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.

 

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 39
20
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


A question for you...

What is stronger bolts or welds?

If you answer correctly, then please explain why the welds failed?


A good welded joint is stronger than a good bolted or riveted joint.

www.dcr.net...

See this pic, the steel itself failed before the weld did...




Figure 5.5.3 shows an example where the weld is obviously stronger than the base metal. Adding additional weld to this connection would not have strengthened it. Additional weld would have been a waste of resources.

www.bgstructuralengineering.com...

So for the welds to fail on the trusses would mean the bolts didn't. Yet post collapse pics show they both failed.
If the bolts failed, there is no reason the welds should have failed. Another energy source was acting on those trusses other than gravity.

Again OSer logic fails.




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
What has tension got to do with sagging trusses pulling in columns?



That statement tells us a lot.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
But it's dropping tens of thousands of tons of material, on, tens of thousands of tons of material. You just don't get it.

Again you want to ignore the mass of the 95 floors. Why do you bother?

Because their mass has little bearing on whether the lower structure will survive. What does have a bearing is the strength of the columns and of the floors. Neither of which (even combined) were remotely sufficient to stop an upper block falling only a few feet.


What question about tension? What has tension got to do with mass falling on mass? How does tension change the laws of motion? What has tension got to do with sagging trusses pulling in columns?

You said:

Because the truss would simply sag more. It wouldn't impart that force to the columns.


I asked:

Sagging is caused by tension is it not? How is that tension force balanced if not by an equal and opposite force from the column? Were does this tensile force go if not into the columns?

I await your answer.


You just find a new term to throw around whenever your argument starts falling apart. You think it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about. How about using some old terms like 'equal and opposite reaction', which is never mentioned in your claims unless you are forced to.

How do sagging trusses pull in columns?

Funny how I just quoted myself in this thread using exactly the term you desired.

Care to answer?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
So for the welds to fail on the trusses would mean the bolts didn't. Yet post collapse pics show they both failed.
If the bolts failed, there is no reason the welds should have failed. Another energy source was acting on those trusses other than gravity.

Again OSer logic fails.

What possible 'energy source' (you mean force surely) could act to change the properties of steel in such a manner?

In reality welds can make steel harder, but also more vulnerable. Both welds failed and bolts broke, steel sheared and fractured in various measures. ANOK would have you believe that every situation can be boiled down to a simple hard and fast rule, but the reality is that complex interactions cause complex results. Thousands upon thousands of columns impacting each other and imparting massively irregular forces isn't going to lead to some singular result.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Wouldn't that create LOTS OF FRICTION? Wouldn't that slow the collapse down?


Yes, it slowed the collapse down by about 33%.


ROFLMAO


The Conservation of Momentum alone accounts tor that much. Reality needs to be ignored to maintain the delusion of the Official Story.

psik



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


How would a controlled demolition reduce friction? Your contention seems to be that there should have been a lot of friction, so how is it possible a controlled demolition would reduce it?

You're trying to argue with everything, even when you're arguing against basic physical principles. You then spout off about how all the physics and engineering departments in the world should be talking about this and imply that you know something they don't.

I'll keep repeating myself while you do. You don't have any special insight, you've shown your models and they are not accurate nor capable of utilising more accurate data. Simple as that.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


How would a controlled demolition reduce friction? Your contention seems to be that there should have been a lot of friction, so how is it possible a controlled demolition would reduce it?

You're trying to argue with everything, even when you're arguing against basic physical principles. You then spout off about how all the physics and engineering departments in the world should be talking about this and imply that you know something they don't.

I'll keep repeating myself while you do. You don't have any special insight, you've shown your models and they are not accurate nor capable of utilising more accurate data. Simple as that.


Why don't you provide a link to what I ever said about controlled demolition?

psik



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You quoted what I was talking about in your previous post. You say that 'friction should have slowed the collapse'. This would infer that the collapse should have been slower than it was, this is also consistent with your previous statements.

What else then could you mean but to imply that the buildings were demolished? Unless you're actually suggesting that laws of physics were violated then that seems to be the only possible meaning of your speech.

Care to correct me?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You quoted what I was talking about in your previous post. You say that 'friction should have slowed the collapse'. This would infer that the collapse should have been slower than it was, this is also consistent with your previous statements.

What else then could you mean but to imply that the buildings were demolished? Unless you're actually suggesting that laws of physics were violated then that seems to be the only possible meaning of your speech.

Care to correct me?


You leave out some of what I say and then make accusations on the basis of what you left.

First I asked how the approximately 200 connections could break at the same time. Then I asked if they did not break at the same time then wouldn't the floor assembly tilt and squeeze the core? Then I stated that would cause a lot of friction.

So then you accuse me of ignoring you when you talk a lot of distorted bullsh#. There is reason to ignore you.

PSIK



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So are you agreeing with us now, that the collapse should not be any slower? It seems that you want to both disagree, but then get angry when people point out you disagree.

I'm not going to sit here bickering with you, I don't care if you ignore me or not, just make your mind up on what you actually support.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Then how did it support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS for 28 years?


The failure points that lead to the progressive collapse had to support the weight of only ONE LEVEL for 28 year. When the time came that it had to support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS it failed.



What you are claiming to be failure points are only on the external perimeter. They are all around the core also. Now how could they all fail for a single floor simultaneously. Because if they did not fail simultaneously then the floor would tilt. Wouldn't that squeeze the core? Wouldn't that create LOTS OF FRICTION? Wouldn't that slow the collapse down? So how did the building come down in less than 26 seconds?

psik



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Because their mass has little bearing on whether the lower structure will survive. What does have a bearing is the strength of the columns and of the floors. Neither of which (even combined) were remotely sufficient to stop an upper block falling only a few feet.


That is simply not true. Again you refuse to accept there would be resistance to the falling floors.


Sagging is caused by tension is it not? How is that tension force balanced if not by an equal and opposite force from the column? Were does this tensile force go if not into the columns?


Sagging is not caused by tension, no. When steel heats up it expands. That expansion makes the truss larger, if the trusses could put a force on the columns large enough to make them move they would have been pushed outwards by the expansion. They couldn't push out so the extra size from the expansion has to got somewhere, so the truss sags. If the truss can't push the columns out, they will also not pull them in. It's takes the same amount of force to push out, as it would to pull in. No mass was added to the truss.

A sagging truss, or beam, will put no more force on the columns than a rigid one. Think about it, the truss is SAGGING, it's no longer a rigid beam, any force is taken up in the sagging. I'm sure I have explained all this before to you?



Funny how I just quoted myself in this thread using exactly the term you desired.


Hmm funny but no you didn't. Where did you mention 'equal and opposite reaction'?

Watch this vid and learn, please don't use the excuse it's not the same design and just hand wave it away. The principle, they physics, is the same. The towers were much better designed, and stronger, than this concrete building. Load bearing columns are removed and the floors have mass added to them, yet the floors did not pull in columns, nor collapse.




edit on 6/13/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
The failure points that lead to the progressive collapse had to support the weight of only ONE LEVEL for 28 year. When the time came that it had to support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS it failed.


But that is not true. The 15 floors were not one solid block, unless you also consider the 95 floors one solid block. The first impacting floor of that 15 floor block would ALSO be effected by the mass of the 14 floors above that. Thus both impacting floors would be resisting the collapse.

Again it takes Ke for damage, and every time floors impacted you would lose Ke to deformation, heat, sound etc. The distance the floors dropped, 12'? Would not be enough to increase the Ke to overcome resistance. The collpase would have slowed and arrested. For the collapse to accelerate and be complete means either the resistance was removed ahead of the collapse, or something increased the Ke. It would take an outside force to do that, not gravity.

How do you explain that the 15 floors were collapsing bottom up before the bottom 95 started to move? I have yet to hear an explanation of this.



That alone disproves your hypothesis.


edit on 6/13/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Because their mass has little bearing on whether the lower structure will survive. What does have a bearing is the strength of the columns and of the floors. Neither of which (even combined) were remotely sufficient to stop an upper block falling only a few feet.


So the strength of steel columns is not related to their mass?

Destroying that structure does not take energy which slows the falling mass down causing it to have less Kinetic Energy for the next level? And the bottom of the falling mass does not get destroyed simultaneously with the top ot the stationary mass?

psik
edit on 13-6-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
That is simply not true. Again you refuse to accept there would be resistance to the falling floors.

Not at all. The lower floors certainly would and should result in resistance. However, what I said is that it is of minimal importance to the towers, as no capacity would be large enough unless you include crazy energy sinks like vaporising steel etc.


Sagging is not caused by tension, no. When steel heats up it expands. That expansion makes the truss larger

I see you have yet to read the paper you requested. What would I have to do to have you read this?


if the trusses could put a force on the columns large enough to make them move they would have been pushed outwards by the expansion. They couldn't push out so the extra size from the expansion has to got somewhere, so the truss sags. If the truss can't push the columns out, they will also not pull them in. It's takes the same amount of force to push out, as it would to pull in. No mass was added to the truss.

I agree with everything but the second sentence here. All analyses have shown that indeed the trusses do initially push the columns out, but over time the individual truss elements begin to fail, they begin to sag and the forces began to be inward.


A sagging truss, or beam, will put no more force on the columns than a rigid one. Think about it, the truss is SAGGING, it's no longer a rigid beam, any force is taken up in the sagging. I'm sure I have explained all this before to you?

I'll have to beg patience, what you're explaining is not how trusses work in reality, and so I have to slowly try and parse and understand how you believe things to work. Force cannot be 'taken up in the sagging' as the truss is already a composite element. The top chord is in compression and works in composite with the floor slab. As the truss heats up and lengthens, this compression will increase. If the truss begins to sag however, the inevitable consequence is that the truss elements sink into tension.

Once the trusses are in tension, the only force transmission is inwards on the columns, the balancing act that the truss represents is broken and so it cannot transmit its load downwards.


Hmm funny but no you didn't. Where did you mention 'equal and opposite reaction'?

Here: "Sagging is caused by tension is it not? How is that tension force balanced if not by an equal and opposite force from the column?"


Watch this vid and learn, please don't use the excuse it's not the same design and just hand wave it away. The principle, they physics, is the same. The towers were much better designed, and stronger, than this concrete building. Load bearing columns are removed and the floors have mass added to them, yet the floors did not pull in columns, nor collapse.

I don't know why you think this video is so instructive. I looked into it and found there is precious little experimental data available. Furthermore the floor does in fact collapse a fair amount due to creep and as the geometry changes a pull-in effect is unavoidable. You're simply ignoring the other effects involved though. This was a reinforced concrete structure using the floor membrane to resist many of the forces. These types of restraint did not exist in the towers.

Tell me what I have to do to have you read the paper I linked you to. You agreed with a properly conducted FEA to show you that trusses can sag and pull in columns. I gave you a paper from a foreign university with extremely similar geometry to the towers proving exactly my point. Despite this, you are not reading it and are still posting that what it concludes is impossible.

Please ANOK, read the paper.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So the strength of steel columns is not related to their mass?

That's not what I said. Once the first floor has been overwhelmed, no floor can withstand the resultant collapse.


Destroying that structure does not take energy which slows the falling mass down causing it to have less Kinetic Energy for the next level? And the bottom of the falling mass does not get destroyed simultaneously with the top ot the stationary mass?

It does take energy, and it does slow the mass down. However, as its initial velocity was 0, if it can fail a single floor with resultant velocity > 0 it will almost certainly destroy the next floor. We know from modelling and from viewing that the resultant velocity was far greater than 0.

Also no, the top does not get destroyed simultaneously with the bottom. Your own chosen modelling system shows this, the collision velocities are much lower, and the required energy losses lower as well. Obviously in reality it was not single floor by single floor, but in reality we don't require columns being bent to the next floor down with maximum energy consumption.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So the strength of steel columns is not related to their mass?

That's not what I said. Once the first floor has been overwhelmed, no floor can withstand the resultant collapse.


So are you saying that the bottom level of the falling section was not crushed along with the top level of the stationary portion?

Are you saying the resultant falling block did not slow down due to the energy losses from those crushings?

psik



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Destroying that structure does not take energy which slows the falling mass down causing it to have less Kinetic Energy for the next level?


Woops! I screwed up that entire question.

I think that was supposed to be:

Doesn't destroying that structure take energy which slows the falling mass down causing it to have less Kinetic Energy for the next level?

I better see a doctor about verbal dyslexia.

psik



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

That is simply not true. Again you refuse to accept there would be resistance to the falling floors.


Lie.


Sagging is not caused by tension, no.


Correct. Sagging is caused when the trusses are overloaded. Truss capacity will be reduced as they heat up.


When steel heats up it expands. That expansion makes the truss larger, if the trusses could put a force on the columns large enough to make them move they would have been pushed outwards by the expansion.


Yep.


They couldn't push out


Incorrect.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

In that thread, a truther does his own, independent FEA of truss heating and sag effects, etc. Can't get much better than an independent investigation, right?

He found that the trusses did indeed push out the columns.

And then as they sagged, pulled them in. Proving that sagging trusses indeed create a pull in force .

His results agree with NIST. Their FEA resulted in both the ext columns getting pushed out, AND getting pulled in as they sagged.


so the extra size from the expansion has to got somewhere, so the truss sags.


Since you are incorrect about truss's ability to pus out the columns, this whole premise is unfounded.


If the truss can't push the columns out


They can.


they will also not pull them in.


They can.


It's takes the same amount of force to push out, as it would to pull in.


Yes.


No mass was added to the truss.


Only on the floors where the plane debris came to rest can it be said that there was extra mass.


A sagging truss, or beam, will put no more force on the columns than a rigid one.


Only in the vertical plane. No additional LOAD will be put onto the columns by sagging trusses.


Think about it, the truss is SAGGING, it's no longer a rigid beam, any force is taken up in the sagging


Proven to be a lie multiple times now.


I'm sure I have explained all this before to you?


State it all you want. It has been proven to be incorrect multiple times. Repeating that a sagging truss cannot cause a pull in force on the columns is now a lie.


edit on 14-6-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join