that you have at least read parts of the NIST document, I no longer am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Oh and as far as being conservative consider that:
NIST left OUT and thermal spalling or cracking of the concrete (which the Fire test showed does occur) so the stiffness of the NIST models was greater than reality.
NIST left OUT any insulation removal that wasn't caused by DIRECT IMPACT of debris, thus being conservative since tests showed that the impact vibration would have disloged insulation.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 27 2007, 09:35 AM)
Where did I say that I didn't accept it ?
So you AGREE with Bazant and NIST?
Arthur
So you AGREE with Bazant and NIST?
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 27 2007, 11:53 AM)
I hear so many stories, the wedge effect could be a reason to explain the ejection of perimeter material, but an other story says the core columns where still standing at the end of the collapse. Please provide an animation of your wedge model in the same way as Lozenge provided an animation, or a couple of gifs.
how does the wedge work, the block wedges, the floors are not detached from the core columns and are still attached to the block, because at the first collision we have
N m_floor g h < N E1, you can solve this assuming some stepwise process detachs the first collided floor and so on, a kind of pancaking within the block and in the building but how does that wegde effect work ? Do the core columns also wedge into the core columns of the building ? Or are all floors detached from the tilting block and merge together with the detached floors of the building. If that is the case we have some random material of broken floors that cannot function as a wedge because a wedge requires a kind of solid block during the whole collapse.
Even if it was controlled demolition, the block has to wedge in and then the hinge joint has to be compromised for the top block to drop down the structure. DA.
PS. your also wrong about building 7, as was Dr. Jones when I personally spoke to him.
The very tension beam is the why the building 7 fell the way it did the tension design holds the beams together though tensile strength, of the steel but it will not support much extra weight load before buckling will occur the beam does not have to snap just buckle badly, that pulls the walls in, in the exact way that was seen in building 7. The only way the building could have failed was though the tension beam weakening under load otherwise if the tension beam had been cut completely before the walls pulled in, the walls and building would have fallen into the street and not back in upon itself.
What falls in the video is just the remaining facade with no support left to it.
The question is what caused the buckling in the beam?
If it had been cut with explosives as you believe it would have caused the building to fall into the street, not onto itself.
I find that this is the CTers greatest failing not understanding how the Energy is transfered though the structures to cause them to resist collapse.
A building is simply and energy transference device, that transfers energy in predictable ways the very science of Engineering is based upon that and not acknowledging that fact is the main fault I find with CTers.
how does the wedge work, the block wedges, the floors are not detached from the core columns and are still attached to the block, because at the first collision we have
N m_floor g h < N E1, you can solve this assuming some stepwise process detachs the first collided floor and so on, a kind of pancaking within the block and in the building but how does that wegde effect work ? Do the core columns also wedge into the core columns of the building ? Or are all floors detached from the tilting block and merge together with the detached floors of the building. If that is the case we have some random material of broken floors that cannot function as a wedge because a wedge requires a kind of solid block during the whole collapse.
Even if it was controlled demolition, the block has to wedge in and then the hinge joint has to be compromised for the top block to drop down the structure. DA.
PS. your also wrong about building 7, as was Dr. Jones when I personally spoke to him.
The very tension beam is the why the building 7 fell the way it did the tension design holds the beams together though tensile strength, of the steel but it will not support much extra weight load before buckling will occur the beam does not have to snap just buckle badly, that pulls the walls in, in the exact way that was seen in building 7. The only way the building could have failed was though the tension beam weakening under load otherwise if the tension beam had been cut completely before the walls pulled in, the walls and building would have fallen into the street and not back in upon itself.
What falls in the video is just the remaining facade with no support left to it.
The question is what caused the buckling in the beam?
If it had been cut with explosives as you believe it would have caused the building to fall into the street, not onto itself.
I find that this is the CTers greatest failing not understanding how the Energy is transfered though the structures to cause them to resist collapse.
A building is simply and energy transference device, that transfers energy in predictable ways the very science of Engineering is based upon that and not acknowledging that fact is the main fault I find with CTers.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 06:55 AM)
What a crock.
Go back and read NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chapter 5 Full Floor System.
Cross Trusses and the floor plan (and everything else about their construction) were included in the Full Floor Model and the cross trusses only removed in the GLOBAL model (outside of the 2 way zones) because they were found to FAIL so EARLY in the thermal loading that they added little ACCURACY to the model. The tests of the SIMPLIFIED floor model found that it was computationally much faster but STILL ACCURATE.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chap 5 Fig 5-38 Comparison of detailed and simplified truss models.
See here is where Gordon and you are just LYING.
NIST didn't just LEAVE OUT things.
They MODELED their effects and made SIMPLIFICATIONS which had LITTLE impact on the GLOBAL MODEL.
There were NO COMPUTER SYSTEMS capable of doing a GLOBAL MODEL at the FULL RESOLUTION that NIST used for its SUB ASSEMBLIES. Thus they used these COMPLEX models in isolation to find WHAT were the KEY parts that they had to model in the global model.
Since its somewhat obvious that you have at least read parts of the NIST document, I no longer am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Oh and as far as being conservative consider that:
NIST left OUT and thermal spalling or cracking of the concrete (which the Fire test showed does occur) so the stiffness of the NIST models was greater than reality.
NIST left OUT any insulation removal that wasn't caused by DIRECT IMPACT of debris, thus being conservative since tests showed that the impact vibration would have disloged insulation.
Arthur
If NIST makes assumptions and is to lazy to make an accurate model , that is not my fault. If the computers are not powerful enough to model the collapse someone should not have destroyed the forensic evidence.
I used the NIST model , Gordon was referring to the NIST photos. Both show the lateral forces are a JOKE (disconnected trusses can't pull in a wall). Even if somehow catenary (I would like to see this demonstrated on a real truss assembly).
It is clear for anyone to see. NISTNCSTAR1-6D figure 5-4 page 316. The models have two small local areas (floor 97 and 98) that NIST then states are disconnected from the perimeter. This is what NIST claims pulled in the wall causing global collapse.
Go back and read NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chapter 5 Full Floor System.
Cross Trusses and the floor plan (and everything else about their construction) were included in the Full Floor Model and the cross trusses only removed in the GLOBAL model (outside of the 2 way zones) because they were found to FAIL so EARLY in the thermal loading that they added little ACCURACY to the model. The tests of the SIMPLIFIED floor model found that it was computationally much faster but STILL ACCURATE.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chap 5 Fig 5-38 Comparison of detailed and simplified truss models.
See here is where Gordon and you are just LYING.
NIST didn't just LEAVE OUT things.
They MODELED their effects and made SIMPLIFICATIONS which had LITTLE impact on the GLOBAL MODEL.
There were NO COMPUTER SYSTEMS capable of doing a GLOBAL MODEL at the FULL RESOLUTION that NIST used for its SUB ASSEMBLIES. Thus they used these COMPLEX models in isolation to find WHAT were the KEY parts that they had to model in the global model.
Since its somewhat obvious that you have at least read parts of the NIST document, I no longer am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Oh and as far as being conservative consider that:
NIST left OUT and thermal spalling or cracking of the concrete (which the Fire test showed does occur) so the stiffness of the NIST models was greater than reality.
NIST left OUT any insulation removal that wasn't caused by DIRECT IMPACT of debris, thus being conservative since tests showed that the impact vibration would have disloged insulation.
Arthur
If NIST makes assumptions and is to lazy to make an accurate model , that is not my fault. If the computers are not powerful enough to model the collapse someone should not have destroyed the forensic evidence.
I used the NIST model , Gordon was referring to the NIST photos. Both show the lateral forces are a JOKE (disconnected trusses can't pull in a wall). Even if somehow catenary (I would like to see this demonstrated on a real truss assembly).
It is clear for anyone to see. NISTNCSTAR1-6D figure 5-4 page 316. The models have two small local areas (floor 97 and 98) that NIST then states are disconnected from the perimeter. This is what NIST claims pulled in the wall causing global collapse.
reasonwhy
Actually, it is your(and Gordon's) reading ,comprehension and logic skills that are a joke. Gordon already accepted his defeat in this forum and moved on to greener(and less scientific) pastures, as did notsoquick. You stick around spreading lies about things you don't seem able to understand and doing ad homs on those who have proven to be your intellectual superiors. I'll leave it up to you to determine what that says about your character.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I used the NIST model , Gordon was referring to the NIST photos. Both show the lateral forces are a JOKE.
Actually, it is your(and Gordon's) reading ,comprehension and logic skills that are a joke. Gordon already accepted his defeat in this forum and moved on to greener(and less scientific) pastures, as did notsoquick. You stick around spreading lies about things you don't seem able to understand and doing ad homs on those who have proven to be your intellectual superiors. I'll leave it up to you to determine what that says about your character.
Grumpy
QUOTE (NoReasoningSkills+)
If NIST makes assumptions and is to lazy to make an accurate model , that is not my fault. If the computers are not powerful enough to model the collapse someone should not have destroyed the forensic evidence.
The NIST report is ample proof that NIST was not LAZY.
It is an amazingly detailed report which shows an INCREDIBLE amount of hard work.
Something you don't appear to be familiar with.
NIST made the most accurate model the software would support, but the red herring of "destroying the forensic evidence" is just that, a red herring. What people SHOULD have done is not relevant. Just more CT'er whining.
I used the NIST model , Gordon was referring to the NIST photos. Both show the lateral forces are a JOKE (disconnected trusses can't pull in a wall). Even if somehow catenary (I would like to see this demonstrated on a real truss assembly).
It is clear for anyone to see. NISTNCSTAR1-6D figure 5-4 page 316. The models have two small local areas (floor 97 and 98) that NIST then states are disconnected from the perimeter. This is what NIST claims pulled in the wall causing global collapse.
As to your figure 5-4.
You really ought to actually READ the report, not just look at the pretty pictures.
The CAPTION of the picture states that that is at 100 min, which is just before collapse.
The written description of that case states that
So you reference a picture 20 minutes later and try to say NIST used disconnected trusses to apply pull in forces, but the REALITY is the pull in force had been applied and the bowing of the columns had already started well before the 100 min picture you referenced.
Sheesh.
Again, its HARD to believe you are too lazy to read the friggin paragraph, two pages before that picture. The paragraph, called Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections, that CLEARLY explains this, so ONCE AGAIN I have to assume you are simply trying to spread DISINFORMATION.
I don't know what your agenda is or who you really work for, but you need MORE TRAINING as your attempts at this so far are truly pathetic.
Arthur
As to your figure 5-4.
You really ought to actually READ the report, not just look at the pretty pictures.
The CAPTION of the picture states that that is at 100 min, which is just before collapse.
The written description of that case states that
So you reference a picture 20 minutes later and try to say NIST used disconnected trusses to apply pull in forces, but the REALITY is the pull in force had been applied and the bowing of the columns had already started well before the 100 min picture you referenced.
Sheesh.
Again, its HARD to believe you are too lazy to read the friggin paragraph, two pages before that picture. The paragraph, called Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections, that CLEARLY explains this, so ONCE AGAIN I have to assume you are simply trying to spread DISINFORMATION.
I don't know what your agenda is or who you really work for, but you need MORE TRAINING as your attempts at this so far are truly pathetic.
Arthur
I read them and it is truly amazing.
2 or 3 trusses pulling in an entire wall even if they are connected!
Did the wall buckle at 80 min?
At 100 min hardly any of the trusses are pulling on the wall because they are disconnected.
Like I stated before it is now OBVIOUS why NIST did not MODEL the collapse.
The only model that shows this lateral force is the single truss.
Thanks for showing me were NIST came up with the mythical lateral force.
I am working for all the people that died on 9/11 and did not get a real investigation.
The NIST report is ample proof that NIST was not LAZY.
It is an amazingly detailed report which shows an INCREDIBLE amount of hard work.
Something you don't appear to be familiar with.
NIST made the most accurate model the software would support, but the red herring of "destroying the forensic evidence" is just that, a red herring. What people SHOULD have done is not relevant. Just more CT'er whining.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 27 2007, 10:30 AM)
I used the NIST model , Gordon was referring to the NIST photos. Both show the lateral forces are a JOKE (disconnected trusses can't pull in a wall). Even if somehow catenary (I would like to see this demonstrated on a real truss assembly).
It is clear for anyone to see. NISTNCSTAR1-6D figure 5-4 page 316. The models have two small local areas (floor 97 and 98) that NIST then states are disconnected from the perimeter. This is what NIST claims pulled in the wall causing global collapse.
As to your figure 5-4.
You really ought to actually READ the report, not just look at the pretty pictures.
The CAPTION of the picture states that that is at 100 min, which is just before collapse.
The written description of that case states that
QUOTE
The exterior seats in the hot zone on floors 97 and 98 began to fail due to their reduced vertical shear capacity at around 80 minutes.
So you reference a picture 20 minutes later and try to say NIST used disconnected trusses to apply pull in forces, but the REALITY is the pull in force had been applied and the bowing of the columns had already started well before the 100 min picture you referenced.
Sheesh.
Again, its HARD to believe you are too lazy to read the friggin paragraph, two pages before that picture. The paragraph, called Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections, that CLEARLY explains this, so ONCE AGAIN I have to assume you are simply trying to spread DISINFORMATION.
I don't know what your agenda is or who you really work for, but you need MORE TRAINING as your attempts at this so far are truly pathetic.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 27 2007, 03:30 PM)
If NIST makes assumptions and is to lazy to make an accurate model , that is not my fault. If the computers are not powerful enough to model the collapse someone should not have destroyed the forensic evidence.
I used the NIST model , Gordon was referring to the NIST photos. Both show the lateral forces are a JOKE (disconnected trusses can't pull in a wall). Even if somehow catenary (I would like to see this demonstrated on a real truss assembly).
It is clear for anyone to see. NISTNCSTAR1-6D figure 5-4 page 316. The models have two small local areas (floor 97 and 98) that NIST then states are disconnected from the perimeter. This is what NIST claims pulled in the wall causing global collapse.
DA. It is not the trusses that pull in the outer wall, it is the weight carried by the trusses, Can you at least grow a brain?
Study some engineering!
A truss floor joint failing in the core can pull the outer perimeter wall in because of the weight of the floor being transfered unevenly over the spans. DA.
It is a very simple principal, of uneven loading, your statement is not only illogical but quite false and misleading.
I used the NIST model , Gordon was referring to the NIST photos. Both show the lateral forces are a JOKE (disconnected trusses can't pull in a wall). Even if somehow catenary (I would like to see this demonstrated on a real truss assembly).
It is clear for anyone to see. NISTNCSTAR1-6D figure 5-4 page 316. The models have two small local areas (floor 97 and 98) that NIST then states are disconnected from the perimeter. This is what NIST claims pulled in the wall causing global collapse.
DA. It is not the trusses that pull in the outer wall, it is the weight carried by the trusses, Can you at least grow a brain?
Study some engineering!
A truss floor joint failing in the core can pull the outer perimeter wall in because of the weight of the floor being transfered unevenly over the spans. DA.
It is a very simple principal, of uneven loading, your statement is not only illogical but quite false and misleading.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 27 2007, 07:43 AM)
reasonwhy
Actually, it is your(and Gordon's) reading ,comprehension and logic skills that are a joke. Gordon already accepted his defeat in this forum and moved on to greener(and less scientific) pastures, as did notsoquick. You stick around spreading lies about things you don't seem able to understand and doing ad homs on those who have proven to be your intellectual superiors. I'll leave it up to you to determine what that says about your character.
Grumpy
intellectual superiors?
Has RH returned as the Grumpster?
Please ,tell everyone about your intellectual superiority.
Actually, it is your(and Gordon's) reading ,comprehension and logic skills that are a joke. Gordon already accepted his defeat in this forum and moved on to greener(and less scientific) pastures, as did notsoquick. You stick around spreading lies about things you don't seem able to understand and doing ad homs on those who have proven to be your intellectual superiors. I'll leave it up to you to determine what that says about your character.
Grumpy
intellectual superiors?
Has RH returned as the Grumpster?
Please ,tell everyone about your intellectual superiority.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Feb 27 2007, 08:22 AM)
DA. It is not the trusses that pull in the outer wall, it is the weight carried by the trusses, Can you at least grow a brain?
Study some engineering!
A truss floor joint failing in the core can pull the outer perimeter wall in because of the weight of the floor being transfered unevenly over the spans. DA.
It is a very simple principal, of uneven loading, your statement is not only illogical but quite false and misleading.
Are you implying that NIST left this out of the FEA floor model I referenced?
Study some engineering!
A truss floor joint failing in the core can pull the outer perimeter wall in because of the weight of the floor being transfered unevenly over the spans. DA.
It is a very simple principal, of uneven loading, your statement is not only illogical but quite false and misleading.
Are you implying that NIST left this out of the FEA floor model I referenced?
Adoucette, I've of course not read all those NIST reports only summary fragments and I can never do that, but who am I to say I disagree with all those skilled experts. But on the other hand you can wonder why it is only initiation that matters and of course the question about the simulations. But I admit I have to read more about this whole initiation and I will also do that later. What I've seen from the NIST is that they have very detailed temperature diagrams at all impact points, very impressive how they could determine that from some videos especially if you take all that smoke into account and intact perimeter columns.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 08:21 AM)
As to your figure 5-4.
You really ought to actually READ the report, not just look at the pretty pictures.
The CAPTION of the picture states that that is at 100 min, which is just before collapse.
The written description of that case states that
So you reference a picture 20 minutes later and try to say NIST used disconnected trusses to apply pull in forces, but the REALITY is the pull in force had been applied and the bowing of the columns had already started well before the 100 min picture you referenced.
Sheesh.
Again, its HARD to believe you are too lazy to read the friggin paragraph, two pages before that picture. The paragraph, called Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections, that CLEARLY explains this, so ONCE AGAIN I have to assume you are simply trying to spread DISINFORMATION.
I don't know what your agenda is or who you really work for, but you need MORE TRAINING as your attempts at this so far are truly pathetic.
Arthur
I read them and it is truly amazing.
2 or 3 trusses pulling in an entire wall even if they are connected!
Did the wall buckle at 80 min?
At 100 min hardly any of the trusses are pulling on the wall because they are disconnected.
Like I stated before it is now OBVIOUS why NIST did not MODEL the collapse.
The only model that shows this lateral force is the single truss.
Thanks for showing me were NIST came up with the mythical lateral force.
I am working for all the people that died on 9/11 and did not get a real investigation.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 27 2007, 12:04 PM)
2 or 3 trusses pulling in an entire wall even if they are connected!
The wall bowed in over 5 or 6 floors, so your statement is again, just another PATHETIC attempt at DISINFORMATION, there were many DOZENS of sagging trusses applying a pull in force, not just 2 or 3.
Truly pathetic.
It would appear you are working on the side of Al Queda by trying to show that they weren't responsible.
Arthur
The wall bowed in over 5 or 6 floors, so your statement is again, just another PATHETIC attempt at DISINFORMATION, there were many DOZENS of sagging trusses applying a pull in force, not just 2 or 3.
Truly pathetic.
It would appear you are working on the side of Al Queda by trying to show that they weren't responsible.
Arthur
reasonwhy
I've never seen anyone work this hard to spread disinformation and illogic, yet be too lazy to actually try to understand the research and testing NIST did. I can only assume you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to shore up the tattered arguements of the CTers. Are Jones, et al paying you to do so, so that they may continue to fleece the flock now that their "scholars" site has self destructed???
einsteen
NIST went over all the data available, their report is only characterized(as all science should be) as the "probable" scenarios. Certainty is a luxury available only to religious fanatics and those who do not understand the scientific method.
The reason NIST only modeled up to collapse initiation is because they assumed that anyone who understood the forces involved would know that the rest of the building could not possibly stand once the top portion fell through the floors that buckled, and the resultant chaos was beyond their capability to further model due to so many different types of failure, all occuring at once.
The NIST scientists were professionals, their report is written for professionals and I am sure they were quite suprised when the CTers criticized their reports because of political reasons. The preconceptual science practiced by the amateurs on the "troother" sites is seen for what it is by the vast majority of engineers and scientists, they just greatly underestimated the gulibility and ignorance of a large percentage of the US population.
They say that a lie travels around the world before the truth gets it's boots on, and, in the case of the "troothers" this is true. But the well of the gullible seems to be drying up, many sites are now defunct, others are just a bunch of croakers telling each other how right they are and a few have self destructed in fights over the money to be made on the rubes in spectacular (and highly entertaining) fashion.
My point is that however you may feel about the current administration or other political concerns, it is not possible that explosives were used on 9/11 and not to leave obvious signs. I repeat, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, PERIOD. Those building fell because some religious Aholes flew large planes into them at high speed, then the structurally compromised buildings were subjected to feirce, widespread fires that further compromised the buildings until one overstressed frame member failed, setting off a chain of such failures that led to the collapse. And when the buildings fell they destroyed or severely damaged the buildings around them, leading to a series of failures culminating when WTC 7 collapsed.
This is not a fairy tale, it is the ONLY scientifically supportable scenario, it's what we all saw and it is as simple as...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down.
Grumpy
I've never seen anyone work this hard to spread disinformation and illogic, yet be too lazy to actually try to understand the research and testing NIST did. I can only assume you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to shore up the tattered arguements of the CTers. Are Jones, et al paying you to do so, so that they may continue to fleece the flock now that their "scholars" site has self destructed???
einsteen
QUOTE
But on the other hand you can wonder why it is only initiation that matters and of course the question about the simulations. But I admit I have to read more about this whole initiation and I will also do that later. What I've seen from the NIST is that they have very detailed temperature diagrams at all impact points, very impressive how they could determine that from some videos especially if you take all that smoke into account and intact perimeter columns.
NIST went over all the data available, their report is only characterized(as all science should be) as the "probable" scenarios. Certainty is a luxury available only to religious fanatics and those who do not understand the scientific method.
The reason NIST only modeled up to collapse initiation is because they assumed that anyone who understood the forces involved would know that the rest of the building could not possibly stand once the top portion fell through the floors that buckled, and the resultant chaos was beyond their capability to further model due to so many different types of failure, all occuring at once.
The NIST scientists were professionals, their report is written for professionals and I am sure they were quite suprised when the CTers criticized their reports because of political reasons. The preconceptual science practiced by the amateurs on the "troother" sites is seen for what it is by the vast majority of engineers and scientists, they just greatly underestimated the gulibility and ignorance of a large percentage of the US population.
They say that a lie travels around the world before the truth gets it's boots on, and, in the case of the "troothers" this is true. But the well of the gullible seems to be drying up, many sites are now defunct, others are just a bunch of croakers telling each other how right they are and a few have self destructed in fights over the money to be made on the rubes in spectacular (and highly entertaining) fashion.
My point is that however you may feel about the current administration or other political concerns, it is not possible that explosives were used on 9/11 and not to leave obvious signs. I repeat, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, PERIOD. Those building fell because some religious Aholes flew large planes into them at high speed, then the structurally compromised buildings were subjected to feirce, widespread fires that further compromised the buildings until one overstressed frame member failed, setting off a chain of such failures that led to the collapse. And when the buildings fell they destroyed or severely damaged the buildings around them, leading to a series of failures culminating when WTC 7 collapsed.
This is not a fairy tale, it is the ONLY scientifically supportable scenario, it's what we all saw and it is as simple as...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down.
Grumpy
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 27 2007, 04:52 PM)
Are you implying that NIST left this out of the FEA floor model I referenced?
NO simply it was not important, as the weight of everything on the trusses causes them to sag it is called gravity, it is a known factor.
The weight of the floor slabs and everything on them causes the trusses to sag, by the time the trusses sag the concrete is already cracked by heat, and stress and offers very little in resistance.
NO simply it was not important, as the weight of everything on the trusses causes them to sag it is called gravity, it is a known factor.
The weight of the floor slabs and everything on them causes the trusses to sag, by the time the trusses sag the concrete is already cracked by heat, and stress and offers very little in resistance.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 27 2007, 05:04 PM)
Adoucette, I've of course not read all those NIST reports only summary fragments and I can never do that, but who am I to say I disagree with all those skilled experts. But on the other hand you can wonder why it is only initiation that matters and of course the question about the simulations. But I admit I have to read more about this whole initiation and I will also do that later. What I've seen from the NIST is that they have very detailed temperature diagrams at all impact points, very impressive how they could determine that from some videos especially if you take all that smoke into account and intact perimeter columns.
einsteen,
I wouldn't be intimidated by the report, it's not that overwhelming once you get into it. It's probably best to start with the main report before looking at all the companion reports - it's only a few hundred pages. And you can probably skip sections like "Reconstruction of Human Activity" & "Recommendations" if you want to focus on the data leading up to collapse.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
Once you drill down to the substance of what NIST is saying about the collapse, I am sure you will be amazed at how thin it really is.
I also highly recommend Jim Hoffman's review of the report "Building a Better Mirage".
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
Here is an extract:
As Hoffman notes, there is a mountain of data to sift through, some of it very detailed, some of it very good. But (from the conclusion of Hoffman's piece)
As Hoffman notes, there is a mountain of data to sift through, some of it very detailed, some of it very good. But (from the conclusion of Hoffman's piece)
NIST's Report, like FEMA's 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn't explain them at all. Flatly asserting that "global collapse" inevitably follows "collapse initiation," the Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation -- an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages. Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:
* The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
* Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.
NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses.
einsteen,
I wouldn't be intimidated by the report, it's not that overwhelming once you get into it. It's probably best to start with the main report before looking at all the companion reports - it's only a few hundred pages. And you can probably skip sections like "Reconstruction of Human Activity" & "Recommendations" if you want to focus on the data leading up to collapse.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
Once you drill down to the substance of what NIST is saying about the collapse, I am sure you will be amazed at how thin it really is.
I also highly recommend Jim Hoffman's review of the report "Building a Better Mirage".
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
Here is an extract:
QUOTE
A Mountain of Distracting Details
Finding NIST's theory of the collapse takes some work because of the size of the Report. As I note above, NIST does not actually provide a complete theory of the collapse, only a theory of events that led up to "collapse initiation." However, the casual reader may conclude that NIST does provide a complete theory from phrases in section titles such as "Collapse Analysis," "Global Analysis," and "Probable Collapse Sequences."
Many readers will miss NIST's collapse theory entirely just because of the sheer volume of the Report. It takes some work to find its theory in the Table of Contents.
It is buried in Part II:Reconstructing the Disaster' / Chapter 6 'Reconstruction of the Collapses' / Section 6.14 'Collapse Analysis of the Towers.' That section is nine mostly redundant pages with the primary account of the theories for the North and South Towers occupying only three and four paragraphs. These accounts have virtually no quantitative detail, which contrasts with the scores of pages describing plane impact modeling and fire tests and modeling.
Finding NIST's theory of the collapse takes some work because of the size of the Report. As I note above, NIST does not actually provide a complete theory of the collapse, only a theory of events that led up to "collapse initiation." However, the casual reader may conclude that NIST does provide a complete theory from phrases in section titles such as "Collapse Analysis," "Global Analysis," and "Probable Collapse Sequences."
Many readers will miss NIST's collapse theory entirely just because of the sheer volume of the Report. It takes some work to find its theory in the Table of Contents.
It is buried in Part II:Reconstructing the Disaster' / Chapter 6 'Reconstruction of the Collapses' / Section 6.14 'Collapse Analysis of the Towers.' That section is nine mostly redundant pages with the primary account of the theories for the North and South Towers occupying only three and four paragraphs. These accounts have virtually no quantitative detail, which contrasts with the scores of pages describing plane impact modeling and fire tests and modeling.
As Hoffman notes, there is a mountain of data to sift through, some of it very detailed, some of it very good. But (from the conclusion of Hoffman's piece)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A Mountain of Distracting Details Finding NIST's theory of the collapse takes some work because of the size of the Report. As I note above, NIST does not actually provide a complete theory of the collapse, only a theory of events that led up to "collapse initiation." However, the casual reader may conclude that NIST does provide a complete theory from phrases in section titles such as "Collapse Analysis," "Global Analysis," and "Probable Collapse Sequences." Many readers will miss NIST's collapse theory entirely just because of the sheer volume of the Report. It takes some work to find its theory in the Table of Contents. It is buried in Part II:Reconstructing the Disaster' / Chapter 6 'Reconstruction of the Collapses' / Section 6.14 'Collapse Analysis of the Towers.' That section is nine mostly redundant pages with the primary account of the theories for the North and South Towers occupying only three and four paragraphs. These accounts have virtually no quantitative detail, which contrasts with the scores of pages describing plane impact modeling and fire tests and modeling. |
As Hoffman notes, there is a mountain of data to sift through, some of it very detailed, some of it very good. But (from the conclusion of Hoffman's piece)
NIST's Report, like FEMA's 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn't explain them at all. Flatly asserting that "global collapse" inevitably follows "collapse initiation," the Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation -- an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages. Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:
* The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
* Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.
NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses.
lozenge124 --- I have no ability to copy-n-paste. It seems Arthur does not either.
Do note that NIST writes down what the videos show: the top tilted up to 8 arc-degrees. This means, as an easy calculation shows, that the south wall was then about 1/2 meter lower than the north wall at floor 98. Rotating about the hinge on the north wall of necessity causes a wedge-in.
It is necessary to do at least a little thinking...
Regarding Hoffman's quotes, the authors' of the NIST report obviously assumed that the readership would have some comprehension of the force of gravity. Looks like they were wrong in all too many cases...
Do note that NIST writes down what the videos show: the top tilted up to 8 arc-degrees. This means, as an easy calculation shows, that the south wall was then about 1/2 meter lower than the north wall at floor 98. Rotating about the hinge on the north wall of necessity causes a wedge-in.
It is necessary to do at least a little thinking...
Regarding Hoffman's quotes, the authors' of the NIST report obviously assumed that the readership would have some comprehension of the force of gravity. Looks like they were wrong in all too many cases...
dbb for your benefit, here is the post that I made yesterday that you have apparently missed:
------
3 sections:
Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections
Bowing of South Wall
Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation
The third section is the only relevant one in terms of describing collapse initiation:
dbb please explain how you extrapolate from the above that there is an "upper block falling, wedged in". The south wall is "buckled inward" according to NIST, there is a tilt to the south, but this doesn't necessarily imply a wedge at all.
In addition, the NIST only describes collapse initiation, anything after that is pure speculation on your part. NIST's famous "Global collapse ensued" blanket statement says nothing about what follows initiation. The NIST does not describe a wedge falling all the way down, floor by floor, at all.
So again, if you are going to make it appear like all your statements are solidly backed by the NIST report you should make it clear when you are presenting your own unbacked theories. I also implore you to please quote from the NIST report directly when you make claims like this; this is after all a Physics forum. I called your bluff on this one, but how many people are going to take the time to do so? Or are you just shooting for proof by intimidation?
------
3 sections:
Sagging of Floors and Floor/Wall Disconnections
Bowing of South Wall
Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation
The third section is the only relevant one in terms of describing collapse initiation:
QUOTE
Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation
With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall significantly unloaded ( Fig.5-3 )redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. The onset of this load redistribution can be found in the total column loads in the WTC 1 global model at 100 min in the bottom line of Table 5-3. At 100 min, the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone titled to the south ( observed at about 8°, Table 5-2 ) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls ( see Fig.5-8 ), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.
With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall significantly unloaded ( Fig.5-3 )redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. The onset of this load redistribution can be found in the total column loads in the WTC 1 global model at 100 min in the bottom line of Table 5-3. At 100 min, the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone titled to the south ( observed at about 8°, Table 5-2 ) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls ( see Fig.5-8 ), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.
dbb please explain how you extrapolate from the above that there is an "upper block falling, wedged in". The south wall is "buckled inward" according to NIST, there is a tilt to the south, but this doesn't necessarily imply a wedge at all.
In addition, the NIST only describes collapse initiation, anything after that is pure speculation on your part. NIST's famous "Global collapse ensued" blanket statement says nothing about what follows initiation. The NIST does not describe a wedge falling all the way down, floor by floor, at all.
So again, if you are going to make it appear like all your statements are solidly backed by the NIST report you should make it clear when you are presenting your own unbacked theories. I also implore you to please quote from the NIST report directly when you make claims like this; this is after all a Physics forum. I called your bluff on this one, but how many people are going to take the time to do so? Or are you just shooting for proof by intimidation?
lozenge124 --- I didn't miss it. (By the way, the moderators really do not like duplicate posts!)
I responded in my post just prior.
I responded in my post just prior.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 06:58 PM)
lozenge124 --- I have no ability to copy-n-paste. It seems Arthur does not either.
Do note that NIST writes down what the videos show: the top tilted up to 8 arc-degrees. This means, as an easy calculation shows, that the south wall was then about 1/2 meter lower than the north wall at floor 98. Rotating about the hinge on the north wall of necessity causes a wedge-in.
It is necessary to do at least a little thinking...
Regarding Hoffman's quotes, the authors' of the NIST report obviously assumed that the readership would have some comprehension of the force of gravity. Looks like they were wrong in all too many cases...
DB As you can see, I took the time to type out the section you referred me to, seeing as NIST in their infinite wisdom chose to prevent copying from their pdfs.
I do not see what is so hard in typing a couple of sentences.
You are wrong about the wedge-in, as a wedge-in would imply that the east and west walls of the upper block are inside the east and west walls of the lower section. NIST has nothing to say about that. You are misrepresenting the NIST report, again please separate your speculations from NIST claims.
If you are going to make comments about Hoffman's large, well-researched paper, I expect more than some snide remark about his abilities. Unlike the NIST, his critique is not copy protected so please quote the sections you refer to.
Do note that NIST writes down what the videos show: the top tilted up to 8 arc-degrees. This means, as an easy calculation shows, that the south wall was then about 1/2 meter lower than the north wall at floor 98. Rotating about the hinge on the north wall of necessity causes a wedge-in.
It is necessary to do at least a little thinking...
Regarding Hoffman's quotes, the authors' of the NIST report obviously assumed that the readership would have some comprehension of the force of gravity. Looks like they were wrong in all too many cases...
DB As you can see, I took the time to type out the section you referred me to, seeing as NIST in their infinite wisdom chose to prevent copying from their pdfs.
I do not see what is so hard in typing a couple of sentences.
You are wrong about the wedge-in, as a wedge-in would imply that the east and west walls of the upper block are inside the east and west walls of the lower section. NIST has nothing to say about that. You are misrepresenting the NIST report, again please separate your speculations from NIST claims.
If you are going to make comments about Hoffman's large, well-researched paper, I expect more than some snide remark about his abilities. Unlike the NIST, his critique is not copy protected so please quote the sections you refer to.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 07:13 PM)
lozenge124 --- I didn't miss it. (By the way, the moderators really do not like duplicate posts!)
I responded in my post just prior.
No you didn't, but I have come to expect this kind of evasion from you.
Incidentally, on top of the fact that a hypothetical rotation "about the hinge of the north wall" is no proof of a wedge-in. Your original post stated:
So you haven't even begun to explain where the NIST report mentions the upper block "falling, wedged in".
I responded in my post just prior.
No you didn't, but I have come to expect this kind of evasion from you.
Incidentally, on top of the fact that a hypothetical rotation "about the hinge of the north wall" is no proof of a wedge-in. Your original post stated:
QUOTE
They were not designed for the effect of the upper block falling, wedged in.
So you haven't even begun to explain where the NIST report mentions the upper block "falling, wedged in".
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 27 2007, 07:15 PM)
DB As you can see, I took the time to type out the section you referred me to, seeing as NIST in their infinite wisdom chose to prevent copying from their pdfs. ...
You are wrong about the wedge-in, as a wedge-in would imply that the east and west walls of the upper block are inside the east and west walls of the lower section. NIST has nothing to say about that. You are misrepresenting the NIST report, again please separate your speculations from NIST claims. ...
Geez. If you download a copy of the .pdf file, then with a copy-n-paste facility you can quote to your hearts content. With a downloaded copy, you might be more inclined to read it.
Read again what NIST has to say about the east and west walls. In any case, the tilt requires this wedge-in, as you may quickly and easily determine from the geometry.
Jim Hoffman often makes some interesting points, although sometimes obviously has gaps in his comprehension of physics and engineering. I am not going to bother to read his paper. If you care to bring forth some criticism of the NIST report, I'll respond to the best of my ability.
In the meantime, I encourage you to read the so-called Executive Summary in NCSTAR1-6. You'll discover that there NIST points out potential weaknesses in their final fire+FEA analysis. They did not find these critical and I don't either.
I do, however, wish that they had called their result an approximate probable collapse scenario.
You are wrong about the wedge-in, as a wedge-in would imply that the east and west walls of the upper block are inside the east and west walls of the lower section. NIST has nothing to say about that. You are misrepresenting the NIST report, again please separate your speculations from NIST claims. ...
Geez. If you download a copy of the .pdf file, then with a copy-n-paste facility you can quote to your hearts content. With a downloaded copy, you might be more inclined to read it.
Read again what NIST has to say about the east and west walls. In any case, the tilt requires this wedge-in, as you may quickly and easily determine from the geometry.
Jim Hoffman often makes some interesting points, although sometimes obviously has gaps in his comprehension of physics and engineering. I am not going to bother to read his paper. If you care to bring forth some criticism of the NIST report, I'll respond to the best of my ability.
In the meantime, I encourage you to read the so-called Executive Summary in NCSTAR1-6. You'll discover that there NIST points out potential weaknesses in their final fire+FEA analysis. They did not find these critical and I don't either.
I do, however, wish that they had called their result an approximate probable collapse scenario.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.