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: 17
8
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You didn't answer my question. Frame of Reference?




posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You didn't answer my question. Frame of Reference?


A frame of reference is just an idea in someone's head. Reality keeps happening regardless of what people think.

en.wikipedia.org...

The vicinity of ground zero on 9/11 was all on the Earth's surface and subject to the same gravity and moving along together with the rotation of the planet.

My washers and dowel and paper loops were all doing the same thing. Are you implying that they would behave differently at some other point on the Earth? That is the nice thing about my model. Much easier to move and duplicate than the WTC.

Now do you think everyone is sufficiently impressed with your intellect because you can talk about "frame of reference"?

psik



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I was trying to have a civilized conversation. Who is attacking you here? I am asking questions about physics. If you have an idea I would like to hear it. Maybe it would change my mind or make me think about it differently. If you do not answer I will lose no sleep but will be no closed to trying to understand the concept you have of the collapse.

You are ignoring the 2nd law if you dismiss this, right?

They all make a difference.
edit on 6-5-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I was trying to have a civilized conversation. Who is attacking you here? I am asking questions about physics. If you have an idea I would like to hear it. Maybe it would change my mind or make me think about it differently. If you do not answer I will lose no sleep but will be no closed to trying to understand the concept you have of the collapse.

You are ignoring the 2nd law if you dismiss this, right?

They all make a difference.


My are we touchy. Who attacked you? It is not my fault that you insisted on a response to "frame of reference". Now you regard my response as an ATTACK.

Now you want to switch to the 2nd Law. Newton's I presume.

But in order for the north tower to come down in less than 18 seconds the top would have to accelerate at more than 50% of gravitational acceleration. So that would mean the lower 90 levels would have to apply less than 50% of gravitational force upward even though they had to be designed to provide at least 100% of G just for the buildings to remain standing for 28 years.

So you explain what happened to the force that should have been there. That is why people say it is impossible. But then we are not told the amount of steel and concrete that was on each level.

psik



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
 


Wrong. I am going deeper into the laws than you do and you know it. Go back in the threads and you you reuse some of the information I post as if you are learning something.


No you're not, you are ignoring the laws of equal opposite reaction and moment conservation. How can you be going deeper into physics when you ignore the very physics that relates to movement and collisions?
Anyone can see you're full of it.


You have proven nothing. You are stating thoughts and not facts. How about a private debate on 9/11? Just me and you strawman...any subject you want...


OK I'll debate you on the collapse of the towers, LETS GO! Set it up. Or how about a debate on Newtonian physics? Maybe we could include materials science as well?

You better get prepared esdad, because if this is what you will bring to the debate it will be sooo easy...


Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


There are no impossible physics. However, you also cannot pick and choose what applies which is what you are doing. You cannot enforce one part of one law and call it a day.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(BTW the one part of the physics you were referring to was Newtons laws of motion)

I never claimed to prove anything, I just show how your opinion of the how the towers collapses is not physically possible without there being an another force acting that has not been addressed.


as far as threats, I did not make threats so I apologize for how you feel.


LOL I feel fine mate.


Now, please explain this to me....you said

Please explain the physics here? Are you now stating that physics in conjunction with a human body react differently then buildings. I am using the analogies as if I was talking to a child to help them understand basic physics.


No you don't, you make analogies that have nothing to do with how the towers collapsed.

I'll ask again since when did the towers have balls? Why should I even explain why your analogy is wrong, you can't figure that out yourself?

Try an analogy that actually pertains to the physics involved in a collapse then I'll listen.


Can you please also answer one question? What do you feel NIST was supposed to do during the investigation.


Explain why the towers collapsed? Why do you ask, because you are not arguing the NIST report, you are arguing assumptions about the collapses NIST did not even cover. Are you here to debate the 911 events, or just try to convince people the NIST report is adequate? We all know the NIST report is incomplete, and you make up nonsense to fill the holes. C'mon esdad!


edit on 5/6/2011 by ANOK because: you know it's good for you



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I have no problems imagining how the forces are redistributed gradually when the truss is progressively going into catenary.

Physics relies on a vast number of rules which I doubt were included in your imaginings. You're welcome to prove if it is possible, but so far all you are offering is your imagination as proof.


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.

That's not what I'm proposing, that's what the model you cited as evidence is proposing. I'm still yet to see any evidence that catenary action is even possible in a truss in this scenario. I do still think I asked a valid question which highlights a major error in your imaginings. It went unanswered so I will ask again.

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 think the only efficient way to prove this is using simulations, as in that paper.

The paper does not claim what you are claiming.


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.

I disproved it. No model required. Simple calculations only.


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.

It still baffles me that you think the report dedicated so many words to describing a hypothetical scenario which they are basically making up as they go along because it was not witnessed in their simulation, yet they don't even bother to describe at all what occurred in the first 99% of the simulation or give any description as to the internal forces which allowed this highly rare phenomenon to occur...



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Physics relies on a vast number of rules which I doubt were included in your imaginings. You're welcome to prove if it is possible, but so far all you are offering is your imagination as proof.


And you are basically offering your imagination as proof its impossible. You are also welcome to prove it.


That's not what I'm proposing, that's what the model you cited as evidence is proposing. I'm still yet to see any evidence that catenary action is even possible in a truss in this scenario. I do still think I asked a valid question which highlights a major error in your imaginings. It went unanswered so I will ask again.

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 really see where I claim this happening. Forces from bending are more or less equally divided, tension as result of catenary is too. That is what I tried to illustrate with that example I gave (although I know it is flawed).


The paper does not claim what you are claiming.

I disproved it. No model required. Simple calculations only.

It still baffles me that you think the report dedicated so many words to describing a hypothetical scenario which they are basically making up as they go along because it was not witnessed in their simulation, yet they don't even bother to describe at all what occurred in the first 99% of the simulation or give any description as to the internal forces which allowed this highly rare phenomenon to occur...



Here we just disagree. I will wait and see if exponent has anything to add, if not I will mail the authors.
edit on 7-5-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

But in order for the north tower to come down in less than 18 seconds the top would have to accelerate at more than 50% of gravitational acceleration. So that would mean the lower 90 levels would have to apply less than 50% of gravitational force upward even though they had to be designed to provide at least 100% of G just for the buildings to remain standing for 28 years.

So you explain what happened to the force that should have been there. That is why people say it is impossible. But then we are not told the amount of steel and concrete that was on each level.

psik


Again, you are assuming that the horizontal supports were meant to provide over 100% of G on a collapsing mass above it. Once more, the VERTICAL (READ THIS PLEASE) supports were meant to hold up a STATIC weight. Once, the building begins to collapse, the HORIZONTAL supports begin to take on vertical force of a much higher degree than even the vertical supports normally hold, especially since they are not designed for DYNAMIC loads.

Either understand this concept or get the heck out of this discussion.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Either understand this concept or get the heck out of this discussion.


But this is a concept you have no evidence for, at all.

There is no reason a dynamic load is going to cause failure, yet you seem to think it's automatic.

You are still not considering equal opposite reactions, moment conservation, and factors of safety.

You still have to explain how your dynamic load was possible in the first place. You still haven't provided any evidence that the sagging truss theory has any merit. You have no evidence that the building was not able to hold the dynamic load of a floor. Even if you can prove the dynamic load was too much for all the resistance, you can't, you still can't prove the collapse initiation that supposedly started it.

IF the bottom could not hold the dynamic force of the top, the top is still not going to stay in one piece crashing through the lower building, path of most resistance, and stay in one piece until it's finished crushing and ejecting the lower floors, and then crush and eject itself out of the footprint. Newtons laws of motion show us that is not possible. Remember when the first two sets of floors impact the forces on each is equal. You have the mass of the top, but you also have the mass of the bottom pushing up equally, equal opposite reactions.

We know there was no floors left in the footprint, they were ejected in a 360d arc...



If floors were being crushed and ejected then either you have to logically conclude another energy was involved, or the floors were crushing each other as they collapsed, which would mean the dropping floors would be crushed and ejected long before they could cause all the lower floors to be crushed. One floor can not crush another floor and stay in one piece, every time that same floor hit another floor it would be damaged. If it survived hitting the first floor it would not survive hitting the second floor.

Even if, for example, the upper floors were only half destroyed for every bottom floor that was completely destroyed. WTC 1 had only what 15 floors to crush 95? Using my example then that would mean the top would only crush 30 floors, not 95. Do you understand this?

It's just like you seem to think an aluminum plane can go through one set of steel columns and still have the momentum to sever even thicker core columns. Hollywood physics...


edit on 5/7/2011 by ANOK because: physics trumps faith



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

But in order for the north tower to come down in less than 18 seconds the top would have to accelerate at more than 50% of gravitational acceleration. So that would mean the lower 90 levels would have to apply less than 50% of gravitational force upward even though they had to be designed to provide at least 100% of G just for the buildings to remain standing for 28 years.

So you explain what happened to the force that should have been there. That is why people say it is impossible. But then we are not told the amount of steel and concrete that was on each level.

psik


Again, you are assuming that the horizontal supports were meant to provide over 100% of G on a collapsing mass above it. Once more, the VERTICAL (READ THIS PLEASE) supports were meant to hold up a STATIC weight. Once, the building begins to collapse, the HORIZONTAL supports begin to take on vertical force of a much higher degree than even the vertical supports normally hold, especially since they are not designed for DYNAMIC loads.

Either understand this concept or get the heck out of this discussion.


And you are implying that I am saying that the supports would instantly stop the falling mass.

I already demonstrated it with my model.

The overloaded vertical supports get crushed and in the process absorb the kinetic energy of the falling dynamic load slowing thereby it down. It gets slowed down in stages just like the crush zones of colliding automobiles. Gravity does not add energy faster than it is lost. For the north tower I bet more than 50 stories should have still been standing.

The Physics Profession has spent nearly a decade making a fool of itself by not demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. Why hasn't Steven Jones brought it up?

psik



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
And you are implying that I am saying that the supports would instantly stop the falling mass.

I already demonstrated it with my model.

The overloaded vertical supports get crushed and in the process absorb the kinetic energy of the falling dynamic load slowing thereby it down. It gets slowed down in stages just like the crush zones of colliding automobiles. Gravity does not add energy faster than it is lost. For the north tower I bet more than 50 stories should have still been standing.

The Physics Profession has spent nearly a decade making a fool of itself by not demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. Why hasn't Steven Jones brought it up?

psik


We've been over this. There is no logical way that the vertical supports could fall perfectly on the other vertical supports to create the kind of crush-down energy loss you are describing. I'm ready to abandon discussion with you over this.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



And you are basically offering your imagination as proof its impossible. You are also welcome to prove it.

I've presented calculations and concepts in evidence against a model attempting to describe catenary behaviour. You have absolutely no proof that the loading mechanism as you describe it is even plausible. What sort of proof do you want against hypothetical internal forces that are not mathematically consistent?


I don't really see where I claim this happening. Forces from bending are more or less equally divided, tension as result of catenary is too. That is what I tried to illustrate with that example I gave (although I know it is flawed).

Learn how a truss carries bending forces and you will see this is exactly what you are claiming and that it is not possible.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Once more, the VERTICAL (READ THIS PLEASE) supports were meant to hold up a STATIC weight.

Force is force and the columns should be able to provide the same maximum force regardless of whether what they are applying it to is stationary or not.


There is no logical way that the vertical supports could fall perfectly on the other vertical supports to create the kind of crush-down energy loss you are describing.

The columns are not required to transfer forces to other columns only. They would be capable of applying just as much force to stacked up concrete floors and trusses.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
And you are implying that I am saying that the supports would instantly stop the falling mass.

I already demonstrated it with my model.

The overloaded vertical supports get crushed and in the process absorb the kinetic energy of the falling dynamic load slowing thereby it down. It gets slowed down in stages just like the crush zones of colliding automobiles. Gravity does not add energy faster than it is lost. For the north tower I bet more than 50 stories should have still been standing.

The Physics Profession has spent nearly a decade making a fool of itself by not demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. Why hasn't Steven Jones brought it up?

psik


We've been over this. There is no logical way that the vertical supports could fall perfectly on the other vertical supports to create the kind of crush-down energy loss you are describing. I'm ready to abandon discussion with you over this.


And I never said columns would come down on columns and you don't have any data on the horizontal beams in the core. So what info is there on how the beams are connected to the columns?

So in a way this is NINE YEARS of ridiculous discussion because people have not been demanding enough relevant accurate information.

We can't even specify the tons of steel on every level. So why don't you just admit that you don't know what you are talking about and discontinue the discussion? At least I have been saying we need to know the distribution of steel.

I assure you I have not the slightest objection to your abandoning the discussion. It is not like you are intellectually interesting or challenging.

psik



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


If it is not mathematically consistent, it should be really easy to prove. So far you have only asserted its not possible and asserted what you say is how it is.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



If it is not mathematically consistent, it should be really easy to prove. So far you have only asserted its not possible and asserted what you say is how it is.


If I must...

The vertical component of your imaginary scenario contains a vertical component in the first diagonal of 21P. This is no way near the 7.9P applied to one half of the truss, therefore it is mathematically inconsistent.

Did you really think you could just make up a bunch of numbers and expect it to all work out?



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


I know my example is flawed, I would rather see prove its not possible at all. I will try to put together a more realistic example when I have the time.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I really don't know how you would manage anything near realistic without sophisticated modelling. Maybe you should find out what the University of Sheffield concluded the internal forces to be if you still think their simulation was credible.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


I think you can make an approximation of how the forces would look. The point you made about the vertical force in the diagonal is valid, the angle is too large for it to have a significant effect. So the top chord will carry (almost) all tension as result of catenary action. As long as all diagonals are intact bending forces are still divided over upper and lower chord, upper in compression and lower in tension. I just do not see why there can not be both tension in the upper chord from catenary, and compression in the upper chord as result of bending. It seems to me the forces will be similar when you put an external axial load on the truss in figure 4.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I just do not see why there can not be both tension in the upper chord from catenary, and compression in the upper chord as result of bending.

Because they cancel each other out.

If you want to have compression in the middle and tension at the ends like you described above, the bottom chord cannot just take over the internal forces which have been reduced in the top chord. The internal forces in the bottom chord would decrease also. The overall reduced bending capacity would have to be carried by catenary action in the top chord but at the deflections estimated is not possible.


It seems to me the forces will be similar when you put an external axial load on the truss in figure 4.

A tensile axial load applied to the top chord would have the effect of also reducing the amount of tension in the bottom chord.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join