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 ANOK
How can you even imagine those trusses pulling in those columns, let alone the much more massive core columns that were braced together essentially forming a free-standing structure. You are stretching some facts, and leaving other out, in order to make an argument.
It takes a finite amount of time for steel to get hot from random fires. It takes a controlled (max temp.), direct flame to get the results your "educated analysis" is claiming. As fire moves, once fuel is used up, then the steel instantly starts to cool.
Find me a video/example of a total non-controlled building collapse that looks exactly like a CD. But you won't because you can't.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by GenRadek
Yes it does matter. ANOK and other truthers say that steel cannot be affected by fire fast enough to cause any sort of failure.
I'm only wrong because you simply don't understand how this works.
You are wrong, because you fail to understand the argument and take it all out of context, and miss the big picture. No one is saying steel cannot be affected by fire fast enough to cause failure.
What we are saying is fire cannot cause the effects we see on the three WTC buildings, i.e. complete collapse with no signs of resistance, or cause trusses to pull in columns.
A roof collapse is not a building collapse. Sagging or collapsing roof trusses do not pull in the buildings walls, and cause complete collapse of the rest of the building.
Just look at the size of the floor assemblies compared with the columns...
How can you even imagine those trusses pulling in those columns, let alone the much more massive core columns that were braced together essentially forming a free-standing structure. You are stretching some facts, and leaving other out, in order to make an argument.
Really? Because in that video I only see the part of the building that was on fire collapse, not the whole thing. You can clearly see the building through the smoke.
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Can you please explain what is happening here?
On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Can you please explain what is happening here?
There could be many explanation, but trusses pulling in columns is not one of them as that is impossible as I have explained.
It could be simply the aluminum distorting from heat, you know the aluminum was not directly against the steel.
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Look at the time stamp.. and the two pictures..... and guess again.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
Here is what you said:
It takes a finite amount of time for steel to get hot from random fires. It takes a controlled (max temp.), direct flame to get the results your "educated analysis" is claiming. As fire moves, once fuel is used up, then the steel instantly starts to cool.
However, as it was shown, fire can very rapidly affect steel, to the point of failure. Is this not so? So, if that can happen, then why is it so hard to understand that the failure of certain sections in the structure from fire canbring about global collapse? It is just like taking out the supports with explosives, however, in this case, fire is what brought down WTC7. Fires burning for hours and poor ventilation keeping the heat in affects the steel just as bad. All it needs to do is soften to the point where it starts to creep, and lose strength, and then, it is a matter of time if the fires continue.
WTC7 had fires burning across multiple floors, for many many hours. And just because the "fuel" was used up in one section, does not mean that it immediately cools off and is safe.
Also, the trusses were acting in unison. Did you learn that part in physics too? How force can be even applied across more points. One truss is not enough to pull in the columns. However, a whole set can, working together. Remember the idea behind a nail bed? If you lay on one nail, it will probably go right into you and not support you. But a bed of nails, and you can lay on it no problem. One truss cannot pull on the columns, but a whole bunch can. Didnt they teach you that in physics?
And what happens when say, the core column is softening and creeping down, and then is subjected to pulling forces from the sagging trusses? What then? When something turns pliable, it is far more susceptible to being displaced and affected.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Can you please explain what is happening here?
There could be many explanation, but trusses pulling in columns is not one of them as that is impossible as I have explained. Sagging trusses would simply sag, if they could pull in columns they would not have sagged.
How could sagging trusses put any more force on the columns? Even if they could put more force on the columns, do you really think they columns would not be able to handle the extra force?
How many times have I told you to learn and understand factors of safety? You know the engineering principle that all construction component have to be able to hold their own weight, plus the weight that component will experience during its life time? If you understood that you would understand that all components can take more more force, pressure, than they have to normally withstand. This means any extra force is not going to cause failure. Especially from sagging lightweight trusses.
The FoS for steel used in buildings is x4-6.
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
Here is the math...
sw=sm/fs
Where:
Sm = Allowable working unit stress
sw = Working stress (Allowable stress)
fs = Factor of Safety
www.engineersedge.com...
The inward bowing could simply be the aluminum distorting from heat, you know the aluminum was not directly against the steel?
Sorry but that pic is not conclusive evidence that columns were being pulled in by the trusses. And even if they were it doesn't mean it could cause complete collapse, you still have to consider equal opposite reaction and all that.
What about floors that were not held up by trusses?
On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking.
911research.wtc7.net...
So floors 41, 42, 75 and 76 were of a different design. More like this...
www.tatasteelconstruction.com... r_systems/
Also you fail to explain again why the 5/8", and 1", bolts did not fail before the columns were pulled in? When are you going to address that contradiction to your claims? Or were the connections stronger than the columns? If they were, then why did they fail on floors that were not effected by fire, or damage.
C'mon physics experts explain the details you keep ignoring.
edit on 4/16/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
If the center falls then the perimiter couloms will for(m?) a tee pee and keep the building up.
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
But like Weebles that wobble they DON'T FALL DOWN.
Originally posted by ANOK
The inward bowing could simply be the aluminum distorting from heat, you know the aluminum was not directly against the steel?
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
If the time stamp is a nano second before Building Seven Falls into it's OWN FOOT PRINT??
Then I will say DEMOLITION CHARGES.
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Poor ventilation cooler fire smolders only.
Think draft.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Originally posted by ANOK
The inward bowing could simply be the aluminum distorting from heat, you know the aluminum was not directly against the steel?
That post was a direct ( repLy?) to your own post, so I hope you read it. There is no possibility for the cladding to have bowed that much (farther than the steel could possibly be from the cladding), nor in that manner continuously over the height of several stories, and several pieces of cladding. I'd really like you to address this before using that argument again.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
I have refuted this point conclusively in the link titled "about the WTC cladding" in my signature. That post was a direct repy to your own post, so I hope you read it. There is no possibility for the cladding to have bowed that much (farther than the steel could possibly be from the cladding), nor in that manner continuously over the height of several stories, and several pieces of cladding. I'd really like you to address this before using that argument again.