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 jprophet420
What matters is that from the ones that have, the consensus is that the report is valid.
No source = No thanks
Originally posted by NIcon
And then after NIST did that I believe they would be sufficiently satisfied to alter the initial report to include the phrases "descended at gravitational acceleration" and " free fall drop".
Originally posted by notreallyalive
The facts, that a building fire doesn't burn hot enough to soften steel
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
But 1% resistance from the failing columns aren't going to slow down the acceleration one bit.
Originally posted by hgfbob
when did Bazant have his paper again?.....9-12-01
ummmmm....WHAT large impact...7 wasn't hit by a plane, and falling debris didn't contribute to the collapse
...WTC 3,4,5,6 had debris fall DIRECTLY on them....not one had total global collapse
....and WHAT do YOU mean "it doesn't" fall at 9.8m/s^2 (are you actually resorting to lying?),
It means that as soon as the kink is formed, the ENTIRE building is falling as fast as an object can fall...with NO resistance...NOTHING to slow it
DO YOU UNDERSTAND
and as far as progressive collapse...if there WERE a progressive collapse, WE WOULD SEE IT...there is TOO much weight with the other PH and the HUGE HVAC unit, THEY WILL NOT STAY when vertical support is removed...THAT is PROVEN by the EAST PH falling in when it's vertical support was removed....Progressive collapse occurs when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the collapse of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes additional collapse. The resulting damage is DISPROPORTIONATE to the original cause...the EPH falling in, WOULD NOT CAUSE a total global collapse of the ENTIRE building, EVENLY at a free fall ACCELERATED rate...THAT WE ALL SEE
WHAT causes EVERY perimeter column, which the facade IS attached to, to have AT LEAST 105' VANISH...INSTANTLY, along with ALL the others, to achieve the EVEN decent of the building, AT A FREE FALL ACCELERATED RATE,...
THAT WE ALL SEE
These are MY words,(30 years in building)..any other info is from the NIST reports, and Bazant
YOUR the one who should be embarrassed, DELIBERATELY lying in lieu of an agenda
The east penthouse impacted the lower floors of WTC7 as it collapsed into the building. This destroyed the majority of load carrying capacity, which you would know if you had read the report.
Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?
Other than initiating the fires in wtc7, the damage from the debris from wtc1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of wtc7.
NSTAR 1A, pxxxiii
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by hgfbob
if there is SOMETHING there, it HAS to offer resistance...NO free fall ACCELERATION
It did.
About 1%, which insufficent to slow down the decent to any extent that could be seen in a youtube video.
Let me ask you this - Chandler said, or rather his graphs say, that it exceeded freefall acceleration. Since that's impossible, doesn't that speak to the accuracy of doing an analysis from a video?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by jprophet420
What matters is that from the ones that have, the consensus is that the report is valid.
No source = No thanks
Would you at least agree that if there is a consensus among SE's - that have read the report - and they agree with their findings, then it can be considered valid?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by NIcon
And then after NIST did that I believe they would be sufficiently satisfied to alter the initial report to include the phrases "descended at gravitational acceleration" and " free fall drop".
That would be good.
But 1% resistance from the failing columns aren't going to slow down the acceleration one bit.
Note how it all happens:
Step 1 - for the first 1.75 seconds, it at less than FF Acceleration. This is the time that individual columns are failing across the building.
Step 2- all columns are in their plastic deformation phase, giving 1% resistance. There is no discernable slowing from FFA. 105' roughly equals the 7 story tall columns that have lost their bracing.
Step 3 - the upper part, that still have their bracing to some extent, come into contact with with the lower parts. Since their buckling lengths are shorter, they give more resistance, and the drop again falls below FFA.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by notreallyalive
The facts, that a building fire doesn't burn hot enough to soften steel
Who says that's what happened?
Fire can result in thermal expansion though. WTC 7.
And steel heated to just 250C can undergo viscoelasic creep after just 1 hour to a sufficent extent to result in failure. TT.
Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by Joey Canoli
The greater than free fall acceleration that Chandler found may be due to the fact he was measuring from a highly compressed video on YouTube. But what happened after he presented his case to NIST? Did NIST then go to YouTube to download the video he used to make the same measurements? I suppose that is a possibility.
I hope and pray what really happened is NIST went back to their high quality copy taken from the original recording and did their measurements. Then I hope and pray they took another high quality copy of another view and confirmed their first measurement. And then I hope they took another high quality copy of still another view and confirmed both of the previous measurements. And then after NIST did that I believe they would be sufficiently satisfied to alter the initial report to include the phrases "descended at gravitational acceleration" and " free fall drop".
Originally posted by hgfbob
and YOUR also saying that 'COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion
Originally posted by hgfbob
MEDIA has kept 7 out...MOST of the country doesn't know 7 exists, let alone fell at free fall speed.
Originally posted by hgfbob
WHAT is supporting the roof and EVERYTHING on it WHILE all the vertical support fails underneath?
as PROVED by the East PH falling in
oh, so NOW there are 7 story columns
this DOES NOT HAPPEN ..NATURALLY
WE DON'T SEE THIS....that IS NOT what the building is doing
Originally posted by hgfbob
WHAT event would create a vacuum INSIDE WTC7, and 'PULL' the build down from the inside?
free fall acceleration is something they DID NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH....that's why it WASN'T in the rough draft
NO testing, just SOMEONES OPINION...veeeerrry scientific
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In either case - whether it's peer reviewed before publication or not - nothing is preventing other professionals in the relevant field from critiquing it AFTER publication.