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: 21
10
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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...


Again you are equating the resistance simply by the collapse times, this is not the only way to measure the lack of resistance. Once again any resistance would cause an asymmetry in the collapse as it would force the debris to fall to the path of least resistance, this is not observed in any of the collapses. In the context of a buildings collapse there was no resistance, your few seconds makes no difference, it should have taken minutes to collapse not seconds.

Yes the strength of the floors is what would resist the collapse, they wre designed to hold their own weight with a safety margin of AT LEAST x2 (the minimum), and was probably a lot more (I've heard x6).
But at the minimum that means the floors could hold *at least* double their own weight, so if a floors did drop iot would not cause a complete failure of the building. The first floor dropped would stop when it hit resistance of the lower floor, if that lower floor did drop it would not have been instant and complete.

No matter how you try to spin it Joey you are offering no counter to my argument, where are your physics that proves me wrong, you just offer assumptions that don't even address what I'm talking about? Explain to me why NIST doesn't support pancake collapse yet you're all here still arguing for it. You and your buddie and just floundering and offering nothing to dispute me, you keep asking for links, why do you need links to basic physics? Why not do your own research? Go look up the terms and what they mean and put them into context so we can discus the physics. You just keep proving to me you don't understand with every post you make.

I noticed you said 'collapse initiation' are you under the impression that global collapse was inevitable once initiated? That NIST claim that has no precedence or science to support it? And I don't know physics?

Where are YOUR links? Where is your independent research that proves me wrong?

[edit on 6/7/2010 by ANOK]




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:49 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.


As I said before, in my U2U to you, there are not many links to give you, you need to read books and have some personal experience to understand this if you don't already. You not understanding me does not make me wrong. I thought you'd U2U me because you really wanted my help understanding my point, but obviously you were just looking for more ammunition to try to discredit me. If you are really writing a book on 9-11 you have a lot to learn.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

www.myphysicslab.com...

gordonssite.tripod.com...
gordonssite.tripod.com...

But again you completely ignore the fact that a room fire will not cause steel to fail in an hour in the first place, so you're OS is wrong from the start and the rest is pretty much irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Again you are equating the resistance simply by the collapse times, this is not the only way to measure the lack of resistance.



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



any resistance would cause an asymmetry in the collapse


This you have said over and over again. I've tried to find an expert source to confirm this. So far I have found none and you simply refuse to cite your source for this information.

This is a force calculator:

www.ajdesigner.com...

SOURCE:
en.wikipedia.org...

lets just say that the floor weighs 2000 kg. It's pushing down with a force of 2000 newtons.

Lets just say that same floor falls and hits the floor below it. It hits the floor below it. Now the floor below it can hold 6 times it's weight of 2000 kg or hold 12000 newtons of force.

Well the 2000 kg floor that hits it from above accelerating at 9.8 m/s hits with 19,600 newtons of force. More than 6 times the amount it was originally holding. If the floor below can hold 12000 newtons and it just got crushed by 19,600 newtons then that floor is no more.

So you saying that it should have taken minutes to collapse makes no sense to the physics of the whole thing assuming that one floor collapsed onto the next. I didn't see one floor collapse. I saw the top part of the building above the airplane impact collapse downward. So instead of one floors worth of force you have several floors worth of force. Times the acceleration and you have even more force than that.

Again you say a lot of amazing things and don't cite a source and i'm spending time to confirm what you're saying is true and i'm unable to do so.




SOURCE www.physlink.com...


The amount of force needed to slow the fall of a 40 ton piece of steel and concrete by even one second massive. Let alone 6 seconds.

So again I ask you what resistance to the force of gravity caused the WTC tower to fall slower than free fall speed?

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

According to my handy dandy physics calculator to slow the fall even by a second of 30 stories of concrete and steel would need tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons of force.


To slow it by 4 seconds would take tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tonstons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tonstons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tonstons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons of force.

Where did this resistance to the collapse come from? Where did all this resistance force come from? What source told you the collapse of the WTC towers should have taken minutes?

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

Please cite your source. I'm really starting to get the vibe that you're making up some of your information. I refuse to believe you would just make up stuff so cite your source. I'm citing all of my sources that are making be believe that you're just making up stuff.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Just to correct you, 10n in a kg so 2000kg would be 20kn not 2kn.
I had read somewhere floors would support up to 6 times the load but what people forget how MUCH load dropped when the towers started to collapse A LOT MORE THAN 6X


[edit on 7-6-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Just to correct you, 10n in a kg so 2000kg would be 20kn not 2kn.
I had read somewhere floors would support up to 6 times the load but what people forget how MUCH load dropped when the towers started to collapse A LOT MORE THAN 6X




do you have a source for this information?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Again you are equating the resistance simply by the collapse times, this is not the only way to measure the lack of resistance.


True, but only if you want to throw logic and physics out the window. Since this seems to be your goal, carry on.


Once again any resistance would cause an asymmetry in the collapse as it would force the debris to fall to the path of least resistance


Your post with sticks is the basis behind this statement, but until it is backed up with some maths, it doesn't apply yet. So go find your supporting paper.


In the context of a buildings collapse there was no resistance, your few seconds makes no difference, it should have taken minutes to collapse not seconds.


Clunkity clunk then?

FAIL. Even charlatans like Ross don't support this.


Yes the strength of the floors is what would resist the collapse


Correctamundo.


But at the minimum that means the floors could hold *at least* double their own weight, so if a floors did drop iot would not cause a complete failure of the building.


The truthers at the link I provided think otherwise. This includes Tony Szamboti. Oops.


The first floor dropped would stop when it hit resistance of the lower floor, if that lower floor did drop it would not have been instant and complete.


At collapse initiation, the entire upper part is descending, not just a floor.


where are your physics that proves me wrong


You still haven't fleshed out to the point that there's anything to address, other than your personal beliefs. Until then, this is the debunking you deserve.


Explain to me why NIST doesn't support pancake collapse


NIST disagrees with pancake initiation. You WERE aware that thet didn't address anything past that right?

Bazant addresses that. You should read some.


Go look up the terms and what they mean and put them into context so we can discus the physics.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

".....and the collapse wave would have slowed down...."

No technical paper supports this statement. This is because you have zero knoeledge.


I noticed you said 'collapse initiation' are you under the impression that global collapse was inevitable once initiated?


Yup. Bazants and scores more support this. You have nothing.


That NIST claim that has no precedence


True


or science to support it?


Lie.


Where are YOUR links? Where is your independent research that proves me wrong?


Jeeze I would have thought that truthers researching this and coming to the conclusion that collapse is inevitable after initiation would be the kind of independent research that you's be looking for. But I can see that you're too scared to learn how little you know.

news.bbc.co.uk...

This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking"). The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

www.911myths.com...

for WTC 1 the 97th
floor, plus all floors above, collapse onto the pile of rubble topped by floor 96; this is
followed by floor 98 (plus all floors above) collapsing onto floor 97 and so on.......This suggests that E1 is relatively small
compared to the kinetic energy associated with the falling blocks of floors; let us now
place this qualitative prediction on a quantitative basis. To do this we must calculate the
energies involved in each stage of the WTC collapse and then correct for the resistance
offered by each floor..........Thus a rapid self-sustaining total collapse of the towers is an
inevitable consequence of first order momentum transfer theory.



Ad infinitum if you wish. Note that these, as well as other, numerous technical papers deal with the specifics of the towers. They are NOT generalized physical laws. They put them into practice.

You do not have this.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

I'm really starting to get the vibe that you're making up some of your information. I refuse to believe you would just make up stuff so cite your source. I'm citing all of my sources that are making be believe that you're just making up stuff.



Ya think?

What took you so long to come to this conclusion?

Until recently, ANOK had in his signature line the explanation.

Something like, "the troll in me means that I don't believe what I say."

Quite the admission. About as blatant as John Lear's.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by impressme
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.

I didn't know what to make of that sudden shift in logic either. Usually truthers tend to stand by their anomalies, even after it's been pointed out that the anomalies aren't all that anomalous.

Impressme, just so we know where you stand... is it your claim that the columns being hurtled outward 500' is an anomaly which points to controlled demolition? If so, you've already scoffed at the notion that C4 would do that, so I'm left wondering what the mechanism is? Because it appears that your response has left at least two of us confused, can you shed some light?


[edit on 8-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


No not really, because it does not matter what I believe in, or what scientific evidences I present, it will only be ignored. I believe we are at the point that the causal ATS reader will have no problem in figuring out who is credible and who has presented credible facts without insulting people intelligent. Our opinions are worthless in searching for facts.
You are right that I scoffed at C-4 explosives, because I have my own opinions, just like you have your own “opinions” to the events to 911 but, we both know opinions are not facts, are they. It does not matter what light I shed on the topic I will not convince you of anything as we both know. The fact is the OS holds no weight to science, so why bother defend it.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


So your response is that you're not going to respond because we won't automatically believe you?

Wow.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 767doctor
 

The fact is the OS holds no weight to science, so why bother defend it.



Yet again with these claims. Clearly you have not read the sources which present science that supports the OS.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

I'm really starting to get the vibe that you're making up some of your information. I refuse to believe you would just make up stuff so cite your source. I'm citing all of my sources that are making be believe that you're just making up stuff.



Ya think?

What took you so long to come to this conclusion?



Well I believe that some of the things that he says might be correct.

When he says the lower floors offered no resistance to the collapse of the twin towers i have found several sources who disagree and none who agree.

When he says that any amount of resistance would have caused an assymetry in the collapse I can't find a single source to either confirm or refute this.

He makes a lot of claims and then does not present sources to confirm those claims.

The source that he did present:

gordonssite.tripod.com...

Basically he thinks the previous momentum analsys are inaccurate.

"this type of analysis assumes that the impacts have an effect upon only the topmost storey of the impacted section. The reality of the situation is that the impacts would have an effect upon several storeys in the lower section"

"In reality there would be some losses of energy due to residual strength within the failing columns of the removed section, but these are ignored for the purposes of this analysis."

He also cites experts in his source that disagree with him. His calculations start with the theory that the collapse was only 1 floor.

"If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second"

The boeing 767 cabin interior is 4.7 meters tall.

SOURCE: www.boeing.com...


The boeing 767 is 15.85m tall

SOURCE:
www.topspeed.com...

If there are 3.7 meters between floors then the airplane cabin would have damaged two floors instead of one. The airplane would have damaged several floors.

Using this:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

I can determine that if two floors were damaged then the amount of force from the upper floors would have been significantly increased because they would have been traveling at 12.03 m/s instead of 8.52 m/s.

I wonder what his calculations would be like if the top 16 floors would have impacted at 12.03 m/s instead of 8.52.


Now I look at the source he cited:
www-math.mit.edu...

Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, Northwestern University

Graduate Research Assistant, Northwestern University.

"the floors should have acted like a piston running down through an empty tube, which helps to explain the smoke and debris that was seen being expelled laterally from the collapsing tower."



911myths.com...


"neglecting the energy required to crush or otherwise destroy the support structure of each floor. This energy, which we will call E1, is considered in detail in Section 4.2. For now it is sufficient to note that the collapse times calculated without allowing for E1 are already in reasonable agreement with the observed collapse times."

He then lists off experts who don't believe the collapses indicated demolition:

Z. Bažant et al. at Northwestern University, Illinois

G.C. Lee et al. in a MCEER Special Report

T. Wierzbicki et al. at MIT

"The fact that the values of E1 derived from Wierzbicki’s and Bažant’s studies are quite similar is very significant because these author’s calculations were actually undertaken for two different impact events: (i) The collision of a Boeing aircraft with one floor of a WTC tower, and (ii) The collapse of a block of WTC floors onto the floor"

How come groups of professors have determined (or attempted to determine) the amount of damage to the buildings when investigating the collapse. I now very much so wonder why the source presented by ANOK didn't calculate the damage done by the airplane impacts and fire when analzying the collapse? Does he not believe the buildings were damaged and on fire prior to collapsing?


How come NONE of these experts even mention the collapse following the path of the greatest resistance? How come NONE of these experts even mention the symmetrical collapse? How come NONE of these experts say that the collapse had no resistance from lower floors? How come none of these experts say that any resistance would have caused asymmetry in the collapse?

So one expert (who didn't calculate ariplane and fire damage when analyzing the collapse of a building that was hit by an airplane and on fire) disagrees with the others about the crushing force and resistance to the crushing force.

Yet they all AGREE on not mentioning asymmetry in the collapse, the lower floors offering NO resistance to the collapse, and any resistance would cause asymmetry to the collapse.

Now i've done hours of research and reading and cited dozens of sources if ANOK has too then he will have no problem presenting his sources that said that the lower floors of the WTC offered no resistance to the collapse because any amount of resistance would have caused an asymmetry in the collapse and the collapse was symmetrical.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

if ANOK has too then he will have no problem presenting his sources



Well, there's the problem right there.

He obviously hasn't done any research other than posting exactly what he's read on charlatan websites.

He could prove his point if he chose to by citing something specific, but he can't.

This is undeniable......



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

if ANOK has too then he will have no problem presenting his sources



Well, there's the problem right there.

He obviously hasn't done any research other than posting exactly what he's read on charlatan websites.

He could prove his point if he chose to by citing something specific, but he can't.

This is undeniable......


He has presented an expert source that indicated that the building should have collapsed slower than it did. I was very confused about why someone analyzing the collapse of a building that was hit with an airplane and set on fire didn't mention the damaged caused by the airplane and fire in his report like the other experts did.

I also noticed that after a LOT of experts have been cited not one has mentioned:

-the lower floors of the WTC offered no resistance to the collapse

-any amount of resistance would have caused asymmetry in the collapse

-the collapse was symmetrical.

-any amount of resistance to the WTC collapse would have caused asymmetry in the collapse and the collapse was symmetrical therefore the lower floors of the WTC offered no resistance to the collapse.

-the fact that the WTC tower collapsed several seconds slower than free fall speed does NOT indicate there was resistance to the collapse from undamaged floors

-resistance needed to slow the collapse of over 50 tons of concrete and steel by over 5 seconds is very small.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

He has presented an expert source



No.

newtonsbit.blogspot.com...

Gordon Ross does not have a clear understanding of structural engineering, and this is evident in his paper.

forums.randi.org...

forums.randi.org...



ETA:
ANOK also stated a post or 2 ago that "the collapse should have taken minutes, not seconds."

You might want to add that to your list of unsupported claims.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

He has presented an expert source



No.



ETA:
ANOK also stated a post or 2 ago that "the collapse should have taken minutes, not seconds."

You might want to add that to your list of unsupported claims.



I felt that his source was an expert. I also pointed out that there were several experts listed who disagree with him. I don't know if your sources are experts or not. They don't list their names and credentials. They do cite sources that have already been cited in this discussion though.

That is another claim he has made that I would love to see a source for. The expert source he cited didn't say anything about how slowly the towers should have collapsed.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


So your response is that you're not going to respond because we won't automatically believe you?

Wow.


Who said I want you to automatically believe me? I really don’t care what you believe in.
I am only interested in the facts that credible evidences supports, nothing else.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


The fact is the OS holds no weight to science, so why bother defend it.


Yet again with these claims. Clearly you have not read the sources which present science that supports the OS.


If that was true, you would have been “delighted” to show this credible science, yet you fail to do so.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 


The fact is the OS holds no weight to science, so why bother defend it.


Yet again with these claims. Clearly you have not read the sources which present science that supports the OS.


If that was true, you would have been “delighted” to show this credible science, yet you fail to do so.



scroll up.


Check out this link
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Teams of experts at perdue, MIT, and northwestern:

web.mit.edu...
www.purdue.edu...
www.civil.northwestern.edu...



Why am i citing the same sources to you over and over again of credible sciences and experts and even teams of experts supporting OS theories?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 


The fact is the OS holds no weight to science, so why bother defend it.


Yet again with these claims. Clearly you have not read the sources which present science that supports the OS.


If that was true, you would have been “delighted” to show this credible science, yet you fail to do so.



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)

Did you not notices this reply to you just one page ago? It's so convienient for you to just ignore everyone that cites their sources and say THERE ARE NO SOURCES THAT SUPPORT THE OS!




top topics



 
10
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join