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: 22
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by budaruskie
 


The idea is quite simple. Structures are designed to transfer loads along the lines of support. This way you only need material strong enough and in sufficient quantity to fulfill that mandate. If you alter those lines by deforming the structure by, say fire, explosion and high speed impact of a large object then the remaining structure will fail as it is also eccentrically loaded. As to your burning building that did not collapse - that is a perfect example that proves the point. The fire did not cause the structure to move so the structural elements stayed in their design lines. The cross section of the supports may have been diminished by virtue of the fire but obviously not to the extent that there was insufficient compressive strength left to carry the loads. Also, I imagine that as the fire progressed those loads actually decreased as the roof and floor loads were consumed by the fire. By I will venture a guess that it did not take a lot of effort to knock the thing over when it was all done.


Okey dokey, I understand the concept that weakened materials aren't capable of withstanding loads that prestine materials can bare. What I think you may be missing or oversimplifying is the way in which the WTC buildings collapsed. Allow me to elaborate.

When the plane crashes into the building (pick either) it obviously damages the materials and diminishes the load bearing ability of the impact site, this cannot be argued. What can be argued is to what degree. I find it somewhat puzzling that the building doesn't immediately experience local collapses around the impact site, yet experiences a universal collapse an hour or so later. It would seem to the layperson that the fact that floors didn't immediately give after impact and the enormous fireball that the load bearing capability of the local impact area as well as the rest of the building was still sufficient. This is no doubt due to redundancy, and it also seems that A&E911, FEMA, NIST, and the 9/11 commish all agree on this point. So, the gov't side of the argument defers to fire weakening the load bearing components of the structure with what myself and many others consider less than credible arguments and a complete lack of sufficient evidence. You, obviously feel the opposite way.
What really seals the deal for myself is the fact that the building fails on all sides simultaneously. How can you or anyone else explain such an enormous area of building that was still prestine (i.e. no impact, no fire) failing at the exact same moment as the weakened components? The failure happens 360 degrees around the building, not on one wall or two or three, but every single square inch of at least one floor gives way at the exact same moment! If you cannot smell the fish you should really consider getting your nose checked, because that is not physically possible...unless you damage the entire 360 degrees (or at least the load-bearing structures that hold up all 360 degrees) simultaneously. Use your popsicle sticks and toy ducks or whatever you want and you will see that whatever point at which you weaken a structure fails first, and it is obvious to the naked eye. How anyone can even attempt to explain this same phenomena in WTC 7 is a complete mystery. There is no credible gov't explanation for it, and they have more or less admitted as much.




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
HUH? You must have forgotten about this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What you say on ATS never goes away.


Classic example of truther logic. "He didn't answer my irrelevant pointless question, therefore he can't answer my irrelevant pointless question". There are other reasons why people don't answer irrelevant pointless questions. For example because they are irrelevant. Or because they are pointless.


There is no need to show maths to know that as a fact. The laws of motion and momentum conservation is all you need to understand any collision.


Nope, no need for silly stupid actual calculations. Just keep repeating the good old mantra and you will be fine.


I can't even make sense of that.


Lets go over it then.


It has Ke as soon as it moves, Pe is transformed into Ke, and then when it hits resistance the Ke transfers into heat and sound, deformation,


So far so good.


and again potential.


Nope, that is very wrong. That only happen when you lift or throw something up.


It can not do all that and maintain all its Ke.


And it doesn't, like I was explaining.


And you think something that was designed to hold more than twice it's weight is not going to change most of that Ke into other forms of energy from all that resistance of undamaged structure?


It is not a matter of what I think, it is a matter of physics. This is something that can be calculated. Which was done for example by Bazant.


The proof is in all the ejected material, the noise of the collapse, that is Ke transforming into other energy.


So how did you come to the conclusion that all kinetic energy would be transformed to other forms?


...And what would that energy be?


Why are you asking?


No, it is fact based on the known laws of motion.


It is based on nothing. Or else show the calculations.


Calculations are not needed as the evidence makes it more than obvious that there must have been another energy source acting on the towers that has not been addressed. Calculations would only be required to iron out the details, the law of moment conservation is enough to explain any collision.


Calculations are needed to convince people. Your uneducated baseless assertion isn't worth anything.
edit on 19-5-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I know your delusion forces you to believe that almost all mass was magically ejected. I can't help you with that but saying it is a delusion and this didn't happen. Enough mass was left.


I like how you're not even trying anymore.


You just hand-waved my whole post off with a straw-man, something that I never actually said. Way to show your tail is between your legs.




Aside from still believing that floors were smacking into each other like pancake slabs, and still believing in the fantasy that all the debris went into the basements where no one could see it, the main problem with your "example" that you still totally ignore:


You want other problems with your "example"? You still have no clue how much resistance an intact (floor) would have offered. That's pretty damned important to be hand-waving away and just asserting from incredulity that it wouldn't make any difference.

edit on 19-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So you agree there was enough mass left? Good, we are making progress. Then what is the next thing you do not understand in my example?

edit:I see your next issue is that I do not know the resistance. You are correct. In fact, nobody exactly knows, neither do you. Therefore Bazant used, although unrealistic, the highest resistance possible. And guess what, it was not enough to arrest collapse.

Great, another issue out of the way. Next?
edit on 19-5-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I don't understand the part where straw-men suddenly became logical to you, or putting words in my mouth suddenly became a logical argument.

Are we making you lose your sanity or do you just not give a rat's ass what you post anymore?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What strawman? Do you or do you not believe that the vast majority of mass ejected, and that there was not enough mass left to make the collapse progress?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Yes, I do believe the majority of mass was ejected, because most of the mass was not within the buildings' footprints, but when are we getting back to you supporting your own claims that the falling mass was unstoppable? Are we just moving away from that now so you can tell us more bed time stories about all the mass going into the basements instead? I'm sure you'll have tons more proof of that one.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What do you mean moving away? Which part of my example do you not understand?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


....

The part where there are no numbers.

Again, I want to see where you calculated how much resistance each floor would have offered, even to keep using your pancaking example.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Since I edited it in (after your edit), I guess you missed it.



I see your next issue is that I do not know the resistance. You are correct. In fact, nobody exactly knows, neither do you. Therefore Bazant used, although unrealistic, the highest resistance possible. And guess what, it was not enough to arrest collapse.

Great, another issue out of the way. Next?


Also realize this argument is a two edged sword. Since you also do not know the resistance you can't claim collapse would arrest.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I see your next issue is that I do not know the resistance. You are correct. In fact, nobody exactly knows, neither do you. Therefore Bazant used, although unrealistic, the highest resistance possible. And guess what, it was not enough to arrest collapse.


"Highest resistance possible" based on what?

We've went over Bazant's papers before, and all the erroneous assumptions he is forced to make in order for his models to work at all, but I guess it's time drag that back out of the closet and beat it some more.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
It is called a frame of reference. THat is what is needed to be agreed upon to figure out why the collapse progressed the way it did.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


He used the resistance you get when the column fall exactly on each other.

Anyway, you acknowledge that you do not know the resistance yourself and you actually do not have a clue if it is high enough to arrest collapse? If not, show the numbers.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
He used the resistance you get when the column fall exactly on each other.


Unfortunately modeling a building collapse is not that simple. You already know there was much more to his model than that, many variables and other assumptions that had to be made.

If you want to just say what Bazant modeled was gibberish to you, I can accept that too.


Anyway, you acknowledge that you do not know the resistance yourself and you actually do not have a clue if it is high enough to arrest collapse? If not, show the numbers.


I've seen enough of you get backed into a corner and suddenly try to shift your burden of proof that it doesn't surprise me anymore. But it was your claim that a "collapse" would invariably be arrested, and you actually had the balls to say this was based on "physics," so I just thought I would ask. Of course there is still no physics to be seen.

First a deferral to an earlier post you made and now a deferral to Bazant like you have done in the past. It doesn't look like you're too anxious to actually talk about Bazant's work again either.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Unfortunately modeling a building collapse is not that simple. You already know there was much more to his model than that, many variables and other assumptions that had to be made.

If you want to just say what Bazant modeled was gibberish to you, I can accept that too.


Sure his model is more complex than just a maximal resistance figure. Do you have a point here?



I've seen enough of you get backed into a corner and suddenly try to shift your burden of proof that it doesn't surprise me anymore. But it was your claim that a "collapse" would invariably be arrested, and you actually had the balls to say this was based on "physics," so I just thought I would ask. Of course there is still no physics to be seen.

First a deferral to an earlier post you made and now a deferral to Bazant like you have done in the past. It doesn't look like you're too anxious to actually talk about Bazant's work again either.


Backed in the corner? Where? How? Did I ever claim to know the exact resistance? And yes I did show the physics in a very easy to understand way, including actual values. Are you saying it is wrong because I do no know the exact resistance? If so, point out how the reasoning is wrong. Explain how it won't work like that anymore when the resistance is whatever figure you like.

And I guess I will have to take this reply as "no I do not know the actual resistance, and any claim I ever made that collapse would arrest is totally baseless."
edit on 20-5-2011 by -PLB- because: quotes



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Sure his model is more complex than just a maximal resistance figure. Do you have a point here?


Not if you don't. I was under the impression you thought Bazant proved something about the collapse but the way you're putting off explaining anything it seems you already realize he actually proved nothing, and so by relation you have not provided the "physics" that you say support your claims.



Are you saying it is wrong because I do no know the exact resistance?


Not only do you not know the proper resistance the building should have provided, but your further deferral onto Bazant amounts to nothing but stalling. You either have the physics or you don't. Bazant made so many erroneous assumptions to make his models work that it's no wonder you aren't going into any more detail about that.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not if you don't. I was under the impression you thought Bazant proved something about the collapse but the way you're putting off explaining anything it seems you already realize he actually proved nothing, and so by relation you have not provided the "physics" that you say support your claims.


Bazant proved that even when using a scenario that was most optimistic for arrest, or in other words, the resistance was maximal, the building would still collapse.



Not only do you not know the proper resistance the building should have provided, but your further deferral onto Bazant amounts to nothing but stalling. You either have the physics or you don't. Bazant made so many erroneous assumptions to make his models work that it's no wonder you aren't going into any more detail about that.


Stalling? Where am I stalling? What do you want me to explain to you? What is it you do not understand?

Oh, and acknowledging that you have no clue about the resistance and you also have no clue if the collapse would arrest would be a nice gesture. But you can of course also ignore inconvenient parts of reality.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You have to admit there would be resistance right, regardless of how much exactly? The fact that debris was ejected, floors were destroyed, there was noise, proves there was resistance from friction.

Resistance is a force, in this case caused by friction, that the Ke is converted to. As the Ke is converted to other forces then the collapse would have to slow, not accelerate.

As the collapses did not slow at all, then another energy force had to be acting on the collapses that is not being addressed.

That is about as simple as it can be explained I think. You either have to admit there was resistance, or keep pretending it doesn't matter.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You have to admit there would be resistance right, regardless of how much exactly? The fact that debris was ejected, floors were destroyed, there was noise, proves there was resistance from friction.

Resistance is a force, in this case caused by friction, that the Ke is converted to. As the Ke is converted to other forces then the collapse would have to slow, not accelerate.

As the collapses did not slow at all, then another energy force had to be acting on the collapses that is not being addressed.

That is about as simple as it can be explained I think. You either have to admit there was resistance, or keep pretending it doesn't matter.


Another attempt to explain it. The kinetic energy is not some initial value that is determined at the beginning an object falls. It is a variable that constantly changes. Gravity is accelerating falling objects. By accelerating something the kinetic energy is increased. This happens all the way to the ground. So yes, the resistance decelerates a falling object. But it is constantly accelerated again as result of gravity pulling, and as result the kinetic energy also increases. Conclusion, you do not require an additional force, given that the resistance is below a certain level. Now if you are correct and the collapse is arrested, what you need to do is prove the resistance is too high. In no way it is a direct consequence of newtons laws of motion.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Surely you realize that we already know how much the most optimistic value for friction has to be: Several times the force of gravity.

That is what the safety factor is, is it not?

The buildings were designed to produce a friction in the direction of the action of gravity of up to 3x the value of gravity. Of course we can discuss the effect of static and dynamic loadings, but this simple fact illustrates that Bazant did not in any way shape or form take the "most optimistic value" for friction, even if he verbally claimed it elsewhere.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join