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.

 

Ausie Engineers say Austrailian Buildings vulnerable to collapse

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

University of Melbourne engineers have found Australia's tall buildings are likely to collapse following even a moderate bomb blast or collision with a light aircraft.

Associate Professor Pryian Mendis and PhD candidate Tuan Ngo assessed Australia's tall buildings and constructed a computer model of a standard 52-storey Australian-designed building. Using sophisticated computer software, they then investigated what would happen to the structure under extreme loading from bomb blasts or collision from a light aircraft.

They have presented their research at a number of national and international conferences this year. They will present a similar paper at the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) symposium in Melbourne this week.

"Under the extreme loading experienced during such events most Australian tall buildings would probably suffer progressive collapse, which occurs when a section of the building fails to support the load above and triggers a cascade of failures leading to the collapse of most or all of the building. The Murrah building in Oklahoma, which collapsed in 1995 after a bomb went off, and the World Trade Centre suffered this fate," says Mendis.


uninews.unimelb.edu.au...

Hmm, I wonder if these guys have heard of Steven Jones, the BYU physicist?

How did that part go again? Oh, yeah. . .


They have presented their research at a number of national and international conferences this year. They will present a similar paper at the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) symposium in Melbourne this week.


No probably not. They apparently are to busy getting their paper peer reviewed by real scientists and engineers.





posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
[dial tone.....] "Hi, Phil, about that office space in the Rialto...yeah, the one we're going to sign on Friday...yeah, that one...well I just heard about these two guys up at Melbourne uni and what they say is kinda interesting...well, to make a long story short, I found a converted wharehouse down in South Melbourne...yeah, you can see the Westgate from the roof...Well, I'll be taking that instead...What? Oh, why? Well, you know, room to expand, reasonable rent, view of Port Phillip, miles from Ground Zero...What, oh sorry, nothing, just ignore it. Thanks anyway..."[angry beep as mobile is closed]. [to self] "You know Phil, you should really read what they say, too..."



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   

"Under the extreme loading experienced during such events most Australian tall buildings would probably suffer progressive collapse, which occurs when a section of the building fails to support the load above and triggers a cascade of failures leading to the collapse of most or all of the building. The Murrah building in Oklahoma, which collapsed in 1995 after a bomb went off, and the World Trade Centre suffered this fate," says Mendis.


Well why don't they just try it and see what happens.


Maybe they can even set a fire on a couple floors and watch as the buildings implode themselves perfectly.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Okay, I'm not a structural engineer, but I have built a few houses and I used to play with my Lego a lot...

Given that the fire was 90% of the way up the building I don't see a problem with the hypothesis of that causing the collapse instead of the bombs others declare caused it.

Here's why:

If the fire were at the bottom of the building it wouldn't have collapsed, it would have fallen, ala a Canadian softwood tree as a bloke in a red-checked jacket yells "Timber". Like I've seen a whole heap of chimney demolitions do.

Because the fire was near the top the floors above it lost their support and fell onto the floors below them. The weight and jolt of this fall caused the floor beneath to collapse, which, with the weight of an extra floor, caused the floor beneath to collapse, which, with the weight of two extra floors, caused the floor beneath to collapse even faster, which...etc down the chain reaction.

It was a crushing action from above that brought down the towers, not a removal of support from below.

I've seen concrete detonate under load (and it's kinda scary as hell) and I've seen how brittle concrete that's been in a fire becomes. Admittedly it wasn't tower-grade stuff, but then it wasn't a kiln it had been in, either.

From the article:

"HSC has never been tested under these conditions before, so nobody knows if, in its current form, it is a suitable construction material to use to strengthen buildings against extreme loads" says Mendis.

In the paragraph immediately prior it states that Melb Uni, CSIRO and ADFA are collaborating on just that testing.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Howard, you make it so easy for us. I don't know where to start.


More "pancake theorists" selling bad science. A hypothesis based on one single incident which has never occurred before, and has not nor cannot be reproduced since. If two guys in Melbourne say the Earth is flat yet can't produce any results of real-world experiment or real-world observation to support their hypothesis, then I'm sorry, the rest of us will just keep believing that the Earth is round.

Let's see what they have to say...


Australia's tall buildings, and many others around the world, are designed around a central core that contains things such as the lifts and emergency stairs. This core is designed to take most, if not all, of the loading that comes from forces such as wind or earthquakes. The external frame is designed to take vertical loading in the form of weight from the structure above and human and materials on each level only.

Their hypothesis, by their own admission, is based on the observation of the WTC towers. NEWSFLASH guys: the WTC towers were not designed at all in the way you describe!
The WTC cores were designed to take 50-60% of the vertical load. Back to the drawing board, eh fellas?


"This way, if one or more support columns and beams are knocked out, progressive collapse is prevented as the load from above is distributed laterally and onto other columns and beams," says Mendis.

Did these two just get out of bed or what? If they actually do some reading they might discover that the WTC towers were designed specifically with lateral load distribution between the core and the perimeter, and between columns in each.

But wait, it gets better...


"It was estimated that 80 per cent of the deaths in the Oklahoma bombing were due to the progressive collapse of the building rather than the blast itself."

Wow, these guys really need to do some more homework. Here is what the man who was called in by the US government to investigate the OKC bombing, USAF ordinance expert Bigadier General Benton K. Partin, concluded about the building damage and "collapse":

www.okcbombing.org...

And guess what? The Murrah building was still standing after half the building was blown away. Because the bombs that were still in the building failed to explode. And they had to call in a demolition crew to destroy the building. Ironic, eh?


But what's most amusing about the few lemmings who are coming out with this all-new "pancake collapse" theory which has never been reproduced before or since that one day in Sept 2001, is that their hypothesis is never presented to the people who deal not in bogus science, but rather in real-world application of real science in building collapse, i.e. demolition experts. If this 'Earth is flat' hypothesis were true, it should be revolutionizing the demolition industry worldwide. But whaddyaknow, demolition corporations are still imploding buildings the good old fashioned way, destroying all the columns and supports in a building. I don't see any of them consulting with these two guys in Melbourne about how buildings can be imploded by knocking out a column or two at the top 8% of the building.

Perhaps associate professor Mr. Mendis and his friend Mr. Ngo the "PhD candidate" should give a real professor a call. I'm sure Professor Jones can give them a lesson or two in basic physics for free; he seems like a nice enough bloke. And perhaps they can explain to him how their computer game predicts pools of molten metal in the basements of these imploding buildings. That would be a good one.


Is their paper published online so we can take a look at what other gaping flaws it contains?




[edit on 2005-12-6 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
the great thing about australian buildings, is they collapse UP. sometimes it pays to be on the bottom.

i wonder if we'll be seeing one of these aussie collapses soon, nudge, nudge, wink, wink....

[edit on 6-12-2005 by billybob]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   



Rialto Towers is the tallest reinforced concrete structure in the Southern Hemisphere and is well known for its unique design and glass facade.

www.rialto.com.au...

It was built in the mid-1980's and is the third highest reinforced concrete building in the World.

www.australianexplorer.com...


Wasn't that the official reason why the WTC caught fire and collapsed... atleast orginally?
The steel wasn't re-enforced, therefor the fire destroyed the steel, one floor gave and the others followed?

So why would the Rialto fall anything like the WTC?
If we're talking about bombs, well that's not how the WTC fell now is it?? So far there's no likening to the WTC.

After 9/11 there was actually a fair bit of anaylsis done on the Rialto and why it was stronger than the WTC. Obviously people were asking the question of how safe it is and the fact it is re-enforced was the reason why it's stronger.

Might be worth starting a database of info about the Rialto just incase they dare try to bring it down and all the facts posthumously start changing. Thou i still think it will follow the London script and just be a bomb on a train, probably in Sydney since Melbourne wouldn't want to tarnish it's reputation with the Commonwealth Games in 2006. That would be the easiest thing for them to pull off, nowhere near the amount of security and cameras that London had, plus making it Sydney will mean Melbourne can put on a security show to impress the visiting nations and boost the security budget. It doesn't have to be a massive attack for Australias government to take advantage of it, they don't need to do much.

Howard has already got his "Christmas wish" and got all his laws through before Christmas so they're getting ready for something - infact they keep telling us that something is going to happen one day.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Perhaps associate professor Mr. Mendis and his friend Mr. Ngo the "PhD candidate" should give a real professor a call. I'm sure Professor Jones can give them a lesson or two in basic physics for free; he seems like a nice enough bloke. And perhaps they can explain to him how their computer game predicts pools of molten metal in the basements of these imploding buildings. That would be a good one.


Is their paper published online so we can take a look at what other gaping flaws it contains?




[edit on 2005-12-6 by wecomeinpeace]


I'm sure it will be availabe after it has been peer reviewed.

When was Jones going to submit his paper for peer review again?

Oh, yeah, he did, to a publication that speciallizes in Marxist economic theories. Oh, yeah, those guys know all about collapse engineering. Everything a marxist touches, collapses.

[edit on 6-12-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I'm sure it will be availabe after it has been peer reviewed.

Funny how they've barely opened their mouths, and already they've made heinous blunders.
That's what happens when you base hypotheses on bad science.


When was Jones going to submit his paper for peer review again?


deseretnews.com
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year,

Patience is a Jedi's strength, young Padewan. It'll be reviewed unless BYU gets the order to sack him first, or threaten him with such. It could go one of either two ways: His work could be shunned by his peers who don't want to be implicated in any potentially career-destroying outing of truths, or it could be attacked by shills desperate to debunk and do their part. I hope it's the latter, because in the process they will only show the weaknesses in their case even clearer.

But hey, did you mean this thread to be a credibility attack on Prof. Jones, or about your two goons from Down Under, Pryian and Ngo? tsk, tsk...If you wear transparent tactics, Howard, everyone can see what color panties you have on.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Howard, you make it so easy for us. I don't know where to start.


More "pancake theorists" selling bad science. A hypothesis based on one single incident which has never occurred before, and has not nor cannot be reproduced since. If two guys in Melbourne say the Earth is flat yet can't produce any results of real-world experiment or real-world observation to support their hypothesis, then I'm sorry, the rest of us will just keep believing that the Earth is round.

Let's see what they have to say...


Australia's tall buildings, and many others around the world, are designed around a central core that contains things such as the lifts and emergency stairs. This core is designed to take most, if not all, of the loading that comes from forces such as wind or earthquakes. The external frame is designed to take vertical loading in the form of weight from the structure above and human and materials on each level only.

Their hypothesis, by their own admission, is based on the observation of the WTC towers. NEWSFLASH guys: the WTC towers were not designed at all in the way you describe!
The WTC cores were designed to take 50-60% of the vertical load. Back to the drawing board, eh fellas?


WCIP, I am amazed at your attempts to put words into other mouths.

“Their hypothesis, by their own admission, is based on the observation of the WTC towers. “ Where, pray tell, in that article do they admit this?

I found another version of the article. Nope, they don’t “admit” that their hypothesis is based on the WTC collapse at all.


The finding comes from a study by Associate Professor Pryian Mendis and PhD candidate, Mr Tuan Ngo, who constructed a computer model of a standard 52-storey Australian-designed building.


Or are you stating that the design for the WTC building is standard for Australia.

What the modeled is a STANDARD box frame building with a rigid core. Nowhere in that article are they making any claims regarding the WTC towers. YOU are the one jumping to the conclusion that they are.


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

"This way, if one or more support columns and beams are knocked out, progressive collapse is prevented as the load from above is distributed laterally and onto other columns and beams," says Mendis.

Did these two just get out of bed or what? If they actually do some reading they might discover that the WTC towers were designed specifically with lateral load distribution between the core and the perimeter, and between columns in each.


Where is it written in that article that they are talking about the WTC?????



Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

But wait, it gets better...


"It was estimated that 80 per cent of the deaths in the Oklahoma bombing were due to the progressive collapse of the building rather than the blast itself."

Wow, these guys really need to do some more homework. Here is what the man who was called in by the US government to investigate the OKC bombing, USAF ordinance expert Bigadier General Benton K. Partin, concluded about the building damage and "collapse":

www.okcbombing.org...


Why should they read the words of a conspiracy nut?

Why not read what a structural engineer has to say?

www.wai.com...



Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
And guess what? The Murrah building was still standing after half the building was blown away. Because the bombs that were still in the building failed to explode. And they had to call in a demolition crew to destroy the building. Ironic, eh?


So? No where in the Australian’s article do they insist that the building has to collapse totally, just that a collapse either in part or in total, can occur.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Funny how they've barely opened their mouths, and already they've made heinous blunders.
That's what happens when you base hypotheses on bad science.


What blunders? All you’ve proved so far is your own bias.


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace


When was Jones going to submit his paper for peer review again?


deseretnews.com
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year,


Yeah, he had to edit his on-line version to take out the part where he claimed that is was going to be published by a peer reviewed journal when in fact it has only been accepted by the Marxists rag so far.

I bet his colleagues were giving hem a hard time for the quality of his “peer” review.


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Patience is a Jedi's strength, young Padewan. It'll be reviewed unless BYU gets the order to sack him first, or threaten him with such. It could go one of either two ways: His work could be shunned by his peers who don't want to be implicated in any potentially career-destroying outing of truths, or it could be attacked by shills desperate to debunk and do their part. I hope it's the latter, because in the process they will only show the weaknesses in their case even clearer.


If Jones was patient, then why did he release his paper on-line before it was peer reviewed?

The sad truth is, Jones, like the Idaho weatherman and Pierre Sallinger, has pretty much thrown his career down the tubes based on internet myths.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
WCIP, I am amazed at your attempts to put words into other mouths.

“Their hypothesis, by their own admission, is based on the observation of the WTC towers. “ Where, pray tell, in that article do they admit this?


From your linked article:


www.unimelb.edu.au...
Associate Professor Mendis says that under the extreme loadings experienced from a bomb blast or light aircraft collision most Australian tall buildings would probably suffer progressive collapse.

"This occurs when a section of the building fails to support the load above and triggers a cascade of failures leading to the collapse of most or all of the building," he says.

"The Murrah Building in Oklahoma collapsed in 1995 after a bomb blast and the World Trade Centre suffered this fate."



Seems to me that your two heros above are referring quite clearly to the WTC collapses and the Murrah building as examples of their hypothesis in action. In fact, those are the only examples they mention. And you know why? Because no other buildings have gone into progressive collapse before without the aid of explosives. Terms like "progressive collapse" and "pancake collapse" have only appeared in structural engineering in relation to tall buildings since 9-11, in an attempt to explain why those buildings collapsed. Imagine it, a complete Copernicus-like revolution in the structural engineering world, with billions of dollars being spent on finding ways to prevent buildings from exploding themselves down to the ground when they catch on fire, all based on just three buildings that all collapsed in one day, never before, and never since. Newsflash guys: The buildings WERE collapsed using explosives.

Hilarious...


Nowhere in that article are they making any claims regarding the WTC towers. YOU are the one jumping to the conclusion that they are. Where is it written in that article that they are talking about the WTC?????


Howard, I don't think I've ever seen you backtrack this fast in all the time I've been at ATS. You say I am jumping to conclusions here, eh? That you innocently posted this as a bit of random news in relation to structural engineering, right? Well let me ask you this, dear Howard. If the article and the hypothesis has absolutely nothing to do with the collapses of the WTC buildings, then WHY THE HELL DID YOU POST IT IN THE 9-11 CONSPIRACIES FORUM?!
Why didn't you post it in ATSNN, or the Science forum?


Why should they read the words of a conspiracy nut?

Why not read what a structural engineer has to say?

You're calling USAF Brigadier General Partin a "conspiracy nut"? I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Google for his name and his biography and tell me again that he's a conspiracy nut. Btw, your structural engineer wouldn't know diddly-squat about ordinance. He would try to rationalize away any OKC destruction anomalies using structural engineering reasoning. I don't envy his task, lol.


No where in the Australian’s article do they insist that the building has to collapse totally, just that a collapse either in part or in total, can occur.

Once again, from your link:

"This occurs when a section of the building fails to support the load above and triggers a cascade of failures leading to the collapse of most or all of the building," [Mendis] says.


You, I, and everybody else here are well aware that you posted it to say, "Look. Guys with degrees say that tall buildings can collapse completely from damage or fire. These guys support the WTC pancake theory. Nyah nyah-nyah nyah-nyaaaah nyaaah."

Truth 1, Roark 0


[edit on 2005-12-6 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If Jones was patient, then why did he release his paper on-line before it was peer reviewed?

The sad truth is, Jones, like the Idaho weatherman and Pierre Sallinger, has pretty much thrown his career down the tubes based on internet myths.


yeah, a physics professor got his theory from the internet. do you think he just downloaded the whole paper from essays-r-us?

HAHAHA! that's rich, howie.

i think it should be pretty obvious why he would release it publicly, first, my big brother.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Talk about backtracking.

You originally stated “Their hypothesis, by their own admission, is based on the observation of the WTC towers.”

Now you are stating: “Seems to me that your two heros above are referring quite clearly to the WTC collapses and the Murrah building as examples of their hypothesis in action.”

Well which is it, and example of the hypothesis or the basis of the hypothesis?

They are two different things.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
A hypothesis is formed in response to observed phenomena in the real world, and is an attempt to explain those phenomena. The hypothesis is further tested by experimentation, and confirmed through reproduction of expected results. Have you forgotten grade 7 science class already? The "scientific method"? Ring any bells?

Please explain for us what observed phenomenon, if not the two examples they specifically and solely referred to, their progressive collapse hypothesis is based on. Then please explain for us what, if any, relevance it has to 9-11 and the collapses of WTC1, 2, & 7.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
You're calling USAF Brigadier General Partin a "conspiracy nut"? I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Google for his name and his biography and tell me again that he's a conspiracy nut.


let’s see what we have here.

100777.com...


Purchase it here: www.thegospel.org...
GLOBALISM: THE PROGRAM by General Benton K. Partin. Wow! Where do I start? You want to know the opinion of a bomb expert who built many of our most sophisticated missile systems? General Partin is your man. He has received countless awards in his 31 years in the Air Force and possesses credentials eight pages long. He says TWA flight 800 was taken out by two ground-to-air missiles; the Branch Davidians at Waco had explosives used on them; the bomb in the Ryder truck in the Oklahoma City bombing could not possibly have done all the damage it was claimed; and that is only a start! He continues on to reveal "The Program" the Illuminati is following to build a New World Order. He says these bombings are part of "The Program" and you can count on more of them increasing in intensity.


Yep, as far as I am concerned, anyone who believes in the Illuminati is a conspiracy nut.

What else does your hero, General Partin have to say?

"I would encourage everyone who loves freedom...to read and reread Masters of Seduction..." --Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, Ret.)

Yep, He’s sounds like a right wing kook to me.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
A hypothesis is formed in response to observed phenomena in the real world, and is an attempt to explain those phenomena. The hypothesis is further tested by experimentation, and confirmed through reproduction of expected results. Have you forgotten grade 7 science class already? The "scientific method"? Ring any bells?

Please explain for us what observed phenomenon, if not the two examples they specifically and solely referred to, their progressive collapse hypothesis is based on. Then please explain for us what, if any, relevance it has to 9-11 and the collapses of WTC1, 2, & 7.


If you read the article, they are specifically looking at the vulnerability of common building designs in Australia to collapse.

The only hypothesis that they have presented is that based on computer modeling, these designs are, in fact, vulnerable.

Your assumption that their analysis is somehow based on the WTC collapse is wrong. The study of why buildings collapse is a very common one among structural engineers. Up to a few years ago, those studies were mainly based on earthquake events. After 911, many, engineers began to look at the vulnerability of their buildings to terrorist attacks.

If their analysis is flawed, then this will be determined by peer review. That is the purpose of peer review. Why doesn’t Professor Jones present his paper at an engineering symposium?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

HowardRoark wrote
Yep, as far as I am concerned, anyone who believes in the Illuminati is a conspiracy nut.


Firstly, the quote you give is of someone else talking about Partin. Partin uses the word "the program", the person writing the review states Illuminati.

Secondly, your statement above has just insulted a good percentage of the members of this website. Way to go, ya ninny. So who else are conspiracy nuts? Those who believe JFK was killed by anyone other than Oswald? Those who believe that Oliver North was selling weapons to the Iranians? Your angry and disrespectful tactics have let you slip up and once again confirmed to everyone that you are only here on this conspiracy website to perform your duty to suppress certain memes.

Thirdly, you once again repeat your usual tactic of attacking the person rather than attacking the material. If you can debunk General Partin's findings, then bring it on. I'll make a new thread about the OKC bombing if you like and we can have at it there. If you can't debunk his findings, then your post attacking his character is about as useful as a poo-flavored lollipop.

Once again, making a third attempt to return to the topic of the thread which you started and subsequently hijacked, please explain for us what observed phenomenon, if not the two examples they specifically and solely referred to, your two heroes' progressive collapse hypothesis is based on. Then please explain for us what relevance, if any at all, it has to 9-11 and the collapses of WTC1, 2, & 7. If you yet again fail to do so, then perhaps the thread should be moved to another forum. Cheers.


[edit on 2005-12-6 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Your assumption that their analysis is somehow based on the WTC collapse is wrong. The study of why buildings collapse is a very common one among structural engineers. Up to a few years ago, those studies were mainly based on earthquake events. After 911, many, engineers began to look at the vulnerability of their buildings to terrorist attacks.


Then what relevance does it have to the 9-11 conspiracy, and the collapses of WTC1, 2 & 7?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I think the fact that you so vehemently attacked the article and the two Australians is enough to warrant it being here.

Just like you “theorists” I am “connecting the dots.” Only the dots I am working with are based soundly in science, data, and engineering.

Forensic engineering is a fascinating subject. www.icivilengineer.com...

If you don’t like this thread, then simply stop posting in it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join