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.

 

China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by apex
otherwise how would a blacksmith ever make anything?


Ever see a blacksmith be able to do anything to steel that wasn't glowing red hot?

Did we see the steel glowing red hot on 9/11?


No, but it still loses strength. And when it's got the top of a building on it, as opposed to a hammer, some deflection may occur. Even with a failsafe, is it not possible the buildings CofM had moved in some way the designers had not anticipated in the WTC that would have compromised these?




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Temper, temper...

This thread is exactly why this whole topic is beginning to become so unpopular...

If you all can't have a civil conversation, why even bother...?



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Griff - I did not start this thread so I'm under no obligation to refute such a stupid claim.


Cop-out.


lacking in the 9/11 threads and from posts like the OP and yours.


Please point out any of my ignorance. Thanks. Just because you can't come back with anything doesn't make my claims ignorant.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Please provide evidence of this other than quotes. Thanks.









posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
These threads are the mods worst nightmare!


Evey single one of these 9/11 threads degenerates into the same mess.

Peace



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
And when it's got the top of a building on it, as opposed to a hammer, some deflection may occur.


Yes, some deflection may occur. Do you know that it is an engineering principle that a braced structure will fail in one direction? That means fail to one side and not into itself?

That means that for all walls to fail in, they had to become unbraced. How did this happen to WTC 7?


The implications for designers are obvious. This structural behaviour is significantly different than that posed by present design techniques based upon the behaviour of single unrestrained structural elements in the standard fire test. This test is based upon statically determinate elements and the time to failure is based on a displacement criterion (often termed `runaway' failure). In contrast, increasing deflections are beneficial in real structures in that thermal strains give rise to deflections rather than increasing forces and moments in the members, and at the points of restraint, which may lead to catastrophic events. The large deflections give rise to increased P-d moments however, especially in highly restrained structures, which may be potentially detrimental to structural performance. There are two factors which make such an outcome unlikely; one, that this is a gradual phenomena which increases and peaks over the duration of the fire (coinciding with loss of steel properties); second, is the competing effect of thermal gradients (leading to tensions if end rotations are permitted), which reduces the compressions developed quite significantly. In fact this can be seen as a beneficial mechanism, leading to a `controlled' destruction of steel strength and therefore avoiding a potentially more destructive event, through inertia forces caused by a sudden release of strain energy.


Source: guardian.150m.com...

In relation to your deflection comment.

[edit on 8/15/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Nice try Deltaboy. I saw damage to the facade of WTC7. Can you point out the structural damage to it also? Thanks.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Yes, some deflection may occur. Do you know that it is an engineering principle that a braced structure will fail in one direction? That means fail to one side and not into itself?

That means that for all walls to fail in, they had to become unbraced. How did this happen to WTC 7?


Is this referring to the entire structure, or each part individually? I assume all of it, since otherwise it doesn't make too much sense. But individual parts could have fallen to one side but the global collapse would look like it's going in on itself?



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Nice try Deltaboy. I saw damage to the facade of WTC7. Can you point out the structural damage to it also? Thanks.


(-_-) You might as well ask me if I was in WTC7 looking at every inch of the damage cause by debris.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Wrong.

The towers stood after collapse. That means that the structural integrity of the buildings were NOT compromised. The buildings were able to shift the loads so that after the impacts, it was just the same as any other building.

Saying that the plane damage had any cause in collapse is a red herring.


SAY WHAT?

Your damn straight the structural integrity was compromised! The towers might have survived either the fire or the impact but not both. Yes the towers didn't immediately collapse and yes the loads shifted. So now you have weakened structural elements supporting loads that they were not designed for. In my opinion it was a miracle that the towers were still standing after the impacts. You now have a damaged structure with fire reducing the strength of the remaining OVERLOADED elements. I'm not even going into broken welds, sheared rivets and overloaded bolts. For all anyone knows even if there wasn't a fire, the towers could have collapsed the next time the wind blew.

I'll go along with the apples and bowling ball analogy.


Take off the blinders of your agenda and take another look at what is being shoveled here.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Is this referring to the entire structure, or each part individually?


Any part of the structure that is considered a braced frame. that would include the entire structure.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Your damn straight the structural integrity was compromised!


You know damn well what FOS is for. Don't tell me the members were OVERSTRESSED. That's complete BS. Overstressed would mean failure.


So now you have weakened structural elements supporting loads that they were not designed for.


No, they were designed for those overstresses (as you put it). What is a FOS? It is a safety factor enabling the member to be overstressed from what it was designed for. Exactly what happened.


In my opinion it was a miracle that the towers were still standing after the impacts.


Maybe that is why you have trouble with this?


You now have a damaged structure with fire reducing the strength of the remaining OVERLOADED elements.


They were not overloaded. Overloaded would result in failure. Where were you in strength of materials class?


I'm not even going into broken welds, sheared rivets and overloaded bolts. For all anyone knows even if there wasn't a fire, the towers could have collapsed the next time the wind blew.


They stopped using rivets in buildings long before the towers were built.


Take off the blinders of your agenda and take another look at what is being shoveled here.


My only agenda is to educate some people. It hasn't worked so far.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Griff
Nice try Deltaboy. I saw damage to the facade of WTC7. Can you point out the structural damage to it also? Thanks.


(-_-) You might as well ask me if I was in WTC7 looking at every inch of the damage cause by debris.


The video you provided is rather humorous, I love how in the end someone circles a cloud of debris in front of the building and tries to make it seem like the building itself was disintegrating or something.

Also, where is the spire that supposedly ripped through the front of WTC7 leaving a gash? I see no such spire in the video you provided, merely debris being ejected (a perplexity in and of itself if demolition wasn't used) in a cloud of pulverized concrete. Enough to start fires? Absolutely. Enough to start fires, weaken a building at its cores, and reduce it's integrity to near nothing as it collapsed almost exactly on its own footprint? Don't be ridiculous. Or in your case, stop being ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Griff. Are you saying that the damage caused by the aircraft impacts had no effects on the structural integrity of towers one and two? Just the impacts, not the fires.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
No, they were designed for those overstresses (as you put it). What is a FOS? It is a safety factor enabling the member to be overstressed from what it was designed for. Exactly what happened.


Gee! Let's see here. The damage caused by the impact increased the loads on the remaining structural members which reduced their FOS. The heating from the fire then decreased the Yield Strength further reducing the FOS untill the failure point was reached.

BOOM! Building fall down!



They stopped using rivets in buildings long before the towers were built.


Yes, I know that they stopped assembling building structures with rivets, but rivets are still used today in prefabricated building sections. I suggest that you take another look at the construction pictures posted in other threads. Some of the prefabricated structures were riveted.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenVisage
Also, where is the spire that supposedly ripped through the front of WTC7 leaving a gash? I see no such spire in the video you provided, merely debris being ejected (a perplexity in and of itself if demolition wasn't used) in a cloud of pulverized concrete. Enough to start fires? Absolutely. Enough to start fires, weaken a building at its cores, and reduce it's integrity to near nothing as it collapsed almost exactly on its own footprint? Don't be ridiculous. Or in your case, stop being ridiculous.


Yeah you notice that the debris is .ing towards WTC7 continuing to move forward. Its not like the debris just dropped from vertical straight down doing only facade damage. It went both vertically and horizontally into the building.

How deep you think the debris went into the building?

Don't attempt to protray what I put out as being ridiculous unless you put up something yourself that WTC should not have gone down just because of no plane unlike WTC North and South.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Griff. Are you saying that the damage caused by the aircraft impacts had no effects on the structural integrity of towers one and two? Just the impacts, not the fires.


I guess I'm being a little overzelous here. Of course it had an effect on the structural integrity. Just not as much as some would like us to believe. If the FOS was 2, the exterior could have lost 1/2 it's columns and still stood within design limits. Same goes for the core. That's what I'm trying to say. Not that it didn't have ANY effect.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
BOOM! Building fall down!


Please explain how the FOS of the intact structure was affected.



Yes, I know that they stopped assembling building structures with rivets, but rivets are still used today in prefabricated building sections. I suggest that you take another look at the construction pictures posted in other threads. Some of the prefabricated structures were riveted.


Name one pre fabricated member that added to the structural integrity. That's why they don't use them.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
The thread says.....China's tallest building catches fire, Does not collpase. Well, to be honest, since you baited, I will bite. You see, the building that you are referring to, the WTC, was on fire, multiple floors just after it opened. It was on fire, and did not collapse. Same thing in China, there is a large fire, it is contained and the building does not collapse.

Now, take a fully loaded jumbo jet and strike the same building going 500+ mph. You see, all the quotes that circulate are based of the thinking that if a plane was lost, crusing at 200 mph an it struck, it would survive. You guys are physics experts and I do not have the time but figure out the difference of force on impact of a 200k pound minimum 767 hitting said same tower. Big difference.

Also, yes, debris hit many buildings that day, including 7 which was on fire for more than 7 hours before collapse. An uncontained fire folks.

Comparing this building in China to the WTC is useless.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Also, since prisonplanet is a news room, does this mean that I can post the opinions of Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, IMus, Beck or any other talk show radio jockey? That is all that man is. Nothing more. He had a cable access [rogram and now he is a disinfo master. I mean, I will truly laugh my ass off when it is found that he works secretly for an unkown acronym agency.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join