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.

 

9/11 Truth: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, they know that it transitioned in thickness from 3 inches to .25 inches but not where? How do they know it transitions if they don't know where?


Who says that they don't know?

The only thing you can say with accuracy is that the transition points aren't given in that doc. That's all.

So, now that you know that the ext columns had 1/4" steel, and the base had steel up to 3" thick, do you still think that bsbray's comment still holds water?

In my view, it would defy all logic to continue to talk about "moments" when the core columns displayed thinner walls AND sizes due to decreased loads. It would be absurd to me that now that you know that the ext columns were in fact different to claim uncertainty about whether or not the ext columns at the impact zones were "able to carry about as much weight as those that held up the whole damn thing down at the base."




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Who says that they don't know?


Um...they do. Read your article. It's right under the portion you quoted.

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...


Regarding the thickness of the steel used inthe perimeter columns, the NIST document makes the following statements:

Perimeter columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of lighter gauge steel, most commonly 0.25 in (6.35 mm) …
In contrast to the upper stories, in the lower stories, the perimeter column flanges were as thick as 3 in. (76 mm) and typically made of lower strength steels.

Fourteen grades of steel were used in the construction of the perimeter columns with minimum yield strengths of 36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 100 ksi. No further information is given on the transition points in the columns from one thickness to another and one grade of steel to another.


Let's see what NIST really says.

wtc.nist.gov...

Go to page 9 where they talk about the perimeter columns.

I can't find where it says the "In contrast to...." part. But, I just read the perimeter column part and it doesn't say that. Maybe further on in the NIST report?

I will admit that I was unaware that the thickness of the columns decreased. That is what gauge is. Thickness not strength. So, having higher strength steel at the top, they were able to lower the thickness at the top. This would make sense because they wouldn't be as big and heavy (gravity load/dead load). Which points out a huge flaw for Bazant et al. who want to take the mass of the top of the building by dividing the entire tower by the number of floors. Since those floors on top were not as heavy as the ones at the bottom, their entire premise of calculating energy by using that mass figure would be way off. Thanks NIST.


But, onto what they say. So, the lower floors were made of weaker steel but a little bit thicker. The top portion was made of thinner steel but stronger.

It would be nice to know what the balance is and where it occurs. Meaning, how can you claim bsbray's analysis is false when you don't know if there is a balance and maybe the use of stronger steel would cause the top portion to actually be stronger or as strong or almost as strong? Even though it has thinner webs. We don't. Without proper calculations, we don't know this.


The only thing you can say with accuracy is that the transition points aren't given in that doc. That's all.


Because they don't know where they occur. And they admit it in the wiki article. NIST is very hush-hush about the finer details like this.


So, now that you know that the ext columns had 1/4" steel, and the base had steel up to 3" thick, do you still think that bsbray's comment still holds water?


Possibly, here's why.

Say the 3" steel was A-36 steel. A-36 meaning that it's strength is 36 ksi (kips per square inch) or 36,000 pounds per square inch.

A 3" x 1" steel plate of A-36 steel can hold 108 kips or 108,000 pounds.

Now, let's say the 1/4 inch piece has a strength of 432 ksi (arbitrary number just to make this work).

This 1/4" x 1" steel plate can also hold 108 kips.

See why the structural documentation is needed? And possibly why it's hidden?


In my view, it would defy all logic to continue to talk about "moments" when the core columns displayed thinner walls AND sizes due to decreased loads.


I thought we were talking about the perimeter columns?


It would be absurd to me that now that you know that the ext columns were in fact different to claim uncertainty about whether or not the ext columns at the impact zones were "able to carry about as much weight as those that held up the whole damn thing down at the base."


It would be absurd for me to think that anyone would claim anything pro or con. As we still don't even know how the damn thing was built. And yes, the areas of every single member makes a difference. When talking about "moments", "moment" of inertia, failure, strength, and anything else that deals with engineering.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


Um...they do. Read your article. It's right under the portion you quoted.


Possibly, here's why.

Say the 3" steel was A-36 steel. A-36 meaning that it's strength is 36 ksi (kips per square inch) or 36,000 pounds per square inch.

A 3" x 1" steel plate of A-36 steel can hold 108 kips or 108,000 pounds.

Now, let's say the 1/4 inch piece has a strength of 432 ksi (arbitrary number just to make this work).

This 1/4" x 1" steel plate can also hold 108 kips.

See why the structural documentation is needed? And possibly why it's hidden?



1- When I said they, I meant NIST. Granted, wikidot doesn't know, but that doesn;t mean that NIST doesn't.

2- Arbitrary indeed, since the strongest used - from the structural documentation - was 100 kips. So at best, the columns at the impact zone were 23% that of those at the base.


And yet, you are still unsure?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- Arbitrary indeed, since the strongest used - from the structural documentation - was 100 kips. So at best, the columns at the impact zone were 23% that of those at the base.


Please provide this structural documentation. And not just what NIST tells us. I want to see it from the horse's mouth. Thanks.


And yet, you are still unsure?


Yes, and so should you be.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
A little lesson on steels.


The 12%Cr transformable steels respond readily to ausforming to the extent that tensile strengths of over 3000MPa can be obtained in appropriate compositions. 0.4C-6Mn-3Cr-1.5Si steel has been ausformed to a tensile strength of 3400 MPa, with an improvement in ductility over the conventional heat treatment. Similar high strength levels with good ductility have been reported for 0.4C-5Cr-1.3Mo-1.0Si-0.5V steel. All of these steels are sufficiently highly alloyed to allow adequate time for substantial deformation in the austenite bay of the TTT curve prior to transformation.


www.key-to-steel.com...

3400 MPa equals 493 ksi. So, my statements still stand that I will not just take NIST's word for it. That documentation is vital for us to analyse this ourselves. I wonder why it is hidden?


The ausforming process needs careful control to be successful and usually involves very substantial deformation. However, the attraction is that with appropriate steels dramatic increases in strength are achieved without adverse effect on ductility and toughness. Typically, a 4,7% Cr, 1.5%Mo, 0.4%V, 0.34%C steel has a tensile strength of about 2000 MPa after conventional quenching and tempering, whereas after ausforming the strength can be over 3000 MPa.


steel.blogsome.com...



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Please provide this structural documentation. And not just what NIST tells us. I want to see it from the horse's mouth. Thanks.

Yes, and so should you be.


Ah yes, essential to any troofer. I want to see the evidence myself. I am entitled to DNA evidence. I don't believe anything that the USG says because I come to the table with the preconceived religious belief that 9/11 was an inside job....

I thought you were better than this



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

A little lesson on steels.



So now you're suggesting that it's possible that there were alloys used. Yeah, that would be real cheap now wouldn't it. There's no limit to how far a troofer will go to avoid the difficult questions and admitting when they've entered into the land of absudity.

Ridiculous.

It's apparent now that the whole charade about looking for the truth is nothing but exactly that. A charade.

Good day, sir....



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Ah yes, essential to any troofer.


I am now done speaking with you.

If you don't believe that we need to know the dimensions of the columns that were hit instead of some arbitrary sentence that some columns somewhere transitioned to 1/4 inch and which were what strength then so be it. I myself would like proof.

Good day to you. I will not play your baiting games anymore.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So now you're suggesting that it's possible that there were alloys used. Yeah, that would be real cheap now wouldn't it.


One last thing before you go on ignore. What do you think steel is? An element? Nope. That's right ALL steel is an alloy.



There's no limit to how far a troofer will go to avoid the difficult questions and admitting when they've entered into the land of absudity.


And there's no limit to the vitriol that people spew, especially when they are ignorant to things but think they know it all. And I take those remarks as an insult and a personal attack. Which will be reported when I am done typing this.


It's apparent now that the whole charade about looking for the truth is nothing but exactly that. A charade.


I guess wanting to know the true construction of the buildings is not looking for the truth? Yes, quite a charade. P



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
This issue has me thinking.

Surely all the modelling that led to all the published conclusions is based on reasonably accurate construction data - I hope



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Yeah, you would hope they had used the construction data.
Has anyone tried to obtain the documents through FOIA? Curious on what they will say now.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
This issue has me thinking.

Surely all the modelling that led to all the published conclusions is based on reasonably accurate construction data - I hope


Exactly.

Griff's whole arguement hinges on whimsical what if scenarios that CTerz are fond of. The details aren't available, granted. But because they aren't available, this is a backstop to any and all claims that he chooses to make. Or in this case, it is a basis for being able to say, "gee I don't know if the columns at the impact zone were as strong as those at the base."

Of course this supposed indecision ignores the question of if this is the case, then why didn't the designers just use the same ext columns along the whole height, thereby lightening the structure and enabling them to design other areas of the structures even lighter, thereby saving tons of money. This is an inescapable result that he has ignored. I asked him in another thread why they would do something so ridiculous as to over design the towers so, adding the question if he thinks that they were so inept as to do this.

Of course his answer turned circular and said, "we need the specs to be sure..."

Typical.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Does'nt it make sense that if the WTC was attacked "The Goverment" would have already had plans to destroy all of it so no info would get in the hands of whatever enemie attacked it? IMO



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Of course this supposed indecision ignores the question of if this is the case, then why didn't the designers just use the same ext columns along the whole height, thereby lightening the structure and enabling them to design other areas of the structures even lighter, thereby saving tons of money.


First of all, you are showing your ignorance again.


Because with the use of higher strength steels at the top they were able to lighten the load by using thinner columns. Your arguments here and elsewhere are REALLY starting to show your ignorance of such matters.

I'm done talking to you. So, if you don't mind, don't talk ABOUT me in your posts as this is against the T&C's. If you want to say someting about me, say it to my face. Don't be a coward and say it to other members here. Same goes for bsbray, you shouldn't be talking about him in thread that he is not even a part of. Refute the information, not say we are twoofers and try to make yourself look intellegent when clearly you are not. An example would be your comments about steel and alloys.

And yes, we DO need the specs and drawings to make sure. Are you saying we don't? How do YOU know since you have no engineering background and/or education? Yes, let's just take what they feed us and call it a day. If that works in your little world, so be it. In mine, I need to know the exact structure to make a decision.

BTW, Ihave already said I'm on the fence. So why the vitriol? Because you THINK I'm a twoofer? Typical.



[edit on 5/15/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 5/15/2008 by Griff]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Surely all the modelling that led to all the published conclusions is based on reasonably accurate construction data - I hope


I would hope also. How can we be sure though without viewing said documentation ourselves?

Name one other instance in history where scientists and engineers have peer reviewed and agreed with a conclusion without seeing the data used to come to that conclusion first. Please name one time. Other than 9/11.

It's like me putting out a reviewed paper that only I get to see the data and you peer review it and conclude that I am correct from the data that I have selectively given to you. They actually have a word for it. It's called fraud. You don't find this troublesome in the least? Being a scientist? I'm not saying NIST is fraudulent, because they are under gag orders on the documentation themselves.

Edit: Ask yourself this. Why are the scientists and engineers around the world barred from studying the global collapses of the only three steel framed buildings in history? Don't we think it might be prudent to have as many minds as possible to avoid future buildings failing from fire?

[edit on 5/15/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 5/15/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 5/15/2008 by Griff]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Or in this case, it is a basis for being able to say, "gee I don't know if the columns at the impact zone were as strong as those at the base."


Which as far as I know is the case. And it would seem a bit strange considering the differing load at the top of the towers as the bottom to have identical steel and the same size. At the top of the tower you have wind loads and weight loads, as well as loads planed for a 707 impact (apparently).


then why didn't the designers just use the same ext columns along the whole height, thereby lightening the structure and enabling them to design other areas of the structures even lighter, thereby saving tons of money.


Saving money in an engineering project has a habit of costing lives. You use more than what is needed to have a good safety margin of a certain load above normal that will still be safe, with a good margin to the danger point. Saving money shouldn't be the priority in such a situation unless you really know what you are doing. Even if you have cheaper materials that have the same strength in principle, you still need to consider the reliability of them. Those towers swayed in the wind, that puts stresses on them. They were probably designed to stand for maybe a century? And so you want to have a maybe 99.999% chance that with foreseeable loads on them they will not fail in any way for 100 years? Cheap materials are not an option, they really aren't.


This is an inescapable result that he has ignored. I asked him in another thread why they would do something so ridiculous as to over design the towers so


I pretty much already answered this, but why not restate - Redundancy is a good thing in design. You need fail safes in structures to ensure they are still safe if something goes wrong. The fact the towers didn't immediately collapse on impact kind of shows that.

And if you believe over design is so bad, why don't you go on a plane which has one fuel pump, one engine, no RAT and electrical control? Because you'd be crazy to.

Edit, what gives me the feeling I'm really going to regret making this post in about 5 minutes? As far as I know I think I've explained it reasonably swell, but I'll let people who are actually structural engineers decide that.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by apex]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

BTW, Ihave already said I'm on the fence. So why the vitriol? Because you THINK I'm a twoofer? Typical.


I would have posted to you but you said I was on ignore. Fine, here it is.

What you actually post is nowhere near what i would expect from someone that was "on the fence."

Regarding this issue,someone that was "on the fence" would make a statement like this - " Given the info that we have, it would appear that the columns at the impact zone were 23% the strength as at the base. It is not for sure though because we don't have the docs, therefore I really can't make a judgement." Or, " The specs aren't available, but using my judgement, I can see no reason for the ext columns to be as strong at the impact zone as at the base. The core columns were 'tapered' too, and it makes sense that the same would hold true for the ext columns, but don't take that to the bank." That would be acceptable, and also be MY statement at this time.

Instead, we get this - " The docs aren't available so I can't make a judgement at this time.Why is NIST hiding it from us? Do they have something to hide? Are they guilty of something?" Or we get a spec for some steel that in a far-out scenario COULD be used to make the ext columns high up as strong as below. Which of course ignores the great lengths that NIST went to, to document where the steel was sourced, makeup, tests, etc. And no where does it source steel that was as strong as it would need to be to fit your scenario. Not even close.

Excuse me for saying this, but you asked, I really think that you're using your job experience as a shield for masking your true feelings about 9/11. Namely, that you are able to discern the critical areas that cannot be challenged and stick to that foundation as your arguements for 9/11 being some sort of inside job. And when no one is looking, you throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Then retreat when successfully challenged. Never have I seen you throw anything against the wall that would back the NIST, which a fence sitter would do.

It's all a one way street.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex

I pretty much already answered this, but why not restate - Redundancy is a good thing in design. You need fail safes in structures to ensure they are still safe if something goes wrong. The fact the towers didn't immediately collapse on impact kind of shows that.


Yes, redundancy is good. However, typical loads in buildings are WELL known. It is a highly regulated and studied endeavor, yes?

Engineers understand what loads are expected and how to design for them. However, they are not designed to 100% of this load factor. Rather, as is documented in MANY sources and city codes, they are typically designed to 150-200% of these loads.

Like I said, It makes absolutely NO sense that the towers were designed to 20x as strong as needed. And here's the thing, while the 20x quote is true, it pertains to the ext columns and ONLY for live loads. Live loads on the ext columns were mostly wind loads. Some other live loads, like people, infrastructure, etc. And of course dead loads. Ok, seems like they would be hella strong then, right? But what direction do wind loads "work" against the building? Horizontal, right? And gravity works in what direction again?

There's the difference that truthers ignore. They take a true statement, that the ext columns could withstand 20x live loads, and twist this to mean that they could witstand 20x the gravity loads. It's a lie.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Excuse me for saying this, but you asked, I really think that you're using your job experience as a shield for masking your true feelings about 9/11. Namely, that you are able to discern the critical areas that cannot be challenged and stick to that foundation as your arguements for 9/11 being some sort of inside job. And when no one is looking, you throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Then retreat when successfully challenged. Never have I seen you throw anything against the wall that would back the NIST, which a fence sitter would do.

It's all a one way street.


Well, my true feelings are that there was something other than plane damage and fire that helped bring the buildings down. When I say that I am still on the fence, I mean that I am open minded that my gut feeling could be wrong. If given the chance to study it closer. But, not spoon fed selective data.

And I don't claim that "9/11 was an inside job". There are too many good people out there for this to be the case. Unfortunately there are also bad and I believe they don't want us to know how bad it actually is. Therefore, the cover-ups. Not for themselves, but so they don't have a "war of the worlds" on their hands again.

Imagine if they came out and said Al-queida used mini-nukes at the WTC or that Israeli mossad agents (our suppossed friends) used some thermobaric bombs to help with the collapse so that we would attack the "arabs"? Both of these are hypotheticals of course.

But, you asked and that's what I "believe".

But, my mind can always change though. Why can't I study the collapses from the original documentation (I'd even pay for a set)? The guilty are usually the ones who hide information. Innocent men usually talk.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Ok, seems like they would be hella strong then, right? But what direction do wind loads "work" against the building? Horizontal, right? And gravity works in what direction again?


This is an error again. Beam-columns are designed from the maximum moment. The loads (live, dead, wind, siezmic etc.) are factored together. Ask you structural engineer brother. Granted back then, they used the ASD (Allowable Stress Design) method, but it isn't very much off the LRFD (Load Factor Resistance Design) method in that the loads are factored together.

Just LRFD has the redundancy built into the factored load, while ASD has the redundancy built into the stress (usually bending moment) side of the equation. But, the loads are still and where back in the days of WTC design factored together into one equivalent load.


There's the difference that truthers ignore. They take a true statement, that the ext columns could withstand 20x live loads, and twist this to mean that they could witstand 20x the gravity loads. It's a lie.


Do you still believe this after I have explained the above? Let's see if you are actually searching for truth.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join