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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
A few columns, or even a whole face of perimeter columns buckling = NO CIGAR.
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.
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).
Originally posted by bsbray11
Ahem..
*cough cough*disinfo agent*cough COUGH*.....
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
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?
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.
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.