QUOTE
ooo, an epi tome! kewl, dude!
if you prove rocks are rigid and unmoving, you're going to upset the entire geological community. prove that rocks don't grow while you're at it. prove that the earth's topography has remained unchanged for 4.5 billion years.
your blanket statements hold no sway(tower humour).
if you prove rocks are rigid and unmoving, you're going to upset the entire geological community. prove that rocks don't grow while you're at it. prove that the earth's topography has remained unchanged for 4.5 billion years.
your blanket statements hold no sway(tower humour).
Wow, you take a statement about rocks and try to apply it to the entire geological continuum. Not surprised seeing how you tend to also take simple, specific or even unrelated items and run with them when it comes to 9/11.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ooo, an epi tome! kewl, dude! if you prove rocks are rigid and unmoving, you're going to upset the entire geological community. prove that rocks don't grow while you're at it. prove that the earth's topography has remained unchanged for 4.5 billion years. your blanket statements hold no sway(tower humour). |
Wow, you take a statement about rocks and try to apply it to the entire geological continuum. Not surprised seeing how you tend to also take simple, specific or even unrelated items and run with them when it comes to 9/11.
who has more theories about how the towers fell; me or NIST? because, if i were flexible and unmoving, i would stick to one theory, like 'no planes', or, 'thermite', or, 'mini nuke', when in practice, i have MANY theories and am not GLUED to one, unlike NISTians are.
The problem you seem unable to accept is that, as it has been pointed out ad nausea, that certain aspects of the tower collapse are not known to the minutia level demanded by the “truthers.” More to the fact is all of the nonsensical theories and claims posted by the “truthers” that cannot stand to any scientific scrutiny. And the final nail in the coffin is the painful truth that you lack any credible support. As it was when MMC was still posting, where are the legitimate organizations that support your claims? There are none. And when pressed to the facts, what do the “truthers” publically state about the qualified investigators? That they are either part of the conspiracy or “disinformationalsits”.
QUOTE
the 'facts' you speak of are few and far between all the SPECULATION put forward by NIST and the MINISTRY OF TRUTH. mostly, and the report itself ADMITS THIS, you have a case of 'we feel', and 'most likely', and, 'possible' in the column you register as 'fact'.
And again, where are you qualified organizations and investigators that back what you claim? You also overlook the reality that not every manutia detail of the towers collapse can be know to the level the “truthers” demand. IT has been pointed out also that science and investigation such as this do not deal in “truth” but tries to determine the most probably cause. Just because the material support and investigations do no support your preconceived notions is your problem and not material support for some sort of nonsensical conspiracy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the 'facts' you speak of are few and far between all the SPECULATION put forward by NIST and the MINISTRY OF TRUTH. mostly, and the report itself ADMITS THIS, you have a case of 'we feel', and 'most likely', and, 'possible' in the column you register as 'fact'. |
And again, where are you qualified organizations and investigators that back what you claim? You also overlook the reality that not every manutia detail of the towers collapse can be know to the level the “truthers” demand. IT has been pointed out also that science and investigation such as this do not deal in “truth” but tries to determine the most probably cause. Just because the material support and investigations do no support your preconceived notions is your problem and not material support for some sort of nonsensical conspiracy.
the FACT is, NIST does not commit to it's own report as being a FACT.
See above.
QUOTE
i wonder if jesus had this same problem?
Please, let us stick to the myth that the “truthers” put forward and refrain from going off to another myth. I hope this is not a sign that you view yourself through some sort of messiah complex. That is a know delusional state.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| i wonder if jesus had this same problem? |
Please, let us stick to the myth that the “truthers” put forward and refrain from going off to another myth. I hope this is not a sign that you view yourself through some sort of messiah complex. That is a know delusional state.
so, if unmoving is the characteristic which most determines someone's 'rockness', then it is the NISTians who are the most unmoving at all, unable to even see when a fact is relevant(like whether the 911 commission or the mainstrem media even bothers mentioning wtc7, or whether the NIST itself has stated that it's report is FACT).
Again, see above. Your demands are not realistic nor how investigations are done nor how the outcomes are reported.
QUOTE
have a nice delusion.
Like many “truthers” you refuse to accept or acknowledge facts and realities that do not support your preconceived ideas. To be more specific, the detailed definition that fits is
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| have a nice delusion. |
Like many “truthers” you refuse to accept or acknowledge facts and realities that do not support your preconceived ideas. To be more specific, the detailed definition that fits is
“a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary”
If there were any material support for your claims and the claims and those of your fellow “truthers” then there would be support provided by qualified organizations and qualified investigators not to mention those involved directly in this investigation. The simple fact that your movement has no such support and in fact has had their claims exposed as unsupported shown that you are not interested in anything approaching the “truth” as you claim.
Your comment regarding the “Ministry of Truth” exposes the real reason behind your motivation in this topic and the real reason you are a “truther”. You simply blindly hate this administration. Viewed through such a mental state, no rational pursuit is possible.
newton
The FACT is that no true scientist EVER claims his work to be "THE FACT", only tinhatters make such claims(and are wrong every time they do). So when you or reasonlesswhine makes a statement like..."I have shown the TRUSS pulling-in the walls is not possible with a gravity driven collapse!" we know he is full of...stuff and in need of a good laxitive. Somehow he thinks his magic stairwell negates the bowed in walls which are plainly evident in the photos and videos, he is delusional. If this is the best you can do with the pirated building plans you idiots have been crying about for so long the "troother" movement is doomed.
The FACT is that no true scientist EVER claims his work to be "THE FACT", only tinhatters make such claims(and are wrong every time they do). So when you or reasonlesswhine makes a statement like..."I have shown the TRUSS pulling-in the walls is not possible with a gravity driven collapse!" we know he is full of...stuff and in need of a good laxitive. Somehow he thinks his magic stairwell negates the bowed in walls which are plainly evident in the photos and videos, he is delusional. If this is the best you can do with the pirated building plans you idiots have been crying about for so long the "troother" movement is doomed.
oh, the irony. these 'critical thinkers' are all PARANOID, lololol!!!!!
Actually those critical thinkers are for the most part right, it is you tinhatters who think there is some secret conspiracy by our own gov't that caused 9/11, that is just stupid, not to mention paranoid and delusional. Even the kids on South Park think your ideas are "retarded"!!!
It is amazing what you can believe once you discard the need for supporting evidence,logic or the laws of physics, no planes, mini nukes, thermite and particle beams have one thing in common, there is no supporting evidence of any of them!!! When you follow where the evidence you do have leads(as NIST did) you tend to have FEWER theories, not more. Scientific investigation is often the process of eliminating that for which there is no evidence(explosives, thermite fairies, nukes of any size, particle beams, etc.) and refining the theories(or theory) you do have evidence for so that it fits the reality you have measured(just as NIST did). Then you publish your results so others can study them(as NIST DID) in a process called peer review, if your conclusions survive that process without challenge(as the NIST report has done) it is then accepted by the scientific community as valid until proven otherwise. So, yeah, I only have one theory about 9/11 and it is the one outlined by NIST because it is the only one that fits the known facts. I still have an open mind if you have valid objections, but not an empty one to accept thermite fairies or particle beams or any other crack headed speculation.
Grumpy
Larger image
If you understood anything about construction you would see there is a double load bearing wall on the stairwell (circled in red). This would redistribute the load to the 79th floor that was not damaged in that area (there is also a wall on the 78 floor that would transfer the load to the mechanical floors).
I probably know more about construction than you do, and I don't agree with your conclusions at all. For one thing, that wall is on the 80th floor, not the 79th. If you have an image of the 79th let's see it. otherwise you aren't making much sense.
Secondly, a wall cavity like that does not imply a load bearing wall. it could just as easily indicate a pipeing chase for an executive toilet or a break room.
Third, that is an architectural plan, no structural details are shown, so you are jumping to conclusions not supported by your evidence.
Wow. Delusion is far too kind of a definition for that level of intentional dismissal and ignorance.
Wow. Delusion is far too kind of a definition for that level of intentional dismissal and ignorance.
regards the rocks, GS: you claimed rocks are unmoving. i pointed out the contrary was true(can you say plastic under pressure, children?). you claim victory. typical OCT logic.
List time I checked, rocks, varying from igneous to even metamorphic, were not in the habit of getting up and moving. You simply took that statement and tried to apply it to something that it was not addressing. And again, typically done. And you missed the painfully obvious fact that the use of the term rock was done so as a metaphor.
While entertaining your geological fetish, you seemed to have overlooked the more pertinent fact that your cause celeb lacks any legitimate support or the painful fact that you are so vested in this “cause” due solely to your blind hatred of the current administration.
It was no different than when I debated conservatives who tried to foster the idea that the Clinton Administration was likewise in some sort of conspiracy over the domestic terrorist activity under his watch.
Wow. Delusion is far too kind of a definition for that level of intentional dismissal and ignorance.
List time I checked, rocks, varying from igneous to even metamorphic, were not in the habit of getting up and moving. You simply took that statement and tried to apply it to something that it was not addressing. And again, typically done. And you missed the painfully obvious fact that the use of the term rock was done so as a metaphor.
While entertaining your geological fetish, you seemed to have overlooked the more pertinent fact that your cause celeb lacks any legitimate support or the painful fact that you are so vested in this “cause” due solely to your blind hatred of the current administration.
It was no different than when I debated conservatives who tried to foster the idea that the Clinton Administration was likewise in some sort of conspiracy over the domestic terrorist activity under his watch.
it's not 'blind' hatred, nor is it party specific, nor is it even hatred.
i have simply seen the tiger prowling in the jungle, with his camoflage striping, and am aware of the motives of a hiding, hunting tiger. you enjoy that bi-polar view of politics. i'll stick to my eagle-eye view.
lets have your name and relevant expertise if you need to use that to support your statements.
larger image
Floor 79, same as 80
NISTNCSTAR1-5F page 127 and 128 .
That is one hell of a long pipe chase. I suppose nobody told them you could use one large pipe between floors!
Did NIST (or a NISTian) design the building ?
Get the structural drawings from whoever has them and prove me wrong!
HAHAHAH
Reason your tin hat is too tight. First of all, what is YOUR name and level of expertise? Nutjobs first, as one of your favorite tactics are ad-hominem and character attacks.
SECONDLY, why should we have to prove your allegations? You make unsupported claims and WE have to prove them? Show us where this "Load Bearing Wall" only you know about is documented
QUOTE
the FACT is, NIST does not commit to it's own report as being a FACT.
The FACT is that no true scientist EVER claims his work to be "THE FACT", only tinhatters make such claims(and are wrong every time they do). So when you or reasonlesswhine makes a statement like..."I have shown the TRUSS pulling-in the walls is not possible with a gravity driven collapse!" we know he is full of...stuff and in need of a good laxitive. Somehow he thinks his magic stairwell negates the bowed in walls which are plainly evident in the photos and videos, he is delusional. If this is the best you can do with the pirated building plans you idiots have been crying about for so long the "troother" movement is doomed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the FACT is, NIST does not commit to it's own report as being a FACT. |
The FACT is that no true scientist EVER claims his work to be "THE FACT", only tinhatters make such claims(and are wrong every time they do). So when you or reasonlesswhine makes a statement like..."I have shown the TRUSS pulling-in the walls is not possible with a gravity driven collapse!" we know he is full of...stuff and in need of a good laxitive. Somehow he thinks his magic stairwell negates the bowed in walls which are plainly evident in the photos and videos, he is delusional. If this is the best you can do with the pirated building plans you idiots have been crying about for so long the "troother" movement is doomed.
oh, the irony. these 'critical thinkers' are all PARANOID, lololol!!!!!
Actually those critical thinkers are for the most part right, it is you tinhatters who think there is some secret conspiracy by our own gov't that caused 9/11, that is just stupid, not to mention paranoid and delusional. Even the kids on South Park think your ideas are "retarded"!!!
QUOTE
who has more theories about how the towers fell; me or NIST? because, if i were flexible and unmoving, i would stick to one theory, like 'no planes', or, 'thermite', or, 'mini nuke', when in practice, i have MANY theories and am not GLUED to one, unlike NISTians are.
It is amazing what you can believe once you discard the need for supporting evidence,logic or the laws of physics, no planes, mini nukes, thermite and particle beams have one thing in common, there is no supporting evidence of any of them!!! When you follow where the evidence you do have leads(as NIST did) you tend to have FEWER theories, not more. Scientific investigation is often the process of eliminating that for which there is no evidence(explosives, thermite fairies, nukes of any size, particle beams, etc.) and refining the theories(or theory) you do have evidence for so that it fits the reality you have measured(just as NIST did). Then you publish your results so others can study them(as NIST DID) in a process called peer review, if your conclusions survive that process without challenge(as the NIST report has done) it is then accepted by the scientific community as valid until proven otherwise. So, yeah, I only have one theory about 9/11 and it is the one outlined by NIST because it is the only one that fits the known facts. I still have an open mind if you have valid objections, but not an empty one to accept thermite fairies or particle beams or any other crack headed speculation.
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 5 2007, 04:43 AM)
Nope,
This picture
Clearly shows the core, which the trusses are attached to, even if they have a header by the stairway, is severely damaged in this area, meaning the trusses, if disconnected from the core would both offer no lateral support to the external column, and would also pull in simply because of the geometry.
Keep in mind that those floor plans (outside the core) are an APPROXIMATION based on RECOLLECTIONS of the tennents.
Arthur
NISTians are so predictable! Can't trust what anyone says unless they are describing the damage to WTC 7.
Not according to NIST:
There is no way structural engineers have read the entire 10,000 report. The omission of the stairwells in the most critical area is unbelievable.
Larger image
If you understood anything about construction you would see there is a double load bearing wall on the stairwell (circled in red). This would redistribute the load to the 79th floor that was not damaged in that area (there is also a wall on the 78 floor that would transfer the load to the mechanical floors). They obviously used this redundant load path along with the steel beams.
This picture
Clearly shows the core, which the trusses are attached to, even if they have a header by the stairway, is severely damaged in this area, meaning the trusses, if disconnected from the core would both offer no lateral support to the external column, and would also pull in simply because of the geometry.
Keep in mind that those floor plans (outside the core) are an APPROXIMATION based on RECOLLECTIONS of the tennents.
Arthur
NISTians are so predictable! Can't trust what anyone says unless they are describing the damage to WTC 7.
Not according to NIST:
QUOTE
Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.
There is no way structural engineers have read the entire 10,000 report. The omission of the stairwells in the most critical area is unbelievable.
Larger image
If you understood anything about construction you would see there is a double load bearing wall on the stairwell (circled in red). This would redistribute the load to the 79th floor that was not damaged in that area (there is also a wall on the 78 floor that would transfer the load to the mechanical floors). They obviously used this redundant load path along with the steel beams.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2007, 11:09 AM)
Larger image
If you understood anything about construction you would see there is a double load bearing wall on the stairwell (circled in red). This would redistribute the load to the 79th floor that was not damaged in that area (there is also a wall on the 78 floor that would transfer the load to the mechanical floors).
I probably know more about construction than you do, and I don't agree with your conclusions at all. For one thing, that wall is on the 80th floor, not the 79th. If you have an image of the 79th let's see it. otherwise you aren't making much sense.
Secondly, a wall cavity like that does not imply a load bearing wall. it could just as easily indicate a pipeing chase for an executive toilet or a break room.
Third, that is an architectural plan, no structural details are shown, so you are jumping to conclusions not supported by your evidence.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Apr 5 2007, 09:34 AM)
I probably know more about construction than you do, and I don't agree with your conclusions at all. For one thing, that wall is on the 80th floor, not the 79th. If you have an image of the 79th let's see it. otherwise you aren't making much sense.
Secondly, a wall cavity like that does not imply a load bearing wall. it could just as easily indicate a piping chase for an executive toilet or a break room.
Third, that is an architectural plan, no structural details are shown, so you are jumping to conclusions not supported by your evidence.
lets have your name and relevant expertise if you need to use that to support your statements.
larger image
Floor 79, same as 80
NISTNCSTAR1-5F page 127 and 128 .
That is one hell of a long pipe chase. I suppose nobody told them you could use one large pipe between floors!
Did NIST (or a NISTian) design the building ?
Get the structural drawings from whoever has them and prove me wrong!
Secondly, a wall cavity like that does not imply a load bearing wall. it could just as easily indicate a piping chase for an executive toilet or a break room.
Third, that is an architectural plan, no structural details are shown, so you are jumping to conclusions not supported by your evidence.
lets have your name and relevant expertise if you need to use that to support your statements.
larger image
Floor 79, same as 80
NISTNCSTAR1-5F page 127 and 128 .
That is one hell of a long pipe chase. I suppose nobody told them you could use one large pipe between floors!
Did NIST (or a NISTian) design the building ?
Get the structural drawings from whoever has them and prove me wrong!
grumpy/gene splicer...
you both typed a lot of words which basically say i was right.
regards the rocks, GS: you claimed rocks are unmoving. i pointed out the contrary was true(can you say plastic under pressure, children?). you claim victory. typical OCT logic.
the NIST should have modelled the whole collapse, period. anything less is a piss poor job. who could blame them? they are scientists trying to fit a political agenda, which puts them between a rock and a hard place.
once an OCT invokes south park and a four yr old(or whatever) as a respected authority, you know the fat lady has sung.
"LOOK, EVEN THE CARTOONS BELIEVE IT! IT MUST BE REAL!"
you both typed a lot of words which basically say i was right.
regards the rocks, GS: you claimed rocks are unmoving. i pointed out the contrary was true(can you say plastic under pressure, children?). you claim victory. typical OCT logic.
the NIST should have modelled the whole collapse, period. anything less is a piss poor job. who could blame them? they are scientists trying to fit a political agenda, which puts them between a rock and a hard place.
once an OCT invokes south park and a four yr old(or whatever) as a respected authority, you know the fat lady has sung.
"LOOK, EVEN THE CARTOONS BELIEVE IT! IT MUST BE REAL!"
QUOTE
grumpy/gene splicer...
you both typed a lot of words which basically say i was right.
you both typed a lot of words which basically say i was right.
Wow. Delusion is far too kind of a definition for that level of intentional dismissal and ignorance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| grumpy/gene splicer... you both typed a lot of words which basically say i was right. |
Wow. Delusion is far too kind of a definition for that level of intentional dismissal and ignorance.
regards the rocks, GS: you claimed rocks are unmoving. i pointed out the contrary was true(can you say plastic under pressure, children?). you claim victory. typical OCT logic.
List time I checked, rocks, varying from igneous to even metamorphic, were not in the habit of getting up and moving. You simply took that statement and tried to apply it to something that it was not addressing. And again, typically done. And you missed the painfully obvious fact that the use of the term rock was done so as a metaphor.
QUOTE
the NIST should have modelled the whole collapse, period. anything less is a piss poor job. who could blame them? they are scientists trying to fit a political agenda, which puts them between a rock and a hard place.
once an OCT invokes south park and a four yr old(or whatever) as a respected authority, you know the fat lady has sung.
"LOOK, EVEN THE CARTOONS BELIEVE IT! IT MUST BE REAL!"
once an OCT invokes south park and a four yr old(or whatever) as a respected authority, you know the fat lady has sung.
"LOOK, EVEN THE CARTOONS BELIEVE IT! IT MUST BE REAL!"
While entertaining your geological fetish, you seemed to have overlooked the more pertinent fact that your cause celeb lacks any legitimate support or the painful fact that you are so vested in this “cause” due solely to your blind hatred of the current administration.
It was no different than when I debated conservatives who tried to foster the idea that the Clinton Administration was likewise in some sort of conspiracy over the domestic terrorist activity under his watch.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 5 2007, 07:38 PM)
Wow. Delusion is far too kind of a definition for that level of intentional dismissal and ignorance.
List time I checked, rocks, varying from igneous to even metamorphic, were not in the habit of getting up and moving. You simply took that statement and tried to apply it to something that it was not addressing. And again, typically done. And you missed the painfully obvious fact that the use of the term rock was done so as a metaphor.
While entertaining your geological fetish, you seemed to have overlooked the more pertinent fact that your cause celeb lacks any legitimate support or the painful fact that you are so vested in this “cause” due solely to your blind hatred of the current administration.
It was no different than when I debated conservatives who tried to foster the idea that the Clinton Administration was likewise in some sort of conspiracy over the domestic terrorist activity under his watch.
it's not 'blind' hatred, nor is it party specific, nor is it even hatred.
i have simply seen the tiger prowling in the jungle, with his camoflage striping, and am aware of the motives of a hiding, hunting tiger. you enjoy that bi-polar view of politics. i'll stick to my eagle-eye view.
newton
Since your brain is so rocklike that you missed the point, I will clarify. It is not that my neice or a cartoon character are expected to be experts, it is that you as an adult are expected to know as much or more than they do, but in your case, not so much.
Ignorance and paranoia are poor substitutes for evidence and logic. You yourself admit to having several different incoherent theories(with NO evidence supporting any of them) and that you are unable to discerne between them. You also seem to be proud that you misunderstand and constantly misrepresent the work of NIST. You'll get nowhere on a site dedicated to physics by ignorance of those physical principles and the limits they place on what is possible(hint: there is not enough electrical power in the whole world to power a "disrupter beam weapon", to continue to speculate about such things says more about your ignorance and gullibility than about anything else).
Then there is the "magical staircase" that's supposed to negate all the scientist's work at NIST. What absolute crap!!! It reminds me of notsoquick's seeing emergency vehicles in the third brake light of a BMW(just before his major meltdown).
Grumpy
PS My niece says "plane hit building, building go boom, ya big dummy."
QUOTE
once an OCT invokes south park and a four yr old(or whatever) as a respected authority, you know the fat lady has sung.
Since your brain is so rocklike that you missed the point, I will clarify. It is not that my neice or a cartoon character are expected to be experts, it is that you as an adult are expected to know as much or more than they do, but in your case, not so much.
Ignorance and paranoia are poor substitutes for evidence and logic. You yourself admit to having several different incoherent theories(with NO evidence supporting any of them) and that you are unable to discerne between them. You also seem to be proud that you misunderstand and constantly misrepresent the work of NIST. You'll get nowhere on a site dedicated to physics by ignorance of those physical principles and the limits they place on what is possible(hint: there is not enough electrical power in the whole world to power a "disrupter beam weapon", to continue to speculate about such things says more about your ignorance and gullibility than about anything else).
Then there is the "magical staircase" that's supposed to negate all the scientist's work at NIST. What absolute crap!!! It reminds me of notsoquick's seeing emergency vehicles in the third brake light of a BMW(just before his major meltdown).
Grumpy
PS My niece says "plane hit building, building go boom, ya big dummy."
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2007, 05:58 PM)
lets have your name and relevant expertise if you need to use that to support your statements.
larger image
Floor 79, same as 80
NISTNCSTAR1-5F page 127 and 128 .
That is one hell of a long pipe chase. I suppose nobody told them you could use one large pipe between floors!
Did NIST (or a NISTian) design the building ?
Get the structural drawings from whoever has them and prove me wrong!
HAHAHAH
Reason your tin hat is too tight. First of all, what is YOUR name and level of expertise? Nutjobs first, as one of your favorite tactics are ad-hominem and character attacks.
SECONDLY, why should we have to prove your allegations? You make unsupported claims and WE have to prove them? Show us where this "Load Bearing Wall" only you know about is documented
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 5 2007, 03:02 PM)
HAHAHAH
Reason your tin hat is too tight. First of all, what is YOUR name and level of expertise? Nutjobs first, as one of your favorite tactics are ad-hominem and character attacks.
SECONDLY, why should we have to prove your allegations? You make unsupported claims and WE have to prove them? Show us where this "Load Bearing Wall" only you know about is documented
We really have reached the bottom of the barrel for oCT’ers:
Reason your tin hat is too tight. First of all, what is YOUR name and level of expertise? Nutjobs first, as one of your favorite tactics are ad-hominem and character attacks.
SECONDLY, why should we have to prove your allegations? You make unsupported claims and WE have to prove them? Show us where this "Load Bearing Wall" only you know about is documented
We really have reached the bottom of the barrel for oCT’ers:
QUOTE (deadbeat+Mar 16 2007, 12:21 PM)
ADOUCETTE FOR PRESIDENT!!
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2007, 11:58 AM)
Wrong model.
NIST even claims it is not to be used on lateral loads:
Same model, but as usual you cherry pick only the portions that you think support your assertions.
NIST even claims it is not to be used on lateral loads:
Same model, but as usual you cherry pick only the portions that you think support your assertions.
QUOTE
As discussed in Section 5.4.3, the bottom chord of the truss model was restrained in the direction transverse to the truss at the bridging truss locations. Although the out-of-plane deformation of the bottom chord due to thermal expansion of bridging trusses may result in a reduction of the vertical load capacity of a primary truss, the use of symmetry in the truss model prevents its application to cases with lateral loads. The interaction between the bridging trusses and the primary trusses was captured in the full floor model.
This only a description of one of many aspects of the same model. You incorrectly equate lateral loads with axial loads. The lateral loads mentioned above are in relation to the influences of the bridging trusses, not axial tension or compression loads exerted on the columns by the trusses. If you were to go on and read the rest of the model description, you would see where the pull in was modeled.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 5 2007, 04:08 PM)
it's not 'blind' hatred, nor is it party specific, nor is it even hatred.
i have simply seen the tiger prowling in the jungle, with his camoflage striping, and am aware of the motives of a hiding, hunting tiger. you enjoy that bi-polar view of politics. i'll stick to my eagle-eye view.
Translation: I know there is a conspiracy that you are unable to see (insert typical reason of lack of intelligence, brain washing, paid “disinformationalist, etc).
Your claims are just as unsubstantiated as those of conservatives who speak of conspiracies. If you ever supported reactionary stances of the “truther” movement, then in spite of your claim of party neutrality and lack of hatred, you are operating on emotion instead of reason The emotion most often display by conspiracy supporters in general, and “truthers” specifically, when confronted with reason, the facts that fly in the face of their claims and the reality that they have no legitimate support from qualified investigators and/or those involved in the investigation is hatred in the form of personal castigation.
i have simply seen the tiger prowling in the jungle, with his camoflage striping, and am aware of the motives of a hiding, hunting tiger. you enjoy that bi-polar view of politics. i'll stick to my eagle-eye view.
Translation: I know there is a conspiracy that you are unable to see (insert typical reason of lack of intelligence, brain washing, paid “disinformationalist, etc).
Your claims are just as unsubstantiated as those of conservatives who speak of conspiracies. If you ever supported reactionary stances of the “truther” movement, then in spite of your claim of party neutrality and lack of hatred, you are operating on emotion instead of reason The emotion most often display by conspiracy supporters in general, and “truthers” specifically, when confronted with reason, the facts that fly in the face of their claims and the reality that they have no legitimate support from qualified investigators and/or those involved in the investigation is hatred in the form of personal castigation.
[removed]
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Apr 6 2007, 01:13 AM)
It was the Massad, plain and simple.
The Intelligence Community new about the attacks in advance. A jewish camera crew was arrested the day of the attacks filming the towers falling from the new jersey side of the river.
It's borderline with Pearl Harbour style of attacks in bringing America into the Israeli 'War on Arabs'.
Why did no one care that Israel was bombing the hell out of Lebanon? The UN didn't do ***. The media just wrote it off as 'more darkies dyin'.
It's all bullshit.
Even if Bush himself didn't know about it, he's just a tool anyways. He's being used as a figurehead in the 'plausible deniability' arena of political manipulations.
In the end, all September 11th did was wake people up.
Their own governments were the ones who taught them to FEAR.
No, it wasn't the Israelis, it was a conspiracy by members of the European Union. The only three video records of the first tower being hit came from Jules Naudet of France, Pavel Hlava of the Czech Republic, and Wolfgang Staehle of Germany. The fact that they were able to get video of the event meant that they had prior knowledge of the attack. It was obviously a plan by the EU to destabilize the US economy and to get the US entangled in costly military adventures around the world. I'm sure if the FBI were to investigate these three individuals, they would confirm that they are indeed EU agents bent on the destruction of America.
The Intelligence Community new about the attacks in advance. A jewish camera crew was arrested the day of the attacks filming the towers falling from the new jersey side of the river.
It's borderline with Pearl Harbour style of attacks in bringing America into the Israeli 'War on Arabs'.
Why did no one care that Israel was bombing the hell out of Lebanon? The UN didn't do ***. The media just wrote it off as 'more darkies dyin'.
It's all bullshit.
Even if Bush himself didn't know about it, he's just a tool anyways. He's being used as a figurehead in the 'plausible deniability' arena of political manipulations.
In the end, all September 11th did was wake people up.
Their own governments were the ones who taught them to FEAR.
No, it wasn't the Israelis, it was a conspiracy by members of the European Union. The only three video records of the first tower being hit came from Jules Naudet of France, Pavel Hlava of the Czech Republic, and Wolfgang Staehle of Germany. The fact that they were able to get video of the event meant that they had prior knowledge of the attack. It was obviously a plan by the EU to destabilize the US economy and to get the US entangled in costly military adventures around the world. I'm sure if the FBI were to investigate these three individuals, they would confirm that they are indeed EU agents bent on the destruction of America.
Who benefits most from a destablized Middle East?
Not the EU.
Israel.
If the Arab states united under one banner, Israel would cease to exist.
America having a military presence close by is in their best interest.
Not the EU.
Israel.
If the Arab states united under one banner, Israel would cease to exist.
America having a military presence close by is in their best interest.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Apr 6 2007, 02:02 AM)
Who benefits most from a destablized Middle East?
Not the EU.
Israel.
If the Arab states united under one banner, Israel would cease to exist.
America having a military presence close by is in their best interest.
My whole facetious point is that five dancing Israelis does not the Mossad make. Nor do three European natives represent the EU. The likely suspects are those that have claimed credit for the attacks, namely OBL and friends.
Not the EU.
Israel.
If the Arab states united under one banner, Israel would cease to exist.
America having a military presence close by is in their best interest.
My whole facetious point is that five dancing Israelis does not the Mossad make. Nor do three European natives represent the EU. The likely suspects are those that have claimed credit for the attacks, namely OBL and friends.
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 5 2007, 04:38 PM)
Same model, but as usual you cherry pick only the portions that you think support your assertions. This only a description of one of many aspects of the same model. You incorrectly equate lateral loads with axial loads. The lateral loads mentioned above are in relation to the influences of the bridging trusses, not axial tension or compression loads exerted on the columns by the trusses. If you were to go on and read the rest of the model description, you would see where the pull in was modeled.
Do I have to spell it out for you. A single truss model is not a subsystem model.
Do I have to spell it out for you. A single truss model is not a subsystem model.
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 4 2007, 03:06 PM)
NIST was able to demonstrate failures in the subsystem models which could be carried out with more detail. They didn't find it practical or necessary to demonstrate the pull in behavior in the global model.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below)
AND this was my original question that you tried to use the single truss model to answer:
Do I have to spell it out for you. A single truss model is not a subsystem model.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below)
AND this was my original question that you tried to use the single truss model to answer:
No, this is the question I was addressing:
Then show were NIST simulated the pull-in force in the floor assembly model?
These are the objectives of the truss model:
These are the results of the truss model:
These are the results of the truss model:5.4.9 Truss Analysis for Gravity and Thermal Loads Gravity Loading: The maximum calculated vertical deflection due to the self-weight of the structure, which occurred when the concrete was still wet, was 1.7 in. downward. When the superimposed dead and live loads were applied to the truss with hardened concrete slab, the maximum vertical deflection became 2.0 in., and the maximum horizontal column deflection was 0.05 in. inward. The maximum forces in the top chord, bottom chord, web diagonal, and end diagonal strut were -25.7 kip, 41.3 kip, -6.9 kip, and 16.0 kip, respectively, which translate to average stresses of 14.8 ksi, 11.6 ksi, 6.7 ksi, and 15.7 ksi, respectively. The yield strength of top and bottom chords and end diagonal struts was 55.3 ksi. The yield strength of web diagonals was 38.1 ksi, except for the first compressive web diagonal at the interior end, which had a yield strength of 55.3 ksi. Therefore, the maximum stress level was about 30 percent of yield strength.
Gravity Plus Thermal Loading: The analysis of the truss model subjected to temperature time history was carried out statically; however, when the solution process did not converge, to overcome the convergence problem, the problem was solved dynamically with a 5 percent Rayleigh damping. The static analysis was then resumed when acceleration and velocity became small. The analysis proceeded in this fashion until the temperature of the steel became 727 °C. Figure 5–31 shows the vertical displacement of the truss at 700 °C, and Fig. 5–32 shows the horizontal displacement of Column 143 at the floor level and vertical displacement of the bottom chord at midspan with temperature of steel. The zero vertical displacement in this figure represents the initial displacement after the self-weight was applied. A positive horizontal displacement indicates that the exterior columns were pushed out, and a negative vertical displacement indicates that the truss was deflected downward. At 445 °C, when the end diagonal struts began to yield, the horizontal displacement at the exterior column began to decrease. At 565 °C, the truss sag became large due to the buckling of web diagonals, and the exterior columns were pulled in.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below)
AND this was my original question that you tried to use the single truss model to answer:
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 4 2007, 05:59 PM)
Then show were NIST simulated the pull-in force in the floor assembly model?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 6 2007, 03:28 AM)
Do I have to spell it out for you. A single truss model is not a subsystem model.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below)
AND this was my original question that you tried to use the single truss model to answer:
No, this is the question I was addressing:
QUOTE (reasonwhy+ Apr 5 2007, 01:59 AM)
Then show were NIST simulated the pull-in force in the floor assembly model?
These are the objectives of the truss model:
QUOTE
5.4 TRUSS MODEL
The truss model is a section of a floor system, which consists of a single floor truss and a corresponding section of the concrete slab. The objectives of the truss model study were to:
• Capture the potential failure modes and failure sequence of the truss model subjected to gravity load and temperature time histories,
• Determine failure loads for different failure modes, and
• Develop a simplified model that replicates the expected failure modes of the truss model for use in the full floor subsystem model.
The truss model is a section of a floor system, which consists of a single floor truss and a corresponding section of the concrete slab. The objectives of the truss model study were to:
• Capture the potential failure modes and failure sequence of the truss model subjected to gravity load and temperature time histories,
• Determine failure loads for different failure modes, and
• Develop a simplified model that replicates the expected failure modes of the truss model for use in the full floor subsystem model.
These are the results of the truss model:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5.4 TRUSS MODEL The truss model is a section of a floor system, which consists of a single floor truss and a corresponding section of the concrete slab. The objectives of the truss model study were to: • Capture the potential failure modes and failure sequence of the truss model subjected to gravity load and temperature time histories, • Determine failure loads for different failure modes, and • Develop a simplified model that replicates the expected failure modes of the truss model for use in the full floor subsystem model. |
These are the results of the truss model:5.4.9 Truss Analysis for Gravity and Thermal Loads Gravity Loading: The maximum calculated vertical deflection due to the self-weight of the structure, which occurred when the concrete was still wet, was 1.7 in. downward. When the superimposed dead and live loads were applied to the truss with hardened concrete slab, the maximum vertical deflection became 2.0 in., and the maximum horizontal column deflection was 0.05 in. inward. The maximum forces in the top chord, bottom chord, web diagonal, and end diagonal strut were -25.7 kip, 41.3 kip, -6.9 kip, and 16.0 kip, respectively, which translate to average stresses of 14.8 ksi, 11.6 ksi, 6.7 ksi, and 15.7 ksi, respectively. The yield strength of top and bottom chords and end diagonal struts was 55.3 ksi. The yield strength of web diagonals was 38.1 ksi, except for the first compressive web diagonal at the interior end, which had a yield strength of 55.3 ksi. Therefore, the maximum stress level was about 30 percent of yield strength.
Gravity Plus Thermal Loading: The analysis of the truss model subjected to temperature time history was carried out statically; however, when the solution process did not converge, to overcome the convergence problem, the problem was solved dynamically with a 5 percent Rayleigh damping. The static analysis was then resumed when acceleration and velocity became small. The analysis proceeded in this fashion until the temperature of the steel became 727 °C. Figure 5–31 shows the vertical displacement of the truss at 700 °C, and Fig. 5–32 shows the horizontal displacement of Column 143 at the floor level and vertical displacement of the bottom chord at midspan with temperature of steel. The zero vertical displacement in this figure represents the initial displacement after the self-weight was applied. A positive horizontal displacement indicates that the exterior columns were pushed out, and a negative vertical displacement indicates that the truss was deflected downward. At 445 °C, when the end diagonal struts began to yield, the horizontal displacement at the exterior column began to decrease. At 565 °C, the truss sag became large due to the buckling of web diagonals, and the exterior columns were pulled in.
The truss model was part of the overall floor modeling, it demonstrated that under expected conditions pull in could occur. In the full floor model, a simplified truss model was used, and as outlined below, apparently not enough detail was used to capture pull in.
What you should be able to see by examining all of this modeling data, is that all of the necessary system and component failure capacities are given. When these capacities are exceeded by the moving mass of multiple floors, why wouldn't pancaking occur?
QUOTE
Pull-in forces were expected to develop whenever the floor sagged. Although the floor sagging was captured by the full floor models, the pull-in force was not captured in most of the full floor model analyses. To accurately calculate pull-in forces between the floor and the exterior columns in the full floor model, much more detailed modeling was required. Such modeling included accurate boundary conditions on columns, creep in steel, friction at the truss seats, and accurate evaluation of failure of strap anchors and stud, and concrete cracking and spalling. In addition, temperatures of structural members might be low due to conservative assumption of limiting the insulation damage to debris abrasion and
neglecting the effect of aircraft shock and vibration.
The full floor model did not show that pull in could not happen, only that the model as configured would not allow it to happen. NIST goes on to explain why and you disregard their explanation. How is it that you know more about the behavior of their model than they do?neglecting the effect of aircraft shock and vibration.
What you should be able to see by examining all of this modeling data, is that all of the necessary system and component failure capacities are given. When these capacities are exceeded by the moving mass of multiple floors, why wouldn't pancaking occur?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 5 2007, 10:01 PM)
It is not that my neice or a cartoon character are expected to be experts, it is that you as an adult are expected to know as much or more than they do, but in your case, not so much.
PS My niece says "plane hit building, building go boom, ya big dummy."
you realise this is a total reversal of your previous stance?
in order to be able to comment on the event, you have to be a structural engineer/physicist/mechanical engineer.
your niece is doing well. the illuminati have all the best schools, i guess.
at least, THEY like to think so. turns out they just pump out ROTE learners, for the most part.
PS My niece says "plane hit building, building go boom, ya big dummy."
you realise this is a total reversal of your previous stance?
in order to be able to comment on the event, you have to be a structural engineer/physicist/mechanical engineer.
your niece is doing well. the illuminati have all the best schools, i guess.
at least, THEY like to think so. turns out they just pump out ROTE learners, for the most part.
newton
Comment all you like, but don't claim to know more than the engineers and scientists of NIST unless you yourself can show at least some knowledge and understanding of that which you are commenting on. So far, not so much.
Comment all you like, but don't claim to know more than the engineers and scientists of NIST unless you yourself can show at least some knowledge and understanding of that which you are commenting on. So far, not so much.
your niece is doing well. the illuminati have all the best schools, i guess.
My niece, at five years old, shows more understanding than any of you tinhatters on this forum. She understands that if you hit a building with a 125 ton cruise missile full of fuel that the building is likely to be destroyed. It really is just that simple and is precisely what we all saw on 9/11(or, in her case, on video). It takes a particularly dense kind of stupidity to ignore these facts, one which begins with paranoid delusions and then tries to find anything that can be twisted and distorted to fit those paranoid delusions. My niece, starting with no such preconcieved delusions, sees the events as the logicakl progression from the acts of some religious barbarians(though she cannot understand how they could commit such crimes in the name of god)
Grumpy
QUOTE
you realise this is a total reversal of your previous stance?
in order to be able to comment on the event, you have to be a structural engineer/physicist/mechanical engineer.
in order to be able to comment on the event, you have to be a structural engineer/physicist/mechanical engineer.
Comment all you like, but don't claim to know more than the engineers and scientists of NIST unless you yourself can show at least some knowledge and understanding of that which you are commenting on. So far, not so much.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you realise this is a total reversal of your previous stance? in order to be able to comment on the event, you have to be a structural engineer/physicist/mechanical engineer. |
Comment all you like, but don't claim to know more than the engineers and scientists of NIST unless you yourself can show at least some knowledge and understanding of that which you are commenting on. So far, not so much.
your niece is doing well. the illuminati have all the best schools, i guess.
My niece, at five years old, shows more understanding than any of you tinhatters on this forum. She understands that if you hit a building with a 125 ton cruise missile full of fuel that the building is likely to be destroyed. It really is just that simple and is precisely what we all saw on 9/11(or, in her case, on video). It takes a particularly dense kind of stupidity to ignore these facts, one which begins with paranoid delusions and then tries to find anything that can be twisted and distorted to fit those paranoid delusions. My niece, starting with no such preconcieved delusions, sees the events as the logicakl progression from the acts of some religious barbarians(though she cannot understand how they could commit such crimes in the name of god)
Grumpy
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2007, 12:09 PM)
NISTians are so predictable! Can't trust what anyone says unless they are describing the damage to WTC 7.
Not according to NIST:
NOPE, CT'ers are so predictable:
I never said the trusses were disconnected from the EXTERNAL COLUMNS.
NOPE, CT'ers are so predictable:
I never said the trusses were disconnected from the EXTERNAL COLUMNS.
Clearly shows the core, which the trusses are attached to, even if they have a header by the stairway, is severely damaged in this area, meaning the trusses, if disconnected from the core would both offer no lateral support to the external column, and would also pull in simply because of the geometry.
Arthur
NOPE, CT'ers are so predictable:
I never said the trusses were disconnected from the EXTERNAL COLUMNS.
Arthur
Well ,with all the walls that NIST did not model and were not damaged , the floors would not have a sag or angel ( not to mention the stairwell).
Lager image
Frigging amazing what the NIST JOKERS decided was not important!
RIGHT.
And several years later they are STILL working in this environment?
You must think that good Engineering jobs are VERY VERY VERY HARD to find.
Not only that, but they would WANT to keep working at these same jobs even though, according to you, one of their responsibilities is to HIDE the facts behind why the towers actually fell.
RIGHT
Arthur
If your talking about the south face of the corner, maybe, but the smoke doesn't allow a clear view of that area in this photo.
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106.JPG?pic
Look just above the right corner of the winter garden roof.
It almost looks like there is a second corner there. clearly the curtain wall spandrels on at least three floors are missing. In fact, the floor slab is not visible there either.
Look further up along that line. About four to six floors or so above the two burned out floors the smoke is thin enough so that you can make out most of the south face, except for the darker section where the curtain wall is missing.
No, this is the question I was addressing:
These are the objectives of the truss model:
These are the results of the truss model: The truss model was part of the overall floor modeling, it demonstrated that under expected conditions pull in could occur. In the full floor model, a simplified truss model was used, and as outlined below, apparently not enough detail was used to capture pull in.
The full floor model did not show that pull in could not happen, only that the model as configured would not allow it to happen. NIST goes on to explain why and you disregard their explanation. How is it that you know more about the behavior of their model than they do?
What you should be able to see by examining all of this modeling data, is that all of the necessary system and component failure capacities are given. When these capacities are exceeded by the moving mass of multiple floors, why wouldn't pancaking occur?
If you notice, in your above quote NIST was not able to get the model to converge (the same excuse used throughout the report).
In the private sector, if an FEA engineer is not able to get models to converge, they are called incompetent and most likely unemployed.
At NIST, if they are not able to get the models to converge (and have to make excuses) they are called experts pushing the software to the limits.
Not according to NIST:
QUOTE
Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.
NOPE, CT'ers are so predictable:
I never said the trusses were disconnected from the EXTERNAL COLUMNS.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. |
NOPE, CT'ers are so predictable:
I never said the trusses were disconnected from the EXTERNAL COLUMNS.
Clearly shows the core, which the trusses are attached to, even if they have a header by the stairway, is severely damaged in this area, meaning the trusses, if disconnected from the core would both offer no lateral support to the external column, and would also pull in simply because of the geometry.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 6 2007, 08:08 AM)
NOPE, CT'ers are so predictable:
I never said the trusses were disconnected from the EXTERNAL COLUMNS.
Arthur
Well ,with all the walls that NIST did not model and were not damaged , the floors would not have a sag or angel ( not to mention the stairwell).
Lager image
Frigging amazing what the NIST JOKERS decided was not important!
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 3 2007, 03:14 PM)
re: Charles Beck's paper
I don't think this is accurate. It doesn't seem like the paper artificially constrains the time of collapse at all. From my understanding the paper calculates the time of collapse as a function of the parameters r, s and epsilon (0=inelastic, 1=elastic collisions). r & s are dimensionless parameters for reaction and safety used to define the "reaction force" R(x).
The results are shown in Fig3. But instead of displaying time in seconds, Beck normalizes them to tau = time of collapse/time for freefall collapse which is perhaps where the confusion comes in.
Thank you lozenge124,
the unit of time used in manuscript is free fall time from height of 417 meters where gravity is taken that at sea level at 45deg.
For the total collapse time it is taken upper integer value from the recorded sources, NIST (in which this is 10+something seconds, and from Avery's movie "Loose Change" where the image of ticking clock is superimposed onto the frames of falling tower).
If you actually calculate the ratio of 11sec/9.6sec the answer is 1.1 something, which is rounded to 1.2.
If you read paper more carefully, you will see that any time something is calculated the rounding was done so that collapsing features are enhanced.
Charles M. Beck
I don't think this is accurate. It doesn't seem like the paper artificially constrains the time of collapse at all. From my understanding the paper calculates the time of collapse as a function of the parameters r, s and epsilon (0=inelastic, 1=elastic collisions). r & s are dimensionless parameters for reaction and safety used to define the "reaction force" R(x).
The results are shown in Fig3. But instead of displaying time in seconds, Beck normalizes them to tau = time of collapse/time for freefall collapse which is perhaps where the confusion comes in.
Thank you lozenge124,
the unit of time used in manuscript is free fall time from height of 417 meters where gravity is taken that at sea level at 45deg.
For the total collapse time it is taken upper integer value from the recorded sources, NIST (in which this is 10+something seconds, and from Avery's movie "Loose Change" where the image of ticking clock is superimposed onto the frames of falling tower).
If you actually calculate the ratio of 11sec/9.6sec the answer is 1.1 something, which is rounded to 1.2.
If you read paper more carefully, you will see that any time something is calculated the rounding was done so that collapsing features are enhanced.
Charles M. Beck
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 6 2007, 02:13 PM)
newton
Comment all you like, but don't claim to know more than the engineers and scientists of NIST unless you yourself can show at least some knowledge and understanding of that which you are commenting on. So far, not so much.
i bet there are many things that your niece will see and not understand. 'magic' tricks from a magician, being the obvious example.
i do not claim to know more than engineers and scientists and bus drivers. i only claim the right to disagree with people i feel are wrong and/or lying.
in the case of NIST, i have decided(for now) that this crew, for the most part, was ruled with an iron fist,and did not do their research in a TRUE scientific fashion, meaning, they did not follow all the leads that their intuition and knowledge pointed them to, because they were working in an environment of FEAR and KONTROL.
maybe you were one of the first to run out and buy plastic sheeting and duct tape, but these NIST scientists are PRESUMABLY smart enough to know that anthrax works as well in the lab as it does at the whitehouse, and it wasn't anthrax from a cave in afghanistan.
maybe you niece can clear this all up for us? or, perhaps you would like to invoke bugs bunny for some REAL scientific weight?
Comment all you like, but don't claim to know more than the engineers and scientists of NIST unless you yourself can show at least some knowledge and understanding of that which you are commenting on. So far, not so much.
i bet there are many things that your niece will see and not understand. 'magic' tricks from a magician, being the obvious example.
i do not claim to know more than engineers and scientists and bus drivers. i only claim the right to disagree with people i feel are wrong and/or lying.
in the case of NIST, i have decided(for now) that this crew, for the most part, was ruled with an iron fist,and did not do their research in a TRUE scientific fashion, meaning, they did not follow all the leads that their intuition and knowledge pointed them to, because they were working in an environment of FEAR and KONTROL.
maybe you were one of the first to run out and buy plastic sheeting and duct tape, but these NIST scientists are PRESUMABLY smart enough to know that anthrax works as well in the lab as it does at the whitehouse, and it wasn't anthrax from a cave in afghanistan.
maybe you niece can clear this all up for us? or, perhaps you would like to invoke bugs bunny for some REAL scientific weight?
QUOTE
in the case of NIST, i have decided... were working in an environment of FEAR and KONTROL.
RIGHT.
And several years later they are STILL working in this environment?
You must think that good Engineering jobs are VERY VERY VERY HARD to find.
Not only that, but they would WANT to keep working at these same jobs even though, according to you, one of their responsibilities is to HIDE the facts behind why the towers actually fell.
RIGHT
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 1 2007, 12:18 PM)
beck.charles_m
I'm sorry, but it has to be said...THIS IS THE STUPIDEST STATEMENT YET SEEN ON THESE FORI. And, boy, is that saying something.
You have shown NOTHING except your ignorance. NO EXPLOSIVES OR EVIDENCE THEREOF WERE FOUND ANYWHERE ON THE WTC COMPLEX, yet the buildings DID fall.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, in the case of the towers that was the floor connections, which you ignore. When the "avalanche" began it was these floor connections which limited the amount of resistence the lower sections could have, once these connections failed the remaining strength(from whatever source) of the remaining structure was bypassed and thus irrelivant to the calculations. This process(pancaking or bagelling) moved ahead of the externally visible collapse front leaving the core and outer frame unsupported laterally. The pressure from the falling top block simply pushed the outer frame aside(thus bypassing it's resistence again) and the core simply snapped at it's welds.
Calculate all you like, if the product of that calculation does not match reality(progressive collapse caused by plane impacts and fire damage ALONE) , then it is your calculation which are in error, not reality. NIST used a lot of calculations and simulations, but each time they comparred the result with the reality and adjusted THEIR CALCULATIONS until they acheived a close fit with what really happened. It's called the Scientific Method, look it up, learn it, use it or don't call yourself a seeker of truth or a scientist.
Grumpy
Dear grumpy,
thank you for your comment of my post.
Let us agree that before we start inventing exotic mechanism that may have contributed to the collapse of WTC's we first have facts before us. One-dimensional model is there a good way to start. It is not perfect but unlike, say finite element model, it does encompass the major feature of the collapse - a single front avalanche.
Now, if we don't look to close (and we neglect different loss mechanisms for the moment) that avalanche moved in a single direction. From the duration of collapse, and knowing that there is an avalanche going on, the simplest model you can build is the model that I posted: avalanche propagating through an one-dimensional structure the resistance of which is given, in the lowest approximation, as an R(x) = r + s.x .
From the total time it takes to reach the ground you find (r,s) on 9-11. By checking the literature on the subject you estimate (r,s) on 9-10. This is what I did.
By comparing the two values you find that there is a serious discrepancy between the two, which has to be explained somehow.
E.g., kinetic energy on an airplane impacting the building is 1 Gcals (1 giga calories, also known as 1 tonne of TNT). Chemical energy in the fuel was 300 Gcals, of which less than 20% burned inside the building. How much mechanical work this contributed? Well, let us assume in the building 5% of the heat was converted into mechanical work (internal combustion engines may reach 30% efficiency of conversion - open space as engine, ehh?). This gives 0.2*0.05*300 Gcals = 3 Gcals. So the destructive mechanical energy delivered to the building was 4-10 Gcals.
Using my model as the simplest approximation you easily find that the destruction of the primary zone, from (r,s) on 9-10 to (0,0) on 9-11 requires 18 Gcals,
while the damaging of secondary zone requires 110 (x-NIST hypothesis) to 200 (WMD hypothesis) Gcals. What provided that additional energy?
[ Ooops. The physics must be wrong ]
This is the point emphasized in the paper. The simplest possible model of collapse says that collapse could not happen without external intervention because the avalanche, without external intevention, does not have enough energy to consume the building.
So, what ever physical model you suggest as an explanation of collapse, I have a question for you: what provides 110-200 Gcals of additional mechanical energy?
In your answer, please do not use flatulance waves (mystical cracks in steel propagating from the impact zone through the secondary zone due to sudden change in surrounding pressure) that reduce steel to the rubble. Before you start even thinking of those waves please read the golgota of the USS Yorktown in the World War Two. This will tell you, and the others, how much damage steel can take (including, but not limited to: airplane impacts, ammunition explosions, air fuel fires, shelling) and still be floating. Where are the flatulance waves then?
As for your attempt to disprove my model of chain, I beg your pardon. I am not stretching chain but dropping chain on the table. The strength of the links is irrelevant because they are compressed and not stretched. Now, when you compress the thing it has nowhere to go. Therefore you are not progressing until you have done with current chain-link. No matter how "weak" it is.
Finally, even though the structure had floors, the core columns stretched from the ground up in a continuous fashion. Same for the perimeter columns. Hence, the good initial approximation is to assume continuous one-dimensional structure - possibly with slight modulation in mass where the floors are.
Finally, in physics the goal is to find the minimal model that gives the satisfactory answer to a given question. In the case of collapse of WTC the way of thinking should be:
1. one-dimensional model of avalanche propagating through a structure reaction force of which is r+s.x;
2. model the avalanche (zero dimensional object in 1) as a fluid (collection of particles) moving mostly in the downward direction;
3. model the structure in the collapse front using the finite elements, however, pay special attention how does the fluid interact with the structure and what kind of vibrations and waves it produces.
In all these keep in mind two laws: conservation of momentum and of energy.
What people have done so far is jumping between 1 and 3 and adding fudge factors to model in 1 which, I guess, makes everything collapse in 11 or so seconds while horribly ignoring the law of conservation of energy.
Finally, I don't call myself seeker of truth. Scientist and educator I am. Ignorance does not scare me. Ignorants do.
Cheers,
cmb.-
PS: It would be sign of good manners and of courageous person to word your post as if you were talking to a real person.
I'm sorry, but it has to be said...THIS IS THE STUPIDEST STATEMENT YET SEEN ON THESE FORI. And, boy, is that saying something.
You have shown NOTHING except your ignorance. NO EXPLOSIVES OR EVIDENCE THEREOF WERE FOUND ANYWHERE ON THE WTC COMPLEX, yet the buildings DID fall.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, in the case of the towers that was the floor connections, which you ignore. When the "avalanche" began it was these floor connections which limited the amount of resistence the lower sections could have, once these connections failed the remaining strength(from whatever source) of the remaining structure was bypassed and thus irrelivant to the calculations. This process(pancaking or bagelling) moved ahead of the externally visible collapse front leaving the core and outer frame unsupported laterally. The pressure from the falling top block simply pushed the outer frame aside(thus bypassing it's resistence again) and the core simply snapped at it's welds.
Calculate all you like, if the product of that calculation does not match reality(progressive collapse caused by plane impacts and fire damage ALONE) , then it is your calculation which are in error, not reality. NIST used a lot of calculations and simulations, but each time they comparred the result with the reality and adjusted THEIR CALCULATIONS until they acheived a close fit with what really happened. It's called the Scientific Method, look it up, learn it, use it or don't call yourself a seeker of truth or a scientist.
Grumpy
Dear grumpy,
thank you for your comment of my post.
Let us agree that before we start inventing exotic mechanism that may have contributed to the collapse of WTC's we first have facts before us. One-dimensional model is there a good way to start. It is not perfect but unlike, say finite element model, it does encompass the major feature of the collapse - a single front avalanche.
Now, if we don't look to close (and we neglect different loss mechanisms for the moment) that avalanche moved in a single direction. From the duration of collapse, and knowing that there is an avalanche going on, the simplest model you can build is the model that I posted: avalanche propagating through an one-dimensional structure the resistance of which is given, in the lowest approximation, as an R(x) = r + s.x .
From the total time it takes to reach the ground you find (r,s) on 9-11. By checking the literature on the subject you estimate (r,s) on 9-10. This is what I did.
By comparing the two values you find that there is a serious discrepancy between the two, which has to be explained somehow.
E.g., kinetic energy on an airplane impacting the building is 1 Gcals (1 giga calories, also known as 1 tonne of TNT). Chemical energy in the fuel was 300 Gcals, of which less than 20% burned inside the building. How much mechanical work this contributed? Well, let us assume in the building 5% of the heat was converted into mechanical work (internal combustion engines may reach 30% efficiency of conversion - open space as engine, ehh?). This gives 0.2*0.05*300 Gcals = 3 Gcals. So the destructive mechanical energy delivered to the building was 4-10 Gcals.
Using my model as the simplest approximation you easily find that the destruction of the primary zone, from (r,s) on 9-10 to (0,0) on 9-11 requires 18 Gcals,
while the damaging of secondary zone requires 110 (x-NIST hypothesis) to 200 (WMD hypothesis) Gcals. What provided that additional energy?
[ Ooops. The physics must be wrong ]
This is the point emphasized in the paper. The simplest possible model of collapse says that collapse could not happen without external intervention because the avalanche, without external intevention, does not have enough energy to consume the building.
So, what ever physical model you suggest as an explanation of collapse, I have a question for you: what provides 110-200 Gcals of additional mechanical energy?
In your answer, please do not use flatulance waves (mystical cracks in steel propagating from the impact zone through the secondary zone due to sudden change in surrounding pressure) that reduce steel to the rubble. Before you start even thinking of those waves please read the golgota of the USS Yorktown in the World War Two. This will tell you, and the others, how much damage steel can take (including, but not limited to: airplane impacts, ammunition explosions, air fuel fires, shelling) and still be floating. Where are the flatulance waves then?
As for your attempt to disprove my model of chain, I beg your pardon. I am not stretching chain but dropping chain on the table. The strength of the links is irrelevant because they are compressed and not stretched. Now, when you compress the thing it has nowhere to go. Therefore you are not progressing until you have done with current chain-link. No matter how "weak" it is.
Finally, even though the structure had floors, the core columns stretched from the ground up in a continuous fashion. Same for the perimeter columns. Hence, the good initial approximation is to assume continuous one-dimensional structure - possibly with slight modulation in mass where the floors are.
Finally, in physics the goal is to find the minimal model that gives the satisfactory answer to a given question. In the case of collapse of WTC the way of thinking should be:
1. one-dimensional model of avalanche propagating through a structure reaction force of which is r+s.x;
2. model the avalanche (zero dimensional object in 1) as a fluid (collection of particles) moving mostly in the downward direction;
3. model the structure in the collapse front using the finite elements, however, pay special attention how does the fluid interact with the structure and what kind of vibrations and waves it produces.
In all these keep in mind two laws: conservation of momentum and of energy.
What people have done so far is jumping between 1 and 3 and adding fudge factors to model in 1 which, I guess, makes everything collapse in 11 or so seconds while horribly ignoring the law of conservation of energy.
Finally, I don't call myself seeker of truth. Scientist and educator I am. Ignorance does not scare me. Ignorants do.
Cheers,
cmb.-
PS: It would be sign of good manners and of courageous person to word your post as if you were talking to a real person.
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 6 2007, 06:23 PM)
E.g., kinetic energy on an airplane impacting the building is 1 Gcals (1 giga calories, also known as 1 tonne of TNT). Chemical energy in the fuel was 300 Gcals, of which less than 20% burned inside the building. How much mechanical work this contributed? Well, let us assume in the building 5% of the heat was converted into mechanical work (internal combustion engines may reach 30% efficiency of conversion - open space as engine, ehh?). This gives 0.2*0.05*300 Gcals = 3 Gcals. So the destructive mechanical energy delivered to the building was 4-10 Gcals.
Actually 2/3rd or so of the fuel stayed in the building.
As far as the heat from the fires, approx 50% was RETAINED by the building not 5%.
But the REAL FUEL load wasn't the fuel from the plane it was from the MATERIAL in the towers, which was VASTLY greater (multiple floors on fire in each tower with 32,000 sq ft of office space. Each floor containing 4 to 5 lbs per sq ft of combustible material).
Get back to us when you have redone your paper with more REASONABLE values.
Arthur
Actually 2/3rd or so of the fuel stayed in the building.
As far as the heat from the fires, approx 50% was RETAINED by the building not 5%.
But the REAL FUEL load wasn't the fuel from the plane it was from the MATERIAL in the towers, which was VASTLY greater (multiple floors on fire in each tower with 32,000 sq ft of office space. Each floor containing 4 to 5 lbs per sq ft of combustible material).
Get back to us when you have redone your paper with more REASONABLE values.
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 31 2007, 04:07 PM)
einsteen
If it had been a 1000 story building the collapse would have been even MORE certain, due to the increase of energy of the falling floors. If there was more energy than required after only one story of fall(and there was by an order of magnitude) then the further the fall, the higher the energy and the greater the overabundence vis a vis that required to continue the collapse.
Isn't physics a wonderful thing.
Grumpy
Dear einsteen,
physics is indeed wonderful thing but not in the sense that you are using it.
Each structure is built with some safety in mind. Typical safety is 200% or more in buildings. That means that a building will not collapse if all employees stop in dunkin' donuts and get their fill on the way to work.
Now consider an avalanche in the top of the building and ask yourself what the bottom of the building is seeing. Answer is not much. The weight of the building did not change drastically (there is some small push from the avalanche of the magnitude 0.1 to 0.2 weights of the building). It is the avalanche that is experiencing trouble: in order to propagate it has to (i) break the piece of the building, and (ii) accelerate that piece so that it has the same velocity as the avalanche. That produces a dynamical friction force which increases with velocity.
For the full answer, please check my paper, physics/0609105, on www.arxiv.org.
I assure you I am a physicist too.
Cheers,
cmb.-
If it had been a 1000 story building the collapse would have been even MORE certain, due to the increase of energy of the falling floors. If there was more energy than required after only one story of fall(and there was by an order of magnitude) then the further the fall, the higher the energy and the greater the overabundence vis a vis that required to continue the collapse.
Isn't physics a wonderful thing.
Grumpy
Dear einsteen,
physics is indeed wonderful thing but not in the sense that you are using it.
Each structure is built with some safety in mind. Typical safety is 200% or more in buildings. That means that a building will not collapse if all employees stop in dunkin' donuts and get their fill on the way to work.
Now consider an avalanche in the top of the building and ask yourself what the bottom of the building is seeing. Answer is not much. The weight of the building did not change drastically (there is some small push from the avalanche of the magnitude 0.1 to 0.2 weights of the building). It is the avalanche that is experiencing trouble: in order to propagate it has to (i) break the piece of the building, and (ii) accelerate that piece so that it has the same velocity as the avalanche. That produces a dynamical friction force which increases with velocity.
For the full answer, please check my paper, physics/0609105, on www.arxiv.org.
I assure you I am a physicist too.
Cheers,
cmb.-
beck.charles_m --- First of all, you need to read Frank Greening's Energy Transfer paper, hosted on the 911myths web site. Second, you need to read the paper by Bazant & Verdure, Mechanics of Progressive Collapse, available on Professor Bazant's web pages.
Using both of these together with actual measurements of the first few seconds of the collapse of both towers, I obtains rms best fits of the equation(s) to the data. The rms fit is remarkably good for these one-dimensional approximate equations.
From this it is possible to estimate the energy consumed during these first few seconds. The mass specific energy consumption was about 330 J/kg. Greening has pointed out just how much of this went into concrete comminution. In any case, it is clear than once collapse is initiated, it is unstoppable since there is more than enough energy to destroy the connections between the members as well as comminute the concrete. You just have to have the correct model, the one presented in the two papers I have suggested you read.
Using both of these together with actual measurements of the first few seconds of the collapse of both towers, I obtains rms best fits of the equation(s) to the data. The rms fit is remarkably good for these one-dimensional approximate equations.
From this it is possible to estimate the energy consumed during these first few seconds. The mass specific energy consumption was about 330 J/kg. Greening has pointed out just how much of this went into concrete comminution. In any case, it is clear than once collapse is initiated, it is unstoppable since there is more than enough energy to destroy the connections between the members as well as comminute the concrete. You just have to have the correct model, the one presented in the two papers I have suggested you read.
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 6 2007, 11:34 PM)
Dear einsteen,
physics is indeed wonderful thing but not in the sense that you are using it.
Each structure is built with some safety in mind. Typical safety is 200% or more in buildings. That means that a building will not collapse if all employees stop in dunkin' donuts and get their fill on the way to work.
Now consider an avalanche in the top of the building and ask yourself what the bottom of the building is seeing. Answer is not much. The weight of the building did not change drastically (there is some small push from the avalanche of the magnitude 0.1 to 0.2 weights of the building). It is the avalanche that is experiencing trouble: in order to propagate it has to (i) break the piece of the building, and (ii) accelerate that piece so that it has the same velocity as the avalanche. That produces a dynamical friction force which increases with velocity.
For the full answer, please check my paper, physics/0609105, on www.arxiv.org.
I assure you I am a physicist too.
Cheers,
cmb.-
oops!
i think you are responding to grumpy(with his higher stack of manure), who was addressing einsteen.
certainly, your model is better than the 'hammer of thor' model that the NISTians claim to be 'real world'.
as you have intuited and observed, the top falling piece is the one which has the least structural integrity, and would be(was) the first thing to break apart. consequentially, the mathematical model should reflect this, which none of the 'officially accepted' models do. an avalanche model(although technically over my head) is a much more realistic reflection of the situation. loose debris falling on an intact, solid portion. that IS what (loosely) happened.
at gordon ross' site(link), he has clearly shown that the entire top portion descends before the lower, undamaged potion begins to break apart. check it out. you might get some good ideas. that boy has a good head on his shoulders.
thank you for putting in the time and effort on this issue.
physics is indeed wonderful thing but not in the sense that you are using it.
Each structure is built with some safety in mind. Typical safety is 200% or more in buildings. That means that a building will not collapse if all employees stop in dunkin' donuts and get their fill on the way to work.
Now consider an avalanche in the top of the building and ask yourself what the bottom of the building is seeing. Answer is not much. The weight of the building did not change drastically (there is some small push from the avalanche of the magnitude 0.1 to 0.2 weights of the building). It is the avalanche that is experiencing trouble: in order to propagate it has to (i) break the piece of the building, and (ii) accelerate that piece so that it has the same velocity as the avalanche. That produces a dynamical friction force which increases with velocity.
For the full answer, please check my paper, physics/0609105, on www.arxiv.org.
I assure you I am a physicist too.
Cheers,
cmb.-
oops!
i think you are responding to grumpy(with his higher stack of manure), who was addressing einsteen.
certainly, your model is better than the 'hammer of thor' model that the NISTians claim to be 'real world'.
as you have intuited and observed, the top falling piece is the one which has the least structural integrity, and would be(was) the first thing to break apart. consequentially, the mathematical model should reflect this, which none of the 'officially accepted' models do. an avalanche model(although technically over my head) is a much more realistic reflection of the situation. loose debris falling on an intact, solid portion. that IS what (loosely) happened.
at gordon ross' site(link), he has clearly shown that the entire top portion descends before the lower, undamaged potion begins to break apart. check it out. you might get some good ideas. that boy has a good head on his shoulders.
thank you for putting in the time and effort on this issue.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 7 2007, 12:10 AM)
loose debris falling on an intact, solid portion.
Not so, my dear newton. The first few impacted stories became a densely packed crushed mass under the falling weight of the top block of each tower. Once about 3 or 4 stories were crushed, this mass then shields the top block from (much) further destruction.
Everyone agrees that at collapse initiation, some crush-up of the upper block can occur. See the Bazant & Verdure paper for the rather interesting reason why crush-up of the upper block can only occur right at the beginning.
And oh yes, Gordon Ross managed to fail to understand the video of WTC 1 and at least at one time thought the antenna tower fell into the building. Not so, what occurred was the rotation of the top block so that when viewed from the north only, it appears as Gordon Ross misunderstood it. Of course this is fully explained in NCSTAR1-6, for instance.
By the way, I asked you some questions a few days ago about the puff of air below the mechanical floors before collapse initiation. You never answered. The most important question was how long before collapse initiation did the puff occur?
Not so, my dear newton. The first few impacted stories became a densely packed crushed mass under the falling weight of the top block of each tower. Once about 3 or 4 stories were crushed, this mass then shields the top block from (much) further destruction.
Everyone agrees that at collapse initiation, some crush-up of the upper block can occur. See the Bazant & Verdure paper for the rather interesting reason why crush-up of the upper block can only occur right at the beginning.
And oh yes, Gordon Ross managed to fail to understand the video of WTC 1 and at least at one time thought the antenna tower fell into the building. Not so, what occurred was the rotation of the top block so that when viewed from the north only, it appears as Gordon Ross misunderstood it. Of course this is fully explained in NCSTAR1-6, for instance.
By the way, I asked you some questions a few days ago about the puff of air below the mechanical floors before collapse initiation. You never answered. The most important question was how long before collapse initiation did the puff occur?
beck.charles_m
With your bogus and misleading comparison of the WTC towers to a cherry tree, I thought you were a botanist.
It is a common mistake in the CTer crowd to claim there is an energy deficit in the tower's collapse. This position is usually arived at by the addition of the strengths of the core and outer frame below the collapse initiation zone and to treat that as if the remainder of the building was of a single piece acting against the energy of collapse, it was not.
The weakest link in the chain was the floor connections, the rubble from the collapse did not fall on the entire structure of the remaining building, it fell on ONE floor, the top one. The weak connections of that floor failed where it attached to the core and frame, allowing the combined rubble of collapse+one floor to impact the next floor, etc. etc. This was occuring inside the still intact outer frame of the remaining structure leading to little loss and funnelling all this debris into the subbasement levels.
This left the core and outer frame still standing until the top block of the visible collapse split the outer frame apart in long sections, just like banana peels. The core columns were unstable due to the slenderness/length and could not stand alone, so the bent over, snapping at the welded connections.
So the remaining structure actually offered little real resistence to the collapse, pushing aside outer frame members and breaking floor connections take much less energy than crushing frame members(as you calculate) would. So much for any hypothetical energy deficit.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I assure you I am a physicist too.
With your bogus and misleading comparison of the WTC towers to a cherry tree, I thought you were a botanist.
It is a common mistake in the CTer crowd to claim there is an energy deficit in the tower's collapse. This position is usually arived at by the addition of the strengths of the core and outer frame below the collapse initiation zone and to treat that as if the remainder of the building was of a single piece acting against the energy of collapse, it was not.
The weakest link in the chain was the floor connections, the rubble from the collapse did not fall on the entire structure of the remaining building, it fell on ONE floor, the top one. The weak connections of that floor failed where it attached to the core and frame, allowing the combined rubble of collapse+one floor to impact the next floor, etc. etc. This was occuring inside the still intact outer frame of the remaining structure leading to little loss and funnelling all this debris into the subbasement levels.
This left the core and outer frame still standing until the top block of the visible collapse split the outer frame apart in long sections, just like banana peels. The core columns were unstable due to the slenderness/length and could not stand alone, so the bent over, snapping at the welded connections.
So the remaining structure actually offered little real resistence to the collapse, pushing aside outer frame members and breaking floor connections take much less energy than crushing frame members(as you calculate) would. So much for any hypothetical energy deficit.
Grumpy
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 6 2007, 06:34 PM)
Each structure is built with some safety in mind. Typical safety is 200% or more in buildings. That means that a building will not collapse if all employees stop in dunkin' donuts and get their fill on the way to work.
Except the safety factor is not much help when someone runs a 767 at 500 mph into the side of the building, creating significant asymetric forces, removing much of the critical insulation from the remaining steel structure and then having that structure continually weaken from the thermal stress of the multi-floor fires.
At that point, what MARGIN the designers put in is a moot point.
Once the collapse began, the as designed strength of the bottom structure is again not relevant because the forces were not applied in the CONTROLLED way the designers had in mind. The massive forces unleashed by the collapsing top section OVERWHELMED the relatively puny floor connections and thus instead of stopping the avalanche, the lower floors became part of it.
Arthur
Except the safety factor is not much help when someone runs a 767 at 500 mph into the side of the building, creating significant asymetric forces, removing much of the critical insulation from the remaining steel structure and then having that structure continually weaken from the thermal stress of the multi-floor fires.
At that point, what MARGIN the designers put in is a moot point.
Once the collapse began, the as designed strength of the bottom structure is again not relevant because the forces were not applied in the CONTROLLED way the designers had in mind. The massive forces unleashed by the collapsing top section OVERWHELMED the relatively puny floor connections and thus instead of stopping the avalanche, the lower floors became part of it.
Arthur
Here are two pre-collapse photos of WTC7 next to each other. The one on the left shows extensive damage to the SW corner, while the one on the right does not.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...&#entry12991876
The one on the left is from NIST {NYPD}:
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7458/nistwtc7gougefv4.jpg
The one on the right is from Aman Zafar's photo:
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106.JPG?pic
Can anyone explain this?
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...&#entry12991876
The one on the left is from NIST {NYPD}:
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7458/nistwtc7gougefv4.jpg
The one on the right is from Aman Zafar's photo:
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106.JPG?pic
Can anyone explain this?
quicknthedead
Why, is there a reflection of a firetruck in one of the windows???
Grumpy
QUOTE
Can anyone explain this?
Why, is there a reflection of a firetruck in one of the windows???
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 6 2007, 08:27 PM)
quicknthedead
Why, is there a reflection of a firetruck in one of the windows???
Grumpy
Your answer brings to mind that you are "blind" in more than one way (including reflections) -- but that is another topic.
So again, can you explain the disparity?
The two photos are VASTLY different in damage.
Here is a good matchup between the two pictures, and the floor levels:
http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=w...p2ahireswx4.jpg
There seems to be only two scenarios, and only one can be true:
1) Either a tremendous blast occurred at the SW corner after WTC1 collapsed but before WTC7 came down...
or...
2) the NYPD photo used by NIST has been altered in order to bolster the belief that WTC7 came down as a result of overall, serious damage sustained from WTC1's collapse.
If #2 is true, another photo, which NIST also exhibited, is suspect as well:
http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs414&d=07142&f=p12663692.jpg
The question is: Which is true, #1 OR #2?
Or perhaps you can you think of other scenarios, or maybe someone knows of evidence or testimony of an explosion that could have caused this damage.
Why, is there a reflection of a firetruck in one of the windows???
Grumpy
Your answer brings to mind that you are "blind" in more than one way (including reflections) -- but that is another topic.
So again, can you explain the disparity?
The two photos are VASTLY different in damage.
Here is a good matchup between the two pictures, and the floor levels:
http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=w...p2ahireswx4.jpg
There seems to be only two scenarios, and only one can be true:
1) Either a tremendous blast occurred at the SW corner after WTC1 collapsed but before WTC7 came down...
or...
2) the NYPD photo used by NIST has been altered in order to bolster the belief that WTC7 came down as a result of overall, serious damage sustained from WTC1's collapse.
If #2 is true, another photo, which NIST also exhibited, is suspect as well:
http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs414&d=07142&f=p12663692.jpg
The question is: Which is true, #1 OR #2?
Or perhaps you can you think of other scenarios, or maybe someone knows of evidence or testimony of an explosion that could have caused this damage.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 6 2007, 09:38 PM)
Here are two pre-collapse photos of WTC7 next to each other. The one on the left shows extensive damage to the SW corner, while the one on the right does not.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...&#entry12991876
The one on the left is from NIST {NYPD}:
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7458/nistwtc7gougefv4.jpg
The one on the right is from Aman Zafar's photo:
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106.JPG?pic
Can anyone explain this?
Its really hard to see any clear difference because of the different angles the two pictures were taken from.
The NIST photo is from above and only shows the East side, the other is from below and shows the East/South corner.
The other problem is the one from the East/South side stops at a floor well before the NIST photo and is also somewhat obscured by the smoke.
The NIST photo, while showing that damage BEGINS at the 18th floor, doesn't show major damage until ~ 4 floors below that and that is about where the other picture ends.
I'm pretty sure I've seen other pics of this corner damage that are clearer.
Arthur
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...&#entry12991876
The one on the left is from NIST {NYPD}:
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7458/nistwtc7gougefv4.jpg
The one on the right is from Aman Zafar's photo:
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106.JPG?pic
Can anyone explain this?
Its really hard to see any clear difference because of the different angles the two pictures were taken from.
The NIST photo is from above and only shows the East side, the other is from below and shows the East/South corner.
The other problem is the one from the East/South side stops at a floor well before the NIST photo and is also somewhat obscured by the smoke.
The NIST photo, while showing that damage BEGINS at the 18th floor, doesn't show major damage until ~ 4 floors below that and that is about where the other picture ends.
I'm pretty sure I've seen other pics of this corner damage that are clearer.
Arthur
QUOTE (MMC+Feb 2 2007, 02:23 AM)
Over a year of debate on the technical aspects, begs the question why there was no similar forensic analysis of the incident on behalf of the US government.
I feel this thread has served its purpose.
The rubble from the twin towers was relocated, and put under armed guard. Thusly, it cannot be forensicly analysed, for all truth could be descerned merely by the fragmentation styles. Bushco shall not allow, and the public shall not undestand.
It's already over, dead, gone, and intoxicated.
I feel this thread has served its purpose.
The rubble from the twin towers was relocated, and put under armed guard. Thusly, it cannot be forensicly analysed, for all truth could be descerned merely by the fragmentation styles. Bushco shall not allow, and the public shall not undestand.
It's already over, dead, gone, and intoxicated.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 04:31 AM)
Its really hard to see any clear difference because of the different angles the two pictures were taken from.
The NIST photo is from above and only shows the East side, the other is from below and shows the East/South corner.
The other problem is the one from the East/South side stops at a floor well before the NIST photo and is also somewhat obscured by the smoke.
The NIST photo, while showing that damage BEGINS at the 18th floor, doesn't show major damage until ~ 4 floors below that and that is about where the other picture ends.
I'm pretty sure I've seen other pics of this corner damage that are clearer.
Arthur
Actually the NIST photo is a view looking south over the top of the Verizon building, and at the west side of WTC 7. Due to the angle, the quality of the image, and the apparent smoke obscuring the lower southwest corner, the NIST photo seems to exaggerate the extent of the damage to the corner.
The amanzafar.com photo taken from the west, gives a much clearer view of the damaged southwest corner. While only the upper third of the lower eighteen stories are visible in the photo, the damage that can be seen appears to be relatively light. The floors below this point, may or may not show more severe damage.
The NIST photo is from above and only shows the East side, the other is from below and shows the East/South corner.
The other problem is the one from the East/South side stops at a floor well before the NIST photo and is also somewhat obscured by the smoke.
The NIST photo, while showing that damage BEGINS at the 18th floor, doesn't show major damage until ~ 4 floors below that and that is about where the other picture ends.
I'm pretty sure I've seen other pics of this corner damage that are clearer.
Arthur
Actually the NIST photo is a view looking south over the top of the Verizon building, and at the west side of WTC 7. Due to the angle, the quality of the image, and the apparent smoke obscuring the lower southwest corner, the NIST photo seems to exaggerate the extent of the damage to the corner.
The amanzafar.com photo taken from the west, gives a much clearer view of the damaged southwest corner. While only the upper third of the lower eighteen stories are visible in the photo, the damage that can be seen appears to be relatively light. The floors below this point, may or may not show more severe damage.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 20 2007, 02:06 AM)
Here's an EPA page. The levels varied greatly from sample to sample for airborne metals.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/metal/
In Nov 2001 a sample showed Fe as 1.8 ug/m3 while in May 2002 a sample showed 21.1 ug/m3 at the Liberty and Trinity location.
http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/metal_monitoring...02&p_metal=IRON
Forgot to mention that many of the dust samples showed no iron content.
Regarding zinc, a possible reaction that may have taken place pre-collapse or in the rubble is:
Zn + 2HCl = ZnCl2 + H2
That reaction occurs at room temperature and higher. The HCl can be released from smoldering plastics and doesn't require oxygen. The H2 released could find its way through paths and react later with oxygen to produce heat. ZnCl2 is like a paste near room temperature. It's used as a flux for soldering and brazing. It etches away the oxide of metals so that they can be brazed.
Cahill's data show the presence of fine metal particles such as lead and silicon correlated with chlorine levels, suggesting that the chlorine depressed the volatility temperature of metals and reacted with the metal to form very small particles. The blue smoke seen near the rubble pile was probably due to sub-micron particles. Cigarette smoke has sub-micron particles and has a similar bluish color.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/metal/
In Nov 2001 a sample showed Fe as 1.8 ug/m3 while in May 2002 a sample showed 21.1 ug/m3 at the Liberty and Trinity location.
http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/metal_monitoring...02&p_metal=IRON
Forgot to mention that many of the dust samples showed no iron content.
Regarding zinc, a possible reaction that may have taken place pre-collapse or in the rubble is:
Zn + 2HCl = ZnCl2 + H2
That reaction occurs at room temperature and higher. The HCl can be released from smoldering plastics and doesn't require oxygen. The H2 released could find its way through paths and react later with oxygen to produce heat. ZnCl2 is like a paste near room temperature. It's used as a flux for soldering and brazing. It etches away the oxide of metals so that they can be brazed.
Cahill's data show the presence of fine metal particles such as lead and silicon correlated with chlorine levels, suggesting that the chlorine depressed the volatility temperature of metals and reacted with the metal to form very small particles. The blue smoke seen near the rubble pile was probably due to sub-micron particles. Cigarette smoke has sub-micron particles and has a similar bluish color.
a close look at the Aman Zafar photo reveals that most of the exterior cladding has been stripped from the corner in the same location as the damage in the other photo.
In other words, the damage is identical in both photos.
Notice that in the Aman Zafar photo, you can see that a huge chunk of the building is missing.
In other words, the damage is identical in both photos.
Notice that in the Aman Zafar photo, you can see that a huge chunk of the building is missing.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Apr 7 2007, 10:14 AM)
a close look at the Aman Zafar photo reveals that most of the exterior cladding has been stripped from the corner in the same location as the damage in the other photo.
In the NIST photo, only the west side of the corner is visible, and the damage appears to extend north into the second vertical row of windows. The west side of the corner in the Aman Zafar photo looks relatively intact, except for the southern margin of the corner. To me, the NIST angle just makes the damage appear worse than the same area viewed in the Aman Zafar photo. The NIST photo does show a few more stories of damage below the view of the other photo.
Compared to some of his past observations, I don't think Craig comes off nearly as loopy on this one.
QUOTE
Notice that in the Aman Zafar photo, you can see that a huge chunk of the building is missing.
If your talking about the south face of the corner, maybe, but the smoke doesn't allow a clear view of that area in this photo.Compared to some of his past observations, I don't think Craig comes off nearly as loopy on this one.
Neu-Fonze, I noticed you've got the crowd at JREF chasing their tails with your Jedi mind tricks.
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 7 2007, 06:35 AM)
Compared to some of his past observations, I don't think Craig comes off nearly as loopy on this one.
That's true, but there is nothing that I can make out in these two photos to support his claim that:
What I find most interesting about CT'ers is even after claim after claim after claim is debunked they go back and scour the evidence until they can find something that is at all strange or not readily explained, trot it out, and say "See, this PROVES it wasn't Atta and company that were responsible"
Which means they are working BACKWARD from a CONCLUSION.
They START OUT convinced that it was the Govt that done it.
So they are CONVINCED that if they just sift the evidence long enough they will find something that will PROVE it.
Even after more than 5 years and not finding ANY evidence that supports their PRESUMPTION, they still remain at it, convinced that THEY could not be wrong.
All evidence to the contrary.
Arthur
That's true, but there is nothing that I can make out in these two photos to support his claim that:
QUOTE
only one can be true:
1) Either a tremendous blast occurred at the SW corner after WTC1 collapsed but before WTC7 came down...
or...
2) the NYPD photo used by NIST has been altered in order to bolster the belief that WTC7 came down as a result of overall, serious damage sustained from WTC1's collapse.
1) Either a tremendous blast occurred at the SW corner after WTC1 collapsed but before WTC7 came down...
or...
2) the NYPD photo used by NIST has been altered in order to bolster the belief that WTC7 came down as a result of overall, serious damage sustained from WTC1's collapse.
What I find most interesting about CT'ers is even after claim after claim after claim is debunked they go back and scour the evidence until they can find something that is at all strange or not readily explained, trot it out, and say "See, this PROVES it wasn't Atta and company that were responsible"
Which means they are working BACKWARD from a CONCLUSION.
They START OUT convinced that it was the Govt that done it.
So they are CONVINCED that if they just sift the evidence long enough they will find something that will PROVE it.
Even after more than 5 years and not finding ANY evidence that supports their PRESUMPTION, they still remain at it, convinced that THEY could not be wrong.
All evidence to the contrary.
Arthur
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 7 2007, 06:57 AM)
Neu-Fonze, I noticed you've got the crowd at JREF chasing their tails with your Jedi mind tricks.
Arthur
Arthur
Data on ZnCl2. It's a white powder in pure form although it can be made into a paste or liquid.
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/~hmc/hsci/chemic...c_chloride.html
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/~hmc/hsci/chemic...c_chloride.html
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 12:03 PM)
That's true, but there is nothing that I can make out in these two photos to support his claim that:
QUOTE
only one can be true:
1) Either a tremendous blast occurred at the SW corner after WTC1 collapsed but before WTC7 came down...
or...
2) the NYPD photo used by NIST has been altered in order to bolster the belief that WTC7 came down as a result of overall, serious damage sustained from WTC1's collapse.
I missed his latest conclusion. I stand corrected, same old Craig, loopy as ever.1) Either a tremendous blast occurred at the SW corner after WTC1 collapsed but before WTC7 came down...
or...
2) the NYPD photo used by NIST has been altered in order to bolster the belief that WTC7 came down as a result of overall, serious damage sustained from WTC1's collapse.
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 7 2007, 05:35 AM)
If your talking about the south face of the corner, maybe, but the smoke doesn't allow a clear view of that area in this photo.
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106.JPG?pic
Look just above the right corner of the winter garden roof.
It almost looks like there is a second corner there. clearly the curtain wall spandrels on at least three floors are missing. In fact, the floor slab is not visible there either.
Look further up along that line. About four to six floors or so above the two burned out floors the smoke is thin enough so that you can make out most of the south face, except for the darker section where the curtain wall is missing.
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 5 2007, 10:47 PM)
No, this is the question I was addressing:
These are the objectives of the truss model:
These are the results of the truss model: The truss model was part of the overall floor modeling, it demonstrated that under expected conditions pull in could occur. In the full floor model, a simplified truss model was used, and as outlined below, apparently not enough detail was used to capture pull in.
The full floor model did not show that pull in could not happen, only that the model as configured would not allow it to happen. NIST goes on to explain why and you disregard their explanation. How is it that you know more about the behavior of their model than they do?
What you should be able to see by examining all of this modeling data, is that all of the necessary system and component failure capacities are given. When these capacities are exceeded by the moving mass of multiple floors, why wouldn't pancaking occur?
If you notice, in your above quote NIST was not able to get the model to converge (the same excuse used throughout the report).
In the private sector, if an FEA engineer is not able to get models to converge, they are called incompetent and most likely unemployed.
At NIST, if they are not able to get the models to converge (and have to make excuses) they are called experts pushing the software to the limits.
So now RW wants to try to convince us he is an expert in FEA modeling.
So RW, when are you going to write your paper showing how those "JOKERS" at NIST are SO WRONG and you are SO RIGHT????
I mean, what's holding you back????
According to YOU, you've gotten to your proverbial holy grail, as you put it "CHECKMATE".
So WHEN will we see this paper???
Arthur
So RW, when are you going to write your paper showing how those "JOKERS" at NIST are SO WRONG and you are SO RIGHT????
I mean, what's holding you back????
According to YOU, you've gotten to your proverbial holy grail, as you put it "CHECKMATE".
So WHEN will we see this paper???
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 06:10 AM)
So now RW wants to try to convince us he is an expert in FEA modeling.
So RW, when are you going to write your paper showing how those "JOKERS" at NIST are SO WRONG and you are SO RIGHT????
I mean, what's holding you back????
According to YOU, you've gotten to your proverbial holy grail, as you put it "CHECKMATE".
So WHEN will we see this paper???
Arthur
NISTians are so Predictable (this post should be considered spam, you use it so often ).
The truth is self evident , Arthurs.
I never claimed to be an expert on FEA ( I have worked with some in the past).
Were would you publish a paper on a government agencies incompetence (most none NISTians are already aware of this fact)?
I don’t need to publish a paper when I can just show people :
Larger image Larger image
Floor 80 layout and damage according to NIST:
Larger image
Layout placed on top of the damaged area. Doesn't appear to damage the stairs (damage area outlined in red)!
Now lets check it against the NIST displacement model:
Larger image
Need to turn it 180 degrees and compare it to the layout (for some reason NIST has North going toward the bottom of the page)
Larger image Larger image
Now if I overlay the two, it can clearly be seen that the stairwell is right were NIST claims the maximum displacement from the trusses pulling-in the walls.
Larger image
The stairwell is circled in red.
With NIST own documentation I have shown it is not possible that the trusses pulled-in the walls in a gravity-driven collapse!
The stairwell is in the middle of the displacement on all the floors. The comparisons are similar for all the impact floors in WTC 2.
So RW, when are you going to write your paper showing how those "JOKERS" at NIST are SO WRONG and you are SO RIGHT????
I mean, what's holding you back????
According to YOU, you've gotten to your proverbial holy grail, as you put it "CHECKMATE".
So WHEN will we see this paper???
Arthur
NISTians are so Predictable (this post should be considered spam, you use it so often ).
The truth is self evident , Arthurs.
I never claimed to be an expert on FEA ( I have worked with some in the past).
Were would you publish a paper on a government agencies incompetence (most none NISTians are already aware of this fact)?
I don’t need to publish a paper when I can just show people :
Larger image Larger image
Floor 80 layout and damage according to NIST:
Larger image
Layout placed on top of the damaged area. Doesn't appear to damage the stairs (damage area outlined in red)!
Now lets check it against the NIST displacement model:
Larger image
Need to turn it 180 degrees and compare it to the layout (for some reason NIST has North going toward the bottom of the page)
Larger image Larger image
Now if I overlay the two, it can clearly be seen that the stairwell is right were NIST claims the maximum displacement from the trusses pulling-in the walls.
Larger image
The stairwell is circled in red.
With NIST own documentation I have shown it is not possible that the trusses pulled-in the walls in a gravity-driven collapse!
The stairwell is in the middle of the displacement on all the floors. The comparisons are similar for all the impact floors in WTC 2.
newton
Ah, but she does understand there is no such thing as "magic" in this world, just things we don't yet understand. Even now, at five, when we watch magicians on TV she asks "how does HE do that?" or says "that is a good illusion"(a word I taught her).
Ah, but she does understand there is no such thing as "magic" in this world, just things we don't yet understand. Even now, at five, when we watch magicians on TV she asks "how does HE do that?" or says "that is a good illusion"(a word I taught her).
i do not claim to know more than engineers and scientists and bus drivers. i only claim the right to disagree with people i feel are wrong and/or lying.
But your "feelings" have no validity in physics. Your conclusions based on your feelings are generally wrong. You call scientists you don't even know liars, you discount over 200 scientists work as being in error. You posit conspiracy theories which are based on NOTHING but your feelings and then try to twist and cherry-pick the evidence to fit those ludicrous theories. That is not science, I don't even think it qualifies as pseudoscience, the truth is it is paranoid delusion, at best.
And you are dead wrong, your paranoid delusions have nothing to do with the reality of the situation, your "feelings" have lead you astray. Only sound scientific procedure and rigor(as brilliantly shown by the scientists at NIST) can lead us to valid conclusions.
And you are dead wrong, your paranoid delusions have nothing to do with the reality of the situation, your "feelings" have lead you astray. Only sound scientific procedure and rigor(as brilliantly shown by the scientists at NIST) can lead us to valid conclusions.
maybe you were one of the first to run out and buy plastic sheeting and duct tape, but these NIST scientists are PRESUMABLY smart enough to know that anthrax works as well in the lab as it does at the whitehouse, and it wasn't anthrax from a cave in afghanistan.
I was not aware of the use of Anthrax on 9/11. Was it explosive Anthrax thermite??? Please explain what planet you are on, it might help the rest of us translate this seemingly meaningless sentence into something vaguely relivant(but I doubt it).
The whole "troother" movement and everyone in it are basing their conclusions on their innability to accept this simple fact...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down, go boom.
"That's all, Folks!"
Grumpy
QUOTE
i bet there are many things that your niece will see and not understand. 'magic' tricks from a magician, being the obvious example.
Ah, but she does understand there is no such thing as "magic" in this world, just things we don't yet understand. Even now, at five, when we watch magicians on TV she asks "how does HE do that?" or says "that is a good illusion"(a word I taught her).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| i bet there are many things that your niece will see and not understand. 'magic' tricks from a magician, being the obvious example. |
Ah, but she does understand there is no such thing as "magic" in this world, just things we don't yet understand. Even now, at five, when we watch magicians on TV she asks "how does HE do that?" or says "that is a good illusion"(a word I taught her).
i do not claim to know more than engineers and scientists and bus drivers. i only claim the right to disagree with people i feel are wrong and/or lying.
But your "feelings" have no validity in physics. Your conclusions based on your feelings are generally wrong. You call scientists you don't even know liars, you discount over 200 scientists work as being in error. You posit conspiracy theories which are based on NOTHING but your feelings and then try to twist and cherry-pick the evidence to fit those ludicrous theories. That is not science, I don't even think it qualifies as pseudoscience, the truth is it is paranoid delusion, at best.
QUOTE
in the case of NIST, i have decided(for now) that this crew, for the most part, was ruled with an iron fist,and did not do their research in a TRUE scientific fashion, meaning, they did not follow all the leads that their intuition and knowledge pointed them to, because they were working in an environment of FEAR and KONTROL.
And you are dead wrong, your paranoid delusions have nothing to do with the reality of the situation, your "feelings" have lead you astray. Only sound scientific procedure and rigor(as brilliantly shown by the scientists at NIST) can lead us to valid conclusions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| in the case of NIST, i have decided(for now) that this crew, for the most part, was ruled with an iron fist,and did not do their research in a TRUE scientific fashion, meaning, they did not follow all the leads that their intuition and knowledge pointed them to, because they were working in an environment of FEAR and KONTROL. |
And you are dead wrong, your paranoid delusions have nothing to do with the reality of the situation, your "feelings" have lead you astray. Only sound scientific procedure and rigor(as brilliantly shown by the scientists at NIST) can lead us to valid conclusions.
maybe you were one of the first to run out and buy plastic sheeting and duct tape, but these NIST scientists are PRESUMABLY smart enough to know that anthrax works as well in the lab as it does at the whitehouse, and it wasn't anthrax from a cave in afghanistan.
I was not aware of the use of Anthrax on 9/11. Was it explosive Anthrax thermite??? Please explain what planet you are on, it might help the rest of us translate this seemingly meaningless sentence into something vaguely relivant(but I doubt it).
QUOTE
perhaps you would like to invoke bugs bunny for some REAL scientific weight?
The whole "troother" movement and everyone in it are basing their conclusions on their innability to accept this simple fact...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down, go boom.
"That's all, Folks!"
Grumpy
reasonlesswhine
Not the "magic stairwell" again, please. The fact is that the pull in on the walls is not a claim, it is a fact, verified by numerous photos and videos. It happened, in spite of where a stairwell went, so this statement...
Is pure and utter BS, you have just shown that no matter what the facts are you will stick to your fantasies. That seems common to the CTer crowd, who seem to be hanging their hats on smaller and smaller nits. They complain about not having blueprints, yet when the pirated BPs become available this is the best they can do??? Pathetic!!!
Grumpy
Not the "magic stairwell" again, please. The fact is that the pull in on the walls is not a claim, it is a fact, verified by numerous photos and videos. It happened, in spite of where a stairwell went, so this statement...
QUOTE
With NIST own documentation I have shown it is not possible that the trusses pulled-in the walls in a gravity-driven collapse!
Is pure and utter BS, you have just shown that no matter what the facts are you will stick to your fantasies. That seems common to the CTer crowd, who seem to be hanging their hats on smaller and smaller nits. They complain about not having blueprints, yet when the pirated BPs become available this is the best they can do??? Pathetic!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 7 2007, 09:53 AM)
reasonlesswhine
Not the "magic stairwell" again, please. The fact is that the pull in on the walls is not a claim, it is a fact, verified by numerous photos and videos. It happened, in spite of where a stairwell went, so this statement...
Is pure and utter BS, you have just shown that no matter what the facts are you will stick to your fantasies. That seems common to the CTer crowd, who seem to be hanging their hats on smaller and smaller nits. They complain about not having blueprints, yet when the pirated BPs become available this is the best they can do??? Pathetic!!!
Grumpy
Show were I am disputing the Pull-in of the Walls?
Most CD's pull-in the walls.
If you don't understand my posts , please do not respond.
Not the "magic stairwell" again, please. The fact is that the pull in on the walls is not a claim, it is a fact, verified by numerous photos and videos. It happened, in spite of where a stairwell went, so this statement...
Is pure and utter BS, you have just shown that no matter what the facts are you will stick to your fantasies. That seems common to the CTer crowd, who seem to be hanging their hats on smaller and smaller nits. They complain about not having blueprints, yet when the pirated BPs become available this is the best they can do??? Pathetic!!!
Grumpy
Show were I am disputing the Pull-in of the Walls?
Most CD's pull-in the walls.
If you don't understand my posts , please do not respond.
reasonlesswhine
But whiney, the point of my last two or three posts to you is that YOU don't understand what you are posting about!!!
Again, what planet are you on??? Bizzarro World would be my guess, given the absolute nonsense you post! Between you, newton and notsoquick(who sees firetrucks in every reflection, evidently) it makes one wonder if mental patients should have access to the internet.
Grumpy
QUOTE
If you don't understand my posts , please do not respond.
But whiney, the point of my last two or three posts to you is that YOU don't understand what you are posting about!!!
Again, what planet are you on??? Bizzarro World would be my guess, given the absolute nonsense you post! Between you, newton and notsoquick(who sees firetrucks in every reflection, evidently) it makes one wonder if mental patients should have access to the internet.
Grumpy
Why are you boys still acting as blind as bats can be?
Is there no one who can openly address the two photos matched here?
http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=w...p2ahireswx4.jpg
OCTers are so obvious and unique. When asked the question, "Do you think WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition?", the rank-in-file predictably say, "No, that didn't look like a controlled demolition to me."
Bad answer, nothing but an hallmark of a plastic liar and easily spotted.
People with no ax to grind invariably say, yes, it LOOKED LIKE ONE. They may not say it was one, but at least they admit honestly THAT IT DID LOOK LIKE ONE.
Getting back to the photos matched in the link above, can anyone explain the vast disparity in the photos? So far no one has even come close.
Don't be the standard OCTer with ready wit and ad hominems; instead, try to see if you can come up with something sensible that logically fit the facts.
Is there no one who can openly address the two photos matched here?
http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=w...p2ahireswx4.jpg
OCTers are so obvious and unique. When asked the question, "Do you think WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition?", the rank-in-file predictably say, "No, that didn't look like a controlled demolition to me."
Bad answer, nothing but an hallmark of a plastic liar and easily spotted.
People with no ax to grind invariably say, yes, it LOOKED LIKE ONE. They may not say it was one, but at least they admit honestly THAT IT DID LOOK LIKE ONE.
Getting back to the photos matched in the link above, can anyone explain the vast disparity in the photos? So far no one has even come close.
Don't be the standard OCTer with ready wit and ad hominems; instead, try to see if you can come up with something sensible that logically fit the facts.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 7 2007, 01:56 PM)
Show were I am disputing the Pull-in of the Walls?
Most CD's pull-in the walls.
BS
Please point to a method of CD that pulls in the walls SLOWLY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
Oh, and why do you conveniently leave WTC 1 out of the discussions about pull in? What no stairways?
Oh and if you will notice that model shows >20" of sagging over the ENTIRE WIDTH of the 80th floor, so the fact that they predicted the most sagging where the tenents told them there was a stairway is not particularly relevant.
Your comment that while the CORE columns got blown away by the plane impact but you see no damage to the stairway is HILARIOUS. Why is it that you are NOT showing the overlay of the 80th floor showing where the insulation and floor damaged occurred???? Could it be because it covers that entire stairway????
So go ahead, if you want to be TRUTHFUL why are you leaving out these critical pictures found in NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 2-25 on pg 32?
Or what about NISTs comment about this area:
Floor 80 and 81 suffered damage to many interior seats in the East Office area due to the aircraft impact. NIST NCSTAR 1-6D A.3.2 pg 361
This being the area where the stairway was located. Which means that the NIST models took into account that these trusses weren't pulling in because the INTERIOR SEATS were damaged.
Typical.
Arthur
Most CD's pull-in the walls.
BS
Please point to a method of CD that pulls in the walls SLOWLY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
Oh, and why do you conveniently leave WTC 1 out of the discussions about pull in? What no stairways?
Oh and if you will notice that model shows >20" of sagging over the ENTIRE WIDTH of the 80th floor, so the fact that they predicted the most sagging where the tenents told them there was a stairway is not particularly relevant.
Your comment that while the CORE columns got blown away by the plane impact but you see no damage to the stairway is HILARIOUS. Why is it that you are NOT showing the overlay of the 80th floor showing where the insulation and floor damaged occurred???? Could it be because it covers that entire stairway????
So go ahead, if you want to be TRUTHFUL why are you leaving out these critical pictures found in NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 2-25 on pg 32?
Or what about NISTs comment about this area:
Floor 80 and 81 suffered damage to many interior seats in the East Office area due to the aircraft impact. NIST NCSTAR 1-6D A.3.2 pg 361
This being the area where the stairway was located. Which means that the NIST models took into account that these trusses weren't pulling in because the INTERIOR SEATS were damaged.
Typical.
Arthur
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 7 2007, 03:04 PM)
Is there no one who can openly address the two photos matched here?
http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=w...p2ahireswx4.jpg
We have, you just don't like the answers.
You didn't like the answers about the friggin "ambulance" that you were so SURE of either.
These pictures are OBSCURED BY SMOKE and taken from completely different angles so one can't make a decent comparison and say that one DEFINATIVELY shows something the other doesn't.
Simple as that.
But even though these pictures are NOT DIFINITIVE, that doesn't prevent you from immediately jumping to similar WILD conclusions.
http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=w...p2ahireswx4.jpg
We have, you just don't like the answers.
You didn't like the answers about the friggin "ambulance" that you were so SURE of either.
These pictures are OBSCURED BY SMOKE and taken from completely different angles so one can't make a decent comparison and say that one DEFINATIVELY shows something the other doesn't.
Simple as that.
But even though these pictures are NOT DIFINITIVE, that doesn't prevent you from immediately jumping to similar WILD conclusions.
QUOTE (QntD+)
only one can be true:
1) Either a tremendous blast occurred at the SW corner after WTC1 collapsed but before WTC7 came down...
or...
2) the NYPD photo used by NIST has been altered in order to bolster the belief that WTC7 came down as a result of overall, serious damage sustained from WTC1's collapse.
Arthur
1) Either a tremendous blast occurred at the SW corner after WTC1 collapsed but before WTC7 came down...
or...
2) the NYPD photo used by NIST has been altered in order to bolster the belief that WTC7 came down as a result of overall, serious damage sustained from WTC1's collapse.
Arthur
Nothing has changed much at this forum. If you said the sky was falling, it would make as much sense as your worthless statement here:
These pictures are OBSCURED BY SMOKE and taken from completely different angles so one can't make a decent comparison and say that one DEFINATIVELY shows something the other doesn't.
Simple as that.
Arthur
Yeah, right! Are you a maroon
or what?
Keep your little Mickey Mouse forum to yourself, for in the end it is a waste of time and not fit for honest, rational discourse.
Oh -- yeah, and one last thing:
WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition because IT WAS...
and 9/11 Was an inside job!
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 01:20 PM)
These pictures are OBSCURED BY SMOKE and taken from completely different angles so one can't make a decent comparison and say that one DEFINATIVELY shows something the other doesn't.
Simple as that.
Arthur
Yeah, right! Are you a maroon
or what? Keep your little Mickey Mouse forum to yourself, for in the end it is a waste of time and not fit for honest, rational discourse.
Oh -- yeah, and one last thing:
WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition because IT WAS...
and 9/11 Was an inside job!
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 7 2007, 11:24 PM)
... rational discourse.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 7 2007, 11:24 PM)
Nothing has changed much at this forum. If you said the sky was falling, it would make as much sense as your worthless statement here:
Yeah, right! Are you a maroon or what?
Keep your little Mickey Mouse forum to yourself, for in the end it is a waste of time and not fit for honest, rational discourse.
Oh -- yeah, and one last thing:
WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition because IT WAS...
and 9/11 Was an inside job!
Craig, the two photos show essentially the same damage. You asked for comment on the disparity in appearance between the two shots and received it. What more can we add? Unfounded speculation gets no one any closer to truth of the matter. There is obvious damage in both images, but since you have different angles, you have different perspectives. What about the 10-20 story hole in the south face of the building, was that caused by explosives? or do think maybe that falling pieces of WTC 1 had something to do with that and the damage to the SW corner.
Yes, I agree that WTC 7 looked like a CD, but thats where the similarity ends. Show an example of CD that involved the building being pelted by massive chunks of debris, followed by seven hours of widespread intense fire, and then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.
Yeah, right! Are you a maroon
or what? Keep your little Mickey Mouse forum to yourself, for in the end it is a waste of time and not fit for honest, rational discourse.
Oh -- yeah, and one last thing:
WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition because IT WAS...
and 9/11 Was an inside job!
Craig, the two photos show essentially the same damage. You asked for comment on the disparity in appearance between the two shots and received it. What more can we add? Unfounded speculation gets no one any closer to truth of the matter. There is obvious damage in both images, but since you have different angles, you have different perspectives. What about the 10-20 story hole in the south face of the building, was that caused by explosives? or do think maybe that falling pieces of WTC 1 had something to do with that and the damage to the SW corner.
Yes, I agree that WTC 7 looked like a CD, but thats where the similarity ends. Show an example of CD that involved the building being pelted by massive chunks of debris, followed by seven hours of widespread intense fire, and then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 7 2007, 06:24 PM)
Keep your little Mickey Mouse forum to yourself, for in the end it is a waste of time and not fit for honest, rational discourse.
Want some CHEESE to go with that WHINE?
Arthur
Want some CHEESE to go with that WHINE?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 12:15 PM)
BS
Please point to a method of CD that pulls in the walls SLOWLY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
WTC 1 and 2. Claiming you can not make walls pull- in slowly with CD has to be one of the most ridicules OCT statements yet! They don’t make walls pull in slowly in a normal CD's because it is not necessary.
Please point to a method of CD that pulls in the walls SLOWLY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
WTC 1 and 2. Claiming you can not make walls pull- in slowly with CD has to be one of the most ridicules OCT statements yet! They don’t make walls pull in slowly in a normal CD's because it is not necessary.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 12:15 PM)
Oh and why do you conveniently leave WTC 1 out of the discussions about pull in? What no stairways?
Let's take a look at the pull-in force of WTC 1. Why don’t we start with floor 97 from NISTNCSTAR1-6D, full floor simulation:
Larger
Only large forces bowing the columns out (negative numbers are pushing- out).
Now lets look at floor 98, the most sever case:
Larger
Even larger forces (150 kip) bowing the columns out. NIST claims it should be bowing- in if they modeled the simulation with more detail (so why don't they do it).
Let's take a look at the pull-in force of WTC 1. Why don’t we start with floor 97 from NISTNCSTAR1-6D, full floor simulation:
Larger
Only large forces bowing the columns out (negative numbers are pushing- out).
Now lets look at floor 98, the most sever case:
Larger
Even larger forces (150 kip) bowing the columns out. NIST claims it should be bowing- in if they modeled the simulation with more detail (so why don't they do it).
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 12:15 PM)
Oh and if you will notice that model shows >20" of sagging over the ENTIRE WIDTH of the 80th floor, so the fact that they predicted the most sagging where the tenents told them there was a stairway is not particularly relevant.
Lets take a look at the forces were the floors are sagging 20’ inches . The stairs stop at about the 340 column:
Larger
NIST was kind enough to provide graphs of the forces in the most extreme case:
larger
Sorry, all the forces after column 340 are pushing-out (The few before 340 that were actually pulling-in are also in the stair area).
Lets take a look at the forces were the floors are sagging 20’ inches . The stairs stop at about the 340 column:
Larger
NIST was kind enough to provide graphs of the forces in the most extreme case:
larger
Sorry, all the forces after column 340 are pushing-out (The few before 340 that were actually pulling-in are also in the stair area).
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 12:15 PM)
Your comment that while the CORE columns got blown away by the plane impact but you see no damage to the stairway is HILARIOUS. Why is it that you are NOT showing the overlay of the 80th floor showing where the insulation and floor damaged occurred???? Could it be because it covers that entire stairway????
So go ahead, if you want to be TRUTHFUL why are you leaving out these critical pictures found in NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 2-25 on pg 32?
We are talking about structure, not insulation. NIST modeled and simulated the truss and concrete concrete slab damage in NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps9-11:
Larger
Larger
Sorry again, As you can see the trusses are only damaged in the short span and the concrete slab (damage in red ) is not in the stair area.
So go ahead, if you want to be TRUTHFUL why are you leaving out these critical pictures found in NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 2-25 on pg 32?
We are talking about structure, not insulation. NIST modeled and simulated the truss and concrete concrete slab damage in NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps9-11:
LargerLarger
Sorry again, As you can see the trusses are only damaged in the short span and the concrete slab (damage in red ) is not in the stair area.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 12:15 PM)
Or what about NISTs comment about this area:
Floor 80 and 81 suffered damage to many interior seats in the East Office area due to the aircraft impact. NIST NCSTAR 1-6D A.3.2 pg 361
This being the area where the stairway was located. Which means that the NIST models took into account that these trusses weren't pulling in because the INTERIOR SEATS were damaged.
Typical.
Arthur
Pure speculation from a very desperate NISTian.
NIST doesn't even try to make the model realistic:
At least they admit they are incompetent (the approximate floor layout from 79-83 is very detailed for not having the plans)!
Floor 80 and 81 suffered damage to many interior seats in the East Office area due to the aircraft impact. NIST NCSTAR 1-6D A.3.2 pg 361
This being the area where the stairway was located. Which means that the NIST models took into account that these trusses weren't pulling in because the INTERIOR SEATS were damaged.
Typical.
Arthur
Pure speculation from a very desperate NISTian.
NIST doesn't even try to make the model realistic:
QUOTE
9.11.2 Comparison with Observables on WTC 2
Damage on the North Exterior Wall
From photographic evidence, such as that shown in Figure 9–126, damage on the north wall at the northeast corner of WTC 2 was documented and is shown in Figure 9–127. As mentioned earlier, there was significant uncertainty as to the actual layout of the workstations and other building contents on the impacted floors of the towers. Recall that generic workstation configurations were used to model these building contents, as shown in the northeast corner of WTC 2 in Figure 9–128(a). Uncertainties regarding this layout, such as missing partition walls and workstations, can make the difference between debris from a specific component passing through or being stopped inside the structure. The base case impact response of the northeast corner of WTC 2 on the 81st floor is shown in Figure 9–128.
Damage on the North Exterior Wall
From photographic evidence, such as that shown in Figure 9–126, damage on the north wall at the northeast corner of WTC 2 was documented and is shown in Figure 9–127. As mentioned earlier, there was significant uncertainty as to the actual layout of the workstations and other building contents on the impacted floors of the towers. Recall that generic workstation configurations were used to model these building contents, as shown in the northeast corner of WTC 2 in Figure 9–128(a). Uncertainties regarding this layout, such as missing partition walls and workstations, can make the difference between debris from a specific component passing through or being stopped inside the structure. The base case impact response of the northeast corner of WTC 2 on the 81st floor is shown in Figure 9–128.
At least they admit they are incompetent (the approximate floor layout from 79-83 is very detailed for not having the plans)!
hey.
reasonwhy.
did you hear the latest joke?
ALL the fireproofing was knocked off by impact, and ALL of the office furniture/fuel STAYED IN PLACE!
reasonwhy.
did you hear the latest joke?
ALL the fireproofing was knocked off by impact, and ALL of the office furniture/fuel STAYED IN PLACE!
QUOTE (newton+Apr 7 2007, 11:51 PM)
hey.
reasonwhy.
did you hear the latest joke?
ALL the fireproofing was knocked off by impact, and ALL of the office furniture/fuel STAYED IN PLACE!
Lets see if the NISTians think it is funny?
reasonwhy.
did you hear the latest joke?
ALL the fireproofing was knocked off by impact, and ALL of the office furniture/fuel STAYED IN PLACE!
Lets see if the NISTians think it is funny?
It's indeed hard to swallow if there are serious scientists who believe that... that is something that could only occur in a Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote cartoon...
Please join us at the Sydney Town Hall at 11 AM on 11 April 2007, as we are launching the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement.
We must show our government and the world that we oppose globalist tyranny, that we have figured out that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB, staged by agents within the corporatist military industrial complex with the aim of enslaving us.
Let's show them we refuse to be intimidated.
In support of our friends in the U.S. we will stage a protest on the 11th day of every month from now on.
If you live in or near Sydney this is your chance to make a difference.
Please email admin@911oz.com or visit www.911oz.com and let us know you're coming, or just turn up on the day.
The future is in our hands.
We must show our government and the world that we oppose globalist tyranny, that we have figured out that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB, staged by agents within the corporatist military industrial complex with the aim of enslaving us.
Let's show them we refuse to be intimidated.
In support of our friends in the U.S. we will stage a protest on the 11th day of every month from now on.
If you live in or near Sydney this is your chance to make a difference.
Please email admin@911oz.com or visit www.911oz.com and let us know you're coming, or just turn up on the day.
The future is in our hands.
newton
Actually NIST modeled only the fireproofing that was directly impacted was dislodged, and that the contents of the floors were bulldozed into piles and set afire by the fuel.
Grumpy
QUOTE
ALL the fireproofing was knocked off by impact, and ALL of the office furniture/fuel STAYED IN PLACE!
Actually NIST modeled only the fireproofing that was directly impacted was dislodged, and that the contents of the floors were bulldozed into piles and set afire by the fuel.
Grumpy
RW,
You keep referring to the full floor analysis, but that has KNOWN limitations. One being the inability of the software to accurately model CREEP when using the selected Beam elements.
They point out that when they evaluated a truss model WITH CREEP there was SIGNIFICANTLY more sagging.
This is all discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-6d Section 2.5.2.
I note you only showed a pic of floor 80.
Of course.
Since the major damage in that area was on floors 81 and 82
See Fig 9-78, 9-80, 9-81 and 9-86 of NIST NCSTAR 1-2b.
It should be noted that NIST did not have the floor plans for these floors of WTC 2 and relied on tennents recollections.
Note that RW has focused on the floor plans which of course are actually unknown and for which show a stairway on all the impact floors. However in NIST NCSTAR 1-2b figs 9-89 and 9-90, office cubicles are shown in this area.
(oh, and Newton, they also show that NIST did account for what the plane did to the furniture on impact).
You keep referring to the full floor analysis, but that has KNOWN limitations. One being the inability of the software to accurately model CREEP when using the selected Beam elements.
They point out that when they evaluated a truss model WITH CREEP there was SIGNIFICANTLY more sagging.
This is all discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-6d Section 2.5.2.
I note you only showed a pic of floor 80.
Of course.
Since the major damage in that area was on floors 81 and 82
See Fig 9-78, 9-80, 9-81 and 9-86 of NIST NCSTAR 1-2b.
It should be noted that NIST did not have the floor plans for these floors of WTC 2 and relied on tennents recollections.
Note that RW has focused on the floor plans which of course are actually unknown and for which show a stairway on all the impact floors. However in NIST NCSTAR 1-2b figs 9-89 and 9-90, office cubicles are shown in this area.
(oh, and Newton, they also show that NIST did account for what the plane did to the furniture on impact).
QUOTE (Reasonwhy+)
Claiming you can not make walls pull- in slowly with CD has to be one of the most ridicules OCT statements yet! They don’t make walls pull in slowly in a normal CD's because it is not necessary.
Please explain how CD can make the floors pull in SLOWLY and ONLY on the FIRE/IMPACT floors.
CAN'T WAIT
Arthur
Please explain how CD can make the floors pull in SLOWLY and ONLY on the FIRE/IMPACT floors.
CAN'T WAIT
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 8 2007, 02:14 PM)
newton
Actually NIST modeled only the fireproofing that was directly impacted was dislodged, and that the contents of the floors were bulldozed into piles and set afire by the fuel.
Grumpy
“While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.”
(NCSTAR 1-5 p50)
“...results of both the multi-workstation experiments and the simulations of the WTC fires showed that the combustibles in a given location, if undisturbed by the aircraft impact, would have been almost fully burned out in about 20 min.”
(NCSTAR 1-6 p280)
Given the above, you would expect the steel to reach temperatures of ~250 C, which is exactly what NIST's paint and microstructure tests showed. Fireproofed or no, steel temps of 250 C are not hot enough to weaken steel, at all. Sorry.
There is also this:
“...fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.”
(NCSTAR 1-5 p51)
Since all of the kinetic energy available from the impact was consumed in breaking columns, crushing floors, and the destroying of the aircraft, there wouldn't have been any available to "bulldoze" office contents or affect fireproofing not directly impacted by debris.
(http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf)
NIST assumes (based primarily on speculation) in their report that 14% of the columns in one tower and 15% of the columns in the other were severed by the impact. And that this resulted in loads being increased by up to 35% on some columns while the loads on other columns decreased by 20%. Nowhere even remotely close to the designers specification of the columns being able to handle an increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
Three buildings, one of which wasn’t hit by a plane, all suffering asymmetrical damage from different angles and in different locations, and possessing uneven distribution of fires, all came down in symmetrical fashion as if the only thing impeding their collapses was air. The credulity of the masses boggles the mind.
---------------
"The Bush-Cheney administration would never lie to me. Durrrrrrr."
--Grumpy
Actually NIST modeled only the fireproofing that was directly impacted was dislodged, and that the contents of the floors were bulldozed into piles and set afire by the fuel.
Grumpy
“While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.”
(NCSTAR 1-5 p50)
“...results of both the multi-workstation experiments and the simulations of the WTC fires showed that the combustibles in a given location, if undisturbed by the aircraft impact, would have been almost fully burned out in about 20 min.”
(NCSTAR 1-6 p280)
Given the above, you would expect the steel to reach temperatures of ~250 C, which is exactly what NIST's paint and microstructure tests showed. Fireproofed or no, steel temps of 250 C are not hot enough to weaken steel, at all. Sorry.
There is also this:
“...fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.”
(NCSTAR 1-5 p51)
Since all of the kinetic energy available from the impact was consumed in breaking columns, crushing floors, and the destroying of the aircraft, there wouldn't have been any available to "bulldoze" office contents or affect fireproofing not directly impacted by debris.
(http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf)
NIST assumes (based primarily on speculation) in their report that 14% of the columns in one tower and 15% of the columns in the other were severed by the impact. And that this resulted in loads being increased by up to 35% on some columns while the loads on other columns decreased by 20%. Nowhere even remotely close to the designers specification of the columns being able to handle an increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
Three buildings, one of which wasn’t hit by a plane, all suffering asymmetrical damage from different angles and in different locations, and possessing uneven distribution of fires, all came down in symmetrical fashion as if the only thing impeding their collapses was air. The credulity of the masses boggles the mind.
---------------
"The Bush-Cheney administration would never lie to me. Durrrrrrr."
--Grumpy
YAWN
Arthur
Arthur
The east stairwell in WTC 2 was, I believe, a feature added for the tenant Fuji Bank. As I recall from thread 1, it only interconnected three floors, i.e., two flights of stairs. I don't recall which three floors that was... 
cerberus
If you are going to lie about what people say, you will lie about everything else as well.
The Bush/Cheney admin has been one of the most corrupt, dishonest and incompetent in history, they would much rather lie to us than not. But they are too inept to have successfully covered up any conspiracy involving thousands of people.
If you are going to lie about what people say, you will lie about everything else as well.
The Bush/Cheney admin has been one of the most corrupt, dishonest and incompetent in history, they would much rather lie to us than not. But they are too inept to have successfully covered up any conspiracy involving thousands of people.
“...results of both the multi-workstation experiments and the simulations of the WTC fires showed that the combustibles in a given location, if undisturbed by the aircraft impact, would have been almost fully burned out in about 20 min.”
What about those that were "disturbed"??? Bulldozed into piles, as I stated.
What crappy "troother" site did you get this steaming pile of BS from??? 800-1000C is a lot more realistic.
What crappy "troother" site did you get this steaming pile of BS from??? 800-1000C is a lot more realistic.
Since all of the kinetic energy available from the impact was consumed in breaking columns, crushing floors, and the destroying of the aircraft, there wouldn't have been any available to "bulldoze" office contents or affect fireproofing not directly impacted by debris.
So all the rollaround chairs, desks and dividers would have stopped the motion of the plane??? What a stupid statement.
Try 200%, DA. Nothing is designed for 2000%, that is just a "troother" lie.
Try 200%, DA. Nothing is designed for 2000%, that is just a "troother" lie.
Three buildings, one of which wasn’t hit by a plane, all suffering asymmetrical damage from different angles and in different locations, and possessing uneven distribution of fires, all came down in symmetrical fashion as if the only thing impeding their collapses was air. The credulity of the masses boggles the mind.
Actually, the masses in this case are smarter than the whole "troothers" movement, or, as I like to say...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down, go boom.
Even you ought to be able to understand that.
Grumpy
Who said "ALL of the office furniture/fuel STAYED IN PLACE". Can you say Straw man... Just about everything was moved from where it was on the impact levels. The fireproofing was removed from the trusses and gravity/airflow dispersed it all over the place. It is very reasonable to suspect the fireproofing acted like dust after being dislodged and lay on just about everything on the impact levels.
Maybe you can explain how office furniture can say in the same place after being hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. Especially without floors to hold them. While your at it you can explain how the fuel stayed in the wings after the wings were shredded to small pieced. Because it all "STAYED IN PLACE!"
MOST of the contents in the impact floors moved from where it was. Not ALL, not NONE, MOST...
The NIST didn't say the jet fuel caused the building to collapse. It only acted like lighter fluid on a charcoal grill. To suggest the building couldn't collapse because the jet fuel was used up quickly is like saying your burger didn't cook in your grill because the lighter fluid burned quickly. But to dismiss the lighter fluid in the cooking procedure is also wrong.
The NIST didn't say the jet fuel caused the building to collapse. It only acted like lighter fluid on a charcoal grill. To suggest the building couldn't collapse because the jet fuel was used up quickly is like saying your burger didn't cook in your grill because the lighter fluid burned quickly. But to dismiss the lighter fluid in the cooking procedure is also wrong.
“...results of both the multi-workstation experiments and the simulations of the WTC fires showed that the combustibles in a given location, if undisturbed by the aircraft impact, would have been almost fully burned out in about 20 min.”
(NCSTAR 1-6 p280)
What part of "if undisturbed by the aircraft impact" do you not understand. It WAS disturbed and the NIST found evidence it was piled next to the perimeter columns as would be predicted.
Ceiling temps during the NIST tests reached 1,100C. More than enough to weaken the trusses and columns. Even at 300C the steel weakens 20%. NIST NCSTAR 1 page 125
Ceiling temps during the NIST tests reached 1,100C. More than enough to weaken the trusses and columns. Even at 300C the steel weakens 20%. NIST NCSTAR 1 page 125
There is also this:
“...fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.”
(NCSTAR 1-5 p51)
That's why the perimeter columns were pulled in over time. I have yet to hear a coherent argument for how the perimeter columns were pulled in over time.
HAHAHA, Let me get this straight, the impact could "break columns, crush floors, and destroy the aircraft" but the office furniture was left pristine and in-place? Are you saying the government defied the laws of physics?
Maybe MIT didn't waste time including the office furniture because the KE needed would be minuscule compared to the other objects. Maybe you're quote mining...
HAHAHA, Let me get this straight, the impact could "break columns, crush floors, and destroy the aircraft" but the office furniture was left pristine and in-place? Are you saying the government defied the laws of physics?
Maybe MIT didn't waste time including the office furniture because the KE needed would be minuscule compared to the other objects. Maybe you're quote mining...
NIST assumes (based primarily on speculation) in their report that 14% of the columns in one tower and 15% of the columns in the other were severed by the impact. And that this resulted in loads being increased by up to 35% on some columns while the loads on other columns decreased by 20%. Nowhere even remotely close to the designers specification of the columns being able to handle an increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
The proof even YOU don't believe your own quote mining is that you don't submit that to a respected civil engineering journal for peer review. If you are right and not leaving out the columns deformation from a combination of fire, impact and trusses pull in the columns, you should have no problem submitting it!
The towers fell very different from building 7. The towers peeled open after the floors were removed. The video evidence here is clear. Large sections without a trace of flooring could be seen leaning over. The only thing that fell straight down was the floors during the pancake collapse. No, the pancake did not initiate the collapse as first thought but it did happen after global collapse ensues.
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
HAHAHA, Let me get this straight, the impact could "break columns, crush floors, and destroy the aircraft" but the office furniture was left pristine and in-place? Are you saying the government defied the laws of physics?
maybe you don't 'get' jokes?
there are two fish in a tank. one says to the other, 'you shoot, i'll drive'.
QUOTE
"The Bush-Cheney administration would never lie to me. Durrrrrrr."
--Grumpy
--Grumpy
If you are going to lie about what people say, you will lie about everything else as well.
The Bush/Cheney admin has been one of the most corrupt, dishonest and incompetent in history, they would much rather lie to us than not. But they are too inept to have successfully covered up any conspiracy involving thousands of people.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "The Bush-Cheney administration would never lie to me. Durrrrrrr." --Grumpy |
If you are going to lie about what people say, you will lie about everything else as well.
The Bush/Cheney admin has been one of the most corrupt, dishonest and incompetent in history, they would much rather lie to us than not. But they are too inept to have successfully covered up any conspiracy involving thousands of people.
“...results of both the multi-workstation experiments and the simulations of the WTC fires showed that the combustibles in a given location, if undisturbed by the aircraft impact, would have been almost fully burned out in about 20 min.”
What about those that were "disturbed"??? Bulldozed into piles, as I stated.
QUOTE
Given the above, you would expect the steel to reach temperatures of ~250 C, which is exactly what NIST's paint and microstructure tests showed. Fireproofed or no, steel temps of 250 C are not hot enough to weaken steel, at all. Sorry.
What crappy "troother" site did you get this steaming pile of BS from??? 800-1000C is a lot more realistic.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Given the above, you would expect the steel to reach temperatures of ~250 C, which is exactly what NIST's paint and microstructure tests showed. Fireproofed or no, steel temps of 250 C are not hot enough to weaken steel, at all. Sorry. |
What crappy "troother" site did you get this steaming pile of BS from??? 800-1000C is a lot more realistic.
Since all of the kinetic energy available from the impact was consumed in breaking columns, crushing floors, and the destroying of the aircraft, there wouldn't have been any available to "bulldoze" office contents or affect fireproofing not directly impacted by debris.
So all the rollaround chairs, desks and dividers would have stopped the motion of the plane??? What a stupid statement.
QUOTE
Nowhere even remotely close to the designers specification of the columns being able to handle an increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
Try 200%, DA. Nothing is designed for 2000%, that is just a "troother" lie.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nowhere even remotely close to the designers specification of the columns being able to handle an increases of 2000% above the design live loads. |
Try 200%, DA. Nothing is designed for 2000%, that is just a "troother" lie.
Three buildings, one of which wasn’t hit by a plane, all suffering asymmetrical damage from different angles and in different locations, and possessing uneven distribution of fires, all came down in symmetrical fashion as if the only thing impeding their collapses was air. The credulity of the masses boggles the mind.
Actually, the masses in this case are smarter than the whole "troothers" movement, or, as I like to say...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down, go boom.
Even you ought to be able to understand that.
Grumpy
QUOTE
ALL the fireproofing was knocked off by impact, and ALL of the office furniture/fuel STAYED IN PLACE!
Who said "ALL of the office furniture/fuel STAYED IN PLACE". Can you say Straw man... Just about everything was moved from where it was on the impact levels. The fireproofing was removed from the trusses and gravity/airflow dispersed it all over the place. It is very reasonable to suspect the fireproofing acted like dust after being dislodged and lay on just about everything on the impact levels.
Maybe you can explain how office furniture can say in the same place after being hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. Especially without floors to hold them. While your at it you can explain how the fuel stayed in the wings after the wings were shredded to small pieced. Because it all "STAYED IN PLACE!"
MOST of the contents in the impact floors moved from where it was. Not ALL, not NONE, MOST...
QUOTE
“While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.”
(NCSTAR 1-5 p50)
(NCSTAR 1-5 p50)
The NIST didn't say the jet fuel caused the building to collapse. It only acted like lighter fluid on a charcoal grill. To suggest the building couldn't collapse because the jet fuel was used up quickly is like saying your burger didn't cook in your grill because the lighter fluid burned quickly. But to dismiss the lighter fluid in the cooking procedure is also wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50) |
The NIST didn't say the jet fuel caused the building to collapse. It only acted like lighter fluid on a charcoal grill. To suggest the building couldn't collapse because the jet fuel was used up quickly is like saying your burger didn't cook in your grill because the lighter fluid burned quickly. But to dismiss the lighter fluid in the cooking procedure is also wrong.
“...results of both the multi-workstation experiments and the simulations of the WTC fires showed that the combustibles in a given location, if undisturbed by the aircraft impact, would have been almost fully burned out in about 20 min.”
(NCSTAR 1-6 p280)
What part of "if undisturbed by the aircraft impact" do you not understand. It WAS disturbed and the NIST found evidence it was piled next to the perimeter columns as would be predicted.
QUOTE
Given the above, you would expect the steel to reach temperatures of ~250 C, which is exactly what NIST's paint and microstructure tests showed. Fireproofed or no, steel temps of 250 C are not hot enough to weaken steel, at all. Sorry.
Ceiling temps during the NIST tests reached 1,100C. More than enough to weaken the trusses and columns. Even at 300C the steel weakens 20%. NIST NCSTAR 1 page 125
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Given the above, you would expect the steel to reach temperatures of ~250 C, which is exactly what NIST's paint and microstructure tests showed. Fireproofed or no, steel temps of 250 C are not hot enough to weaken steel, at all. Sorry. |
Ceiling temps during the NIST tests reached 1,100C. More than enough to weaken the trusses and columns. Even at 300C the steel weakens 20%. NIST NCSTAR 1 page 125
There is also this:
“...fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.”
(NCSTAR 1-5 p51)
That's why the perimeter columns were pulled in over time. I have yet to hear a coherent argument for how the perimeter columns were pulled in over time.
QUOTE
Since all of the kinetic energy available from the impact was consumed in breaking columns, crushing floors, and the destroying of the aircraft, there wouldn't have been any available to "bulldoze" office contents or affect fireproofing not directly impacted by debris.
(http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf)
(http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf)
HAHAHA, Let me get this straight, the impact could "break columns, crush floors, and destroy the aircraft" but the office furniture was left pristine and in-place? Are you saying the government defied the laws of physics?
Maybe MIT didn't waste time including the office furniture because the KE needed would be minuscule compared to the other objects. Maybe you're quote mining...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since all of the kinetic energy available from the impact was consumed in breaking columns, crushing floors, and the destroying of the aircraft, there wouldn't have been any available to "bulldoze" office contents or affect fireproofing not directly impacted by debris. (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf) |
HAHAHA, Let me get this straight, the impact could "break columns, crush floors, and destroy the aircraft" but the office furniture was left pristine and in-place? Are you saying the government defied the laws of physics?
Maybe MIT didn't waste time including the office furniture because the KE needed would be minuscule compared to the other objects. Maybe you're quote mining...
NIST assumes (based primarily on speculation) in their report that 14% of the columns in one tower and 15% of the columns in the other were severed by the impact. And that this resulted in loads being increased by up to 35% on some columns while the loads on other columns decreased by 20%. Nowhere even remotely close to the designers specification of the columns being able to handle an increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
The proof even YOU don't believe your own quote mining is that you don't submit that to a respected civil engineering journal for peer review. If you are right and not leaving out the columns deformation from a combination of fire, impact and trusses pull in the columns, you should have no problem submitting it!
QUOTE
Three buildings, one of which wasn’t hit by a plane, all suffering asymmetrical damage from different angles and in different locations, and possessing uneven distribution of fires, all came down in symmetrical fashion as if the only thing impeding their collapses was air. The credulity of the masses boggles the mind.
The towers fell very different from building 7. The towers peeled open after the floors were removed. The video evidence here is clear. Large sections without a trace of flooring could be seen leaning over. The only thing that fell straight down was the floors during the pancake collapse. No, the pancake did not initiate the collapse as first thought but it did happen after global collapse ensues.
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 8 2007, 12:49 PM)
The east stairwell in WTC 2 was, I believe, a feature added for the tenant Fuji Bank. As I recall from thread 1, it only interconnected three floors, i.e., two flights of stairs. I don't recall which three floors that was...
NISTNCSTAR1-1C does not mention it in Table 4−4. Openings made in floor slabs in WTC 2.
It does mention floor 81 being reinforced in 1999. Of course NIST as usual ignores this important piece of information.
NIST show very detailed floor layouts (even shows double walls in the stairwell area) of floor 78,79,80,81,82 .NIST then claims floor 83 is the same layaout as floor 82. The large U shaped stairway goes from floor 79-83 , five stories.
Fuji Bank 182,956 Financial Institutions 79-82
NIST mentions one of three stairs being open in the report. They do not refer to the 3 other stairs going through the main impact floors. I am sure it would draw attention to the fact there is a large stairwell in the middle of the area NIST claims the trusses are pulling the walls-in.
NISTNCSTAR1-1C does not mention it in Table 4−4. Openings made in floor slabs in WTC 2.
It does mention floor 81 being reinforced in 1999. Of course NIST as usual ignores this important piece of information.
NIST show very detailed floor layouts (even shows double walls in the stairwell area) of floor 78,79,80,81,82 .NIST then claims floor 83 is the same layaout as floor 82. The large U shaped stairway goes from floor 79-83 , five stories.
Fuji Bank 182,956 Financial Institutions 79-82
NIST mentions one of three stairs being open in the report. They do not refer to the 3 other stairs going through the main impact floors. I am sure it would draw attention to the fact there is a large stairwell in the middle of the area NIST claims the trusses are pulling the walls-in.
QUOTE (FactCheck+Apr 9 2007, 12:51 AM)
HAHAHA, Let me get this straight, the impact could "break columns, crush floors, and destroy the aircraft" but the office furniture was left pristine and in-place? Are you saying the government defied the laws of physics?
maybe you don't 'get' jokes?
there are two fish in a tank. one says to the other, 'you shoot, i'll drive'.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 8 2007, 06:57 AM)
RW,
You keep referring to the full floor analysis, but that has KNOWN limitations. One being the inability of the software to accurately model CREEP when using the selected Beam elements.
They point out that when they evaluated a truss model WITH CREEP there was SIGNIFICANTLY more sagging.
This is all discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-6d Section 2.5.2.
I note you only showed a pic of floor 80.
Of course.
Since the major damage in that area was on floors 81 and 82
See Fig 9-78, 9-80, 9-81 and 9-86 of NIST NCSTAR 1-2b.
It should be noted that NIST did not have the floor plans for these floors of WTC 2 and relied on tennents recollections.
Note that RW has focused on the floor plans which of course are actually unknown and for which show a stairway on all the impact floors. However in NIST NCSTAR 1-2b figs 9-89 and 9-90, office cubicles are shown in this area.
(oh, and Newton, they also show that NIST did account for what the plane did to the furniture on impact).
You keep referring to the full floor analysis, but that has KNOWN limitations. One being the inability of the software to accurately model CREEP when using the selected Beam elements.
They point out that when they evaluated a truss model WITH CREEP there was SIGNIFICANTLY more sagging.
This is all discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-6d Section 2.5.2.
I note you only showed a pic of floor 80.
Of course.
Since the major damage in that area was on floors 81 and 82
See Fig 9-78, 9-80, 9-81 and 9-86 of NIST NCSTAR 1-2b.
It should be noted that NIST did not have the floor plans for these floors of WTC 2 and relied on tennents recollections.
Note that RW has focused on the floor plans which of course are actually unknown and for which show a stairway on all the impact floors. However in NIST NCSTAR 1-2b figs 9-89 and 9-90, office cubicles are shown in this area.
(oh, and Newton, they also show that NIST did account for what the plane did to the furniture on impact).
QUOTE (Reasonwhy+)
Claiming you can not make walls pull- in slowly with CD has to be one of the most ridicules OCT statements yet! They don’t make walls pull in slowly in a normal CD's because it is not necessary.
Please explain how CD can make the floors pull in SLOWLY and ONLY on the FIRE/IMPACT floors.
CAN'T WAIT
Arthur
I keep referring to the full floor model because that is the only one that would show the reason the trusses are pulling the walls in instead of pushing them out as the full floor model proved. I am not a NISTian and need proof, not speculation by a group of people to incompetent or lazy to model the most important floors structurally accurate. Someone at NIST must be trying to get the truth out by adding the floor layouts in an appendix.
Adding Kips to a wall until it matches the photos does not identify the source of the force.
This is hilarious, the NISTians want to debate if a CD can initially pull the walls-in slowly.
Hint, you cut or remove sections from some of the core columns .
Lets look at the "Unknown floor plans" that NIST published . NIST claims they have the structural drawings and this was original structure.
Now, lets look at how detailed the "Unknown floor plans" are:
NISTNCSTAR1-5F page 127-130
Just a little more work and NIST would have a "known floor plan".
I think you are missing the point. One of the many things which the events of 9/11 clearly demonstrates is that the controlled demolition industry has been working a major scam for many years.
In truth, just about any building will fall in on itself regardless of how you go about knocking it down. They'd like to have us think that such results require an immense about of expertise, planning, and skill when in fact all it really takes is a good whack somewhere on the building and setting the contents on fire. I think congress should perhaps look into fraud and deception within the controlled demolition industry. They've been charging way too much for way to long for work a couple of city employees could accomplish before lunch.
How wonderful! I have a pet name. Oh for cute, isn't that just so very cool. I must pause while I gather myself and regain my composure.
OK, I'm better now.
Hey, where in the heck did I use the term "symetrical"?
Sure, some beams and stuff were tossed around, but most all of the building wound up in the basement or in the several stories tall pile of debris. You guys have said so yourself many times over, no?
Please explain how CD can make the floors pull in SLOWLY and ONLY on the FIRE/IMPACT floors.
CAN'T WAIT
Arthur
I keep referring to the full floor model because that is the only one that would show the reason the trusses are pulling the walls in instead of pushing them out as the full floor model proved. I am not a NISTian and need proof, not speculation by a group of people to incompetent or lazy to model the most important floors structurally accurate. Someone at NIST must be trying to get the truth out by adding the floor layouts in an appendix.
Adding Kips to a wall until it matches the photos does not identify the source of the force.
This is hilarious, the NISTians want to debate if a CD can initially pull the walls-in slowly.
Hint, you cut or remove sections from some of the core columns .
Lets look at the "Unknown floor plans" that NIST published . NIST claims they have the structural drawings and this was original structure.
Now, lets look at how detailed the "Unknown floor plans" are:
NISTNCSTAR1-5F page 127-130
Just a little more work and NIST would have a "known floor plan".
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 9 2007, 12:59 AM)
This is hilarious, the NISTians want to debate if a CD can initially pull the walls-in slowly.
Hint, you cut or remove sections from some of the core columns .
Except they modeled the single truss WITH CREEP and found that, when the MORE REALISTIC scenario was modeled it sagged into the range where it exerted a pull in force.
You on the other hand have to resort to a totally UNSUBSTANTIATED hypothesis that involves the CUTTING OF COLUMNS to justify your BELIEF.
You have NO EVIDENCE that there was ANY CUTTING or REMOVAL of Columns.
You have NO EVIDENCE that one could do so and have the RESULT match the observations (which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY)
You have NO EXPLANATION for how one could do so in BOTH towers and do so without this being found out.
So the reality is, once again, you have NADA, NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH.
Arthur
Hint, you cut or remove sections from some of the core columns .
Except they modeled the single truss WITH CREEP and found that, when the MORE REALISTIC scenario was modeled it sagged into the range where it exerted a pull in force.
You on the other hand have to resort to a totally UNSUBSTANTIATED hypothesis that involves the CUTTING OF COLUMNS to justify your BELIEF.
You have NO EVIDENCE that there was ANY CUTTING or REMOVAL of Columns.
You have NO EVIDENCE that one could do so and have the RESULT match the observations (which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY)
You have NO EXPLANATION for how one could do so in BOTH towers and do so without this being found out.
So the reality is, once again, you have NADA, NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH.
Arthur
reasonlesswhine
And you do this how, exactly???(hint, no explosives residue or cut columns found)
Grumpy
QUOTE
Hint, you cut or remove sections from some of the core columns .
And you do this how, exactly???(hint, no explosives residue or cut columns found)
Grumpy
Now compare where this stairway was to the Core Column damage.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 9-114.
Read the description of the damage in NCSTAR 1-2B Section 9.5.1 Core Structrual Damage
Note that the three columns shown in the floor layout Column 1001 (corner), 1002 and 1003 are ALL SEVERED.
Which is why the model showed the floor had the greatest drop in that area.
Arthur
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 9-114.
Read the description of the damage in NCSTAR 1-2B Section 9.5.1 Core Structrual Damage
Note that the three columns shown in the floor layout Column 1001 (corner), 1002 and 1003 are ALL SEVERED.
Which is why the model showed the floor had the greatest drop in that area.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 9 2007, 05:49 AM)
Except they modeled the single truss WITH CREEP and found that, when the MORE REALISTIC scenario was modeled it sagged into the range where it exerted a pull in force.
You on the other hand have to resort to a totally UNSUBSTANTIATED hypothesis that involves the CUTTING OF COLUMNS to justify your BELIEF.
You have NO EVIDENCE that there was ANY CUTTING or REMOVAL of Columns.
You have NO EVIDENCE that one could do so and have the RESULT match the observations (which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY)
You have NO EXPLANATION for how one could do so in BOTH towers and do so without this being found out.
So the reality is, once again, you have NADA, NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH.
Arthur
It would have been the same columns that prove the NIST absurdity.
Show the forensic evidence that proves the columns buckled if all relevant evidence on the impact floors was inspected and not destroyed as the congressional report stated.
Any competent inspector (or even someone working for NIST) could pick out the buckled columns (the ones that are not straight).
Oh, that's right, we are left with computer simulations that don't match the photographic evidence (walls push-out instead of in).
You on the other hand have to resort to a totally UNSUBSTANTIATED hypothesis that involves the CUTTING OF COLUMNS to justify your BELIEF.
You have NO EVIDENCE that there was ANY CUTTING or REMOVAL of Columns.
You have NO EVIDENCE that one could do so and have the RESULT match the observations (which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY)
You have NO EXPLANATION for how one could do so in BOTH towers and do so without this being found out.
So the reality is, once again, you have NADA, NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH.
Arthur
It would have been the same columns that prove the NIST absurdity.
Show the forensic evidence that proves the columns buckled if all relevant evidence on the impact floors was inspected and not destroyed as the congressional report stated.
Any competent inspector (or even someone working for NIST) could pick out the buckled columns (the ones that are not straight).
Oh, that's right, we are left with computer simulations that don't match the photographic evidence (walls push-out instead of in).
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 9 2007, 09:53 AM)
It would have been the same columns that prove the NIST absurdity.
EXCEPT no one could POSSIBLY predict which columns that would be until AFTER the plane crash.
Not only that, the SLOW PULL IN is evidence of FIRE induced damage, not cutting of columns.
Which means you got NOTHING.
As is usual.
Arthur
EXCEPT no one could POSSIBLY predict which columns that would be until AFTER the plane crash.
Not only that, the SLOW PULL IN is evidence of FIRE induced damage, not cutting of columns.
Which means you got NOTHING.
As is usual.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 9 2007, 06:51 AM)
Now compare where this stairway was to the Core Column damage.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 9-114.
Read the description of the damage in NCSTAR 1-2B Section 9.5.1 Core Structrual Damage
Note that the three columns shown in the floor layout (1001 (corner), 1002 and 1003 are ALL SEVERED.
Which is why the model showed the floor had the greatest drop in that area.
Arthur
You have a double wall that was not in the damaged area.
Walls hold up floors!
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 9-114.
Read the description of the damage in NCSTAR 1-2B Section 9.5.1 Core Structrual Damage
Note that the three columns shown in the floor layout (1001 (corner), 1002 and 1003 are ALL SEVERED.
Which is why the model showed the floor had the greatest drop in that area.
Arthur
You have a double wall that was not in the damaged area.
Walls hold up floors!
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 9 2007, 09:58 AM)
You have a double wall that was not in the damaged area.
Walls hold up floors!
ONLY by transferring the load to the COLUMNS.
So, no, they don't when the COLUMNS that hold up the FLOORS themselves are gone.
Arthur
Walls hold up floors!
ONLY by transferring the load to the COLUMNS.
So, no, they don't when the COLUMNS that hold up the FLOORS themselves are gone.
Arthur
reasonlesswhine
Not in the twin towers,DA. The only thing which hold up floors in the towers were the connections between the floor diaphrams and the frame members and core frame members. Walls were made of gypsum board and barely held themselves up.
Not a very solid foundation to hang your delusion on, is it???
Grumpy
QUOTE
Walls hold up floors!
Not in the twin towers,DA. The only thing which hold up floors in the towers were the connections between the floor diaphrams and the frame members and core frame members. Walls were made of gypsum board and barely held themselves up.
Not a very solid foundation to hang your delusion on, is it???
Grumpy
QUOTE
Three buildings, one of which wasn’t hit by a plane, all suffering asymmetrical damage from different angles and in different locations, and possessing uneven distribution of fires, all came down in symmetrical fashion as if the only thing impeding their collapses was air. The credulity of the masses boggles the mind.
I think you are missing the point. One of the many things which the events of 9/11 clearly demonstrates is that the controlled demolition industry has been working a major scam for many years.
In truth, just about any building will fall in on itself regardless of how you go about knocking it down. They'd like to have us think that such results require an immense about of expertise, planning, and skill when in fact all it really takes is a good whack somewhere on the building and setting the contents on fire. I think congress should perhaps look into fraud and deception within the controlled demolition industry. They've been charging way too much for way to long for work a couple of city employees could accomplish before lunch.
QUOTE (forthetrees+Apr 9 2007, 10:46 AM)
In truth, just about any building will fall in on itself regardless of how you go about knocking it down.
Except, FortheBirds, that didn't happen.
The collapses weren't symetrical, as you can tell from the debris pattern.
WTC 2 took out much of the Banker's Trust building and ALL of the Marriott next to it.
WTC 1 took out much of WTC 5, 6 and set them on fire. It also extensively damaged the WinterGarden and did some pretty serious damage to the WFC 1 building, not to mention extensive damage to WTC 7, including setting it on fire.
WTC 7 did significant damage to the buildings around it and much of it fell on top of the already damaged WTC 6 building.
Arthur
Except, FortheBirds, that didn't happen.
The collapses weren't symetrical, as you can tell from the debris pattern.
WTC 2 took out much of the Banker's Trust building and ALL of the Marriott next to it.
WTC 1 took out much of WTC 5, 6 and set them on fire. It also extensively damaged the WinterGarden and did some pretty serious damage to the WFC 1 building, not to mention extensive damage to WTC 7, including setting it on fire.
WTC 7 did significant damage to the buildings around it and much of it fell on top of the already damaged WTC 6 building.
Arthur
QUOTE
Except, FortheBirds, that didn't happen.
The collapses weren't symetrical, as you can tell from the debris pattern.
The collapses weren't symetrical, as you can tell from the debris pattern.
How wonderful! I have a pet name. Oh for cute, isn't that just so very cool. I must pause while I gather myself and regain my composure.
OK, I'm better now.
Hey, where in the heck did I use the term "symetrical"?
Sure, some beams and stuff were tossed around, but most all of the building wound up in the basement or in the several stories tall pile of debris. You guys have said so yourself many times over, no?
QUOTE (forthebirds+Apr 9 2007, 11:23 AM)
Sure, some beams and stuff were tossed around, but most all of the building wound up in the basement or in the several stories tall pile of debris. You guys have said so yourself many times over, no?
But that's the point, CD'ers don't have to do much to make the building fall straight down, that's where gravity will pretty much insure that MOST of the building will go anyway.
The problem is 10% of a building falling OTHER than straight down can still do a LOT of damage, that's what they get paid the big bucks for.
As far as the WTC towers, most of the concrete, core columns and denser tower contents ended up in or near the footprint, most of the external columns fell AWAY from the structure however. This is CLEARLY seen from some of the published overhead views of GZ.
Arthur
But that's the point, CD'ers don't have to do much to make the building fall straight down, that's where gravity will pretty much insure that MOST of the building will go anyway.
The problem is 10% of a building falling OTHER than straight down can still do a LOT of damage, that's what they get paid the big bucks for.
As far as the WTC towers, most of the concrete, core columns and denser tower contents ended up in or near the footprint, most of the external columns fell AWAY from the structure however. This is CLEARLY seen from some of the published overhead views of GZ.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 9 2007, 05:39 AM)
Fuji Bank 182,956 Financial Institutions 79-82
Thanks for the info. Is the quoted part supposed to mean Fuji Bank was on floors 79 through 82?
Thanks for the info. Is the quoted part supposed to mean Fuji Bank was on floors 79 through 82?
newton
Popular Mechanic's debunking of the conspiracy nuts is not in any danger of being falsified by some "troother" fruitloops on the radio, nor from those on this forum.
Grumpy
Popular Mechanic's debunking of the conspiracy nuts is not in any danger of being falsified by some "troother" fruitloops on the radio, nor from those on this forum.
Grumpy
QUOTE (newton+Apr 9 2007, 07:56 PM)
debunking debunking 911...charles goyette and david coburn
torn a new one, much, PM?
He didn't debunk debunking 911 at all. He just regurgitated the same thing over and over. Debunking would be like finding many people who are in controlled demolition who say Pull is a term used in controlled demolition. Instead his reply is repeating his regurgitation.
I give this two thumbs DOWN and a "Na uh! NO HE DI-ENT!"
torn a new one, much, PM?
He didn't debunk debunking 911 at all. He just regurgitated the same thing over and over. Debunking would be like finding many people who are in controlled demolition who say Pull is a term used in controlled demolition. Instead his reply is repeating his regurgitation.
I give this two thumbs DOWN and a "Na uh! NO HE DI-ENT!"
I was googling around for papers on dynamic impacts on I-beams. I couldn't find anything close to what I was looking for on the "regular" google. However, at scholar.google.com, there were many reference to papers on dynamic impacts, including on square (hollow) rods.
Unfortunately, I can't see them unless I pay $$, or go to a technical library.
Nevertheless, "the truth is out there".
One of the papers referred to (by Chih-Cheng Yang) can be viewed online.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dynamic Axial Crushing of Square Tubes
Abramowicz, W; Jones, N
Int. J. Impact Eng. Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 179-208. 1984
Eighty-four dynamic tests on thin-walled square steel tubes having two different cross-sections with c/h = 30.25 and c/h = 32.18 and various
lengths were crushed axially on a drop hammer rig. Approximate theoretical predictions were developed for the axial progressive crushing of
square box columns using a kinematically admissible method of analysis. This theoretical study predicts four deformation modes which govern
the behavior for different ranges of the parameter c/h. New asymmetric deformation modes were predicted theoretically and confirmed in the
experimental tests. These asymmetric modes cause an inclination of a column which could lead to collapse in the sense of Euler, even for
relatively short columns. The effective crushing distance is considered in the approx. theoretical analysis together with the influence of
material strain rate sensitivity, which is important for steel even when the loadings are quasistatic. The simple equations presented for the
design of axially crushed square box columns give reasonable agreement with the corresponding experimental results. 30 ref.--AA
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...lar.google.com%
2F&uid=790534364&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
Finite element investigations on the dynamic plastic buckling of a slender beam subject to axial impact
Authors: Kenny S.; Pegg N.; Taheri F.1
Source: International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 27, Number 2, February 2002, pp. 179-195(17)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000002/art00048
===========================================================================================
Inertia effects in axisymmetrically deformed cylindrical shells under axial impact
Authors: Karagiozova D.; Alves M.; Jones N.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000010/art00028
===========================================================================================
Experimental and theoretical studies of columns under axial impact.
Ari-Gur, J; Weller, T; Singer, J
INT. J. SOL. & STRUCT. Vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 619-641. 1982
The dynamic response of columns loaded by an impulsive axial compression is studied experimentally and theoretically. Approximate criteria
for determination of dynamic buckling are discussed and applied. The investigation was carried out on clamped specimens, made of metals and
composite materials, loaded impulsively by a striking mass. In the theoretical study, Rayleigh-type beam equations are assumed for a
geometrically imperfect column of a linear-elastic anisotropic material. A numerical solution, by means of a finite-difference approach,
yields buckling behavior which correlates well with the experimental results. It is shown that initial geometrical imperfection, duration of
impulse, and effective slenderness have a major influence on the buckling loads, whereas the effect of the material is secondary. The major
effects are presented in a form that can guide the designer.
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...3A_nxp-G52gd4J%
3Ascholar.google.com%2F&uid=790534364&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
Dynamic Progressive Buckling of Square Tubes
Chih-Cheng Yang
http://www.kyu.edu.tw/93/epaperv6/93-080.pdf
===========================================================================================
Inertia and Strain-Rate Effects in a Simple Plate-Structure Under Impact Loading
Tam, L L; Calladine, C R
International Journal of Impact Engineering (UK). Vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 349-377. 1991
Previous studies have shown that the way in which metal structures absorb energy by gross distortion under impact conditions depends on the generic type of structure. In particular, they have shown that structures which respond to quasi-static testing by means of an initial peak load followed by a falling load as deformation proceeds ("type II" response, corresponding broadly to plates loaded endwise) exhibit both inertia and strain-rate effects under impact loading from moving strikers. A detailed study of these phenomena by means of experiment and theory is described. Experiments were conducted in a drop-hammer rig on a large number of specimens having the same general geometry, but made in two different sizes and of two different materials (mild steel, Al alloy) chosen for their different strain-rate characteristics in the plastic range. The experiments involved the overall measurement of final distortion of the specimens in relation to a wide range of testing conditions with moderate velocity; strain gauge studies, high-speed photography and other investigations of the detailed behaviour. The main emphasis of the various assays was to discover the way in which the initial kinetic energy of the striker was dissipated within the structure. During the course of the work, Zhang and Yu proposed a simple analysis of the same phenomena by means of a model based on the ideas of classical inelastic impact theory. According to their theory, a significant fraction of the incident kinetic energy of the striker is absorbed during the initial impact event; and this fraction depends only on the ratio of the mass of the striker to the mass of the specimen and the initial crookedness, but not on the velocity of impact. Here, the experiments agreed with this analysis in some overall respects, but were irreconcilable with it in several others, for which substantial data had been amassed. Therefore, a revised analysis was produced, which was less austere than that of Zhang and Yu but which nevertheless remained essentially simple. It is shown that this new theory agrees satisfactorily with all aspects of the experimental observations. The analysis reveals clearly the roles of inertia and strain rate in impact conditions. It also produces two new dimensionless groups, which together provide a key to classification of the various patterns of behaviour which are possible in the impact response of "type II" specimens.
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...4&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
The influence of inertia and strain-rate on large deformation of plate-structures under impact loading.
Webb, D. C.; Kormi, K.; Al-Hassani, S. T. S.
Computers & Structures. Vol. 79, no. 19, pp. 1781-1797. July 2001
The static and dynamic behaviour of plate-structures subjected to in-plane axial and compressive impact loading is investigated using the finite element method (FEM). The material model is linear elastic with nonlinear isotropic work hardening characteristics with strain-rate dependence, inertia (via a consistent mass matrix) and geometrical nonlinearities are retained. The FEM results are in very close agreement with those obtained from experiments but the main advantage of the method is that it clarifies the time history behaviour of the model. The previous theoretical work has identified two distinct phases of deformation. Phase one is the compression of the plate, following the inelastic collision, until the structure becomes plastic. This is followed by a second phase of continuous plastic work dissipation in rotation about the hinges formed. The FEM results indicate the nature of the collision strain rate intensity and the differences that exist between static and dynamic modes of deformation response. The numerical modelling also reveals four phases in the deformation process. A phase of stress wave propagation is identified during elastic loading and the build up of high initial axial forces in the specimen. This is followed by a squashing phase, hinge rotation and elastic recovery (or, when the impact energy is high enough, structural closure) before the striker rebounds. The closure phase resembles a severe forming process followed by elastic recovery of the specimen and rebound of the striker. The differences between the various treatments are discussed and analysed in some detail.
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...4&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
A note on the inertia and strain-rate effects in the Tam and Calladine model
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000004/art00059
===========================================================================================
Impact failure of beams using damage mechanics: Part I-Analytical model
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000008/art00017
===========================================================================================
Axial crushing of square tubes.
Meng, Q.; Al-Hassani, S. T. S.; Soden, P. D.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. Vol. 25 no.9/10, no. 1983, pp. 747-73. 1983
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...lar.google.com%
2F&uid=790534364&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
Scaling impacted structures when the prototype and the model are made of different materials
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...erDate=05%2F31%
2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cd66779b42b4be7c4924546003507004
===========================================================================================
Dynamic buckling of elastic-plastic beams including effects of axial stress waves
Author: Lepik U.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000006/art00070
Unfortunately, I can't see them unless I pay $$, or go to a technical library.
Nevertheless, "the truth is out there".
One of the papers referred to (by Chih-Cheng Yang) can be viewed online.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dynamic Axial Crushing of Square Tubes
Abramowicz, W; Jones, N
Int. J. Impact Eng. Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 179-208. 1984
Eighty-four dynamic tests on thin-walled square steel tubes having two different cross-sections with c/h = 30.25 and c/h = 32.18 and various
lengths were crushed axially on a drop hammer rig. Approximate theoretical predictions were developed for the axial progressive crushing of
square box columns using a kinematically admissible method of analysis. This theoretical study predicts four deformation modes which govern
the behavior for different ranges of the parameter c/h. New asymmetric deformation modes were predicted theoretically and confirmed in the
experimental tests. These asymmetric modes cause an inclination of a column which could lead to collapse in the sense of Euler, even for
relatively short columns. The effective crushing distance is considered in the approx. theoretical analysis together with the influence of
material strain rate sensitivity, which is important for steel even when the loadings are quasistatic. The simple equations presented for the
design of axially crushed square box columns give reasonable agreement with the corresponding experimental results. 30 ref.--AA
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...lar.google.com%
2F&uid=790534364&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
Finite element investigations on the dynamic plastic buckling of a slender beam subject to axial impact
Authors: Kenny S.; Pegg N.; Taheri F.1
Source: International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 27, Number 2, February 2002, pp. 179-195(17)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000002/art00048
===========================================================================================
Inertia effects in axisymmetrically deformed cylindrical shells under axial impact
Authors: Karagiozova D.; Alves M.; Jones N.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000010/art00028
===========================================================================================
Experimental and theoretical studies of columns under axial impact.
Ari-Gur, J; Weller, T; Singer, J
INT. J. SOL. & STRUCT. Vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 619-641. 1982
The dynamic response of columns loaded by an impulsive axial compression is studied experimentally and theoretically. Approximate criteria
for determination of dynamic buckling are discussed and applied. The investigation was carried out on clamped specimens, made of metals and
composite materials, loaded impulsively by a striking mass. In the theoretical study, Rayleigh-type beam equations are assumed for a
geometrically imperfect column of a linear-elastic anisotropic material. A numerical solution, by means of a finite-difference approach,
yields buckling behavior which correlates well with the experimental results. It is shown that initial geometrical imperfection, duration of
impulse, and effective slenderness have a major influence on the buckling loads, whereas the effect of the material is secondary. The major
effects are presented in a form that can guide the designer.
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...3A_nxp-G52gd4J%
3Ascholar.google.com%2F&uid=790534364&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
Dynamic Progressive Buckling of Square Tubes
Chih-Cheng Yang
http://www.kyu.edu.tw/93/epaperv6/93-080.pdf
===========================================================================================
Inertia and Strain-Rate Effects in a Simple Plate-Structure Under Impact Loading
Tam, L L; Calladine, C R
International Journal of Impact Engineering (UK). Vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 349-377. 1991
Previous studies have shown that the way in which metal structures absorb energy by gross distortion under impact conditions depends on the generic type of structure. In particular, they have shown that structures which respond to quasi-static testing by means of an initial peak load followed by a falling load as deformation proceeds ("type II" response, corresponding broadly to plates loaded endwise) exhibit both inertia and strain-rate effects under impact loading from moving strikers. A detailed study of these phenomena by means of experiment and theory is described. Experiments were conducted in a drop-hammer rig on a large number of specimens having the same general geometry, but made in two different sizes and of two different materials (mild steel, Al alloy) chosen for their different strain-rate characteristics in the plastic range. The experiments involved the overall measurement of final distortion of the specimens in relation to a wide range of testing conditions with moderate velocity; strain gauge studies, high-speed photography and other investigations of the detailed behaviour. The main emphasis of the various assays was to discover the way in which the initial kinetic energy of the striker was dissipated within the structure. During the course of the work, Zhang and Yu proposed a simple analysis of the same phenomena by means of a model based on the ideas of classical inelastic impact theory. According to their theory, a significant fraction of the incident kinetic energy of the striker is absorbed during the initial impact event; and this fraction depends only on the ratio of the mass of the striker to the mass of the specimen and the initial crookedness, but not on the velocity of impact. Here, the experiments agreed with this analysis in some overall respects, but were irreconcilable with it in several others, for which substantial data had been amassed. Therefore, a revised analysis was produced, which was less austere than that of Zhang and Yu but which nevertheless remained essentially simple. It is shown that this new theory agrees satisfactorily with all aspects of the experimental observations. The analysis reveals clearly the roles of inertia and strain rate in impact conditions. It also produces two new dimensionless groups, which together provide a key to classification of the various patterns of behaviour which are possible in the impact response of "type II" specimens.
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...4&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
The influence of inertia and strain-rate on large deformation of plate-structures under impact loading.
Webb, D. C.; Kormi, K.; Al-Hassani, S. T. S.
Computers & Structures. Vol. 79, no. 19, pp. 1781-1797. July 2001
The static and dynamic behaviour of plate-structures subjected to in-plane axial and compressive impact loading is investigated using the finite element method (FEM). The material model is linear elastic with nonlinear isotropic work hardening characteristics with strain-rate dependence, inertia (via a consistent mass matrix) and geometrical nonlinearities are retained. The FEM results are in very close agreement with those obtained from experiments but the main advantage of the method is that it clarifies the time history behaviour of the model. The previous theoretical work has identified two distinct phases of deformation. Phase one is the compression of the plate, following the inelastic collision, until the structure becomes plastic. This is followed by a second phase of continuous plastic work dissipation in rotation about the hinges formed. The FEM results indicate the nature of the collision strain rate intensity and the differences that exist between static and dynamic modes of deformation response. The numerical modelling also reveals four phases in the deformation process. A phase of stress wave propagation is identified during elastic loading and the build up of high initial axial forces in the specimen. This is followed by a squashing phase, hinge rotation and elastic recovery (or, when the impact energy is high enough, structural closure) before the striker rebounds. The closure phase resembles a severe forming process followed by elastic recovery of the specimen and rebound of the striker. The differences between the various treatments are discussed and analysed in some detail.
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...4&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
A note on the inertia and strain-rate effects in the Tam and Calladine model
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000004/art00059
===========================================================================================
Impact failure of beams using damage mechanics: Part I-Analytical model
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000008/art00017
===========================================================================================
Axial crushing of square tubes.
Meng, Q.; Al-Hassani, S. T. S.; Soden, P. D.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. Vol. 25 no.9/10, no. 1983, pp. 747-73. 1983
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php...lar.google.com%
2F&uid=790534364&setcookie=yes
===========================================================================================
Scaling impacted structures when the prototype and the model are made of different materials
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...erDate=05%2F31%
2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cd66779b42b4be7c4924546003507004
===========================================================================================
Dynamic buckling of elastic-plastic beams including effects of axial stress waves
Author: Lepik U.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/...000006/art00070
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 9 2007, 07:19 AM)
reasonlesswhine
Not in the twin towers,DA. The only thing which hold up floors in the towers were the connections between the floor diaphrams and the frame members and core frame members. Walls were made of gypsum board and barely held themselves up.
Not a very solid foundation to hang your delusion on, is it???
Grumpy
Is this a NISTian attempt at a JOKE?
newton you are not.
A five floor wall suppoting the stair headers, is not just "made of gypsum board ".
And you call me delusion?
Not in the twin towers,DA. The only thing which hold up floors in the towers were the connections between the floor diaphrams and the frame members and core frame members. Walls were made of gypsum board and barely held themselves up.
Not a very solid foundation to hang your delusion on, is it???
Grumpy
Is this a NISTian attempt at a JOKE?
newton you are not.
A five floor wall suppoting the stair headers, is not just "made of gypsum board ".
And you call me delusion?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 10 2007, 02:04 AM)
A five floor wall suppoting the stair headers, is not just "made of gypsum board ".
He is right.
The stairs were next to the core and would have been supported off the core framing. There would not have been a load bearing wall on the floor an itself. The floors were to flexible for that.
He is right.
The stairs were next to the core and would have been supported off the core framing. There would not have been a load bearing wall on the floor an itself. The floors were to flexible for that.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Apr 10 2007, 02:32 AM)
He is right.
The stairs were next to the core and would have been supported off the core framing. There would not have been a load bearing wall on the floor an itself. The floors were to flexible for that.
OK, then can you expalin exactly how it would be framed supported off the core only?
The stairs were next to the core and would have been supported off the core framing. There would not have been a load bearing wall on the floor an itself. The floors were to flexible for that.
OK, then can you expalin exactly how it would be framed supported off the core only?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 10 2007, 05:39 AM)
OK, then can you expalin exactly how it would be framed supported off the core only?
I doubt anyone can say in the absence of the actual structural drawings.
However somethings would be obvious.
The Truss that spans between core column 1001 and column 350 HAS to remain as it is the special truss that spans the "Two Way" section of the towers. It was ~ twice as big as the normal trusses.
The truss that spans between 1003 and 342 (or 344) would be there and would likely be, like the truss that starts the Two Way section, more robust than normal.
A header would likely run bewteen as few as 2 trusses (col 344 - 348) to as many as 4 of the trusses that attach to columns 342 - 350, depending on the exact dimensions of the stairs and how open it was.
What WOULDN'T matter is how it was attached since the three core columns, in the area that the stairs were attached to the core, were severed.
Arthur
I doubt anyone can say in the absence of the actual structural drawings.
However somethings would be obvious.
The Truss that spans between core column 1001 and column 350 HAS to remain as it is the special truss that spans the "Two Way" section of the towers. It was ~ twice as big as the normal trusses.
The truss that spans between 1003 and 342 (or 344) would be there and would likely be, like the truss that starts the Two Way section, more robust than normal.
A header would likely run bewteen as few as 2 trusses (col 344 - 348) to as many as 4 of the trusses that attach to columns 342 - 350, depending on the exact dimensions of the stairs and how open it was.
What WOULDN'T matter is how it was attached since the three core columns, in the area that the stairs were attached to the core, were severed.
Arthur
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.