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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

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


Hmmm too bad you fail to understand engineering and logic, every time.


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.


So what? If you read my post correctly you would have noted I also said if the columns were severed it would still make no difference as the building can stand losing 15% of it's load bearing columns and not collapse. Which if you were really paying attention is what BoneZ said in his own words. So your argument is moot.

It's unlikely central columns were severed as claimed by NIST, BUT it doesn't matter the building did not collapse from the impact damage did it?

The claim is fire weakened the steel to failure, the aircraft damage is irrelevant at this point. If the A/C damage was really significant then the towers should have fell towards that damage, as in the path of least resistance. But they didn't, they fell straight down into the path of most resistance, meaning the big hole in the side of the building caused by the planes had no effect on the collapse.


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.


Blah blah blah, there is NO evidence that the planes severed central columns, period!

Sorry but all the KE of the planes was absorbed by the first impact with the facade. NIST seems to ignore that. KE by itself is meaningless, you fail to include resistance and mass and the physics of colliding bodies in your thinking.


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?


C'mon man this is where your common sense should come in. You can see from the videos that the collapses were symmetrical, it's ridiculous to argue they weren't, and it's known physics that tells us objects always fall to the path of least resistance. Using this common knowledge it's not hard to conclude that a symmetrical collapse is not possible unless controlled (All resistance to the collapse removed ahead of the collapse wave).

I invite you to prove me wrong on this, show me another case where a steel framed building collapsed into itself symmetrically and globally without being controled. I hope you're not one of those who think 'gravity' could do all that work?


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


No I have physics and it's correct application in this context.




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You can see from the videos that the collapses were symmetrical, it's ridiculous to argue they weren't, and it's known physics that tells us objects always fall to the path of least resistance. Using this common knowledge it's not hard to conclude that a symmetrical collapse is not possible unless controlled (All resistance to the collapse removed ahead of the collapse wave).


The problem with using basic physics here is that the towers were not a couple of cardboard boxes, they were complex structures. You can't expect buildings that large to hold together when they begin to tip.

I posted this in another thread, and I'll post it again here:


With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones.


www.implosionworld.com...

edit - grammar

[edit on 4/17/2010 by Curious_Agnostic]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



I'd suggest that you go back to school and stay awake through Physics class. By your statement there should have only been five holes in the tower. Two engines and three landing gear main mounts. The rest of the plane should have just gone splat and fell down along side the towers. Obviously that didn't happen.

You claim explosives were used. Answer one question. Why did the collapse start at the impact points? Until you can answer that one, your explosives theory is manure.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'd suggest that you go back to school and stay awake through Physics class. By your statement there should have only been five holes in the tower.

I'd suggest you go back and re-read my post. I was clearly talking about the core columns.



Originally posted by JIMC5499
Why did the collapse start at the impact points?

It would stand to reason that if a building is rigged from top to bottom like most controlled demolitions, then the demolition sequence can be started at any point you choose.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic

The problem with using basic physics here is that the towers were not a couple of cardboard boxes, they were complex structures. You can't expect buildings that large to hold together when they begin to tip.


OK then this should be simple, show me another steel framed building that collapsed the way WTC1,2 and 7 fell without being controlled demolitions.

What do you mean you can't expect a large building to hold together when they begin to tip? Which of the 3 buildings tipped, other than the top of WTC2?

It is because they are complex structure that they do not collapse into the path of most resistance, not in spite of it. The bigger a building is the more redundancy is built into the system, the scale of the load it can bear is raised along with the buildings size.

A tall thin building, like WTC1&2, cannot be dropped into their own footprint, that's why WTC1&2 ejected most their debris outside of their footprints. 1st contradiction of the 'progressive pancake collapse' hypothesis. BUT against all normal physics the collapse wave was symmetrical showing that resistance to the collapse was equal around the circumference of the building through the whole collapse. ANY amount of resistance would send debris away from that point as it finds the path of least resistance, thus creating asymmetry in the collapse wave.

The building itself would not have enough energy to overcome it's own resistance. The fires did not burn hot enough, or long enough, to heat up the steel enough to cause it to not maintain it's strength throughout the whole building. Again if any of the steel maintained it's strength it would have resisted the collapse and symmetrical global collapse would not be possible.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
You claim explosives were used. Answer one question. Why did the collapse start at the impact points? Until you can answer that one, your explosives theory is manure.


I read a good explanation of this the other day, I forget who wrote it but it doesn't matter just that I didn't come up with this...

If the building was rigged all over and the planes destroyed what 'explosives' were on the floors they hit then the next set of 'explosives', just bellow the impact points, would be where the sequence started, thus looking like the collapse started at the impact points.

(BTW I use 'explosive' very loosely, please don't focus on that OK?)



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If the building was rigged all over and the planes destroyed what 'explosives' were on the floors they hit then the next set of 'explosives', just bellow the impact points, would be where the sequence started, thus looking like the collapse started at the impact points.

(BTW I use 'explosive' very loosely, please don't focus on that OK?)


I could buy that if the collapse started immediately after the impacts. They didn't.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.


No, it's not. You've been saying that the damage to the building was minute. That cannot be substantiated without a full building profile like NIST did. You don't have one to refute it. I've pointed this out repeatedly, and asked you for a post impact analysis engineering report that refutes this, but you have nothing.

But now you're stating correctly that the damage was localized, which is correct, without reference to what the damage to the building as a whole is.

So I applaud you for the change in your statement to something that at least begins to approach something true.


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


Weak. I asked for an actual post impact analysis. it should include things like load shifts, strain changes to all the various columns, etc. You know, like NIST did.


There was only local damage without substantial damage to either building.


The NIST report agrees that the damage was localized, but goes into greater detail. Again, try harder to substantiate your position.


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.


I've done steel and aluminum work too. I've built a horse trailer, a tractor trailer, several field trailers, all from scratch, and loads of equipment repair. They all included drawing plans, writing up materials lists, and purchasing.

So you aren't alone.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I also said if the columns were severed it would still make no difference as the building can stand losing 15% of it's load bearing columns and not collapse.


What's your point? Nobody is saying that the building collapsed from the impact damage alone. It's the impact damage and fire damage.


It's unlikely central columns were severed as claimed by NIST


Ahhh, so then YOU have the much asked for engineering paper that refutes NIST then, right?

No?

So then you have yet another unsubstantiated opinion. Super groovy.



The claim is fire weakened the steel to failure, the aircraft damage is irrelevant at this point.


LMAO. Yet another truther misunderstanding.

Get it straight - it is a combination of impact damage and fire damage that resulted in the collapse. IOW, BOTH are relevant.


If the A/C damage was really significant then the towers should have fell towards that damage


Super. And you have an enguneering paper that supports this then right?

No?


they fell straight down into the path of most resistance


Which is also the direction that gravity works.


meaning the big hole in the side of the building caused by the planes had no effect on the collapse.


Again, enginering paper that supports this?

No?


there is NO evidence that the planes severed central columns, period!


Sure, when you handwave away all the evidence that professionals acept as true. But go ahead. LMAO.


Sorry but all the KE of the planes was absorbed by the first impact with the facade.


Emgineering paper?

No?


C'mon man this is where your common sense should come in. You can see from the videos that the collapses were symmetrical


Where's your technical paper that gives numbers again?


it's known physics that tells us objects always fall to the path of least resistance.


No, that would be electricity flows to the path of least resistance. Objects fall in the direction of gravity, unless given a different input.


No I have physics and it's correct application in this context.


That's quite a pill for me to believe, especially when after repeatedly pointing out to you in multiple threads, that anything that falls at less than freefall acceleration is indeed encountering resistance, and you disagreeing with that statement to the point of accusing others of not understanding physics, only to be FINALLY put in your place by another truther....... that you would have the knowledge necessary with this issue.

Sorry charlie, but you've ruined your reputation. It'll take a lot more than your declaration that you're correct at this point to convince any critically thinking person.

Best supply your technical papers now...



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

Originally posted by ANOK

A)that's why WTC1&2 ejected most their debris outside of their footprints.

B)ANY amount of resistance would send debris away from that point as it finds the path of least resistance,


Result A satisfies expectation B.

End of argument.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Get it straight - it is a combination of impact damage and fire damage that resulted in the collapse. IOW, BOTH are relevant.

I believe you are the one that should "get it straight". NIST's calculations are theories and computer models. None of their report is 100% factual. Once you come to terms with that, then you might not put so much stock into it.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I believe you are the one that should "get it straight". NIST's calculations are theories and computer models. None of their report is 100% factual. Once you come to terms with that, then you might not put so much stock into it.


And your info is 100% accurate?



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I believe you are the one that should "get it straight". NIST's calculations are theories and computer models.


So now calculations are a model and theory? I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics necessary for truthers to continue to live in their world of cognitive dissonance.


None of their report is 100% factual.


Oh really?

They used factual evidence like videos that showed the fire spread through the building. They detailed the broken windows in the towers, which is also an indication of heat. They detail the lean prior to collapse. They detail the ext columns being pulled in.

I could go on. But these few examples prove that you are attempting to poison the well by lying about what's in the report.

No surprise there buck-o.....


Once you come to terms with that, then you might not put so much stock into it.


Well, since I have proven you have no idea what you're talking about above, it's also proven that your opinion about the report is garbage.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
None of their report is 100% factual.

Oh really?

Yes, really. How do you think they determined how many core columns were damaged? They guessed, theorized, whatever you want to call it. And on top of that, they changed their numbers at least once on how many core columns were damaged. Why did they change their numbers? Seems likely to more closely fit their fairy tale.

Then, NIST lied about the molten steel at the WTC:





You are more than welcome to believe the theories and lies from NIST, or the parts they had to change in order to further their fairy tale. Those of us seeking the truth will look elsewhere more credible for answers.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Well, since I have proven you have no idea what you're talking about above, it's also proven that your opinion about the report is garbage.

You haven't proven anything but your lack of comprehension of the NIST report.





[edit on 18-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

A)that's why WTC1&2 ejected most their debris outside of their footprints.

B)ANY amount of resistance would send debris away from that point as it finds the path of least resistance,


Result A satisfies expectation B.

End of argument.


No it doesn't. You miss the point completely. How many more times do I have to explain the problem of the symmetry of the collapses?

Result A contradicts your 'pancake collapse' hypotheses, debris falling outside the footprint is not available to crush the building. Regardless of where the debris was ejected it would still offer resistance until it was ejected. Also gravity collapse does not explain ejected debris weighing tons up to distances of 600ft. (Winter Garden).
Result B would not happen from a gravity fed collapse. Again all the debris from the collapse was ejected equally in all directions, this is called symmetry which is not possible from a chaotic uncontrolled collapse.

End of argument
Try again mate...

[edit on 4/18/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You claim explosives were used. Answer one question. Why did the collapse start at the impact points? Until you can answer that one, your explosives theory is manure.


The detonations were started near the impact points.

The planes and subsequent crashes were just a cover for what was really planned that day (the top-down demolition of the towers).

Close to 9 years after the incident it seems the plan has worked. People still refuse to believe that explosives were planted in those buildings.


[edit on 18-4-2010 by kj6754]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kj6754
The detonations were started near the impact points.

The planes and subsequent crashes were just a cover for what was really planned that day (the top-down demolition of the towers).



Ok. So how did they know where the planes were going to impact?

What prevented the sympathetic detonation of the previously planted explosives?

[edit on 18-4-2010 by JIMC5499]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Ok. So how did they know where the planes were going to impact?

If the buildings were rigged from top to bottom, the planes could have hit anywhere and the collapse sequence could have started near-enough to the impact zone.



Originally posted by JIMC5499
What prevented the sympathetic detonation of the previously planted explosives?

Although there are explosives that are not affected by fire, there could have been explosives detonated in the impact zones which could account for some of the explosions heard up above.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
None of their report is 100% factual.

Oh really?

Yes, really. How do you think they determined how many core columns were damaged?


Read what you wrote originally.

You said none is 100% factual.

I gave examples that were used in the report that were facts, not opinions.

Now, since it's obvious to everyone that you avoided defending that statement and slid into another claim as seamlessly as a used car salesman does...... it's also obvious to everyone that you are attempting to poison the well through the act of lying about the report.

And your avoidance is also proof that you're aware of your actions, otherwise, you'd be bringing evidence that proves your original statement.

You're a shining example of a real honest "truther" researcher Bonez.

Congrats.....



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How many more times do I have to explain the problem of the symmetry of the collapses?


Once, with some engineering reports as backup would be great. All anyone's seen is your statements of personal incredulity as your backup. LMAO....


Result A contradicts your 'pancake collapse' hypotheses, debris falling outside the footprint is not available to crush the building.


The NIST report details that just a few stories worth of debris, in motion, is enough to strip the floors off. Therefore, as long as that critical amount is maintained, the collapse proceeds.

Feel free to refute NIST's findings with one of your engineering reports that refutes that.

Oh, that's right, you ain't got one.


Regardless of where the debris was ejected it would still offer resistance until it was ejected.


No. Any intact building structure would add rsistance. Once it becomes debris, it adds to the destructive power of the descending mass. It's simple physics.

But, as I noted before, you seem unable to grasp simple physics laws. Such as anything falling that is not accelerating at gravity is encountering resistance.

I think this is your whole problem. These simple physics laws escape your understanding.


Again all the debris from the collapse was ejected equally in all directions


No, some of the debris was ejected.


this is called symmetry which is not possible from a chaotic uncontrolled collapse.


Keep repeating that.

Someday it might come true.

Until tjen, I'd like to see a technical paper that backs this up.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join