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 Pilgrum
Those lower column sections were certainly heavier so it's no surprise to see multiple stories of the outer walls still standing fairly intact once the dust settled but there's evidence of the forces involved in the way they're all leaning outward, not inward. Enough force to propel the upper thinner sections of outer wall horizontally?
Originally posted by bsbray11
If a perimeter column tilted outwards, its bolts broke, and it started falling, then it would do so right next to the building. It would not begin to lean and then suddenly be launched out horizontally, unless by a separate mechanism.
Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Would falling debris striking the inside of the exterior columns be able to deliver enough force to propel them?
Originally posted by Sublime620
I just want to know what happened to the columns? Why would they be snapped like twigs? They were clearly the strongest point in the buildings, and if the building is going to collapse at the weakest point, the columns should have been left unaffected?
Right?
[edit on 19-1-2008 by Sublime620]
Originally posted by bsbray11
No. Maybe in isolated cases but not for ultimately ~80% at least of the entire mass of either building. The collapse would have to literally have more momentum for every floor horizontally than vertically. In other words the mechanism's motion is not straight down, but straight out, each floor popping out one-by-one.
Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
But not 80% of the debris was ejected 100's of feet. Some fell close, some was propelled.
So some peeled and fell close
and in some isolated cases, some was hit and propelled. Some farther than others.
Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Core columns? They broke at the welds.
Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Core columns? They broke at the welds.
The core columns were manufactured in 3 floor lengths - 30 ft? Then welded together as it went up. The welds were sometimes only on 2 sides, and weren't fully penetrating welds. This would have been sufficent since the core columns were never intended to take bending loads ( how's that for an accurate term?), just vertical gravity loads.
Exterior columns broke apart at the bolted connections.
With regard to the WTC’s perimeter columns, the factor of safety fluctuated from day to day and even from hour to hour, because, in addition to supporting 47% of the WTC’s gravity load, the perimeter wall also had to withstand the lateral force of the wind, which is highly variable given the whims of Mother Nature. A single face of the WTC presented an enormous “sail” to the elements, for which reason John Skilling vastly overbuilt this part of the structure. According to the NIST report, the outer wall’s factor of safety against wind shear on 9/11 was extraordinary, i.e., in the 10-11 range.[67] Why so high? The answer is simple: On the day of the attack there was essentially no wind, only a slight breeze.[68] For this same reason nearly all of the perimeter wall’s design capacity was available to help support the gravity load. As the NIST report states, “On September 11, 2001 the wind loads were minimal, thus providing significantly more reserve for the exterior walls.”[69] When NIST crunched the numbers for a representative perimeter column in WTC-1 (column 151, between the 93rd and 98th floors), they arrived at a factor of safety of 5.7.[70] Assuming this average figure is a typical value we arrive at a reasonable estimate of the perimeter wall’s amazing reserve capacity. Even if we subtract those columns severed/damaged by the impact of Flight 175, and the lost capacity due to the alleged (but unproven) buckling along the eastern perimeter wall, there was still a wide margin of safety, more than enough by several times over to support the outer wall’s share of the gravity load, with plenty to spare.[71]
The WTC’s tremendous reserve capacity was no secret. In 1964, four years before the start of construction, an article about the planned WTC appeared in the Engineering News-Record. The article declared that “live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000 percent before failure occurs.”[72] A careful reading of the piece also gives insight into why the plane impacts were not fatal to the integrity of the outer wall. The reason is simple: the perimeter columns were designed to function together as an enormous truss, specifically, a Vierendeel truss. The wall was inherently stable. After the plane impacts it behaved like an arch, simply transferring the load to the surrounding columns.
Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Your whole argument is based on incredulity.
Try explaining WHY you feel this way.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you provide examples in the form of photographs and explain the mechanism that lead to their "breaking"?
And can we agree that a large steel box column will be under enormous stress before it fails, and that it will bend and deform greatly around where it actually severs?
Originally posted by gottago
Would you please post the sources of your description about how the core was constructed?
Also, your contention that the cores were only intended to bear gravity loads is misleading, as the entire building was designed to sway in response to wind loads.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Try looking at the photos and justifying your statement that steel was only ejected in "isolated cases."
Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
I could find the photos, but it's a pain.
I'm not an engineer, but the photos are the proof that it happened.
No, the columns broke at the welds, which were MUCH weaker, when exposed to lateral loads, then the core columns. That's why they don't show deformation.