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.

 

Chemistry/Physics Behind the Attacks

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I'm assuming you mean by core "giving way" that the core begins to collapse. The above analysis did not take that into account.

Taking into account the loadings of the top of the building tipping over, you would have the trusses pulling the core elements toward the s.e. corner. Of course, in the big battle, the core would win I would suspect, and the trusses would most likely rip free. But in tipping the top you have the n.w. corner compressing in toward the core (assuming the core stays vertical) which puts the trusses in the n.w. quandrant in compression (at all points as long as the core doesn't move). Once the core begins collapsing you have the trusses either following it (and shearing away at the outside columns) or you have the trusses shearing away at the core.

In answer to your question concerning whether the core movement would negate the unloading of the n.w. corner - No, it would not. It would either pull the n.w. corner into more bending toward the core (more tension on the outside) or it would have no effect at all (the trusses would shear away).

One final note that is worth considering, NIST has this photo on their page of "recovered WTC steel"

wtc.nist.gov...

It's absolutely worthless, and misleading to boot. Note how they have two I-beams laying side by side with the same permanent arch, which tends to imply the same load and failure. That's not true for these two beams.

Here's a cut away where I've marked the differences:



The left beam is in almost pure tension failure (note the elongation "lip" on the left side of the "v"-shaped failure edge), while the right beam exhibits a lateral shear failure and shows signs of torsion...which would indicate a bi-axial loading of compression and torsion resulting in shear failure. Neither exhibit heat-affected zones near the failed areas.




posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
It was merely a possible explanation to be considered but none of the stuff you claim about "perfect temperature bubbles" is mentioned in your source.

Sounds like more bloated out Howardesqe pontification if you ask me.

POSTING PICTURES OF BENT ALUMINUM COVERINGS DOES NOT = STEEL SUPPORT COLUMNS WERE BOWING INWARDS.

The NIST report is CLEARLY what doesn't cut it.


Oh, goody. You and bs ray are on the same page. Maybe you can answer this question, since he avoids it everytime I post it.

If the aluminum panels were attached to the exterior columns, how could they possibly buckle inward without the columns buckling inward also?




posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
The left beam is in almost pure tension failure (note the elongation "lip" on the left side of the "v"-shaped failure edge), while the right beam exhibits a lateral shear failure and shows signs of torsion...which would indicate a bi-axial loading of compression and torsion resulting in shear failure. Neither exhibit heat-affected zones near the failed areas.


I'll have to take your word for that.



Anyway, they did not identify what floor they came from, so it would not be surprising that there are no signs of heat on the beams.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Oh, goody. You and bs ray are on the same page. Maybe you can answer this question, since he avoids it everytime I post it.


I do not freaking avoid it! You just refuse to accept that facades can move in more than one direction! That and the fact that NONE of those column facades are "buckling" inwards more than the spaced allowed anyway!



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Oh, goody. You and bs ray are on the same page. Maybe you can answer this question, since he avoids it everytime I post it.


I do not freaking avoid it! You just refuse to accept that facades can move in more than one direction! That and the fact that NONE of those column facades are "buckling" inwards more than the spaced allowed anyway!


You are right. I refuse to believe that the column covers could possible move independently of the columns.

You seem to think so, but you provide nothing to support your contention.

Also, it is quite obvious, based on the pictures, that the inward displacement of the columns was greater than the width of the column covers.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Here's a little visual aid for you, too, Howard:



Not to scale, obviously; just trying to help you better comprehend what I've been trying to explain to you.

Gray boxes represent aluminum coverings.
Brown boxes represent the actual steel columns behind them.

A = No facade damage.
B = Lower aluminum facade is bending inwards.
C = Same, but upper aluminum facade is bending outwards at the base.

Heat could do this for one, and for another, the jet impact. Even look at the floor in the NIST photo:



Smoke. I really hope I don't have to teach you where smoke comes from, but in addition to the heat that would've been present there, the smoke obscures what little of the upper facades you can even make out an outline of.



OOoooooooooOOOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo!

ALSO:

The buckling would've had to have compromised A MAJORITY of perimeter columns for the collapse of any given floor. Not just a set of a minority on one face of a tower, but a MAJORITY. How do I get this? The safety factor ratings, etc. indicating 60% failure in addition to the jet damage on average per floor for a single floor failure, to amount to approx. a 75% column compromise on any given floor.

So to add on:

A few columns, or even a whole face of perimeter columns buckling = NO CIGAR.

But of course we know that, just before collapse, a massive number of trusses just happened to up and fail at the exact same moment. Yep. And therefore you don't even have to address the loss of angular momentum.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You are right. I refuse to believe that the column covers could possible move independently of the columns.

You seem to think so, but you provide nothing to support your contention.


Ahem..



*cough cough*disinfo agent*cough COUGH*.....


Also, it is quite obvious, based on the pictures, that the inward displacement of the columns was greater than the width of the column covers.


Must be about time for an eye exam then.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   


The south face of WTC 1.

Note that the angle of the photograph negates your theory (and JT's Heat refraction Theory as well).

There is no optical illusion happening here. The columns are bowing inward.

Note also the degree of displacement. NIST estimated the one area to have moved inward 55 inches.

Even if you don't agree with the NIST estimate on how far the columns moved inward, is is certainly more than the 1" to 2" between the aluminum covers and the columns themselves.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


A few columns, or even a whole face of perimeter columns buckling = NO CIGAR.



The strucutral engineers that I have talked to about this dissagre with you. Since they have degrees in strucutral engineering, I believe them, not you.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


There is no optical illusion happening here. The columns are bowing inward.

Note also the degree of displacement. NIST estimated the one area to have moved inward 55 inches.

Even if you don't agree with the NIST estimate on how far the columns moved inward, is is certainly more than the 1" to 2" between the aluminum covers and the columns themselves.



i could make that picture in 'kai's power goo', lol.

it is more importantly true that this picture could be capturing some of the first effects of the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm assuming you mean by core "giving way" that the core begins to collapse. The above analysis did not take that into account.

In answer to your question concerning whether the core movement would negate the unloading of the n.w. corner - No, it would not. It would either pull the n.w. corner into more bending toward the core (more tension on the outside) or it would have no effect at all (the trusses would shear away).



With an intact core and a weak side vs strong side the core acts as a fulcrum - is that how you see it?

If tension is added to the the strong side (unloading) would an equal or greater amount of compression be added to the fulcrum?

If the fulcrum failed on compression would a great part of that force be suddenly reapplied to the side formerly in tension?

I am not at all naysaying your calcs, I am very curious what parameters you are working with thats all



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Ahem..



*cough cough*disinfo agent*cough COUGH*.....




Now that you have demonstrated that the panels could move outwards into open air, can you please explain in clear language how panels with a 2" gap between it and the column moves inward without the column moving also.

Resorting to the *cough* adds nothing enlightening to the question.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm assuming you mean by core "giving way" that the core begins to collapse. The above analysis did not take that into account.

In answer to your question concerning whether the core movement would negate the unloading of the n.w. corner - No, it would not. It would either pull the n.w. corner into more bending toward the core (more tension on the outside) or it would have no effect at all (the trusses would shear away).



With an intact core and a weak side vs strong side the core acts as a fulcrum - is that how you see it?

If tension is added to the the strong side (unloading) would an equal or greater amount of compression be added to the fulcrum?

If the fulcrum failed on compression would a great part of that force be suddenly reapplied to the side formerly in tension?

I am not at all naysaying your calcs, I am very curious what parameters you are working with thats all


And thank you very much! I really don't have any theory, so I'm open to consideration of just about anything! lol I'm just trying to find out for myself if these damned buildings could fall as they did, naturally. So, if you see something I tended toward that looks like a bad assumption, or a bad calculation, etc. PLEASE POINT IT OUT! I don't want to waste my time on errors.

Now, concerning your questions (which I must must take into account). I have no answer for you right now. I really would like to do some modeling on this. And, if the modeling is to be worth something, it should be pretty detailed I would think. I started with hand calculations on a 2D shotgun approach, but now I'm going to go to 3D modeling starting with very gross primitive looks at movements (say the angle of the top and getting straight in my mind what all that means to us on a gross level). Then I'd like to start modeling individual structural components and work out a good model that we all agree on. Because if we can't agree on the model, then we'll just keep arguing - for the sake of arguing. lol.

So, what I thought is that I would just check in every step of the way. That way if anybody sees me doing some wrong, they can catch it on that step, and we can work together (no matter what side of the fence a given person may be sitting on - I'm straddle it right now LOL) they can have a voice in it.

SO! In answer to your question(s) - I DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW! But hopefully we can find out together! Which is kind of an exciting adventure, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Can we go back to this pic for a second?



I think I may have identified what this is. Please see this depiction of the assembly of the floor modules from the NIST report...



I believe this is the electrical conduit. So what we would be seeing is a combination of copper and aluminum (at least those two). It wouldn't be the air conditioning ducting because that's running transverse to the module, but the electrical conduit is running from core to perimeter and would be just about the location of that ejection.

This might give us a lot of information if we can at least consider this as a possible answer (i.e. temp to get this?). We really need to try to get a temp internal to the floor, and I'm assuming this is the result of internal temperatures and then the contents and structure of the conduit is flowing outward due to the sagging.

Does it make sense?



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Could be. with an open floor plan, a lot of the cabeling would have been under the floor.

Personally, I think it is from the plane itself.

If debris from the nose of the plane wound up in this region, then it is posssible that the oxygen generator for the flight cabin is near by also.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Okay, here's the first "gross" model just giving us the CORRECT numbers for distances shifted. I used the NIST statement that the top of building WTC 2 rotated toward the East wall by up to 20 to 25 degrees - I used 20 degrees. This shows that 7 floors (70 feet) had collapsed on the east side of the building - that would be seven floors that the west side of the building would have to "catch up to" while being in a decreased state of compressive load. The offset of the cg comes out to be 49 feet. (The difference here from my hand calculations last night is that I was calculating everything based on a rotation toward the southeast corner and working off the diagonal, but after re-reading the NIST report, that's not right, so this is 20 degrees toward the east wall, not the corner.)



CORRECTED major blunder on my drawing. Fixed now.

[edit on 2-21-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Nice drawing.

I think from that it would be pretty clear that the core area of the lower portion of the building would be subjected to sideways forces as the top came down. Since there was no lateral stability in the core, it would not have put up much resistance to the collapse.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
What is your conclusion from all this Valhall?

Are you coming to the obvious and simple conclusion that Professor Jones came to when he said this defied the Law of Increasing Entropy?



We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)



Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.
What happens to the block and its angular momentum?



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The strucutral engineers that I have talked to about this dissagre with you. Since they have degrees in strucutral engineering, I believe them, not you.


Well it was NIST that put out the safety factor ratings. I'd love for a structural engineer to show exactly how global collapse could initiate from truss failures equivalent to one face of a WTC tower. That would at most be a 25% loss of perimeter columns, whereas on average it would take about a 75% loss (60% additional to jet damage) to cause any floor to give way.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Nice drawing.

I think from that it would be pretty clear that the core area of the lower portion of the building would be subjected to sideways forces as the top came down. Since there was no lateral stability in the core, it would not have put up much resistance to the collapse.



Not "much"?

How about none at all?

And I guess you are not that familiar with the Law of Increasing Entropy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join