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 Nutter
bsbray11. Look up Verinage and explain how the French do it then.
Only that I agree that once collapse started, there was not much to stop it.
With a couple key elements taken out (the core for one) it would fall just like we saw.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Griff stated the same thing repeatedly. Did you question him too, or accept his view?
Originally posted by Nutter
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you saying 20 floors worth of trusses and other live and dead loads just up and plummeted at the same instant? How!?
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by Nutter
I don't know why the jumping on me when I have the SAME questions about initiation as you.
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)
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)
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.
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)