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.

 

Gravity Can't Do This!

page: 29
27
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Look, if you are having such a hard time understanding what NIST stated and the mechanism of the collapses, including the cores, how about actually reading NIST NCSTAR 1-6?

www.nist.gov...




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


The explanation by NIST is that the perimeter columns of the south wall failed first as result of sagging trusses pulling them in. The load was transferred to other support elements, such as the core which subsequently failed. The most likely place the core would fail is its weakest point, which would be the area where the columns are hot, damaged by the plane impact and unsupported by the floors. I don't know what floor exactly that would be but it seems logical to me this is the same floor as the perimeter failed, or very close to it. But I don't see how that matters that much.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




The explanation by NIST is that the perimeter columns of the south wall failed first as result of sagging trusses pulling them in. The load was transferred to other support elements, such as the core which subsequently failed.


Yeah, that is was I recalled. That isn't exactly what you said though so I just wanted to clarify your position. Technically, in NIST's model (which is to say Bazant's) the floor assemblies never failed until crush up occurred.

Hopefully the importance of the antenna moving first has dawned on you at this point then...

Let me know if you want me to spell it out, but it should (hopefully) be blindingly obvious.
edit on 4-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Yeah, that is was I recalled. That isn't exactly what you said though so I just wanted to clarify your position. Technically, in NIST's model (which is to say Bazant's) the floor assemblies never failed until crush up occurred.

Hopefully the importance of the antenna moving first has dawned on you at this point then...

Let me know if you want me to spell it out, but it should (hopefully) be blindingly obvious.
edit on 4-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)


I'd like you to spell that one out. Plube has not been able to make his point clear, maybe you will.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
29 pages of "no it isnt" / "yes it is!"... Pretty much sums up this entire website...

Please accept the fact that the buildings fell. Maybe put this much energy in changing your Political system for the sake of all of us on the planet.


Go upstairs and water your moms plants.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




I'd like you to spell that one out. Plube has not been able to make his point clear, maybe you will.


Because the building started moving down at the moment the perimeter walls gave way.

You can see it here too:


If you scan over 0:30 to 0:31 you can see that the antenna moves a good 0.5s before the perimeter gives way.

Why is this crucial? Because the movement of the antenna indicates that the core has given way. You said yourself that NIST's position was that the floors caused the perimeter to fail, which overloaded the core which failed.

Floor expansion -> Perimeter failure -> Core failure -> Global failure

But if the core failed first that whole sequence cannot hold.

Core failure -> Perimeter failure -> Floor failure -> Global failure

Why does this make a difference? Because there is no plausible mechanism to get the core to fail first.

Remember that F.E.A. also indicates that core failure is more likely to have occurred first, there is no empirical (experimental), theoretical or observational reason evidence to support NIST's sequence of events. If the core failed first you have to explain how it could have done so, what could have made it do so.




The core was much more rigid than the perimeter, so the "thermal expansion" theory is even more dead in the water here than at the perimeter...

Do you need more explanation?

Do you still not realize why if core failure was the initiator, the failure must have been below the fire/perimeter bowing line, and why that rules out even the slim possibility that you could attribute core failure to fire or impact damage?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


I will repeat it again (I wrote this 3 times or so by now), first the south perimeter wall failed. That load got redistributed to the core and other perimeter walls. It is not specified which support structure failed next exactly. So the scenario is:

Floor sagging (not expansion) -> South perimeter failure -> Core failure/Other perimeter failure -> Global failure



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Been said many time but there is no reason failure of any part of the tower would cause core failure.

You have not explained at all how that could happen. 47 massive box columns that got smaller and lighter as they went up is not going to simply fail and collapse vertically through it's own mass. The strongest direction of the core would be the vertical. If it failed at all it would simply topple at the point of failure.

But guess what? That DID happen didn't it PLB? The south tower tilt, remember?

So now you have to explain how an angular momentum became a vertical collapse, when failure of the pivot point should have just sent the section over the side, continuing it's angular momentum. The only way it could go straight down is if the pivot point dropped away from the tilting section, leaving that section with no where to go but down. The collapse had to be failure of the core first in the area of the initial collapse point, and then lower down seconds later.

Now when you only pick certain points to address, but ignore other points, your hypothesis fails to address the big picture. You have to think of everything in context before you can make a claim.

Again when are you going to do more than just say 'this, or that, didn't happen', and address the laws of motion, and how they work in context of your hypothesis? You have not address anything until you can do this.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your lack of understanding is noted, but I already told you I am not explaining things like this to you again, as you just ignored previous explanations.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01


If you scan over 0:30 to 0:31 you can see that the antenna moves a good 0.5s before the perimeter gives way.

Why is this crucial? Because the movement of the antenna indicates that the core has given way. You said yourself that NIST's position was that the floors caused the perimeter to fail, which overloaded the core which failed.

Floor expansion -> Perimeter failure -> Core failure -> Global failure

But if the core failed first that whole sequence cannot hold.

Core failure -> Perimeter failure -> Floor failure -> Global failure

Why does this make a difference? Because there is no plausible mechanism to get the core to fail first.




Well except at that height the core columns are a lighter smaller cross section, the aircraft hit mid elevation more chance of core damage and looking at the video not much difference between wall giving way and the mast movement.

Then of course none of us will ever know the damage done inside so you cant rule out that the core was damaged enough in this case to fail. It did fall second although hit first but again of course a lot less mass above impact point compared with the South Tower.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





I will repeat it again (I wrote this 3 times or so by now), first the south perimeter wall failed.


I know you have SAID it, but "can you demonstrate it" is the real question.

Why do OS'ers consistently think that simply saying something constitutes proof? That is what causes the whole problem to begin with.

Prove it or don't bother saying it.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





not much difference between wall giving way and the mast movement.


5ms is a huge amount of time in this context.

It doesn't matter how big the difference is. The fact that it is clearly visible that the core fails before the perimeter is the only thing that matters.

But maybe can prove his contention that the other side failed first, so lets see what he comes up with.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
If a landing gear can go through all those brick walls at the Pentagon, I imagine one could do severe damage to the core at WTC.

Then

Once the outer steel buckles there would be horizontal torque to the inner core.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 




If a landing gear can go through all those brick walls at the Pentagon, I imagine one could do severe damage to the core at WTC.


If a landing gear can go through all those brick walls at the Pentagon, I imagine that pigs can fly.

Just saying.

Review this link, it demonstrates the type of problem you are dealing with: en.wikipedia.org...

Impactor, Bunker buster: Solid impactors can be used instead of nuclear warheads to penetrate bunkers. According to Newton's approximation, a uranium projectile at high speed and 1 m in length would punch its way through 6 m of rock (density 3 g/cm³) before coming to a stop.


Then recall that you are not dealing with anything like a solid uranium impactor and then review this post and thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then look at this post in this thread which should help you see what the issue is with penetration:
www.physicsforums.com...

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


The simple reality is that a landing gear just isn't THAT dense, is terribly shaped for penetration, would have lost move of its velocity after the initial impact and had to become severed from the rest of the decelerating plane, likely had to go through several columns as well on its way.

Frankly I don't know what to make of the whole Pentagon thing, so much seems so terribly wrong with it, but it difficult to why anyone would bother. The best that I can say is that it wasn't a run of the mill plane crash and that the single most suspicious thing is that punch out hole.
edit on 5-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
well i can see that things are still the same in here....Dark...you explained things very well....good to see...I also checked the sources on the site where GEN said "I Lovethis site"....hmmmm....bbc/news/NIST/Fema are sources for WTC....hmmmm quoting the same source that are under scrutiny.....hmmm...

Now WMD throws in his bit about the columns at the top being lesser in dimension than at the bottom....for a change the truth is spoken...but saying that it just backs up ANOK and how he has been stating the laws of physics and conservation of monentum....the lesser mass of the uppers columns would not be able to create a continuous collapse all the way to the ground.

now as you stated Dark about the bazant report as i have tried to mention over and over to no avail.....

the Bazant report relies completly that the crush up pohase cannot begin until..and only after the crush down phase has completed...otherwise the loss of mass would be so great the collapse could not complete.

Now also the NIST reports that Initiation of the collapse was due to floor failures...as Gen stated ...but the floor failure....was not the initiation as the columns clearly gave way first....

now do not worry GEN.....I am putting together a piece for you to peruse....and i look forward to your comments...I feel you do a good job of presenting.

so PLB your still not willing to budge i see...and i feel that is your perogative.


Conclusion:
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of
the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from
Journal of 9/11 Studies 37 June 2006/Volume 1
the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the
collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse
continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to
completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02
secondsafter impact.
A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.
The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic
shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the
energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent
of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling
mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the
buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length
over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths.
Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about
450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres. This also shows that collapse
arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even
if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic
shortening of the second storeys affected.


from gordon ross journel of 9/11 studies

yes these papers are peer reveiwed


Abstract
The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions
experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several
examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable
conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that
uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.


shall we see

Ook Gen


NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly
modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of
testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed
that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The
ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on
9/11.


yet this will not be accepted...but for me....if the NIST report is getting such bad reviews...how can anyone use it as a basis for their support of the OS...or use sites that use it as their source of information when it is the same report being questioned



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

2.0 Physical Tests
The NIST WTC investigation suffered from a paucity of physical testing. Effectively, all of NIST’s conclusions are
derived from computer simulation. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. NIST should have performed
destructive tests on mockups of key components of the WTC structural systems. This was especially important
since many of the WTC building’s structural features were very innovative for their time. As section 3 will argue,
complex structural systems involving several materials, components, and connections can be much more accurately
tested with physical models. As we review the few physical tests that NIST performed, we see that they left many
questions unanswered.


maybe test this intact floor truss seat



or maybe why many of the seats and dampers are intact



or check the lack of deformation in the bolt holes and the considerable amount of deformation in the bolt access ports.



lets look at the fire tests too...


The predictions of the fire behavior in the building interior were potentially subject to significant
uncertainty. To estimate this uncertainty, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
conducted compartment fire tests at large scale (but still smaller than the acre-size fires that burned in the
towers on September 11, 2001) and compared the results with the output from FDS simulations.”
(NCSTAR 1-5 p69)
A fundamental problem with these tests, however, is that, as NIST’s Figure 4-6 (NCSTAR 1-5 p77 and below)
shows, the tests were not ventilation limited. The fires in the WTC buildings were.


not the actual pic on the one in ref...but still NIST testing.....just go to the site to see the actual photo....NOTHING TO HIDE HERE.






as i see i can see some conflicting issues here....that is all...so if there are flaws in methodology then one needs to question the whole report....At least i would hope so...logically speaking.


The global impact simulations provided, for each tower, a range of damage estimates. This included the
base case, based on reasonable initial estimates of all input parameters, along with a less severe and a
more severe damage scenario. The less severe damage case did not meet two key observables: (1) no
aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior
to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event
(see Section 7.10), and (2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST
NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been
used. As a result, this chapter provides detailed description of the results of the analyses pertaining to the
base case and the more severe case, which were used as the initial conditions for the fire dynamics
simulations (NIST NCSTAR 1-5F), thermal analyses (NIST NCSTAR 1-5G), and fire-structural response
and collapse initiation analyses (NIST NCSTAR 1-6). Only a brief description is provided for the less
severe damage results for comparison purposes. The details of the less severe damage estimates can be
found in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) NCSTAR 1-2B.” (p167 para1)
We learn several things from going to this reference. First of all, we learn that there were not only four conditions
tested in the simulation, there were actually six. But two of these conditions, the less severe cases, were dropped
because they “did not meet two key observables,” namely, ‘no aircraft debris exited the building,’ and “the towers
would not have collapsed.”


NOTE: Mods this has been less than 2% of said document.....

Now GEN i know you wrote down times and such of the madrid fire...but i went to your links and found them to be word for word from the site your so tickled with....and i choose to use the external content so people know when i use my words or the words of others...as i have always done......

but I do understand pancaking quite well....as i do understand progressive collapse and progressive collapse due to pancaking...so trying to twist what i am saying does not work.




edit on 113030p://f43Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 113030p://f44Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 113030p://f46Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Lets take a closer look at what the NIST report concluded on the fires.....

I am not a fire expert so this will have to lay in the hands of more experienced people...so lets go.

report March 2010.


[7] Interestingly, NIST posits nearly identical collapse explanations for both WTC towers:
“The results of the global analysis of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was
initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which progressed
horizontally to adjacent walls.” (NCSTAR 1-6D, iv), Gross, John. L., et. al., “NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Global
Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire” (9/2005)
Here, as in other instances, the NIST authors only differentiate the building collapse mechanisms by which side of
the building the theorized effects were taking place. However, the Executive Summary of the FEMA/BPAT study
poses a very different interpretation of the events: “… the collapse of these symbolic buildings entailed a complex
series of events that were not identical for each tower.”(FEMA 403 ES, 2)


now what is this...is there a conflict between what NIST reports and FEMA reports...If this is the case then how could one possibly present both as conclusions....JUST a question.


“Only three [out of 171] of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached
temperatures in excess of 250 ºC during the fires or after the collapse. This was based
on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by
steel members through observations of paint cracking.” (NCSTAR 1, 181)


now i know how how GEN says thiat the floor trusses were of such weak construction that they were able to pull in the exterior support columns...well IF the exterior support colums were so damaged by fire...yet NIST' own report say only 3 of 171 reach temps in excess of 250degrees....makes it kind of hard for weaked floor trusses to pull in the exterior columns that were themselves not weakened.



taking into consideration they would also have to deform the spandrels......as well as the column.


After only 15 minutes of exposure at 625ºC, the pearlite showed signs of
spheroidization. As this feature was not observed in any of the four spandrel materials
evaluated, it was believed that the spandrels were not exposed to this temperature or
that if they were, it was for significantly less time than 15 minutes.

As the spandrels link the closely-spaced perimeter columns it is reasonable to believe that the
columns would have experienced similar, unexceptional temperatures.


Now does this make sense...since the transfer of heat would be rising quickly upwards away from the source for the fires...i mean am i wrong here.....please explain as i am so lacking in knowledge.

Now i will not go into the full report as that can be left up to the intectual capabilities of the presenters in this thread.

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy

But from what i gather....NIST has failed miserably in the fire testing.....so in conclusion.

The Nist Report has failed due to faultly analysis and lack of real world physical test of compents of the actual structure that was supposed to be analysed.
So in conclusion could people please use other sources that support the OS that actually have proper feasibility testing of all said components....Oh right they were sent to china to the lowest bidder to be melted down.






edit on 123030p://f33Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
If a landing gear can go through all those brick walls at the Pentagon, I imagine one could do severe damage to the core at WTC.

Then

Once the outer steel buckles there would be horizontal torque to the inner core.


If there is horizontal torque to the core how did that cause it to collapse vertically through its increasing mass?

Take a broom stick push down on it, put horizontal torque on it, as hard as you can, how does it fail? Now take 47 broom handles and fasten them together with cross bracing.

And when are you going to address the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws, in your analysis? When??? You OSers don't even use those terms, ever, why?


Each law of motion (three in total) that Newton developed has significant mathematical and physical interpretations that are needed to understand the motion of objects in our universe. The applications of these laws of motion are truly limitless.

Essentially, these laws define the means by which motion changes, specifically the way in which those changes in motion are related to force and mass.

physics.about.com...

Unless you address those laws you have explained nothing. Unless your hypothesis abides by those laws it will not work, you have not addressed the problems we are pointing out. You fail.


edit on 9/5/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your lack of understanding is noted, but I already told you I am not explaining things like this to you again, as you just ignored previous explanations.


I didn't ignore anything. I made a rebuttal to your claims.

You have just ignored my rebuttal with a complete cop-out.

What lack of understanding PLB? Explain yourself, or quit replying to me.

When are you going to address the laws of motion in your analysis?


edit on 9/5/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Can i ask you one question....what ever makes you think that we as truthers have not read the reports....i myself have and have read the NIST',FEMA', Bazant' and also many many many contradicting reports....
just as you see quotes from the NIST reports in my replies.

The problem is...the only reports that keep getting used as gospel by the OS movement is the three reports that i have mentioned...and to me it is strange...very very evry strange that if these reports are sooooo great and full of knowledge...how come there are not a queue of professionals coming forward and staking their careers on them.
Yet professionals are coming forward over and over and staking not only their careers but their lively hoods against them.

JUST a question on that....not sure if you could answer it.....now if people out there show that these reports have faulty analysis...then how in the world can people use them to back up their arguments....Do you not find it strange....now if we were in court and an expert used faulty calculations to determine the cause of a car crash...guess what...that report would be considered null and void...and no longer be admitted as evidence into the case.....It would no longer even be allowed to be referenced for any of it's content...as a judge would draw the conclusion if it failed in any area...then the possibilities would be so high as that it would have failed in others.

Now lets get really really hypothetical shall we....the theory of relativity.....If it gets deem to be not relative...then the theory in it's entirety gets deemed non relative....even though it is a great work.

just as theories throughout history gets tossed out....but you know this because you seem like an intelligent person to me....even though you would never grace me with the same...but it is ok....i know who i am and what i do.....Am i always correct....let me think...nope...i am human after all.

So conclusion....are the people at NIST,FEMA,Bazant infalible......i would think not...as they are human...not only that they are humans who were under tremendous amounts of pressure to come up with a paper to say wht the TPTB wanted it to say.....what an awful position to be in don't you think.


edit on 013030p://f15Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 023030p://f09Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 023030p://f30Monday by plube because: typos syndrome



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join