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.

 

Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I don't understand how the core columns became separated in the first place. Can someone illustrate how 47 columns that are bolted and welded end-to-end, staggered at heights of 3 floors each, just move over to fall over open floor space?




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That's what I've been wondering. How do columns that have supposedly buckled become severed in the first place?

Buckling is an extreme form of deformation (permanent) not a tensile failure where the column actually separates from itself.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

That's what I've been wondering. How do columns that have supposedly buckled become severed in the first place?



Well, if the collapse did in fact halt immediately, they might not, just end up looking like pretzels.

But would that mean that they were now misaligned?

Cuz if they were, would you agree that they would pass by each other, so to speak, and come into contact with the floors, and punch through, as you hinted at earlier? Cuz I would agree that they would.

I would think that the columns landing directly and squarely on the columns below to be a one-in-a-million chance, since the buckled ends would be irregular.

It would be akin to dropping a knife tip onto another knife tip and expecting them to meet perfectly and not have the falling knife slide off in some manner.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That's what I've been wondering. How do columns that have supposedly buckled become severed in the first place?

Buckling is an extreme form of deformation (permanent) not a tensile failure where the column actually separates from itself.

I keep seeing buckling of columns brought up by both sides, but has anybody yet shown proof of any buckled columns? Maybe I have missed it, but the only column I've seen pictures of that wasn't straight, was that one bent over(and it showed no signs of buckling).



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It would be akin to dropping a knife tip onto another knife tip and expecting them to meet perfectly and not have the falling knife slide off in some manner.


How did the top knife separate from the bottom knife to begin with?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
I keep seeing buckling of columns brought up by both sides, but has anybody yet shown proof of any buckled columns? Maybe I have missed it, but the only column I've seen pictures of that wasn't straight, was that one bent over(and it showed no signs of buckling).


Good point.

As far as I can remember, the only pictures of buckled columns I have seen are from WTC 5. BsBray posted them at one time I believe.

And that building halted a global collapse.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

How did the top knife separate from the bottom knife to begin with?


Ok, it was a bad example.

I don't see a need for them to come apart until well after they've "passed" each other. At that point, it's irrelevant.

But why ask?

Are you of the opinion that even under the idealized situation of a straight down collapse initiation - which didn't happen, btw - they would impact each other and have a reasonable chance of NOT sliding off each other in some manner?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   



YADA YADA YADA

- NASA Scientist Ryan Mackey
Entire quote here


NASA?!


Sure, like anyone has any respect for NASA these days, another political criminal organisation with decades of experience in covering up a massive fraud. Man walked on the moon and building 7 collapsed due to fire. LOL, biggest con of the century.




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
If the columns from the upper floors buckled,they would have been ejected as the collapse 'block' from above like a hammer and the remaining structure,acting like an anvil would have allowed an escape of pressure forcefully and sideways.Some of those would have sprung who knows how many meters.Even tilted a bit,they would have continued outward as they fell.Try to hammer a bent nail into oak,but watchout!!!The fact of the near footprint debris pile proves this did not happen.Added to the pictures of un-bent columns in the clean up,this is a no go.Try again.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Are you of the opinion that even under the idealized situation of a straight down collapse initiation - which didn't happen, btw - they would impact each other and have a reasonable chance of NOT sliding off each other in some manner?


Why not answer how this happened in the first place. Bowing floors? That the columns were designed to carry the load of their entire life x2-3?



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Why not answer how this happened in the first place. Bowing floors? That the columns were designed to carry the load of their entire life x2-3?



Why are you changing the topic from collapse continuation to collapse initiation?

Do you agree then that halting the collapse depended on the FLOORS and not the strength of the columns?

If so, I'll move on and discuss collapse initiation with you.

I just want to avoid jumping subjects before there is some sort of understanding, if you don't mind........



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Just using your tactics back at you. Discouraging isn't it?

BTW, BsBray brought up initiation on the top of this page. Therefore, still on-topic.



[edit on 2/8/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

BTW, BsBray brought up initiation on the top of this page. Therefore, still on-topic.



Yeah, well that's because he won't admit that this is an idealized engineering exercise, and not an attempt to describe the actual collapses.

It's an attempt to give the best possibility of halting the collapses.

It's an attempt to show that even given the impossibility of such an idealized collapse, it will not be able to stop collapse progression.

So, in essence what he doing is asking a question about a scenario that no one seriously suggests could ever happen.

So will YOU answer the questions or not?



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Just using your tactics back at you. Discouraging isn't it?



Not at all. It actually reinforces what I know to be true about the TM.

Evasion is what is expected from those in the TM, since they cannot admit to facts, and must rely on speculation, what ifs, possibilities.

You haven't disappointed.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It's an attempt to show that even given the impossibility of such an idealized collapse, it will not be able to stop collapse progression.


It's also an attempt to put fantasy into mathematical equations and come out with a right number.

I'm still waiting on the numbers asked previous about wind loads and point loads from floor pans. Prove to me how floor pans exert more force when they are sagging than a full hurricane at 900 ft (times 2 or 3) to induce this "idealized" collapse in the first place.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

It's also an attempt to put fantasy into mathematical equations and come out with a right number.



The only fantasy is the TM's when they say that "the lower parts of the towers held up that weight for 20+yrs so the collapse should have halted" cuz they ignore the difference between them holding a static load vs what they will do with a dynamic load.

This was written as a direct response to these erroneous and illogical claims. It gives every advantage to halting the collapses, and proves that this claim is wrong.

If you feel differently about that: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Enlighten us.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


You still have yet to prove what caused this "dynamic load" to begin with.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
If you feel differently about that: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


Let me ask you a question Seymour:

Since you believe this to be true,


To explain the collapse, it was proposed (on September 13, 2001; Baˇzant 2001; Baˇzant and
Zhou 2002) that viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns caused the top part of
tower to fall through the height of at least one story
, and then shown that the kinetic energy of
the impact on the lower part must have exceeded the energy absorption capacity of the lower
part by an order of magnitude.


Do you also agree that it would only take one level's worth of explosives to collapse a tower?

[edit on 2/9/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 2/9/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Do you also agree that it would only take one level's worth of explosives to collapse a tower?



Of course I do.

I'll even go farther than that - you wouldn't even need to cut all the core columns - I'm assuming that cutting the exterior columns would be too obvious. But I'm quite certain that even cutting a few - maybe 1/2? - of the core columns would be too loud to go unnoticed, plus there's blast effects to account for. And this is assuming cutting them BELOW the impact points, cuz expecting explosives to survive the plane impacts is a little too far-fetched, IMHO.

However, the TM claims that "squibs", "blown ext columns", etc is evidence that explosives were on every floor. The blown columns is especially stupid, since in order for planted explosives to be responsible, you'd see the ext columns separate from the towers BEFORE or JUST AS the collapse wave passed (and I haven't seen that in videos, rather what you see is ext columns falling from above, out of the dust cloud), since logically, there's nowhere for them to be anymore, other than being suspended in midair. And I'd rule out they're being placed on the ext columns also, since the collapsing floors would logically remove them, and you'd find all kinds of unexploded devices in the pile. TBH, I can't think of a situation that pans out whereby this could even be remotely true. Which is why I've never seen a cogent argument of HOW it could be.

That's just a stupid idea.

Here's a hypothetical question for you, answer if you want -

If the planes hit the building, but it didn't collapse globally..... do you have an opinion about whether or not it would be able to be repaired and put back into use?

Cuz I see losing the upper block as a terminal event anyways. No hat truss, no elevators, etc.

Just curious, no need to answer...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

You still have yet to prove what caused this "dynamic load" to begin with.




Uhhh, the falling upper block...




new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join