Since people here want to preach...
The biblical God, first terrorist.
Ex:12:29: And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
Ex:12:30: And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
With the bible making killing children for revenge a moral act, why would Timothy McVeigh have a problem killing innocent children and people in the Oklahoma Federal building. He makes the a$$holes who brought down the WTC look like Mormons. Heh!
We know that for either the bottom or top chords of the floor trusses to bend, those diagonal trusses had to buckle or break (i.e., fail in compression or tension).
No. We know that these chords would be bent, or more correctly would sag, under normal load conditions. The normal state of these chords would be bent within their elastic limit. We also know that the upper sections would be in compression and the lower sections would be in tension.
and the strength to resist those loads becomes smaller and smaller.
And what are the floor slabs doing when the trusses fail?
It appears as though you have missed a paragraph out here. How do you get from the increasing force and decreasing resistance to the part after the truss failure?
How does it fail? Do you support the claim that the lower chord failed in compression?
OK, let's try it with just the weight of ONE FLOOR.
Is that just the floor and ceiling and their load, or do you include the weight of the storey’s perimeter columns and core columns?
And if you do include the core columns and the perimeter columns, could you explain how they would fit inside the lower section in order to impact the next floor without encountering the columns?
And if you don’t include the core columns and perimeter columns could you explain how their subsequent failure can be caused by an inward pulling force transmitted via the floors when the floors have already been disconnected by previous failure?
If the floor takes a tenth of a second to stop, the force is 261609575.16N
How much could a floor hold?
if any of the material from these floors presses OUTWARD on the perimeter columns, they will fail- or if it presses INWARD on the core columns, they will fail too.
Where is the source of your assumption that it would take this length of time?
And why do you assume that the force is constant, since it would rise from zero at first contact up to the failure load?
If the collision interface and effect between the top section and the lower section is all concentrated on the floors, then there can be no compressive force on the load bearing columns and this would rule out most failure modes. So how will they fail? With a force pushing them either outwards or inwards, and a pivot at one end, the result would be an angular momentum. The columns would fall over.
Instead and in reality they continued to suffer catastrophic failure in compression and continued to collapse through the vertical axis.
Where in your analysis do you account for this?
RC EITHER the lower stringers deformed or the wall columns deformed.
so which do you think would 'buckle'; especially given that the stringers would have been 'softened' by the fire on the floor below.
So the floors are too flimsy to buckle the wall outwards, but then somehow after failure they are able to transmit a force sufficient to buckle the walls inward by 55”?
And where do you get the idea that the sagging reaction of the beam to a compressive strain caused by thermal expansion would cause the beam to then reverse its strain to a tensile strain. It sags because it is pushing outwards due to its thermal expansion. Cause and effect. You postulate another effect which is an inward pulling force. What is its cause?
Gordon
No. We know that these chords would be bent, or more correctly would sag, under normal load conditions. The normal state of these chords would be bent within their elastic limit. We also know that the upper sections would be in compression and the lower sections would be in tension.
and the strength to resist those loads becomes smaller and smaller.
And what are the floor slabs doing when the trusses fail?
It appears as though you have missed a paragraph out here. How do you get from the increasing force and decreasing resistance to the part after the truss failure?
How does it fail? Do you support the claim that the lower chord failed in compression?
OK, let's try it with just the weight of ONE FLOOR.
Is that just the floor and ceiling and their load, or do you include the weight of the storey’s perimeter columns and core columns?
And if you do include the core columns and the perimeter columns, could you explain how they would fit inside the lower section in order to impact the next floor without encountering the columns?
And if you don’t include the core columns and perimeter columns could you explain how their subsequent failure can be caused by an inward pulling force transmitted via the floors when the floors have already been disconnected by previous failure?
If the floor takes a tenth of a second to stop, the force is 261609575.16N
How much could a floor hold?
if any of the material from these floors presses OUTWARD on the perimeter columns, they will fail- or if it presses INWARD on the core columns, they will fail too.
Where is the source of your assumption that it would take this length of time?
And why do you assume that the force is constant, since it would rise from zero at first contact up to the failure load?
If the collision interface and effect between the top section and the lower section is all concentrated on the floors, then there can be no compressive force on the load bearing columns and this would rule out most failure modes. So how will they fail? With a force pushing them either outwards or inwards, and a pivot at one end, the result would be an angular momentum. The columns would fall over.
Instead and in reality they continued to suffer catastrophic failure in compression and continued to collapse through the vertical axis.
Where in your analysis do you account for this?
RC EITHER the lower stringers deformed or the wall columns deformed.
so which do you think would 'buckle'; especially given that the stringers would have been 'softened' by the fire on the floor below.
So the floors are too flimsy to buckle the wall outwards, but then somehow after failure they are able to transmit a force sufficient to buckle the walls inward by 55”?
And where do you get the idea that the sagging reaction of the beam to a compressive strain caused by thermal expansion would cause the beam to then reverse its strain to a tensile strain. It sags because it is pushing outwards due to its thermal expansion. Cause and effect. You postulate another effect which is an inward pulling force. What is its cause?
Gordon
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 11 2006, 06:06 PM)
.......
and the top and bottom chords pushing outward on the core and perimeter columns they have not the strength to move,
Are you saying that the core and perimeter columns would not deflect while the floors were expanding to failure? So does that mean that you agree that the inward deflection of the perimeter columns postulated by NIST, could not happen due to thermal effects only. Or are you saying that they could not deflect outwards but did deflect inwards?
Gordon
......
Hi gordon.
The OUTWARD PUSHING forces on the PERIMETER COLUMNS from the floor-strut stringers were relatively TRANSITORY (only for as long as the stringers took to buckle), as well as ALSO being relatively WEAK (the stringers were not strong in 'push' situations when 'very hot', only in tension situations when 'cold').
Compare this situation with the CONSTANT INWARD PULLING forces after strut failure 'sagged' the overall floor structure (CONSTANT gravity effects now NO LONGER BEING RE-DIRECTED horizontally by the now-failed lower struts). Such PULLING INWARDS forces were ALSO MUCH STRONGER compared to those 'push' forces during stringer expansions until failure.
Summary of THESE effects on the perimeter columns: Outwards forces weak and temporary; Inwards forces strong and constant. Which way do you think the affected perimeter columns would 'bias' before those perimeter columns themselves failed/broke due to this and other weight/impact loads being concentrated at those bias-strained points?
RC.
.
and the top and bottom chords pushing outward on the core and perimeter columns they have not the strength to move,
Are you saying that the core and perimeter columns would not deflect while the floors were expanding to failure? So does that mean that you agree that the inward deflection of the perimeter columns postulated by NIST, could not happen due to thermal effects only. Or are you saying that they could not deflect outwards but did deflect inwards?
Gordon
......
Hi gordon.
The OUTWARD PUSHING forces on the PERIMETER COLUMNS from the floor-strut stringers were relatively TRANSITORY (only for as long as the stringers took to buckle), as well as ALSO being relatively WEAK (the stringers were not strong in 'push' situations when 'very hot', only in tension situations when 'cold').
Compare this situation with the CONSTANT INWARD PULLING forces after strut failure 'sagged' the overall floor structure (CONSTANT gravity effects now NO LONGER BEING RE-DIRECTED horizontally by the now-failed lower struts). Such PULLING INWARDS forces were ALSO MUCH STRONGER compared to those 'push' forces during stringer expansions until failure.
Summary of THESE effects on the perimeter columns: Outwards forces weak and temporary; Inwards forces strong and constant. Which way do you think the affected perimeter columns would 'bias' before those perimeter columns themselves failed/broke due to this and other weight/impact loads being concentrated at those bias-strained points?
RC.
.
QUOTE
Common sense,
With the bible making killing children for revenge a moral act, why would Timothy McVeigh have a problem killing innocent children and people in the Oklahoma Federal building. He makes the a$$holes who brought down the WTC look like Mormons. Heh!
With the bible making killing children for revenge a moral act, why would Timothy McVeigh have a problem killing innocent children and people in the Oklahoma Federal building. He makes the a$$holes who brought down the WTC look like Mormons. Heh!
God kills and makes alive. Yes He can be a terrible killer, no doubt about it. In fact here's a clue, that some of you airheads may not be able to accept.
We're all going to die some day. Maybe not today, maybe not for a hundred years, but like it or not, we're all dead meat. And since God made us in such a way that our little bodies wouldn't last much more than a hundred years or so, you can call God a killer, who PRE-MEDITATED THE ACT a long time ago.
You can either DEAL WITH IT or hide your head in the sand and pretend that reality doesn't exist and make believe we'll all live forever in teletubby land.
Just because the sun in the solar system gets so hot that many people die from heat exposure, does that mean we should bury our heads in the sand and pretend the sun doesn't exist, just because we don't always like the results.
Or better yet, and more appropriate to the discussion at hand. Gravity is great, it keeps us all from floating away off into space, but fall off a thousand foot cliff and that old gravity will cause your death.
So instead of burying your head in the sand and pretending that gravity doesn't exist, my suggestion is to deal with reality, and respect the laws of gravity so it doesn't kill you.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, some of you guys don't really believe in the laws of gravity.
So to you Bush no different to God. What's the problem? They both murder innocent people on a whim.
No wonder the religious right loves Bush...
No wonder the religious right loves Bush...
QUOTE
Common sense,
No wonder the religious right loves Bush...
No wonder the religious right loves Bush...
If little bush was God then there wouldn't be a problem with any of the things he did. But here's the problem Bush is not God, he's just a man and pitiful man at that.
And the problem with the religious right is that they reject God and worship man instead, that's been the problem from the beginning and continues to this very day.
You see the problem with christians is they don't believe in Jesus and refuse to follow His pattern.
Remember Jesus is the SON of God, and not God the Father, Jesus is the SON, just like we are God's sons, UNDERSTAND.
But christians refuse to believe in the words Jesus spoke and instead they worship man and therefore they bow down to little bush and praise him like a god.
In fact, not put all the blame on the catholics, but they even go so far as to call the pope Holy Father, which is another name for God.
Chrstians only pray to Jesus, because they reject the words Jesus spoke, remember, Jesus said, "When you pray say, Our Father, which art in heaven...." Jesus never, ever, ever said pray to me, or pray to Jesus, but He said over and over again, "Pray to my Father"
It's so simple, God is our Father and Jesus the son, but christians call Jesus God and pray to Jesus, because like most all religions they worship men and not God.
In truth, God is spirit and truth. God is not a man, yet religious people can't see a spirit tangibly, so they do the same things their forefathers did and worship a man. Pretty sad isn't it?
Now little bush, the pope, Robert Tilton probably love it, they eat it up, after all they got all these folks worshiping them, giving em money and respect, etc., so don't expect them to give it up and tell the truth.
One of your problems, as is the problem with most of the people in the world is that they worship man over God, but then that's what religions do.
I will say one thing, all of you on this board have more in common with the christian right than you think. You all share a hatred of God and denial of the truth and prefer to bow down and worship man.
But you know what, I still love and forgive you any way, as Jesus said "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 11 2006, 10:02 PM)
.......
RC EITHER the lower stringers deformed or the wall columns deformed.
so which do you think would 'buckle'; especially given that the stringers would have been 'softened' by the fire on the floor below.
So the floors are too flimsy to buckle the wall outwards, but then somehow after failure they are able to transmit a force sufficient to buckle the walls inward by 55”?
And where do you get the idea that the sagging reaction of the beam to a compressive strain caused by thermal expansion would cause the beam to then reverse its strain to a tensile strain. It sags because it is pushing outwards due to its thermal expansion. Cause and effect. You postulate another effect which is an inward pulling force. What is its cause?
Gordon
Hi gordon.
Again you think 'serially' as to factors/effects.
The initial expansion lengthwise continued only due to the high temps of fire effects, and the forces of that expansion would continue outwards along the stringer to the walls until the stringers buckled. That failure would bow the upper stringers and the floors would sag and pull at the ends like a hammock. THIS PULLING WOULD HAVE BEEN EXACERBATED SOON AFTER when the stringers cooled as the fire moved on. THAT would result in CONTRACTION LEGTHWISE OF THE NOW-BUCKLED STRINGERS...and as they contracted in length BUT COULD NOT 'STRAIGHTEN' TO THEIR INITIAL LENGTHS/SHAPES ANYMORE, they would PULL at the wall mountings as they COOLED and 'shortened' as a DEFORMED piece of metal rather than a functioning stringer.
Any debris falling down through gaps due to further continuing chaos in upper stories would FURTHER exacerbate this 'hammock' effect on the walls because of the increasing loads on the now 'hanging' useless strut structures/floors.
******
EVERYONE: I just read that post about previous fire in the towers. I noted quickly that, even in THAT 'normal' office-type fire, a few small vertical 'cable' openings in the floors were enough for fire to spread between floors; and that the cable plastic insulation acted as 'fuse' material for that spread; and that the airflow plenums and openings throughout the building/floors was conducive to fanning that fire so that it was like "fighting a blow-torch"; and that the fires were "intense" and temps were at least "700 dC DESPITE GREAT FIRE-FIGHTING EFFORT].
Does it seem reasonable now that a plane impact weakening the outer/inner support stuctures; and a NOT 'normal' fire initiation/profile' due to introduced 'fuels' and 'impact-piled-up' office furniture/partitions/equipment; and MAJORLY-severed larger vertical service shafts (and not just telephone-cable shafts); and the updraughts and ventilation and cross-wind (form one side of opened building to the other); and the failing modes of the now support-compromised (impact-sheared perimeter/core elements) tops of the buildings (including HEAVY/LARGE hat truss structure); and the ABSENCE of any effective fire-fighting; and the impact-removal of critical fire-proofing etc...........in short, do you think that in view of the earlier events, ALL THESE ADDED EXTREME/EXACERBATED FACTORS MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FINAL OUTCOME in 9/11?
RC.
.
RC EITHER the lower stringers deformed or the wall columns deformed.
so which do you think would 'buckle'; especially given that the stringers would have been 'softened' by the fire on the floor below.
So the floors are too flimsy to buckle the wall outwards, but then somehow after failure they are able to transmit a force sufficient to buckle the walls inward by 55”?
And where do you get the idea that the sagging reaction of the beam to a compressive strain caused by thermal expansion would cause the beam to then reverse its strain to a tensile strain. It sags because it is pushing outwards due to its thermal expansion. Cause and effect. You postulate another effect which is an inward pulling force. What is its cause?
Gordon
Hi gordon.
Again you think 'serially' as to factors/effects.
The initial expansion lengthwise continued only due to the high temps of fire effects, and the forces of that expansion would continue outwards along the stringer to the walls until the stringers buckled. That failure would bow the upper stringers and the floors would sag and pull at the ends like a hammock. THIS PULLING WOULD HAVE BEEN EXACERBATED SOON AFTER when the stringers cooled as the fire moved on. THAT would result in CONTRACTION LEGTHWISE OF THE NOW-BUCKLED STRINGERS...and as they contracted in length BUT COULD NOT 'STRAIGHTEN' TO THEIR INITIAL LENGTHS/SHAPES ANYMORE, they would PULL at the wall mountings as they COOLED and 'shortened' as a DEFORMED piece of metal rather than a functioning stringer.
Any debris falling down through gaps due to further continuing chaos in upper stories would FURTHER exacerbate this 'hammock' effect on the walls because of the increasing loads on the now 'hanging' useless strut structures/floors.
******
EVERYONE: I just read that post about previous fire in the towers. I noted quickly that, even in THAT 'normal' office-type fire, a few small vertical 'cable' openings in the floors were enough for fire to spread between floors; and that the cable plastic insulation acted as 'fuse' material for that spread; and that the airflow plenums and openings throughout the building/floors was conducive to fanning that fire so that it was like "fighting a blow-torch"; and that the fires were "intense" and temps were at least "700 dC DESPITE GREAT FIRE-FIGHTING EFFORT].
Does it seem reasonable now that a plane impact weakening the outer/inner support stuctures; and a NOT 'normal' fire initiation/profile' due to introduced 'fuels' and 'impact-piled-up' office furniture/partitions/equipment; and MAJORLY-severed larger vertical service shafts (and not just telephone-cable shafts); and the updraughts and ventilation and cross-wind (form one side of opened building to the other); and the failing modes of the now support-compromised (impact-sheared perimeter/core elements) tops of the buildings (including HEAVY/LARGE hat truss structure); and the ABSENCE of any effective fire-fighting; and the impact-removal of critical fire-proofing etc...........in short, do you think that in view of the earlier events, ALL THESE ADDED EXTREME/EXACERBATED FACTORS MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FINAL OUTCOME in 9/11?
RC.
.
cosmo writes:
Yes, I did know that.
This was a fire, on one floor(the article you posted states that the fires on the 9th and 16th did not escape the plenum). There was no other damage done to that floor, there was intact insulation on the steel columns and it started small and then grew.
Other than those inconsequential things it was just like having an aircraft impact the towers cut through and damage some columns, remove insulation from many others, sever water lines and immediatly ignite large fires on several floors. Not to mention that it is almost as easy for firefighters to get to and combat a fire on the 11th floor as it is to do so for one on the 80th floor.
QUOTE
Did you know that the WTC North Tower suffered a fire on the 11th floor on February 13, 1975?
Yes, I did know that.
This was a fire, on one floor(the article you posted states that the fires on the 9th and 16th did not escape the plenum). There was no other damage done to that floor, there was intact insulation on the steel columns and it started small and then grew.
Other than those inconsequential things it was just like having an aircraft impact the towers cut through and damage some columns, remove insulation from many others, sever water lines and immediatly ignite large fires on several floors. Not to mention that it is almost as easy for firefighters to get to and combat a fire on the 11th floor as it is to do so for one on the 80th floor.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 11 2006, 10:58 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 11 2006, 10:02 PM)
.......
RC EITHER the lower stringers deformed or the wall columns deformed.
so which do you think would 'buckle'; especially given that the stringers would have been 'softened' by the fire on the floor below.
So the floors are too flimsy to buckle the wall outwards, but then somehow after failure they are able to transmit a force sufficient to buckle the walls inward by 55”?
And where do you get the idea that the sagging reaction of the beam to a compressive strain caused by thermal expansion would cause the beam to then reverse its strain to a tensile strain. It sags because it is pushing outwards due to its thermal expansion. Cause and effect. You postulate another effect which is an inward pulling force. What is its cause?
Gordon
Hi gordon.
Again you think 'serially' as to factors/effects.
The initial expansion lengthwise continued only due to the high temps of fire effects, and the foreces of that expansion would continue outwards along the stringer to the walls until the stringers buckled. That failure would bow the upper stringers and the floors would sag and pull at the ends like a hammock. THIS PULLING WOULD HAVE BEEN EXACERBATED SOON AFTER when the stringers cooled as the fire moved on. THAT would result in CONTRACTION LEGTHWISE OF THE NOW-BUCKLED STRINGERS...and as they contracted in length NUT COULD NOT 'STRAIGHTEN' TO THEIR INITIAL LENGTHS ANYMORE, they would PULL at the wall mountings as they COOLED and 'shortened' as a deformed piece of metal rather than a functioning stringer.
Any debris falling down through gaps due to further continuing chaos in upper stories would FURTHER exacerbate this 'hammock' effect on the walls because of the increasing loads on the now 'hanging' useless strut structures/floors.
EVERYONE: I just read that post about previous fire in the towers. I noted quickly that, even in THAT 'normal' office-type fire, a few small vertical 'cable' openings in the floors were enough for fire to spread between floors; and that since the cable plastic insulation acted as 'fuse' material for that spread; and that since the airflow plenums and openings throughout the building/floors was conducive to fanning that fire so that it was like "fighting a blow-torch"; and that since the fires were "intense" and temps were at least "700 dC DESPITE GREAT FIRE-FIGHTING EFFORT].
Does it seem reasonable now that a plane impact weakening the outer/inner support stuctures; and a NOT 'normal' fire initiation/profile' due to introduced 'fuels' and 'impact-piled-up' office furniture/partitions/equipment; and MAJORLY-severed larger vertical service shafts (and not just telephone-cable shafts); and the updraughts and ventilation and cross-wind (form one side of opened building to the other); and the failing modes of the now support-compromised (impact-sheared perimeter/core elements) tops of the buildings; and the ABSENCE of any effective fire-fighting; and the impact-removal of critical fire-proofing etc...do you think ALL THIS MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FINAL OUTCOME in 9/11?
RC.
.
yeah. that and the bombs.
pyroclastic flows should not be created from a gravity driven collapse. nor should audio recordings of bombs going off exist. nor should there be squibs shooting out the side of the building. nor should the media completely ignore an amazing addendum to the day, and that it tower seven going into near perfectly symmetrical freefall without the benefit of a plane crash to conviently explain it away.
i'm enjoying your t.o.e. thread by the way, and i was surprised to see that your ideas are similiar to mine. i only read the first few pages of the first thread before my head got tired of 'translating' 'concepts', lol
be·lief [noun].
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
RC EITHER the lower stringers deformed or the wall columns deformed.
so which do you think would 'buckle'; especially given that the stringers would have been 'softened' by the fire on the floor below.
So the floors are too flimsy to buckle the wall outwards, but then somehow after failure they are able to transmit a force sufficient to buckle the walls inward by 55”?
And where do you get the idea that the sagging reaction of the beam to a compressive strain caused by thermal expansion would cause the beam to then reverse its strain to a tensile strain. It sags because it is pushing outwards due to its thermal expansion. Cause and effect. You postulate another effect which is an inward pulling force. What is its cause?
Gordon
Hi gordon.
Again you think 'serially' as to factors/effects.
The initial expansion lengthwise continued only due to the high temps of fire effects, and the foreces of that expansion would continue outwards along the stringer to the walls until the stringers buckled. That failure would bow the upper stringers and the floors would sag and pull at the ends like a hammock. THIS PULLING WOULD HAVE BEEN EXACERBATED SOON AFTER when the stringers cooled as the fire moved on. THAT would result in CONTRACTION LEGTHWISE OF THE NOW-BUCKLED STRINGERS...and as they contracted in length NUT COULD NOT 'STRAIGHTEN' TO THEIR INITIAL LENGTHS ANYMORE, they would PULL at the wall mountings as they COOLED and 'shortened' as a deformed piece of metal rather than a functioning stringer.
Any debris falling down through gaps due to further continuing chaos in upper stories would FURTHER exacerbate this 'hammock' effect on the walls because of the increasing loads on the now 'hanging' useless strut structures/floors.
EVERYONE: I just read that post about previous fire in the towers. I noted quickly that, even in THAT 'normal' office-type fire, a few small vertical 'cable' openings in the floors were enough for fire to spread between floors; and that since the cable plastic insulation acted as 'fuse' material for that spread; and that since the airflow plenums and openings throughout the building/floors was conducive to fanning that fire so that it was like "fighting a blow-torch"; and that since the fires were "intense" and temps were at least "700 dC DESPITE GREAT FIRE-FIGHTING EFFORT].
Does it seem reasonable now that a plane impact weakening the outer/inner support stuctures; and a NOT 'normal' fire initiation/profile' due to introduced 'fuels' and 'impact-piled-up' office furniture/partitions/equipment; and MAJORLY-severed larger vertical service shafts (and not just telephone-cable shafts); and the updraughts and ventilation and cross-wind (form one side of opened building to the other); and the failing modes of the now support-compromised (impact-sheared perimeter/core elements) tops of the buildings; and the ABSENCE of any effective fire-fighting; and the impact-removal of critical fire-proofing etc...do you think ALL THIS MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FINAL OUTCOME in 9/11?
RC.
.
yeah. that and the bombs.
pyroclastic flows should not be created from a gravity driven collapse. nor should audio recordings of bombs going off exist. nor should there be squibs shooting out the side of the building. nor should the media completely ignore an amazing addendum to the day, and that it tower seven going into near perfectly symmetrical freefall without the benefit of a plane crash to conviently explain it away.
i'm enjoying your t.o.e. thread by the way, and i was surprised to see that your ideas are similiar to mine. i only read the first few pages of the first thread before my head got tired of 'translating' 'concepts', lol
steve1957, out of curiousity what do you call your beliefs? Christian?
What is your definition of religion?
(not that any of this actually belongs on this board)
What is your definition of religion?
(not that any of this actually belongs on this board)
yesdidit,
I thought I was a christian at first until I read the bible and understood it. You see having a christian heart is one thing, but the second you slap a title on yourself is the second you've turned away from the truth.
So my belief is in the truth, whatever the real truth is, period. No ands, if's or buts about it.
If the bible was a lie or a myth, then I would be doing a terrible dis-service to God by putting my trust in something that wasn't true, therefore the first step was to SEEK & YE SHALL FIND.
Belief is not a noun, but belief is a VERB, it's an action, it's something that your doing, and since we're all human we sometimes forget, mess up and do something differently.
I know it seems impossible and hard to believe, but in truth even I am a rotten old sinner, just like everyone else on this board, and even I make mistakes and fall from grace all the time.
But I will say this, in all honesty, "I've been there" yes, I've been to the mountain top, and I've seen it with my own eyes, so when I do screw up, which may be more times than I'd wish, I know where I've fallen from, and understand the way to return.
I thought I was a christian at first until I read the bible and understood it. You see having a christian heart is one thing, but the second you slap a title on yourself is the second you've turned away from the truth.
So my belief is in the truth, whatever the real truth is, period. No ands, if's or buts about it.
If the bible was a lie or a myth, then I would be doing a terrible dis-service to God by putting my trust in something that wasn't true, therefore the first step was to SEEK & YE SHALL FIND.
Belief is not a noun, but belief is a VERB, it's an action, it's something that your doing, and since we're all human we sometimes forget, mess up and do something differently.
I know it seems impossible and hard to believe, but in truth even I am a rotten old sinner, just like everyone else on this board, and even I make mistakes and fall from grace all the time.
But I will say this, in all honesty, "I've been there" yes, I've been to the mountain top, and I've seen it with my own eyes, so when I do screw up, which may be more times than I'd wish, I know where I've fallen from, and understand the way to return.
QUOTE
Belief is not a noun, but belief is a VERB,
be·lief [noun].
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
QUOTE (gordon+)
We know that for either the bottom or top chords of the floor trusses to bend, those diagonal trusses had to buckle or break (i.e., fail in compression or tension).
No. We know that these chords would be bent, or more correctly would sag, under normal load conditions. The normal state of these chords would be bent within their elastic limit. We also know that the upper sections would be in compression and the lower sections would be in tension.
No. We know that these chords would be bent, or more correctly would sag, under normal load conditions. The normal state of these chords would be bent within their elastic limit. We also know that the upper sections would be in compression and the lower sections would be in tension.
Ummm, the shortest distance between two points is...? And the effect of heat on steel would be...? You're not getting the mechnics here, gordon. Sure do hope you don't design buildings for a living.
QUOTE (gordon+)
Is that just the floor and ceiling and their load, or do you include the weight of the storey’s perimeter columns and core columns?
That would be just the load of one floor slab, the office contents on top of it, and the steel holding it up. No columns.
QUOTE (gordon+)
And if you don’t include the core columns and perimeter columns could you explain how their subsequent failure can be caused by an inward pulling force transmitted via the floors when the floors have already been disconnected by previous failure?
Could you show me where I said the core and perimeter columns failed due to this?
QUOTE (gordon+)
Where is the source of your assumption that it would take this length of time?
It's just that- an assumption. I took the longest time I could imagine it taking- a twentieth of a second- and doubled it. It's a very conservative assumption too- I expect the real time is more like a fiftieth of a second; but even if it took as long as a tenth of a second, the force would still be many times what the floor below would be capable of handling. In case you've forgotten, the shorter time the impulse is present, the greater the force must be to compensate. I = FdeltaT. You want something LONGER than a tenth of a second? Justify it.
,...Now am I a 'PROPHET' or WHAT !!! ??? 
Isn't this exactly the response I said the obfuscators use?... They use it all the time...
,...Now am I a 'PROPHET' or WHAT !!! ???
Isn't this exactly the response I said the obfuscators use?... They use it all the time...
by Foxx ... (They will say)
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements... no evidence... tada... tada...
This 'alleged rebuttal', is pure horsepucky. It most certainly WAS addressed by the NIST quote...
The 'task' of the collecting engineers was ONLY to collect and save the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces of steel FROM the...
The 'task' of the collecting engineers was ONLY to collect and save the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces of steel FROM the...
"locations in or near the impact and fire-damaged regions of the towers"
The 'collectors' picked out THE Most Representative pieces they could find.
They weren't tasked to recover EVERY piece of steel, ONLY those MOST Representative from the fire & Impact zones. NIST claimed that these samples were sufficient to meet their investigative needs...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
( page 3).
Schneibster simply repeats the same old obfuscating Lie...
"No, no, no - they didn't collect ALL the pieces from the buildings, the professionally trained engineers collected the WRONG PIECES ... this was ONLY 1/4 - 1/2 of one percent of ALL the steel in the towers"
Pfffttt !!! Nonsense.
This is obvious obfuscation and LIES. What would be the point of collecting steel from the other parts of the building (which did not suffer FIRE or AIRCRAFT IMPACT damage)? (for purposes of the myth).
Of course WE would have liked them to have saved it ALL (for examination of explosives), but (according to the NIST gravity-driven collapse Fairy Tale) to save or collect steel from the 'lobby area' or floors unaffected by the aircraft damage and consequent fires was NOT necessary to support the fairy tale... in theory that steel would have NO Bearing on the fairy tale... so no need to save it.
So, The Obfuscators utilizing the comparison of... "like trying to describe the elephant based on examination of its detached tail"... is pure nonsense, and not worthy of consideration as a proper analogy or comparison.
Now what does NIST say concerning these MOST Representative pieces that engineers picked out from ONLY the Fire & Aircraft Damaged Areas...?
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
( page 3).
Schneibster simply repeats the same old obfuscating Lie...
"No, no, no - they didn't collect ALL the pieces from the buildings, the professionally trained engineers collected the WRONG PIECES ... this was ONLY 1/4 - 1/2 of one percent of ALL the steel in the towers"
Pfffttt !!! Nonsense.
This is obvious obfuscation and LIES. What would be the point of collecting steel from the other parts of the building (which did not suffer FIRE or AIRCRAFT IMPACT damage)? (for purposes of the myth).
Of course WE would have liked them to have saved it ALL (for examination of explosives), but (according to the NIST gravity-driven collapse Fairy Tale) to save or collect steel from the 'lobby area' or floors unaffected by the aircraft damage and consequent fires was NOT necessary to support the fairy tale... in theory that steel would have NO Bearing on the fairy tale... so no need to save it.
So, The Obfuscators utilizing the comparison of... "like trying to describe the elephant based on examination of its detached tail"... is pure nonsense, and not worthy of consideration as a proper analogy or comparison.
Now what does NIST say concerning these MOST Representative pieces that engineers picked out from ONLY the Fire & Aircraft Damaged Areas...?
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 deg C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 deg C
The Obfuscators, Liars, and Fairy Tale believers would have you believe that these professional fire-wise engineers like Jonathan Barnett (professor of fire-protection engineering) & Ronald Biederman (professor of Materials Engineering) didn't know what they were looking for...
(AKA - didn't know their mule from a hole in the ground)...
...and picked out inconsequential pieces from the Fire & Impact damage zones (the Elephant's tail ...)
Now, some would ask... "Yeah, but how could Biederman and the other 'collectors' know which 'part' came from where?"
Because, All the major structural columns were marked clearly for identification...
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
Once again, Schneibster is caught in his own lies. He is proven WRONG again. However, what would you expect from a believer in NIST's Fairy Tale LIES of pancaking floors?
Now, carry on with all your obfuscations and lies, gravity-driven collapse supporters. None of your speculations and theories about pancaking floors and bowing columns, etc. None of these things can take place in reality APART from some initiating event.
The gravity-driven collapse supporters accept their own BS that these Amazing Magical Hiding -- Oxygen-Deprived 250 - 600 deg C Fires were the initiating event. There is not a scrap of evidence beyond speculative hypothethicals, oratory, and sophistry to support this initiating cause. From the NIST report itself it is proven that the REAL forensic material evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT this initiating cause, (regardless of how the obfuscators twist that evidence).
Obviously, as neither Mythical Fires nor Raging Smoke are capable of initiating the collapse, either it was Muslim Magic OR Explosives.
It's quite simple really, so simple that ONLY obfuscators & Liars refuse to see it.
Further evidence here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
Thanks to all who have made kind remarks, but it's nothing more than TRUE common sense.
Cheers
QUOTE (gordon+)
And why do you assume that the force is constant, since it would rise from zero at first contact up to the failure load?
Obviously, you're unfamiliar with impulse calculations. The momentum transfer is spread across a time period, and the force calculated using that time. This is SOP. If you want to use a different method, detail it- in standard mathematical notation.
Guest,
Wrong again my friend, belief is a verb, because it describes action, what you are doing. If you're running that's a verb, if your swimming, that's a verb, if your thinking, that's a verb.
Of course I'm aware of the fact that the new world order, the new schools of thought, new mathematics and the new laws of physics have been changed so that 2 + 2 = 5, and gravity takes vacations on 9/11.
But the last time I checked an ACT, is doing something, and when you PLACE your trust in something that is an action, like if I PLACE my food on the table it describes an action.
Before the newly revised school of thought came into being, when the laws of physics used to be constant and way back when 2 + 2 = 4, a noun used to be a person, place or thing, (not the act of placing something, but a place meaning a location)
It's no wonder you guys are so confused and don't have a clue about how reality works, let alone the true meaning of scriptures, all the rules seemed to have changed regarding laws, physics and understanding.
No wonder little bush was able to convince people a magician in a cave did 9/11.
When you drive your car do you BELIEVE your brakes are gonna work? When you eat at a fast food, do you BELIEVE the food is safe. When you put your money in the bank, do you BELIEVE your money will be safe. When you work for someone, whether in your own business or as an employee, do you BELIEVE you will get paid?
And if your boss rips you off, or if you find a finger in your taco, will your belief change?
Wrong again my friend, belief is a verb, because it describes action, what you are doing. If you're running that's a verb, if your swimming, that's a verb, if your thinking, that's a verb.
QUOTE
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Of course I'm aware of the fact that the new world order, the new schools of thought, new mathematics and the new laws of physics have been changed so that 2 + 2 = 5, and gravity takes vacations on 9/11.
But the last time I checked an ACT, is doing something, and when you PLACE your trust in something that is an action, like if I PLACE my food on the table it describes an action.
Before the newly revised school of thought came into being, when the laws of physics used to be constant and way back when 2 + 2 = 4, a noun used to be a person, place or thing, (not the act of placing something, but a place meaning a location)
It's no wonder you guys are so confused and don't have a clue about how reality works, let alone the true meaning of scriptures, all the rules seemed to have changed regarding laws, physics and understanding.
No wonder little bush was able to convince people a magician in a cave did 9/11.
When you drive your car do you BELIEVE your brakes are gonna work? When you eat at a fast food, do you BELIEVE the food is safe. When you put your money in the bank, do you BELIEVE your money will be safe. When you work for someone, whether in your own business or as an employee, do you BELIEVE you will get paid?
And if your boss rips you off, or if you find a finger in your taco, will your belief change?
Normal conditions
Cause Load due to floor contents
Effect Compressive strain in upper chord - tensile strain in lower chord - compression of truss rods.
Cause Addition of thermal energy while maintaining load.
Effect further compression of upper chord - lower chord moves from tensile strain towards compressive strain - further compression of truss rods
The additional compressive strain component arising from the thermal energy will be the same in both upper and lower chords, since they are made of roughly the same material, with a roughly similar temperature change and a roughly similar length. But since the lower chord was previously in tension and the upper chord was in compression, the net effect of the addition of these similar strains will result in the upper chord experiencing a higher total compressive strain than the lower chord.
The strain in the upper and lower chords will be partially relieved through sagging, and partially relieved through an outward deflection of the perimeter columns and inward deflection of the core columns. As an aside I am confident that the thermal expansion would be capable of this column deflection, since I could cause a measurable deflection and strain energy, assuming a suitably sensitive strain gauge, in such a column with one finger.
The amount of strain which could be relieved through deflection of the vertical columns would be limited by the geometry of those columns, and any temperature rise they had experienced.
The amount of relief that the members could achieve through sagging is dictated by the stiffness of the beam due to its geometry and due to other stiffening materials, such as concrete. The upper section would be constrained by the concrete floors and the truss rods, whereas the lower chord would be constrained by the truss rods alone. The lower chord would thus be able to shed more of its compressive strain through sagging than the upper chord would be able to so do.
The truss rods would attempt to relieve their compressive strain through deflection of the upper and lower chords. Since the lower chord is less able to resist this deflection due to its lack of concrete, as already discussed, it would receive a proportionate amount of the deflection. The effect would be some increase in the compressive force of the upper chord and some reduction in the compressive strain of the lower chord. Since the lower chord is attempting to sag to relieve its strain and the truss rods are also attempting to relieve their strain by making the bottom chord sag, we can surmise that much of the compressive strain energy of the truss rods would be so relieved.
So the member suffering from the greatest strain would not be the truss rods, or the lower chord, but in fact would be the upper chord. And yet we are to believe that the truss rods failed first, followed by the lower chord, followed by the upper chord in exactly the opposite sequence as would be expected because of the relative strains.
Posters should bear in mind that the sagging is a reaction to, and an attempt to relieve, some of the compressive strain. Sagging cannot relieve all of the compressive strain so there is no reason to believe that it would be capable of relieving all of the compressive strain and also introducing a tensile strain.
I said "We know that these chords would be bent, or more correctly would sag, under normal load conditions. The normal state of these chords would be bent within their elastic limit."
Schneibster replied, "Ummm, the shortest distance between two points is...? And the effect of heat on steel would be...? "
Do normal load conditions include a fire, or would you be talking about some other heat energy?
Maybe you should re-read that post.
Gordon
Cause Load due to floor contents
Effect Compressive strain in upper chord - tensile strain in lower chord - compression of truss rods.
Cause Addition of thermal energy while maintaining load.
Effect further compression of upper chord - lower chord moves from tensile strain towards compressive strain - further compression of truss rods
The additional compressive strain component arising from the thermal energy will be the same in both upper and lower chords, since they are made of roughly the same material, with a roughly similar temperature change and a roughly similar length. But since the lower chord was previously in tension and the upper chord was in compression, the net effect of the addition of these similar strains will result in the upper chord experiencing a higher total compressive strain than the lower chord.
The strain in the upper and lower chords will be partially relieved through sagging, and partially relieved through an outward deflection of the perimeter columns and inward deflection of the core columns. As an aside I am confident that the thermal expansion would be capable of this column deflection, since I could cause a measurable deflection and strain energy, assuming a suitably sensitive strain gauge, in such a column with one finger.
The amount of strain which could be relieved through deflection of the vertical columns would be limited by the geometry of those columns, and any temperature rise they had experienced.
The amount of relief that the members could achieve through sagging is dictated by the stiffness of the beam due to its geometry and due to other stiffening materials, such as concrete. The upper section would be constrained by the concrete floors and the truss rods, whereas the lower chord would be constrained by the truss rods alone. The lower chord would thus be able to shed more of its compressive strain through sagging than the upper chord would be able to so do.
The truss rods would attempt to relieve their compressive strain through deflection of the upper and lower chords. Since the lower chord is less able to resist this deflection due to its lack of concrete, as already discussed, it would receive a proportionate amount of the deflection. The effect would be some increase in the compressive force of the upper chord and some reduction in the compressive strain of the lower chord. Since the lower chord is attempting to sag to relieve its strain and the truss rods are also attempting to relieve their strain by making the bottom chord sag, we can surmise that much of the compressive strain energy of the truss rods would be so relieved.
So the member suffering from the greatest strain would not be the truss rods, or the lower chord, but in fact would be the upper chord. And yet we are to believe that the truss rods failed first, followed by the lower chord, followed by the upper chord in exactly the opposite sequence as would be expected because of the relative strains.
Posters should bear in mind that the sagging is a reaction to, and an attempt to relieve, some of the compressive strain. Sagging cannot relieve all of the compressive strain so there is no reason to believe that it would be capable of relieving all of the compressive strain and also introducing a tensile strain.
I said "We know that these chords would be bent, or more correctly would sag, under normal load conditions. The normal state of these chords would be bent within their elastic limit."
Schneibster replied, "Ummm, the shortest distance between two points is...? And the effect of heat on steel would be...? "
Do normal load conditions include a fire, or would you be talking about some other heat energy?
Maybe you should re-read that post.
Gordon
Hi gordon.
The 'compression' you speak of in the upper cord is a concomitant of the PREVENTION OF THE BENDING because of the rods-and-lower-chord elements/configuration of the truss AS A WHOLE structure. Once the strut elements/configurations fail, this 'compression' IS NO MORE....because the BENDING (sagging) is EFFECTIVELY what the weight is NOW producing (rather than the 'compression' it produced during the 'complete truss' action of the rods and lower chord). So not 'compression', but bending/sagging is the mode of failure IMMEDIATELY THE TRUSS FORCE-REDIRECTION SYSTEM FAILS. Lose that one-track/serial-factor mindset if you wish to successfully analyse anything complicated. Ciao.
RC.
.
The 'compression' you speak of in the upper cord is a concomitant of the PREVENTION OF THE BENDING because of the rods-and-lower-chord elements/configuration of the truss AS A WHOLE structure. Once the strut elements/configurations fail, this 'compression' IS NO MORE....because the BENDING (sagging) is EFFECTIVELY what the weight is NOW producing (rather than the 'compression' it produced during the 'complete truss' action of the rods and lower chord). So not 'compression', but bending/sagging is the mode of failure IMMEDIATELY THE TRUSS FORCE-REDIRECTION SYSTEM FAILS. Lose that one-track/serial-factor mindset if you wish to successfully analyse anything complicated. Ciao.
RC.
.
Once the strut elements/configurations fail,
You've missed out the important bit. How did they fail when they were suffering the least strain of all the members?
Gordon
You've missed out the important bit. How did they fail when they were suffering the least strain of all the members?
Gordon
so, reality check, how is it that there were highly localised lateral ejections far below the collapse horison, as long as we're clearing everything up, here?
how did magnetic tape pick up the high energy percusives before anything fell?
how does a steel frame building instantly go into freefall(tower seven), with or without damage?
as long as we're checking reality, i want to make sure that we're in the same one.
how did magnetic tape pick up the high energy percusives before anything fell?
how does a steel frame building instantly go into freefall(tower seven), with or without damage?
as long as we're checking reality, i want to make sure that we're in the same one.
Fine, I figured you might be able to think your way through it but I guess not.
The top chord is welded to the diagonal truss rods, as is the bottom chord. The truss rod ends stick up into the concrete through the corrugated plate. The ends of the top chord are bolted to brackets welded on the core columns at one end and to brackets on the perimeter columns at the other; the ends of the bottom chord are attached via a viscous damped coupling to the perimeter columns, but not attached to the core. (I found a reference that shows this.)
The concrete and corrugated plate are keyed to the top chord by the top ends of the diagonal truss rods, which act as shear keys to prevent the concrete from moving along the top chord. Thus, the concrete, corrugated plate, top chord, and diagonal truss rods are essentially a single unit, connected at each end to the core or perimeter, with transverse trusses running underneath attached to the perimeter columns at each end.
Thus, for the top chord to sag appreciably, the concrete floor and the corrugated plate would also have to sag right along with it; this is dictated by the shear key ends of the diagonal truss rods. Because of this, the primary weight of the floor rests on the bolted connections to the brackets on the core and perimeter columns. The bottom truss chords are only attached at the perimeter end, and only by a visco-elastic damper; however, they are also welded to the bottoms of the diagonal truss rods, forming a series of triangles that are essentially inflexible and form a classical truss structure. Any attempt by the top chord to sag would place tension stress on the bottom chord between the welded truss rod joints as they tried to spread out, and compression stress on the truss rods. In addition, the top chord by sagging would be under tension stress; but the truss rods would apply local compression to offset this global tension, and keep it straight.
The thinnest pieces of steel were the truss rods. The truss rods would try to expand in the heat, and would therefore be placed under compression stress; this would be added to the compression stress they were already under until failure occurred. Once they failed, they would no longer couple the top chord of the truss to the bottom; but the stress on the bottom chord would be relieved. However, the full stress would then fall on the top chord, no longer supported by the truss rods, and it would indeed begin to sag; this would place it under tension stress. This is true of both the transverse and main trusses' top chords. Now, the bottom chords and the truss rods are no longer contributing to the top chords' by placing them under local compression to relieve their global tension; the tension takes over as they sag. And the bottom chords and truss rods become dead weight.
As the heating of the top chords continues, they elongate further, and must sag further to compensate, since they cannot move at the perimeter or core ends. Nothing prevents this sagging but the concrete and corrugated plate, keyed to the top chords by the top ends of the truss rods. Which goes first? Do the welds on the truss rods give way and separate the truss rods from the top chords, or do the bolts at the ends of the top chords, placed under lateral (shearing) stress give way, or do the cement blocks shatter and the corrugated plates tear? If it's the first or third, the last thing keeping the top chords from bending to their fullest extent suddenly gives way; if the second, then there is nothing holding the ends to the perimeter or core (depending on which bolts shear first). In the first or third case, the additional bending is probably enough to shear the bolts at the perimeter or core, and once that happens the other bolts take the full stress and shear as well. In any case, once the bolts shear, the floor falls.
Does that make it a little clearer for you?
The top chord is welded to the diagonal truss rods, as is the bottom chord. The truss rod ends stick up into the concrete through the corrugated plate. The ends of the top chord are bolted to brackets welded on the core columns at one end and to brackets on the perimeter columns at the other; the ends of the bottom chord are attached via a viscous damped coupling to the perimeter columns, but not attached to the core. (I found a reference that shows this.)
The concrete and corrugated plate are keyed to the top chord by the top ends of the diagonal truss rods, which act as shear keys to prevent the concrete from moving along the top chord. Thus, the concrete, corrugated plate, top chord, and diagonal truss rods are essentially a single unit, connected at each end to the core or perimeter, with transverse trusses running underneath attached to the perimeter columns at each end.
Thus, for the top chord to sag appreciably, the concrete floor and the corrugated plate would also have to sag right along with it; this is dictated by the shear key ends of the diagonal truss rods. Because of this, the primary weight of the floor rests on the bolted connections to the brackets on the core and perimeter columns. The bottom truss chords are only attached at the perimeter end, and only by a visco-elastic damper; however, they are also welded to the bottoms of the diagonal truss rods, forming a series of triangles that are essentially inflexible and form a classical truss structure. Any attempt by the top chord to sag would place tension stress on the bottom chord between the welded truss rod joints as they tried to spread out, and compression stress on the truss rods. In addition, the top chord by sagging would be under tension stress; but the truss rods would apply local compression to offset this global tension, and keep it straight.
The thinnest pieces of steel were the truss rods. The truss rods would try to expand in the heat, and would therefore be placed under compression stress; this would be added to the compression stress they were already under until failure occurred. Once they failed, they would no longer couple the top chord of the truss to the bottom; but the stress on the bottom chord would be relieved. However, the full stress would then fall on the top chord, no longer supported by the truss rods, and it would indeed begin to sag; this would place it under tension stress. This is true of both the transverse and main trusses' top chords. Now, the bottom chords and the truss rods are no longer contributing to the top chords' by placing them under local compression to relieve their global tension; the tension takes over as they sag. And the bottom chords and truss rods become dead weight.
As the heating of the top chords continues, they elongate further, and must sag further to compensate, since they cannot move at the perimeter or core ends. Nothing prevents this sagging but the concrete and corrugated plate, keyed to the top chords by the top ends of the truss rods. Which goes first? Do the welds on the truss rods give way and separate the truss rods from the top chords, or do the bolts at the ends of the top chords, placed under lateral (shearing) stress give way, or do the cement blocks shatter and the corrugated plates tear? If it's the first or third, the last thing keeping the top chords from bending to their fullest extent suddenly gives way; if the second, then there is nothing holding the ends to the perimeter or core (depending on which bolts shear first). In the first or third case, the additional bending is probably enough to shear the bolts at the perimeter or core, and once that happens the other bolts take the full stress and shear as well. In any case, once the bolts shear, the floor falls.
Does that make it a little clearer for you?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
The 'compression' you speak of in the upper cord is a concomitant of the PREVENTION OF THE BENDING because of the rods-and-lower-chord elements/configuration of the truss AS A WHOLE structure. Once the strut elements/configurations fail, this 'compression' IS NO MORE....because the BENDING (sagging) is EFFECTIVELY what the weight is NOW producing (rather than the 'compression' it produced during the 'complete truss' action of the rods and lower chord). So not 'compression', but bending/sagging is the mode of failure IMMEDIATELY THE TRUSS FORCE-REDIRECTION SYSTEM FAILS.
Right- and remember, GLOBAL tension (from attempting to sag under the weight), LOCAL compression (from the truss rods); when the truss rods fail, the local compression goes away and the truss top chords are now under tension stress with no compensating compression; and as they expand further, they sag further, and as they lose strength due to heating, they sag further; and as the angle changes on the bolts and welds at their ends, shearing forces come on them along with torsional forces that bend the bolts sideways and try to tear the welds apart.
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 12 2006, 02:36 AM)
Once the strut elements/configurations fail,
You've missed out the important bit. How did they fail when they were suffering the least strain of all the members?
Gordon
It doesn't matter how much strain they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much strain they were under compared to their strength. First, there's the fact that they were under compressive stress from holding the top chord straight; this was ADDED to the compressive stress of their attempting to expand; and this all was happening as they were losing strength because they were being heated. And being the smallest, they would heat the fastest, because of their larger surface-area-to-volume ratio.
Once they fail, then they no longer provide local compression to offset the global tension the top chords are under. The rest is above.
You've missed out the important bit. How did they fail when they were suffering the least strain of all the members?
Gordon
It doesn't matter how much strain they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much strain they were under compared to their strength. First, there's the fact that they were under compressive stress from holding the top chord straight; this was ADDED to the compressive stress of their attempting to expand; and this all was happening as they were losing strength because they were being heated. And being the smallest, they would heat the fastest, because of their larger surface-area-to-volume ratio.
Once they fail, then they no longer provide local compression to offset the global tension the top chords are under. The rest is above.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 02:55 AM)
Fine, I figured you might be able to think your way through it but I guess not.
The top chord is welded to the diagonal truss rods, as is the bottom chord. The truss rod ends stick up into the concrete through the corrugated plate. The ends of the top chord are bolted to brackets welded on the core columns at one end and to brackets on the perimeter columns at the other; the ends of the bottom chord are attached via a viscous damped coupling to the perimeter columns, but not attached to the core. (I found a reference that shows this.)
The concrete and corrugated plate are keyed to the top chord by the top ends of the diagonal truss rods, which act as shear keys to prevent the concrete from moving along the top chord. Thus, the concrete, corrugated plate, top chord, and diagonal truss rods are essentially a single unit, connected at each end to the core or perimeter, with transverse trusses running underneath attached to the perimeter columns at each end.
Thus, for the top chord to sag appreciably, the concrete floor and the corrugated plate would also have to sag right along with it; this is dictated by the shear key ends of the diagonal truss rods. Because of this, the primary weight of the floor rests on the bolted connections to the brackets on the core and perimeter columns. The bottom truss chords are only attached at the perimeter end, and only by a visco-elastic damper; however, they are also welded to the bottoms of the diagonal truss rods, forming a series of triangles that are essentially inflexible and form a classical truss structure. Any attempt by the top chord to sag would place tension stress on the bottom chord between the welded truss rod joints as they tried to spread out, and compression stress on the truss rods. In addition, the top chord by sagging would be under tension stress; but the truss rods would apply local compression to offset this global tension, and keep it straight.
The thinnest pieces of steel were the truss rods. The truss rods would try to expand in the heat, and would therefore be placed under compression stress; this would be added to the compression stress they were already under until failure occurred. Once they failed, they would no longer couple the top chord of the truss to the bottom; but the stress on the bottom chord would be relieved. However, the full stress would then fall on the top chord, no longer supported by the truss rods, and it would indeed begin to sag; this would place it under tension stress. This is true of both the transverse and main trusses' top chords. Now, the bottom chords and the truss rods are no longer contributing to the top chords' by placing them under local compression to relieve their global tension; the tension takes over as they sag. And the bottom chords and truss rods become dead weight.
As the heating of the top chords continues, they elongate further, and must sag further to compensate, since they cannot move at the perimeter or core ends. Nothing prevents this sagging but the concrete and corrugated plate, keyed to the top chords by the top ends of the truss rods. Which goes first? Do the welds on the truss rods give way and separate the truss rods from the top chords, or do the bolts at the ends of the top chords, placed under lateral (shearing) stress give way, or do the cement blocks shatter and the corrugated plates tear? If it's the first or third, the last thing keeping the top chords from bending to their fullest extent suddenly gives way; if the second, then there is nothing holding the ends to the perimeter or core (depending on which bolts shear first). In the first or third case, the additional bending is probably enough to shear the bolts at the perimeter or core, and once that happens the other bolts take the full stress and shear as well. In any case, once the bolts shear, the floor falls.
Does that make it a little clearer for you?
Then what caused the core and outer perimeter to collapse?
The top chord is welded to the diagonal truss rods, as is the bottom chord. The truss rod ends stick up into the concrete through the corrugated plate. The ends of the top chord are bolted to brackets welded on the core columns at one end and to brackets on the perimeter columns at the other; the ends of the bottom chord are attached via a viscous damped coupling to the perimeter columns, but not attached to the core. (I found a reference that shows this.)
The concrete and corrugated plate are keyed to the top chord by the top ends of the diagonal truss rods, which act as shear keys to prevent the concrete from moving along the top chord. Thus, the concrete, corrugated plate, top chord, and diagonal truss rods are essentially a single unit, connected at each end to the core or perimeter, with transverse trusses running underneath attached to the perimeter columns at each end.
Thus, for the top chord to sag appreciably, the concrete floor and the corrugated plate would also have to sag right along with it; this is dictated by the shear key ends of the diagonal truss rods. Because of this, the primary weight of the floor rests on the bolted connections to the brackets on the core and perimeter columns. The bottom truss chords are only attached at the perimeter end, and only by a visco-elastic damper; however, they are also welded to the bottoms of the diagonal truss rods, forming a series of triangles that are essentially inflexible and form a classical truss structure. Any attempt by the top chord to sag would place tension stress on the bottom chord between the welded truss rod joints as they tried to spread out, and compression stress on the truss rods. In addition, the top chord by sagging would be under tension stress; but the truss rods would apply local compression to offset this global tension, and keep it straight.
The thinnest pieces of steel were the truss rods. The truss rods would try to expand in the heat, and would therefore be placed under compression stress; this would be added to the compression stress they were already under until failure occurred. Once they failed, they would no longer couple the top chord of the truss to the bottom; but the stress on the bottom chord would be relieved. However, the full stress would then fall on the top chord, no longer supported by the truss rods, and it would indeed begin to sag; this would place it under tension stress. This is true of both the transverse and main trusses' top chords. Now, the bottom chords and the truss rods are no longer contributing to the top chords' by placing them under local compression to relieve their global tension; the tension takes over as they sag. And the bottom chords and truss rods become dead weight.
As the heating of the top chords continues, they elongate further, and must sag further to compensate, since they cannot move at the perimeter or core ends. Nothing prevents this sagging but the concrete and corrugated plate, keyed to the top chords by the top ends of the truss rods. Which goes first? Do the welds on the truss rods give way and separate the truss rods from the top chords, or do the bolts at the ends of the top chords, placed under lateral (shearing) stress give way, or do the cement blocks shatter and the corrugated plates tear? If it's the first or third, the last thing keeping the top chords from bending to their fullest extent suddenly gives way; if the second, then there is nothing holding the ends to the perimeter or core (depending on which bolts shear first). In the first or third case, the additional bending is probably enough to shear the bolts at the perimeter or core, and once that happens the other bolts take the full stress and shear as well. In any case, once the bolts shear, the floor falls.
Does that make it a little clearer for you?
Then what caused the core and outer perimeter to collapse?
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 12 2006, 02:36 AM)
Once the strut elements/configurations fail,
You've missed out the important bit. How did they fail when they were suffering the least strain of all the members?
Gordon
Do you remember in an earlier post to you I pointed out that there is BOTH 'failure' of 'form' and 'failure' of function' involved here? The 'function' of the lower truss first 'failed' due to dimensional changes due to expansion (and later contraction) of the operational designed LENGTH; then due to 'buckling' by that lower chord hitting up end-wise against the walls and so could 'expand' further only by buckling. At that point the trusses were still attached to the walls, but now they were producing different forces than they did as 'complete and operative' trusses. Whatever else their failures were due to no longer being 'true' or increased stresses due to 'cooling-contractions' or debris pile-up etc, they failed FIRST in their GEOMETRY/FUNCTION and THEN later in their MATERIAL/CONNECTION INTEGRITY. Ciao.
RC.
.
You've missed out the important bit. How did they fail when they were suffering the least strain of all the members?
Gordon
Do you remember in an earlier post to you I pointed out that there is BOTH 'failure' of 'form' and 'failure' of function' involved here? The 'function' of the lower truss first 'failed' due to dimensional changes due to expansion (and later contraction) of the operational designed LENGTH; then due to 'buckling' by that lower chord hitting up end-wise against the walls and so could 'expand' further only by buckling. At that point the trusses were still attached to the walls, but now they were producing different forces than they did as 'complete and operative' trusses. Whatever else their failures were due to no longer being 'true' or increased stresses due to 'cooling-contractions' or debris pile-up etc, they failed FIRST in their GEOMETRY/FUNCTION and THEN later in their MATERIAL/CONNECTION INTEGRITY. Ciao.
RC.
.
Professor Jones has been here. Perhaps he wishes he hadn't ,but here is his answer to a recent email of mine:
Thanks for your emails, and I did visit both threads. Right now I'm
working on two papers and two seminars, so that's keeping me busy
(besides classes).
I did treat the Bazant-Zhou paper in my on-line paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Hope we can stay in touch. I have contact also with Andrew Johnson.
Steven J
So, everybody watch your language, and put on your very best physics thinking caps!
,but here is his answer to a recent email of mine:QUOTE
Thanks for your emails, and I did visit both threads. Right now I'm
working on two papers and two seminars, so that's keeping me busy
(besides classes).
I did treat the Bazant-Zhou paper in my on-line paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Hope we can stay in touch. I have contact also with Andrew Johnson.
Steven J
So, everybody watch your language, and put on your very best physics thinking caps!
QUOTE
Originally posted by The Schneibster
"basing conclusions as to the temperatures of the fires on the extremely limited information that NIST derived from the extremely limited number of structural elements NIST examined is like trying to describe the elephant based on examination of its detached tail. This has been pointed out at least twice in the last four pages, and never addressed
"basing conclusions as to the temperatures of the fires on the extremely limited information that NIST derived from the extremely limited number of structural elements NIST examined is like trying to describe the elephant based on examination of its detached tail. This has been pointed out at least twice in the last four pages, and never addressed
,...Now am I a 'PROPHET' or WHAT !!! ??? Isn't this exactly the response I said the obfuscators use?... They use it all the time...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by The Schneibster "basing conclusions as to the temperatures of the fires on the extremely limited information that NIST derived from the extremely limited number of structural elements NIST examined is like trying to describe the elephant based on examination of its detached tail. This has been pointed out at least twice in the last four pages, and never addressed |
,...Now am I a 'PROPHET' or WHAT !!! ??? Isn't this exactly the response I said the obfuscators use?... They use it all the time...
by Foxx ... (They will say)
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements... no evidence... tada... tada...
This 'alleged rebuttal', is pure horsepucky. It most certainly WAS addressed by the NIST quote...
QUOTE
by NIST
Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members:
Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone.
Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.[/i]
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf (Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (page 3 of the pdf file)
Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members:
Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone.
Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.[/i]
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf (Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (page 3 of the pdf file)
The 'task' of the collecting engineers was ONLY to collect and save the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces of steel FROM the...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by NIST Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members: Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft. Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone. Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.[/i] http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf (Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)... A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (page 3 of the pdf file) |
The 'task' of the collecting engineers was ONLY to collect and save the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces of steel FROM the...
"locations in or near the impact and fire-damaged regions of the towers"
The 'collectors' picked out THE Most Representative pieces they could find.
They weren't tasked to recover EVERY piece of steel, ONLY those MOST Representative from the fire & Impact zones. NIST claimed that these samples were sufficient to meet their investigative needs...
QUOTE
by Nist
The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, ... for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance
The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, ... for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
( page 3).
Schneibster simply repeats the same old obfuscating Lie...
"No, no, no - they didn't collect ALL the pieces from the buildings, the professionally trained engineers collected the WRONG PIECES
... this was ONLY 1/4 - 1/2 of one percent of ALL the steel in the towers"Pfffttt !!! Nonsense.
This is obvious obfuscation and LIES. What would be the point of collecting steel from the other parts of the building (which did not suffer FIRE or AIRCRAFT IMPACT damage)? (for purposes of the myth).
Of course WE would have liked them to have saved it ALL (for examination of explosives), but (according to the NIST gravity-driven collapse Fairy Tale) to save or collect steel from the 'lobby area' or floors unaffected by the aircraft damage and consequent fires was NOT necessary to support the fairy tale... in theory that steel would have NO Bearing on the fairy tale... so no need to save it.
So, The Obfuscators utilizing the comparison of... "like trying to describe the elephant based on examination of its detached tail"... is pure nonsense, and not worthy of consideration as a proper analogy or comparison.
Now what does NIST say concerning these MOST Representative pieces that engineers picked out from ONLY the Fire & Aircraft Damaged Areas...?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Nist The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, ... for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance |
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
( page 3).
Schneibster simply repeats the same old obfuscating Lie...
"No, no, no - they didn't collect ALL the pieces from the buildings, the professionally trained engineers collected the WRONG PIECES
... this was ONLY 1/4 - 1/2 of one percent of ALL the steel in the towers"Pfffttt !!! Nonsense.
This is obvious obfuscation and LIES. What would be the point of collecting steel from the other parts of the building (which did not suffer FIRE or AIRCRAFT IMPACT damage)? (for purposes of the myth).
Of course WE would have liked them to have saved it ALL (for examination of explosives), but (according to the NIST gravity-driven collapse Fairy Tale) to save or collect steel from the 'lobby area' or floors unaffected by the aircraft damage and consequent fires was NOT necessary to support the fairy tale... in theory that steel would have NO Bearing on the fairy tale... so no need to save it.
So, The Obfuscators utilizing the comparison of... "like trying to describe the elephant based on examination of its detached tail"... is pure nonsense, and not worthy of consideration as a proper analogy or comparison.
Now what does NIST say concerning these MOST Representative pieces that engineers picked out from ONLY the Fire & Aircraft Damaged Areas...?
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 deg C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 deg C
The Obfuscators, Liars, and Fairy Tale believers would have you believe that these professional fire-wise engineers like Jonathan Barnett (professor of fire-protection engineering) & Ronald Biederman (professor of Materials Engineering) didn't know what they were looking for...
(AKA - didn't know their mule from a hole in the ground)...
...and picked out inconsequential pieces from the Fire & Impact damage zones (the Elephant's tail ...
)Now, some would ask... "Yeah, but how could Biederman and the other 'collectors' know which 'part' came from where?"
Because, All the major structural columns were marked clearly for identification...
QUOTE
The engineers were able to identify many pieces by their markings. Each piece of steel was originally stenciled in white or yellow with information telling where it came from and where it was going. A sample of the markings can be seen below...
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
Once again, Schneibster is caught in his own lies. He is proven WRONG again. However, what would you expect from a believer in NIST's Fairy Tale LIES of pancaking floors?
Now, carry on with all your obfuscations and lies, gravity-driven collapse supporters. None of your speculations and theories about pancaking floors and bowing columns, etc. None of these things can take place in reality APART from some initiating event.
The gravity-driven collapse supporters accept their own BS that these Amazing Magical Hiding -- Oxygen-Deprived 250 - 600 deg C Fires were the initiating event. There is not a scrap of evidence beyond speculative hypothethicals, oratory, and sophistry to support this initiating cause. From the NIST report itself it is proven that the REAL forensic material evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT this initiating cause, (regardless of how the obfuscators twist that evidence).
Obviously, as neither Mythical Fires nor Raging Smoke are capable of initiating the collapse, either it was Muslim Magic OR Explosives.
It's quite simple really, so simple that ONLY obfuscators & Liars refuse to see it.
Further evidence here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
Thanks to all who have made kind remarks, but it's nothing more than TRUE common sense.
Cheers
The only person trying to distort the truth is you Foxx.
The purpose of the analysis of the steel was NOT to find out what temps the steel had sustained. Why? Well for one thing, because the steel had been in a burning pile for weeks.
The purpose was to verify the structural properties of the many types of steel used in the towers construction.
From the document:
This report is an overview of the mechanical and metallurgical analysis of structural steel from the WTC, part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Investigation of the WTC disaster.
The purpose was to analyze structural steel available from WTC 1, 2, and 7 to determine the metallurgical and mechanical properties and quality of the metal, weldments, and connections, and provide these data to other part of the NIST WTC Investigation for insertion into models of building performance.
The three goals were to:
1. Determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel,
2. Determine the quality of the steel and if it met its design requirements, and
3. Analyze and provide insight into failure mechanisms for guiding the development of models of building performance and validating their output.
The reasons for their analysis is stated:
From the standpoint of building design, the towers were unique based on the number of different steels specified for construction. Fourteen different strengths of steel were specified in the design drawings, although only 12 were actually used. Most modern buildings use no more than two or three different strengths of steel. Furthermore, more than a dozen suppliers and fabricators supplied steel for the buildings. As a result, even when the different steels met a single specification, their properties could be significantly different.
These complications resulted in more than forty different steels being used in the tower structures, all of which are characterized to some extent in this study.
The original, as-built locations of 42 recovered perimeter panels and 12 recovered core columns were determined, based on markings and geometry of the columns. Samples were available of all 12 strength levels of perimeter panel steel, the two strength levels of the core column steel that represented 99 percent of the total number of columns, and both strength levels used in the floor trusses.
A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. These pieces provided opportunity for failure and other forensic analyses.
The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.
And finally:
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
Arthur
The purpose of the analysis of the steel was NOT to find out what temps the steel had sustained. Why? Well for one thing, because the steel had been in a burning pile for weeks.
The purpose was to verify the structural properties of the many types of steel used in the towers construction.
From the document:
This report is an overview of the mechanical and metallurgical analysis of structural steel from the WTC, part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Investigation of the WTC disaster.
The purpose was to analyze structural steel available from WTC 1, 2, and 7 to determine the metallurgical and mechanical properties and quality of the metal, weldments, and connections, and provide these data to other part of the NIST WTC Investigation for insertion into models of building performance.
The three goals were to:
1. Determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel,
2. Determine the quality of the steel and if it met its design requirements, and
3. Analyze and provide insight into failure mechanisms for guiding the development of models of building performance and validating their output.
The reasons for their analysis is stated:
From the standpoint of building design, the towers were unique based on the number of different steels specified for construction. Fourteen different strengths of steel were specified in the design drawings, although only 12 were actually used. Most modern buildings use no more than two or three different strengths of steel. Furthermore, more than a dozen suppliers and fabricators supplied steel for the buildings. As a result, even when the different steels met a single specification, their properties could be significantly different.
These complications resulted in more than forty different steels being used in the tower structures, all of which are characterized to some extent in this study.
The original, as-built locations of 42 recovered perimeter panels and 12 recovered core columns were determined, based on markings and geometry of the columns. Samples were available of all 12 strength levels of perimeter panel steel, the two strength levels of the core column steel that represented 99 percent of the total number of columns, and both strength levels used in the floor trusses.
A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. These pieces provided opportunity for failure and other forensic analyses.
The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.
And finally:
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Jan 12 2006, 02:38 AM)
so, reality check, how is it that there were highly localised lateral ejections far below the collapse horison, as long as we're clearing everything up, here?
how did magnetic tape pick up the high energy percusives before anything fell?
how does a steel frame building instantly go into freefall(tower seven), with or without damage?
as long as we're checking reality, i want to make sure that we're in the same one.
I know, I know, I'm not the one addressed- hope RC will forgive me for butting in.
I have seen video of the collapses, and the lateral ejections aren't puffs like an explosion would create, they are continuous ejections of dust or gas or smoke or something. They keep on putting more stuff out until the collapse zone reaches them. That looks a lot more like an air duct exhaling due to air compression at its other end to me than some sort of explosive device.
What magnetic tape? Got a link?
How many more times am I going to have to prove that no building fell at anywhere near free-fall speed? How many more videos of the top fifteen stories of a forty story building am I going to have to look at, after someone claims it shows the "entire" collapse?
I'm kind of concerned about what reality each of us is in, too. Got some answers to those two questions? How about some video that shows the lateral ejections, instead of still pictures?
how did magnetic tape pick up the high energy percusives before anything fell?
how does a steel frame building instantly go into freefall(tower seven), with or without damage?
as long as we're checking reality, i want to make sure that we're in the same one.
I know, I know, I'm not the one addressed- hope RC will forgive me for butting in.
I have seen video of the collapses, and the lateral ejections aren't puffs like an explosion would create, they are continuous ejections of dust or gas or smoke or something. They keep on putting more stuff out until the collapse zone reaches them. That looks a lot more like an air duct exhaling due to air compression at its other end to me than some sort of explosive device.
What magnetic tape? Got a link?
How many more times am I going to have to prove that no building fell at anywhere near free-fall speed? How many more videos of the top fifteen stories of a forty story building am I going to have to look at, after someone claims it shows the "entire" collapse?
I'm kind of concerned about what reality each of us is in, too. Got some answers to those two questions? How about some video that shows the lateral ejections, instead of still pictures?
Arthur, you'll pardon me, but I really want to rub his nose in it. Where in the reports is
QUOTE
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
please?
In examining steel that had been exposed to heat and had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact/pre-collapse fires only those that could be identified would be of any use to investigators concerned with those fires. Steel that was exposed to heat but not identifiable as having come from the fire floors would not be useful in proving any modelling of the fires and also with no proof they came from any floor with fires would call into question where they were heat damaged, pre or post collapse.. Any steel found underground and identified as having come from the fire floors would not be useful either since its heat damage could have occured post-collapse.
Taking these into account it is hardly surprising that only a limited number of relevent samples were available and that those did not exhibit high heat damage.
Those steel samples that were identified exhibited signs of having been heated to temperatures that correspond with the temps predicted for those columns by the computer simulations.
Taking these into account it is hardly surprising that only a limited number of relevent samples were available and that those did not exhibit high heat damage.
Those steel samples that were identified exhibited signs of having been heated to temperatures that correspond with the temps predicted for those columns by the computer simulations.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 12 2006, 03:12 AM)
Then what caused the core and outer perimeter to collapse?
Gee, I dunno- maybe all the falling floors inside the building had something to do with it, huh?
Gee, I dunno- maybe all the falling floors inside the building had something to do with it, huh?
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 04:24 AM)
Arthur, you'll pardon me, but I really want to rub his nose in it. Where in the reports is
Its in section E.3.6
In the Exec Summary
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
You'll also appreciate this tidbit:
E.3.3 Structural Damage – Floor Trusses and Seats
In both towers, most of the perimeter panel floor truss connectors (perimeter truss seats) below the impact floors were either missing or bent downward. Above this level, the failure modes were more randomly distributed. This behavior apparently resulted from the building collapse sequence.
Failure of the welds associated with the perimeter panel floor truss connectors (perimeter seats) typically occurred as a result of the weld geometry. The component that failed was the one with the smallest crosssectional area with respect to the high loading forces of the collapse. Typically, these were the standoff
plates. However, there was no evidence to indicate that the type of joining method, materials, or welding procedures were inadequate.
Arthur
QUOTE
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
please? Its in section E.3.6
In the Exec Summary
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
You'll also appreciate this tidbit:
E.3.3 Structural Damage – Floor Trusses and Seats
In both towers, most of the perimeter panel floor truss connectors (perimeter truss seats) below the impact floors were either missing or bent downward. Above this level, the failure modes were more randomly distributed. This behavior apparently resulted from the building collapse sequence.
Failure of the welds associated with the perimeter panel floor truss connectors (perimeter seats) typically occurred as a result of the weld geometry. The component that failed was the one with the smallest crosssectional area with respect to the high loading forces of the collapse. Typically, these were the standoff
plates. However, there was no evidence to indicate that the type of joining method, materials, or welding procedures were inadequate.
Arthur
Thanks, Arthur.
Looks like Faux lied again.
Looks like Faux lied again.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 04:24 AM)
Arthur, you'll pardon me, but I really want to rub his nose in it. Where in the reports is
Sorry,
Does this mean NIST does not know how to run an investigation?
QUOTE
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
please? Sorry,
Does this mean NIST does not know how to run an investigation?
Is there a reason why reasonwhy posted this?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2006, 04:59 AM)
Is there a reason why reasonwhy posted this?
He seems to have forgotten what he was doing part way through actually doing it.
He seems to have forgotten what he was doing part way through actually doing it.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 12 2006, 03:12 AM)
Then what caused the core and outer perimeter to collapse?
Gee, I dunno- maybe all the falling floors inside the building had something to do with it, huh?
The breeze from the falling floors blew the core over. I thought it collapsed?
Gee, I dunno- maybe all the falling floors inside the building had something to do with it, huh?
The breeze from the falling floors blew the core over. I thought it collapsed?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 12 2006, 05:47 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 12 2006, 03:12 AM)
Then what caused the core and outer perimeter to collapse?
Gee, I dunno- maybe all the falling floors inside the building had something to do with it, huh?
The breeze from the falling floors blew the core over. I thought it collapsed?
The core cannot stand w/o the perimeter(despite Foxx's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary) and the perimeter cannot stand w/o the core, the floor trusses connect them.
Assuming the building wasn't really made out of steel, but rather tissue paper and air I guess your theory could work.
Gee, I dunno- maybe all the falling floors inside the building had something to do with it, huh?
The breeze from the falling floors blew the core over. I thought it collapsed?
The core cannot stand w/o the perimeter(despite Foxx's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary) and the perimeter cannot stand w/o the core, the floor trusses connect them.
Then there'd be, you know, all those desks, and file cabinets, and pieces of crushed concrete, and trusses, and more trusses, all flyin around in there. You know, like in a building collapse. Or something.
Have another bong hit, sport.
Have another bong hit, sport.
QUOTE
yesitdid
The core cannot stand w/o the perimeter(despite Foxx's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary) and the perimeter cannot stand w/o the core, the floor trusses connect them.
The core cannot stand w/o the perimeter(despite Foxx's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary) and the perimeter cannot stand w/o the core, the floor trusses connect them.
Assuming the building wasn't really made out of steel, but rather tissue paper and air I guess your theory could work.
i'll just sit under the apple tree for a while, and watch things fall.
the magnetic tape i'm refering to, is out there. 911 was the single most recorded event in history. i guess rick siegel was using digital, but unless it was a dvd recorder, there is a tape. i'm sure he did something smart with his original copy.
i'm wondering, too, for the sake of argument, why it would make much difference whether it was twelve, or all forty-seven floors? acceleration rates don't have a minimum distance, do they? is this something we should start teaching the children?
(in a stern, authoritarian voice): "children, something's not REALLY moving until it's moved the whole distance that it will move!"
the magnetic tape i'm refering to, is out there. 911 was the single most recorded event in history. i guess rick siegel was using digital, but unless it was a dvd recorder, there is a tape. i'm sure he did something smart with his original copy.
i'm wondering, too, for the sake of argument, why it would make much difference whether it was twelve, or all forty-seven floors? acceleration rates don't have a minimum distance, do they? is this something we should start teaching the children?
(in a stern, authoritarian voice): "children, something's not REALLY moving until it's moved the whole distance that it will move!"
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 12 2006, 05:53 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 12 2006, 05:47 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 12 2006, 03:12 AM)
Then what caused the core and outer perimeter to collapse?
Gee, I dunno- maybe all the falling floors inside the building had something to do with it, huh?
The breeze from the falling floors blew the core over. I thought it collapsed?
The core cannot stand w/o the perimeter(despite Foxx's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary) and the perimeter cannot stand w/o the core, the floor trusses connect them.
I had know idea people were still trying to sell the Zipper or Pancake theory:
"Let's accept Dr. Eagar's zipper scenario (despite the clear evidence that fires did not cover a whole floor in either tower) and imagine that all the trusses of a floor failed in rapid succession and the whole floor fell. Then what? It would fall down about ten feet, then come to rest on the floor below, which was designed to support at least five times the weight of both floors, the fall cushioned by the folding of the trusses beneath the upper floor. But let's imagine that the lower floor suddenly gave up the ghost, and the two floors fell onto the next, and that failed, and floors kept falling. Then what? The floor diaphragms would have slid down around the core like records on a spindle, leaving both the core and perimeter wall standing."
"Truss theory proponents hold that the core and perimeter wall lacked structural integrity without mutual bracing provided by the floor diaphragms. That may have been true in the event of a 140 mph wind, but not on a calm day. Note that the core had abundant cross-bracing, and would have been perfectly capable of standing in a hurricane by itself. And even if one imagines the outer wall buckling without that support, it does not begin to explain how it shattered into thousands of pieces, many of the column sections ripped from the spandrel plates at the welds, and how it shattered so quickly that no part of the wall remained standing above the falling dust cloud. "
The columns were not freestanding:
• spandrel plates linking the columns.
• The perimeter columns were grids with horizontal The core structures were lattices, densely cross-braced.
The towers were designed to withstand 140 mph winds, in which event the floor diaphragms would help transfer lateral loads between perimeter walls and core. Absent such loads, the structural function of the floors was not in play.
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
• 47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
• Abundantly cross-braced
• Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
• Anchored directly to bedrock
• Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
The Truss Failure Theory is a Diversion
It avoids the glaring deficiencies of the column failure theory, but likewise doesn't begin to explain total collapse.
• Neither tower's fires covered even one entire floor.
• Eager's zipper scenario is impossible given the cross-trussing.
• The fall of a floor would easily be absorbed by the floor below.
• Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense.
The Progressive Collapse
"You've heard that the Twin Towers pancaked, crushing themselves completely. The experts gave us a fancy-sounding term for this: progressive collapse . If you search with the phrase "progressive collapse" you will find numerous articles, most of them written since 9/11/01 about things like assessing and retrofitting existing structures against progressive collapse. It seems that the only examples of progressive collapse of buildings cited are the Twin Towers, Building 7, and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. "
"A TV documentary which purported to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers featured a demonstration in which a house-of-cards like structure representing one of the towers was supposed to collapse from the top down. The documentary showed only the beginning of this simulated building collapse, since the producers were apparently unable to achieve progressive total collapse. This raises the question: If this newly discovered mode of structural failure is so likely to happen, why is it so difficult to reproduce? "
Thanks Schneibster or Common Sense for providing the website in your previous post here
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/o...al/trusses.html
Horses**t. You got it or you don't. You don't got it. End of conversation.
it's over again?!
lol!
horse dung, i don't have.
i make my own dung, thank you very much.
i also don't have a space station. or a cell phone. does that mean they don't exist?
here's a logical excercise for you.
first(purely for the sake of argument, OF COURSE!), you must accept ny first postulate, ...there is a nearly total monopoly on truth, and it is controlled through a variety of methods, mostly hegellian.
IF there is such a conspiracy which is total, as i 'know' to be true,
THEN, would it not be folly for me to 'publicly'(there are no secrets in a totalitarian, big brother enviroment) admit that i had evidence that could shatter big brother's grip of illusion? it is not the generals i worry about, they already know where i live, and how i think and act. it is the less well-informed pawns that i worry about.
i notice you have avoided answering the charge that acceleration can be measured, and instead have decided to shift focus.
when there is a good explanation for everything, we will agree on it. as it is, there is no good explanation (except new world order demolition teams, that is. that's a really good explanation.)
oh yeah, everyone's swearing.
hell, damn, damn, hell!
tabernac, chalice, santana sheist!
Gee, I dunno- maybe all the falling floors inside the building had something to do with it, huh?
The breeze from the falling floors blew the core over. I thought it collapsed?
The core cannot stand w/o the perimeter(despite Foxx's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary) and the perimeter cannot stand w/o the core, the floor trusses connect them.
I had know idea people were still trying to sell the Zipper or Pancake theory:
"Let's accept Dr. Eagar's zipper scenario (despite the clear evidence that fires did not cover a whole floor in either tower) and imagine that all the trusses of a floor failed in rapid succession and the whole floor fell. Then what? It would fall down about ten feet, then come to rest on the floor below, which was designed to support at least five times the weight of both floors, the fall cushioned by the folding of the trusses beneath the upper floor. But let's imagine that the lower floor suddenly gave up the ghost, and the two floors fell onto the next, and that failed, and floors kept falling. Then what? The floor diaphragms would have slid down around the core like records on a spindle, leaving both the core and perimeter wall standing."
"Truss theory proponents hold that the core and perimeter wall lacked structural integrity without mutual bracing provided by the floor diaphragms. That may have been true in the event of a 140 mph wind, but not on a calm day. Note that the core had abundant cross-bracing, and would have been perfectly capable of standing in a hurricane by itself. And even if one imagines the outer wall buckling without that support, it does not begin to explain how it shattered into thousands of pieces, many of the column sections ripped from the spandrel plates at the welds, and how it shattered so quickly that no part of the wall remained standing above the falling dust cloud. "
The columns were not freestanding:
• spandrel plates linking the columns.
• The perimeter columns were grids with horizontal The core structures were lattices, densely cross-braced.
The towers were designed to withstand 140 mph winds, in which event the floor diaphragms would help transfer lateral loads between perimeter walls and core. Absent such loads, the structural function of the floors was not in play.
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
• 47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
• Abundantly cross-braced
• Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
• Anchored directly to bedrock
• Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
The Truss Failure Theory is a Diversion
It avoids the glaring deficiencies of the column failure theory, but likewise doesn't begin to explain total collapse.
• Neither tower's fires covered even one entire floor.
• Eager's zipper scenario is impossible given the cross-trussing.
• The fall of a floor would easily be absorbed by the floor below.
• Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense.
The Progressive Collapse
"You've heard that the Twin Towers pancaked, crushing themselves completely. The experts gave us a fancy-sounding term for this: progressive collapse . If you search with the phrase "progressive collapse" you will find numerous articles, most of them written since 9/11/01 about things like assessing and retrofitting existing structures against progressive collapse. It seems that the only examples of progressive collapse of buildings cited are the Twin Towers, Building 7, and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. "
"A TV documentary which purported to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers featured a demonstration in which a house-of-cards like structure representing one of the towers was supposed to collapse from the top down. The documentary showed only the beginning of this simulated building collapse, since the producers were apparently unable to achieve progressive total collapse. This raises the question: If this newly discovered mode of structural failure is so likely to happen, why is it so difficult to reproduce? "
Thanks Schneibster or Common Sense for providing the website in your previous post here
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/o...al/trusses.html
QUOTE (newton+Jan 12 2006, 07:18 AM)
i'll just sit under the apple tree for a while, and watch things fall.
the magnetic tape i'm refering to, is out there. 911 was the single most recorded event in history. i guess rick siegel was using digital, but unless it was a dvd recorder, there is a tape. i'm sure he did something smart with his original copy.
i'm wondering, too, for the sake of argument, why it would make much difference whether it was twelve, or all forty-seven floors? acceleration rates don't have a minimum distance, do they? is this something we should start teaching the children?
(in a stern, authoritarian voice): "children, something's not REALLY moving until it's moved the whole distance that it will move!"
Horses**t. You got it or you don't. You don't got it. End of conversation.
ETA: This is either a stalling tactic, because you're not bright enough to bookmark good sites, or (more likely) you actually have no idea how long it took to fall, and you're not sure the good professor was all that accurate or careful in what he wrote. Basically, what it boils down to is you're full of s**t. So never mind. I'd probably just get another doctored video anyway.
the magnetic tape i'm refering to, is out there. 911 was the single most recorded event in history. i guess rick siegel was using digital, but unless it was a dvd recorder, there is a tape. i'm sure he did something smart with his original copy.
i'm wondering, too, for the sake of argument, why it would make much difference whether it was twelve, or all forty-seven floors? acceleration rates don't have a minimum distance, do they? is this something we should start teaching the children?
(in a stern, authoritarian voice): "children, something's not REALLY moving until it's moved the whole distance that it will move!"
Horses**t. You got it or you don't. You don't got it. End of conversation.
ETA: This is either a stalling tactic, because you're not bright enough to bookmark good sites, or (more likely) you actually have no idea how long it took to fall, and you're not sure the good professor was all that accurate or careful in what he wrote. Basically, what it boils down to is you're full of s**t. So never mind. I'd probably just get another doctored video anyway.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 07:47 AM)
Horses**t. You got it or you don't. You don't got it. End of conversation.
it's over again?!
lol!
horse dung, i don't have.
i make my own dung, thank you very much.
i also don't have a space station. or a cell phone. does that mean they don't exist?
here's a logical excercise for you.
first(purely for the sake of argument, OF COURSE!), you must accept ny first postulate, ...there is a nearly total monopoly on truth, and it is controlled through a variety of methods, mostly hegellian.
IF there is such a conspiracy which is total, as i 'know' to be true,
THEN, would it not be folly for me to 'publicly'(there are no secrets in a totalitarian, big brother enviroment) admit that i had evidence that could shatter big brother's grip of illusion? it is not the generals i worry about, they already know where i live, and how i think and act. it is the less well-informed pawns that i worry about.
i notice you have avoided answering the charge that acceleration can be measured, and instead have decided to shift focus.
when there is a good explanation for everything, we will agree on it. as it is, there is no good explanation (except new world order demolition teams, that is. that's a really good explanation.)
oh yeah, everyone's swearing.
hell, damn, damn, hell!
tabernac, chalice, santana sheist!
Bulls**t. It's out there on the 'Net. There's no sekrit Internet somewhere. Either you have the link to back your statements up, or you're full of s**t. And that's all there is.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 08:16 AM)
Bulls**t. It's out there on the 'Net. There's no sekrit Internet somewhere. Either you have the link to back your statements up, or you're full of s**t. And that's all there is.
au contraire, mon ami.
the truth is linked to itself, and when you and i die, it will not have changed.
happy entropy, dude. in the distant future, we'll be each other, HAHA!
lay off the deep fried stuff, alright?
au contraire, mon ami.
the truth is linked to itself, and when you and i die, it will not have changed.
happy entropy, dude. in the distant future, we'll be each other, HAHA!
lay off the deep fried stuff, alright?
I would be interested in any comments, by those who believe that there was no complicity by the Bush/Neocon/elements of the US Government cabal in the events of 9/11, in the following matters of the WTC7 analysis & (long awaited) report. which, 4 years after the VERY strange unexplained collapse, has STILL not been 'officially' explained.
The NIST & the WTC7 report
From the link :
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/se...205%20final.pdf (The NIST published the following planned Schedule for the release of the (long-awaited) WTC 7 Reports:
January 2006 Completion of technical work
March 2006 Draft reports for review
April 2006 Draft reports to NCST AC
May 2006 Reports for public comment
June 2006 Publication
Now, from the NIST website at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_draftSOW.htm, we see that NIST is interested in receiving technical comments about the scope of work and technical approach for The draft statement of work for structural analysis of WTC 7.
The PDF document at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf provides details of the draft statement of work for the WTC7 analysis required.
The NIST webpage stating the requirement for additional work to be done on the WTC7 analysis was updated on 4th Jan 2006 & for any contractors to be considered, they must contact NIST on or before January 10, 2006. That does not give any independent companies interested in the work much time! Advance notice of this iminent Work Package MUST have been given to the likely winning contractor as it would be impossible for any contractor to prepare the price for & submit such a bid within the 5 day 'notice of Interest' period given.
Reading the Scope of Work Document (Some interesting excerpts reproduced below), it seems that the NIST has undertaken some analysis already (including major computer modelling etc.), but that they now seek a contractor to MAKE IT ALL FIT TOGETHER!!
The fact that the NIST, having undertaken years of research, cannot provide a suitable explanation/analysis of the WTC7 collapse is indicative that there is a problem with the official story.
It seems that a contractor is being sought (that can dance to the NIST Paymaster's tune) and who can then be blamed/dimissed when any criticsm is received (much like what happened with regard to the WTC1&2 modelling visualisation analysis - see NCE article below*)
& Why the 11 month delay? - no explanation is given by NIST.
Also note that the PDF document states "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this study".
The NIST are definitely stuggling to explain the WTC7 collapse - it is patently obvious!! This is indicative that the Official Story (if there ever was one for WTC7) is a load of horse ***
The sub-contracting out of the WTC7 analysis by the NIST use of a sub-contractor (who will dance to the tune of the NIST Paymaster) will allow the excuse to be used when the analysis is criticised (as was used before in relation to criticisms of the NIST's reluctance to fully model the collapse visualisation & initiating events [NCE article of 6th October 2005]) along the lines of "Well, it was a sub-contractor & we have now terminated his contract."
The text of the NCE article of 6th October 2005 is as follows:
_______________________
This article is copied directly from ‘New Civil Engineer’ (NCE) magazine, which is a magazine for construction professionals & members of the UK Institution of Civil Engineers (established 1818), (www.ice.org.uk). Publication date 6th October 2005. (Magazine website www.nceplus.co.uk)
The NIST & the WTC7 report
From the link :
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/se...205%20final.pdf (The NIST published the following planned Schedule for the release of the (long-awaited) WTC 7 Reports:
January 2006 Completion of technical work
March 2006 Draft reports for review
April 2006 Draft reports to NCST AC
May 2006 Reports for public comment
June 2006 Publication
Now, from the NIST website at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_draftSOW.htm, we see that NIST is interested in receiving technical comments about the scope of work and technical approach for The draft statement of work for structural analysis of WTC 7.
The PDF document at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf provides details of the draft statement of work for the WTC7 analysis required.
The NIST webpage stating the requirement for additional work to be done on the WTC7 analysis was updated on 4th Jan 2006 & for any contractors to be considered, they must contact NIST on or before January 10, 2006. That does not give any independent companies interested in the work much time! Advance notice of this iminent Work Package MUST have been given to the likely winning contractor as it would be impossible for any contractor to prepare the price for & submit such a bid within the 5 day 'notice of Interest' period given.
Reading the Scope of Work Document (Some interesting excerpts reproduced below), it seems that the NIST has undertaken some analysis already (including major computer modelling etc.), but that they now seek a contractor to MAKE IT ALL FIT TOGETHER!!
The fact that the NIST, having undertaken years of research, cannot provide a suitable explanation/analysis of the WTC7 collapse is indicative that there is a problem with the official story.
It seems that a contractor is being sought (that can dance to the NIST Paymaster's tune) and who can then be blamed/dimissed when any criticsm is received (much like what happened with regard to the WTC1&2 modelling visualisation analysis - see NCE article below*)
& Why the 11 month delay? - no explanation is given by NIST.
Also note that the PDF document states "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this study".
The NIST are definitely stuggling to explain the WTC7 collapse - it is patently obvious!! This is indicative that the Official Story (if there ever was one for WTC7) is a load of horse ***
The sub-contracting out of the WTC7 analysis by the NIST use of a sub-contractor (who will dance to the tune of the NIST Paymaster) will allow the excuse to be used when the analysis is criticised (as was used before in relation to criticisms of the NIST's reluctance to fully model the collapse visualisation & initiating events [NCE article of 6th October 2005]) along the lines of "Well, it was a sub-contractor & we have now terminated his contract."
The text of the NCE article of 6th October 2005 is as follows:
_______________________
This article is copied directly from ‘New Civil Engineer’ (NCE) magazine, which is a magazine for construction professionals & members of the UK Institution of Civil Engineers (established 1818), (www.ice.org.uk). Publication date 6th October 2005. (Magazine website www.nceplus.co.uk)
QUOTE
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation
6th October 2005
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.
The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005).
NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.
University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
“The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.”
6th October 2005
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.
The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005).
NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.
University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
“The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.”
Out-Foxxed again eh.
Whilst the physics debate is necessary to show that the official version of events is not even possible, it is an academic debate conducted mainly within the parameters set by the official version.
The reality, which everyone saw or can see for themselves, is an entirely different matter.
WTC 1 & 2 EXPLODED - there were not the forces present that are calculated in the debate - THE FORCES CANNOT BE DISSEMINATED AS AN EXPLODING CLOUD AND BE ACTING ON THE LOWER SECTION AT THE SAME TIME.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Whilst the physics debate is necessary to show that the official version of events is not even possible, it is an academic debate conducted mainly within the parameters set by the official version.
The reality, which everyone saw or can see for themselves, is an entirely different matter.
WTC 1 & 2 EXPLODED - there were not the forces present that are calculated in the debate - THE FORCES CANNOT BE DISSEMINATED AS AN EXPLODING CLOUD AND BE ACTING ON THE LOWER SECTION AT THE SAME TIME.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
From 911blogger
Controlled Demolition Inc. and the Hudson Department Store
Thanks to Rebel Patriot for sending this in, I can't get the video of the collapse of the J.L. Hudson building to work on my machine, but maybe someone else can get it to work:
In 1998, Controlled Demolition, Inc. brought down through implosion the JL Hudson Department store building in Detroit, MI.
It was a world record blast for CDI, but there was damage to the nearby People Mover rail system, as steel beams were shot out over 50ft onto the tracks. The damage claimed to the insurance of CDI, Inc. was nearly $4 million. Please view the links below, and the images of the demolition damage to the tracks. Compare the damage witnessed at the Hudson Demolition, to the WTC damage of ejected steel columns, view the 9/11 Eyewitness video clip of the ballistic path of the debris from the Twin Towers collapse:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2.../projectile.avi
Hudson Building, steel column ejected from demolition on the track of the Detroit People Mover railway system. $4 Million in damage.
http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10...news/news4.html
http://www.911blogger.com/
Controlled Demolition Inc. and the Hudson Department Store
Thanks to Rebel Patriot for sending this in, I can't get the video of the collapse of the J.L. Hudson building to work on my machine, but maybe someone else can get it to work:
In 1998, Controlled Demolition, Inc. brought down through implosion the JL Hudson Department store building in Detroit, MI.
It was a world record blast for CDI, but there was damage to the nearby People Mover rail system, as steel beams were shot out over 50ft onto the tracks. The damage claimed to the insurance of CDI, Inc. was nearly $4 million. Please view the links below, and the images of the demolition damage to the tracks. Compare the damage witnessed at the Hudson Demolition, to the WTC damage of ejected steel columns, view the 9/11 Eyewitness video clip of the ballistic path of the debris from the Twin Towers collapse:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2.../projectile.avi
Hudson Building, steel column ejected from demolition on the track of the Detroit People Mover railway system. $4 Million in damage.
http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10...news/news4.html
http://www.911blogger.com/
brian,
Your too hung up on true logic, facts and the laws of physics in your analysis. Your not taking into account the magic factor and prematurely assume that the Muslims did not suspend the laws of physics on 9/11.
How do you know for sure that Bin Laden wasn't a magician? And how do you know for sure that the laws of physics didn't take a vacation on 9/11?
You should stop wasting your time on known facts, physics, logic and mathematical principals and focus more of your time on the MAGICAL FACTOR.
And one more question, how do you know for sure that 2 + 2 = 4? You should be more open minded to the possibility that on 9/11 the rules of mathematics changed so that 2 + 2 = 5, at least on 9/11.
Sincerely,
Arthur's twin
Your too hung up on true logic, facts and the laws of physics in your analysis. Your not taking into account the magic factor and prematurely assume that the Muslims did not suspend the laws of physics on 9/11.
How do you know for sure that Bin Laden wasn't a magician? And how do you know for sure that the laws of physics didn't take a vacation on 9/11?
You should stop wasting your time on known facts, physics, logic and mathematical principals and focus more of your time on the MAGICAL FACTOR.
And one more question, how do you know for sure that 2 + 2 = 4? You should be more open minded to the possibility that on 9/11 the rules of mathematics changed so that 2 + 2 = 5, at least on 9/11.
Sincerely,
Arthur's twin
Another reason to believe that radiative heat transfer from fire to steel is basically a "skin effect"
Electric fields in conductors must be 0, otherwise electric charges would redistribute and nullify the field. Hence, I don't believe electromagnetic radiation can penetrate steel significantly.
Not in the infrared spectrum, anyway. (I think the physics is more amenable to highly energetic photons at x-ray frequencies, e.g.) In fact, I think I vaguely recall an old physics lab instructor telling me that tissue paper will stop infrared.
Anybody?
Electric fields in conductors must be 0, otherwise electric charges would redistribute and nullify the field. Hence, I don't believe electromagnetic radiation can penetrate steel significantly.
Not in the infrared spectrum, anyway. (I think the physics is more amenable to highly energetic photons at x-ray frequencies, e.g.) In fact, I think I vaguely recall an old physics lab instructor telling me that tissue paper will stop infrared.
Anybody?
edited out
RC said “and the floors would sag and pull at the ends like a hammock.”[i/]
A steel structure generally has struts and ties. Some parts will be in tension, while others will be in compression. A hammock has no struts. This makes it impossible for a hammock to carry a compressive load. You could heat it up, push it, do whatever you like with it, for the rest of your puff and you would not achieve a compressive load in a hammock. This false analogy is one of the reasons for the continued mistaken belief that the floors would pull inwards on the perimeter columns and outwards on the core columns.
[i]Schneibster said “the ends of the bottom chord are attached via a viscous damped coupling to the perimeter columns, but not attached to the core. “
Being attached at only one end would mean that it would be more able to expand and thus relieve its strain.
Being attached at only one end would mean that the truss rods at and close to the free end would find it easier to deflect the lower chord and thus relieve their strain
Being attached at only one end would reduce its ability to act against the perimeter column, either in compression or in tension, since every action requires an equal and opposite reaction.
Schneibster said “in addition, the top chord by sagging would be under tension stress;” and also “Right- and remember, GLOBAL tension (from attempting to sag under the weight),”
These statements are just so wrong.
The thermal energy causes a compressive strain to be set up in a member, in addition to the tensile and compressive strains in the bottom and top chords respectively, occasioned by the floor load.. The upper chord will attempt to relieve itself from this strain by, among other things, sagging. It will be unable, as I have pointed out, to fully relieve itself of this strain due to its geometry and stiffness introduced by other materials. Therefore some compressive strain will remain. Therefore it would not be in tension.
Schneibster said “It doesn't matter how much strain they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much strain they were under compared to their strength. “
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
So the member with the highest strain will also have the highest stress, and will thus be closer to failure.
I have pointed out several factors which dictate that the members with the least strain would be the truss rods. You have added the factors associated with the bottom chord fixing which would further allow these truss rods to relieve their strain. Yet somehow you still believe that failure would occur in the members with the least strain and least stress. This is illogical.
In recent days I have had to state the zeroth law, state that force is a vector, state that buckling is a compressive failure and not tensile, state the relation between stress and strain, state on several occasions, that sagging induced by a thermal expansion would not result in a tensile force. It has taken weeks for general acceptance to begin to emerge on the very basic statement included in one of my first posts, that thermally induced expansion would cause the floors to act outwards on the walls. I did not expect to have to remind posters of such basic principles in a forum dedicated to science.
Gordon.
A steel structure generally has struts and ties. Some parts will be in tension, while others will be in compression. A hammock has no struts. This makes it impossible for a hammock to carry a compressive load. You could heat it up, push it, do whatever you like with it, for the rest of your puff and you would not achieve a compressive load in a hammock. This false analogy is one of the reasons for the continued mistaken belief that the floors would pull inwards on the perimeter columns and outwards on the core columns.
[i]Schneibster said “the ends of the bottom chord are attached via a viscous damped coupling to the perimeter columns, but not attached to the core. “
Being attached at only one end would mean that it would be more able to expand and thus relieve its strain.
Being attached at only one end would mean that the truss rods at and close to the free end would find it easier to deflect the lower chord and thus relieve their strain
Being attached at only one end would reduce its ability to act against the perimeter column, either in compression or in tension, since every action requires an equal and opposite reaction.
Schneibster said “in addition, the top chord by sagging would be under tension stress;” and also “Right- and remember, GLOBAL tension (from attempting to sag under the weight),”
These statements are just so wrong.
The thermal energy causes a compressive strain to be set up in a member, in addition to the tensile and compressive strains in the bottom and top chords respectively, occasioned by the floor load.. The upper chord will attempt to relieve itself from this strain by, among other things, sagging. It will be unable, as I have pointed out, to fully relieve itself of this strain due to its geometry and stiffness introduced by other materials. Therefore some compressive strain will remain. Therefore it would not be in tension.
Schneibster said “It doesn't matter how much strain they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much strain they were under compared to their strength. “
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
So the member with the highest strain will also have the highest stress, and will thus be closer to failure.
I have pointed out several factors which dictate that the members with the least strain would be the truss rods. You have added the factors associated with the bottom chord fixing which would further allow these truss rods to relieve their strain. Yet somehow you still believe that failure would occur in the members with the least strain and least stress. This is illogical.
In recent days I have had to state the zeroth law, state that force is a vector, state that buckling is a compressive failure and not tensile, state the relation between stress and strain, state on several occasions, that sagging induced by a thermal expansion would not result in a tensile force. It has taken weeks for general acceptance to begin to emerge on the very basic statement included in one of my first posts, that thermally induced expansion would cause the floors to act outwards on the walls. I did not expect to have to remind posters of such basic principles in a forum dedicated to science.
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+)
RC said “and the floors would sag and pull at the ends like a hammock.”
A steel structure generally has struts and ties. Some parts will be in tension, while others will be in compression. A hammock has no struts. This makes it impossible for a hammock to carry a compressive load. You could heat it up, push it, do whatever you like with it, for the rest of your puff and you would not achieve a compressive load in a hammock. This false analogy is one of the reasons for the continued mistaken belief that the floors would pull inwards on the perimeter columns and outwards on the core columns.
A steel structure generally has struts and ties. Some parts will be in tension, while others will be in compression. A hammock has no struts. This makes it impossible for a hammock to carry a compressive load. You could heat it up, push it, do whatever you like with it, for the rest of your puff and you would not achieve a compressive load in a hammock. This false analogy is one of the reasons for the continued mistaken belief that the floors would pull inwards on the perimeter columns and outwards on the core columns.
Well, the top chord doesn't have any struts any more after they fail in compression. So it looks pretty much like a hammock to me.
Now, what happens if the strings holding the hammock up are forced to lengthen (the analogy falls on its face here, because the strings on a hammock don't expand the way that steel does, so we have to fix the analogy by assuming a "magical" lengthening of the strings to give them the same behavior as the heated steel)?
Clearly, there is no EXTRA force placed on the perimeter or core; however, the ANGLE of the force has changed, and that force is not DIRECTLY upon the columns but upon the brackets and the bolts and the welds between the brackets and trusses, and between the brackets and columns. These bolts were never meant to withstand shearing forces of this magnitude. They were designed to withstand shear loads induced by wind swaying the building, and those loads were designed to be mitigated by the Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter columns and the spandrels that connected them, and by the viscous damping of the lower chord. As the angle of the top chord to the brackets moves away from the horizontal due to the sag made possible by the failure of the truss rods, the amount of shear load on those bolts increases to the limit of the weight of the floor. This is simple vector calculation, with the shearing stress directed along the axes of the top chords increasing to the limit of the weight as the angle approaches the limit of the vertical.
Now, what happens if the strings holding the hammock up are forced to lengthen (the analogy falls on its face here, because the strings on a hammock don't expand the way that steel does, so we have to fix the analogy by assuming a "magical" lengthening of the strings to give them the same behavior as the heated steel)?
Clearly, there is no EXTRA force placed on the perimeter or core; however, the ANGLE of the force has changed, and that force is not DIRECTLY upon the columns but upon the brackets and the bolts and the welds between the brackets and trusses, and between the brackets and columns. These bolts were never meant to withstand shearing forces of this magnitude. They were designed to withstand shear loads induced by wind swaying the building, and those loads were designed to be mitigated by the Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter columns and the spandrels that connected them, and by the viscous damping of the lower chord. As the angle of the top chord to the brackets moves away from the horizontal due to the sag made possible by the failure of the truss rods, the amount of shear load on those bolts increases to the limit of the weight of the floor. This is simple vector calculation, with the shearing stress directed along the axes of the top chords increasing to the limit of the weight as the angle approaches the limit of the vertical.
QUOTE (gordon+)
Schneibster said “the ends of the bottom chord are attached via a viscous damped coupling to the perimeter columns, but not attached to the core. “
Being attached at only one end would mean that it would be more able to expand and thus relieve its strain.
Being attached at only one end would mean that it would be more able to expand and thus relieve its strain.
But the failure does not occur in the lower chord; it occurs in the truss rods. And this does not relieve the stress on THEM, and furthermore the lower chord being more massive than the truss rods would expand more slowly than the truss rods, and this means that although SOME of the heat-created compression stress on the truss rods would be mitigated by expansion of the bottom chord, not ALL of it would be; and again, the truss rods would come under greater and greater compression stress added to their existing compression stress holding the top chord straight. Whether the effect is mitigated merely affects how long they last, not whether or not they fail. All of which must be obvious from the fact that using the physics of the fire, the amount of insulation, and the heat characteristics of the steel in the truss rods and the top and bottom chords and the brackets and the bolts, the Fire Safety Journal article's authors were able to postdict the length of time the two towers stood.
QUOTE (gordon+)
Being attached at only one end would mean that the truss rods at and close to the free end would find it easier to deflect the lower chord and thus relieve their strain
Being attached at only one end would reduce its ability to act against the perimeter column, either in compression or in tension, since every action requires an equal and opposite reaction.
Being attached at only one end would reduce its ability to act against the perimeter column, either in compression or in tension, since every action requires an equal and opposite reaction.
The point of the lower chord is not to secure the floor against the columns; it is to serve as an anchor point for the truss rods which prevent the upper chord from bending and adding weight to the shearing stress on the bolts and welds and brackets securing the upper chord to the columns. The fact that placing a visco-elastic mounting on the outer ends of the bottom chords could mitigate the perception of movement of the floors by the occupants by affecting the way the floors move when the perimeter moves due to wind is a serendipitous feature of the design, and a very interesting piece of engineering, not the raison d'etre of the bottom chords.
QUOTE (gordon+)
Schneibster said “in addition, the top chord by sagging would be under tension stress;” and also “Right- and remember, GLOBAL tension (from attempting to sag under the weight),”
These statements are just so wrong.
The thermal energy causes a compressive strain to be set up in a member, in addition to the tensile and compressive strains in the bottom and top chords respectively, occasioned by the floor load.. The upper chord will attempt to relieve itself from this strain by, among other things, sagging. It will be unable, as I have pointed out, to fully relieve itself of this strain due to its geometry and stiffness introduced by other materials. Therefore some compressive strain will remain. Therefore it would not be in tension.
These statements are just so wrong.
The thermal energy causes a compressive strain to be set up in a member, in addition to the tensile and compressive strains in the bottom and top chords respectively, occasioned by the floor load.. The upper chord will attempt to relieve itself from this strain by, among other things, sagging. It will be unable, as I have pointed out, to fully relieve itself of this strain due to its geometry and stiffness introduced by other materials. Therefore some compressive strain will remain. Therefore it would not be in tension.
Oh, really? What kind of stress do you suppose the cords in the hammock are under? Compression? Do you deny they are under stress? What then holds the hammock up? Magic? Better think far more clearly about this.
The thermal energy expands the steel, nothing more. It does not IN AND OF ITSELF cause either tension or compression. It merely lengthens the steel. Whether stress results from that lengthening depends upon its effects on the constraints the steel is under, and on the vectors of the forces on the constraints. Obviously, when the top chord lengthens, this either increases the compression stress on the truss rods, or, if the truss rods have already failed, increases the shearing stress on the bolts, welds, and brackets at the columns by changing the vector angle at which the weight exerts its force. And if the truss rods are still intact, then the additional stress induced by lengthening the top chord results in compression stress being added to the truss rods, in addition to the compression stress of their design, and the compression stress of their attempting to lengthen under the influence of the same heat as is lengthening the top chord. So guess what? There are THREE sources of compression on the truss rods, and only ONE movement to relieve it (of the bottom chord).
The thermal energy expands the steel, nothing more. It does not IN AND OF ITSELF cause either tension or compression. It merely lengthens the steel. Whether stress results from that lengthening depends upon its effects on the constraints the steel is under, and on the vectors of the forces on the constraints. Obviously, when the top chord lengthens, this either increases the compression stress on the truss rods, or, if the truss rods have already failed, increases the shearing stress on the bolts, welds, and brackets at the columns by changing the vector angle at which the weight exerts its force. And if the truss rods are still intact, then the additional stress induced by lengthening the top chord results in compression stress being added to the truss rods, in addition to the compression stress of their design, and the compression stress of their attempting to lengthen under the influence of the same heat as is lengthening the top chord. So guess what? There are THREE sources of compression on the truss rods, and only ONE movement to relieve it (of the bottom chord).
QUOTE (gordon+)
Schneibster said “It doesn't matter how much strain they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much strain they were under compared to their strength. “
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
You have failed to take my meaning. Your argument was that they were not under the greatest load, and therefore should not have failed first; my point was that the total load is not the issue, it's the load they are under compared to their strength. So what is wrong is not my statement, but your understanding of it.
QUOTE (gordon+)
I have pointed out several factors which dictate that the members with the least strain would be the truss rods.
This is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, being that they were the smallest components; what sane engineer would place the greatest strain on the weakest component?
QUOTE (gordon+)
In recent days I have had to state the zeroth law, state that force is a vector, state that buckling is a compressive failure and not tensile, state the relation between stress and strain, state on several occasions, that sagging induced by a thermal expansion would not result in a tensile force. It has taken weeks for general acceptance to begin to emerge on the very basic statement included in one of my first posts, that thermally induced expansion would cause the floors to act outwards on the walls. I did not expect to have to remind posters of such basic principles in a forum dedicated to science.
And, like every other poster who has ignored the destruction of hir assertions, you have conveniently ignored the fact that I responded to your assertions and either rendered them irrelevant or showed that you had misunderstood (or perhaps misrepresented) what was being said. Therefore, it is obvious that you ignore facts that conflict with your arguments, and there is a name for that, and it is not a compliment.
If you refuse to acknowledge that these matters are very complex and require long and careful thought before understanding comes, I do not in turn refuse to acknowledge the value of your role as "devil's advocate" in showing where my understanding of these matters was incorrect, and I thank you for that. Whether you acknowledge it ever or not, the fact remains that as understanding grows, it becomes clearer and clearer what REALLY happened; and the most interesting part of it all is, the longer we analyze it, the more we realize that the original assertion in the Nova program that the bolts, brackets, and welds holding the ends of the top chords of the trusses to the columns were where the final failure occurred becomes more and more likely.
Consider carefully:
1. The fire heats the trusses; it heats the truss rods more quickly than anything else because they are smaller and thus have a larger surface-area-to-volume ratio than any other component of the building.
2. The truss rods fail in compression, due to the original designed compressive forces, added to the compressive forces due to thermal expansion, added to the compressive forces generated by expansion of the top chord, mitigated only by thermal expansion of the bottom chord. Note as well that thermal expansion of the top chord would also act to place further compressive stress on the truss rods. So we see that there are actually FOUR sources of compression, and only one source of relief. Actually, there are two scenarios: the first is their failure in compression, the second is the failure of their welds, most likely the welds to the bottom chord since they were weaker; but in either case:
3. The top chords, now unrestrained, whether because the truss rods have failed or because their welds to the bottom chord have failed, now bow due to the weight, as they would always have done had the truss rods not supported them, and this bowing is further increased by the thermal expansion of the top chords.
4. This bowing moves the weight of the floors from a vertical vector on the brackets with no shear force on the bolts or the welds of the brackets to the top chords, to a mixture of vertical and horizontal force vectors that applies part of the weight to shear forces on the bolts and welds, forces these bolts and welds were never designed to handle. Originally, the only shear forces that these bolts and welds would have endured was due to swaying of the building in the wind, mitigated by the Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter columns and the spandrels. It was the welds of the brackets to the columns that withstood the shear force of the weight of the floors; and unless I miss my guess, in the initial collapse, these brackets did not separate from the columns. It was in later phases that the forces were strong enough to bull their way past these welds; in the initial collapse, it was the bolts and the welds between the brackets and the top chords that failed, and this was because of the bowing and the consequent shear forces.
5. The bolts and welds on one or a few of the top chords fail and shear.
6. This increases the shear forces on nearby top chords, and if this increase is beyond their shear strength, they too fail. Most likely, since the bolts and welds were uniform, and the bowing was likely uniform as well, they were close to their limits already, and the initial failure placed them immediately beyond their strength.
7. Remember also that perimeter column damage due to the plane impact had removed some of the perimeter columns' attachments to the trusses. It is entirely possible that the first bolts and welds to fail were adjacent to the areas where these attachments had been removed.
8. Once this happens, a wave of failures will move outward from the initial failure, probably in fractions of a second, and the trusses "unzip" from the perimeter or the core.
9. This places the stress on the column bracket welds and bolts on the other ends of the trusses, and this stress is clearly twice what it was on the initially failing end; the weight of the floor, after all, has not changed, and the collapse of the other end will have increased the angle of the top chords to these bolts and welds yet further than the bowing did. Obviously, these connections fail immediately behind their counterparts at the other ends of the trusses.
10. Without support at either end of the trusses, the floor falls under the influence of gravity until it hits the next floor down. I have already shown that the force involved must be well beyond the ability of that floor to support, and if the first one struck cannot support it, how can any floor further down be expected to? And my numerical simulation shows this as well, by showing that if the forces generated by the impulse are in excess of the capacities of the floors, then conservation of momentum is all that slows the collapse, and by showing that if conservation of momentum is obeyed in this manner, the total time required to collapse is consistent with the observed time of collapse on the videotapes.
11. With the lateral support of the floors removed, the perimeter columns now have a degree of freedom to bow inward or outward. The Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter constrains the columns ACROSS the face of the building; but the FLOORS constrained it inward and outward, and the floors are gone.
12. Once the perimeter columns bend inward or outward, probably outward because they would be pushed that way by the falling floors, they collapse because they cannot support the vertical forces being no longer vertical themselves.
13. Once the perimeter columns collapse, the weight of all the perimeter columns and the roof and hat truss is transmitted to the core by the hat truss.
14. Since the core columns are no longer constrained by the floors, they also are now free to bend outward or inward; all that constrains them is their connections to one another, and those connections were designed to hold them in concert with the floor diaphragms, not by themselves.
15. Weakened (however much or little) by the fires, the core columns bend outward or inward at the site of the fires.
16. Once bowed, the core columns collapse because they are no longer vertical and cannot support the vertical force of the "curtain" of perimeter columns and the hat truss, added to their own weight, and also including the weight of all the floors above the perimeter column failure area.
And there you have it. I don't say it's perfect; in fact, I expect I've missed a detail here or there. And I invite criticism of it, in order to either deny it (I don't mind starting over if it's wrong) or deny small portions of it (in order to correct it). But I expect that only small details are wrong. And it is consistent with everything we can find in the videos and in the accounts of the collapses, right down to the fact that "bangs" were heard prior to the visible initiation of the collapse. Those "bangs" were the initially collapsing floors, which must have preceded the collapse of the perimeter, which must in turn have preceded the collapse of the core.
Note most carefully that objections that the fires were not sufficient to compromise the core or perimeter are proven correct; it was the truss rods (or their welds to the floor truss chords) that failed initially, and the bolts and welds of the top chords of the floor trusses that were the cause of the initial collapse. Being the smallest components, the truss rods failed first; that failure led to the failures of the bolts and welds of the top chords to the column brackets, and those failures to the collapse of the first floor to fall, and that fall to the collapse of the next, and those collapses to the failure of the perimeter, and that failure to the collapse of the perimeter, and that collapse to the failure of the core, and that failure finally to the global collapse of the buildings. It is not a simple matter, and it is not easy to understand, and this is good because it must be obvious that if it were easy to understand we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
And finally, note that it was NOT the difference of the site of impact that made the difference in the times the buildings stood; it was the difference of the insulation on the truss rods.
If you refuse to acknowledge that these matters are very complex and require long and careful thought before understanding comes, I do not in turn refuse to acknowledge the value of your role as "devil's advocate" in showing where my understanding of these matters was incorrect, and I thank you for that. Whether you acknowledge it ever or not, the fact remains that as understanding grows, it becomes clearer and clearer what REALLY happened; and the most interesting part of it all is, the longer we analyze it, the more we realize that the original assertion in the Nova program that the bolts, brackets, and welds holding the ends of the top chords of the trusses to the columns were where the final failure occurred becomes more and more likely.
Consider carefully:
1. The fire heats the trusses; it heats the truss rods more quickly than anything else because they are smaller and thus have a larger surface-area-to-volume ratio than any other component of the building.
2. The truss rods fail in compression, due to the original designed compressive forces, added to the compressive forces due to thermal expansion, added to the compressive forces generated by expansion of the top chord, mitigated only by thermal expansion of the bottom chord. Note as well that thermal expansion of the top chord would also act to place further compressive stress on the truss rods. So we see that there are actually FOUR sources of compression, and only one source of relief. Actually, there are two scenarios: the first is their failure in compression, the second is the failure of their welds, most likely the welds to the bottom chord since they were weaker; but in either case:
3. The top chords, now unrestrained, whether because the truss rods have failed or because their welds to the bottom chord have failed, now bow due to the weight, as they would always have done had the truss rods not supported them, and this bowing is further increased by the thermal expansion of the top chords.
4. This bowing moves the weight of the floors from a vertical vector on the brackets with no shear force on the bolts or the welds of the brackets to the top chords, to a mixture of vertical and horizontal force vectors that applies part of the weight to shear forces on the bolts and welds, forces these bolts and welds were never designed to handle. Originally, the only shear forces that these bolts and welds would have endured was due to swaying of the building in the wind, mitigated by the Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter columns and the spandrels. It was the welds of the brackets to the columns that withstood the shear force of the weight of the floors; and unless I miss my guess, in the initial collapse, these brackets did not separate from the columns. It was in later phases that the forces were strong enough to bull their way past these welds; in the initial collapse, it was the bolts and the welds between the brackets and the top chords that failed, and this was because of the bowing and the consequent shear forces.
5. The bolts and welds on one or a few of the top chords fail and shear.
6. This increases the shear forces on nearby top chords, and if this increase is beyond their shear strength, they too fail. Most likely, since the bolts and welds were uniform, and the bowing was likely uniform as well, they were close to their limits already, and the initial failure placed them immediately beyond their strength.
7. Remember also that perimeter column damage due to the plane impact had removed some of the perimeter columns' attachments to the trusses. It is entirely possible that the first bolts and welds to fail were adjacent to the areas where these attachments had been removed.
8. Once this happens, a wave of failures will move outward from the initial failure, probably in fractions of a second, and the trusses "unzip" from the perimeter or the core.
9. This places the stress on the column bracket welds and bolts on the other ends of the trusses, and this stress is clearly twice what it was on the initially failing end; the weight of the floor, after all, has not changed, and the collapse of the other end will have increased the angle of the top chords to these bolts and welds yet further than the bowing did. Obviously, these connections fail immediately behind their counterparts at the other ends of the trusses.
10. Without support at either end of the trusses, the floor falls under the influence of gravity until it hits the next floor down. I have already shown that the force involved must be well beyond the ability of that floor to support, and if the first one struck cannot support it, how can any floor further down be expected to? And my numerical simulation shows this as well, by showing that if the forces generated by the impulse are in excess of the capacities of the floors, then conservation of momentum is all that slows the collapse, and by showing that if conservation of momentum is obeyed in this manner, the total time required to collapse is consistent with the observed time of collapse on the videotapes.
11. With the lateral support of the floors removed, the perimeter columns now have a degree of freedom to bow inward or outward. The Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter constrains the columns ACROSS the face of the building; but the FLOORS constrained it inward and outward, and the floors are gone.
12. Once the perimeter columns bend inward or outward, probably outward because they would be pushed that way by the falling floors, they collapse because they cannot support the vertical forces being no longer vertical themselves.
13. Once the perimeter columns collapse, the weight of all the perimeter columns and the roof and hat truss is transmitted to the core by the hat truss.
14. Since the core columns are no longer constrained by the floors, they also are now free to bend outward or inward; all that constrains them is their connections to one another, and those connections were designed to hold them in concert with the floor diaphragms, not by themselves.
15. Weakened (however much or little) by the fires, the core columns bend outward or inward at the site of the fires.
16. Once bowed, the core columns collapse because they are no longer vertical and cannot support the vertical force of the "curtain" of perimeter columns and the hat truss, added to their own weight, and also including the weight of all the floors above the perimeter column failure area.
And there you have it. I don't say it's perfect; in fact, I expect I've missed a detail here or there. And I invite criticism of it, in order to either deny it (I don't mind starting over if it's wrong) or deny small portions of it (in order to correct it). But I expect that only small details are wrong. And it is consistent with everything we can find in the videos and in the accounts of the collapses, right down to the fact that "bangs" were heard prior to the visible initiation of the collapse. Those "bangs" were the initially collapsing floors, which must have preceded the collapse of the perimeter, which must in turn have preceded the collapse of the core.
Note most carefully that objections that the fires were not sufficient to compromise the core or perimeter are proven correct; it was the truss rods (or their welds to the floor truss chords) that failed initially, and the bolts and welds of the top chords of the floor trusses that were the cause of the initial collapse. Being the smallest components, the truss rods failed first; that failure led to the failures of the bolts and welds of the top chords to the column brackets, and those failures to the collapse of the first floor to fall, and that fall to the collapse of the next, and those collapses to the failure of the perimeter, and that failure to the collapse of the perimeter, and that collapse to the failure of the core, and that failure finally to the global collapse of the buildings. It is not a simple matter, and it is not easy to understand, and this is good because it must be obvious that if it were easy to understand we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
And finally, note that it was NOT the difference of the site of impact that made the difference in the times the buildings stood; it was the difference of the insulation on the truss rods.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 12 2006, 01:11 AM)
Guest,
Wrong again my friend, belief is a verb, because it describes action, what you are doing. If you're running that's a verb, if your swimming, that's a verb, if your thinking, that's a verb.
Actually, 'belief' is a noun. The verb is 'believe'
I believe
you believe
she/he believes
we believe
One does not say, "I belief". If you say "my belief is..." the verb is the word "is". "is" being the single person indicative of the verb "be".
You can also have a thought(thought is a noun) and you can also state that you thought about something(thought is a verb)
Isn't the English language great!
Steve1957, your description of what you believe is exactly what the Baptist Church teachs, that the Bible is the literal and true, given word of God.
Anyway my curiousity is now satified.
Wrong again my friend, belief is a verb, because it describes action, what you are doing. If you're running that's a verb, if your swimming, that's a verb, if your thinking, that's a verb.
Actually, 'belief' is a noun. The verb is 'believe'
I believe
you believe
she/he believes
we believe
One does not say, "I belief". If you say "my belief is..." the verb is the word "is". "is" being the single person indicative of the verb "be".
You can also have a thought(thought is a noun) and you can also state that you thought about something(thought is a verb)
Isn't the English language great!
Steve1957, your description of what you believe is exactly what the Baptist Church teachs, that the Bible is the literal and true, given word of God.
Anyway my curiousity is now satified.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 12 2006, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 12 2006, 01:11 AM)
Guest,
Wrong again my friend, belief is a verb, because it describes action, what you are doing. If you're running that's a verb, if your swimming, that's a verb, if your thinking, that's a verb.
Actually, 'belief' is a noun. The verb is 'believe'
I believe
you believe
she/he believes
we believe
One does not say, "I belief". If you say "my belief is..." the verb is the word "is". "is" being the single person indicative of the verb "be".
You can also have a thought(thought is a noun) and you can also state that you thought about something(thought is a verb)
Isn't the English language great!
Steve1957, your description of what you believe is exactly what the Baptist Church teachs, that the Bible is the literal and true, given word of God.
Anyway my curiousity is now satified.
YID,
Steve's religion is obvious, he's from the Church of the Latter Day Morons.
Arthur
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
So the member with the highest strain will also have the highest stress, and will thus be closer to failure.
I have pointed out several factors which dictate that the members with the least strain would be the truss rods. You have added the factors associated with the bottom chord fixing which would further allow these truss rods to relieve their strain. Yet somehow you still believe that failure would occur in the members with the least strain and least stress. This is illogical.
In recent days I have had to state the zeroth law, state that force is a vector, state that buckling is a compressive failure and not tensile, state the relation between stress and strain, state on several occasions, that sagging induced by a thermal expansion would not result in a tensile force. It has taken weeks for general acceptance to begin to emerge on the very basic statement included in one of my first posts, that thermally induced expansion would cause the floors to act outwards on the walls. I did not expect to have to remind posters of such basic principles in a forum dedicated to science.
Gordon.
You have to understand we dealing with ignorant people who are not even aware of angular momentum.
Actually, to fall anything BUT straight down would require a huge force acting on a sideways vector. You are talking about an incredibly massive structure, as it fails the vector for the force of gravity is perpendicular to the ground. To get it to go ANY OTHER DIRECTION but straight down, requires a force applied in that direction.
Now, what force are you thinking about that would make that building go over Sideways?
Arthur
Wrong again my friend, belief is a verb, because it describes action, what you are doing. If you're running that's a verb, if your swimming, that's a verb, if your thinking, that's a verb.
Actually, 'belief' is a noun. The verb is 'believe'
I believe
you believe
she/he believes
we believe
One does not say, "I belief". If you say "my belief is..." the verb is the word "is". "is" being the single person indicative of the verb "be".
You can also have a thought(thought is a noun) and you can also state that you thought about something(thought is a verb)
Isn't the English language great!
Steve1957, your description of what you believe is exactly what the Baptist Church teachs, that the Bible is the literal and true, given word of God.
Anyway my curiousity is now satified.
YID,
Steve's religion is obvious, he's from the Church of the Latter Day Morons.
Arthur
Steve1957 either IS or is MASQUERADING AS Steven E. Jones.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 11:25 PM)
Steve1957 either IS or is MASQUERADING AS Steven E. Jones.
Nah, I think you were taking a sabatical from this parade of people who love to show how little they know is inversely proportional to how much they are willing to believe.
We found out WHO Steve1957 is :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=48851
Arthur
Nah, I think you were taking a sabatical from this parade of people who love to show how little they know is inversely proportional to how much they are willing to believe.
We found out WHO Steve1957 is :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=48851
Arthur
Hahahaha, well, I guess that sez it all.
Some food for thought Schneibster. Note that at one point the columns are bowed in up to 55". What would cause that? I think once again the photographic evidence supports your hypothesis.
Looks like they're being pulled inward by the sagging floors. But I'm not so sure; see, the weight of the floors has been the same the whole time. Is it that the vector of the force has changed from aligned with the columns (because the trusses were straight) to a combination of downward and inward vectors (because they're sagging)? That's a possibility. Can we establish which building we're looking at and at what time in those two photos?
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 12 2006, 08:02 PM)
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
So the member with the highest strain will also have the highest stress, and will thus be closer to failure.
I have pointed out several factors which dictate that the members with the least strain would be the truss rods. You have added the factors associated with the bottom chord fixing which would further allow these truss rods to relieve their strain. Yet somehow you still believe that failure would occur in the members with the least strain and least stress. This is illogical.
In recent days I have had to state the zeroth law, state that force is a vector, state that buckling is a compressive failure and not tensile, state the relation between stress and strain, state on several occasions, that sagging induced by a thermal expansion would not result in a tensile force. It has taken weeks for general acceptance to begin to emerge on the very basic statement included in one of my first posts, that thermally induced expansion would cause the floors to act outwards on the walls. I did not expect to have to remind posters of such basic principles in a forum dedicated to science.
Gordon.
You have to understand we dealing with ignorant people who are not even aware of angular momentum.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2006, 11:25 PM)
Actually, to fall anything BUT straight down would require a huge force acting on a sideways vector. You are talking about an incredibly massive structure, as it fails the vector for the force of gravity is perpendicular to the ground. To get it to go ANY OTHER DIRECTION but straight down, requires a force applied in that direction.
Now, what force are you thinking about that would make that building go over Sideways?
Arthur
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 12 2006, 11:26 PM)
Great minds think alike, Arthur. 
Think it is time to send the shills to static’s 101.
Think it is time to send the shills to static’s 101.
You can tell by the floors. The plane impacted on the 81st floor of the south tower and above that in the north. This means the top photo is the south tower and the other is the north.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 01:10 AM)
Think it is time to send the shills to static’s 101.
But no times. Hmmm. That could be important. I would only expect deformation of that kind AFTER the truss rods (or their connections to the chords) had failed.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+)
You have to understand we dealing with ignorant people who are not even aware of angular momentum.
OK, genius, why don't you tell us what angular momentum has to do with this discussion, being as how nothing's moving yet.
Yes, you really ARE this dumb.
Yes, you really ARE this dumb.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 01:01 AM)
Looks like they're being pulled inward by the sagging floors. But I'm not so sure; see, the weight of the floors has been the same the whole time. Is it that the vector of the force has changed from aligned with the columns (because the trusses were straight) to a combination of downward and inward vectors (because they're sagging)? That's a possibility. Can we establish which building we're looking at and at what time in those two photos?
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 01:32 AM)
But no times. Hmmm. That could be important. I would only expect deformation of that kind AFTER the truss rods (or their connections to the chords) had failed.
Yes, this is well after the impact. In fact metamars found a similar photo just after the impact which shows no bowing of columns. It was of the area shown in the top photo.
Top photo was taken at 9:21, 18 min after impact
Bottom photo was taken at 10:22
I took the photos from here...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Yes, this is well after the impact. In fact metamars found a similar photo just after the impact which shows no bowing of columns. It was of the area shown in the top photo.
Top photo was taken at 9:21, 18 min after impact
Bottom photo was taken at 10:22
I took the photos from here...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 01:45 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 01:01 AM)
Looks like they're being pulled inward by the sagging floors. But I'm not so sure; see, the weight of the floors has been the same the whole time. Is it that the vector of the force has changed from aligned with the columns (because the trusses were straight) to a combination of downward and inward vectors (because they're sagging)? That's a possibility. Can we establish which building we're looking at and at what time in those two photos?
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 01:34 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+)
You have to understand we dealing with ignorant people who are not even aware of angular momentum.
OK, genius, why don't you tell us what angular momentum has to do with this discussion, being as how nothing's moving yet.
Yes, you really ARE this dumb.
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
It is not hard to figure out your sock puppets you forgot to switch back to Common Sence hereThen answeered his question.
Yes, you really ARE this dumb.
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
It is not hard to figure out your sock puppets you forgot to switch back to Common Sence hereThen answeered his question.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 01:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 01:45 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 01:01 AM)
Looks like they're being pulled inward by the sagging floors. But I'm not so sure; see, the weight of the floors has been the same the whole time. Is it that the vector of the force has changed from aligned with the columns (because the trusses were straight) to a combination of downward and inward vectors (because they're sagging)? That's a possibility. Can we establish which building we're looking at and at what time in those two photos?
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
What's amazing is how a retard can function enough to hit keys like you do. Functional retardation... Look it up...
Once again your one dimensional brain leaves out the fact that if the beams are being pulled in, the bolts are the only thing stopping them from falling. Four small bolts no bigger than your brain, and about as dense are the only thing stopping the truss from falling away. 3 dimentional thinking - more than one thing is happening you moron.
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
What's amazing is how a retard can function enough to hit keys like you do. Functional retardation... Look it up...
Once again your one dimensional brain leaves out the fact that if the beams are being pulled in, the bolts are the only thing stopping them from falling. Four small bolts no bigger than your brain, and about as dense are the only thing stopping the truss from falling away. 3 dimentional thinking - more than one thing is happening you moron.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 02:00 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 01:34 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+)
You have to understand we dealing with ignorant people who are not even aware of angular momentum.
OK, genius, why don't you tell us what angular momentum has to do with this discussion, being as how nothing's moving yet.
Yes, you really ARE this dumb.
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
Your not smart and your not funny... Another sign of inbreeding.
Yes, you really ARE this dumb.
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
Your not smart and your not funny... Another sign of inbreeding.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 02:00 AM)
It is not hard to figure out your sock puppets you forgot to switch back to Common Sence hereThen answeered his question.
I think we just found out who Guest is...
I think we just found out who Guest is...
duplicate post now removed...see RC post below.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 02:09 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 01:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 01:45 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 01:01 AM)
Looks like they're being pulled inward by the sagging floors. But I'm not so sure; see, the weight of the floors has been the same the whole time. Is it that the vector of the force has changed from aligned with the columns (because the trusses were straight) to a combination of downward and inward vectors (because they're sagging)? That's a possibility. Can we establish which building we're looking at and at what time in those two photos?
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
What's amazing is how a retard can function enough to hit keys like you do. Functional retardation... Look it up...
Once again your one dimensional brain leaves out the fact that if the beams are being pulled in, the bolts are the only thing stopping them from falling. Four small bolts no bigger than your brain, and about as dense are the only thing stopping the truss from falling away. 3 dimentional thinking - more than one thing is happening you moron.
Look who is a moron, now some of the bolts are strong and others week depending on the 3 dimensional placements. You obviously have know idea what you are talking about and need to resort to insults.
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
What's amazing is how a retard can function enough to hit keys like you do. Functional retardation... Look it up...
Once again your one dimensional brain leaves out the fact that if the beams are being pulled in, the bolts are the only thing stopping them from falling. Four small bolts no bigger than your brain, and about as dense are the only thing stopping the truss from falling away. 3 dimentional thinking - more than one thing is happening you moron.
Look who is a moron, now some of the bolts are strong and others week depending on the 3 dimensional placements. You obviously have know idea what you are talking about and need to resort to insults.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 02:32 AM)
Look who is a moron, now some of the bolts are strong and others week depending on the 3 dimensional placements. You obviously have know idea what you are talking about and need to resort to insults.
Now your just rambling in a pathetic random free fall. Obviously the trusses which sagged had more stress on the bolts supporting them. Obviously the bolts by the window where the fire could breath were weakened more than the ones which had little exposure to fire. I didn't mention this before because I shouldn't have to. It's also obvious your a moron because you can't figure that out. I'm just stating facts.
Now your just rambling in a pathetic random free fall. Obviously the trusses which sagged had more stress on the bolts supporting them. Obviously the bolts by the window where the fire could breath were weakened more than the ones which had little exposure to fire. I didn't mention this before because I shouldn't have to. It's also obvious your a moron because you can't figure that out. I'm just stating facts.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 02:40 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 02:32 AM)
Look who is a moron, now some of the bolts are strong and others week depending on the 3 dimensional placements. You obviously have know idea what you are talking about and need to resort to insults.
Now your just rambling in a pathetic random free fall. Obviously the trusses which sagged had more stress on the bolts supporting them. Obviously the bolts by the window where the fire could breath were weakened more than the ones which had little exposure to fire. I didn't mention this before because I shouldn't have to. It's also obvious your a moron because you can't figure that out. I'm just stating facts.
Prove it; show the bolt strength is capable of buckling the core columns. You are the one claiming the Bolts Sheered to cause collapse and you are the one claiming they are strong enough to pull the core columns. Quit hand waving and prove this is possible.
Now your just rambling in a pathetic random free fall. Obviously the trusses which sagged had more stress on the bolts supporting them. Obviously the bolts by the window where the fire could breath were weakened more than the ones which had little exposure to fire. I didn't mention this before because I shouldn't have to. It's also obvious your a moron because you can't figure that out. I'm just stating facts.
Prove it; show the bolt strength is capable of buckling the core columns. You are the one claiming the Bolts Sheered to cause collapse and you are the one claiming they are strong enough to pull the core columns. Quit hand waving and prove this is possible.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 01:55 AM)
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
Pull down first, shear later- and this is just as dumb as asserting that angular momentum has anything to do with static forces. So yes, you DEFINITELY are this dumb. I'd suggest professional assistance, but I guess your head is comfortable up there now you're used to it.
Pull down first, shear later- and this is just as dumb as asserting that angular momentum has anything to do with static forces. So yes, you DEFINITELY are this dumb. I'd suggest professional assistance, but I guess your head is comfortable up there now you're used to it.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 01:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 01:45 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 01:01 AM)
Looks like they're being pulled inward by the sagging floors. But I'm not so sure; see, the weight of the floors has been the same the whole time. Is it that the vector of the force has changed from aligned with the columns (because the trusses were straight) to a combination of downward and inward vectors (because they're sagging)? That's a possibility. Can we establish which building we're looking at and at what time in those two photos?
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
Hi reasonwhy!
If you read back where I earlier spoke about a LESSER force needing to be only strong enough; NOT to 'stop' a GREATER force, but to merely 'bias' the 'system' involved so that the lesser force effectively ONLY 'redirect' a GREATER force.
In the above picture you will note that the 'pulling' force from the floors on the columns need only 'bias' the columns' vertical structure just a little, sufficient only so as to give the 'greater' force from the top of the building weight to 'bend' a previously-biased' member inwards rather than outwards....all because the pull from the sagging floors merely 'marginally' set the columns to 'predispose' to bend inwards and not outwards. The floors didn't DISTORT the columns that much; they only set the scene for which way they would go because of the 'load' from above (see at the top of the "green" columns where it is written "Building Load from above" with the "RED ARROWS" pointing down). THAT load is what did the real bending in of the wall columns...the floors merely provided the 'guidance' for the way the walls would go under that GREATER load. See? Good luck!
RC.
.
Yes, exactly... You don't need more wieght to sag the truss if the truss is losing load strenght. You get a few floors of trusses sagging, one over the other and it natrually pulls the columns in toward the center of the trusses.
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
Hi reasonwhy!
If you read back where I earlier spoke about a LESSER force needing to be only strong enough; NOT to 'stop' a GREATER force, but to merely 'bias' the 'system' involved so that the lesser force effectively ONLY 'redirect' a GREATER force.
In the above picture you will note that the 'pulling' force from the floors on the columns need only 'bias' the columns' vertical structure just a little, sufficient only so as to give the 'greater' force from the top of the building weight to 'bend' a previously-biased' member inwards rather than outwards....all because the pull from the sagging floors merely 'marginally' set the columns to 'predispose' to bend inwards and not outwards. The floors didn't DISTORT the columns that much; they only set the scene for which way they would go because of the 'load' from above (see at the top of the "green" columns where it is written "Building Load from above" with the "RED ARROWS" pointing down). THAT load is what did the real bending in of the wall columns...the floors merely provided the 'guidance' for the way the walls would go under that GREATER load. See? Good luck!
RC.
.
I told you so. Demolition NEED NOT be the same as explosives. :
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
QUOTE
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 02:56 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 01:55 AM)
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
Pull down first, shear later- and this is just as dumb as asserting that angular momentum has anything to do with static forces. So yes, you DEFINITELY are this dumb. I'd suggest professional assistance, but I guess your head is comfortable up there now you're used to it.
You obviously have known idea how to figure out static forces. Don't claim I stated something I did not.
Pull down first, shear later- and this is just as dumb as asserting that angular momentum has anything to do with static forces. So yes, you DEFINITELY are this dumb. I'd suggest professional assistance, but I guess your head is comfortable up there now you're used to it.
You obviously have known idea how to figure out static forces. Don't claim I stated something I did not.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 02:56 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 01:55 AM)
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
Pull down first, shear later- and this is just as dumb as asserting that angular momentum has anything to do with static forces. So yes, you DEFINITELY are this dumb. I'd suggest professional assistance, but I guess your head is comfortable up there now you're used to it.
The angular momentum of reasonwhy's head in relation to his anus created a suction which weakened his brain or in other words... reasonwhy's Head = H^a2
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone? (amongst too many other clues to miss).
Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone? (amongst too many other clues to miss).
Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
You are so LAME...
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone? (amongst too many other clues to miss).
Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
...and so repetitive...
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone? (amongst too many other clues to miss).
Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
...That I though I'd save you the trouble of coming back...
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone? (amongst too many other clues to miss).
Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
...for a few days by just re-posting your boring, LAME post...
I hope Schneibster is more entertaining than you. You're about as entertaining as cataloging rust at a junk yard.
Pull down first, shear later- and this is just as dumb as asserting that angular momentum has anything to do with static forces. So yes, you DEFINITELY are this dumb. I'd suggest professional assistance, but I guess your head is comfortable up there now you're used to it.
The angular momentum of reasonwhy's head in relation to his anus created a suction which weakened his brain or in other words... reasonwhy's Head = H^a2
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 13 2006, 03:05 AM)
I told you so. Demolition NEED NOT be the same as explosives. :
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
See Schneibster. This is a big fuccking joke for these guys. They aren't taking this seriously and neither should you. He went from mini-nukes in the core to space lasers pin pointing each floor and each column. As you blow up his arguments one by one he moves to another BS argument. Now we add yet another layer to the already massive conspiracy and cover-up. The scientists and operators of this new laser are also part of this cover up. What next? Bush is conspiring with space aliens? How could I not think these guys aren't directly working for Rove???
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
QUOTE
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
See Schneibster. This is a big fuccking joke for these guys. They aren't taking this seriously and neither should you. He went from mini-nukes in the core to space lasers pin pointing each floor and each column. As you blow up his arguments one by one he moves to another BS argument. Now we add yet another layer to the already massive conspiracy and cover-up. The scientists and operators of this new laser are also part of this cover up. What next? Bush is conspiring with space aliens? How could I not think these guys aren't directly working for Rove???
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 13 2006, 03:05 AM)
I told you so. Demolition NEED NOT be the same as explosives. :
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Hi metamars!
Aren't these for high-altitude targets during 'boost phase' of ballistic missiles, when the targets are in thin/no atmosphere and closeer to the orbiting weapons platform? As I understand it, ION beam type weapons cannot penetrate clouds or go nowhere near the distance through denser atmosphere to the ground. And the laser beam type also are for high-altitude targeting due to rapid energy loss over long distances because the stronger the beam the more the air is ionised and the beam energy dissipated thereby. Any info on them having solved those problems? Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; and even if the other types manage to survice the energy-density pulsing through their 'pumping/firing/focusing systems, the others present a logistics problem for 'refueling' because a great quantity of the 'chemical' precursors/fuels will be required after a 'shot'. Any info on that problem as well? Very interested; if you find any info, please post it here because I can't access websites as well as you guys because of my trusty but clunky system. Thanks, mate.
RC.
PS: If you can find out how their 'KINETIC ENERGY' (hypersonic projectile/pellet) systems are coming along, I would be most interested in them too. BTW, these too would not be suitable for 'ground attack' because they work best in little/no atmosphere, due to them being quickly 'drag-decelerated' to ordinary 'terminal velocity' speeds before reaching the ground. Thanks.
PPS: I haven't heard much about the 'focused microwave' and the 'focused sunlight' systems either. Any updates on them? Thanks.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
QUOTE
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Hi metamars!
Aren't these for high-altitude targets during 'boost phase' of ballistic missiles, when the targets are in thin/no atmosphere and closeer to the orbiting weapons platform? As I understand it, ION beam type weapons cannot penetrate clouds or go nowhere near the distance through denser atmosphere to the ground. And the laser beam type also are for high-altitude targeting due to rapid energy loss over long distances because the stronger the beam the more the air is ionised and the beam energy dissipated thereby. Any info on them having solved those problems? Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; and even if the other types manage to survice the energy-density pulsing through their 'pumping/firing/focusing systems, the others present a logistics problem for 'refueling' because a great quantity of the 'chemical' precursors/fuels will be required after a 'shot'. Any info on that problem as well? Very interested; if you find any info, please post it here because I can't access websites as well as you guys because of my trusty but clunky system. Thanks, mate.
RC.
PS: If you can find out how their 'KINETIC ENERGY' (hypersonic projectile/pellet) systems are coming along, I would be most interested in them too. BTW, these too would not be suitable for 'ground attack' because they work best in little/no atmosphere, due to them being quickly 'drag-decelerated' to ordinary 'terminal velocity' speeds before reaching the ground. Thanks.
PPS: I haven't heard much about the 'focused microwave' and the 'focused sunlight' systems either. Any updates on them? Thanks.
A beam or laser weapon designed to 'kill' boosters or warheads would not need anywhere near the energy it would take to burn through steel columns from space.
Missiles are built only as strong as necessary to get the warheads into sub-orbital space. Any extra weight is dispensed with and thus shielding is thin and there is no armor. Warheads would be different since they must survive reentry but all one need do is burn a small hole in it and it will not survive reentry.
Then there is the very fact that there is no evidence that any of these weapons, let alone one on steroids that could target steel columns of a building, exist in orbit now much less 4 1/2 years ago.
Missiles are built only as strong as necessary to get the warheads into sub-orbital space. Any extra weight is dispensed with and thus shielding is thin and there is no armor. Warheads would be different since they must survive reentry but all one need do is burn a small hole in it and it will not survive reentry.
Then there is the very fact that there is no evidence that any of these weapons, let alone one on steroids that could target steel columns of a building, exist in orbit now much less 4 1/2 years ago.
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy (to Schneibster aka cOMMOnsEnSe)
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone?
(amongst too many other clues to miss).Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 03:38 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy (to Schneibster aka cOMMOnsEnSe)
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone?
(amongst too many other clues to miss).Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
You are so LAME...
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 03:38 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy (to Schneibster aka cOMMOnsEnSe)
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone?
(amongst too many other clues to miss).Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
...and so repetitive...
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 03:38 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy (to Schneibster aka cOMMOnsEnSe)
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone?
(amongst too many other clues to miss).Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
...That I though I'd save you the trouble of coming back...
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 03:38 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy (to Schneibster aka cOMMOnsEnSe)
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
So I am interrupting the discussion you are having with yourself? Please get some professional help.
Shhhh, reasonwhy... just let him have his fantasies.
He doesn't really add much in the way of Valid Facts or logic... but I find it quite interesting to watch psychology in action. I think he actually believes he is fooling... somebody.
Rove posts in tandem with 'conspiracy money-making motives', anyone?
(amongst too many other clues to miss).Sorry - I recognize that psychology isn't really relevant to a physics / physical sciences thread, but I just can't help it... (I also find the science of psychology very interesting, and I've never actually run across anyone who exhibits the characteristics of The Schneibster on the web or anywhere in real life... it's a classic textbook case).
God forbid I should ever run across a person in the real world who exhibits such traits. The guy actually exhibits signs of genius... like Dr Jekyll...(or possibly Hannibal Lector)
See if you can determine whether YID and addy are REALLY 'confused' regarding the Schneibster 'characters'
I mean I can 'almost forgive' someone for being blind to explosive demolition, but ... I mean... Hey! ...How blind do you have to be to miss this character?
YID and Addy... I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise.
As someone said a while ago... there is much valid information on this thread, but at the same time there is a LOT of entertainment value also.
Keep up the Good work, Schneibster ...
(entertaining us, that is)
I actually kinda missed you when you went on hiatus after your court hearing...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
...for a few days by just re-posting your boring, LAME post...
I hope Schneibster is more entertaining than you. You're about as entertaining as cataloging rust at a junk yard.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Hmmmm... an interesting read metamars!
And THAT is JUST what is KNOWN and available for publication.
I doubt that the Science writer from Space.com is fully versed in ALL top secret advances, knowledge, and current capabilities within the military with regard to such technology... Unless you believe 'popes' (who seem to think if it isn't in Encyclopedia Brittanica... it doesn't exist)
Hmmmm... an interesting read metamars!
And THAT is JUST what is KNOWN and available for publication.
I doubt that the Science writer from Space.com is fully versed in ALL top secret advances, knowledge, and current capabilities within the military with regard to such technology... Unless you believe 'popes' (who seem to think if it isn't in Encyclopedia Brittanica... it doesn't exist)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 12 2006, 02:04 PM)
Another reason to believe that radiative heat transfer from fire to steel is basically a "skin effect"
Electric fields in conductors must be 0, otherwise electric charges would redistribute and nullify the field. Hence, I don't believe electromagnetic radiation can penetrate steel significantly.
Not in the infrared spectrum, anyway. (I think the physics is more amenable to highly energetic photons at x-ray frequencies, e.g.) In fact, I think I vaguely recall an old physics lab instructor telling me that tissue paper will stop infrared.
Anybody?
Well I dunno about that.
Infrared is absorbed by materials but does not set up an electric feild in metals. Instead it simply causes the atoms in the material to vibrate more energetically. As they move about they transfer some of this energy to adjacent atoms or molecules as they impact them and so on into the interior of the material. (the molecular transfer of heat ) It is quite possible to heat anything through with radiative energy. Microwaves as well can only penetrate a cm or so before hitting a water molecule and causing it to heat up( basically vibrate more) yet it is possible to cook an entire chicken in a microwave oven.
Why do you expect that IR should penetrate further?
Electric fields in conductors must be 0, otherwise electric charges would redistribute and nullify the field. Hence, I don't believe electromagnetic radiation can penetrate steel significantly.
Not in the infrared spectrum, anyway. (I think the physics is more amenable to highly energetic photons at x-ray frequencies, e.g.) In fact, I think I vaguely recall an old physics lab instructor telling me that tissue paper will stop infrared.
Anybody?
Well I dunno about that.
Infrared is absorbed by materials but does not set up an electric feild in metals. Instead it simply causes the atoms in the material to vibrate more energetically. As they move about they transfer some of this energy to adjacent atoms or molecules as they impact them and so on into the interior of the material. (the molecular transfer of heat ) It is quite possible to heat anything through with radiative energy. Microwaves as well can only penetrate a cm or so before hitting a water molecule and causing it to heat up( basically vibrate more) yet it is possible to cook an entire chicken in a microwave oven.
Why do you expect that IR should penetrate further?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
Oh, I see 'WE' are editing to add...
Oh, I see 'WE' are editing to add...
I hope Schneibster is more entertaining than you. You're about as entertaining as cataloging rust at a junk yard.
Cooool !!!
Please don't let me interrupt the conversation you were having with yourself. Carry on.
Now that is a mistake I can relate to. I thought Foxx was above that sort of thing though.
Now that is a mistake I can relate to. I thought Foxx was above that sort of thing though.
It's the three legged stool he uses. I told him I had a saw.
Now that is a mistake I can relate to. I thought Foxx was above that sort of thing though.
Heh... caught me again
I MUST be more careful!
Gee... at least TRY to keep your characters straight, obfuscator... That quote was under The 'Schneibster' penmanship.
QUOTE
Reply by Schneibster
You are so LAME... ...and so repetitive... ...That I though I'd save you the trouble of coming back... ...for a few days by just reposting your boring, LAME post...
You are so LAME... ...and so repetitive... ...That I though I'd save you the trouble of coming back... ...for a few days by just reposting your boring, LAME post...
Oh, I see 'WE' are editing to add...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Reply by Schneibster You are so LAME... ...and so repetitive... ...That I though I'd save you the trouble of coming back... ...for a few days by just reposting your boring, LAME post... |
Oh, I see 'WE' are editing to add...
I hope Schneibster is more entertaining than you. You're about as entertaining as cataloging rust at a junk yard.
Cooool !!!
Please don't let me interrupt the conversation you were having with yourself. Carry on.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 03:52 AM)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Hmmmm... an interesting read metamars!
And THAT is JUST what is KNOWN and available for publication.
I doubt that the Science writer from Space.com is fully versed in ALL top secret advances, knowledge, and current capabilities within the military with regard to such technology... Unless you believe 'popes' (who seem to think if it isn't in Encyclopedia Brittanica... it doesn't exist)
BTW, if you learn a new word and want to repeat it over and over again as if your a 5 year old who found his penis at least spell it right. Especially since you have a habit of correcting others...
"I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise."
obsfucation is spelled obfuscation Heh!
Hmmmm... an interesting read metamars!
And THAT is JUST what is KNOWN and available for publication.
I doubt that the Science writer from Space.com is fully versed in ALL top secret advances, knowledge, and current capabilities within the military with regard to such technology... Unless you believe 'popes' (who seem to think if it isn't in Encyclopedia Brittanica... it doesn't exist)
BTW, if you learn a new word and want to repeat it over and over again as if your a 5 year old who found his penis at least spell it right. Especially since you have a habit of correcting others...
"I haven't forgotten (or missed) your 3 stooges obsfucation to my NIST Fire Expose, but The Schneibster has had me mesmerized by his antics. I'll get back to it soon... I promise."
obsfucation is spelled obfuscation Heh!
QUOTE
obsfucation is spelled obfuscation Heh!
Now that is a mistake I can relate to. I thought Foxx was above that sort of thing though.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 13 2006, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE
obsfucation is spelled obfuscation Heh!
Now that is a mistake I can relate to. I thought Foxx was above that sort of thing though.
It's the three legged stool he uses. I told him I had a saw.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 13 2006, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE
obsfucation is spelled obfuscation Heh!
Now that is a mistake I can relate to. I thought Foxx was above that sort of thing though.
Heh... caught me again
I MUST be more careful!
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 03:52 AM)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Hmmmm... an interesting read metamars!
And THAT is JUST what is KNOWN and available for publication.
I doubt that the Science writer from Space.com is fully versed in ALL top secret advances, knowledge, and current capabilities within the military with regard to such technology... Unless you believe 'popes' (who seem to think if it isn't in Encyclopedia Brittanica... it doesn't exist)
Oh by all means call upon the magic known as the secret weapon to explain the collapses Foxx.
I don't know if these weapons exist, you don't know if these weapons exist but for some unknown reason you feel it is necessary to invoke such technology to explain the collapses. You are , in effect, calling upon the forces of magic. Next up, the "Harry Potter Solution".
Hmmmm... an interesting read metamars!
And THAT is JUST what is KNOWN and available for publication.
I doubt that the Science writer from Space.com is fully versed in ALL top secret advances, knowledge, and current capabilities within the military with regard to such technology... Unless you believe 'popes' (who seem to think if it isn't in Encyclopedia Brittanica... it doesn't exist)
Oh by all means call upon the magic known as the secret weapon to explain the collapses Foxx.
I don't know if these weapons exist, you don't know if these weapons exist but for some unknown reason you feel it is necessary to invoke such technology to explain the collapses. You are , in effect, calling upon the forces of magic. Next up, the "Harry Potter Solution".
I think I'd have saved that pic for Faux, using it on reasonwhy is more a matter of shooting gnats with a shotgun; if you're looking for a real gaping, stinking, shitting a$$4ole, Faux would be it.
QUOTE
Originally posted by cOMmOnSensE
It's the three legged stool he uses. I told him I had a saw.
It's the three legged stool he uses. I told him I had a saw.
Gee... at least TRY to keep your characters straight, obfuscator... That quote was under The 'Schneibster' penmanship.
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.