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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Joey if you think the collapses were not symmetrical then you must have a different definition of 'symmetrical' than the rest of us.

Please explain to us why you believe the collapses were not symmetrical?
(As in all four corners fell at the same rate (+/-a few seconds), and the rubble was ejected equally in all directions.)

Take a good look through some of these vids...

www.youtube.com...

Now, they were buildings set up for a global symmetrical collapse (i.e. controlled) yet they failed to do that. How do you expect a building NOT set up for a global symmetrical collapse, to globally symmetrically collapse? THAT only works if everything is set up perfectly, otherwise you get what happens in those vids. You cannot get symmetry from chaos.

Stop claiming the collapses were not symmetrical because even for your collapse hypotheses (or NISTS) to work they would have to have been, otherwise no global collapse. Be honest and think about that.

[edit on 4/26/2010 by ANOK]




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

How do you expect a building NOT set up for a global symmetrical collapse, to globally symmetrically collapse?

Three times no less.
In a row.
On the same day.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


"DUSTIFICATION"?


Where in the hell did you come up with that term?

And the truthers wonder why nobody takes them seriously?

Do you know the difference between structural concrete and slab concrete? The towers had very little structural concrete and lots of slab. Slab concrete is popular in buildings because it is very easy to obtain a smooth level surface. It main strength is in compression. The concrete that "disintegrated" was slab concrete. It and the gypsum in the drywall made up most of the dust cloud created when the towers collapsed.


The burning jet fuel was in the lobbies of the towers not Building 7. It was caused by burning fuel from the planes pouring down the elevator shafts. Your statement that there was no direct route down an elevator shaft is flawed. The planes hit below the stagger in the elevator shafts.

The damage, hundreds of yards from the towers, was caused by the impact of the aircraft, not the collapse of the towers. One of the landing gear wheels was found embedded in a section of the tower's outer structure almost a 1/4 mile away.

As you say, I could go on and on, but, I won't. I don't have a closed mind and I have issues with the Government's story, but, I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that the towers were hit by aircraft, fire damaged the remaining structure causing their collapse. If somebody would come up with something feasible I might change my mind.

As far as I am concerned the debate is still open.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
No assumptions that cannot be proved, because you know we're not allowed to make assumptions, only facts.


That's pretty rich, being that you still haven't proven why a symmetrical collapse proves artifical means.

Again, as I explained before, your whole symmetry argument is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the fact that you're saying "it fell too fast".

So prove that point.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

No one has been able to explain why there was less resistance from a steel structure than the open air around it.


OMFG, pleas tell me you're not saying it fell faster than freefall acceleration..


If i was gullible and uneducated I might believe a falling object sometime takes the path of greater resistance.



It takes the path of gravity.

In order for it to move "off" the footprint, debris would need another input, like collisions.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Please explain to us why you believe the collapses were not symmetrical?


The tops of both towers fell to a side. So the part affected by assymetric damage fell assymmetrically. So that truther statement is satisfied.

If you feel that the lower structure should also fall assymmetrically, even though it wasn't damaged, feel free to explain why.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Thanks for reading and discussing my article to be published in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics in July 2010.
I have only 40 years experience of steel structural design, construction, maintenance, repairs, analysis of defects and damages, incl. collisions of big steel structures.
I can assure you that a little part C of any type, part of a bigger structure A of same type that keeps C in place beforehand, cannot crush the bigger part A, e.g. when C is dropped on A.
Reasons are that that C cannot apply sufficient energy, force or pressure on A without destroying itself and that, normally, most energy, force or pressure applied is absorbed as elastic deformations of C and A resulting in A arresting C to stop on top of A. Remaining energy may produce local failures in interface C/A.
To suggest, like NIST and Bazant & Co that C can apply energy that A cannot absorb and that C can one-way crush down A into rubble B without damaging itself is criminal apart from totally unscientific.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Heiwa]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heiwa
Thanks for reading and discussing my article


LMAO.

You wrote a letter to the editor.

Bazant is gonna humiliate you.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by richierich
 


"DUSTIFICATION"?


Where in the hell did you come up with that term?

And the truthers wonder why nobody takes them seriously?

Do you know the difference between structural concrete and slab concrete? The towers had very little structural concrete and lots of slab


It's been around for years. Are you pretending that you are just encountering it?

There was dust three or more inches thick for how many blocks around ground zero?

psik



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Heiwa
Thanks for reading and discussing my article


LMAO.

You wrote a letter to the editor.

Bazant is gonna humiliate you.


No, I wrote a Discussion of Paper (about Bazant & Co's nonsense) and the editor of JEM, Ross Corotis, decided to publish it. It is normal procedure in a scientific journal. Bazant was then invited to write a Closure (of the Discussion) and apparently he has done so after 6 months wait. He hasn't sent me a copy.

Bazant (an old man!) will not humiliate me! No chance! He and his associates are scientificially wrong and making fools of themselves in public.
I really enjoy it. I am 100% right in my paper. We will see what will happen.



[edit on 27-4-2010 by Heiwa]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The tops of both towers fell to a side.


('bolded' to emphasize your claim before it gets lost)

No they didn't, neither top fell to the side. The top of WTC 2 tilted, which in itself makes symmetrical global collapse impossible, and YES I did explain why in this very thread, you need to read my posts not just react to them. Have you watched the collapses?

Why do you need to lie? Or are you really that clueless? Your choice.


So the part affected by assymetric damage fell assymmetrically. So that truther statement is satisfied.


No it isn't. Again only WTC 2 tilted. But I'm not talking about just the top, but the whole building. I already explained why the tilting top of WTC 2 is a problem, you need to go back and re-read if you missed it.


If you feel that the lower structure should also fall assymmetrically, even though it wasn't damaged, feel free to explain why.


Now that quote just proves how confused you are. The fact that the lower floors were NOT damaged is why it should NOT have fallen symmetrically. Again RESISTANCE causes ASYMMETRY. The real point is the bottom of the building should not have collapsed, period. And before we even get to that point of the collapse, you have to explain how it got to that point in the first place from asymmetrical damage and fires.

But keep going Joey I'm enjoying this discussion with you, especially after your claim that I was humiliated...Do you still believe that fantasy also? And learn how to spell 'asymmetry', it doesn't help you convince me of your ability to understand the concept.

[edit on 4/27/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heiwa
To suggest, like NIST and Bazant & Co that C can apply energy that A cannot absorb and that C can one-way crush down A into rubble B without damaging itself is criminal apart from totally unscientific.


www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What is that supposed to prove? You are not supposed to post vids without an explanation.

From what I've seen they were not made from paper and washers. If the towers ended up as a pile of floors with the core columns still standing you might have something. The floors 'dustified' before they even reached the ground.

Could you please explain how that represents what happened to the WTC buildings. Then we can discus it.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

No they didn't, neither top fell to the side. [/quote]

To be sure, neither fell OFF THE BUILDING to the side. But to claim that both fell absolutely straight dowm is beyond ludicrous. Good luck trying to get even the most rabid of truthers to back that statement.


The top of WTC 2 tilted, which in itself makes symmetrical global collapse impossible


Oh, so you have that engineering repo.... never mind,I know you got nuttin'.


and YES I did explain why in this very thread


Your words mean nothing. Bring some proof.


Again RESISTANCE causes ASYMMETRY.


No. Assymmetric resistance will cause assymmetry.


The real point is the bottom of the building should not have collapsed, period.


Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Hpw boring.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What is that supposed to prove? You are not supposed to post vids without an explanation.

From what I've seen they were not made from paper and washers. If the towers ended up as a pile of floors with the core columns still standing you might have something. The floors 'dustified' before they even reached the ground.

Could you please explain how that represents what happened to the WTC buildings. Then we can discus it.


That was not the first time I posted that vid in this thread.

The model demonstrates what Heiwa is saying. The total collapse NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. It should have arrested assuming the top did not fall down the side which was really more likely especially in the south tower.

The PROBLEM is how to model phenomenon involving tens of thousands of tons without spending tens of thousands of dollars and preferably have something which anyone can reproduce. Do you think the models that were used for wind tunnel tests on the buildings in the 60s were made of the same materials as the real buildings? So complaining about paper and washers without understanding the physics is absurd.

A collapse model has to have "significant mass" because part of the problem with the collapse of the real towers is that the top of the north tower must cause the stationary mass below to accelerate at more than 0.5 G in order to come down in less than 18 seconds. Though there is some disagreement on exact time I think everyone must agree that at least 75% of the mass came down in less than 18 seconds.

But due to the fact that skyscrapers must hold themselves up every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the levels above. This is why JREFers are constantly talking about STATIC and DYNAMIC like they are complicated concepts and anyone that disagrees with them must be STUPID.

But in order to collapse to in a realistic manner the levels in the model must be of some crushable material sufficiently weak to be destroyed by the available mass under gravitational acceleration. So putting in solid wooden cylinders that could not be crushed would be a totally meaningless model. A house of cards is a meaningless model because they are held up by friction and the cards are not damaged in the collapse.

Skyscrapers must also get stronger toward the bottom. I included a typed description specifying that the top 11 loops were single paper loops. The next 17 were double loops and the bottom 5 were triple loops. So I have partially duplicated a characteristic of a real skyscraper.

However, the increased strength of a real building comes from adding more steel which is 490 lb per cubic foot. The weight increases with the strength while my paper has almost no weight relative to the washers so the model is imperfect. But this does show a problem with what we have not been told about the WTC towers. We should have had tables specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers, including the basements, within months of 9/11.

Also since the falling portion of my model has the same structure as the stationary portion it demonstrates the effect of the falling mass absorbing some of its own kinetic energy in the collision by destroying itself and that what Bazant has been saying for years is obvious nonsense. As far as I know this is the only physical model to demonstrate all of these characteristics.

psik



[edit on 27-4-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by richierich
 


And the truthers wonder why nobody takes them seriously?

Do you know the difference between structural concrete and slab concrete?


Do you?


The towers had very little structural concrete and lots of slab. Slab concrete is popular in buildings because it is very easy to obtain a smooth level surface. It main strength is in compression. The concrete that "disintegrated" was slab concrete. It and the gypsum in the drywall made up most of the dust cloud created when the towers collapsed.


I feel the need to deny some ignorance here, I'm surprised no ones called this out yet. There is no such thing as a difference between "slab concrete" and "structural concrete". Sure there are structural members such as beams and columns cast with concrete. There are also floor slabs that are cast with the exact same concrete. It is correct that concretes main strength is in compression, that is why floor slabs (including the floor slabs of the twin towers) are cast with steel reinforcing to take any tension that arises from certain actions. It is also very easy to obtain a smooth and level surface in concrete in structural elements such as beams and columns. It was NOT the gypsum in the drywall that made up most of the dust cloud that blanketed lower Manhattan. I refuse to believe you actually think this and am going to call it a blatant lie. After the collapse the reinforced concrete floor slabs weren't just sitting there pancaked on top of each other. They were literally pulverized into dust, this is what the huge dust clouds mainly consisted of.


The damage, hundreds of yards from the towers, was caused by the impact of the aircraft, not the collapse of the towers. One of the landing gear wheels was found embedded in a section of the tower's outer structure almost a 1/4 mile away.


Some was caused by the aircraft impact, some was caused by the collapses.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

The damage, hundreds of yards from the towers, was caused by the impact of the aircraft, not the collapse of the towers. One of the landing gear wheels was found embedded in a section of the tower's outer structure almost a 1/4 mile away.


That is absolutely hysterical.

The damage to the Winter Garden and the American Express tower were caused by the airliner impact?

ROFLMAO

Damage outside the towers caused by the impact of aircraft parts was so trivial compared to the total it is not worth mentioning.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

The Winter Garden was at right angles to the aircraft trajectory so parts could not go in that direction anyway.

psik



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


OK thanx for the explanation mate, I understand now...


Sorry the washers and paper comment was just my sarcasm.

Anywhoo I grabbed the wrong end of the stick, silly me.

I'll take some time and look at this some more...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
@psikeyhackr

Your model with washers, etc, does not represent a real structure A of various elements held together by joints that is struck by a piece C of same structure (elements/joints), where C is supposed to crush A into rubble B.

Your model is just a tower of washers around a pole held by friction, where a big number of washers can dislocate single washers one after the other. No C is crushing any A into rubble B. The pole remains intact, etc, etc. Only friction joints are disconnected.

Actually, your model just shows collisions of small objects (washers held by friction) by a bigger object (a lump of washers) in a gravity field, where the collisions are arrested when model runs out of energy.

Interesting ... but totally off topic.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Heiwa]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heiwa
Your model is just a tower of washers around a pole held by friction, where a big number of washers can dislocate single washers one after the other. No C is crushing any A into rubble B. The pole remains intact, etc, etc. Only friction joints are disconnected.


The crushed paper loops are all of the rubble that is produced and can be seen in the video. That is why the model is so inexpensive and reproducible.

The washers are not held by friction.

All of the vertical support for the washers comes from the paper loops.

There is a minimum of friction between the dowel and the washers because the paper loops cannot hold a structure with that many levels perfectly straight. Without the dowel it topples over. It also would not collapse straight down without the dowel because the crushed loops would not be perfectly level and the falling top portion would get off center. If a washer was perfectly centered on the dowel there would be approximately 1/16th inch gap all of the way around between the dowel and the inner edge of the washer. The tops of the WTC should probably have fallen down the sides if they did collapse anyway.

How would you explain why part C would not get off center and start crushing one side of A more than the other and eventually topple down the side? Why didn't that happen to the south tower?

No one can model what actually happened to the WTC because it should not have happened. That is what YOU are claiming. My model arrests just like you say such a structure should. It is the mass bringing in the conservation of momentum factor to slow part C combined with the structural strength necessary to support that mass which brings it to a complete stop. Being steel and having joints is irrelevant.

Any self supporting physical structure with enough weight to have inertial effects in a collapse that involved lots of joints would be very time consuming to construct and probably very expensive. This model is less than $20. Grade school kids could build it and test it for themselves.

If you can build a physical model that satisfies your criteria and arrests I would be most interested in seeing a video of its arrested collapse.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join