It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

page: 17
66
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: LaBTop
No its your RUBBISH computer that's to blame nothing was removed.
On mobile will be back later.


wmd_2008, In both Chrome and Firefox, the picture link delivers this "page is gone" text now, from about 1 hour after I posted the other link to the website that gave the real reason why all the floors collapsed, and how long it took to do so. It took several minutes.

files.abovetopsecret.com...


Click this link to compare it to my above link in my address bar. Here is it, stretched, with spaces :
http:// matdl.org/ failurecases/ images/ thumb/ a/ ab/ SkylineCollapsed.png/400px-SkylineCollapsed.png


edit on 25/9/14 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

originally posted by: lexyghot
There was very little, if any, column to column impacts. Not in the first half second, nor three seconds, nor at any time during the actual collapse initiation nor progression.

Therefore, this analysis is not a valid argument against the actual collapse times. At best, this can only be used as an argument against Bazant's limiting case analysis where he calculates that no matter what, the collapse progression was inevitable.

The facts are, that stuff fell on the floors, and the resistance from the floors and their connections were what was providing resistance to the collapse progression. You cannot deny this with any rational argument.



I could keep it short, or extensive. Short means : There was no pancaking.

Long means :

lexyghot : There was very little, if any, column to column impacts. Not in the first half second, nor three seconds, nor at any time during the actual collapse initiation nor progression.


You made no distinction between the kind of column. Thus you mean perimeter AND core columns. Thus you mean a pancaking collapse, solely by floors failing, then falling around the core, and inside the space between exterior and core columns, which theory NIST very early on already, excluded.

I even offered the evidence in this thread why the main reason/"evidence" for NIST to introduce their failing trusses theory/progressive collapse theory, was clearly wrong.
That NIST photo of what they thought was a sagging steel floor-truss behind a row of windows without glass in them, is in fact a sagging aluminum.....

...snipped for forum character limitations....



Yet another Gish Gallop.

Let's maintain focus for a change. You have used as evidence, Chandler's claim that 90% of the resistance had to be removed in order for the collapse progression to have achieved .67G acceleration.

I have proven that all one needs to do is look at the photos of the "spires", and of large section of unbuckled ext columns laying on the ground that the columns that therefore, they most definitely were not providing any resistance to the falling mass. Logically, if they were, they would be buckled.

It's also proven through logic, that stuff falls on floors, and indeed it did during the progression. It's a known fact that the floors and their connection system cannot hold up the falling mass, and that is why there is so little resistance.

To put it simply, the floors resisted the collapsing, falling mass. Not the columns.

There can be no logical argument against that.

Defense of Chandler and his paper is akin to Rob Balsamo insisting on a flyover, and all the accompanying lunacy that goes with it. But you have seen through his insanity. Why can't you see Chandler's?



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop



You made no distinction between the kind of column. Thus you mean perimeter AND core columns.


Yes.


Thus you mean a pancaking collapse, solely by floors failing, then falling around the core, and inside the space between exterior and core columns,


A pancake collapse progression. Not a pancake collapse initiation. there's a difference here that you are apparently, intentionally confusing. And no, not solely the floors. The core columns above the impact/initiation zone were also obviously falling on the floors. I don't, however, see a whole lot of ext columns in the falling mass impacting the floors.

All this is well documented at this truther forum in many threads.

the911forum.freeforums.org...


which theory NIST very early on already, excluded.


It is a well known fact that NIST eliminated FEMA's initial hypothesis of a pancake collapse initiation.

It is also a well known fact, and criticism of NIST, that they did zero investigation of the collapse progression, other than to say it was inevitable, based on Bazant's limiting case analysis.

To claim otherwise is an outright lie.

Therefore, logic says that your statement cannot be used to argue the collapse progression.



That NIST photo of what they thought was a sagging steel floor-truss behind a row of windows without glass in them, is in fact a sagging aluminum ceiling rim.


It very well may be. But since it is most definitelt not where the ext columns buckled, it is of no importance to the NIST theory. Therefore, your including it has zero impact on the NIST report.


Or you expect core column buckling being the cause of collapse initiation ?
Explain then, where your proposed core column buckling started. And how.


The sequence, from memory, goes something like this:
1- impact damage redistributes gravity loads and removes fire protection
2- fires heat the core columns and they creep shorten, removing load from them
3- core loads are redistributed through the hat truss onto ext columns, which are also being heated by fire
4- fire is causing the floor trusses to sag in the middle, causing a pull in on the ext columns
5- the combined effects of fire, truss pull in, and increased loads via the hat truss cause the ext columns to bend
6- the ext column bending cause them to shorten and the hat truss transfers loads back to the core columns
7- the core columns continue to creep shorten
8- the bending continues until the ext columns completely buckle
9- loads from the now buckled ext columns are redistributed back onto the core completely
10-NOW the core columns buckle and the antenna begins moving
11- the hat truss moves loads to the other ext columns, but they cannot hold the load
12- global collapse begins and the upper part tilts, which means that all columns cannot be aligned now, thus rendering any analysis by Chandler to be not valid

Not so simple, eh?



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

It is considered VERY bad behavior on this forum to not offer links to your QUOTED texts.
Are you trying to keep any kind of advantage ahead of your opponents?
This is the second time you do that now, over the time it takes to write a few posts :

1. www.abovetopsecret.com...
2. www.abovetopsecret.com...

First you post that second quoted text link, then I'll address that post.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot


The sequence, from memory, goes something like this:
1- impact damage redistributes gravity loads and removes fire protection
2- fires heat the core columns and they creep shorten, removing load from them
3- core loads are redistributed through the hat truss onto ext columns, which are also being heated by fire
4- fire is causing the floor trusses to sag in the middle, causing a pull in on the ext columns
5- the combined effects of fire, truss pull in, and increased loads via the hat truss cause the ext columns to bend
6- the ext column bending cause them to shorten and the hat truss transfers loads back to the core columns
7- the core columns continue to creep shorten
8- the bending continues until the ext columns completely buckle
9- loads from the now buckled ext columns are redistributed back onto the core completely
10-NOW the core columns buckle and the antenna begins moving
11- the hat truss moves loads to the other ext columns, but they cannot hold the load
12- global collapse begins and the upper part tilts, which means that all columns cannot be aligned now, thus rendering any analysis by Chandler to be not valid

Not so simple, eh?


Far too simple.
OK, that kind of avoidance of the quintescence of Beck's explanations.

I got a better list, from NIST :
6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
Looks like you took that from there.

And then Charles M. Beck came, and proved that to be a load of humbug.
Which you do not address at all, you avoid it by declaring his theory not applicable.
That's the easy way out.

By the way, thanks for that link to the911forum.freeforums.org...
Never knew they discussed it so intensely there.
They, being a lot of disgruntled former JREF members, who got sick from the tireless wolf-pack, and started their own forum. Saw a lot of cyber names I highly respect.
Hey guys, let me in. I think I earned it. PM me here, if interested.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
A reply to: lexyghot


It very well may be. But since it is most definitely not where the ext columns buckled, it is of no importance to the NIST theory. Therefore, your including it has zero impact on the NIST report.


I thought you hung up your theory on the buckling of the core columns, causing your progressive pancaking initiation event?

I see a row of ext columns buckling, I say it's because a row of outer core columns perpendicular to those ext columns were severed, dumped down caused by the weight of the hat truss and the radio mast, and pulled the composite floor down with them, which pulled-in that row of ext columns they were firmly attached to.. Just as Beck says. And he proves it to be much better applicable to what we saw happening, than your NIST theory. He even proves the NIST theory wrong, very wrong.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Therefore, logic says that your statement cannot be used to argue the collapse progression.


I'm not interested at the moment in the progression. Mainly in the initiating event.
Which Beck proves to be impossible, if we apply the NIST theory. Which seems your theory also.

Beck shows you through applicable math, that the core columns were by far strong enough to uphold the static and dynamic load. Even when we erase 50 %, half of these core columns from his equations.
Dammit, you know what? We throw another gift in there, and erase also 50 % of all perimeter (ext) columns (236), while NIST declares only 7 % of them damaged at the north impact side.
You know, lets top it off and declare all load baring steel at and above impacted floors to have lost 50 %, that's half of their strength. And say those oxygen starved fires did cause it.
For clarity's sake.

And you know, what rolls out of his equations? The counterforce that withstands a collapse initiation event (buckling of one or more core columns), is still in this scenario, after applying all these ridiculous gifts to NIST's theory, 2 to 3 orders bigger than the compression force needed to buckle those core columns and start a NATURAL, not aided by human hands, collapse.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: wmd_2008

It is considered VERY bad behavior on this forum to not offer links to your QUOTED texts.
Are you trying to keep any kind of advantage ahead of your opponents?
This is the second time you do that now, over the time it takes to write a few posts :

1. www.abovetopsecret.com...
2. www.abovetopsecret.com...

First you post that second quoted text link, then I'll address that post.




It's easy to find anyway the link would just disappear on your computer



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

Far too simple.
OK, that kind of avoidance of the quintescence of Beck's explanations.



Let's stay focused on what Chandler said. We can get to Beck later.


So what do you have to say about Chandler's paper? Do you agree that it is now proven that his paper is not valid cuz the resistance to the falling mass comes from the floors, and not the columns?



By the way, thanks for that link to the911forum.freeforums.org...
Never knew they discussed it so intensely there.
They, being a lot of disgruntled former JREF members, who got sick from the tireless wolf-pack, and started their own forum. Saw a lot of cyber names I highly respect.
Hey guys, let me in. I think I earned it. PM me here, if interested.


Yes, they're pretty cutting edge. They have dispelled a lot of the fantasies that you claim as proven facts though, so you may not like it there.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: lexyghot


It very well may be. But since it is most definitely not where the ext columns buckled, it is of no importance to the NIST theory. Therefore, your including it has zero impact on the NIST report.


I thought you hung up your theory on the buckling of the core columns, causing your progressive pancaking initiation event?


English isn't your primary language, is it?

1- there was no pancaking initiating event. To claim that either NIST or I claim that is a flat out lie. If you continue to say that, or try to use that argument, then you, sir, are a liar.

2- The hanging objects that you have tentatively identified as the hanging ceiling frame is not in the same spot that the ext columns were being pulled in. Therefore, it doesn't matter if those particular floor slabs were connected or not.



I see a row of ext columns buckling, I say it's because a row of outer core columns perpendicular to those ext columns were severed,


A few were by the planes.


dumped down caused by the weight of the hat truss and the radio mast,and pulled the composite floor down with them, which pulled-in that row of ext columns they were firmly attached to


But here you run into a problem. the hat truss would distribute loads to the ext columns and prevent the amount of drop that you need for your scenario to work. Additionally, if the ext columns weren't able to take the extra load, they would buckle LONG before there was any pull in. And it would fail through buckling again.


Just as Beck says. And he proves it to be much better applicable to what we saw happening, than your NIST theory. He even proves the NIST theory wrong, very wrong.


No, Beck is a joke.

He assumes that loads are equally distributed amongst the remaining columns. His scenario relies on it, which is fine for a hypothetical scenario that wants to examine a limiting case, but it doesn't reflect reality.

And I believe that he also relies on column to column impacts after initiation to arrest the collapse. But I've already proven that didn't happen in my debunking of Chandler, so there's no reason to rehash it again.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

Therefore, logic says that your statement cannot be used to argue the collapse progression.


I'm not interested at the moment in the progression. Mainly in the initiating event.



Yeah, since I've proven Chandler to be a wind bag, it's better for you to move on. He's a joke, and now you know it too.



Beck shows you through applicable math, that the core columns were by far strong enough to uphold the static (load)


He uses invalid load redistribution parameters. So no.


and dynamic load.


There was next to zero column to column impacts. Therefore, he can construct any hypothetical model of how it can arrest the collapse that he wants. But since this isn't what happened in reality, his model is not valid. Just like Chandler's.


Even when we erase 50 %, half of these core columns from his equations.
Dammit, you know what? We throw another gift in there, and erase also 50 % of all perimeter (ext) columns (236), while NIST declares only 7 % of them damaged at the north impact side.
You know, lets top it off and declare all load baring steel at and above impacted floors to have lost 50 %, that's half of their strength. And say those oxygen starved fires did cause it.
For clarity's sake.

And you know, what rolls out of his equations? The counterforce that withstands a collapse initiation event (buckling of one or more core columns), is still in this scenario, after applying all these ridiculous gifts to NIST's theory, 2 to 3 orders bigger than the compression force needed to buckle those core columns and start a NATURAL, not aided by human hands, collapse.


No.

He's got nothing.

His model is not valid.

ETA: And after a little reading, one glaring and fatal error totally invalidates his paper. He says that the yield strain on the steel is 25%, but it's actually .2%. That's off by a factor of 125. that's more than 2 orders of magnitude.

Therefore, there's no need for further discussion.

Another ETA: And he's WAAAAY off on the dimensions of the core columns.

Yet another reason to discard this paper.


edit on 26-9-2014 by lexyghot because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2014 by lexyghot because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2014 by lexyghot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Jeeze, after a little more reading, I've decided to put in a few easy to understand points as to why Beck's paper is quite probably one of the worst truth papers I've seen.

1- he assumes perfect, axial, column to column impacts to arrest the collapse. that didn't happen. the columns bypassed themselves due to tilt and horizontal reaction force resulting from the tilt, which sheared off the columns.
2- he assumes that the columns at the initiation zone to be the same size as those in the basement. they were no where near that size
3- he assumes a 25% yield strain for steel. It's actually .2%
4- he assumes that the columns can shorten by 20% before they buckle. that means that a 1000' lower part must shorten to 800' for it to buckle.

He's nutz......
edit on 26-9-2014 by lexyghot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
And say those oxygen starved fires did cause it.
For clarity's sake.


Oxygen starved HOW do you come to that conclusion

Now don't say the colour of the smoke because if you do I will have to ROFLMAO !!!



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: LaBTop
And say those oxygen starved fires did cause it.
For clarity's sake.


Oxygen starved HOW do you come to that conclusion

Now don't say the colour of the smoke because if you do I will have to ROFLMAO !!!


I do hope that LabTop goes to 9/11 free forum and does a little reading.

He will learn there that well informed truthers have rejected this notion....

If they let him join, I expect a very unhappy stay for him there as many of his notions are debunked by some honest guys.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Had some unfinished things to do. Thus the delay.
I also expected some other members to have exposed the glaring inconsistencies in the above truster posts. Are there no self thinking members left in this 911 forum?
Am I the only one left...


There are a few stubborn members here in this thread, endlessly repeating the stale "pancake theory", or their special brand of it.

Do realize, that in a demolition, the first blow is the hardest to calculate.
Where, how, and when are the decisive culprits.
If those three are exercised perfectly, the following seconds are not overly interesting or difficult anymore for the demo-crew. They just have to keep the collapse at pace, and place a few more charges on strategic columns all the way down, to be sure it doesn't halt prematurely. The collapse will after that, follow NATURAL pathways, along the lines of least resistance.

However, the initiating event surely wasn't naturally, but aided by experts.
And that's why this following text, which is excluding any other initiation event, not a representation of honest research, since it excludes one very logical operation mode; explosives :


lexighot : Let's maintain focus for a change. You have used as evidence, Chandler's claim that 90% of the resistance had to be removed in order for the collapse progression to have achieved .67G acceleration.

I have proven that all one needs to do is look at the photos of the "spires", and of large section of unbuckled ext columns laying on the ground that the columns that therefore, they most definitely were not providing any resistance to the falling mass. Logically, if they were, they would be buckled.


That text should be : ""I have proven that all one needs to do is look at the photos of the "spires", and of large sections of unbuckled exterior columns laying on the ground, that therefore THEY ALL most definitely were not providing any resistance to the falling mass. Logically, if they were, they would be buckled.""

Thus, according to you, all those columns would be still firmly standing there in New York, since they did not buckle. How then, did they manage to fall indeed, got perfectly cut at 3 floors lengths, and showed no signs of buckling at their ends AT ALL?
Only cutter charges can do that.
Introduce DU-cutter charges and exploding thermobaric bombs inside the floor spaces, and most floors will be disconnected from the interior and exterior columns.
That's a logical explanation for the launch of huge exterior columns packets and the rows of rings of exploding concrete dust clouds spitting out first at speeds of 70 m/h, and the total absence of neatly stacked up, broken but mostly intact floor-pans.
It's the concrete DUST, which indicates already from the moment of initiation, all the way to the end, that all the floors were annihilated by explosives.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   

It's also proven through logic, that stuff falls on floors, and indeed it did during the progression. It's a known fact that the floors and their connection system cannot hold up the falling mass, and that is why there is so little resistance.
To put it simply, the floors resisted the collapsing, falling mass. Not the columns.
There can be no logical argument against that.


That's your kind of logic.
I see something else. Immediately after that failure of that exterior panel that hinges to the left in that video of the collapse initiation moment of the North Tower top, already that explosive ring of dust is spitting out of that floor. I don't see stuff falling, I see stuff flying.

And you avoid Chandler's graph, which shows no resistance AT ALL during the first THREE seconds of the collapse, measured from a pixel-point situated on the sinking roof rim.

You totally avoid the fact that in your scenario, that roof rim would stand in place for those full three seconds, because all exterior and interior columns would also stand in place.
Only your progressive collapsing floors would fall inside these two walls of interior and exterior columns and their adjacent panels and crossbeams.
In your scenario, that roof rim would not move at all in those first 3 seconds. And neither would the radio mast sink first, followed by the whole fixed in place, four sinking roof lines.
That roof would be still firmly intact, holding those exterior columns together through the hat truss inside that roof, which extended over the 3 top floors, which were not failing at all in your scenario, since they were not burning equally, or at all.

What we do see however, is an EQUALLY failing and falling hat truss and roof rim sinking down, taking the whole intact top 7 floors downwards into the next 8 failing floors.
And since that hat truss is firmly attached to ALL 51 core columns, and ALL 236 exterior columns, ALL these columns must have failed SOMEWHERE, equally.

Your scenario can not explain what we all can see clearly happening in those first three seconds.
ONLY an explosive scenario can explain that.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

lexygoth : He (Beck) says that the yield strain on the steel is 25%, but it's actually .2%. That's off by a factor of 125. that's more than 2 orders of magnitude.
Therefore, there's no need for further discussion.


Mathematical English not your first language?
No, he doesn't say that, he says it like this :

Beck, page 6, text just above equation (13) :



From the properties of structural steel(14) it is known that the yield strain under tension and compression are fairly similar, and is ~ 21 − 25%.
In our model this (LT : yield strain ) is represented by λ1, which we take to be λ1 = 0.2.
The value of compaction limit we take from Bazant(10), λ∞ = 0.2, which leaves λ2 = 1 − λ1 − λ∞ = 0.6.
From there, (r*, s*) in the continuous model are related to (r, s) in the discrete values as,
r*= 0.25 . r
s* = 0.25 . s


It's not so simple to read mathematical dissertations as you thought?
And you didn't look up the definition of yield strain.
~ 21 - 25 % can also be written as : about 0.21 - 0.25 (parts from 1.00 , or from 100 %).
Beck took the even lower value of

λ1 = 0.2
, to give NIST as much slack as possible.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I'll help you with the definition of STRAIN : Wikipedia.org; Deformation : STRAIN.


Strain is a description of deformation in terms of relative displacement of particles in the body that excludes rigid-body motions. Different equivalent choices may be made for the expression of a strain field depending on whether it is defined with respect to the initial or the final configuration of the body and on whether the metric tensor or its dual is considered.

--snip--
Strains are dimensionless and are usually expressed as a decimal fraction, a percentage or in parts-per notation. Strains measure how much a given deformation differs locally from a rigid-body deformation.

--snip--
Infinitesimal strain theory, also called small strain theory, small deformation theory, small displacement theory, or small displacement-gradient theory where strains and rotations are both small. In this case, the undeformed and deformed configurations of the body can be assumed identical. The infinitesimal strain theory is used in the analysis of deformations of materials exhibiting elastic behavior.
Such as materials found in mechanical and civil engineering applications, e.g. concrete and steel.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Another ETA: And he's WAAAAY off on the dimensions of the core columns.
Yet another reason to discard this paper.


Let me try to ascertain your mindset. You probably think Beck is talking about vertical differences over the whole length of a column.
He's not. He describes all 51 column strengths on one floor, the failing top floor.
Beck correctly takes the 36 psi value for that.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   

--next post--
1- He assumes perfect, axial, column to column impacts to arrest the collapse.


Yes, in case no explosives were used. But they were. And that's why that top part tilted.
Not because of some starving office fires. They starve after about 30 minutes periods, in spaces with intact windows, of lack of fuel (office material). After that you get a longer smoldering period of the remnants.
And so high up (350 meters), with so much stronger winds as at street level (air is 20 % oxygen), causing vortex, venturi and chimney effects through that huge open space where the plane got in, that period to reach fire-starvation would be shorter.


That didn't happen. The columns bypassed themselves due to tilt and horizontal reaction force resulting from the tilt, which sheared off the columns.

Then you should have found lots of photos from end-bended top part column pieces. About 51 of them. Show them.
And realize that we have one photo of a 180º bend-back perimeter column. The "horse shoe" one. It's not sheared off. And there are no cracks in the outer zone. As if it was bend in a foundry.


2- He assumes the columns at the initiation zone to be the same size as those in the basement.
They were no where near that size.

No, he assumes all 51 core columns in that initiation zone to be the same size.
Reading comprehension problematics.


3- He assumes a 25% yield strain for steel. It's actually .2%

See my above explanation.



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join