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.

 

NIST Releases Updated FAQ's on WTC Collapse

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
On December 14,2007 NIST released on their website, a list of 14 FAQ's pertaining to the collapse of the WTC. Please note I only posted the questions, but provided the direct linlk to their site for the answers if interested.

Here is what they had to say:


Since the release of the Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in October 2005, NIST has received many questions from interested readers curious about NIST’s findings and the technical basis for them. The complexity of the investigation and the length of the final report (including all of the supporting volumes) have made understanding of the investigation a challenge for many interested readers. In response, NIST has prepared simplified answers to the most frequently asked questions.


wtc.nist.gov...

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

2. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?

3. How does NIST explain the absence of a timeline for the WTC Towers?

4. Why was physical evidence not collected immediately following the collapse of the WTC Towers?

5. How did NIST derive the temperatures in the WTC Towers and how valid are they?

6. At least one private sector source has asked (1) Whether the Commerce Department’s legal structure impeded NIST’s ability to obtain information and therefore prevented NIST from finding the facts; and (2) Why NIST did not use its subpoena authority?

7. Why did NIST not conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC Towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?

8. Why did NIST conduct ASTM E119 testing of floor systems that were not representative of the condition of the fireproofing on September 11, 2001? Why did NIST ignore the results of these tests, which showed that the floor system did not collapse, in its analysis of the thermal-structural response of the towers?

9. NIST conducted a single workstation burn and a multiple workstation burn as a part of its investigation. Why did NIST only provide temperature data for one of these tests? Was the ventilation used in these tests representative of the ventilation that was present in the WTC Towers on September 11, 2001?

10. Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?

11. Why didn’t NIST consider the “base” and “less severe” cases throughout its analysis of the WTC Towers? What was the technical basis for selecting only the “more severe” case for its analyses?

12. What was the source of the material properties that were used in NIST’s thermal/structural analyses of the WTC Towers? Were these properties obtained from physical testing of steel recovered from the WTC Towers?

13. NIST states that the fires in WTC 1 were generally ventilation limited. If this was the case, wouldn’t the fires have burned out in about 2 minutes? Why do NIST’s models show the fires burning longer?

14. The collapse sequence for WTC 1 proposed by NIST includes, aircraft impact, core weakening, floor sagging and disconnection, inward bowing of the south wall, and collapse initiation. If the floors are disconnecting from the south wall, how were the floors able to exert forces on the exterior walls to cause the inward bowing?




posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

[...]

Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated.



This is in response to a question asking if the collapses should have been arrested.

Now they give you a figure for how much loading a floor could take before connections failed. What is a floor? A bunch of individual trusses, steel pans and a layer of concrete laid between the core and perimeter columns (which supported the actual building loads). The floors themselves only carry what is physically resting on the office floors.

Why would 6 floors' worth of debris suddenly be coming down and piling onto a single floor, instantly? How did those floors break free? Certainly not by the same reasoning, because then you'd always have to have 6 floors that are already falling. Can someone explain how the first floor failed, and why the floor immediately beneath it would also fail when NIST just stated themselves that a floor could withstand about 6 under dynamic loading?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can someone explain how the first floor failed, and why the floor immediately beneath it would also fail when NIST just stated themselves that a floor could withstand about 6 under dynamic loading?


Doesn't make sense.

Good catch bsbray.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


NIST explains it here:


Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.


wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
What a crock of..grrrr...I am really mad now. What does all that gobbledeegook have to do with the FACT that the ' blocks' of upper floors, above the ' crash zone ' , did NOT remain intact as a weight that could crash down on the parts below: We all see them turn to DUST on the way down. The block does not even come out of the dust cloud at all: One would expect the upper block, which had started to tilt and them miraculously stopped the tilt and dropped straight down, to remain as a large unit atop a rubble pile of crushed debris below iof the official story were true.

Instead, what do we see? The block of floors TURNS to dust the same as the rest of the Tower(s): From the top down, the buildings EXPLODE outward and upward as they turned to dust. There is NO WAY POSSIBLE that an upper section could drop straight down: Damage is always to one side or the other, and the fact that both Towers behaved the exact same way, dustification, means that any attempt to explain the events by the NIST is totally baseless and a fraud, meant to cover up the truth.

There are NO huge weights bearing down on the remaining floors: If a section gives way it is to the side, away from the path of GREATEST RESISTANCE, which the Towers remaining floors would be. It violates all we see and all the science. The NIST has to cloak its words in assumptions and nonsense to try and fool the uneducated.

America is truly lost, friends. When government engineers and professionals sit down and conspire to hide the greatest crimes of our nations history, we are in trouble. The men and women at NIST must avoid looking in the mirror unless they have no souls. They are collecting paychecks for hiding the truth behind complicated silliness not applicable to this matter, to obstruct the truth. Shame on each and every one of them. They know they are wrong, and that the science is on our side.

N.I S.T. = Never Include Strategic Truths . They can spout all the numbers and talk all they want to, but the hard and cold fact remains that we have never, and will never, have a full and accurate investigation of 9-11 because everyone knows that the official story is a total insulting lie from start to finish but as long as the paychecks are coming no one wants to rock the boat. The average American is basically brain dead as far as current events and truth goes: sports is their God and they will die with a beer in one hand a ticket to some game in the other before they will wake up and smell the fecal matter being dumped on us every day by the liars and scum at NIST and elsewhere in our ' government '.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
NIST explains it here:


Not really.



Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:



How did 6 or more floors pancake together to fail the floor below it?

How did 6 or more floors suddenly fail when their connections could hold 6 or more floors of dynamic load?

Plus, it still doesn't answer how the columns would buckle.

I have lost faith in NIST.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
NIST explains it here:


Not really.


Honestly I don't think he really even read my post. His response contained part of the same quote that I used.

Then again, I think he has me on ignore. Obviously it isn't helping him to deny ignorance, but just the opposite.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
How did 6 or more floors pancake together to fail the floor below it?

How did 6 or more floors suddenly fail when their connections could hold 6 or more floors of dynamic load?

Plus, it still doesn't answer how the columns would buckle.

I have lost faith in NIST.


So does this, in your opinion, rule out the possibility that not the individual floors fell onto the floors below, but rather that unexplained buckling that you complain about resulted in the entire mass of columns AND floors impacting below?

Also, since I see you're an engineer of sorts, wouldn't you say that the collapse would most likely happen in a chaotic manner that can't be imagined by thinking of a floor cleanly break off and smoothly fall onto the floor below? To the layman, it looks like NOTHING happened uniformly. All kinds of stuff happening on different floors and to different columns at the same time.....



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
wouldn't you say that the collapse would most likely happen in a chaotic manner that can't be imagined by thinking of a floor cleanly break off and smoothly fall onto the floor below?


If you want to think about it more realistically, then how does a whole floor fail at the same time anyway? Because you know the connections on both sides of most trusses were completely independent from each other, right? So one of them sagging and etc. will only result in a localized failure (and the technical definition of failure actually does not mean completely coming apart, but any kind of permanent deformation, for example, because the structure actually behaves as the bolted-and-welded unit that it is when heated), not a failure that spans across the entire floor simultaneously and includes apparent total failures at all the bolts on both sides of the trusses simultaneously (AND the core structure completely failed AND the perimeter columns started falling all at the same time in WTC1), unless the whole floor is expected to heat up/be damaged symmetrically and all reach some theoretical critical point at the same time. Does that not make sense? How else could it be, given that most of the trusses were totally independent on each floor? How can they be expected to behave together regardless?

[edit on 2-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you want to think about it more realistically, then how does a whole floor fail at the same time anyway? Because you know the connections on both sides of most trusses were completely independent from each other, right? So one of them sagging and etc. will only result in a localized failure (and the technical definition of failure actually does not mean completely coming apart, but any kind of permanent deformation, for example, because the structure actually behaves as the bolted-and-welded unit that it is when heated), not a failure that spans across the entire floor simultaneously and includes apparent total failures at all the bolts on both sides of the trusses simultaneously (AND the core structure completely failed AND the perimeter columns started falling all at the same time in WTC1), unless the whole floor is expected to heat up/be damaged symmetrically and all reach some theoretical critical point at the same time. Does that not make sense? How else could it be, given that most of the trusses were totally independent on each floor? How can they be expected to behave together regardless?


Well, I'd like to respond but that run on sentence is a little confusing. I'll give it a shot anyway.

I can agree with what you're saying about the whole floor failing all at once, etc. It would be weird to imagine that happening. But that was the point of my other post - breaking off cleanly, etc. Not very likely. But they don't hold the vertical loads.

The vertical loads are held by the columns, yeah? So.... if the buckling DID occur - by, as Griff says, some unexplained means - would it matter if floors failed or not at that point? Wouldn't the columns, floors, and the whole works crash down onto the floors below in that chaotic manner that I envision as a layman........ and game over?

I don't understand why EVERYTHING would need to fail to initiate the global collapse. Again as a layman, I envision that if they needed......say 20 intact columns out of 40 (these numbers are made up for clarity's sake) present, 19 could be in perfect shape, but they don't have the strength to hold up the building. In other words, 21 would need to fail, although not necessarily simultaneously, when you think of some of them being cut by the planes, and then the other 19 would follow immediately after.

Also, I could envision the global collapse not necessarily happening on a single floor. I could see some core columns failing on this floor, and others failing on the above and below floors, etc. I just don't see it in that uniform, orderly, floor by floor collapse. To be honest, I don't see how papers from anybody could explain the physics - from Greening,
Hoffman,etc - to try and explain the whole concrete/dust thing. Just Tooooo chaotic.

Is this all wrong?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
The vertical loads are held by the columns, yeah? So.... if the buckling DID occur - by, as Griff says, some unexplained means - would it matter if floors failed or not at that point?


Considering that the given global collapse theory is that the floors were what "domino'ed" all the way down to the base, yes. Columns do not telescope down into themselves.


I don't understand why EVERYTHING would need to fail to initiate the global collapse.


No one said it did. I just pointed out that the core and perimeter columns in WTC1 did fall in unison at the collapse initiation, which is supposedly when the floors also started falling. You can tell the entire core structure failed at that instant because the antenna start dropping immediately, and it was supported by the core structure directly below it.


Again as a layman, I envision that if they needed......say 20 intact columns out of 40


That would be a safety factor of 2, speaking very generally. It's equivalent to saying that you would have to double the load on each individual column before it would reach its design capacity. A safety factor of 2 is something you'd expect in a home or commercial building where everything is routine and well-understood. The WTC Towers were innovative and, at the time, the tallest skyscrapers on Earth. One of the engineering groups working on the project in the 1960s stated once that some of the perimeter columns in the structure had a safety factor of 20. That means, for that particular area of the building (which was probably in the higher floors, since the perimeter columns were about the same size at the top as at the bottom, but the bottom ones had to carry a LOT more weight) 1 column had the capacity to carry what was actually divided up amongst 20 columns. I've seen the factor of safety for the perimeter columns generalized at 5 (some kind of average taken from each floor?) and the core structure at something like 2.25, but these are both from NIST and they don't detail how they got those figures.



Also, I could envision the global collapse not necessarily happening on a single floor. I could see some core columns failing on this floor, and others failing on the above and below floors, etc. I just don't see it in that uniform, orderly, floor by floor collapse.


Then doesn't this symmetry strike you as odd?



I want you to consider the symmetry there, and see if it doesn't strike you as being coordinated. This is the kind of thing where, if you wanted to cause this to happen, you would have to contract somebody out and it would takes weeks, if not months, of preparation. What science is there, that tells us that if you fly a plane into such a structure, that's how it's going to fall? Basically I wonder how this symmetry is supposed to be explained.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can someone explain how the first floor failed, and why the floor immediately beneath it would also fail when NIST just stated themselves that a floor could withstand about 6 under dynamic loading?



It looks like NIST won't be able to explain it either:

"Additionally, analysis of a floor collapsing onto a floor below, which was unlikely given the required event of all floor connections failing nearly at the same time, was not found to result in failure of the impacted floor." (NIST NCSTAR 1-6, pg. 325, 1st paragraph)



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Considering that the given global collapse theory is that the floors were what "domino'ed" all the way down to the base, yes. Columns do not telescope down into themselves.

No one said it did. I just pointed out that the core and perimeter columns in WTC1 did fall in unison at the collapse initiation, which is supposedly when the floors also started falling. You can tell the entire core structure failed at that instant because the antenna start dropping immediately, and it was supported by the core structure directly below it.

That would be a safety factor of 2, speaking very generally. It's equivalent to saying that you would have to double the load on each individual column before it would reach its design capacity. A safety factor of 2 is something you'd expect in a home or commercial building where everything is routine and well-understood. The WTC Towers were innovative and, at the time, the tallest skyscrapers on Earth. One of the engineering groups working on the project in the 1960s stated once that some of the perimeter columns in the structure had a safety factor of 20. That means, for that particular area of the building (which was probably in the higher floors, since the perimeter columns were about the same size at the top as at the bottom, but the bottom ones had to carry a LOT more weight) 1 column had the capacity to carry what was actually divided up amongst 20 columns. I've seen the factor of safety for the perimeter columns generalized at 5 (some kind of average taken from each floor?) and the core structure at something like 2.25, but these are both from NIST and they don't detail how they got those figures.


Then doesn't this symmetry strike you as odd?



1- the official theory says that the columns telescoped? I thought the big gripe is that it wasn't explained thoroughly. Isn't there some other way that the columns would fail if their vertical capacity is exceeded? Buckle? Bend? Snap? Some other term?

2- well, i would envision a global collapse involving all the core and perimeter columns, so i don't see anything unusual about that. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a global collspse, but some kind of local collapse. Also, since the floors are attached to the core and perimemer columns, they would fall in lock step when the columns fell, yeah? Nothing unusual there either, IMHO.

3- so i think you agree that ALL the columns wouldn't have to be totally compromised. I understand there's some confusion about the actual figures, but i think there's a concensus that there WOULD be a limit of damage/weakening that could be sustained that would result in exceeding the columns' limits?

4- it doesn't look all that symmetrical to me. In your video, the perimeter columns, maybe 4-5 on each side, near both corners can be seen failing on different levels than near the center of the exterior wall. This shows exactly what I was talking about, but I was thinking more about the core columns failing on different levels, but this works ok for me too. But wouldn't the most likely area of collapse be in the 3-5 floor zone where the planes hit and fires burned? Or do you feel that a more acceptable mode of collapse would involve areas that were OUTSIDE the damaged zones?



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
1- the official theory says that the columns telescoped? I thought the big gripe is that it wasn't explained thoroughly. Isn't there some other way that the columns would fail if their vertical capacity is exceeded? Buckle? Bend? Snap? Some other term?


Yes but none of those failures have anything to do with a straight-down collapse. They would just fail at one floor, everything above that would be unstable, and everything below the buckle would be intact. Tell me what happens to the columns to allow the building to just plummet straight down at such speed.


2- well, i would envision a global collapse involving all the core and perimeter columns, so i don't see anything unusual about that. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a global collspse, but some kind of local collapse.


That's semantics. Tell me HOW it happened.


Also, since the floors are attached to the core and perimemer columns, they would fall in lock step when the columns fell, yeah? Nothing unusual there either, IMHO.


The core columns are what holds up the floors (on one side), not vice versa. If you yanked a floor out, only the CONNECTION to the core column would fail. Not the entire freaking core column. This has to do with which is stronger and which would reach its ultimate strength first. Which do you think? The connections were tiny compared to the columns. Under dynamic loading especially, the connection would shear right off.


3- so i think you agree that ALL the columns wouldn't have to be totally compromised.


A very large portion of them would have to be totally failed, which is unrealistic given the circumstances. The planes only took out ~



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yes but none of those failures have anything to do with a straight-down collapse. They would just fail at one floor, everything above that would be unstable, and everything below the buckle would be intact. Tell me what happens to the columns to allow the building to just plummet straight down at such speed.

That's semantics. Tell me HOW it happened.

The core columns are what holds up the floors (on one side), not vice versa. If you yanked a floor out, only the CONNECTION to the core column would fail. Not the entire freaking core column. This has to do with which is stronger and which would reach its ultimate strength first. Which do you think? The connections were tiny compared to the columns. Under dynamic loading especially, the connection would shear right off.

A very large portion of them would have to be totally failed, which is unrealistic given the circumstances. The planes only took out ~



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
1- well, i would imagine that once the global collapse initiated, the "unstable" floors, columns, whatever else would crash down onto the "intact" floors, columns,whatever else , and game over.


The way you conceptualize this is so vague it's no wonder that you aren't sure about it. The core would not be falling weight. The perimeter columns would also not be falling weight, they would just be shifting loads. None of the floors above the first floor to break away would be falling weight. The only falling mass could only be the first floor to break away, by whatever means it breaks away.

That is NOT a lot of mass, as NIST has stated that it would take 6 floors worth of mass loaded dynamically onto a single floor for it to fail.


2-how it happened? The load bearing capacity of the columns was exceeded through a combination of physical damage - planes - and weakening of the steel - fires. Then the scenario described above ensues.


This is such a vague answer, I might as well not have asked.


3- i think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying the floors pulled down the columns. I agree with you about connections, etc. What I said is that when the columns failed and went down, they would pull the floors down.


Why would the core columns go man? I'm talking mainly about the core structure.


4- i think you're basing your "very large proportion" statement on the floors load bearing capacity of 6/11?


6/11? I'm talking about a safety factor of 2 meaning 50% of the columns would have to be compromised, and that's a low safety factor, but the planes only knocked out 15% of the columns across all of the floors they hit. The fires would have to do 4x the damage to make the buildings reach their critical point, IF they were built to that low of a safety factor.



Because I would think that if you were to gently place 11x the normal load on a floor,


11x the normal load? Where is that coming from out of nowhere to bear down onto a single floor?



6- by asymmetrical, I'm referring to columns failing on different floors,


Yeah well I shouldn't have to tell you where exactly to look for the symmetry. If you can't tell me which way WTC1 was leaning and give me a measurement in degrees for it then I would think we would have to agree that there is some symmetry there, no? The building dropped straight down at first, everything at the same instant.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The way you conceptualize this is so vague it's no wonder that you aren't sure about it. The core would not be falling weight. The perimeter columns would also not be falling weight, they would just be shifting loads. None of the floors above the first floor to break away would be falling weight. The only falling mass could only be the first floor to break away, by whatever means it breaks away.

Why would the core columns go man? I'm talking mainly about the core structure.

6/11? I'm talking about a safety factor of 2 meaning 50% of the columns would have to be compromised, and that's a low safety factor, but the planes only knocked out 15% of the columns across all of the floors they hit. The fires would have to do 4x the damage to make the buildings reach their critical point, IF they were built to that low of a safety factor.


11x the normal load? Where is that coming from out of nowhere to bear down onto a single floor?


Yeah well I shouldn't have to tell you where exactly to look for the symmetry. If you can't tell me which way WTC1 was leaning and give me a measurement in degrees for it then I would think we would have to agree that there is some symmetry there, no? The building dropped straight down at first, everything at the same instant.


1- oh, i'm sure about it. but, now i understand your confusion. you think that a global collapse would be initiated by a floor falling. This is incorrect. as i stated before, but you decided to edit out, the floors sagging/failing/pulling the exterior columns out of vertical alignment would only make the exterior columns more prone to buckle, which lessens steel's ability to absorb compression loads. so the floors wouldn't "cause" the collapse. but rather, i think NIST's stance is that the floors effects would "allow"a global collapse, since it must be agreed upon that the exterior columns supported some of the vertical loads - around 50%? a global collapse would be initiated when the load capacity of the columns -both core and exterior- were exceeded, and at the point of failure, the entire mass above would fall as one onto the mass below. we agree that a global collapse couldn't be initiated by a single floor falling onto a floor below, so that avenue of discussion is a pointless waste of bandwidth, agreed?

2- simple answer again here, even though i suspect you're looking for something much more complicated/conspiracy friendly. The core structure would "go" when their load bearing capacity was exceeded, resulting in a global collapse. when these columns started moving down, the floors would go along for the ride, since the floors are connected to them. but i think that discussion of the floors is pointless, since we seem to agree that they don't have the ability to "cause" the collapse.

3- actually the fires, if we accept your 15% calc, would only have to do 233% of the weakening that the planes did, not 400%. i'll ask again, do you have any idea, since i see your an engineering student, what a typical safety factor might be? i'd assume you have sources..... again, structural docs would be nice.

4- i was using that as an example of how strong the floors are when compared to the connections. but you didn't answer my q. did i interpret it right and the connections are 11x as strong as necessary? is that the way you interpret NIST? again, the floors aren't important, so let's move on, and concentrate on the load bearing capacity of the buildings, since that would determine the global collapse probabilities. Agreed?

5- so then by your reasoning, if i give the angles, then we can agree that the building didn't collapse symmetrically? because i can if you don't want to look through the NIST. i don't either, but if i can get you to concede this point, it would be worth it.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
it is pointless to try and get people to envision the core and how robust it was. The fact that it was massive and connected to the bedrock means that it should have stood even if all the floors had fallen off from whatever cause. The core was taken out by the blasts that Rodriguez reported and when the Tower antenna drops, that is proof positive that the core was taken out by some high temp or explosives as it gave NO resistance to the roof and antenna. The perps wish we had not seen that: There is NO reason at all to believe that the core was damaged enough at ANY point to allow for UNIVERSAL failure at the same moment in time!!

The CORE turned to dust exactly the same as the rest of the Towers did: Only steel was left in the rubble pile, the rest was turned to dust, basically.

One more note: recently, workers cleaning up the Bank building fairly far away from the Towers found several hundred tiny bone fragments from the 9-11 events. The people had been blown apart so thoroughly that only tiny bones remained, and were blown hundreds of yards away onto the roof of the building . HOW in the hell can people believe that a ' collapse ' with only gravity as the energy force involved, could account for that? How? They CANNOT explain the tiny bones fragments, just like they cannot explain the toasted cars with paint fine and engine blocks melted so far from the Towers that there is no way that falling debris could have caused it.

And what about the HUNDREDS of other ' inexplicable anomalies ' that the official story believers seem to ignore or accept unbelievable explanations for? People must WANT to believe that we are really NOT being led by a gang of murdering traitors so badly that they will suspend all logic and reason when it comes to 9-11. they are willing to believe that the laws opf physics changed that day for specific people, they believe that fire and gravity can cause a core to turn to dust, as well as all other water bearing materials and others..dust. HOW can they explain all the dust? They cannot, and so we get our intelligence insulted all day long by weak and foolish excuses that have no chance at all of being possible: but it suffices for those who MUST believe.

There is none so blind, as he who WILL NOT see...and the people who accept the official story fit that to a T.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86

The CORE turned to dust exactly the same as the rest of the Towers did: Only steel was left in the rubble pile, the rest was turned to dust, basically.



riiiiiiiiiiiight.

so i guess you're a nuke/hologram guy too, eh?

BSBRAY and I are having a rational discussion. please go pollute another thread.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
If you want a private chat, try the U2U system, wise guy, and stop ' polluting ' this thread with your faux superiority complex. Since when is any thread restricted to one train of thought, or one discussion between two people? What you lack in manners and substance you certainly make up for in gaul.

By even bothering to reply to my comments, you are making a statement, and it is one that does not address my points, but just sneers because someone dared to interject in your little gabfest..boo hoo. Either reply with some intelligent refutation of my FACTS or simply ignore me, but acting like you are above the fray is a real laugh..as if you have anything major to relate..sad.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join