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.

 

The NIST report, start to finish

page: 16
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Since load is applied at the top of the truss forces are transferred via the diagonals to the bottom chord. A top chord in tension would put the bottom chord in compression. This means the top chord would also have to carry any load in bending which is not being carried by catenary action. I've shown it does not have the capacity to do this.

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is an unheard of phenomenon and I was unaware of it until this thread. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I've yet to see how it would be possible in this case. All my calculations and visualizations thus far indicate that it is not possible, although the possibility exists that I may be missing something.


The way I see it (I must admit this is rather based on my intuition, so can well be wrong): the transition between regular load and catenary is gradual. You can have top chord in compression and lower chord in tension, and have some degree of catenary action. The compression in the top chord is not uniform (see fig4). The sections that are connected to the columns can be in tension while the rest is in compression. It seems to me any configuration of regular load and catenary is possible, limited by truss failure.

Although, I think you are better of discussing this with people who are better educated in this area, and possibly who did research on this subject. I can't be 100% certain you are wrong, but from my position there is the opinion of an anonymous person on a forum versus the opinion the engineers at NIST and a at least one published paper (there are more) from a university.


I can't quickly just whip up these kinds of models either, but I can determine if they are plausible based on their published results. I showed mathematically how I came to my conclusion.


Fair enough. But as you know I think your calculations are questionable.



The protected simulations only ran for 60 minutes.


Maybe this will interest you. I found it while searching something else. Its not the government did it type of conspiracy, but it may contain the issue you are addressing. (I did not have the time to read it myself).




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

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


How many effing times does this have to be disproven? Your model has NOTHING to do with the collapse dynamics of the towers. They didn't crush down like that AT ALL. It's called a BAD EXPERIMENT.


It has NEVER been disproven. You just TALK and expect to be believed. The washers have mass and inertia and the paper loops must support the weight. Anybody that wants to can try to make the supports weaker.

So let's see you make a model that DOES CRUSH DOWN.

Didn't the top of the north tower supposedly come down and destroy everything below? Well if that is IMPOSSIBLE then no one will be able to build a model that does it. So if you CLAIM a 200 ton airliner and resulting fire could destroy a 400,000+ ton building in less than two hours then show us a model demonstrating how it could be done.

The physics profession has spent NINE YEARS making a fool of itself by not demanding accurate distribution of steel and concrete data. How can anybody make an accurate model without that? Mine is built as weak as possible so it should be more likely to collapse than the WTC, but it did not come close. Did the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM suddenly become irrelevant on 9/11?

LOL

Computer models can be programmed so as to ignore real physics but physical models cannot.

psik



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So, now you think all the computer simulations that you wanted so bad are faked? Your washer experiment is one of the funniest things I have ever seen to show what happened on 9/11. It shows how physics works but it is not applicable to that day. Your model is incorrect and reminds me of a 4th grade science project.

It also shows one law of physics, and that is all. Multiple laws of physics were involved that day as well as multiple events that led to the collapse and need to be included in the calculations you make.No one does. You keep talking about concrete and steel used. I gave you links to the blueprints, the original list of contracts and who did what as well as steel types used per floor. Problem is you do not know where to start as well as the many of you on here who simply feel they can say it did not apply to the laws of physics when it did.

Columns were severed. Read this book.
www.amazon.com...
There are eyewitness accounts from those who escaped that day and saw the damage, lucky to be alive.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I hope you realize you are making an argument from ignorance here. Just because you don't know how to build a model that collapses all the way down doesn't mean it is impossible, or even hard to do. Although don't think anyone is going to build such a model just to convince you. I am just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold any water.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I hope you realize you are making an argument from ignorance here. Just because you don't know how to build a model that collapses all the way down doesn't mean it is impossible, or even hard to do. Although don't think anyone is going to build such a model just to convince you. I am just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold any water.


So if it is not impossible then let's see someone do it.

The stationary mass will resist the momentum of the falling mass. The supports must be strong enough to support the weight of that mass. Therefore the falling mass must expend energy destroying the supports holding the stationary mass. Consequently it must slow down. So stage by stage it slows down until it no longer has enough energy to continue.

The north tower had to get stronger and therefore heavier farther down.

You people think rhetorical logic applies to the LOGIC OF PHYSICS. Rhetorical logic is just in your head. Physics is HOW REALITY WORKS.

Physics is more important than what people think. If people do not conform their thoughts to how physics works then they are being stupid.

So let's see someone PROVE me wrong about it being IMPOSSIBLE!

Physics is incapable of giving a damn about RHETORIC. I regard rhetoric as European pseudo-intellectual bullsh#.

I would be most interested in seeing a model that can prove it is possible. But it can't be that house of cards sliding apart BS. The components must sustain damage. But that means the falling mass would lose kinetic energy inflicting the damage. There ain't no such thing as FREE ENERGY.

Our schools teach people to debate. That is part of the humanities. Physics does not care about HUMANS.



psik



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So, now you think all the computer simulations that you wanted so bad are faked? Your washer experiment is one of the funniest things I have ever seen to show what happened on 9/11. It shows how physics works but it is not applicable to that day. Your model is incorrect and reminds me of a 4th grade science project.


I have said many times that 9/11 is grade school physics.

It is not my fault that the core columns in the Purdue simulation don't move. Ask the NIST if they are lying about the south tower deflecting 12 inches at the 70th floor and oscillating for four minutes. Either Purdue or the NIST must be bullsh#ing.


My model is less than 4 lb. The north tower was more than 400,000 tons.

But the NIST can't even tell us the total for the concrete and doesn't supply the distributions for steel and concrete. It took me two weeks to conclude that airliners could not destroy those buildings. But how the mass and the strength had to be distributed for the buildings to hold themselves up and withstand the wind were the basis of my conclusion.

So it sure is curious that we do not have that data after almost TEN YEARS.

Yeah, anybody trying to promote the stupid idea that the top of the north tower could destroy everything below in less than 18 seconds has to denigrate my model. But then they can't build one that does collapse completely and they don't supply complete data on any computer model of the tower.

How many feet of horizontal beams were there on each level in the core of the north tower? Why is that such difficult information to obtain? Where have any official American experts raised the question? Didn't they have to contribute to the tons of steel on each level?

psik



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But that means the falling mass would lose kinetic energy inflicting the damage. There ain't no such thing as FREE ENERGY.


So since there is no free energy, where could this energy come from? And if you can think of an energy source, doesn't that prove it is actually possible?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





I have said many times that 9/11 is grade school physics.


Then why do you not believe what is presented?



It is not my fault that the core columns in the Purdue simulation don't move. Ask the NIST if they are lying about the south tower deflecting 12 inches at the 70th floor and oscillating for four minutes. Either Purdue or the NIST must be bullsh#ing.


they do move. I gave you the times in the video and they are too numerous to count. Why are you lying about this? Denial?



My model is less than 4 lb. The north tower was more than 400,000 tons.


Which shows that you do not have a working model. Your model shows a concept of physics, not what happened that day.



But the NIST can't even tell us the total for the concrete and doesn't supply the distributions for steel and concrete. It took me two weeks to conclude that airliners could not destroy those buildings. But how the mass and the strength had to be distributed for the buildings to hold themselves up and withstand the wind were the basis of my conclusion.


NIST does not have to. That is not what they are tasked to do. That is why you should all stop blaming NIST. They are tasked to find out how to make sure this does not happen again. There were many things found incorrect with the way the WTC was built and would not be up to code in modern day. Read the report to find them.



So it sure is curious that we do not have that data after almost TEN YEARS.


You do. It is on the internet. The blueprints are there. It is up to you to recreate it and show that it could not drop as it did if you think crazy physics were used.




Yeah, anybody trying to promote the stupid idea that the top of the north tower could destroy everything below in less than 18 seconds has to denigrate my model. But then they can't build one that does collapse completely and they don't supply complete data on any computer model of the tower.


No, not true. But to say your simulation is more accurate than NIST or Purdue is a laugh man. Really.



How many feet of horizontal beams were there on each level in the core of the north tower? Why is that such difficult information to obtain? Where have any official American experts raised the question? Didn't they have to contribute to the tons of steel on each level?


READ THE BLUEPRINTS MAN!!!!!



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

I have said many times that 9/11 is grade school physics.


Then why do you not believe what is presented?


Physics is not about BELIEVING.

Grade school physics makes it obvious that the top 15% of a 1360 foot skyscraper could not destroy the rest in less than 18 seconds.

Conservation of momentum combined with the energy loss required to destroy supports strong enough to support the weight.

Something else had to be involved.

psik



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

No, not true. But to say your simulation is more accurate than NIST or Purdue is a laugh man. Really.


You can laugh all you want.

I don't need to say. Physical models DEMONSTRATE.

www.youtube.com...

I show that the mass and its distribution changes the behavior. Therefore it must be known in the about the buildings to do the analysis. So you can keep CLAIMING what ain't there is there. Very impressive?

They don't even specify the total for the concrete.

psik



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

I have said many times that 9/11 is grade school physics.


Then why do you not believe what is presented?


Physics is not about BELIEVING.

Grade school physics makes it obvious that the top 15% of a 1360 foot skyscraper could not destroy the rest in less than 18 seconds.

Conservation of momentum combined with the energy loss required to destroy supports strong enough to support the weight.

Something else had to be involved.

psik



No, it does not make it obvious and no one on here can prove it otherwise. It is not grade school physics either. The concepts such as equal and opposite reactions, etc, yes, but it is not as simple as the model you made. Sorry, but that is just a fact.

Momentum is defined by mass and velocity. Please explain to me what the frame of reference is you used in determining that the physics on 9/11 were not proper?

Also, can you please explain what else you think added to the equation...explosives maybe???



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Okay I just read this section again and don't see anything near what Shyam stated. If anything it seems to contradict what he said. Is there a specific point in this section that you saw that confirms what he said?

But now I'm going to the global model to see if I can find anything there.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

I have said many times that 9/11 is grade school physics.


Then why do you not believe what is presented?


Physics is not about BELIEVING.

Grade school physics makes it obvious that the top 15% of a 1360 foot skyscraper could not destroy the rest in less than 18 seconds.

Conservation of momentum combined with the energy loss required to destroy supports strong enough to support the weight.

Something else had to be involved.

psik



No, it does not make it obvious and no one on here can prove it otherwise. It is not grade school physics either. The concepts such as equal and opposite reactions, etc, yes, but it is not as simple as the model you made. Sorry, but that is just a fact.

Momentum is defined by mass and velocity. Please explain to me what the frame of reference is you used in determining that the physics on 9/11 were not proper?

Also, can you please explain what else you think added to the equation...explosives maybe???


I don't care what was added to the equation. That just promotes the infinite debating game. I have not been to New York since before the towers were completed.

The conservation of momentum matters therefore the distribution of steel and concrete down the building matters. And then our EXPERTS do not discuss the important of that information. Not even Richard Gage and Steven Jones.

My model has mass distributed all of the way down. The supports at each level must be strong enough to support all of the mass above. They are as weak as I can make them. Anyone can duplicate it and try to make it weaker but still self supporting.

Even grade school kids.

psik



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


It does analyze the condition where instability occurs in the columns. I am not really sure what you want to know and why you think it is relevant.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

I want to know if what Shyam said is correct, as I believe it's relevant to the sequence of events of that day. Is it not?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



The way I see it (I must admit this is rather based on my intuition, so can well be wrong): the transition between regular load and catenary is gradual. You can have top chord in compression and lower chord in tension, and have some degree of catenary action. The compression in the top chord is not uniform (see fig4). The sections that are connected to the columns can be in tension while the rest is in compression. It seems to me any configuration of regular load and catenary is possible, limited by truss failure.


For tension to be limited to the first little part of the top chord it would have to be a very low value (much less than 85kN). The compression in the rest of the top chord would also have to be very low, meaning the truss is not taking much in bending.

At 85kN this would no way be limited to the first little part of the top chord.


I can't be 100% certain you are wrong, but from my position there is the opinion of an anonymous person on a forum versus the opinion the engineers at NIST and a at least one published paper (there are more) from a university.

I can completely understand why you are skeptical of some guy from the internets. I like to think most of what I say can be verified by checking textbooks and the internet however.

Not all universities are in agreeance with NIST. The paper you posted is calling NIST out.

I don't have much respect for universities. They are money making machines. 90% of my education was a complete waste of time. It's all about jumping through their hoops while they collect an extraordinary amount of money from you at each hoop.

I have no trust for government departments. They are all about looking after corporate interests. I mean, you'd expect the government to inform its citizens about the cure for cancer, right? They lie every day and their laws are based on lies.

[qutoe]Fair enough. But as you know I think your calculations are questionable.
The calculations themselves? Because all you've protested so far is my interpretation of the report. Are you still going to email the authors for clarification?


Maybe this will interest you. I found it while searching something else. Its not the government did it type of conspiracy, but it may contain the issue you are addressing. (I did not have the time to read it myself).

Thanks. I haven't read it in detail yet but I looks as though it raises some interesting questions.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


It is consistent with the NIST report. If you believe the NIST report to be incorrect, you probably also think what Shyam said is incorrect.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
For tension to be limited to the first little part of the top chord it would have to be a very low value (much less than 85kN). The compression in the rest of the top chord would also have to be very low, meaning the truss is not taking much in bending.

At 85kN this would no way be limited to the first little part of the top chord.


I don't see why the tension is limited to the first section of the top chord, or why it has to be very small. Any combination is possible, it is a gradual process. Also, the diagonal connected to the column will also pull.

To give a rough estimate example: subtract 40 from all sections in the top chord, and add it in the lower chord. The maximal tension you get is ~88 in lower chord, the compression in the middle of the top chord ~8. The diagonal connected to the column has a tension of ~56, and the first section of the top chord has a tension of ~24. Add these up and you get ~80 pull in force. I know this is a flawed model as it ignores many factors, but it may give you an idea of what I mean.


I can completely understand why you are skeptical of some guy from the internets. I like to think most of what I say can be verified by checking textbooks and the internet however.

Not all universities are in agreeance with NIST. The paper you posted is calling NIST out.

I don't have much respect for universities. They are money making machines. 90% of my education was a complete waste of time. It's all about jumping through their hoops while they collect an extraordinary amount of money from you at each hoop.

I have no trust for government departments. They are all about looking after corporate interests. I mean, you'd expect the government to inform its citizens about the cure for cancer, right? They lie every day and their laws are based on lies.


I am a bit less skeptical, and I think governments are not at all that capable. After all government agencies consist mostly of regular citizens. I am in fact very skeptical about the complete lack of efficiency and the enormous stupidity at government agencies. I don't believe they would be capable of (huge) lies without somebody screwing it up, with exception maybe the intelligence agencies.


The calculations themselves? Because all you've protested so far is my interpretation of the report. Are you still going to email the authors for clarification?


I don't really have an issue with your calculations themselves, but I do have an issue with the way you relate them to the actual truss.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I don't see why the tension is limited to the first section of the top chord, or why it has to be very small. Any combination is possible

Got any proof for that?


To give a rough estimate example: subtract 40 from all sections in the top chord, and add it in the lower chord. The maximal tension you get is ~88 in lower chord, the compression in the middle of the top chord ~8. The diagonal connected to the column has a tension of ~56, and the first section of the top chord has a tension of ~24. Add these up and you get ~80 pull in force. I know this is a flawed model as it ignores many factors, but it may give you an idea of what I mean.

I know what you mean, and it's not possible. I can't use any maths to highlight the problems with this hypothetical scenario as it is not mathematically consistent to begin with. The report is also not claiming anything like this at all, this is entirely your own theory.

You can't just take force from the top chord and give it to the bottom chord. The diagonals will transfer it straight back to the top chord..

I will ask though, how do you think the top chord is able to become so weak that it transfers all its load bearing to the bottom chord, without the bottom chord losing more of its capacity than the top chord (as the bottom chord is closer to the fire)?


I don't believe they would be capable of (huge) lies without somebody screwing it up, with exception maybe the intelligence agencies.

I don't believe it's possible to get high in government without the trust of intelligence agencies.


I don't really have an issue with your calculations themselves, but I do have an issue with the way you relate them to the actual truss.

Where are these issues exactly?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


I have no problems imagining how the forces are redistributed gradually when the truss is progressively going into catenary. I just do not see the need for the top chord to carry the full load and the lower chord having no function at all like you are proposing. I think the only efficient way to prove this is using simulations, as in that paper. For me that is evidence enough, until someone comes with a model that disproves it. You could ask why nobody in the truth movement has ever come with something like that. As for your calculations, my issue with it has not changed, I think you apply them to a situation that is never reached in the simulation.
edit on 6-5-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join