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.

 

Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

page: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
So...are you trying to interpret the caption that says the core column seats you refer to as being "bent" as meaning they are bent downward?

If you will just look at the damned pictures yourself you will see that is absolutely not true. They are bent, but they are bent laterally. Almost to a specimen. The only downward bending apparent in any of them is one where I see the very edge on one side slightly bent downward.

I think you are misinterpreting what they mean by "bent".

The seats - by majority - were intact, and not bent downward on the core columns. The seats - by majority - were either missing, or bent downward on the external columns.

That's what the report states.




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
! That's a 33% increase in time over freefall. THAT IS NOT FREEFALL.


I already conceded that it was slower than free fall. How much slower is a whole other debate. This demonstration wants to pretend it took longer to account for the resistance. It does not and even if the time was 16 seconds, it is still a uniform acceleration. Both the equation shown and any extrapolation done still has to assume that the acceleration continues on that same trend which means that the amount of resistance was so perfectly even that even the millimeter off it may have been at the top, was still just a millimeter different at the bottom. I am sorry, that is the problem I am having. These both assume that the building continues to accelerate along a curve and there is really no good reason even to assume that is true.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
F****ING A IT MEANS BENT!

Stop calling me delusional. YOU are the one literally trying to WRING your theory out of these papers and it isn't there.

DEFORMED - twisted, bent, contorted.

The pictures show LATERAL bending of the webs BELOW the seat. The seats are intact.

[edit on 9-21-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Try this:

www.ingentaconnect.com...

Or Google: Zeng, Primary creep buckling of steel columns in fire

Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Volume 59, Number 8, August 2003 , pp. 951-970(20)



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
F***ING A IT MEANS BENT!

Stop calling me delusional. YOU are the one literally trying to WRING your theory out of these papers and it isn't there.

DEFORMED - twisted, bent, contorted.

The pictures show LATERAL bending of the webs BELOW the seat. The seats are intact.


This why you've been unable to get an answer to this issue,

You're unable to see that you're wrong.

Good luck with that.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


This why you've been unable to get an answer to this issue,

You're unable to see that you're wrong.

Good luck with that.


Please respond to the textual portions of the report quoted. You seem to have a problem interpreting the pretty pictures, so let's attempt to see how you can mangle the written word of the report.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Buddy, you just linked me to a page asking me to purchase the article after I specifically said I was not going to buy it. Are you not reading the pages you are linking me to, or are you not reading my posts?

Seriously, do you not remember anything that you actually read in the article about how this study was performed? You must remember SOMETHING about it if you are so damned confident that their conclusions were sound and relevant to what we are talking about. Then again, I take that back. It looks more like you are just copying and pasting things you are reading on "debunker" websites.


I'm also waiting for your explanation to Val. I really hope you aren't copping out now with just saying "you're wrong" and letting it roll at that. She posted the excerpts; what's wrong?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That's the article.

Now go find it in your University library.No need to purchase it.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
You know, I have to concede something. I am, in fact, delusional. Because I demand that you stay within the confines of the report and at the same time make the obscenely dysfunctional report make sense. I have this delusion that SOME ONE can make this worthless piece of crap report make sense.

That's what I've been demanding for several years now. I used to be the one arguing with bsbray and billybob...

like in this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

or in this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And then one day I made the dreadful mistake of the reading the damned report...the entire thing. And low and behold I realized that I was wrong to be trying to argue with these guys based on science and mathematics...because my science and mathematics CONTRADICTED THE FRIGGING REPORT! Because the report completely ignored such fundamental constraints as SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS (not to mention the combining of the two into engineering!)

It was at that point I set out on what now has become a half of a decade of trying to find some one who can make the report make sense to me.

So yes - I'm delusional. Because I will not let you bring information into a discussion in which you are saying you are supporting the official report and then you want to present data that contradicts the report! You must stay inside the nickelodeon crazyville of the report and make it make sense.

That's called being a real supporter of the official story.

I haven't found anyone who can do it yet.

Probably because I'm delusional to think some one actually can.

[edit on 9-21-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


So I guess you really don't remember anything specific you "read" in the article. How do I even know I wouldn't just be wasting my time? Because it's listed on debunking websites?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Please respond to the textual portions of the report quoted.


No problem.

You have a hypothesis that the core columns and floors fell together. Your evidence is that the seats aren't bent to the same degree that the ext column seat assemblies.

You will not entertain that you might be wrong, that they are bent to a lesser degree cuz there were only 2 bolts - and smaller, IIRC - than on the ext columns, which also had the straps and visco elastic dampeners and all their fasteners.

At least you acknowledge that someof the "ears" on the core seats are bent down.

What caused that to such a uniform degree?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Translation:

bsbray is scared.

He prefers "da twoof" over the truth.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The only thing I'm scared of is wasting time, gas, and effort, on hunting down a paper that you haven't even read and/or don't remember/understand, so it very well could have nothing at all to do with what we are talking about.

Well, also the fact that you base your argument on sources you can't find and don't even remember/understand worries me, too.

So, I guess this is the part where you just continue to barrage me with insults, right? Because I love to see how big of a man you are, not understanding the things you are talking about and using phrases like "da troof" as if you have down syndrome. Seriously, who are you trying to mock with that?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Just so we can all play along...

Here is what you are calling "bent downward". These are the exact core column seats you listed in your post.






Compared to just a sampling of the pictures you wanted to ignore - those of the seats on the external columns in Appendix B of the same document wtc.nist.gov...







Now - with a straight face - tell me you can't see a difference.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Geez, maybe we should go back and start with which direction is "up," which direction is "down," and where the "sides" are; what do you think?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Valhall
 


Geez, maybe we should go back and start with which direction is "up," which direction is "down," and where the "sides" are; what do you think?


That's what I was saying...maybe I need to turn my monitor 90 degrees. But don't confuse me...I'm still staring at the photos trying to find the "uniformity".

*shhh be vewy qwite...I'm hunting wabbit*

[edit on 9-21-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Now - with a straight face - tell me you can't see a difference.



I clearly stated that the core seats aren't bent to the same degree as the ext column seats.

Why not discuss the differences between the way the 2 were connected to their respective columns, and why and/or how that would result in the differences observed?

This is YOUR hypothesis - that the columns and floors fell together.

Why are you avoiding the real discussion?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So, I guess this is the part where you just continue to barrage me with insults, right?


No need for me to do that.


Your multi paragraph rants about nothing show everyone all they need to know about you.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall
Now - with a straight face - tell me you can't see a difference.



I clearly stated that the core seats aren't bent to the same degree as the ext column seats.

Why not discuss the differences between the way the 2 were connected to their respective columns, and why and/or how that would result in the differences observed?

This is YOUR hypothesis - that the columns and floors fell together.

Why are you avoiding the real discussion?


Thank you for joining me. I have no idea why the majority of the external seats would fail in a downward direction (including being completely stripped from the external columns) while the majority of the of the inner seats remained intact and show no severe downward force.

It's stymied me for quite some time.

Do you have a tantalizing explanation for me? I hope so. Please remember - you have to keep the floor truss with the seat and the seat with the core column in your explanation...because now we have pictures that show that must be so.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Anyone who thinks this was an inside job is a WINGNUT lolz. Give it up, you all look like nutjobs. The government is NOT out to get you. Grow up and realize this world is boring, and no crazy government conspiracy like this would ever work in the REAL world.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join