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.
Originally posted by ProudBird
Sorry, but that is irrelevant here. Can't believe anyone wrote that in seriousness.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ANOK
And sadly.....this delusional application and mind-set forms the foundation of your inability to understand the dynamics involved in the actual physics that took place on "9/11".
The delusional thinking is SO clear now....thanks.
Originally posted by ANOK
And sadly you fail to address my points as usual. All you can do is attempt to insult and discredit.
Why did you even reply?
If I'm so delusional then explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns like I asked?
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK
The intense fire caused the trusses to expand. But the perimeter wall was stronger and forced the trusses to bow.
As the fire cooled because the fuel on that floor had been used up, the trusses started to contract.
This contraction caued the exterior to be pulled inward.
Also in response to a earlier post of yours.
Yes the designers designed in a safety factor for severed exterior sections. But they didn't count on 35 side by side sections would ever be severed.
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek
You may think it has been answered, but it hasn't.
I have rebutted all your claims so far. I am looking for an answer to that rebuttal. Just keep repeating the OS to me isn't an answer to my rebuttal.
I have explained why they couldn't pull in the columns, you have yet to actually address my points.
Originally posted by pteridine
And several have explained how they could pull in the columns that were sheared by the aircraft. It has to do with loading of trusses by the floors. Do we need to go through this again?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by pteridine
And several have explained how they could pull in the columns that were sheared by the aircraft. It has to do with loading of trusses by the floors. Do we need to go through this again?
Again no they haven't.
How is loading of the floors got anything to do with it?
Are you saying the load on the floors increased to the point that the columns could no longer hold it?
How did that happen? How could the load change on the columns? If the trusses sagged then yes they may have a problem holding the load, but that has nothing to do with the columns holding the load of the whole floor assembly as it was designed to do, yes even during a fire.
Originally posted by pteridine
Columns that are cut by the impacts no longer have support and are susceptible to distortion.
They are limited in their outward movement by thermal expansion of the trusses. As the trusses heat, they lose strength and begin to sag under the weight of the floor and the contents loading the floor, including interior partition walls. Because they are attached at the core and the columns, they act as a cable with the weight of the floor pulling on the core and the columns. The sheared columns have less support than the core and preferentially move inward.
Originally posted by Illustronic
Buildings are designed to hold static vertical mass, not a mass in motion or a mass imbalanced. The core of WTC towers were insufficient to hold the structure of the bridge floor supports to the outer honeycomb support shell structure, when warpage occurs to the outer rigid design the compromise is spread to the least resistant components, the rest of the outer rigid support structure, that was warping and loosing its bridge like structure to the core that eventually set the upper floors in motion no building that size can support.
It was a risky innovative design to allow for the most unobstructed interior space, supported by that bridge floor design that required the inner core and outer shell working together, take out too much of those three components you have massive structural failure.
What warping? WTC 2 was on fire for less than one hour, not enough time to warp steel to such an extent that failure would occur.
The intense fire caused the trusses to expand. But the perimeter wall was stronger and forced the trusses to bow.
As the fire cooled because the fuel on that floor had been used up, the trusses started to contract.
This contraction caued the exterior to be pulled inward.
Yes the designers designed in a safety factor for severed exterior sections. But they didn't count on 35 side by side sections would ever be severed.
Because they are attached at the core and the columns, they act as a cable with the weight of the floor pulling on the core and the columns.
The sheared columns have less support than the core and preferentially move inward.
You did not see the outer walls bowing outward before the collapse?
Quit shoveling bullcrap!
Originally posted by ANOK
Again an assumption, you have no evidence that supports were cut.
Again there is no more weight added to the trusses, why would you think that? So no more weight for the columns to hold.
The truss would not act like a cable, but again even if it did where is this extra load coming from? A cable is not sagging because it is hot, it is not pliable like softened steel, it's not even a close comparison other than the shape it makes.
Even IF there was more weight, do you know how much extra weight the columns could hold before failure? Do you know the FoS and the max pressure it could hold? If you don't then you have nothing to support your claim.
This is an important question, please answer at least this...
Do you think the 5/8th bolts were stronger than the core and outer wall columns?
If you don't then why didn't they fail first? If you do then how do you explain the floors collapsing at all, isn't weak connections part of your hypothesis? How did the floors pull in the columns if the connections were a weak point?
The sheared columns can move where they like without affecting the behaviour of the load-bearing columns.