An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T's List of Demolition Signs

reply to post by samkent

The sheared columns were the load bearing columns!

There was no other form of support between the exterior columns and the central core.
It was 60 feet of light weight floor trusses that braced the exterior columns.

Allow me to clarify my statement:

The sheared columns can move where they like without introducing critical P-delta effects or affecting the behaviour of the continuous load-bearing columns (which contribute to supporting the top section, unlike the sheared columns).

I doubt the exterior columns could hold themselves upright for 110 stories without the bracing from the trusses.

I disagree. From the construction photos I've seen the core appears to be sufficiently braced against itself to keep itself upright for 110 levels.

There were 59 columns on each side of WTC.
35 were severed by one plane.
That left 24 columns to support the weight of 15 stories on one side.
Now maybe if every other one had been severed.....

It would be more rational to say there were 236 exterior columns. 35 were severed. That left 201 (which also had a FoS) to take the redistributed load, primarily the 24 on the impact side and 118 on the perpendicular sides.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by ANOK

 

They were not a tube design like the Sears towers, he's only constructed one other skyscraper this way, about 1/3 the mass and height.

You did not see the outer walls bowing outward before the collapse?

Quit shoveling bullcrap!

Hmm well bullcrap depends on what you believe.

What outward bowing, please show evidence for this? Then show evidence it was sagging trusses that could do that, I have already explained why it couldn't.

I thought it was inward bowing? That can be explained by the aluminum facade that was not directly against the steel, until it bowed inwards that is.

The trusses could not have pulled in the columns imo. Do you think 5/8 bolts are stronger than the core columns?
What would fail first massive box columns or the connections?

Originally posted by samkent

I posted a link yesterday that had an Excel spread sheet of steel beams and fire.
The time to failure was listed in seconds not hours. One example I tried gave 3370 seconds which is about an hour.

I haven't seen that link, I'm not sitting here all day waiting for a post to reply to like you lot seem to.

What do you mean by failure? They sagged and pulled in the columns they were attached to? They caused a complete collapse of a building? What is your definition of failure in this context?

Was the fire directly in contact with the beam for that hour? Was someone able to stand right next to that beam when it was hot enough to fail? Did it heat up and cool down within that hour, like you claimed happened at the towers?

Originally posted by ANOK
I thought it was inward bowing? That can be explained by the aluminum facade that was not directly against the steel, until it bowed inwards that is.

No. Could we put this to rest once and for all? The generally accepted figure for south tower IB is 55 inches. You can quibble about that amount but go ahead and reduce it by more than 80% to 10 inches. Is there 10" of separation between the cladding and the exterior face of the perimeter columns (which are only 14" wide to begin with)?

No.

Your claim is false. Please stop saying it.

Edit: see 911research.wtc7.net... bottom of the page for cross section of perimeter columns including insulation and cladding.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

The sheared columns can move where they like without introducing critical P-delta effects or affecting the behaviour of the continuous load-bearing columns (which contribute to supporting the top section, unlike the sheared columns).

Like I said the sheared columns WERE THE LOAD BEARING columns. They were not in addition to. The building design did not have any vertical support other than the core and exterior columns.
The columns on the side perpendicular to the impact would not support the floors at the impact point.

I disagree. From the construction photos I've seen the core appears to be sufficiently braced against itself to keep itself upright for 110 levels.

Perhaps the core could (50/50) but I doubt the exterior could. I suspect the exterior would buckle without the floor trusses to brace them in place.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Geological note: There are no volcanoes in NYC. Also recall that a few years ago, this was written as "pyroclastic clouds," before someone with a few more neurons figured out how stupid they looked and changed it to "pyroclastic-like". In effect, they went from an F- to an F. Still a failure. Dont believe me? Check out some other 9/11 Truth sites that just copy and paste garbage like this to their site.
www.abodia.com...
"Pyroclastic clouds." Yeah, right. Well done "experts.

see?
debunkers know how to spot a mistake. it does amaze how
debunkers suddenly lose that ability when it comes to some
other aspects of 9/11. like all video evidence of towers
collapsing. for instance.

right?

reply to post by ANOK

Again an assumption, you have no evidence that supports were cut.

So the plane didnt affect the trusses on the impacted floors? Really?

Again there is no more weight added to the trusses, why would you think that? So no more weight for the columns to hold.

So trusses that were severed did not transfer loads to the undamaged trusses, adding more weight to them? Really? So, if you were holding a 50lb bar in both your hands, and then I took a hammer and smashed your right hand, and your hand lets go of the bar, there is no extra weight being loaded on your left hand? It just floats?

ANOK, it amazes me sometime how "intelligent" you pass yourself of as, so well "versed" in Newton's Laws, etc, and then there are times you act like this.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

 

The sheared columns can move where they like without introducing critical P-delta effects or affecting the behaviour of the continuous load-bearing columns (which contribute to supporting the top section, unlike the sheared columns).

Like I said the sheared columns WERE THE LOAD BEARING columns. They were not in addition to. The building design did not have any vertical support other than the core and exterior columns.
The columns on the side perpendicular to the impact would not support the floors at the impact point.

What part of my statement is unclear or do you disagree with? Once some columns are sheared they can no longer bear ANY load of the building above. This load is redistributed through other columns, including columns on the side perpendicular to the impact point.

GenRadek is just some guy that watches videos online, he has no firsthand knowledge, credentials, or experience in anything related to controlled demolitions, building construction, or architecture. He is totally out of place coming on here and asserting his beliefs as "facts".

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
GenRadek is just some guy that watches videos online, he has no firsthand knowledge, credentials, or experience in anything related to controlled demolitions, building construction, or architecture. He is totally out of place coming on here and asserting his beliefs as "facts".

Says the anonymous person on the internet. Am I to assume you have all sorts of credentials and experience that would invalidate the common understanding of what took place on 9/11?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
GenRadek is just some guy that watches videos online, he has no firsthand knowledge, credentials, or experience in anything related to controlled demolitions, building construction, or architecture. He is totally out of place coming on here and asserting his beliefs as "facts".

Says the anonymous person on the internet. Am I to assume you have all sorts of credentials and experience that would invalidate the common understanding of what took place on 9/11?

No, because It doesn't matter if I have any credentials because I'm not coming on here and throwing around opinions and facts about the events that took place. I haven't made any statement regarding any personal opinions and beliefs I may have about the events on 9/11 so I don't need to have credentials. But on the other hand, these people coming around here making all sorts of statements and opinions as if they themselves were in the know and have it all figured out (which they don't) ought to have some sort of credentials, firsthand knowledge or experience with the topics they are discussing, other than a few YouTube clips.

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
No, because It doesn't matter if I have any credentials because I'm not coming on here and throwing around opinions and facts about the events that took place. I haven't made any statement regarding any personal opinions and beliefs I may have about the events on 9/11 so I don't need to have credentials. But on the other hand, these people coming around here making all sorts of statements and opinions as if they themselves were in the know and have it all figured out (which they don't) ought to have some sort of credentials, firsthand knowledge or experience with the topics they are discussing, other than a few YouTube clips.

Note that what you complain about is the basis of ATS. "Throwing around opinions and facts about the events that took place" is part of the discussion based on opposing viewpoints. "Facts" are nice to have but are often claimed, erroneously. Opinions are nice too, but are often confused with facts. Credentials may be claimed by anyone but cannot be verified because there is no way of knowing if the person making the claim is who they say they are.


You are invited to put forth your opinions, interspersed with facts, should you wish to contribute.

Originally posted by ANOK

I'm not sitting here all day waiting for a post to reply to like you lot seem to.

Almost always a sign that you're losing the argument, that one.

Mind you, there are a few other 'signs'. You're absolutely getting your arse handed to you all over again.

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
No. Could we put this to rest once and for all? The generally accepted figure for south tower IB is 55 inches. You can quibble about that amount but go ahead and reduce it by more than 80% to 10 inches. Is there 10" of separation between the cladding and the exterior face of the perimeter columns (which are only 14" wide to begin with)?

Who measured that deflection? Accepted by who?

Is there any proof the deflection was 55"?

I'm just looking for answers, the aluminum cladding bowing in makes more sense.

Can you prove that sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns? Do you think the connections were stronger than the columns? Why didn't the connections fail instead of the columns pulling in IF the trusses could put any more force on them than they already did? Remember they are only as strong as their weakest point.

Why didn't the plane impacts cause truss failure immediately? Did the planes conveniently miss hitting the floor assemblies?

The single-bolt connections in the framework of the World Trade Center popped and fell apart during the September 11 terrorist attacks, causing the floors to collapse on top of each other, according to a new study. The analysis, conducted by a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concludes the bolts did not properly secure the towers' steel floor trusses, The New York Post reported yesterday. [CBS News]

Is this true? If so again, why didn't the connections fail before the columns were pulled in?

It doesn't make sense. I don't care if it can work in theory, it depends on the heat applied, not enough, and the strength of the columns, too much for sagging 'lightweight' trusses to effect. Sagging trusses would lose their tensile strength, they wouldn't be able to pull in the massive box columns. The 55" deflection could not have been caused by sagging trusses.

Just to be sure you understand the physics behind it, I will explain one more time. IF the trusses heated up enough to sag, they would first expand (thermal expansion), but because they are pinned between the columns they couldn't expand outwards, so they bend downwards instead. If they couldn't push columns out, due to being much smaller and lighter and losing tensile strength from the heating, then they will also not be able to pull columns in, thus they bend downwards. Once they started to cool the bending would simply reverse and the truss contract.

But having said that you can't even prove there was enough heat, in less than one hour, to cause them to heat up enough to expand in the first place, let alone cool down again. Expansion from heat takes time, it's not instant, and room temperatures do not equate to steel temperatures, not even close. So even IF the fire reached 1000C, it doesn't mean the steel would reach anything like that temp in less than an hour.

Let alone we know it wasn't hot enough because people were standing right there were trusses were supposed to have sagged...



Where's the heat? Where is the sagging?

Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

If you ignore physics and just pretend any theory can work under any circumstances, you can make yourself believe anything. You have an hypothesis with no evidence, and plenty of evidence that disputes it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Almost always a sign that you're losing the argument, that one.

Mind you, there are a few other 'signs'. You're absolutely getting your arse handed to you all over again.

If you didn't actually ignore what I'm saying you might have a point.

You're not handing me anything but your ignorance and spin.

Originally posted by ANOKIs there any proof the deflection was 55"?

Well it was more than a foot, I hope we can all agree by looking at the photo.

Originally posted by ANOKI'm just looking for answers, the aluminum cladding bowing in makes more sense.

The aluminum cladding bowing inward independently of the steel frame makes no sense at all. I can demonstrate this in THREE ways.

1. There isn't enough space between the cladding and the steel for such a deflection to take place. As shown below, the distance between the cladding and the steel is much less than the overall thickness of the columns.

This fact is visible in drawings of the columns:


It is also obvious from photographs....


If you won't believe those, please show an example of a building with a comparable metal cladding that is somehow fastened far away from the structure.

And, the deflection visible in photographs is greater than this, by far....


Therefore, the observed bowing of perimeter columns cannot be explained by aluminum cladding bowing independently of the steel structure.

2. (a completely independent SECOND PROOF)

The Cladding on the columns was installed in lengths corresponding to a single story.

Here, you can see it being installed by workers standing inside the towers....


I'm going to assert that each single one of these pieces of cladding were attached to the columns behind them in at least one single place. If it were not so, the cladding would flap in the breeze!

Given the length of the cladding pieces, and the fact that they are each attached to the building frame, the bowing observed in many photos cannot be explained without bowing of the columns, because the observed bowing takes place over several stories of the building. the multiple segments of cladding involved cannot possibly bow in this manner unless the steel under them is bowing.

3. A THIRD completely independent proof.

Some force must have caused the visible bowing of the cladding. If it wasn't being pulled in by the steel structure, then what the hell was it?

It can't be buckling (use a technical dictionary if you're not sure of this word) independent of the steel, because even if overloaded (and this is pretty much excluded by design) the individual segments of cladding would be bowing over their own length at most, not somehow coordinating a 'group buckling' over several stories.

This also excludes any possible differential thermal expansion of the cladding (which should not happen anyway), because in that case we should also observe the "tincanning" over the length of a single story piece of cladding.

It wasn't the wind, my friends.

There are NO plausible forces that could cause the observed bowing, except the bowing of the steel structure attached to the cladding.

There, you have been proven incorrect on the cladding issue in three separate ways. I'm going to go ahead and link to this in my signature in case this issue ever comes up again.

You can thank me later.

I'll thank you now. You did a fabulous job of addressing the questions, thus saving me yet another ****load of typing. You even did a better job of it!

ANOK, I took care to quote a figure which is proposed by NIST and generally accepted by OS supporters and OS objectors alike.

The NIST description of WTC1 south wall inward bowing:

1-6D, pg 314.

Bowing of South Wall

The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 5–6 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 5–2, it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 4–42 and 5–7. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 5–6).

I took this from this page because it was faster than finding it in the reports, and I trust this particular source for accurate reproduction of NIST quotes. This figure is the only one I've ever heard bandied about for WTC1, so you questioning it is rather novel. Most people who simply look at the picture the kind doctor posted above feel no need to quibble with the figure.

I've certainly never seen anyone suggest it was as small as the order of a foot, and the cladding cannot even account for that miniscule of amount. This is a claim that's dead on arrival, or never leaves the gate, if you prefer.

Just look at that picture and try to cling to the idea that it's only the inch or two which cladding warpage could explain.

Originally posted by ANOK
Can you prove that sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns?

I do find it odd that you ask me this question when you know I reject pull-in as the primary cause of inward bowing. All the same, anything that sags in a catenary fashion will cause horizontal force, truss or otherwise. Check out catenary curves, that horizontal force is a law of nature, not some foolish idea. Whether enough to pull in is another matter; I don't think so.

Do you think the connections were stronger than the columns?

No, I've stated the opposite many times. Again, not sure why you're asking me. Just because I reject cladding warpage as an explanation for IB, doesn't mean I accept pull-in. False dichotomy. There are more choices than that.

Why didn't the plane impacts cause truss failure immediately? Did the planes conveniently miss hitting the floor assemblies?

No. You can look right in the holes and see empty space where trusses used to be. I call that hitting, and I call that failing.

The single-bolt connections in the framework of the World Trade Center popped and fell apart during the September 11 terrorist attacks, causing the floors to collapse on top of each other, according to a new study. The analysis, conducted by a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concludes the bolts did not properly secure the towers' steel floor trusses, The New York Post reported yesterday. [CBS News]

Is this true?

I don't know. It's what Thomas Eagar said, and he's a bit of a blowhard. It stands in opposition to what NIST said, of course, but I'm not NIST.

It doesn't make sense. I don't care if it can work in theory, it depends on the heat applied, not enough, and the strength of the columns, too much for sagging 'lightweight' trusses to effect. Sagging trusses would lose their tensile strength, they wouldn't be able to pull in the massive box columns. The 55" deflection could not have been caused by sagging trusses.

Again, I don't disagree with these things. I've said several of them myself, and added the point about a minimum 9 feet of vertical deflection of a catenary to achieve 55" of pull in. Seems quite fantastical to me.

Just to be sure you understand the physics behind it, I will explain one more time.

There you go lecturing me on physics again. While I admit you seem to have a decent grasp of the pull-in situation, that doesn't extend to a lot of the other things which you say or claim, some of which are decidedly unphysical and quite unrelated to real physics. In this case, though, I agree with you in principle and have no need of the lecture.

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
GenRadek is just some guy that watches videos online, he has no firsthand knowledge, credentials, or experience in anything related to controlled demolitions, building construction, or architecture. He is totally out of place coming on here and asserting his beliefs as "facts".

So you have virtually NOTHING of importance to say, other than troll? Well, ATS is not for you then. If you wish to troll, I'm sure any of the truther forums will be most happy to accept another troll. Troll out of here please. Adults are trying to have a conversation.

So after seven pages, not too many have really done much to go up against the OP. Aside from the trolls, I really havent seen the type of defense of the points brought up by those that religiously follow and believe AE9/11T. I've only seen maybe two or thee posts that addressed the points brought up, but not much of a rebuttal. I figured as much.