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.

 

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 43
420
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I know enough details to understand their theory, why things could have happened as they say. I don't need to know how every individual column failed for that, nor the exact forces involved. Please provide me a better explanation than NIST's, or agree NIST provides the best explanation available. Not a one liner, a completely worked out theory.

As for me not reading your posts, you wrote you suddenly "remembered" NIST theory was different. So you agreed you had it wrong. After that you go on about how NIST misuses the term progressive collapse. Was that the reason you were confused? Then you call me a liar for saying you had their theory wrong.
edit on 10-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I know enough details to understand their theory, why things could have happened as they say. I don't need to know how every individual column failed for that, nor the exact forces involved.


But you might want to know if there were enough perimeter columns seen buckling before the collapse initiation to explain such an immediate onset of collapse, if their explanation is accurate. Don't you think that's kind of important?


Please provide me a better explanation than NIST's, or agree NIST provides the best explanation available. Not a one liner, a completely worked out theory.


The whole problem is that there is no "completely worked out theory" at this point in time. All there is, is trash, and speculation at best, all around. I'm not posting here saying "I have everything figured out, and here you go, now you what know happened." I'm posting saying, that if you think everything is already worked out, you're full of it. The sooner you understand that, the sooner we can avoid me having to repeat this over and over, because it's inherent to my entire position and it's going to keep coming up every time you keep misunderstanding me.


As for me not reading your posts, you wrote you suddenly "remembered" NIST theory was different. So you agreed you had it wrong.


No kidding, I told you as much myself, and I wasn't just blowing smoke up your ass.

Here's a thread of mine from 2006 where I discuss NIST's hypothesis: Truss Failure Theory Inconsistent; Critically Flawed


The buckling that existed pre-collapse was of a small number of perimeter columns, spread across different floors. This small number of buckled columns was obviously not enough to initiate a global collapse. Considering the great redundancy of the Towers, and all modern skyscrapers, the buckled columns observed pre-collapsed would have posed no real threat to global stability.

The buckling was also slow to come about, and did not result in any immediate failures of neighboring trusses.


So there you can see I'm posting about exactly what we're talking about now, over 4 years ago. I've had plenty of time to look through their report, and I have. And yet you keep wanting to perpetuate the lie that I haven't read it just because of a slip-up that I correctly in the post immediately afterward. You're just grasping at straws and trying to attack me with any opportunity you have because your own arguments are failing so badly and you know it.

Here's another thread of mine from 2007 where I show a source for the perimeter columns having a safety factor of 5, meaning they could have withstood about 5x their current loading, before reaching their yield strengths, also relevant to our discussion if you would only grow the fortitude to look at the NIST report yourself:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



After that you go on about how NIST misuses the term progressive collapse. Was that the reason you were confused?


That's what I said, because everyone on these forums seems to think "pancake theory" is still legitimate despite the fact that it doesn't fit with NIST's initiation hypothesis, and NIST does talk about "progressive collapse" but only in some undefined, extremely chaotic way that they just said was "inevitable" based on nothing.


Then you call me a liar for saying you had their theory wrong.


No, I call you a liar for saying I never read their report. And since you have been repeating that I haven't read their report, yes, you have been lying.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11But you might want to know if there were enough perimeter columns seen buckling before the collapse initiation to explain such an immediate onset of collapse, if their explanation is accurate. Don't you think that's kind of important?


Make your case why it wasn't enough.



The whole problem is that there is no "completely worked out theory" at this point in time. All there is, is trash, and speculation at best, all around. I'm not posting here saying "I have everything figured out, and here you go, now you what know happened." I'm posting saying, that if you think everything is already worked out, you're full of it. The sooner you understand that, the sooner we can avoid me having to repeat this over and over, because it's inherent to my entire position and it's going to keep coming up every time you keep misunderstanding me.


I don't think everything is worked out. My position is that NIST offers the most likely explanation. You agree to that. If not, offer a better one.


As for .... you have been lying.


Lying would be when I say you didn't read the report while I know you did. I didn't (and still don't) know for sure so I can't lie about it, I can only be incorrect about it. Know the difference. Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation. Your post strongly suggested you didn't read it. Forgetting something like the NIST theory doesn't include floors failing is rather a big mistake. If you had wrote "I phrased that incorrectly, I meant to say ...." then ok, sure everyone makes mistakes. But instead you said you just "remembered" it again. How can you forget something like that? Anyway, this isn't going anywhere, so I will just give you the benefit of the doubt that you did read it.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11But you might want to know if there were enough perimeter columns seen buckling before the collapse initiation to explain such an immediate onset of collapse, if their explanation is accurate. Don't you think that's kind of important?


Make your case why it wasn't enough.


It's not hard. The NIST report doesn't show enough buckling. They say themselves that the perimeter columns were at about 1/5 of their reserve capacity on the morning of 9/11. That translates to a safety factor of 5 (the reciprocal of 1/5), or that each column could have its loads increased about 5 times before reaching its yield strength.

So, the equivalent of about 1 out of every 5 columns in that area would have to be completely severed before their initiation theory would be relevant. And since they're talking buckling and not outright severance, it'd have to be even more buckled columns because buckled columns still carry some load, and not none.

It's straightforward and easy enough. All you have to do to debunk me is show where NIST, or anyone else, has shown that many perimeter columns buckled in the impacted areas before the sudden collapse initiation.




I don't think everything is worked out. My position is that NIST offers the most likely explanation. You agree to that. If not, offer a better one.


The NIST report was paid for with my taxes. I have a right to not be satisfied when what they report is hogwash, and it is not my responsibility to do an entire investigation in their absence of competence.

Unless you want to pay me so many tens of thousands of dollars, and give me some legal power to conduct an investigation, which I don't think you would be able to, then you might as well ask someone else to figure out what actually happened. Even though as it stands there is plenty of enough information in public domain to get a good idea anyway, with so many reports of explosions that damaged structure and injured people, from the basements up, in all 3 buildings.




As for .... you have been lying.


Lying would be when I say you didn't read the report while I know you did. I didn't (and still don't) know for sure so I can't lie about it, I can only be incorrect about it. Know the difference.


When you don't know something and intentionally make accusations based on nothing, that's also lying.


Your post strongly suggested you didn't read it.


Then you are a bad judge of things, but what else is new.


Forgetting something like the NIST theory doesn't include floors failing is rather a big mistake.


NIST doesn't say floors didn't fall, and NIST didn't publish a theory either, they published a hypothesis. Those are "rather big mistakes" too if you want to get picky. The fact remains that all of their work on the collapses was focused on initiation, and nothing beyond that. It's not my fault that most of you "debunkers" still erroneously believe in "pancake theory" so much that it would be that fresh on my mind.


If you had wrote "I phrased that incorrectly, I meant to say ...." then ok, sure everyone makes mistakes.


I corrected myself in the post immediately after, realizing what I had posted was wrong, and your correction was true, and you're still on a tirade about it because nothing else you are saying makes a damned bit of sense. Give it a rest already and focus your energy elsewhere.


But instead you said you just "remembered" it again. How can you forget something like that?


If you actually read the NIST report you would have some idea. They say virtually nothing about the global collapse progression. They focus almost entirely on the initiation mechanism only. It was a very narrow focus, and the prevailing theory beyond that initiation amongst the "debunkers" here is still somehow a variation of "pancake theory." Put two and two together some time and you might could use some of the energy spending ranting on this, on actually looking at how much mass was ejected from the towers, or even (god forbid) looking at the NIST report yourself.


Anyway, this isn't going anywhere, so I will just give you the benefit of the doubt that you did read it.


So the two threads on the NIST report from years ago didn't do anything for you? Do you want me to go dig up more posts so you can enjoy some more crow pie?

Better yet, why don't you just go look at the NIST report yourself so you can stop being such a hypocrite?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's not hard. ... sudden collapse initiation.


The columns lost their load capacity because the were heated and bowed inward, as has been observed using photographic evidence. That is what caused them to fail. Where exactly did you read the columns never exceeded 1/5 of their reserve capacity in the NIST report?


The NIST report ...in all 3 buildings.


The truth movement has been around for years, and not a single person has succeeded in creating a coherent alternative theory that explains the events better than NIST. The truth movement behaves like a bunch of incompetent laymen that is completely dependent on the government if they want to get anything done. If all truthers in the US paid 10 dollar you would end up with about 300 million dollar to start an investigation. If you run out you ask for another 10 dollar.

The rest of your response is like I said, going nowhere.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
The columns lost their load capacity because the were heated and bowed inward, as has been observed using photographic evidence. That is what caused them to fail.


Nope, sorry. Not even according to NIST. Read the report for chrissakes, even the summary you linked me to.

Their hypothesis is that the trusses heated and sagged, and pulled the exterior columns inward. There was not enough heat to cause the steel columns themselves to soften enough to fail, even according to NIST.

They showed photos of this alleged buckling mechanism, some better and some worse, but they didn't show nearly enough to account for the safety factor I just described to you. If you don't understand the terms I'm using, use a search engine and look up what they mean.


Where exactly did you read the columns never exceeded 1/5 of their reserve capacity in the NIST report?


I posted a thread I made from years ago with the information above. Once again, learn to read my posts buddy.

It doesn't say they never exceeded 1/5 of their capacity, it says on the morning of 9/11, before the attacks, that's about what they were at. So that's the starting point. From there, to the yield strength, you have to increase their loading by 5 times. That equates to a lot of columns being completely compromised, or even more if we're only talking buckling.


The truth movement has been around for years, and not a single person has succeeded in creating a coherent alternative theory that explains the events better than NIST.


Sure, go on your rant now instead of addressing the problems with the NIST report. I don't want to hear your sob story about how all these crazy theories are bewildering you. You won't even read the official reports. I don't have sympathy.
edit on 10-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Nope, sorry. Not even according to NIST. Read the report for chrissakes, even the summary you linked me to.

Their hypothesis is that the trusses heated and sagged, and pulled the exterior columns inward. There was not enough heat to cause the steel columns themselves to soften enough to fail, even according to NIST.

They showed photos of this alleged buckling mechanism, some better and some worse, but they didn't show nearly enough to account for the safety factor I just described to you. If you don't understand the terms I'm using, use a search engine and look up what they mean.


The trusses pulling were indeed the cause that the columns bowed inward, that is not conflicting in any way with what I wrote.


I posted a thread I made from years ago with the information above. Once again, learn to read my posts buddy.

It doesn't say they never exceeded 1/5 of their capacity, it says on the morning of 9/11, before the attacks, that's about what they were at. So that's the starting point. From there, to the yield strength, you have to increase their loading by 5 times. That equates to a lot of columns being completely compromised, or even more if we're only talking buckling.


Or maybe you should be a bit more clear as the collapses also happened during the morning. And no, their load did not need to increase 5 times as the bowing and heating lowered their load capacity. (and yes, the bowing was caused by the sagging trusses pulling, just saying to be sure).

So there we are, we have a full explanation why the collapse happened.


Sure, go on your rant now instead of addressing the problems with the NIST report. I don't want to hear your sob story about how all these crazy theories are bewildering you. You won't even read the official reports. I don't have sympathy.


The truth isn't always what we want it to be. So I take that you acknowledge that NIST offers the best explanation too, even though there may be flaws in it?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Says who? A real investigation is needed to determine the cause of collapse. So far there has not been one. The NIST report is an opinion paper. They did not even conduct any testing for explosives, which in itself is a huge red flag and they did not release the data on how they produced their report. I can see why many PH.Ds are dissatisfied with the non investigation and want an investigation.

NIST isnt just flawed, instead of looking for the facts and drawing conclusions, they were given a conclusion and put anything in it, that in their opinions supports that conclusion. Even the former head of NIST thinks there needs to be a proper investigation.
edit on 10-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


By all means, go for it, I will only support it. But its not going to happen as long as the truth movement is doing nothing more than complain about it.
edit on 10-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
The trusses pulling were indeed the cause that the columns bowed inward, that is not conflicting in any way with what I wrote.


You said "The columns lost their load capacity because the [sic] were heated and bowed inward," and I don't see anything about trusses in there.

Also you are stating this as if it's a fact. It's not. It's a hypothesis. That's an important distinction to make. Even if you think it's the best hypothesis out there and there's no point in criticizing it, it's still just a hypothesis.


Or maybe you should be a bit more clear as the collapses also happened during the morning. And no, their load did not need to increase 5 times as the bowing and heating lowered their load capacity. (and yes, the bowing was caused by the sagging trusses pulling, just saying to be sure).


You're not getting it. Yes, the loads had to increase equivalent to 5 times the loading, which is exactly what I said if you go back and read. And "equivalent" means it doesn't have to just be weight redistribution. We are also taking into account buckling, heating, and whatever else you want to consider. There is no way of getting around that, and buckling and heating are both taken into account on a curve graph demonstrating changes in yield strength with temperature.

Look:



A column has to be uniformly heated beyond 600 C just to get halfway to its yield strength. It still carries loads when it's heated, it just carries proportionally less of its yield strength, but that yield strength still has to be reached, before even permanent deformations begin to occur.

Remember, NIST says the perimeter columns (not just some, but a generalization of the whole perimeter structure) was carrying approximately 1/5 of their design loads. That means, again, you could increase this by a factor of 5, including the equivalent loss of integrity from buckling or heating, before all the columns begin to permanently deform from overloading.

This doesn't have to just happen to some columns, it has to happen to a large majority of columns in order for the whole perimeter structure to lose equivalent of 4/5 of its integrity, taking the remaining columns all the way up to their yield strength when we were already given that they were only carrying 1/5 of their design capacity before all this hypothetically started happening.

Buckling is the exact same. Buckled columns still carry loads, just not as much as they normally would.


So again... bottom line, you have the same situation.

NIST says the perimeter columns were carrying 1/5 of their design loads. I think that's a conservative estimate because the original engineers said there were columns (most definitely perimeter columns) that had FoS ratings of up to 20.

You have to 100% compromise the structural integrity of the equivalent of 4/5 of the perimeter columns, in order to begin to get permanent deformations.

You have to compromise even more columns than that when you are talking about heating and buckling, because those columns still carry some loads, whether it's 50%, 40%, 30%, etc., depending on the deflection angle and/or heating. And btw there is data in the NIST report on this, and no, the columns were not significantly heated, even in their models. They say the trusses were, not the columns. There is no physical evidence of the columns being heated to these temperatures either, and NIST did look at them for this.


So there we are, we have a full explanation why the collapse happened.


No, instead we have a very confused individual who hasn't even read the NIST report, and doesn't understand that the 4/5 capacity in reserve still has to be compromised, one way or another. It doesn't just go away because you don't feel like thinking about it.


The truth isn't always what we want it to be. So I take that you acknowledge that NIST offers the best explanation too, even though there may be flaws in it?


What is the value in it being "the best," when it's the only report, aside from FEMA doing their preliminary work? I guess if it's the best, then it must be the worst too, huh? It's not like there was any other investigation here. It only offers a hypothesis, and that hypothesis doesn't make sense and has absolutely 0 evidence to support it.
edit on 10-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You said "The columns lost their load capacity because the [sic] were heated and bowed inward," and I don't see anything about trusses in there.


And you are calling me a liar and telling me to read better? I clearly said heated and bowed, which are the two factors relevant for their support capacity.


You're not getting it. Yes, the loads had to increase equivalent to 5 times the loading, which is exactly what I said if you go back and read. And "equivalent" means it doesn't have to just be weight redistribution. We are also taking into account buckling, heating, and whatever else you want to consider. There is no way of getting around that, and buckling and heating are both taken into account on a curve graph demonstrating changes in yield strength with temperature.


Firstly, you did not say equivalent in the part I quoted. Secondly, a load is a force. When you weaken a column this force remains the same. The load capacity of the column however does change. You said "you have to increase their loading by 5 times" which is wrong. Reading the rest of your reaction, it seems you just made a small mistake, as you do seem to understand it. No biggy, but the way you react is disingenuous, as if I am twisting your words.


Look:

There is no physical evidence of the columns being heated to these temperatures either, and NIST did look at them for this.


So you would accept the theory if you are convinced that a "majority of columns" is compromised sufficiently. What would be a majority of columns exactly? How do you determine this? And how much is the NIST explanation off from your minimal requirement?


No, instead we have a very confused individual who hasn't even read the NIST report, and doesn't understand that the 4/5 capacity in reserve still has to be compromised, one way or another. It doesn't just go away because you don't feel like thinking about it.


Get a grip. Constantly (falsely) attacking you opponents intellect is a tactic used by losers. Just so you know.


What is the value in it being "the best," when it's the only report, aside from FEMA doing their preliminary work? I guess if it's the best, then it must be the worst too, huh? It's not like there was any other investigation here. It only offers a hypothesis, and that hypothesis doesn't make sense and has absolutely 0 evidence to support it.


Yet it makes more sense than anything any truther has ever been able to produce. So if NIST is crap, the truth movement is even more crap. And 0 evidence is of course untrue, and I think you know it is.
What I don't understand is the endless whining about this. Go organize an investigation for crying out loud. Find investors, start a fund. A government funded investigation will be rejected anyhow if the conclusion is not what truthers want it to be.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
You said "The columns lost their load capacity because the [sic] were heated and bowed inward," and I don't see anything about trusses in there.


And you are calling me a liar and telling me to read better? I clearly said heated and bowed, which are the two factors relevant for their support capacity.


I didn't say you were lying on this point, but you never said anything about the trusses, you only said the columns heated and bowed. 1) The heating of the columns had nothing to do with it because they weren't heated enough to cause significant integrity loss even according to NIST, 2) their whole hypothesis hinges around the trusses doing all the work and you didn't even mention the trusses at all.

When are you actually going to read the report? All this time spent bickering with me, and you don't even know what you're talking about, when you could've spent the exact same time learning what it says for yourself. That's pretty damned ridiculous if you ask me, but then again typical.



You're not getting it. Yes, the loads had to increase equivalent to 5 times the loading, which is exactly what I said if you go back and read. And "equivalent" means it doesn't have to just be weight redistribution. We are also taking into account buckling, heating, and whatever else you want to consider. There is no way of getting around that, and buckling and heating are both taken into account on a curve graph demonstrating changes in yield strength with temperature.


Firstly, you did not say equivalent in the part I quoted.


Then learn to read my posts, for the 3rd or 4th time already. Just because you don't put something in quotes doesn't mean I'm still not talking to you.



So, the equivalent of about 1 out of every 5 columns in that area would have to be completely severed before their initiation theory would be relevant. And since they're talking buckling and not outright severance, it'd have to be even more buckled columns because buckled columns still carry some load, and not none.


And even though I posted that, when you responded I had to explain it again because you totally disregarded it or didn't understand it.



Secondly, a load is a force. When you weaken a column this force remains the same. The load capacity of the column however does change.


I know a load is a force and I never said that the capacity didn't change. I said the safety factor doesn't go away. Big difference. And neither does the safety factor go away on all the other columns, just because one column is severed, buckled, or even heated. It may reduce because of redistributed loads, but by how much? I don't know whether you're beating around the bush because you honestly don't understand what you're talking about, or whether you understand and you're just beating around the bush to avoid yourself the trouble of thinking about what I am actually pointing out to you.


You said "you have to increase their loading by 5 times" which is wrong.


Not hardly because those columns weren't actually heated to 600 C or anything remotely near it. The hypothesis was that the trusses must have been. I was trying to explain something (that those columns still carry loads anyway, even if buckled or heated, and don't even count towards being 100% compromised when readjusting the remaining reserve capacity) that obviously didn't sink in. Go ahead and try to prove you're right without having to read the report some other way.


Reading the rest of your reaction, it seems you just made a small mistake, as you do seem to understand it. No biggy, but the way you react is disingenuous, as if I am twisting your words.


You are twisting my words, either that or you just don't understand what I'm trying to point out, though I'd say the latter is more likely...



Look:

There is no physical evidence of the columns being heated to these temperatures either, and NIST did look at them for this.


So you would accept the theory if you are convinced that a "majority of columns" is compromised sufficiently. What would be a majority of columns exactly? How do you determine this? And how much is the NIST explanation off from your minimal requirement?


Good god. Are you serious?

I don't even want to answer this, because I already answered this exact freaking question 2 or 3 posts earlier.

READ. MY. POSTS.

The perimeter columns were at 1/5 of their reserve capacity before the attacks, according to NIST. That's how you know how many columns would have to be compromised!!!! You have to exceed the yield strength by reducing all of that reserve capacity to less than 1/1!!!



No, instead we have a very confused individual who hasn't even read the NIST report, and doesn't understand that the 4/5 capacity in reserve still has to be compromised, one way or another. It doesn't just go away because you don't feel like thinking about it.


Get a grip. Constantly (falsely) attacking you opponents intellect is a tactic used by losers. Just so you know.


Where is the attack here?
You must be getting desperate. Why don't you respond to the reserve capacity I'm talking about? For the love of god, it's what my whole point is, and the last question you just asked me shows that you either don't understand it or are totally ignoring it on purpose.


Yet it makes more sense than anything any truther has ever been able to produce.


Again according to someone who has never even read the report. Again, typical "reasoning" from a believer.


So if NIST is crap, the truth movement is even more crap.


I would agree, with the caveat that your conception of the "truth movement" is crap. You were wrong as soon as you started lumping together totally different people into one convenient group for dismissing. If you think the "truth movement" is some formal organization with a standard set of beliefs then you've really lost touch to yourself. I don't believe the planes were holograms but I don't guess that computes in your worldview, "truther" is just "truther" and you ignore us all no matter what we might say. What a brilliant way to "think," huh?


What I don't understand is the endless whining about this.


Me neither. Especially when you haven't even read the report you faithfully believe in, and just seem to want to prove to me that it's right anyway. I don't understand either. If all this "whining" really bothers you then you're always free to take your faith to some other part of ATS.
edit on 11-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The perimeter columns were at 1/5 of their reserve capacity before the attacks, according to NIST. That's how you know how many columns would have to be compromised!!!! You have to exceed the yield strength by reducing all of that reserve capacity to less than 1/1!!!


So how many columns needed to exceed their load capacity and where do these columns need to be located according to you for the collapse to initiate? And how many exceeded their load capacity according to NIST and where were they located according to NIST?

The rest of your post is extremely irrelevant so is ignored.
edit on 11-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So how many columns needed to exceed their load capacity


Do the math.

All perimeter columns generalized at approximately 1/5 of their capacity prior to the attacks.

Take away every other column on those floors (from the original 240, down to 120), and you have doubled the loads being transferred through the remaining columns on those floors.

That would take them to 2/5 of their capacity, ie two times 1/5, twice the original loading.

You see where this is going yet? I'm trying to make it simple for you so you can figure this out yourself.

Take away every other column from the remaining columns (going from 120 down to 60, 1/4 of the original number), and now the columns are at 4/5 of their reserve capacity. Almost to the yield strength!


And yes, forces add linearly as long as they applied in the same direction, which they are in this case (straight down to the columns below). This is because the total weight being experienced by the structure has not changed, only the number of columns able to carry this weight.


And when you don't completely take away columns, but they're only buckled, then they still carry some load which doesn't subtract from the remaining capacity of the other columns. Say you have a column that's buckled to a very obtuse angle and so still has 80% of its capacity. Only 20% of the normal capacity is transferred and divided amongst all the remaining columns.



and where do these columns need to be located according to you for the collapse to initiate?


You just show me how many buckled columns you can see anywhere on the building first, and then we'll talk about where they would hypothetically have to all be in order to cause what we saw according to NIST. Baby steps, because I don't want to have to keep repeating myself so many times because you focus on one thing at the expense of another like I have been through the last 4 or 5 posts.



And how many exceeded their load capacity according to NIST and where were they located according to NIST?


Look at their photographs in their report. They didn't show nearly enough buckling. That's the whole problem. So they never counted. They just assumed enough of them eventually buckled even if they didn't see it all, in the same bigoted way you assume their report is accurate without even reading it. Faith is apparently rampant all up and down the ranks of official story supporters.
edit on 11-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by -PLB-
So how many columns needed to exceed their load capacity


Do the math.

All perimeter columns generalized at approximately 1/5 of their capacity prior to the attacks.

Take away every other column on those floors (from the original 240, down to 120), and you have doubled the loads being transferred through the remaining columns on those floors.

That would take them to 2/5 of their capacity, ie two times 1/5, twice the original loading.

You see where this is going yet? I'm trying to make it simple for you so you can figure this out yourself.

Take away every other column from the remaining columns (going from 120 down to 60, 1/4 of the original number), and now the columns are at 4/5 of their reserve capacity. Almost to the yield strength!


And yes, forces add linearly as long as they applied in the same direction, which they are in this case (straight down to the columns below). This is because the total weight being experienced by the structure has not changed, only the number of columns able to carry this weight.


And when you don't completely take away columns, but they're only buckled, then they still carry some load which doesn't subtract from the remaining capacity of the other columns. Say you have a column that's buckled to a very obtuse angle and so still has 80% of its capacity. Only 20% of the normal capacity is transferred and divided amongst all the remaining columns.



and where do these columns need to be located according to you for the collapse to initiate?


You just show me how many buckled columns you can see anywhere on the building first, and then we'll talk about where they would hypothetically have to all be in order to cause what we saw according to NIST. Baby steps, because I don't want to have to keep repeating myself so many times because you focus on one thing at the expense of another like I have been through the last 4 or 5 posts.



And how many exceeded their load capacity according to NIST and where were they located according to NIST?


Look at their photographs in their report. They didn't show nearly enough buckling. That's the whole problem. So they never counted. They just assumed enough of them eventually buckled even if they didn't see it all, in the same bigoted way you assume their report is accurate without even reading it. Faith is apparently rampant all up and down the ranks of official story supporters.
edit on 11-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

That is the whole point of this thread, it's a basis for reasoning an alternative as to how the entire building came down, and that's where the NIST report stops short, as it deals only with their reckoning of a trigger of collapse of the upper portion. It is assumed that the rest of the building had to fall because of the mass of the upper part failure impinging on that below when it's quite clear that it did not do that in a straightforward way. Since the core remained, seemingly intact and momentarily, it was not crushed from above, in a singular fashion at least. When it did fall it is reminiscent of the fall of WTC7 as observed, down and still intact, but not straight down although it looks like that, in about the only video pic available. Bill Biggert's still pic shows it then also falling over. Basically none of the three buildings came straight down, although WTC7 came as close. The core then is interesting that it also fell far beyond its centre of gravity, yet it was completely free of the outer tube and all appendages, and it's fall and imbalance seems to be from below, and whatever anomalous weights there were within the core structure, yet it was not important enough to discuss even in thesis in any report.

edit on 11-1-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do the math.
...
Only 20% of the normal capacity is transferred and divided amongst all the remaining columns.


It is a nice story, but you ignore the effect an uneven load would have. Ten compromised columns that are next to each other will put a much higher load on the subsequent columns than when the ten compromised columns are evenly spread over a complete wall. So your explanation is not adequate.


You just show me how many buckled columns you can see anywhere on the building first, .....


I count at least 16 columns, but most of the wall is obscured by smoke in the image provided by NIST, so I am unable to give an accurate amount. You can however see that the columns are affected in other images.


Look at their photographs in their report. They didn't show nearly enough buckling. That's the whole problem. So they never counted. They just assumed enough of them eventually buckled even if they didn't see it all, in the same bigoted way you assume their report is accurate without even reading it. Faith is apparently rampant all up and down the ranks of official story supporters.


They did actually count and came to a number of 18+. And they estimate that about 54 bowed inward.

So far you haven't come with anything that invalidates NIST's explanation. You only have claimed that there is evidence lacking, but not that there is evidence contradicting. Do you agree it could have happened as NIST explains? Or do you think that even when 54 columns as NIST estimates were compromised, it still would not initiate collapse? Or do you have a specific reason why you think NISTs estimation is incorrect? What is your estimation?
edit on 11-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do the math.
...
Only 20% of the normal capacity is transferred and divided amongst all the remaining columns.


It is a nice story, but you ignore the effect an uneven load would have.


Right, I figured you would try this next, but there weren't enough columns missing anywhere for the initiation to begin. Every intact column could withstand having loads increased 5x from missing or buckled columns, so that equates to having to mess up a lot of damned columns in order to actually reach a yield strength anywhere on the perimeter face.

I'm going to keep asking you to show me where this massive amount of buckled columns was. Use the NIST report if you grow the spine to actually read it as opposed to spending the same time just endlessly bickering with me here.

Show the buckling, and then we can talk about whether or not there was enough. Until then all you are doing is telling "a nice story," ie a hypothesis that you automatically have faith in but so far haven't shown a shred of proof for.


Ten compromised columns that are next to each other


... could have their entire slack picked up by the nearest 3 intact columns, without any of those even reaching their yield strength. And that's assuming those 10 columns being 100% severed.

Are you seeing how futile this is yet?

Show me the buckling joker. You can preach all day and I'm not going to be converted to your faith without facts. No buckling = no facts. Not enough buckling = no evidence.




You just show me how many buckled columns you can see anywhere on the building first, .....


I count at least 16 columns


Out of 240 on those floors and some 60 on each face, you're going to have count more than that to justify your faith.


but most of the wall is obscured by smoke


Find other pictures then. Smoke moves you know, constantly.


They did actually count and came to a number of 18+. And they estimate that about 54 bowed inward.


Again, out of 240 total, and 60 on each face, where every intact column could take on 100% of the loads of 4 additional columns before even beginning to permanently deform.

And for all of those bowed columns, they still carry loads. It could vary from carrying 1% of their loads to 99% of their loads, depending on the angle.


So far you haven't come with anything that invalidates NIST's explanation.


Excuse me? I'm telling you what is required for NIST's hypothesis to have any supporting evidence to begin with, by their own data. This isn't about me invalidating NIST. They were never valid to begin with. And that's something you have yet to refute.


You only have claimed that there is evidence lacking, but not that there is evidence contradicting.


The number of intact columns contradicts their hypothesis.


Do you agree it could have happened as NIST explains?


No. But if they proved it, then I would have to believe it. They didn't even validate their hypothesized physical mechanism that heated trusses could pull the exterior columns inward to begin with. That was another assumption that they never verified. When a truss heats up it doesn't gain weight you know, so there is no reason to assume the tension forces it was exerting horizontally would increase, and we already covered the fact that the columns themselves were not sufficiently heated for significant integrity loss. It's back to square one.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do the math.
...
Only 20% of the normal capacity is transferred and divided amongst all the remaining columns.


It is a nice story, but you ignore the effect an uneven load would have. Ten compromised columns that are next to each other will put a much higher load on the subsequent columns than when the ten compromised columns are evenly spread over a complete wall. So your explanation is not adequate.


You just show me how many buckled columns you can see anywhere on the building first, .....


I count at least 16 columns, but most of the wall is obscured by smoke in the image provided by NIST, so I am unable to give an accurate amount. You can however see that the columns are affected in other images.


Look at their photographs in their report. They didn't show nearly enough buckling. That's the whole problem. So they never counted. They just assumed enough of them eventually buckled even if they didn't see it all, in the same bigoted way you assume their report is accurate without even reading it. Faith is apparently rampant all up and down the ranks of official story supporters.


They did actually count and came to a number of 18+. And they estimate that about 54 bowed inward.

So far you haven't come with anything that invalidates NIST's explanation. You only have claimed that there is evidence lacking, but not that there is evidence contradicting. Do you agree it could have happened as NIST explains? Or do you think that even when 54 columns as NIST estimates were compromised, it still would not initiate collapse? Or do you have a specific reason why you think NISTs estimation is incorrect? What is your estimation?
edit on 11-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


PLB you are boring the ass off me, figuratively speaking of course. Way back in this thread you did ask for something in a salient way. Now all you have done since doing is prevaricate, that is strange. NIST is not an explanation, (it may have been be presented as such, for public salivation and we are all victims of that) it is but their take on the event, and is incomplete. ipso facto. You also cannot take any explanation in isolation in the circumstances leading up to 9/11 as it was known it was going to happen, and that other than 'planes might have been used, and that the self same scenario was being played out on the same day in war games. I asked you before to figure out what happened to the concrete...not cement btw, now figure out how the core remained standing briefly on it's todd, and how people knew it was going to happen, and that even more people were there on the day to take pretty pictures?
edit on 11-1-2011 by smurfy because: Omissions.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
... could have their entire slack picked up by the nearest 3 intact columns, without any of those even reaching their yield strength. And that's assuming those 10 columns being 100% severed.

Are you seeing how futile this is yet?


So you acknowledge that the position of the compromised columns is vital to how the load is transfered to the intact columns. Lets see how futile it is exactly. How large would be the load on subsequent columns if 54 in a row were compromised? That would be a problem wouldn't it? Especially when the top section starts tilting, which was observed, putting not only the load of the compromised columns on them, but also additional load from columns that are released of load.



Excuse me? I'm telling you what is required for NIST's hypothesis to have any supporting evidence to begin with, by their own data. This isn't about me invalidating NIST. They were never valid to begin with. And that's something you have yet to refute.


Did you miss the evidence showing columns bowing inward?


The number of intact columns contradicts their hypothesis.


I can also make claims out of the blue: The number of compromised columns validates their hypothesis. You will have to do better than that. How many columns were still intact? How was the load of the compromised columns transfered to subsequent columns?


No. But if they proved it, then I would have to believe it. They didn't even validate their hypothesized physical mechanism that heated trusses could pull the exterior columns inward to begin with. That was another assumption that they never verified. When a truss heats up it doesn't gain weight you know, so there is no reason to assume the tension forces it was exerting horizontally would increase, and we already covered the fact that the columns themselves were not sufficiently heated for significant integrity loss. It's back to square one.


There actually is a very good reason to assume that horizontal forces increase. Cold trusses behave more like a stiff body, heated trusses behave more like a rope. Besides that, there is photographic evidence for bowing columns. Unless you have a better explanation for that, pulling trusses is the most likely candidate.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So you acknowledge that the position of the compromised columns is vital to how the load is transfered to the intact columns. Lets see how futile it is exactly. How large would be the load on subsequent columns if 54 in a row were compromised?


Or better yet, how about we just divide the floors in half and remove all the columns on one side?



Problem is, that didn't happen.

And what a damned troublesome problem that is for you.


Even assuming 54 columns were significantly buckled (which is why I asked for photos, not for you to go read parts of the report finally and report back to me what it says) then that's not anywhere near the same as 54 columns that are 100% compromised. Read my posts.



Excuse me? I'm telling you what is required for NIST's hypothesis to have any supporting evidence to begin with, by their own data. This isn't about me invalidating NIST. They were never valid to begin with. And that's something you have yet to refute.


Did you miss the evidence showing columns bowing inward?


Did you miss how many there weren't?



The number of intact columns contradicts their hypothesis.


I can also make claims out of the blue: The number of compromised columns validates their hypothesis.


And it wouldn't conform with their own data on the reserve capacities of the columns. See the difference? No, of course you don't.


There actually is a very good reason to assume that horizontal forces increase. Cold trusses behave more like a stiff body, heated trusses behave more like a rope.


That changes nothing about the forces represented at the connection of the truss and perimeter columns. I don't guess you've had physics 101 either then. Please tell me how you increase the amount of force an object is exerting due to its weight, without changing its weight, and when changing the angle at the connection would only stress the connection itself and not increase the load experienced by the column. It doesn't matter what shape it changes into or whether it's hanging like a wet noodle in your imagination.


Besides that, there is photographic evidence for bowing columns.


An inadequate number, caused by a mechanism which was never verified as even being plausible.




top topics



 
420
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join