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.

 

In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

page: 20
10
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
You mean to tell me there are people who still believe the WTC fell down due to jet fuel and office fires. Talk about promoting ignorance.


How about the entire engineering community?

If it's so obvious that a building can't collapse by jet impacts, subsequent fuel-air explosions, and fires(the first two phenomena released an energy equivalent of many tons of TNT), how come only a handful of credible engineers seem to notice? There are 130,000 plus members of ASCE and ASME. Yet the only opposition to the official story is a group of architects and engineers who've combined to published ZERO peer-reviewed studies which refute the "OS". One of their petitioners of the month, Anders Bjorkman, has suggested that his home would survive a meteorite impact, that a scale wont spike if you jump on it, that steel structures are indestructible(even if hit by a nuclear weapon), has compared the WTC to pizza boxes, lemons, cheese, sponges, etc. If that is "Petitioner Of The Month" material, I'd hate to see what the other members of AE911 are saying..


I would love to see credible science to support this fairytale.

Ask and ye shall receive.


Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Zdenk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure
J. Engrg. Mech. 133, 308 (2007)

Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1
Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 21, 414 (2007)

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Mohammed R. Karim and Michelle S. Hoo Fatt
J. Engrg. Mech. 131, 1066 (2005)

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Zdeněk P. Bažant and Yong Zhou
J. Engrg. Mech. 128, 2 (2002)

Evaluation of an Existing Steel Frame Building against Progressive Collapse
Brian I. Song and Halil Sezen
341, 208 (2009)

Structural Design for Fire in Tall Buildings
Colin Gurley
Pract. Periodical on Struct. Des. and Constr. 13, 93 (2008)

Steel Connection Design for Structural Integrity
Ronald O. Hamburger, Kurt Gustafson, and Ned L. Cleland
Crossing Borders 314, 69 (2008)

Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I
Ayhan Irfanoglu and Christoph M. Hoffmann
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 22, 62 (2008)

Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis
K. A. Seffen
J. Engrg. Mech. 134, 125 (2008)

What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?
Zdeněk P. Bažant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson
J. Engrg. Mech. 134, 892 (2008)

Lessons Learned from 9/11: The Report of the World Trade Center Building Code Task Force
Patricia J. Lancaster and James P. Colgate
171, 257 (2005)

Addendum to “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis”
Zdeněk P. Bažant and Yong Zhou
J. Engrg. Mech. 128, 369 (2002)

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building
Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu
J. Engrg. Mech. 130, 1177 (2004)

Practical Means for Energy-Based Analyses of Disproportionate Collapse Potential
Donald O. Dusenberry and Ronald O. Hamburger
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 20, 336 (2006)

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires
A. S. Usmani
J. Engrg. Mech. 131, 654 (2005)

Effect of Assembly Size, End Restraints, and Fireproofing Thickness on Fire Endurance Testing of Floor Systems
J. L. Gross
171, 47 (2005)

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks
Yukihiro Omika, Eiji Fukuzawa, Norihide Koshika, Hiroshi Morikawa, and Ryusuke Fukuda
J. Struct. Engrg. 131, 6 (2005)

Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive Collapse
S. M. Marjanishvili
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 18, 79 (2004)

Lessons Learned on Improving Resistance of Buildings to Terrorist Attacks
W. Gene Corley
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 18, 68 (2004)

Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks
Craig Beyler, Derek White, Michelle Peatross, Javier Trellis, Sonny Li, Ari Luers, and Don Hopkins
241, 37 (2003)

Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses
Najib Abboud, Matthys Levy, Darren Tennant, John Mould, Howard Levine, Stephanie King, Chukwuma Ekwueme, Anurag Jain, and Gary Hart
241, 36 (2003)

Dominant Factor in the Collapse of WTC-1
Konstantinos Miamis, Ayhan Irfanoglu, and Mete A. Sozen
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 23, 203 (2009)

Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions”
Zdeněk P. Bažant and Jia-Liang Le
J. Engrg. Mech. 134, 917 (2008)

Fire and Concrete Structures
David N. Bilow and Mahmoud E. Kamara
Crossing Borders 314, 299 (2008)

Structural Response of Tall Buildings to Multiple Floor Fires
Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Barbara Lane, and Jose Torero
J. Struct. Engrg. 133, 1719 (2007)



Some of you OS believers can forget using NIST, they have been DEBUNKED years ago.

I wasn't aware of this. What journal was the article published in?



BTW, you cannot have a pancake collapse when you have steel beams hurling upwards and outwards over 500 feet in the air, and blowing these steel beams into other tall buildings and ripping huge gashes into them.

OK, I'll bite. Can you provide an example of a controlled demolition in which beams are ejected in such a manner by explosives? You see, in explosive demolitions, the explosives merely cut, or sever, the load bearing members. Not blow them to smithereens. Just watch any video of a controlled demolition; you don't see any expelled columns.

And do you think you could give me a ballpark estimate of how much C4 would be needed to blast a single 60 ton column 500'? Then multiply that by the number of columns in each Tower. Isn't Gravitational Potential Energy a much easier mechanism for the behavior of the expelled columns?



[edit on 7-6-2010 by 767doctor]

[edit on 7-6-2010 by 767doctor]




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I post links to physics sites but I get the same replies from you, so it's obvious you either don't bother reading the links, or you already think you know it all and don't need to, or you just don't understand.


It's painfully obvious that you are afraid to take this towering physics knowledge and put it to good use. Like all truthers.

Structural engineering is the science of taking other science fields- including physics - and applying them to desgn a building that meets safety standards, etc.

Neither you, nor any member of the truth movement can do this at a high enough level that can convince anyone but the already brain damaged that 9/11 was an inside job.

The TM continues stating the same things over and over, and getting no where. Someone once said that doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity.

8 years of fail proves this to be correct.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I often wonder how truthers rationalize the lack of support from the engineering community. I mean it's so obvious that it was a controlled demolition right? And it's obvious that a building can't fall from fire alone, right? But the only engineers who seem to realize this can't manage to put together a coherent alternative theory that withstands the laugh test...let alone publish their findings in a respected journal.

Must be some serious mental gymnastics going on in the heads of truthers; I'd like to be a fly on the wall in there for just a moment. They must just tell themselves that the engineers are frightened of the governments retribution if they spill the beans. But what about engineers in the other 194 countries on the planet? I guess to believe in CD at the Towers, one must ultimately conclude by the silence of the worlds engineering community means there really is One World Gummint, NWO, Masons, Illuminati, Reptoids, etc ..thats the only way I'd be able to reconcile the obvious contradiction.




[edit on 7-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Well here's one Engineer...

www.youtube.com...

Not too many engineers are going to touch 9-11, their official comments on it may be very different to their personal opinion. With people like you around and the media's smear campaign it's a career-ender.

Just because they're not talking about it doesn't mean you are right, or I am wrong.

But who care's what other people think or say? Can you not refute the claims on their merit and explain to all of us how the towers collapsed, maybe you could then tell NIST because they failed to do it, and they do not support the 'pancake collapse' hypothesis.


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers...


www.exodus2006.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


Timber joists and you compare to steel, apples with apples or its NOT the same steel with steel not steel with wood!!!!!


What are you talking about? I did not compare timber with steel


If you're talking about the example of how a controlled test is done the material is irrelevant, it's to show the difference between a TEST done in a controlled manner and a real world open air uncontrolled building fire to emphasize my point about the charts we were disusing, and why the one I posted is the relevant one for open air fire.

I will try to find another one but there is not that much on line, most stuff you find on line is pretty basic and not much specific to our needs so I do what I can. Now if we were in an Engineering library...



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 

NIST was not peer reviewed, the OS was not peered reviewed.
The 911-commission report was not peered reviewed; in fact, the OS was mostly proven false by experts in their fields of expertise.
Yet, you believe in their fantasies and support them.
Your rant did not disprove anything and your sources lack any credibility. We can copy and past all day long, it means absolutely nothing when you do not give any internet links to your sources.


Some of you OS believers can forget using NIST, they have been DEBUNKED years ago.
I wasn't aware of this. What journal was the article published in?


What journal of scientific peered review are you citing your OS from?
Because of the many lies of the OS, it has now opened a floodgate to many conspiracies theories and the government is responsible for that, don’t you agree? Because, the government keeps changing their stories and continues to trip over their lies, why should we believe in anything they tell us. I consider myself very patriotic, I don’t believe in lairs, and I do not support them, its that simple.


OK, I'll bite. Can you provide an example of a controlled demolition in which beams are ejected in such a manner by explosives? You see, in explosive demolitions, the explosives merely cut, or sever, the load bearing members. Not blow them to smithereens. Just watch any video of a controlled demolition; you don't see any expelled columns.



Perhaps, you may disagree but many professional in their fields of expertise will disagree with you and they don’t need to insult, or ridicule anyone to be noticed.



And do you think you could give me a ballpark estimate of how much C4 would be needed to blast a single 60 ton column 500'? Then multiply that by the number of columns in each Tower. Isn't Gravitational Potential Energy a much easier mechanism for the behavior of the expelled columns?


No, because I never made any claims that the WTC where blown to pieces by C4.
No one knows for sure how the WTC were demolished the one thing we do have and do know is there should not have been any kind of supper na-no Thermite & Thermate in the WTC dust, and it was tested and proved to not be of the normal Thermite that is used in Welding. Sciences has already proven the WTC did not collapse by a pancake effect, even in the videos from the media we clearly see an out of control demolitions being displayed.

If you want to believe the WTC came down by office fires and jet fuel, that is your right but, don’t expect the rest of the world to be that ignorant.


[edit on 7-6-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
8 years of fail proves this to be correct.


We failed because we can't convince those that have already made their minds up, and refuse to discus or look at anything that contradicts the OS, that the OS is wrong?

You crack me up Joey, you have no idea if I am right or not, you have never offered any argument that refutes my claims, not once. All you ever do is appeal to authority and make it personal...

Keep ya sad opinions and stick to the points I make could ya? Every time you make posts like this just proves you don't know how to refute the physics, and the only thing that gives you confidence to post what you do is your appeal to authority, the one I disagree with. Tell me how the towers collapsed, then go tell NIST, because the only thing they discovered was the towers did not show signs of pancake collapse.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


That is easy to answer. The same way that the news reported building 7 had collapsed when u can see it still in the background of the reporting if you knew what building 7 looked like at the time.

VIDEO HERE



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   
So much sillyness, so little time.


Originally posted by impressme

NIST was not peer reviewed, the OS was not peered reviewed. The 911-commission report was not peered reviewed; in fact, the OS was not peered reviewed .....(snip)

Okay, first of all, NIST's WTC Report wasn't a scholarly whitepaper. It was a forensic investigation into the cause of the catastrophic structural failure of the Towers. Though peer review doesn't apply to the report, hundreds of industry leading experts were sought by NIST to contribute. Peer-review obviously doesn't apply to the 911 commission report as there's nothing scientific about the report. Don't know how a strawman created by the truth movement, ie the "Official Story", could be peer reviewed as it doesn't exist, except in the minds of truthers.




....and mostly proven false by experts in their fields.

Source? This should be good.


Yet, you believe in their fantasies and support them.
Your rant did not disprove anything and your sources lack any credibility.

Yes, I support the credulous fools at the Journal of Engineering Mechanics as well the Journal of Structural Engineering. They can pass me the kool-aid all day long..



We can copy and past all day long, it means absolutely nothing when you do not give any internet links to your sources.

You're saying you are incapable of typing the name of a paper in google? Here, let me help you. See how easy that was?


No, because I never made any claim the WTC where blowing to pieces by C4.

You certainly implied as much. What other mechanism besides explosives do you suggest expelled the columns?


No one knows for sure how the WTC were demolished the one thing we do have and do know is there should not have been any kind of supper na-no Thermite & Thermate in the WTC dust, and it was tested and proved to not be of the normal Thermite that is used in Welding. Sciences has already proven the WTC did not collapse by a pancake effect, even in the videos from the media we clearly see an out of control demolitions being displayed.

If you want to believe the WTC came down by office fires and jet fuel, that is your right but, don’t expect the rest of the world to be that ignorant.


I guess you got me there on pancake collapse being bunk. Oh, wait...was that a strawman? Didn't NIST conclude that plastic deformation and thermal creep were the decisive mechanisms that initiated the progressive collapse? Dude, if you're gonna slam NIST, at least be familiar with the report.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Not too many engineers are going to touch 9-11, their official comments on it may be very different to their personal opinion. With people like you around and the media's smear campaign it's a career-ender.

Why won't they? And why would it be a career ender, especially in a country unfriendly to the USA? If they can publish a scientifically sound report with results that can be tested and reproduced, why would they have any reason to fear for their careers? There's no incentive to keep quiet; in fact the opposite is true. They'd be more likely to blow NIST, and all the papers I cited upthread, right out the water to put the big, bad USA in a very bad light.


Just because they're not talking about it doesn't mean you are right, or I am wrong.

They are talking about it. They are writing about it. They are learning from it.



But who care's what other people think or say? Can you not refute the claims on their merit and explain to all of us how the towers collapsed, maybe you could then tell NIST because they failed to do it, and they do not support the 'pancake collapse' hypothesis.


Right you are. It matters not who a claim comes from, but one has to be familiar with the broad range of topics encompassed. I know I'm not, so I'll defer to the experts.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
8 years of fail proves this to be correct.


We failed because we can't convince those that have already made their minds up, and refuse to discus or look at anything that contradicts the OS, that the OS is wrong?



I have not made up my mind. I have no idea what caused the collapse of the twin towers. You have failed to convince me because, in this very thread, you have said:

"This proves there was no resistance to the collapse from undamaged structure"

"The only way that I know to fall slower than free fall speed is to have some sort of resistance to the force of gravity 'and that would be from UNDAMAGED structure'"

I believe that experts have indicated the speed of the collapse to be almost twice that of free fall speed because there was resistance to the force of gravity (and to quote you) "and that would be from UNDAMAGED structure"



[edit on 7-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by iamcpc
If the towers had no resistance lower floors then they would have fallen in 9.2 seconds and they fell slower than 9.2 seconds. How much slower is up for debate. These are all the points that I made previously in this tread.


WRONG!

The resistance offered by thousands of tons of welded and bolted steel in a redundant structure is not measured in seconds. As each floor 'pancaked' the resistance would have built up and the collapse wave would have slowed down, but it didn't it accelerated through the collapse. The whole collapse, if it even would in the first place from fire, should have happened over a long period of time not seconds.

Steel when subjected to fire does not hold it's strength until it suddenly fails. It fails over time, sagging and bending and losing it's shape.

There was no resistance from undamaged structure, which was the majority of the building.


Ok again you didn't cite your source. What part of my statement was wrong? Did you not notice the sources that I cited? Again I ask you:

What resistance to the force of gravity caused the WTC tower to fall slower than free fall speed?

I thought we just got done agreeing that the WTC fell slower than free fall speed because of the resistance from undamaged structure. Now you're saying "There was no resistance from undamaged structure".

What resistance to the force of gravity caused the WTC tower to fall slower than free fall speed? These are my options I have to pick from:

Option A: Resistance from undamaged structure

Option B: Giant rubber bands

Option C: Magic

Option D: Huge pillows

Option E: All of thee above

Care to present me with the option that i'm missing? What resistance to the force of gravity caused the WTC tower to fall slower than free fall speed?

It's sad that we've been posting about this for days now and I still don't know your answer to what resistance to the force of gravity caused the WTC tower to fall slower than free fall speed?

I thought i did. Then, in your very next post, you said that the lower floors offered no resistance to the collapse.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by impressme
You mean to tell me there are people who still believe the WTC fell down due to jet fuel and office fires. Talk about promoting ignorance.


How about the entire engineering community?



I would love to see credible science to support this fairytale.

Ask and ye shall receive.





It's not the entire engineering community. It's some of it. It might even be half or even more than half of it. Impressme says there is nothing that supports the OS lies then just ignores you when you cite dozens of sources.

Unfortunately hardcore debunkers don't realize there are a large number of experts who support the many different demolition theories. (some support thermite, some support nano-thermite, some support explosives, some support the NPT, some support energy weapons etc etc etc)

Unfortunately impressme refuses to admit that there are a large number of experts who support the airplane fire theory. You can cite dozens and dozens of sources and he will just ignore you.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

you have never offered any argument that refutes my claims, not once.


This is because your claims are so vague, that there's nothing to counter. This is because of 2 reasons:

1- you don't know what you're talking about
2- you know it

Typical for a truther.....


Keep ya sad opinions and stick to the points I make could ya?


I'd love to. But when asked for any technical paper that supports your statements, you cannot. Therefore, I have no idea where to start so that I can help you leave your delusional world and step into the light of reality.


Tell me how the towers collapsed, then go tell NIST, because the only thing they discovered was the towers did not show signs of pancake collapse.


FYI, NIST ruled out pancake initiation, something that FEMA stated (IIRC) was most likely the iniator, cuz it didn't match the available physical, visual, and modelling evidence.

Typical truther misunderstanding, and positive proof that you either:

1- never read that paragraph for context, where it is clearly talking about the 2 collapse initiayion scenarios
2- have trouble with reading comprehension
3- never read it in the first place, and are getting your talking points from charlatans

My bet is on 3, since it's 100% proven that you have no idea how to apply your supposed towering physics knowledge to explaining anything you say. But rather, it appears to be just a near religious parroting of what anyone can read at any of the numerous charlatan websites.

Do truthers ever have an original thought?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

I thought i did. Then, in your very next post, you said that the lower floors offered no resistance to the collapse.



It's because he has zero physics knowledge or understanding. Educated people realize that when a body is accelerating at less than freefall, that it is indeed encountering resistance. He believes that any resistance at all should decelerate the body

I'll provide an easy explanation, and type it slowly so that ANOK can hopefully follow along.

We'll simplify and say that an object will accelerate in freefall at 8m/s/s

So at:
1 sec = 8m/s velocity
2 sec= 16m/s
3 sec = 24m/s

If encountering resistance:
1 sec = 6m/s
2 sec = 12m/s
3 sec = 18m/s

Clearly, in the second example, the body is encountering resistance, but is still accelerating. Anybody with an education sees this.

ANOK understands that if the body is encountering any resistance at all, then the accelerstion curve should look something like:

1 sec = 8m/s
2 sec = 7m/s
3 sec = 6m/s

He bases this belief on the fact that the columns were stronger as one went down the towers. But again, educated and rational people realize that any falling debris will land on the floors, and then that weight must then be transferred to the columns to slow down the collapse as he understands should happen. However, anyone that's done any research at all also knows for a fact that besides at the lobby levels, the floors were of the same strength, and in fact did not increase in strength like the columns.

The conclusion that any eductaed and rational person would therefore make is that once the collapse is initiated, it is dependent upon the strength of the floors to stop the collapse. Some truthers have even realized that denying this and making the insane claims that explosives were blowing up all the floors, etc makes them look worse than foolish, and more like agenda driven fools that base their claims NOT in reality, but on their delusions.

Here's an example of this, even though they STILL have the delusional goal of backing in explosives, thermxte, or insanely, Verinage techniques to explain the collapse initiation.

Enjoy.

the911forum.freeforums.org...



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

I thought i did. Then, in your very next post, you said that the lower floors offered no resistance to the collapse.



ANOK understands that if the body is encountering any resistance at all, then the accelerstion curve should look something like:



I don't want to know what ANOK understands. I want to know where ANOK's source is that says that the lower floors of the WTC towers didn't offer any resistance. I also want that source to explain what resistance caused the towers to collapse slower than free fall speed.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
767Doctor ignored this response earlier in the thread, perhaps because it's so patently lacking in substance:



Originally posted by impressme

OK, I'll bite. Can you provide an example of a controlled demolition in which beams are ejected in such a manner by explosives? You see, in explosive demolitions, the explosives merely cut, or sever, the load bearing members. Not blow them to smithereens. Just watch any video of a controlled demolition; you don't see any expelled columns.



Perhaps, you may disagree but many professional in their fields of expertise will disagree with you and they don’t need to insult, or ridicule anyone to be noticed.



You say that the towers' destruction looks like controlled demolition. He points out that CD never hurls columns in this manner, and you call that an

opinion
? If it's just an opinion, then it would take you seconds to show a CD with steel columns behaving in this manner.

Poor stuff.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

I don't want to know what ANOK understands. I want to know where ANOK's source is that says that the lower floors of the WTC towers didn't offer any resistance. I also want that source to explain what resistance caused the towers to collapse slower than free fall speed.


His source is:

1- his utter lack of physics knowledge
2- charlatan websites

There's no other possible explanation.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

I don't want to know what ANOK understands. I want to know where ANOK's source is that says that the lower floors of the WTC towers didn't offer any resistance. I also want that source to explain what resistance caused the towers to collapse slower than free fall speed.


His source is:

1- his utter lack of physics knowledge
2- charlatan websites

There's no other possible explanation.


It is possible that his source was taken out of context. It's possible that he misunderstood his source. It's possible that his source says exactly what he's saying and i will have a lot to learn when I read it.


I read the MIT report written by:

John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT
SOURCE: web.mit.edu...

They say

"The failure of the floor system led to a free fall of a mass of approximately 30 stories and 14 stories onto the 80 and 96, respectively, floor structure below. The enormous kinetic energy released by this 2-3-floor downfall was too large to be absorbed by the structure underneath.
The impact effect generated from this upper part onto the lower part was surely much higher than the buckling resistance of the columns below, which to this point may have been essentially undamaged and were not affected by fire. The impact caused explosive buckling, floor after floor, of the WTC towers with the debris of the upper floors wedging with the lower
part of the structures. As the floors failed, the collapse of the building accelerated downwards with the accumulation of the falling mass and the dynamic amplification of its impact on to the lower structure."

I never read anything in the entire report about how the lower floors didn't offer resistance to the collapse.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

It is possible that his source was taken out of context.


Which means that either he has zero knowledge of physics if he's misapplying context or the website is if they are misapplying context.


It's possible that he misunderstood his source.


Which means that he has zero knowledge of physics.


It's possible that his source says exactly what he's saying and i will have a lot to learn when I read it.


Same answer as the first.



I read the MIT report written by:

(snip)

They say

"The failure of the floor system led to a free fall of a mass of approximately 30 stories and 14 stories onto the 80 and 96, respectively, floor structure below. The enormous kinetic energy released by this 2-3-floor downfall was too large to be absorbed by the structure underneath.
The impact effect generated from this upper part onto the lower part was surely much higher than the buckling resistance of the columns below, which to this point may have been essentially undamaged and were not affected by fire. The impact caused explosive buckling, floor after floor, of the WTC towers with the debris of the upper floors wedging with the lower
part of the structures. As the floors failed, the collapse of the building accelerated downwards with the accumulation of the falling mass and the dynamic amplification of its impact on to the lower structure."

I never read anything in the entire report about how the lower floors didn't offer resistance to the collapse.


Without reading the report, this sounds like an early report, when pancaking initiation was being proposed. NIST ruled this out.

But you're correct. Nowhere, not even in Gordon Ross' paper in the JONES journal will you find the argument that thr floors offered zero resistance.

ANOK seems to be alone, stranded on a desert island with this conclusion. Which only, once again, proves his utter fail at understanding the physics used in any of these arguments.

No surprise there. Dog bites man.......



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join