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.
...in a true barrel effect, the distortion is not confined to a small portion of the photograph.
I'd note that the photo you posted illustrates that the distortion only grows more severe toward the edges of the frame.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
You can follow the link here which also has video of the exterior columns being pulled in prior to collapse:
Bowed Columns
It is not a result of, as you claim, photo distortion. Why would it be one section of the wall?
Originally posted by ANOK
It's obvious the bowed columns claim is bogus.
There is no way the trusses could have put a pulling force on the columns. So if something bowed the columns it wasn't the trusses.
Simple physics, IF the trusses did sag it was because of the steel expanding from the heat, they couldn't push out so they sag instead, it would have not caused it to have put anymore force on the columns, other wise they would never have sagged in the first place and just pushed the columns out. All the force of the truss is taken up in the sagging.
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
...in a true barrel effect, the distortion is not confined to a small portion of the photograph.
It is when the photo is cropped and magnified like yours.
.
.
.
...The radial distortion are incremental with the worst to the perimeter and the least affected area in the centre. The whole photo is distorted.
Have you ever seen a string pull two sides inward when you depress the center? Essentially, the same thing happens when trusses sag. The weight becomes focused on the weakest point, and it exerts a pulling force on the weaker of the two sides, which would be the external columns, as opposed to the core columns
Originally posted by Darkwing01
I just had to log in to laugh at this.
Just read that bit again, this time imagining the hand of god coming down and depressing the trusses. There WAS NO HAND OF GOD DEPRESSING THE TRUSSES. The thing that is causing the sagging in your example is your HAND DEPRESSING THE STRING.
It is not the weight of the string, which, you will recall, has not changed.
Thanks for the laugh though.edit on 14-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by Darkwing01
I just had to log in to laugh at this.
Just read that bit again, this time imagining the hand of god coming down and depressing the trusses. There WAS NO HAND OF GOD DEPRESSING THE TRUSSES. The thing that is causing the sagging in your example is your HAND DEPRESSING THE STRING.
It is not the weight of the string, which, you will recall, has not changed.
Thanks for the laugh though.
Weight distribution has changed, no? Trusses are a bit bigger than the string experiment, and have more weight to pull with when they sag. Are you trying to say that when they sag they are just getting longer and that no forces are changing whatsoever?
Weight distribution has changed, no? Trusses are a bit bigger than the string experiment, and have more weight to pull with when they sag. Are you trying to say that when they sag they are just getting longer and that no forces are changing whatsoever?
Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Varemia
Weight distribution has changed, no? Trusses are a bit bigger than the string experiment, and have more weight to pull with when they sag. Are you trying to say that when they sag they are just getting longer and that no forces are changing whatsoever?
Of course the forces change.
But there is no additional weight bearing down on the structure as a whole. The members are not sagging because they are being pushed down, they are sagging because they are softening.
The weight that bears down at the connections is still ultimately exactly same in the case of the trusses, but not in the case of the string.
The only difference in the distribution of forces at the wall is that a lot of the force that was plumb before has now become torsional. But the weight being applied is exactly the same.edit on 14-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
I'm definitely curious, because you do have logic there. I'd like to see tests run on this before I make a decision either way. If it is modeled properly and tested, it should be fairly definitive.