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.

 

Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 84
34
<< 81  82  83    85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The damper and other floor attachment brackets were also a point of failure leading to the towers' collapse. When the intense fire heated the 60 foot-long floor trusses, they eventually distorted and pulled free of their attachments to the exterior columns.

americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=105

If the damper fails, it allows movement of the bottom of the truss.............it makes the other connections strained even more.......


If a damper failed then stronger and more important things failed first.

psik




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I guess that you ingnored the 5/8 inch bolts and the two 7/8 inch bolts that hold the truss to the beam.


Do you know how many trusses there were per floor?


number of long span trusses 60 (30 per side)
number of short span trusses 28 (14 per side)

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

I didn't ignore anything. You can go on all day about the bolts and dampeners etc., but you are just wasting your time.

Fact is regardless of what connected the floors to the core, the laws of physics still apply. There is not enough energy from gravity to completely destroy a building, bend and break connections, let alone bend and break steel box columns and eject all the buildings contents in a 360d arc around the towers.

This argument firstly though depends on the validity of NISTs claims, that trusses sagged and pulled in columns.
I still have seen no explanation as to how that is possible? Has anyone tested this hypothesis? All it is an hypothesis but you act like its proven fact. It is no more a proven fact than anything a 'truther' says.

Even IF the floors fell the way you claim, 15 floors could not cause that to happen to 95 floors as I explained, that you either didn't read, or didn't understand, because you have not addressed any of my points.

In stead of researching pictures that you think help your case, you'd do better reading and understanding the physics of colliding objects. I would love to hear a real explanation of the collapse from one of you OS supporters that includes the relevant physics, rather than your imagination...

www.fearofphysics.com...

Next understand this...

Factor of Safety

Then this...

Heat Transfer: Overview

That should be enough for you to understand why the collapses could not have been initiated from fires in an hour, and the rest of the nonsense excuses for the collapses, are irrelevant.


edit on 12/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


STUCK RECORD, STUCK RECORD STUCK RECORD The building contents weren't ejected, the walls fell as you would expect due to the design!

YOU IGNORE the real physics of what happened that the problem ANOK!



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The building contents weren't ejected, the walls fell as you would expect due to the design!


Perhaps you can help with this question.

After the dust had cleared some parts of the outer wall could be seen still standing and had to be cut apart and demolished during the clean up operation. My question is, if these enormous towers fell down in a gravitational collapse why didn't they land on the lower parts of the wall? Surely these walls couldn't possibly survive the enormous weight responsible for the destruction of the buildings? Due to the design I would expect the upper parts to descend vertically and crush the lower parts. What am I missing here?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


STUCK RECORD, STUCK RECORD STUCK RECORD The building contents weren't ejected, the walls fell as you would expect due to the design!

YOU IGNORE the real physics of what happened that the problem ANOK!


Yeah, this STUCK RECORD is a travesty of science. Astronomers are supposed to understand gravity. Most scientists should have been pointing out that we needed to know the distributions of steel and concrete in 2002. So after TEN YEARS they will look really stupid saying it is important to the analysis now.

Isaac Newton's birthday is Dec 25th.

So how will the physics profession ever get out of the corner it has painted itself into?

And then the psychologists have to explain these ten years of nonsense.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

Then we have all of the educators talking about STEM. And the atheists claiming to be SCIENTIFIC and RATIONAL.


psik



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So how will the physics profession ever get out of the corner it has painted itself into?



I'll just go ahead and assume you're talking about the higgs boson.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


STUCK RECORD, STUCK RECORD STUCK RECORD The building contents weren't ejected, the walls fell as you would expect due to the design!

YOU IGNORE the real physics of what happened that the problem ANOK!


I knew I was wasting my time.

Did you read anything in those links I provided?

Stuck record? I am presenting facts for you to look at and try to understand, sorry if I keep repeating the same thing but you have yet to prove me wrong. If you could then you would, instead of your immature reply.

I am not ignoring anything, I just supplied you with links to the physics, how can I be ignoring the physics. Your failure to understand is the problem mate. You still have not addressed the 'laws of motion', and you tell me I ignore the physics? Unless you address the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, in the collapse you have ignored the physics. I have seen very few OSers even mention it, when they do they get it wrong.

First thing you need to do is prove, by showing, that sagging trusses can pull in the columns they are attached to.
When you have done that then you might have a point, otherwise it's just you making things up (actually I shouldn't even give you that credit, you are just repeating what others have made up).


edit on 12/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So how will the physics profession ever get out of the corner it has painted itself into?


I'll just go ahead and assume you're talking about the higgs boson.


I will care about your assumptions when you can build a model that can crush itself with 15% or less of its own height and mass.

psik



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

First thing you need to do is prove, by showing, that sagging trusses can pull in the columns they are attached to.


We know that the columns were pulled inward. The only thing present in the structure that can exert a lateral force on them is the trusses and slabs. The trusses and slabs are unlikely to have shrunk, I think, so it's a good bet that they pulled by deforming from their straight configuration.

How does that sound to you?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Another STUCK RECORD!

You say you worked out the energy to crush your paper rings work out the approx amount of enrgy then force for the floors falling in N T then the S T.

You have enough info to get an approx value.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You iirc say you work with CAD if that is correct if you know any STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ask them.

I DONT disagree with the laws of physics its YOU that doesn't apply them ALL to this problem!



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Forget the connections this is about physics? This is about design not physics. Without physics you could not build the building to work in the fashion it did. However, there is no need for physics to show how it collapsed.

There was major structural damage at impact. During that time, multiple supports, used to distribute the weight, were destroyed. So, other parts of the building take up the slack. Now, the connections to the outside colums weaken. Once they start to snap and buckle, there is only one place for all of that weight to go....down.

Denial. You and psik write the same thing over and over and over and always ask for an answer to a simple question when asked a question.

There is MORE than enough evidence to calculate the weight of the towers, you are too lazy to do it because I think you may be afraid you will find that your arguments are bunk.

Again, both of you. I would appreciate if you both simply used two sentences to explain what the extra energy is? Why will you not do that? Grow a set and answer the questions asked boys....



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
 


Forget the connections this is about physics? This is about design not physics. Without physics you could not build the building to work in the fashion it did. However, there is no need for physics to show how it collapsed.

Denial. You and psik write the same thing over and over and over and always ask for an answer to a simple question when asked a question.


Are you trying to talk about how it collapsed without dealing with the amount of time it took too collapse?

Ever heard of the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM? It has something to do with VELOCITY therefore it has something to do with TIME. And the distribution of MASS has to affect the TIME.

That is it does if it was a COLLAPSE where the top portion of the north tower forced down the lower intact portion. But if that is not what happened then the TIME could be completely different. This whole thing should really be about NOTHING BUT PHYSICS. Those floor connections are trivial. But people trying to convince us that the building could COLLAPSE in 25 seconds need some bullsh# excuse to hang their hat on.

Those connections supported individual floors outside the core and they were the same on the 10th level as they were on the 105th level of the towers. But the 10th level had to support a lot more weight than the 105th so it had to be different in a number of ways. But after TEN YEARS we don't have physicists saying much about the distribution of steel down those buildings.

Happy Birthday Isaac Newton.

psiik



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Again, what is the outside energy introduced?

Now, allow me to retort. Physics does not need to be rewritten and there are no new laws to introduce so physics should not be a part of this discussion unless you do not understand the basic. Momentum...Kinetic Energy...Gravity...they all played a part in the collapse. Sometimes at different times and sometimes at the same time. I do not think anyone needs a lesson here.

If you build something, you build it to stand properly. We can use any example we want but if a building, designed in the same fashion, a framed tube, if you take away part of the stability it will eventually succumb to gravity and collapse.

In the case of most things, it may be a book falling off the table. I rock from a cliff. Something that is moving at a minute speed but was drawn by one thing...gravity. Small objects. In the case of the WTC, it was 100's of tons of material that was engineered that if built correctly, would withstand an earthquake. Withstand. The WTC did that. IT withstood a strike from an airliner. But this is the beginning of the story not the end.

I am not tossing aside physics. I am stating that if something else caused it, cough it up.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
We know that the columns were pulled inward.


How do you know that, no one could see inside the towers?


The only thing present in the structure that can exert a lateral force on them is the trusses and slabs. The trusses and slabs are unlikely to have shrunk, I think, so it's a good bet that they pulled by deforming from their straight configuration.

How does that sound to you?


Why do keep talking about lateral forces? Lateral means from the side, for a straight down collapse the forces are axial.


If the load on a column is applied through the center of gravity of its cross section, it is called an axial load.

www.wikiengineer.com...

If the loads were lateral the collapse would not have been symmetrical. The forces were all on the vertical except for the tilting, which by itself make complete collapse from falling floors impossible. Hitting a column at an angle is not an axial force, so thus the columns could not have been collapsed by the tilting top, as they collapse straight down and didn't tip over.

Steel expands when it is heated. The trusses would first of all push outwards from expansion, the columns could not be pushed outwards, so they go in the only direction they can, downwards, they SAG.

Now explain to me how the trusses could pull columns in, if they couldn't push them out? The truss deforms because it is pliable from heat, it can not pull on anything, otherwise it would have pushed columns out and not sagged.


edit on 12/22/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
After the dust had cleared some parts of the outer wall could be seen still standing and had to be cut apart and demolished during the clean up operation. My question is, if these enormous towers fell down in a gravitational collapse why didn't they land on the lower parts of the wall? Surely these walls couldn't possibly survive the enormous weight responsible for the destruction of the buildings? Due to the design I would expect the upper parts to descend vertically and crush the lower parts. What am I missing here?


The usual culprit is other debris.

Basically, the debris that has fallen can act as support to structures that have not yet fallen, making them incredibly strong for a short period.

Take 6 tooth picks and make a single 'wall' (2 horizontal (top and bottom) and 4 vertical (equally spaced).

Try to stand it up. It will be very difficult.

Take a pile of sugar and place the 'wall' into the sugar deep enough that you can provide a flat base on top.

Add weight.

You now have a wall that could not stand by itself easily capable of handling loads far exceeding it's design capabilities.

Now repeat very fast and you have what happens to the lower assembly of many buildings that collapse without design.

You can note that in controlled demolitions, they will specifically try to avoid this by blowing out key points prior to and during the collapse.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


You iirc say you work with CAD if that is correct if you know any STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ask them.

I DONT disagree with the laws of physics its YOU that doesn't apply them ALL to this problem!


No sorry I don't work with CAD anymore. I don't need to ask an engineer basic physics, I went to school for that.

I never said you disagree with the physics, you just keep either ignoring the physics, or misunderstanding them. You need to explain how I am not applying the physics, not just say I'm not. Anyone can say you're wrong, and run away. I have shown using many links that I am right about the physics, what have you shown?

Can you explain equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, laws please? Prove you know how to apply them. Prove to me you understand them, as I have done many times. You guys seem to avoid even mentioning them, always waffling on about the construction, like we don't know. We know as much as you do as we are all looking at the same sources. Some of us though have some real world experience, and have a better understanding of what we are looking at. None of you are engineers or even worked in engineering, all you have is what you read on the net, and you misunderstand a lot of that because you lack the background to understand.
No trying to attack you, just making an obvious observation.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You mean you are right about physics like potential energy pushing up or the top section having no potential energy when it was still attached to the rest of the building? Maybe you should write a book about it.
edit on 22-12-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Again, what is the outside energy introduced?

If you build something, you build it to stand properly. We can use any example we want but if a building, designed in the same fashion, a framed tube, if you take away part of the stability it will eventually succumb to gravity and collapse.


The core was not a tube. It is just a convenient, but inaccurate, name for the design.

If I specified an energy source then I would be expected to provide evidence and I haven't been to New York since long before 9/11. The only evidence is that collapse time which could not happen without other energy destroying the core. So why won't our experts even tell us the mass of steel on each level of the core? It had to be strong enough to support 53% of the buildings weight plus the live load. And properly distributed down the building.

psik



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The 'core' was also not the primary load bearing structure of the design.

The load bearing was shared between the steel 'exoskeleton', the intermediary columns, and the main core.

A failure in any one of those would have lead to a collapse.




top topics



 
34
<< 81  82  83    85  86 >>

log in

join