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: 19
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator

...The buildings were taken down to about 10 floors from the base... the buildings design mandates that there should have been a larger stub of the central core left standing


See this is the beauty of being open-minded and sitting in the middle. I don't particularly care what your opinion is of who did it, or how they did it, but I can lift from your post a physical problem with what occurred that was completely ignored by NIST, and really is hard to explain.

I wish people could center on the points and set their theories aside (by the way, I'm not addressing that toward you) and then we could possibly all talk about the physical issues of that day and come to more common ground. Even if we all came at it from different directions.

I've said it on here before many times, but this is my view of seeking the truth:

There is exactly one set of facts to any given historical event - those facts are what ACTUALLY happened. When seeking the truth we are walking toward that set of facts. We will take different paths toward getting to that one set of facts because of our personal opinions/beliefs, but if we are all GENUINELY wanting to find that set of facts (versus proving our opinion/belief) - we'll all end up in the same spot some day!

I just wish more people were walking a path toward the set of facts instead of trying to prevent any information that might hurt their own personal opinion/belief (again, not focused at you, just speaking generally).

[edit on 9-24-2009 by Valhall]




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Perpetrator
 





By design the explosives were used on each and every floor to resemble what the perpetrators thought would look more like a 'self collapse.'


Each floor? There were 110 floors. Explain how they managed to rig explosives on 110 floors

Consider tallest building demolished by explosives was 31 stories -
less than 1/3 WTC towers. And there were 2 TOWERS! Thats 6 times the
workload. To rig the Hudson building in Detroit (tallest CD) took dozen
experts 3 1/2 weeks. This was in an empty building

You fail on basic logic



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Unknown Perpetrator
 





By design the explosives were used on each and every floor to resemble what the perpetrators thought would look more like a 'self collapse.'


Each floor? There were 110 floors. Explain how they managed to rig explosives on 110 floors

Consider tallest building demolished by explosives was 31 stories -
less than 1/3 WTC towers. And there were 2 TOWERS! Thats 6 times the
workload. To rig the Hudson building in Detroit (tallest CD) took dozen
experts 3 1/2 weeks. This was in an empty building

You fail on basic logic


I fail on basic logic ??

Hmmm, some compelling evidence below that something went on before 9/11, no bomb sniffing dogs, blackouts, missing tapes and record and a Bush connection ??

Ample time and oppertunity to rig the building

Coincidental facts mounting up against your 'face value' assessment



Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United by Margie Burns George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.





An article in New York Newsday documented the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs just five days before the attack. September 12, 2001 The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.





On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." [WingTV] 69.28.73.17...





Dec. 10, 2002 WTC surveillance tapes feared missing SARA KUGLER Associated Press NEW YORK - Surveillance tapes and maintenance logs are among the missing evidence as investigators try to figure out why the World Trade Center collapsed, federal officials said Monday.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
A computer simulation can be made to show whatever the creator of the simulation wants to show. A computer simulation really isn't proof of anything.

HEY LOOK GUYS COMPUTER SIMULATION AS PROOF OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN 2012

Get what I mean?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

YOU ARE CONTRADICTING THE NIST REPORT.


How so?

Maybe it was unclear, but my thoughts are about how the cloof connections failed during the collapse progression.

And since it's a big sticking point among many that NIST didn't deal with after the initiation, and gave no opinion that I can find about connection failure during progression, I'm not in conflict.

At any rate, please comment on what I said, focusing on how the connections might fail during the progression.

Do you think that the core seats would fail before the ext column seats, due to the structural/hardware differences?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall

YOU ARE CONTRADICTING THE NIST REPORT.


How so?

Maybe it was unclear, but my thoughts are about how the cloof connections failed during the collapse progression.

And since it's a big sticking point among many that NIST didn't deal with after the initiation, and gave no opinion that I can find about connection failure during progression, I'm not in conflict.

At any rate, please comment on what I said, focusing on how the connections might fail during the progression.

Do you think that the core seats would fail before the ext column seats, due to the structural/hardware differences?


It is my suggestion that you read the report. I have no opinion on your theory, other than it contradicts the NIST report. I see no reason to discuss a theory outside the report, when all we've been discussing is the report. Unless we are now going to set aside the report and discuss all manner of new theories and not be impeded by the report.

Let me know if that is now the case.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Wait, I've been reading through this debate, and while I don't have a big issue with the "puffing air" concept (like the folks arguing with you do), I do have a problem with the way you are conceptualizing the top of the building. Not only does Karilla have a point about the decimation of the floor being impacted by what is coming down on it, but the top is being decimated floor by floor (counting upward) with each floor impacted below (counting downward). That's where we have to stop referring to the top as one big mass. Because there is an equal and opposite impact force on the floor "pancaking" (if you will - I don't care if you call it pancake, belgium waffle or just "fall") as there is on the floor being impacted. So the lowest floor of the falling section is encountering as destructive a force as the upper floor of the stationary portion of the building.


All good points.


To state it more clearly the "top" (i.e. the damaging momentum, the damaging force) is diminishing as it falls


Does it? This would require that the amount of weight lost outside the floors to be greater than what is gained as more levels are demolished, and their weight is added. Have you seen a study on this?


and as it continues down the structure is encountering more resistance because the structure only gets stronger


ONLY if the columns give resistance to the falling weight, since the floor strength is the same, except for the tech floors. IF I'm correct about this, then even if the weight lost = weight gained, then the collapse front might achieve equilibrium somewhere during the collapse descent.


hence the issues of why it appears to fall with out resistance.


You have stated that you realize that the lower levels gave a huge resistance to the collapse, since it fell much slower than free fall acceleration. I think what you meant to say is without "increasing resistance"? Again, if you're wrong about the columns giving resistance, and I'm right about them not, but rather the floors and their connection giving resistance to the falling weight, then this is to be expected, I believe.


You have a combination of diminishing force on the top and an increasing resistance on the bottom that seems to not be perceptible.


Or both points are wrong....


Then, as I've asked for about 5 years now - could you explain what happened to the core columns? In particular, the upper section of the core columns as the top of the building fell.


They fell down, and presumably, the core assemblies would have been broken apart during the fall.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

It is my suggestion that you read the report. I have no opinion on your theory, other than it contradicts the NIST report. I see no reason to discuss a theory outside the report, when all we've been discussing is the report. Unless we are now going to set aside the report and discuss all manner of new theories and not be impeded by the report.



No, we can ignore the part outside the NIST report if you wish to avoid it. I would hardly call my thoughts a "theory". They were just merely my thoughts about an issue that I thought you wanted to discuss, since you also mentioned the downward tearing of the ext seats from below the fire zone.

OT then, I'll have to look and see where the recovered ext panels were actually from. Cuz I could see that if they WEREN'T from the exact location that the ext coumns buckled, I could see them... perhaps..... failing in much the same way.

IOW, if the core and ext columns started to fall at slightly different times - as in tenths of a second apart - or somehow got slightly out of synch, then I can envision the "distance" between the respective seats for each floor being slightly farther apart. This would, IMHO, result in the core seat connections failing first, due to the hardware differences as I outlined before. Then, they could be torn down, or as NIST describes for the ext seats above the fire zone, being failed upwards.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I love "911 science" - it's so very magical and reminds me of the old adage, "If it smells, it's Chemistry. If it moves, it's biology. If it doesn't work, it's physics."

Just a thought, really, but I'm confused (by many things, but this is just now...).
If the pancake theory is based on the momentum of the higher floors and the increased mass of the pancake, what's all that pulverized concrete exploding off in a huge cloud? Wouldn't that make up some of that mass? If the building is collapsing downwards, why are huge amounts of concrete flying upwards?
Also, if the "squibs" are really compressed air from the collapsing floors (which haven't yet collapsed, but let's leave that for a second), wouldn't the compressed air offer any sort of resistance to the falling floors? If that sort of mass was compressing the air, you'd likely see ALL the windows blow out from the uniform force being applied to the cavity. No?
Seems like the OS people want it both ways.

I'll just be quiet now and believe the OS because "they say it's true." They can't back it up scientifically under scrutiny, but they are very compelling in the way they tell it.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Unknown Perpetrator
 





By design the explosives were used on each and every floor to resemble what the perpetrators thought would look more like a 'self collapse.'


Each floor? There were 110 floors. Explain how they managed to rig explosives on 110 floors

Consider tallest building demolished by explosives was 31 stories -
less than 1/3 WTC towers. And there were 2 TOWERS! Thats 6 times the
workload. To rig the Hudson building in Detroit (tallest CD) took dozen
experts 3 1/2 weeks. This was in an empty building

You fail on basic logic


I do not understand this logic? Who says there were not dozens and dozens of people working on this and who told you it had to have been done in less than 3 1/2 weeks? OS supporters keep adding supposition and things they "think" because well, it should be that way.

Try sticking to facts and you might be amazed what you learn when you stop assuming things based on no information whatsoever.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

They fell down, and presumably, the core assemblies would have been broken apart during the fall.


While every bit of this simplistic statement is true, it doesn't answer the question of what was happening to the core columns at the top of the building when the top of the building was falling down.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


I've been popping in, and reading....it's not my expertise, I.E., architecture and building engineering.

But....I started thinking about the 'central core columns', which made up the main structural "spine" and wondered about the side loads...of the upper portion, all of that weight...that may have exceeded any original design parameters...since the majority of the structural strength would be vertical...with the minor allowances for wind 'sway'....

I know these are not technical terms. I just think it stands to reason, once a failure was initiated...a progressive collapse might have been inevitable, as components exceeded their design limits.

Just thinkin' out loud....because both of those Towers were of somewhat unusual design. Perhaps that contributed to the "unusual and never before seen collapse of a "steel-framed" building due to fire"?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Valhall
 


I've been popping in, and reading....it's not my expertise, I.E., architecture and building engineering.

But....I started thinking about the 'central core columns', which made up the main structural "spine" and wondered about the side loads...of the upper portion, all of that weight...that may have exceeded any original design parameters...since the majority of the structural strength would be vertical...with the minor allowances for wind 'sway'....

I know these are not technical terms. I just think it stands to reason, once a failure was initiated...a progressive collapse might have been inevitable, as components exceeded their design limits.

Just thinkin' out loud....because both of those Towers were of somewhat unusual design. Perhaps that contributed to the "unusual and never before seen collapse of a "steel-framed" building due to fire"?



I understand what you're saying, but I think I might need to draw picture of what has had me stumped for several years. I'll get back to you later on this.

Thanks!

[edit on 9-24-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

To state it more clearly the "top" (i.e. the damaging momentum, the damaging force) is diminishing as it falls


Does it? This would require that the amount of weight lost outside the floors to be greater than what is gained as more levels are demolished, and their weight is added. Have you seen a study on this?


Have you seen the footprints of the buildings after they were finished collapsing?

I rest my case.

No seriously, have you? This one of those things, your eyes vs. your worldview; prepare to be shocked at what this "pancake collapse" served up.


Much more mass was going over the edges per floor, on average, than was going straight down. Not just by a little, on average, but upwards of 80% of it. This is the undeniable pre-requisite for the relatively small amount of mass left sitting in the footprints afterward.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Much more mass was going over the edges per floor, on average, than was going straight down. Not just by a little, on average, but upwards of 80% of it. This is the undeniable pre-requisite for the relatively small amount of mass left sitting in the footprints afterward.


I agree. It's particularly obvious on any of the videos of the south tower collapse. You can clearly see huge sections falling away from the outside edge. None of that mass would be added to the falling mass, while the falling mass itself would have any concrete components pulverised, reducing it's velocity (dust encounters more resistance from the air).

There is no rational explanation for the collapse curve that includes intact floors and core columns below the impact zone, IMHO.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
There is no rational explanation for the collapse curve that includes intact floors and core columns below the impact zone, IMHO.


It's not just an opinion, it's a fact that there are no energy models that include these factors and also accurately model the collapses using a pile-driver theory. Bazant's energy analysis was forced to assume AT LEAST 50% of the mass still within the footprints after collapse. Any less than that, his model is out the window because it takes too long. The science speaks for itself.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 



Originally posted by Badgered1
Just a thought, really, but I'm confused (by many things, but this is just now...).
If the pancake theory is based on the momentum of the higher floors and the increased mass of the pancake, what's all that pulverized concrete exploding off in a huge cloud? Wouldn't that make up some of that mass? If the building is collapsing downwards, why are huge amounts of concrete flying upwards?


I believe you bring up some valid points. Some that have played on my mind when trying to comprehend the physics of the collapse. A large amount of concrete is turned to dust during the collapse, which means a reduction in mass contributing to the downward "pancake" momentum. One could argue that the majority of concrete is turned to dust on impact with the ground. But IMO, most of the concrete was already obliterated before it hit the "ground". Does anyone know if this was taken into account when setting the parameters for the models?

Another thing that I can't comprehend, is how the steel got heated to sufficient temperatures to fail by a mere office fire. It is logical to assume that most of the jet fuel exploded outside the building in the initial fireball, and the remaining fuel burned off within a few minutes, leaving a simple office fire (as well as the damage from the impact, of course).

How did the heat get "trapped" long enough in any given position in the building without dissipating?

NIST themselves agree that no section of the building remained at 250 (from memory, maybe wrong) degrees for the entire duration of the fires. Would the buildings not have behaved like a giant heat sink, with the heat dissipating to other areas of the building? The majority of the hot gases would have escaped through the gaping hole in the building, or risen up through the various elevator shafts and stair wells. And a lot of heat in the metal would have dissipated through the metal, some of it to the exterior to cool off like a radiator.

Because I think we can all agree, that these were not unusually hot fires. I've heard theories of how the plane impacts pushed office equipment into "heaps" to cause more intense fires, but I'm not sure I buy it. Also, were there not initial reports from fire fighters saying that the fires were managable? I'm not entirely sure which building the guys were reffering to, sorry. Can't search for it right now.

Anyway, I've enjoyed this thread and hope to look at more of the links provided when I get a chance. I'd also like to thank Valhall for your sensible input into the discussion, as just like you, I'm just trying to find the truth to what happened that day.
Cheers



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Valhall
 


I've been popping in, and reading....it's not my expertise, I.E., architecture and building engineering.

But....I started thinking about the 'central core columns', which made up the main structural "spine" and wondered about the side loads...of the upper portion, all of that weight...that may have exceeded any original design parameters...since the majority of the structural strength would be vertical...with the minor allowances for wind 'sway'....

I know these are not technical terms. I just think it stands to reason, once a failure was initiated...a progressive collapse might have been inevitable, as components exceeded their design limits.

Just thinkin' out loud....because both of those Towers were of somewhat unusual design. Perhaps that contributed to the "unusual and never before seen collapse of a "steel-framed" building due to fire"?


Okay, I went and found some old crude drawings I had made in years past and created a third one showing the cores. These drawings center on WTC 2 because it has more problematic core behavior due to the severe list and twisting that eventually rights itself as it goes down. But WTC 1 also shares many of the same problems in that the upper core column structure is some how "going away" as the top of the building falls. In other words, the core is some how shortening in step with the fall of the surrounding building shell - which is very problematic to explain.

Here is WTC 2 at 20 degrees list. (NIST put the highest degree of list closer to 25 so this is conservative.)



along with some points on the moment and subsequent loading due to list



here is a drawing showing what has to have happened to the core column structure in order to allow this list without the "core" already sticking out of the top of the building.



Okay, that in and of itself is problematic, but as WTC 2 begins to fall it rights itself. Please see drawing above. The right side of the drawing is in tension at the most severe list so we are saying that building some how overcomes a loading that should increase the tilt of the top portion of the building (i.e. physics would have the top continue over to the left at this point because there's just too much of a moment about the cg for it not to. EDIT: I should probably say "or stay where it is at" because the cg of the upper portion at this point has not moved outside the footprint of the lower portion of the building. Therefore, physics would have it either continue to torque over to the left or stay where it is at. That's a more accurate way to say that.). So somehow this moment is over come and a wall (on the right) that is in tension collapses so much that virtually the entire list is corrected back to vertical. (EDIT: In other words, approximately six floors have to collapse WHILE IN TENSION in order to almost completely correct the list.)

This becomes more problematic when looking at the core structure because now you have to take a robust set of relatively tightly spaced and laterally connected core columns (47 of them if I'm remembering correctly) that shouldn't have ever listed in the first place and now "unbend" the structure because if you don't it's going to stick out of the corrected top of the building (which it should have already been sticking out of at the point of highest list because there's not a good way to explain why the whole core structure would bend by 25 degrees).

Once again, even without the added problems of WTC 2 there is the issue - where did the top part of the core column structure go as the top fell vertically down? It's all well and good (EDIT: Actually, it's not all well and good - I should say - "it's an easy task) to center on the part of the structure we can see (i.e. the external walls) and say, see - they are collapsing and falling away from the building beginning at the collapse zone, but you have to also account for the core structure above the collapse zone....which is a non-trivial task.

Nobody has - especially not NIST.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts on this, because it stymies me.


[edit on 9-25-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
P.S. With that said, if both sides could stop calling names and trying to win an argument just long enough to help one dumb broad understand that part of this problem, it would be nice. Because what tends to happen when I ask these questions is people "argue past" me (i.e. you guys just keep "fighting your good fight" right over my questions) and they never even get addressed.

I don't have a horse in the truther vs debbie race...I just have some questions nobody wants to answer.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Much more mass was going over the edges per floor, on average, than was going straight down. Not just by a little, on average, but upwards of 80% of it. This is the undeniable pre-requisite for the relatively small amount of mass left sitting in the footprints afterward.



Even if 80% goes outside the footprint, the other 20% remains inside the footprint, and the weight increases as it descends.

And again, if it requires - to pull a random number out - say 50k tons to ensure "pamcaking" during the collapse, once that nmber is reached, you can have a 1:1 exchange for weight lost vs gained, and the collapse would continue at a unifrom rate, if indeed the flor connections are what wioud determine the descent rate.

Which, IMHO, makes a lot more sense than stating that the column strength would determine the descent rate, since they couldn't "catch" any of that descending weight. The weight is "caught" by the floors. SO the floor connections are what determines it.




top topics



 
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join