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 Azp420
Again I don't really follow you. I ask you to demonstrate that a truss with all members intact can not generate a significant pull in force when heated. You answer that you can't because every structural engineer already knows this, and then ask me to demonstrate why it would be possible. It is the direct result of the truss being in catenary action. Or do you deny that this is possible at all? If not, show why you claim the force as result of the catenary is negligible. I don't really see why I should be the one showing this as I rely on the work from others. I don't have the software they use, nor do I have their models, so I can not repeat the results. It is up to you to show it is impossible, or at least show how you come to this conclusion other than your intuition. Else its just a baseless assertion. As for the fireproofing, look at that paper (ok you reject it but still). The trusses with fireproofing doesn't suffer much at all.
Originally posted by Varemia
The majority of the time, the reasoning that is done by the people mentioned is based on faulty ideas and misconceptions due to the scale of the towers and how nobody has ever seen anything like 9/11 happen before.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why don't you demonstrate that it CAN generate a significant pull in LESS THAN TWO HOURS?
The only way to truly do what you suggest is make the trusses and leave off all fire proofing and test them in furnaces for two hours.
So why hasn't the NIST done that? Why should anyone BELIEVE the trusses could generate the pull force until it is PROVEN.
Is this a matter of people BELIEVING what they want until proven otherwise? Do we need to BELIEVE that skyscrapers must hold themselves up? Don't we all KNOW that? So why haven't we been told the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level?
Originally posted by NIcon
"What then happened after the inward bowing is there was a stage at which a critical amount of inward bowing took place, and the columns snapped. And essentially the columns, once they snapped, the inwardly-bowed columns suddenly sprung back and out."
www.pbs.org...
I'm trying to figure out if this is a faulty idea on Shyam's part. Or a misconception. Or a lie. Or disinformation. Or is it actually NIST's position.
Originally posted by NIcon
Did I say it's inconsistent? I just can't find anywhere in the NIST report about this "critical amount". All I see if 55 and 62 inches, nothing about a critical amount. Nor do I see anything about this "snapping." Nor do I see any analysis of these two points.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Because it is consistent with the science. I agree that it would have been great if they actually reproduced the whole mechanism and made actual measurements of the pull in forces or even column displacement. Reasons I can think of why they did not is that it is hard to reproduce a similar situation as there are several unknowns, and there is a limited budget and time available. The NIST report wasn't created to satisfy ever wish of you or me.
We believe many things without actually physically observing it.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How do you know it is consistent with the science if it has not been tested?
They tested 4 floor sections for 2 hours and they did not come close to collapse. But they were not bare of fire proofing. So if they try it without fireproofing and it still does not fail then their entire case blows up in their faces. It sounds like they need to not do the test and TALK, TALK, TALK, TALK.
So people can BELIEVE.
It is a semantic flaw in the English language in that we do not have two different words for KNOW where in one case we mean that we KNOW through personal experience versus KNOW due to a second hand source that we regard as reliable. But BELIEVE means something else. Plenty of people BELIEVE there is a God but what evidence do any of them have? There are plenty of blurry photographs of Pluto. Where is there a blurry photograph of God?
Physics is not about BELIEVING!!!
It can be TESTED!
www.youtube.com...
Where is a physical model that can completely collapse?
Originally posted by exponent
You need to have some evidence to start dismissing their results, not just i dont like it.
No, I already said that is rubbish and almost certainly a graphic image.
I see, so you're playing the typical truther 'my high school education and limited reasoning about the collapse means my physics theories are unassailable!'
You don't know what you are talking about. That much is clear given that all plane impact studies of the towers show core column damage from the plane, something you say is impossible.
Many trusses did fail, for a number of different reasons, but it was the failure of the outer wall that initiated the collapse, not the failure of trusses.
No, because I have done more than use my own personal incredulity and the soothing text of conspiracy websites. The only reason you believe their hypothesis contradicts itself is that you do not know what their hypothesis is.
How do you know it is consistent with the science if it has not been tested?
I ask you to demonstrate that a truss with all members intact can not generate a significant pull in force when heated.
Originally posted by Azp420
No matter what the deflection, if none of the members have failed, the truss is unable to generate pull-in force under this loading configuration.
The top chord cannot be in tension without transferring it to the bottom chord and putting that in compression.
It is the direct result of the truss being in catenary action. Or do you deny that this is possible at all?
I don't have the software they use, nor do I have their models, so I can not repeat the results. It is up to you to show it is impossible, or at least show how you come to this conclusion other than your intuition. Else its just a baseless assertion.
As for the fireproofing, look at that paper (ok you reject it but still). The trusses with fireproofing doesn't suffer much at all.
Originally posted by Azp420
Most fire proofing is not designed to offer much protection after about two hours anyway, and I'm sure there have been many fires around trusses lasting longer than that, or fires where trusses weren't fire proofed.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Why don't YOU demonstrate that it CAN'T?
See, we can go on all day here, Psikey.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
How do you know it is consistent with the science if it has not been tested?
Do you really think they need to test known reactions? We know what happens to steel when it is heated, believe it or not its been done before and the reactions are known.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Why don't YOU demonstrate that it CAN'T?
See, we can go on all day here, Psikey.
But you can't demonstrate anything. I demonstrated that a self supporting structure stops a small percentage of its mass trying to crush its own support. It is called experimentation. Does that have anything to do with SCIENCE?
www.youtube.com...
So where is your demonstration?
psik