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.

 

If the twin towers were left burning, could they soon collapsed?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Valhal:

If your drawings are correct:

- At least 1/3 of the mass of the falling block was not available to crush the building.
- More crushing force on the left wall than the core as the COG is offset left.
- Lowering of the pivot point (as the crushing continued) for the pivioting section further reducing the "crushing force" on the intact building by rotating the blocks center of gravity further out.
- Taken almost the entire load of that block off of the remaining intact structure.
- Probably caused an asymmetrical collapse or partial collapse.


[edit on 1-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Yeah' there was only fire.LOL LOL LOL. What about all the destruction from the crash that weakened the entire building,including the core.Funny as a crutch Griff.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
This has no 'downward force'???


Not on the center of the intact structure which would be necessary for a perfectly symmetrical collapse. There is a LOT of downward force, just not in the right place for the pancake theory to be possible. The block should have "slid" off or take out that side of the building or at least pulled the structure that way.


Originally posted by Vushta
Source?
You know there is a vast difference between no and lessened.


Do you know the difference between perfectly symmetrical and asymmetrical? Shifting the vector 60m or so off of the core presents a HUGE issue for symmetrical and total collapse. The soucre is... PHYSICS!


Originally posted by Vushta
Yeah..yeah..yeah. But you are implying degrees of these forces and specifically stating that the degee of change in downward force was sufficient to cancel the possibility of collapse.
Source?


This is getting quite boring. Shifting the downward vector makes the odds of a symmetrical collapse nill. There would me virtually no "straight down" vector on most of the columns AND since howardroark has told us the core had NO LATTERAL SUPPORT, one side should have been far more affected than the other. Source? Physics 101 - Vector forces


Originally posted by Vushta
There were other things going on during the collapse. Are you assuming that the only way for the core to have failed is by a straight down brute force crushing of the structure..like flattening a can with your foot?


WHAT "OTHER THINGS"? Source? The gov't theory RELIES ON THE DOWNWARD CRUSHING FORCE OF THIS BLOCK. READ THE NIST REPORT.


Originally posted by Vushta
The official story requires that enough force was achieved to fail the connections and it just basically fell apart for lack of a better phrase.


This is the stupidest thign I have read today. THE FALLING MASS is what supposedly "failed the connections". Steel skyscrapers DO NOT "just fall apart".


Originally posted by Vushta
Source?


Physics 101... go to college... take engineering. DO NOT edit my words then say "source?" like you are a hero here or something.


Originally posted by Vushta
Pancake theory = crushed core theory?....Source?


Do I really need to respond to this? Change the word "crushed" to dismanteled. Also, add the forces necessary to pulverize the concrete and everythgin else. I was being GENEROUS.


Originally posted by Vushta
How much force do you calculate would be needed to fail the connections?
"Basically" intact?


Sorry, should have said FULLY INTACT. So, A VERY, VERY large amount of force.


Originally posted by Vushta
Then how are you arriving at the conclusion that the KE was 'not enough'?


Without the properly centered MASS there is no properly centered KE to cause symmetrical and total collapse.

Source? Physics 101

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Yeah' there was only fire.LOL LOL LOL. What about all the destruction from the crash that weakened the entire building,including the core.Funny as a crutch Griff.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Duhh]


Yeah Duhh...only fire. You are responding to my response about the poster saying it would take a week for plasma cutters to cut through the steel columns. Since the buildings didn't fail upon crash time, then we can assume that what he ment was the failure AFTER the crash. So, yes...only fire.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I like how some will say that it would take hundreds of tons of explosives to fail the building but believe that fire did the same thing under an hour. Yes, I'm ignoring the crash.....you know why? Because in BOTH scenarios, the plane crash is still present. Do you people understand yet?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I like how some will say that it would take hundreds of tons of explosives to fail the building but believe that fire did the same thing under an hour. Yes, I'm ignoring the crash.....you know why? Because in BOTH scenarios, the plane crash is still present. Do you people understand yet?


LOL....WoW Do you work for the government or something.....

And Yes I meant columns.....
Stop lying to people.......
Fire from the fuel tanks would have burnt off in 10 minutes..Tops
Nowhere I have ever seen has said it took "Tons" of explosives. In fact Dr. Stephen Jones PHD said it would only take a couple of hundred pounds of Thermate, strategically placed in and around the UNOCCUPIED floors directly on the supporting columns.....
It upset's me that people like you don't do their research and proceed to comment about events, they obviously know nothing about.


Fires you say........ Wow.
< Maybe this guy did it?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iggnorace_is_bliss
LOL....WoW Do you work for the government or something.....


Firstly, I think we are argueing the same point. I'm a CTer like you.


And Yes I meant columns.....


Thought so.


Stop lying to people.......


Please show me where I have lied. That's a big accusation that needs proof.


Fire from the fuel tanks would have burnt off in 10 minutes..Tops


Agreed.


Nowhere I have ever seen has said it took "Tons" of explosives.


The official story believers have said this many times. You're new here so I'll let it slide.


In fact Dr. Stephen Jones PHD said it would only take a couple of hundred pounds of Thermate, strategically placed in and around the UNOCCUPIED floors directly on the supporting columns.....


Griff...BS in Civil Engineering with an emphasis on Structural Engineering has said that it would have taken (unknown) pounds of thermite/mate/super thermate placed in three strategic spots in the core area to sever the core. (Again you are new so you may not have realized that I agree with Dr. Jones on most things (not all) and have a theory (scenario) that goes against the official story.)


It upset's me that people like you don't do their research and proceed to comment about events, they obviously know nothing about.


Well, since I spent 5 years in college obtaining my degree, I'd say that I've done my research and do know something about the events. Maybe you should do a little more reasearch and find out my opinions in this subject before trying to blast me.


Fires you say........ Wow.
< Maybe this guy did it?


I never said fires did it....you did.


Originally posted by Iggnorace_is_bliss
Sorry….BUT If you think for a second you can use physics to prove that they fell because of fire. GO BACK TO SCHOOL! Maybe even ask a welder what the properties of steel are? Ohh wait I am a welder and I know this isn't possible. Like I said there is no argument here. lol it's kinda scary that people can be fooled like this....wow

And for those who don't know yet. You would need a plasma cutter and it still wouldn't even come close to cutting those steel beams. lol it would take you a week! With a PLASMA cutter.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Ignorance,

While "ignorance is bliss" may be true for some one, acting infantile doesn't really tickle the rest of us. Why don't you try engaging in an intelligent conversation with the rest of us instead of acting like some one stole half your brain and left a real mean piece of meat in its place.

...OR, if you can't discuss this at an adult level with the rest of us...BUG OFF.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

But the question unanswered is what the heck was going on with the core when the top floors were cocked 20 degrees from vertical? Was the whole core bending 20 degrees? Was it still some what vertical and the structure bending around it?

That's a mind bender to consider.


Valhall check out this paper and tell us what you think. When it gets to the math I'm lost.
I pulled this from baut.


www.civil.northwestern.edu...



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Vushta,

The links not working!



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
You're right..try this one.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Vushta. Thanks for posting that study. I haven't seen that before. If I don't forget to check it out...I will. I'm sure Valhall can give you more info on the calculations behind it though.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Vushta,

I'm going to read this tonight. (briefly skimmed it) But I just wanted to make clear (in case you have misunderstood me). I have no problem whatsoever with progressive collapse theory. In fact, it amazes me that anybody else has a problem with it.

My ONLY questions center around two areas:

1. explosions and collapses at lower levels of the tower just after the plane impact,
and
2. what INITIATED the collapse in each tower (I'll talk more on this later).

But I've NEVER had a problem with the progressive collapse theory. Once 15 to 30 stories of the thing started falling it wasn't going to stop.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Another one for the library:

www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk...

It's pretty long.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Okay, Vushta, I do have a couple of things to say on this paper.

1. It doesn't give me a good feeling that he puts words in the NIST paper that are not there:

From page 2:


2. Signi¯cant amount of ¯re insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by °ying debris
(without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural
steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) [the structural steel used loses about
20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, and about 85% at 600±C, NIST 2005; and
exhibits signi¯cant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450± (e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299),
especially in the columns overloaded by load redistribution; the press reports right after
9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Ba·zant
and and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that]. pg 2


Can some one show me where the report states this: "many structural steel members heated up to 600±C"?

This is what I have found in the NIST report:


Annealing studies on recovered steels (from NIST NCSTAR 1-3E) established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. The microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire, based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, were cahracterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time. pg 281, wtc.nist.gov...



Di®erential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation,
caused the °oor trusses to sag. pg 2


Can't contribute creep to floor truss sagging if the temperature did not exceed 450 C and exposure time of 1 hour.

And then - I guess I need to qualify my statements of "I have no problem with progressive collapse."

I have no problem with the fact SOME FORM of progressive collapse would take place once collapse of a large top section occurred. But I still have questions as to whether the total collapse of a large top section should have ever even initiated.

And finally, I have this problem with WTC 2 - the paper you link states this:


Usefulness of Varying Demolition Mode. Ronan Point apartments, the Oklahoma City bombing, etc., demonstrate that only a vertical slice of building may undergo progressive collapse, while the remainder of building stands. Such a collapse is truly a three-dimensional problem, much harder to analyze, but some cases might allow adapting the present one-dimensional model as an approximation.


Then look back up at my cartoons showing the loading of the top section of WTC 2 at the point it starts downward. I'm not real sure that loading condition should have resulted in:

1. all the core being annihilated,
2. nothing remaining of the opposite side of the building

These are questions that the answer isn't just a snap decision.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Valhall,

Notice that the first site doesn't say anything about time. The NIST report says "significant amount of time". Since the site desides to ignore this statement, then what they are saying is true.... "from a certain point of view".......OB1 Kanobi fades out...... Exactly what other people accuse (sp?) the CT sites of doing, this paper (I'm going from what you posted...I haven't read it yet) is doing as well.

[edit on 8/1/2006 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Valhall,

Notice that the first site doesn't say anything about time. The NIST report says "significant amount of time". Since the site desides to ignore this statement, then what they are saying is true.... "from a certain point of view".......OB1 Kanobi fades out...... Exactly what other people accuse (sp?) the CT sites of doing, this paper (I'm going from what you posted...I haven't read it yet) is doing as well.

[edit on 8/1/2006 by Griff]


Right, and one can only assume the entire model from that point forward was based on the effects of 600 C temperatures.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Sorry Griff..... I wasn't speaking of you specifically,I was generalizing about most of the BS I've read on this thread. Also I agree with most of your comments. No offense meant.

Peace



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
No offence taken. Take care.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Decided to bump this thread because of this image I found...certain other people seen it before, but I thought I add this to it.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join