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 -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11
Your analysis makes no sense. Why would there be a horizontal component at all when the trusses are still stiff? There would only be a vertical component. A horizontal component only exists when the trusses become soft and start sagging.
I am sorry but it seems I just can't explain this concept. I am not a physics teacher and teaching is not my specialty. If I can't get this point across so be it.
Elastic/Plastic Deformation
When a sufficient load is applied to a metal or other structural material, it will cause the material to change shape. This change in shape is called deformation. A temporary shape change that is self-reversing after the force is removed, so that the object returns to its original shape, is called elastic deformation. In other words, elastic deformation is a change in shape of a material at low stress that is recoverable after the stress is removed. This type of deformation involves stretching of the bonds, but the atoms do not slip past each other.
When the stress is sufficient to permanently deform the metal, it is called plastic deformation.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Nutter
It seems to me that the columns were also heated and weakened. Whether the horizontal force as result of sagging was enough to make columns bow as much inward as was observed is a bit out of my league to determine, so can't comment on that. One other theory I read is that after the trusses were deformed and started cooling down again as fires became less intense, they contracted and started pulling even more. That would require a plastic deformation.edit on 12-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ANOKNope, that would be elastic deformation.
There is NO horizontal force from sagging trusses, already explained.
If the trusses tried to contract, why would that force be stronger than the beams themselves, and why would they contract to a size smaller than they started as?
(You should really be asking yourself these questions before you go around acting like you know what you're talking about.)edit on 1/12/2011 by ANOK because: typo
It seems to me that the columns were also heated and weakened.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Lets just disagree then. To me the free body diagrams nutter drew make perfect sense. The ones of bsbray11 don't.
Because they are deformed. I don't know the forces, I read this in an article.
Thanks for the advice, even though I was already following it.
Originally posted by ANOK
The free body diagram does not account for the SAGGING. The trusses are no longer rigid, and do not maintain the same horizontal forces. The diagram was not related to our discussion, but the one you were having with bsbray.
Then this is just more proof you are happy to accept 'something you read' because it fits what you want to believe.
That is our difference, I don't just read things and accept, or reject, them based on my feelings.
Deformation is not going to cause steel to compress in size. Materials will expand but can only return to their original size when cooled. Lots of mechanical devises would fail if that wasn't a fact.
Obviously not, as has already been proven, but just like every other detail you probably didn't notice. When you try to use things that you read somewhere, but don't understand, then you are not following my advice, are you? You are simply being biased and will use ANYTHING you think will keep your argument going. You are following the exact same pattern that all the other resident debunkers followed, what was your old user name(s)?
The trusses were deformed in the shape of a parabola. When you bent a piece of metal in the shape of a parabola the total width becomes shorter
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by plube
Assuming your post was addressed to me, determining the velocity would not be that hard indeed. With the slowing down you raise up a good point. I would say the reason you do not see a slowdown is because it is so minor you just can't see it. A bit like when a truck hits a car, you don't really see the truck slow down. And maybe there are some elastic deformations doing on.
Originally posted by plube
I want to see this Truss
don't give us this obsured crud...because as you say if you believe the NIST report they use the same techniques to publish their paper. And are you also saying that any Engineer who does not agree with the nist or Bazant reports are not qualified. (rubbish).
all points are measured...now once again...for the Bazant paper to be valid...CRUSH UP DOES NOT OCCUR until the CRUSH DOWN phase has been completed...now just as Anok has so kindly shown you a top down collapse...the building floor is pulled from beneath the upper section...the upper section falls....impacts the lower section INTACT...it decelerates...then proceeds INTACT downward through the resisting lower structure.
I am not sure why you get pleasure in being so blind...and why you feel anyone one of us is not qualified.
you still have not answered once why you lied about who you are...you have said your and Engineers...I have shown you have said you have a masters...you have said you Know your maths...yet you have been shown to be completely out of touch with what you say.
So please show you know what your talking about in some possible way so people will even want to hear what you have to say.