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.
Originally posted by neformore
Yours truly is a fully qualified professional Civil Engineer with 24 years experience.
Lets add a little perspective here.
I've said this before on other threads, and I'll say it again here.
The two planes punched massive holes in the buildings, with an awful lot of kinetic energy - and the towers took full brunt.
No one knows exactly what happened to the towers on that day after the impacts. There are - frankly, too many variables to consider - shear forces, bending moments, elastic tension etc. Then there is the quality of build, the potential for weaknesses in structural elements and areas that loads were spread to - all kinds of things that happen in a structure where loads get re-distributed quickly.
So while I can give an opinion that the failure was unusual (I thought so when I saw it), I cannot say anything other than that - anything else is wild speculation.
Remember that bridge that collapsed a couple of years back in the US? Thats a perfect example of a cascade failure. It started with one element failing and the loads of the structure redistributing to cause other elements to fail.
NIST was a theory. 9/11 "truthers" have a theory.
Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I'm sure they do. But designing a building and figuring why a 200 ton airliner could not possibly destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than two hours is a whole nuther story.
A great deal of time and effort went into designing the towers to withstand an airliner impact.
But I haven't seen any mention of the distributions of steel and concrete by the organization since then.
I'm still unaware as to what the distributions of steel and concrete would prove.
So I think getting this settled has to be a serious embarrasment to lots of people with degrees in engineering and physics.
It's not an embarrassment to at least 1200 of us.
Originally posted by neformore
Yours truly is a fully qualified professional Civil Engineer with 24 years experience.
Lets add a little perspective here.
I've said this before on other threads, and I'll say it again here.
The two planes punched massive holes in the buildings, with an awful lot of kinetic energy - and the towers took full brunt.
No one knows exactly what happened to the towers on that day after the impacts. There are - frankly, too many variables to consider - shear forces, bending moments, elastic tension etc. Then there is the quality of build, the potential for weaknesses in structural elements and areas that loads were spread to - all kinds of things that happen in a structure where loads get re-distributed quickly.
So while I can give an opinion that the failure was unusual (I thought so when I saw it), I cannot say anything other than that - anything else is wild speculation.
Remember that bridge that collapsed a couple of years back in the US? Thats a perfect example of a cascade failure. It started with one element failing and the loads of the structure redistributing to cause other elements to fail.
NIST was a theory. 9/11 "truthers" have a theory.
You could probably (if you had the time, inclination and a whole lot more money) model those impacts on a super computer and get different results every time depending on how you predict certain elements will fail due to their age and condition, and even then you would only have an educated theory
Nothing would ever be exact.
Just because 1200 people think something is unusual, it does not mean they are all automatically right.
It simply means that 1200 people think something is unusual.