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.

 

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The dowel does not participate in the collapse. Without the dowel the stack is so weak it cannot even stay up straight.

So your own model cannot do the one thing that you insist all buildings must do and hold itself up. That's really pathetic.


But even though it cannot do what real buildings have to do. It also did not do what YOU CLAIM the Twin Towers are supposed to have done.

Collapse straight down destroying itself with its own weight.

None of our engineering schools that charge $100,000 for four years of education have built a model that can do it either. I haven't heard of any school saying it would even try. In fact most of our engineering schools seem to be very quiet on the subject of 9/11. Now why is that?

psik


The problem is they didn't collapse the way you described but YOU can't see that.

Lets look at the collapse the North tower around 15 floors fell and this has been shown on other threads generates a massive dynamic load the bulk of the falling mass falls on the floor slab those connections fail that then causes the walls to fail and the process repeats.


You keep trying to peddle that pancaking crap. You talk about connections to the slab but then never say how many there were.

You pretend that the core columns and horizontal beams are irrelevant. The slab connections are the same all of the way down the building. But the columns had to get stronger and therefore heavier down the building. So you are leaving out what you want and expecting the people you are talking to to not notice.

psik




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





You keep trying to peddle that pancaking crap. You talk about connections to the slab but then never say how many there were.






I have made many a comment here on ATS about this subject....I have a feeling you do not know too much on heavy construction, steel, iron work,. Because if you did, you would'nt speak the things you are talking about....

You can use the search function for more information





posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

You keep trying to peddle that pancaking crap. You talk about connections to the slab but then never say how many there were.


I have made many a comment here on ATS about this subject....I have a feeling you do not know too much on heavy construction, steel, iron work,. Because if you did, you would'nt speak the things you are talking about....

You can use the search function for more information


Oh wow! I am so impressed by that floor section picture that we have seen before and before and before.

It still doesn't tell us how many connections there were. Because if that number is mentioned that will bring up the question of how fire could make them all give way at once. Because if they don't give way at once the floor would have to tilt and squeeze the core creating LOTS OF FRICTION.

psik



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

What are you talking about?
What do you know about heavy construction? Posting a simple pic means nothing.
Why do you think the lighter mass above the impact zone can destroy the much larger mass below?
Come on.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Two bolts in one I beam clip on one side and one bolt in the clip on the other. I had a good coversation with my instructor on this topic. He is far from a msm believer. They all do not have to give out at once. Only one at a time, the downward force from the floors above makes the others fail. Because they are operating outside of their design specs......

The clips are made to hold the beams in place. Not withstand multiple tons of downward force all at once in one impact. How is this hard to understand?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

What are you talking about?
What do you know about heavy construction? Posting a simple pic means nothing.
Why do you think the lighter mass above the impact zone can destroy the much larger mass below?
Come on.



I have repeatedly stated here on ATS that I have graduated a two year welding technologies college course.

Oh, and I am currently a tinner (do you know what that is). I deal with bare structural steel and concrete deckings everyday. I install industrial ductwork and hangers in the trusses. Some hangers require I beam clamps. I see I beam all day long.

You were asking what again?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The only charlatans in that film are the morons and lying puppets in the NIST, particularly the obvious liar Shyman Sunder.

Its almost laughable that people would think this isn’t a controlled demolition.

But its not funny because this was a psyop mass-murder of immense evil and destruction and prima facie evidence we are in something worst than any dictatorship that has ever existed.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Two bolts in one I beam clip on one side and one bolt in the clip on the other. I had a good coversation with my instructor on this topic. He is far from a msm believer. They all do not have to give out at once. Only one at a time, the downward force from the floors above makes the others fail. Because they are operating outside of their design specs......

The clips are made to hold the beams in place. Not withstand multiple tons of downward force all at once in one impact. How is this hard to understand?


So how many connections and bolts was that all around the floor? The floor slab was 206 ft square on the outside and the core was 86 by 136 feet. So what was the total number of connections?

Why don't you want to talk about that?

psik



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Regardless of whether floor trusses failed, you still have 110 concrete and steel floors that you have to account for.

Where were the floors when the collapse was complete? They were in a 360d arc around the towers, FEMA confirmed this.

So that means the floors were being ejected during the collapse. If floors are being ejected you are losing mass.
This is in accordance with the three laws of motion. What is not in accordance with the laws of motion is the collapse continuing despite the loss of mass and Ke.

If you are losing mass you are losing your downward force. Also the Ke of the collapse has to be reduced because it converts to other energy needed to deform, make sound, overcome friction/resistance etc. If ke is being lost, and mass is being lost, then you are losing energy needed for the collapse to have continued at an increasing rate. It is impossible for that to happen without another energy being involved that has not been investigated for.

You also have to explain how the 47 core columns could telescope down through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance.

It's not as easy and straight forward as you OS supporters want to believe.


edit on 8/27/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok psik here's a present for you. It's short, has pictures and it's easy to understand.


Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers





Above the aircraft impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2), the failure modes were randomly distributed. However, over 90% of floor truss connections at or below the impact floors of both buildings were either bent downward or completely sheared from the exterior wall suggesting progres- sive overloading of the floors below the impact zone following collapse initiation of the towers. Depending upon joint geometry, detachment of the main truss seats occurred either by fracture in the heat-affected zone of the base material, where the standoff plate detached from the spandrel, or through the weld metal, where the seat angle detached from the standoff plate. Failure in both cases was the result of a shear mechanism due to an overload condition.


link

Merry Truther Christmas




posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I am going to use wikipedia because there are so many garbage sites with "information". If you do not like it then, Lj shruggs shoulders.


The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors with shear connections to the concrete slab for composite action.[7] The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short-span area.[7] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were therefore on 6.8 feet (2.1 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to interior box columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers, which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants.

The towers also incorporated a "hat truss" or "outrigger truss" located between the 107th and 110th floors, which consisted of six trusses along the long axis of core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed optimized load redistribution of floor diaphragms between the perimeter and core, with improved performance between the different materials of flexible steel and rigid concrete allowing the moment frames to transfer sway into compression on the core





[Further down the page]


While they were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.[28]

[edit] Collapse initiationAfter the planes hit the buildings, but before they collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[29]
.
en.wikipedia.org...

So what seems to be the issue again?

You asked why i did'nt want to talk about connections. Well.... Lets talk connections.



Here is a better photo. I hope these are legit. It is late and I am tired...If you find anything wrong let me know. I will acknowledge it.



Well, from what I see. The connections are certainly only capable of a certain amount of load...Therefore following the design specifications.

What are you getting at? I took the time to look up the same old info for you.

ETA: I know that earlier I said one bolt on one side and two on the other. The diagrams show two 5/8 inch bolts on the top and two 1 inch bolts on the bottom,on each side.......Oh no it's a conspiracy....I would like to correct myself before someone takes issue with it, that is if any of the information available today is correct

edit on 27-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: ETA

edit on 27-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: forgot the one inch bolts on bottom. I am trying to be as correct as possible. Sorry for editing.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
ETA: I know that earlier I said one bolt on one side and two on the other. The diagrams show two 5/8 inch bolts on the top and two 1 inch bolts on the bottom,on each side.......Oh no it's a conspiracy....I would like to correct myself before someone takes issue with it, that is if any of the information available today is correct


So you still can't specify the total number of connections but you think the "conspiracy" psychological BS is significant.

psik



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


No one is disagreeing that floor trusses failed. Obviously they did. What I keep trying to point out to you is failure of the trusses would still not lead to complete destruction of the floors, and the collapsing of the 47 core columns.
So failure of the trusses is not what caused the complete collapse imo, there is still the problem of there not being enough energy to completely collapse the towers. Your argument does not address what I explained in my last post.

You also have to explain how the trusses failed in the first place for your hypothesis to be complete. That should be a good one. Let's guess? Sagging trusses?

You keep arguing your point, but ignoring the rebuttal. You need to address the problems I and others have pointed out in your hypothesis, or we will just go around in circles.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GenRadek
the most critical design flaw of the WTC, and you say they had nothing to do with the collapse?


So you can CLAIM something is a design flaw without even knowing the layout of the horizontal beams in the core and the distribution of steel down the building.

This debate isn't about physics and how reality works it is semantic and psychological bullsh#.

Talk about connections of the floors and never hear a number for how many there were. How could fire make them all come loose simultaneously? Oh, that isn't worth mentioning either.

psik


Sorry washer man but you are as bad as ANOK who said they failed at once once the collapse started the only thing that COULD support the floors was the CONNECTIONS which were the same from top to bottom on the twin towers except at the service floors.

Look at any construction photos wall or core steel was never very high above flooring system because they support each other. Tube in tube was great for floor space and the downfall of the towers.



great observation, but doesn't explain the vertical steel columns collapsing in on themselves at the same speed that the building was supposedly pancaking....floors can possibly pancake to an extent but steel columns can't pancake.....
edit on 24-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



Do you want to show proof that the were collapsing in ? or indeed falling at the same time as the floor slabs!.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Someone else making CLAIMS and disappearing the horizontal beams in the core. The core was not a tube. The tube-in-tube is just misleading semantic jargon.

"Washer Man" -


You can name call all you want. But neither you nor anyone else has built a self supporting model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%. What engineering school has even tried? The engineering schools don't even talk about having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. 9/11 is a scientific JOKE that the engineering schools are participating in.

But I see you still don't mention the NUMBER OF THOSE CONNECTIONS. Doesn't anybody know?


psik


Care to show were I have ever claimed disappearing horizontal core beams!

The WTC are ... well lets see you have an outer tube the walls and an inner tube the core!

You claim above "you nor anyone else has built a self supporting model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%."

Can you prove anyone has built anaccurate model of the towers to try that well can you?

Re the number of connections
Well as maths doesn't seem to be your strong point lets tell you how to work it out count the trusses on a floor slab ok then each end will be connected to the outer wall and the horizontal beam shown here in drawing below at the core side(detail b), so in simple terms for you truss x 2 = number of connections!





Oh at each connection 2 x 5/8" bolts the wall side had a damping unit as well that was to stop excessive floor movement in high winds no loading benefit!.
edit on 27-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink
reply to post by hooper
 


Pathetic is your lack of understanding about the issue at hand, but Ill leave you to your ignorance to see if you figure it out, good luck.


As if you have shown any



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Regardless of whether floor trusses failed, you still have 110 concrete and steel floors that you have to account for.

Where were the floors when the collapse was complete? They were in a 360d arc around the towers, FEMA confirmed this.


edit on 8/27/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Care to prove that YOU seem to think that if the floors did fail what should be at the bottom is a one acre square piece on conctere/trusses stacked neatly on top of each other
are you really that MAD!

The floors had approx 4.5" thick(avg out peak and trough in decking) layer of concrete I did this for you before so even if NOT DAMAGE the concrete would be 110 x 4.5" thick = 495 inches divide by 12 = 41 ft thick ,NOW DO YOU actually think that the top floor having fell 1300+ feet would be intact or each floor below which would fall about 12ft less than the floor immediately above them, do you think they would be in one piece


Every one ANOK was looking for a PERFECT CUBE one acre in area by 41ft thick thats how deluded him and his like are!



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
ETA: I know that earlier I said one bolt on one side and two on the other. The diagrams show two 5/8 inch bolts on the top and two 1 inch bolts on the bottom,on each side.......Oh no it's a conspiracy....I would like to correct myself before someone takes issue with it, that is if any of the information available today is correct


So you still can't specify the total number of connections but you think the "conspiracy" psychological BS is significant.

psik


I believe I specified how many bolts there are.

Can you read? I corrected myself and you still have an issue with that


Is that the only come back you have? I see nothing in your post to explain anything. I do not believe you have anything. I understand how buildings are built. You obviously do not.

I spent the time looking up some information for you, again, corrected myself and this is what you have to reply with........

You need to give it up man. Obviously you do not have a clue


ETA: The reason I said "if the information is correct" in the above post is because I believe with so many bogus claims of BS in every corner of the net when you Google 9/11.....It really is ridiculous.........Who's telling who what again....That is the internet....And I was using wikipedia, remember......Who really knows whats up....The original blueprints in my face is about the only 100% proof I can think of.
edit on 27-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: ETA



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
ETA: I know that earlier I said one bolt on one side and two on the other. The diagrams show two 5/8 inch bolts on the top and two 1 inch bolts on the bottom,on each side.......Oh no it's a conspiracy....I would like to correct myself before someone takes issue with it, that is if any of the information available today is correct


So you still can't specify the total number of connections but you think the "conspiracy" psychological BS is significant.

psik


I believe I specified how many bolts there are.

Can you read?


ROFLMAO

You specified how many bolts there were on each end of ONE TRUSS. But you are talking about entire floor slabs falling down.

How many connections were there all around the outer and inner edges of the floor assembly? How could they all come loose simultaneously due to fire?

psik



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





How many connections were there all around the outer and inner edges of the floor assembly? How could they all come loose simultaneously due to fire?


Are you serious? Is this your tool for the truther movement.

The fire weakened some of the connections. That is all it takes when you have several hundreds, or thousands of tons sticking a quarter of a mile in the air. It naturally wants to come down because of gravity. The connections hold it up. If the connections are damaged or subject to any force, heat, or other stresses outside of their design specifications they can, will, and did fail.

It is obvious that only a few connections need to fail to bring the whole structure down........The weight alone from the downward force, severed the other connections. The connections are the weak link. They are only there to supply strength to the specified (non moving) load. Not all of the other floors above load, in a downward falling motion.. What the hell man? Do you know anything about buildings? You sure act like you do, but obviously you do not.

You have your blinders on........Lj01 is tired of the sheraids...My blood pressure is high from the kids acting up........Is there somewhere on ATS where people actually use critical thinking?

I have been through this many a times. You can call me whatever. You can pick apart my statements(even after I correct myself) or whatever you want to do....It is obvious that you have no intention of finding the truth. It is right in front of you and you still are sputtering nonsense.....

Carry on with your truther "truth"


I am done with this thread. It is just like all of the thousands of other one's. Seriously lacking critical thinking from the same people claiming they are thinking



edit on 27-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join