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 Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

page: 11
121
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Achorwrath
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force


Your units don't work.

1/2mv^2 would equal lbs x ft^2/sec^2

Not ft-lbs force.

Again, you are mixing up force with energy (which has the units of Joules (lb-ft^2/sec^2)).




The two planes hit at lest 2 times and 175 hit at almost 4 times this force


Again. Pick one. Either energy or force. They are NOT the same.





1 joule of energy = 0.7376 ft.lb
1 foot pound = effort to lift a pound a foot = 1.3557 J


source

If you can convert freely between the two for purposes of mreasurement they can be used to illustrate the same theory.

I cannot convert liters to joules but I can convert Ft Lbs of force or pressure to energy (joules).

So you are only correct in that I have not completed the conversion from ft lbs to joules.

So for a 707 traveling at 300MPH we have (1010903213 x 1.3557= 1370481485.8641) 1,370,481 Kilojoules

For Flight 11 we have 3,950,950 Kilojoules

For Flight 175 we have 6,227,270 Kilojoules

is this more to your liking?

Ft Lbs or Joules the two planes hit with more force than the desigers planned for.

Now I knew you would bring up the floor tursses. Do you know they were only welded to the central core in slot welds and bolted to the outer curtain wall? and then only directly at the top, the bottom was a vibration dampening connection.
There was a thin fluted steel floor laid over the trusses that was secured to the trusses and then the 4-Inch thick concrete floor was laid on top.

That does not make it a single structure it still makes it a slab ON TOP of trusses.

When you nail the plywood to the frame of a roof it does not make it part of the frame. it mearly secures it in spot locations.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Achorwrath
and if the colums are compromised? As is indicated by the video? remember there was only central support all the way through the center of the building.
The exterior support colums did not start until Floor 5


OK. So, you just shot yourself in the foot.

If the exterior columns didn't start until the fifth floor, then any damage to the exterior columns would be negligible when considering the interior columns. Since the interior columns would be used as 100% of the gravity resistance.

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Griff]


Um and how do you figure that?

They still helped support the roof, if they got all lateral exterior support goes. and the roof was much larger than the foundation.

As I posted in the link above they used tranfer beams to shift the gravity load from the exterior colums to the central ones. so if they go you actuall are much worse off

Plus 79 was an internal colum meaning a central support beam went once that goes it takes the external colums too.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 


I was only pointing out that your units were for force when you were calculating energy. Yes, you can convert between the two, but you actually have to do the conversion.

As far as a composite deck. I'm not going to argue. I know for a fact that the word "composite" means it acts together.


"Composite construction usually refers to a construction method in which a cast-in-place concrete slab is bonded to steel beams, girders, or decking below, such that the two materials act as a single unit"


Civil Engineering Reference Manual 10th edition First sentence in composite structures section.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath
As I posted in the link above they used tranfer beams to shift the gravity load from the exterior colums to the central ones. so if they go you actuall are much worse off


Since the exterior columns are already transferring their load at the 5th floor, how does damage to the exterior columns above this point have any affect on the interior columns that are already supporting the exterior columns?

That's how I figure.

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Are you forgetting inertia/kinetic energy?


Wow dude you answered my post so fast, before the edits I made immediately after I posted it (to remove the personal comments), you could have barely read it let alone checked out what I suggested.

Anyway, no I didn't forget kinetic energy, you forget Newton’s laws, mass, conservation of momentum, resistance/friction. You can’t take one law and ignore the rest to fit your hypothesis.

Once again....

When objects collide the force on each object is EQUAL. So regardless of the speed of either object the damage to each object will be relevant to the kinetic energy. So if the plane was moving at 100mph, or 1000 mph, the damage will still be relative to both objects. In other words the object with the least mass will still receive the most damage regardless of velocity of either object.


I never said the outer wall made up the gravity support, in fact I think all along I have said Lateral support. but as the floor beam tied into both the outer curtain colums and the cnetral core (with nothing supporting them in between) I do not see how you can possibly expect the central core to bear all of that weight.


But you said….


…also not in the engineering information that the outer collums provided "much of the building strength"


I never said the central columns held ALL the weight, just most of it. The outer wall didn’t provide ‘much of the buildings strength’, the inner core columns did.


So that means the 767 hit the tower with approximately 124,585,892.48 Pounds of force.


Again so what? The building itself also hit the plane with 124,585,892.48 Pounds of force, remember when objects collide the forces on each object is EQUAL? So my point is the plane could not both be destroyed by the buildings core AND destroy the buildings core. Same goes for the pentagon, the plane could not both go through a reinforced wall and at the same time be destroyed by that wall, what destroyed the plane?


Do you really think there was no damage to the central core after that?


No, again aluminium vs steel. Also the fact that the buildings remained standing for over an hour, and then suddenly, symmetrically, completely collapsed to their basements. This outcome is not consistent with the damage the buildings received.


rememer the central core was not designed to take lateral sawy and the building would have made a huge shift, after all the body in motion (the plane) would have tried to impart its inertia/kinetic energy into the body at rest (the building) people in the upper floors reported being thrown to the ground after the impact.


The central core was designed to move, if it was rigid it would not allow the building to sway, so no I don’t believe the impact was enough to completely sever columns, the buildings would have shown obvious local collapses if this was the case. But anyway look at WTC2 the plane did not impact the central columns.


the elevators and stairs were damaged (as reported by firefighters and people that were in the upper floors) this means the central core was compromised remember all stairwells and elevators were in the central core.


This is not proof the steel columns were compromised. But even if the columns were damaged it would not cause the whole building to collapse without resistance from undamaged columns, it would not cause ejection of outer wall columns, it would not cause the tilt and sudden change of angular momentum of the top of WTC2 etc. etc. etc…

BTW invest in a spell checker…


Edit; Sorry just realised this is off topic slightly, but all's good it's still about the WTC..


[edit on 3/17/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I cannot quote your post as it puts me at the word limit


Anyway, to answer Griff,

Since the exterior columns are already transferring their load at the 5th floor, how does damage to the exterior columns above this point have any affect on the interior columns that are already supporting the exterior columns?


they also act as support for the outer wall and the floors above
since they transfer load and do not maintian it on themsleves when they got you loose support along a much greater axis.

Think about it this way, below the fifth floor there is nothing to stop them dropping 5 floors to the earth in freefall....
What do you think that would do to the rest of the building?

Anok, I did not forget Newtons laws but you are also using only one his third
Where as his first cover what happens when a moving body strikes a stationary object.

the WTC is not a single solid object, to assume that is incorrect, so the jet hit the curtain wall (which did not have the mass to stop the plane) with the energy I listed, since it could not stop the forward motion and the rest of the buildings mass prented those outer colums from continuing forward with the plane they failed (were cut and bent) the same can be said for the flooring and the interior colums.

I think the flaw in your argument is the assumtion that they building will act as a solid object. I should have said that the plane hit the outer colums with that force, I would expect the kinetic engery to be reduced by at least 50% going through this (we know it went through them from witnesses and from photogrpahs), once through it next impactred the floors. Now the outer portions of the aircraft were most likely torn away by this time but the central core and under carrage of the plane would be intact.

The impact with the floor exerted 50% of the energy left over from when it hit the outer colums, this destroyed sections of the floor (about 320 Sq Ft on the 96th floor according to witnesses) and probably (I am guessing) abosrbed 50% of the reamining energy.

this remaining energy would probably been enough to damage if not sheer internal colums

In fact we have wittnesses that say they saw colums cut in half, stairwells broken in two etc.

This math would seem to cooborate that possibility.



[edit on 17-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath
they also act as support for the outer wall and the floors above
since they transfer load and do not maintian it on themsleves when they got you loose support along a much greater axis.


I thought we were talking about the exterior columns being damaged and what it would do to the interior columns? The columns that held up the exterior the whole life of the building.


Think about it this way, below the fifth floor there is nothing to stop them dropping 5 floors to the earth in freefall....


What caused this? Also, as can be seen in video of the collapse, the interior collapses first. We see this by the roof collapsing inward....plus the east penthouse.


What do you think that would do to the rest of the building?


Shear the floors but leave most of the interior standing. Just a guess.

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Anok

I am also not sure why you feel the removal of outer support for the floors and upper portions of the building would not case collapse.

If I am reading the structural design intentions correctly based off of the blue prints I have found (Link) it looks like they built the tower in sections, each one was capable of supporting the floors in its section. The impact on WTC1 was from 93-101 (although some reports sate 99) this cut through two seperate sections weakening their ability to support the floors above. Much of the burning fuel was on the oposite side of the impact (it is suspected that some even fell down the central core as there were fires reported on lower floor like the 55th) the fule fires would have worked on the trusses that are not as apt at dispersing heat like an H/I-Beam or box colum would have, also the trusses were not supported by welds at the exterior they were bolted.
the real weak link here is the trusses at the point they were bolted, the outer colums were also only bolted to each other on the sides and welded at top an bottom. (you can see that in Griff's pics)

the strength of a structure is only as strong as its weakest part.


[edit on 17-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 


How did we go from WTC 7 to the towers?

Unless you are not talking to me?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Achorwrath
they also act as support for the outer wall and the floors above
since they transfer load and do not maintian it on themsleves when they got you loose support along a much greater axis.


I thought we were talking about the exterior columns being damaged and what it would do to the interior columns? The columns that held up the exterior the whole life of the building.


Think about it this way, below the fifth floor there is nothing to stop them dropping 5 floors to the earth in freefall....


What caused this? Also, as can be seen in video of the collapse, the interior collapses first. We see this by the roof collapsing inward....plus the east penthouse.


What do you think that would do to the rest of the building?


Shear the floors but leave most of the interior standing. Just a guess.

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Griff]


Hmm the video I saw shows the whole building drop along one axis just to the left side of the penthouse, this is consistant to what I said about #79 being an internal colum and loosing the external support when it went



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Hmm the video I saw shows the whole building drop along one axis just to the left side of the penthouse, this is consistant to what I said about #79 being an internal colum and loosing the external support when it went


The way they make sure the outer walls fall inward, naturally they would fall outward, when demolishing a tall building is to take out the central supports slightly ahead of the outer supports. This gives the outer walls a space to fall into.

The kink you see in the roof is typical of a classic professional demo.

Not the best pic but notice how this 'building' is dropping in the middle ahead of the outside...This is typical of demo's.



Talking out one central column will not cause global collapse, only local at best.

This is what happens when only part of a buildings supports fail...



Undamaged columns will remain standing and the weaker part of the building, walls, floors etc., collapse around the columns. It's very hard to make vertical columns collapse vertically without help from carefully placed explosives.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Hmm the video I saw shows the whole building drop along one axis just to the left side of the penthouse, this is consistant to what I said about #79 being an internal colum and loosing the external support when it went


The way they make sure the outer walls fall inward, naturally they would fall outward, when demolishing a tall building is to take out the central supports slightly ahead of the outer supports. This gives the outer walls a space to fall into.

The kink you see in the roof is typical of a classic professional demo.

Not the best pic but notice how this 'building' is dropping in the middle ahead of the outside...This is typical of demo's.



Talking out one central column will not cause global collapse, only local at best.

This is what happens when only part of a buildings supports fail...



Undamaged columns will remain standing and the weaker part of the building, walls, floors etc., collapse around the columns. It's very hard to make vertical columns collapse vertically without help from carefully placed explosives.


WTC7 was not a normal building,
The loss of ANY of the outside internal supporting columns (outer ring of internal support not on the outside of the building) would have meant the loss of external support as the external outer wall was tied into the internal support colums by stress transfer colums at floor 5, they did not reach the ground.
Os lets say internal support colum X is connected to external support Column Y when X fails Y does also. and since were know there were at least nine deisel generators on or about floor 5 well that adds load to the equation that everyone seems to forget.

We now have two colums fail one due to unknonwn causes (although possibly from debri damage (yes I know NIST did not say this but that does not mean it did not happen we know that the Verizon and Old Post office had damage to their roofs) the other from the failure of the first.

potntially unballanced deisel engerators on or about Floor 5,

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

Source

and a building collapse that is in an axis with an interanl support column.

So what I see fits the theory that the building came down, not due to demolition but due to internal collapse.

If it were controlled demo where are the flashes? where are the explosions? Rmember there were opreational deisel generators and that fuel would have been ignited by thermite and potetially ignited by CompB or C4

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath
WTC7 was not a normal building,


That's garbage.

I can see you're not here to learn, you haven't had time to check my points I just posted one minute before you replied. That's twice now.

I suggest you stop running to 9/11 myths, or whatever, for your parroted answers, and actually do some real research.

WTC was not a normal building...
Regardless the laws of physics do not change.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Achorwrath
WTC7 was not a normal building,


That's garbage.

I can see you're not here to learn, you haven't had time to check my points I just posted one minute before you replied. That's twice now.

I suggest you stop running to 9/11 myths, or whatever, for your parroted answers, and actually do some real research.

WTC was not a normal building...
Regardless the laws of physics do not change.


Ah now we come to the personal attacks.

I am quite capable of reading your posts, I have worked with that information before.

Please explain how what I said is "garbage"

I have not changed the laws of physics, I have applied them to the specific set of events.

Have you checked any of my linked information?

Do you know how WTC7 was constructed?
Did you know there was NINE desile generators sitting on the fifth floor? Did you know that they had to put in 375 TONS of extra support for them?

Yet you call my information Garbage.


You are looking for how it has to be controlled demo.
that means you have the predetermined conclusion, you search the evidence to fit your endstate.

If you follow scientific method. you only look at the physical facts in the event

endstate - WTC7 Collapsed

From there you work back to the start - WTC7 was standing.


you view each piece of evidence in between, structural design, nominal wieght load, maximum wieght load, FoS, stress, structural damage, internal factors (fire, shifting, shearing, etc).

you NEVER assume the conclusion as you are doing.

you say in one of your posts

The way they make sure the outer walls fall inward, naturally they would fall outward


why would a wall naturally fall outward? You are assuming that internal pressure from the floors collapsing would cause them to do this. But that is not always the case.

Does a tree always fall one direction even on a hill?

Yes in controlled demo they force the exteriror walls to either fall inward or down.

but those buildings are also prepared, internal support is also removed in many cases to get colums to collapse, charges are set to destroy certain sides of the supports. It is all tied in with tens of thousands of feet of detonating cord. and that is with a concrete supported building.
With steels (since steel bends) they usually have to demolish each support on each floor and along the curtain wall.

Again if they can the place charges to remove supporting horizontal beams as well.

In a controlled demolition of a building like WTC7 you would have also seen explostions along the curtain wall desinged to shear the lateral support.

here
In these note the sequence and in jsut about all (except the stadium) you see the outer supports being destryed with visible explosions.

Where are those in the WTC7 videos?

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Yes in controlled demo they force the exteriror walls to either fall inward or down.

but those buildings are also prepared, internal support is also removed in many cases to get colums to collapse, charges are set to destroy certain sides of the supports. It is all tied in with tens of thousands of feet of detonating cord. and that is with a concrete supported building.
With steels (since steel bends) they usually have to demolish each support on each floor and along the curtain wall.


But, according to you and NIST, only one column needed to fail to bring down the entire building (WTC 7). Does one column need tens of thousands of explosives and det cord?



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Yes in controlled demo they force the exteriror walls to either fall inward or down.

but those buildings are also prepared, internal support is also removed in many cases to get colums to collapse, charges are set to destroy certain sides of the supports. It is all tied in with tens of thousands of feet of detonating cord. and that is with a concrete supported building.
With steels (since steel bends) they usually have to demolish each support on each floor and along the curtain wall.


But, according to you and NIST, only one column needed to fail to bring down the entire building (WTC 7). Does one column need tens of thousands of explosives and det cord?


Circular argument, you say a single column failure would not.

So to counter your argument I stated the amount it would need.

Complete failure of a single supporting column on the outer ring of the central supports would cause the linked failure of outer building support.

Internal shifting would help speed the down fall.


Also why do you coninuously link me to NIST and their report? I have repeatedly stated their paper is flawed, the only thing they got right was the conclusion.

The events (fire, structural damage, etc) caused the collapses.

Please stop doing that as it is not accurate.



[edit on 19-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Complete failure of a single supporting column on the outer ring of the cntral supports would cause the linked failure of outer building support.


OK. I'll leave NIST out of it for a moment then.

According to you, only one column needs to fail. Why is it then equated to "tens of thousands of explosives and det cord"?



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Complete failure of a single supporting column on the outer ring of the cntral supports would cause the linked failure of outer building support.


OK. I'll leave NIST out of it for a moment then.

According to you, only one column needs to fail. Why is it then equated to "tens of thousands of explosives and det cord"?


Again I countered your comment that a single column would not cause collapse.

To collapse the entire building (in your argument where single colum failure is not an viable option) you would need thousands of pounds of explosive (broken into thousands of indvidual charges) and tens of thousands of feet of detcord.

If you are conceding that a single column could have brought the building down you are also conceding that the build was potentially structurally unsound.

remember we do not have information on physical damage to the building, we only know for certain that other buildings around WTC7 were damaged on top, we also have known falling debri including large chunks of concrete facia around and even on the far side of WTC7.

It is not a huge stretch of the imagination to say there was probably damage to the top potion of the building that could have affected central supporting columns.

what would be the effect of even 100Lbs dropping 900Feet or so onto the top of the building?

Alos the argument that the other buildings stood is moot, they are not the same construction (reinforced concrete Vs Steel and Glass)



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
You all are far more educated about engineering than I am but I wish you would stop with the "det cord" and wiring. It's long been known explosives or incendiaries can be detonated remotely!

If we are dealing with a sophisticated, well funded group of terrorists it would not be necessary to "wire" the building. This in no way needed to resemble a traditional commercial controlled demo.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Thank you. this has been a very educational and eye opener for me.

Really begs one to wonder, how do these individuals sleep at night who learn to live with lies that took lives then and now....

Oh ya... learn to take care of number one.. themselves and screw the rest. We do after all only have one life to live. So why not live this with all the comforts it has to offer and dam every one else's morals and values.

We live our own and should be rewarded accordingly when we side with those who are interested in our well being.

Live learn and move on.



new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join