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.

 

Can the NIST report withstand a peer review?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
bsbray11. Look up Verinage and explain how the French do it then.


I know about it, but do they only blow one floor and then everything else automatically destroys itself to the ground? Also is this done for steel-framed skyscrapers? Because it was my understanding that it was not, but I could be wrong.


Only that I agree that once collapse started, there was not much to stop it.


You mean theoretically when the first floor came loose within the tower, ie a whole floor's worth of trusses being separated from their independent connections to the perimeter and core columns all within a fraction of a second of each other, that all of the floors below could not possibly have stopped this single floor from falling? Maybe I am not understanding you correctly, because even NIST says a single floor could stop more than 1 floor in dynamic loading.


With a couple key elements taken out (the core for one) it would fall just like we saw.


I agree that the buildings would have been razed to the ground if their cores were severed in a few different places, but I hardly consider that just an "initiation" in the way that NIST and OS supporters use the word. They are talking about some single event that turns the floors into vertical dominoes like "pancake theory" suggests.

But if you severed the cores and, say, the corners of the perimeter columns, or compromised the bolts and spandrel plates, then of course nothing would stop it from coming down completely.
edit on 18-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Why aren't all of the civil engineers demanding distribution of steel information?

Because they, like everyone else in the last decade, know that it is not relevant.


You are arguing with only a very small handful of all of the people worldwide who are still consider the structural documentation relevant, so you are obviously wrong. What you need to learn is that you can't actually do a technical analysis like all engineers are trained to do, without the structural documentation. NIST had it but did not show anyone else, which is why the NIST report would automatically fail a proper peer review.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Nutter
Actually as a Civil/Structural/Forensics Engineer, I can say with confidence that once collapse initiation started, there was nothing to stop it. So, that part of the OS I can truelly believe. It's collapse initiation that I have a question about


When you mention your profession to give that opinion credibility, have you actually done any kind of analyses that would confirm this opinion, and if so, using what documentation?



What an odd question.

Griff stated the same thing repeatedly. Did you question him too, or accept his view?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I know about it, but do they only blow one floor and then everything else automatically destroys itself to the ground? Also is this done for steel-framed skyscrapers? Because it was my understanding that it was not, but I could be wrong.


From the videos it looks like they remove about 2-3 floors worth and the top half crushes the bottom half. Look at the video again. Especially around the 50 second mark where they show a close up. It appears to me to be a steel framed building. But, even then, when it comes down to it, a reinforced concrete column is a steel framed structure by the very definition of it. Concrete is weak in tension. Everywhere there is concrete in construction, there is a steel frame used inside the concrete to distribute that tension and not crack. When designing reinforced concrete, one step is to actually design the steel frame to make sure it can hold the tension. So, literally, yes, it works for steel framing too.


You mean theoretically when the first floor came loose within the tower, ie a whole floor's worth of trusses being separated from their independent connections to the perimeter and core columns all within a fraction of a second of each other, that all of the floors below could not possibly have stopped this single floor from falling? Maybe I am not understanding you correctly, because even NIST says a single floor could stop more than 1 floor in dynamic loading.


But even NIST states that one floor could not withstand 20 floors worth of building mass falling 12-24 feet onto it. Hence why the verinage technique works. Once the support columns are severed, the top section acts as one piece with one huge mass crushing the first floor below it and etc.


I agree that the buildings would have been razed to the ground if their cores were severed in a few different places, but I hardly consider that just an "initiation" in the way that NIST and OS supporters use the word.


Hence why I stated I have questions about initiation.


They are talking about some single event that turns the floors into vertical dominoes like "pancake theory" suggests.


Take out 2 floors worth of support and yes, vertical dominoes.


But if you severed the cores and, say, the corners of the perimeter columns, or compromised the bolts and spandrel plates, then of course nothing would stop it from coming down completely


Exactly. I'm not sure why I'm getting jumped on for believing the towers were partly demolished using the verinage technique. Is it because this technique doesn't have as much flare as nano-thermite, mini-nukes, or explosives? I still agree that it wasn't damage + fire alone. Sheesh.
edit on 18-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Griff stated the same thing repeatedly. Did you question him too, or accept his view?


Griff was always ready to qualify what he said with the fact that NIST never released enough information for him to actually do the necessary calculations, the same problem everyone has since after almost 10 years you are still apparently ignorant of this.

If you look back through his posts you'll find he even scoured the NIST report and eventually contacted them and was still unable to obtain the necessary information for doing a real independent analysis.

Could NIST withstand a peer review? No. There is no way to replicate their work using their report.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
It appears to me to be a steel framed building.


So you know for a fact that this is a steel-framed building? I don't mean reinforced concrete, I mean a structure that uses all steel columns.


But, even then, when it comes down to it, a reinforced concrete column is a steel framed structure by the very definition of it. Concrete is weak in tension.


Exactly, which is why there is a difference. The WTC towers only used concrete in the floor slabs, at least from what we've been told, above the ground level. Its core structure was also braced with heavy beams, and cross-bracing like X's on lower floors. But it's not the details that matter except to show that there are significant differences and I don't think anyone (including you) is saying that all you would have to do is unleash 1 floor's worth of trusses simultaneously and the whole building will destroy itself. A floor only has the mass of one floor. Not the columns, not the loads the columns were carrying, none of that.



You mean theoretically when the first floor came loose within the tower, ie a whole floor's worth of trusses being separated from their independent connections to the perimeter and core columns all within a fraction of a second of each other, that all of the floors below could not possibly have stopped this single floor from falling? Maybe I am not understanding you correctly, because even NIST says a single floor could stop more than 1 floor in dynamic loading.


But even NIST states that one floor could not withstand 20 floors worth of building mass falling 12-24 feet onto it.


Stop right there.

How can you POSSIBLY have 20 floors' worth of mass falling already at initiation? Let alone a uniform 24- or even 12- foot free-fall drop.

Are you saying 20 floors worth of trusses and other live and dead loads just up and plummeted at the same instant? How!?


Once the support columns are severed


How do the trusses failing at the connections with the columns, equate to the columns themselves being severed? I'm talking about collapse initiation here, not immediately jumping several seconds/floors into the collapse and skipping this whole initiation problem.


the top section acts as one piece with one huge mass crushing the first floor below it and etc.


Not if the only thing falling to begin with is a single floor. It should be obvious that the trusses are NOT handling the global loads of the building, the columns are. And when the floor theoretically fails somehow all at once, it is NOT carrying the global loads with it. It's only carrying one floor's worth of mass. It's not a "top piece," it's a single floor somewhere within the impacted range of floors, theoretically. That is the initiation that you are saying must develop into a runaway collapse despite the fact that the floor below it could withstand such an impact even according to NIST. If you blow several floors at the same time, you might could do what you are saying to a certain extent, but I can't honestly believe that it would totally raze them to the ground without further help either. And there are plenty of witness testimonies that suggest there was plenty of extra help on the way down.


Exactly. I'm not sure why I'm getting jumped on for believing the towers were partly demolished using the verinage technique. Is it because this technique doesn't have as much flare as nano-thermite, mini-nukes, or explosives? I still agree that it wasn't damage + fire alone. Sheesh.


I'm trying to get at how the single floor turns into every floor plus all the columns being destroyed. You still think columns were severed, right? How do you think that happened?
edit on 18-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Griff stated the same thing repeatedly. Did you question him too, or accept his view?


Griff was always ready to qualify what he said with the fact that NIST never released enough information for him to actually do the necessary calculations, the same problem everyone has since after almost 10 years you are still apparently ignorant of this.



I read some of his old posts when I first joined here.

He is quite clear that collapse progression was inevitable.

It looked to me like he therefore postulated some outlandish ideas like thermite cutting the horizontal floor beams in the core, which would result in long unbraced lengths which would then cause collapse. A few other doozies too.

But it looks to me like he finally settled on postulating about some type of naturally occuring fuel air explosion, which in its face is so ridiculous to say could cause steel failure as to be characterized as simple flailing around to support his truther views.

To be honest, I'd LOVE for the docs to become public. All the fools at AE would have no excuse for NOT attempting to publish at that point. It would be both entertaining and educational to see the insanity that would ensue at that point. Truthers would be backed into a corner. There are the docs. Now show how NIST was wrong, and/or propose another theory that disproves plane impact and fire damage.

You know as well as I do that they couldn't do it.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I talked to Griff both on and off the forums and your memory of him is way off base. He believed the core structure was blown in 2 or more locations and that that's what caused global instability. If you want to keep ranting off of your bad memory reminiscing old vitriol be my guest, but since Griff was banned for posting while smashed one too many times he's of course not going to be able to speak for himself to correct you. But as a fair warning to anyone else, you'll want to look up his posts yourselves before taking what "Canoli" says for granted. Griff was a professional structural engineer that posted here who read the NIST report and had many issues with its conclusions. Not that it really matters or is even relevant to the discussion, and I have no idea where this sentimentality is coming from, and it kind of disgusts me.

No, I do not know that NIST releasing all the data would 'back us into a corner'. You are fantasizing again. If I believed the same thing you do I wouldn't be arguing with you in the first place. Think about that for two or three seconds. I'm sure you think I secretly think you're right about everything, but the very fact that NIST didn't show their work or all of the relevant data to begin with is what really speaks to me, and not you. Any piece of scientific literature worth its salt always shows its work. It's something entry-level engineering students are taught from day one. If you don't show your work, even if you get the right answers, you're still wrong, all throughout your education. The actual analysis is what makes it legitimate and professional, and open to peer review. Otherwise it's just opinion. For professionals not to publish their work... well there's no use even telling you that it's not acceptable. You apparently think it's there anyway. Keep on playing armchair debunker "Joey," get it all out of your system.
edit on 19-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Stop right there.

How can you POSSIBLY have 20 floors' worth of mass falling already at initiation? Let alone a uniform 24- or even 12- foot free-fall drop.


If just one stories worth of support (meaning the support above a certain floor to the next floor) is severed, then that top cap becomes it's own structure to fall one floors worth of distance (about 12.5 feet).

Maybe I'm not describing it well enough. I'm not talking floor connections, I'm talking one story worth of column seperation.


Are you saying 20 floors worth of trusses and other live and dead loads just up and plummeted at the same instant? How!?


The how is what I have questions on too. But even if the NIST is correct in their initiation, the bowing in of the columns is exactly what they do to initiate a verinage collapse.


How do the trusses failing at the connections with the columns, equate to the columns themselves being severed? I'm talking about collapse initiation here, not immediately jumping several seconds/floors into the collapse and skipping this whole initiation problem.


I don't know why the jumping on me when I have the SAME questions about initiation as you.


Not if the only thing falling to begin with is a single floor. It should be obvious that the trusses are NOT handling the global loads of the building, the columns are.


And this is where you are getting confused or I am not explaining myself well enough. I'm not talking trusses here. You are. I'm talking severed columns. Severed columns causing the top cap to freefall one story.


And when the floor theoretically fails somehow all at once, it is NOT carrying the global loads with it. It's only carrying one floor's worth of mass. It's not a "top piece," it's a single floor somewhere within the impacted range of floors, theoretically. That is the initiation that you are saying must develop into a runaway collapse despite the fact that the floor below it could withstand such an impact even according to NIST. If you blow several floors at the same time, you might could do what you are saying to a certain extent, but I can't honestly believe that it would totally raze them to the ground without further help either. And there are plenty of witness testimonies that suggest there was plenty of extra help on the way down.


See, you are still going on about trusses and floor coonections. I'm talking columns. When I say just one floors worth of support, I mean one story worth (around 12.5 feet) of columns. That's how you get a pile driving cap.


I'm trying to get at how the single floor turns into every floor plus all the columns being destroyed. You still think columns were severed, right? How do you think that happened?


Back again to the difference between one floors support and one floors connections. Floor support would be the columns. Floor connections would be the ....well connections. I am talking columns. And literally, the need to take out 12 feet of column is not there. Just sever the columns at one floor and then sever the columns at the floor below and you have now severed "one stories worth of support" allowing the cap (columns and everything else) to freefall onto the remaining floors.

I think there is a disconnect with either my wording (notice I started using "one story worth of support instead of one floor worth to try and explain what I'm saying better) or your understanding of what I'm trying to say. Again, I am NOT talking about floor connections. Floor support, at least to me, means the columns.
edit on 19-12-2010 by Nutter because: Changed some "floor"s to "stories" for further clarification.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
I don't know why the jumping on me when I have the SAME questions about initiation as you.


Not sure if you are a truther but unlike most truthers you make sense to me and you seem to question the most critical point in the collapse. So what exactly are your questions? To me it seems reasonable that sagging trusses puling on the columns can bent them to the point of failure. For what reason exactly do you question this?
edit on 19-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Not sure if you are a truther but unlike most truthers you make sense to me and you seem to question the most critical point in the collapse. So what exactly are your questions? To me it seems reasonable that sagging trusses puling on the columns can bent them to the point of failure. For what reason exactly do you question this?
edit on 19-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


Because the concrete flooring was attached to the trusses (concrete doesn't like to bend or sag, it breaks).

NIST hasn't proven this hypothesis.

Edit: After looking at it more closely, there would be an added horizontal force. Now, NIST needs to show that this force would be greater than the hurricane wind force the steel was designed for to cause inward deflection. As I don't know the entire design, this is where it gets fishy because we can't check if NIST's theory that this horizontal force is greater than the designed for hurricane wind force is true.

Also. NIST now has to explain why a couple of bolts in tension would be stronger than a few inches thick box column. Meaning, why did the columns bend inward before the bolts snapped?
edit on 19-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Because sagging floors have less horizontal force than horizontal floors. And when you look at the connections and the vector forces a sagging floor would produce, the horizontal force decreases as the floor becomes less horizontal. NIST hasn't shown how the horizontal force would increase. Disclaimer: I've only done this in a very basic way. I could be wrong depending on how the connection reacted. Also, I'm not taking into account moments (torques) which could make a significant difference. Maybe I'll have to look into it (properly) and prove myself wrong.

Also, because the concrete flooring was attached to the trusses (concrete doesn't like to bend or sag, it breaks).

NIST hasn't proven this hypothesis.
edit on 19-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)


Ok your critique sounds reasonable, but also sounds wrong. Imagine two poles with a perfectly stiff beam between it. When you put a weight on the beam the force on the poles is exactly downwards, and they wont bend. When you do the same experiment with a rope, and you put a weight on the rope, the poles will be pulled toward each other. That is essentially what happened at the WTC. Because the trusses were weakened as result of the heat, they became elastic and started to behave like a rope instead of a stiff beam.

Anyway, that explanation makes perfectly sense to me. Of course one can argue that the fires were not hot enough or the weight of the floors was not big enough, but those are details that the average laymen can't really say that much useful about. You will have to do a thorough study supported by physics in order to prove that. And that is exactly what has never been produced by the truth movement, while that seems to be the most essential bit of proof the truth movement can ever provide to show that the plane impact and fires could not have initiated the collapse.

Edit: also note that the columns themselves were also weakened as result of the heat, and may have not been able to withstand a hurricane in that condition. But still, it does not sound unreasonable to me that the force caused by the sagging floors is larger. I am not totally sure to what degree the NIST report goes into this.
edit on 19-12-2010 by -PLB- because: Reply to edit



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Because sagging floors have less horizontal force than horizontal floors. And when you look at the connections and the vector forces a sagging floor would produce, the horizontal force decreases as the floor becomes less horizontal. NIST hasn't shown how the horizontal force would increase. Disclaimer: I've only done this in a very basic way. I could be wrong depending on how the connection reacted. Also, I'm not taking into account moments (torques) which could make a significant difference. Maybe I'll have to look into it (properly) and prove myself wrong.

Also, because the concrete flooring was attached to the trusses (concrete doesn't like to bend or sag, it breaks).

NIST hasn't proven this hypothesis.

Edit: After looking at it more closely, there would be an added horizontal force. Now, NIST needs to show that this force would be greater than the hurricane wind force the steel was designed for to cause inward deflection. As I don't know the entire design, this is where it gets fishy because we can't check if NIST's theory that this horizontal force is greater than the designed for hurricane wind force is true.


The NIST tested floor sections in furnaces with double loads. They did not fail in 2 hours. But they have not tested thme without fireproofing.

WHY NOT?

If they tesy without fireproofing and they still don't fail then their entire theory must be CRAP!

psik



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The theory is not that the floors failed, but the columns. In fact, the theory predicts that the floors did not fail, as when they fail their pulling force would also be gone, which is exactly the force that made the columns fail.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Please see my edits to that post. I had done a really basic diagram a few years ago. I was mistaken.

p.s. I like your rope analogy. But think of the rope as being pinned to the poles. Why would the pole fail before the pin?


edit on 19-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


That depends on the strength of the pins and ropes, and the weight the poles are carrying above them. If each pole is also supporting a heavy weight on top of them, and the rope is attached halve-way the poles, you will need a lot smaller force in order to make the poles fail than you would if the poles did not carry any weight. Like snapping a match between two fingers. When you try to do it directly, it will be very hard. When you slightly bend the match by exercising a small perpendicular force to the side of the match, it will snap easily. This additional force only needs to be strong enough to bent the match slightly, and can be much smaller than the force required to actually snap it.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You are forgetting all the other non-sagging floors that would brace the columns. Try your same analogy with the poles having poles (of the same material) between them like beams at regular intervals. It makes it really difficult to pull the vertical poles inward with just a rope and a few pins now doesn't it?

Take your match example. Place something to support the match on one side and try to break it as easily from the other side. There is a reason structures are braced and those non-sagging floor decks would have given the columns bracing.
edit on 19-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
double
edit on 19-12-2010 by -PLB- because: double



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You are forgetting all the other non-sagging floors that would brace the columns. Try your same analogy with the poles having poles (of the same material) between them like beams at regular intervals. It makes it really difficult to pull the vertical poles inward with just a rope and a few pins now doesn't it?

Take your match example. Place something to support the match on one side and try to break it as easily from the other side. There is a reason structures are braced and those non-sagging floor decks would have given the columns bracing.
edit on 19-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)


You make a good point, the length that the columns are "free" would be crucial. But with 2-3 floors compromised that length would be about 16 meters, which seems to me to be enough. Or course I can be convinced it isn't by some clever person showing me the physics, but as it is I don't see a major problem here.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You make good points as well.

p.s. I don't consider myself as a "truther". Just one who is interested in the topic. And I don't consider myself an expert, as you've seen, mistakes are easily made by humans (including myself).



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join