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.

 

What did & did not Cause Collapse of WTC-Journal of Engineering Mechanics

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Nope. Reread it.

Previously, the NIST report on page 21 of NCSTAR 1-2 said 6 core columns in WTC1 and 10 core columns in WTC2 were damaged or severed. They have obviously revised those numbers slightly. And I think they got it backwards because the plane that hit the south tower was way off center and very few core columns would have been damaged:





The majority of the second plane missed the core. But you also have to remember that NIST is only guessing the amount of core columns that were damaged from the impacts. We can also make our own calculations based on what parts of a jetliner can actually damage the core columns.

I'd say NIST's guess of 6 core columns is a fair number for the north tower. I'd say 4-5 is a fair number for the south tower.

Either way, if you don't think 15% structural damage to a building is minute or minimal, then you should go look up the definition of those words.




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yep. And you have none that support your claim that the damage was "minute".

NIST's original numbers show that the damage was minute. Sorry you don't like their numbers. But I guess we can say that because they revised them, they "changed their story".



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I'd say NIST's guess of 6 core columns is a fair number for the north tower. I'd say 4-5 is a fair number for the south tower.

Either way, if you don't think 15% structural damage to a building is minute or minimal, then you should go look up the definition of those words.



Well, you're still off on the numbers that NIST gave, but it's a red herring anyways, and not worth discussing. So much for "honest researcher".

The point is, you have zero technical papers or opinions, other than your own, that give any backup to your claim that the damage was "minute". Number of total columns means nothing, rather, it's the effect on the structure as a whole that any "honest researcher" would be investigating. Your investigating stops at counting columns. Not very thorough.

To whit, shoot a hole in your engine block. The overall damage to the car is "minute", but it's a fatal flaw, yes? That's what you need to investigate. And honestly for a change.....



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I am certain that it wasn't an airplane at all. An iceburg, dating from 1912, levitated from the ocean and hurled itself against the building, destroying the main strctural beams supporting the key framwork of the building. Unfortunately, it had a cloking device so that it was never photographed!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Well, you're still off on the numbers that NIST gave, but it's a red herring anyways, and not worth discussing.

I told you the page number and the number of columns NIST stated. Here's the link:

wtc.nist.gov...

Yeah, they changed the link and they changed their numbers. In other words, they changed their story. You can attack me all you like, those are NIST's numbers from years ago whether you like it or not.

Even with NIST's "revised" numbers, that only brings the total damage to the structures up to 16%. 84% of the structure of the towers was undamaged and intact.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Number of total columns means nothing, rather, it's the effect on the structure as a whole

Number of columns means everything. With your logic, even one severed column could cause the towers to collapse and that's just false. A loss of 16% of the structure of those towers was minimal, period.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
To whit, shoot a hole in your engine block. The overall damage to the car is "minute", but it's a fatal flaw, yes?

That's not even in the same universe for a comparison. An engine needs fluids, spark and compression to keep operating. The structure of the towers neither needed fluid, spark nor compression. But you can take out some supports of a building and it will still keep standing. Buildings are designed to stand tall and strong and resist collapse. Not fail and fall at the slightest loss of structure. Especially those towers.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Number of total columns means nothing, rather, it's the effect on the structure as a whole


Number of columns means everything. With your logic, even one severed column could cause the towers to collapse and that's just false. A loss of 16% of the structure of those towers was minimal, period.



As I noted, you have used a shallow research method in order to prop up your beliefs about 9/11. You are not the first to employ such a pitiful level of research, so there's zero surprise there.

Also noted that you have zero technical papers that can refute where NIST estimates the load transfers and increases in strain percentages from safe levels to near failure levels, all before adding in any fire effects.

IOW, you have nothing but your opiion that the damage was "minute", based on nothing but the shallow justification of the number of columns.

Let me say that again.

You have nothing.

And you never did.

Otherwise, you'd present it.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
IOW, you have nothing but your opiion that the damage was "minute", based on nothing but the shallow justification of the number of columns.

Let me say that again.

You have nothing.

And you never did.

Otherwise, you'd present it.


Hmmmm common sense goes a long way in making ones mind up.

You seem to be supporting the OS not based on common sense but an appeal to authority, because you've said nothing to support your belief that columns were severed other than waffle on about what NIST said.

Point is what NIST said is NOT provable, therefore according to what you debunkers tell us all the time, unless you have EVIDENCE then it's not credible or worth disusing.

Where is the evidence aluminum planes, after already smashing through one set of steel columns, would still have the energy to cut through even larger steel columns? Simple physics tells us this is not logical.

NIST just made an assumption, a guess, one more lie needed to convince the gullible that the planes and fires were able to overcome thousands of tons of steel and it's resistance to cause symmetrical global collapse.

YOU are the one that need to prove NIST told the truth and columns were severed if you're going to argue for them, otherwise it's nothing but another unproved highly unlikely event.

But having said that, as Bonez pointed out, you can lose columns and still retain building integrity. And on top of that the way the buildings collapsed, all three, contradicts the natural collapse they want us to believe. Natural collapses are not symmetrical, for symmetry to be possible all columns have to fail at the same time, ANY amount of resistance in the collapse would cause asymmetry as the building falls to the path of least resistance.

The collapses were not 'progressive' as some like to claim, no matter how long they took, they were obviously one smooth collapse wave. There was no stopping and starting of the collapses, once initiated the collapses were non-stop, symmetrical, and complete.

[edit on 4/16/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Hmmmm common sense goes a long way in making ones mind up.


Too bad for you that engineering and logic trump common sense. Every time.


you've said nothing to support your belief that columns were severed other than waffle on about what NIST said.


For the sake of this discussion, Bonez has accepted as probable that NIST is correct. A quick review of his posts would confirm that. I suggest you start there.


unless you have EVIDENCE then it's not credible or worth disusing.


There's plenty of evidence. Videos of the planes striking at certain places. Speeds can be determined to within a range also. Weight of the plane was determined. This gives the ke at impact. then known engineering factors are used to determine just how much of that ke would be expended against the ext steel columns, breaking concrete slabs, etc. Any remaining ke would be available to do work against the core columns. Again, this is all outlined in the NIST report. Very sad that you were unaware of this evidence. It's clearly spelled out for those that are interested.


Natural collapses are not symmetrical,


Ah, so then YOU have a technical paper that determines just how symmetrical the collapses were, and an engineering description of just how assymmetrical the collapses should have been then, right?

NO???????

So, like Bonez, all we have is your personal statement that it fell wrong.

Not very convincing.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Too bad for you that engineering and logic trump common sense. Every time.

I guess that would be too bad for you then, because there are far more architects and engineers that have come out against the OS than have come out to support it. So, you're correct about engineering and logic, except you're on the opposite side of the real engineering and logic.




Originally posted by Joey Canoli
For the sake of this discussion, Bonez has accepted as probable that NIST is correct.

Have I? Would you please link to the post where I say that NIST is correct? I only recall saying that I concurred with NIST on their original numbers of 6 core columns being damaged from the first plane impact.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Speeds can be determined to within a range also. Weight of the plane was determined. This gives the ke at impact.

But what you fail to realize is that those towers were able to withstand those size of planes with comparable weight factors, traveling at a speed of 600mph. Neither plane was traveling at 600mph, so everything was well within tolerances.

Remember, the impacts did only minimal local damage to the structures of either tower.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
33 outer columns were damaged from the impacts. You can count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes. That's 33 out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. That leaves 86% of the outer columns intact and undamaged.

NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. That's 6-8 out of 47. We'll go with 7 since it's in the middle. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.

Putting those two percentages together, you get 14.5% of the structure in each tower was damaged leaving 85.5% of the structure undamaged. That is minimal damage.

NIST's calculations on load distribution are just that: calculations and theories. You're taking their word at face-value without any fact-checking. You're using blind faith to take their word on their calculations.

Sorry, but I don't believe in blind faith.


I never did like those numbers. What they did was to follow the heavier parts of the aircraft that broke through the other side of the building and plot their trajectories back to the impact point. They then transferred this data to a model of the tower's structure. Where these trajectories intersected a structural member they counted that member as destroyed.
Then they went and counted the outside columns that could be seen as damaged. This is how the numbers that you quote were determined.

What I have never seen anybody take into consideration is the amount of invisable damage that occurred. The external columns were hollow box columns. They are very strong unless the box loses integrity. From outside the towers you can see about half of each column, the external face and half of each side. You can't see the internal face and the other half of the sides. There could have been damage to hundreds of columns not visable from outside the towers. The other thing is welds. The towers were of welded construction consisting of millions of welds. When the planes hit, shock waves were sent through the tower's structure into the ground. These waves were strong enough to be detected by seismometers miles away. How many welds were broken or damaged by the impacts? Welds are usually harder than the materials they join because of the heat used in the welding process. This means that they are brittler than the materials that they join. This means that a shock that may cause the material to flex, will often snap a weld. Those loud bangs that people heard just before the collapse may have been welds failing.

All of these numbers only work if the rest of the structure is intact, these numbers are estimates and guesses there is no hard data. Everytime I hear this debate, I can't help thinking about that bridge that shook itself apart in the 50's because of the wind. The people who designed and built it used their best estimates and guesses too.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by anon72
 



No structure of any size can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.


I'm not sure that is exactly true.


You're right, it isn't.



Uh, just pointing this out but they used gravity AND bulldozers in the video.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The bulldozers just pulled out the wall. Gravity did the real work.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The bulldozers just pulled out the wall. Gravity did the real work.


Yeah but it still completely disqualifies the video presented from debunking the theory presented, as the theory does not mention bulldozers, only gravity.

Science, i kin haz it too.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I never did like those numbers. What they did was to follow the heavier parts of the aircraft that broke through the other side of the building and plot their trajectories back to the impact point.

That's because the heavier parts of an aircraft, the engines and landing gear, are the only parts that could damage a few core columns. The aluminum fuselage firstly, could not cause any significant damage to the core, and secondly, was broken into pieces from the floors on it's way in.

And even if the outer columns and the floor trusses had little effect on the fuselage, the cores of those buildings were so structurally sound, that the aluminum would have been shredded to small pieces before doing any significant damage to the core columns.



Originally posted by JIMC5499
You can't see the internal face and the other half of the sides. There could have been damage to hundreds of columns not visable from outside the towers.

That's not necessarily true. If any column had impact damage on the inside, it would've knocked the aluminum cladding off of the column on the outside, or at minimum, dislodged some of it off of the column.



Originally posted by JIMC5499
The other thing is welds. The towers were of welded construction consisting of millions of welds.

That's not entirely accurate. The column sections consisting of 3 columns wide by 3 storeys high were welded together by spandrel plates at the factory:





When it came time to assemble the column sections on the towers, each column was bolted together by 4 large bolts:







The floor trusses were bolted to the column sections and to the core. I haven't seen any data relating to any welds that were used on the floor trusses or the core columns.



Originally posted by JIMC5499
When the planes hit, shock waves were sent through the tower's structure into the ground. These waves were strong enough to be detected by seismometers miles away.

That would also be false. Again, the only parts of the planes that would have done any serious damage to the cores would be the engines and landing gear. Seismographs record vibrations deep in the ground. If there was any type of vibration from the impacts, it would have dissipated by the time it got a quarter-mile down to the ground.

What really caused the seismographs to register the "plane impacts" were the explosives that were set off in the basement levels before/during the impacts. Those explosives that were set off in the basement levels timed with the impacts, are what was registered on the seismographs as the "plane impacts".



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Um, you didn't bother to watch the video all the way through, did you? A good portion of the structure below is still standing:


I'm sure that has something to do with the fact that they weren't taking the whole building down at once. Here's a video where they do using the same method:




Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Oh, and this wasn't a steel structure either. So, not even comparable.


Yeah, but if it were, I'm sure you'd find some other problem with it.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The bulldozers just pulled out the wall. Gravity did the real work.

Gravity didn't do any "real work". Watch the video again. A good portion of the lower structure is still standing. I even took a screenshot and posted it earlier in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Yeah but it still completely disqualifies the video presented from debunking the theory presented, as the theory does not mention bulldozers, only gravity.


It doesn't matter how the collapse starts. The whole point is what gravity can do once the collapse has started.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I guess that would be too bad for you then, because there are far more architects and engineers that have come out against the OS than have come out to support it.


So then you can outline all the technical papers that they have produced that has set the engineerig community at large on its ear then, right?

No? Nothing?


I only recall saying that I concurred with NIST on their original numbers of 6 core columns being damaged from the first plane impact.


Good enough. So you don't agree? Fine. Then present your engineering study that supports another number. You got something like that, right?

No? Nothing?


But what you fail to realize is that those towers were able to withstand those size of planes


Well, that's pretty obvious, since the top didn't shear off immediately. Do you have a point here?

No? Nothing?


Remember, the impacts did only minimal local damage to the structures of either tower.


FINALLY, an accurate statement about the damage.

So then you also have an engineering assessment on the state of the towers after impact that characterize the global situation?

No? Nothing?



All you have is your own tired personal statements. Any serious researcher that every time I ask you for some kind of enginering paper that backs your personal statement, and you cannot produce anything other than a repeat of your personal beliefs, that your research skills and ability are shallow, and is nothing but agenda driven drivel......



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The aluminum fuselage firstly, could not cause any significant damage to the core, and secondly, was broken into pieces from the floors on it's way in.



So in your world, shotgum pellets have little ke?

How about jet fuel going 400 mph?

Are you saying that it wouldn't have effect at all?

If you believe this, then you have zero understanding of physics, other than what you've read on conspiracy websites.

An honest researcher would look into the truth behind it.

I see no evidence that you will do so.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
FINALLY, an accurate statement about the damage.

I don't know what you mean by "finally". I've been saying the same thing throughout this thread and the entire 9/11 forum.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So then you also have an engineering assessment on the state of the towers after impact that characterize the global situation?

The state of the towers after impact was very close to what NIST originally estimated: 33-35 exterior columns severed or damaged, 6-10 core columns severed or damaged. Meaning 14%-15% structural damage in the impact zones and leaving 85% of the structure intact.

An analysis was done in 1964 and archived with the Port Authority which stated:

It appears that the design of the WTC towers
considered the impact of 707 aircraft and analysis
indicated that such collision would result in only
local damage which could not cause collapse or
substantial damage to the building
NIST: WTC Investigation Status, pg.15

The analysis also shows the speed of the aircraft would be 600mph and impact at the 80th floor.

The analysis was dead-on. There was only local damage without substantial damage to either building. Had explosives not brought those buildings down, they'd still be standing today.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If you believe this, then you have zero understanding of physics, other than what you've read on conspiracy websites.

I don't read anything off of conspiracy websites. I do my own research.

I also work with aluminum and steel all day, every day. We cut them with torches and plasma cutters, we bend them, form them, you name it. I know aluminum's reaction to steel and vice versa. You apparently don't.





[edit on 17-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]







 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join