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: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


wouldn't it take some very big explosions to scatter that steel that weighed tons and isn't the de-bunkers of 911 truth saying there was no explosions. sorry, when I went there didn't see enough steel to convince me planes would do this much damage. a foot or so of just dust all over the place? this job is up there with Tesla technology or the Hutchington effect not just explosives.




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher2
 


Actually no it wouldn't take a large explosion. Just a long distance to tumble down before it hits ground. And it wasn't just dust and the debris pile was higher than a foot.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Well in the world of physics you need forces for reactions to start happening. Yes I infer that it was cd in the case of wtc7 but a better case has yet to be presented. The simulation in the OP supports the case.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


In the world of physics of structures a buildings own weight can pull it down. Especially when it's compromised.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by jprophet420
 


In the world of physics of structures a buildings own weight can pull it down. Especially when it's compromised.


But here's the problem with that statement. While what you have stated is absolutely correct, the damage required to allow the building's own weight to bring it down has to be at certain locations/regions of the building. In the case of the towers - at the base....more specifically at the base of the core in order to achieve the type of collapse witnessed.

[edit on 9-20-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


I am not so sure that is the case. In my honest opinion dropping enough weight on the top *of the intact or unbroken part of the structure* is enough to start a chain reaction that will bring the building down. In a way simular to hold a fifty pound weight in your hand and dropping it on your hand.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
In the world of physics of structures a buildings own weight can pull it down. Especially when it's compromised.


Actually, when the structure is not sufficiently compromised, it will never fail under its own weight. Which is what we are discussing.

Less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors was compromised in either building, and with an average redundancy factor of even 2, that leaves >35% more of the total structure to be compromised by fire (over 2x as much as the impacts) before the yield strength is even reached. In the case of deformations and sagging, a deformation does not reduce structural integrity as much as a complete severing, so a larger number of members would have to be deformed than severed to produce the same structural effect. So we are talking about the fires doing over twice the structural damage as the impacts, and across a much greater number of columns. The evidence for this happening doesn't exist.

NIST admits the fires roamed while the towers were burning, and they tended not to stay in the same place for very long before burning out there and flaring up somewhere else. That has a significant effect on the heating of the steel. WTC2 only burned for about 45 minutes, and WTC1 over an hour but less than 2, when studies using megawatt heat generators (equivalent to 50-some standard wood ovens in a living room-sized office space) were applied directly to smaller cross-sections of steel for about 30 minutes before reaching 600 C. 600 C is about where major deformations start to occur, and it required that much heat applied to it consistently, and also a smaller mass of steel. So you can look at photos of the towers burning, where the fires are not even applied directly to the columns or trusses, and are scattered around the building and dying down and flaring up, and with fires that don't look very hot in themselves, but where is the evidence that these fires should have been so much more intense than controlled studies or other case studies of buildings? Because I promise you, you cannot find such an extreme example, of such large amounts of steel being so heated in such small amounts of time, while the heat is not even being consistently applied.

Basically it has never been proven whether or not there was enough heat to bring down the towers. It's obvious to me that other skyscraper fires, even much more intense ones, did not produce nearly the same amount of structural damage that the WTC fires supposedly did, and there is no precedent for the amount of damage being attributed to the fires. These researchers "prove" their study ultimately not by verifying the accuracy of their variables, but by producing conditions they deem sufficient to initiate a collapse, tweaking the amount of heat present until they get that result. It's exactly what NIST did, too. They even ran multiple simulations because some did not result in conditions they deemed suitable for a collapse initiation, but there was absolutely no reason to say that case was less legitimate than the most severe cases they assumed. Just the fact that apparently reasonable variables COULD result in a lack of collapse should have warranted a much more rigorous study, but it didn't. So we still don't really know.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bismarcksea

Following the official theory, the chamber area of every firearm built would fail after an hour of light shooting.


You're comparing apples to oranges.

The steel in a building is axially loaded.

A gun's steel isn't. It's containing pressure inside a cylinder, the best way to achieve that goal.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bismarcksea

Even assuming that they stayed at a constant 1500 degrees the entire time, I'm trying to stress a very crucial point. 1500 degrees is a JOKE for beams that size and for that amount of time.




Wrong.

Please choose to educate yourself before making these types of statements. It pains me to see an artist such as yourself operating under false beliefs.

www.wpi.edu...



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

600 C is about where major deformations start to occur,


True - I think this is the "loses 50% of it's strength" temp? But Bazant and Zhou have proven that just 250C, for a column under load, results in enough creep to cause column failure i just 45 minutes.


and are scattered around the building and dying down and flaring up,


This would even make the creep issue worse, since it would also result in thermal shortening, in addition to creep, which would transfer loads to a greater degree.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bismarcksea

Even assuming that they stayed at a constant 1500 degrees the entire time, I'm trying to stress a very crucial point. 1500 degrees is a JOKE for beams that size and for that amount of time.




Wrong.

Please choose to educate yourself before making these types of statements. It pains me to see an artist such as yourself operating under false beliefs.

www.wpi.edu...



But the major issue is that there was no evidence of them being above 650 F. And there was no evidence of any elements that did see that high of temperature remaining at that temperature for any appreciable time. And it is explicitly stated no structural elements were found to have been subjected to elevated temperatures for the entire period between impact and collapse.

Further to that it should be pointed out that the effect on yield strength at elevated temperatures is reversible. So since the elements were only subject to elevated temperatures for short periods of time until the fire moved on (as the report states), they would have begun to cool and regain any depreciation in strength.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

600 C is about where major deformations start to occur,


True - I think this is the "loses 50% of it's strength" temp? But Bazant and Zhou have proven that just 250C, for a column under load, results in enough creep to cause column failure i just 45 minutes.


and are scattered around the building and dying down and flaring up,


This would even make the creep issue worse, since it would also result in thermal shortening, in addition to creep, which would transfer loads to a greater degree.


OMG! You didn't say creep did you? Creep requires

1. elevated temperatures
2. sufficient stress
3. AND EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME

Please don't fall into the "fool's gold" trap of "creep". It's the most assinine part of the NIST report. Creep in one hour with no sustained elevated temperatures. They should all be fired and then lose all their P.E. licenses....and then arrested.

[edit on 9-20-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

the damage required to allow the building's own weight to bring it down has to be at certain locations/regions of the building. In the case of the towers - at the base....more specifically at the base of the core in order to achieve the type of collapse witnessed.



Why is that?

There are indeed examples of verified CD of structures by initiating a top down collapse using explosives.

And the French technique of verinage uses zero explosives at all. They merely use mechanical means to collapse a floor or 2, and in 1 documented example, only 30% down from the top (IIRC) and use the building's own weight to bring the remaining structure down, without any pre-weakening of the structure below.

Now, presumably most buildings will be built with the nearly (?) universal "stronger columns at the bottom" technique. What would make the TT's different in this regard?

Have you documented this?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Why is that?

There are indeed examples of verified CD of structures by initiating a top down collapse using explosives.

And the French technique of verinage uses zero explosives at all. They merely use mechanical means to collapse a floor or 2, and in 1 documented example, only 30% down from the top (IIRC) and use the building's own weight to bring the remaining structure down, without any pre-weakening of the structure below.

Now, presumably most buildings will be built with the nearly (?) universal "stronger columns at the bottom" technique. What would make the TT's different in this regard?

Have you documented this?


But those demolition techniques you refer to utilize the entire mass above the demolished zone to "pile drive" the building down. That didn't happen with the towers - that would be the difference. Please refer to the NIST report for all documentation.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

But the major issue is that there was no evidence of them being above 650 F.


I never said they did. Am I correct though? Would a constant 1500 be a problem?


Further to that it should be pointed out that the effect on yield strength at elevated temperatures is reversible. So since the elements were only subject to elevated temperatures for short periods of time until the fire moved on (as the report states), they would have begun to cool and regain any depreciation in strength.



Since you deny that creep exists and has been proven, you will now of course deny load transfer to unheated/unaffected columns, right?

Cuz it wouldn't matter if the columns regained their strength or not if they weren't carrying any load.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Now, presumably most buildings will be built with the nearly (?) universal "stronger columns at the bottom" technique. What would make the TT's different in this regard?

Have you documented this?


But those demolition techniques you refer to utilize the entire mass above the demolished zone to "pile drive" the building down. That didn't happen with the towers - that would be the difference. Please refer to the NIST report for all documentation.


Yes, I know the difference.

But you avoided stating exactly WHY the bases would need to be "taken out".

Have you done an analysis that states that 100% of the upper mass would be needed, and that only enough to fail the floors - which is what, 7x the max floor dead and live loads of the floors? - would NOT be enough to result in collapse?

Have you published this study?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall

But the major issue is that there was no evidence of them being above 650 F.


I never said they did. Am I correct though? Would a constant 1500 be a problem?


I never said you said they did - so we're in agreement there.
Yes, a constant 1500 would be a problem. So would a hologram plane or a spaceship from outer space. Why don't we throw in thermite, CD, planted explosions and missiles as well? There is no data to support the 1500 or any of the others I just listed.




Further to that it should be pointed out that the effect on yield strength at elevated temperatures is reversible. So since the elements were only subject to elevated temperatures for short periods of time until the fire moved on (as the report states), they would have begun to cool and regain any depreciation in strength.



Since you deny that creep exists and has been proven,


Naughty, naughty! I didn't deny 'creep exists'. I reject - with authority, experience and knowledge - that creep could have been (even at a minor level) a factor in the towers' collapses. I'm not even leaving wiggle room in that rejection.



you will now of course deny load transfer to unheated/unaffected columns, right? Cuz it wouldn't matter if the columns regained their strength or not if they weren't carrying any load.


Why did you say I will deny anything? Probably because you misquoted me on the creep in the first place right? Lesson #1 - don't try to read my mind or intent, you'll most likely get it wrong every time.

Of course load will transfer to all columns still intact. Doesn't matter if they are heated or unheated, affected or unaffected, the load will be redistributed to the remaining supportive elements.

Goes with saying - almost without thinking.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Creep requires

1. elevated temperatures
2. sufficient stress
3. AND EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME



1- guess you missed the fires?
2- guess you missed the plane impact, which resulted in load transfer?
3- guess you missed that it has been proven and accepted in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics that 45 minutes is sufficent to maintain the steel at 250C?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall

Creep requires

1. elevated temperatures
2. sufficient stress
3. AND EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME



1- guess you missed the fires?
2- guess you missed the plane impact, which resulted in load transfer?
3- guess you missed that it has been proven and accepted in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics that 45 minutes is sufficent to maintain the steel at 250C?


1 - I guess you can't read because...
2 - I never stated there were no fires
3 - I never stated there were no planes and actually confirmed that I am not suffering any brain damage that would prevent me utilizing my engineering degree and 18 years in high pressure/high temperature design, testing and failure and fatigue analysis, as well as years of metallurgical work and therefore know that the load will transfer.
4 - The NIST report states (and it would be worth your time to read it since you clearly haven't yet) that NO STRUCTURAL ELEMENT WAS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES FOR THE FULL DURATION OF TIME BETWEEN IMPACT AND COLLAPSE. That means - doesn't matter spit what 45 minutes gets you - the elements were not at the elevated temperatures for 45 minutes!

[edit on 9-20-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

I never said you said they did - so we're in agreement there.


So then what was your point of bringing it up in the first place? I was merely correcting someone I consider to be both an artisan and a professional.


I reject - with authority, experience and knowledge - that creep could have been (even at a minor level) a factor in the towers' collapses. I'm not even leaving wiggle room in that rejection.


With authority? Is that so? Are you a recognized structural engineering expert? Or is it that you believe in yourself enough to call yourself an "authority"?


Lesson #1 - don't try to read my mind or intent, you'll most likely get it wrong every time.


Apologizes then. But of course it's common for troofers - not saying that you fall into that group of degenerates - to be purposefully vague so that they can play "gotcha".


Of course load will transfer to all columns still intact. Doesn't matter if they are heated or unheated, affected or unaffected, the load will be redistributed to the remaining supportive elements.

Goes with saying - almost without thinking.


And that's why collapse initiation will occur. Load transfer due to creep, physical damage, heat weakening, etc.

Interestingly enough, IMHO, column strength won't have any affect on the collapse progression. THAT would depend on the floor connections. Floors fail, leaving ext columns unbraced, which then peel away, as seen.

And core columns might or might not survive the passing of the collapse front passing, depending on the particulars of how the debris passed each individual column and floor/brace. But in the end, they would be some long lengths poking up, which would end up toppling.

Do you agree that the column strength would have no effect on the collapse progression, or do you have another idea?

BTW, thx for keeping it civil....


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Joey Canoli]




top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join