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: 42
20
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





Showing a picture of something that someone made up IS NOT DEMONSTRATING.


It is a visual representation.


representation [ˌrɛprɪzɛnˈteɪʃən]
n
1. the act or an instance of representing or the state of being represented
2. anything that represents, such as a verbal or pictorial portrait
3. anything that is represented, such as an image brought clearly to mind]

www.thefreedictionary.com...dictioary


dem·on·stra·tion (dmn-strshn)

n.
1. The act of showing or making evident.
2. Conclusive evidence; proof.
3. An illustration or explanation, as of a theory or product, by exemplification or practical application
www.thefreedictionary.com...dictioary




The core columns were connected to each other by I-beams as shown in the "scientific" video produced by Purdue.


The core columns cannot stand upright without the support of the trusses or the exterior columns. An I beam cannot stand a quarter of a mile straight in the air. It needs support and reinforcemnts. The trusses and the exterior I beams acted together as reinforcements to the inner columns. The all have to work together to operate within their design specifications. Take out one or two of the "team" players and failure will occur. They were designed to work together.




How could trusses made of rebar pull columns out of shape connected by I-beams?



Notice the steel running the length of the upper and lower section of the truss.



Heat caused steel in the floor trusses to expand, promoting buckling in columns, at the same time that the heat softened the steel and the aircraft debris contributed to gravity loads, leading to progressive collapse.

www.architectureweek.com...link

I beams can and will be bent out of shape with enough force. I beams are steel and they follow the same " general rules" as the truss steel.( expansion and contraction). Also do not forget about the downward force on the I beams, that are fighting all the weight added to by gravity. They will either want to bend out or in without proper support. If the epanding truss is pushing outward, then the I beam will want to bend or move outward at that spot of the truss connection. If the truss is pulling inward, say by the added weight of the plane, the I beam will bend or move inward at that point of truss connection.




Why wouldn't the connections to the columns break loose first?


I tend to think that some did break. Thus adding more stresses on the "surviving" connections, of trusses and I beams alike.
edit on 21-6-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
The core columns cannot stand upright without the support of the trusses or the exterior columns. An I beam cannot stand a quarter of a mile straight in the air. It needs support and reinforcemnts. The trusses and the exterior I beams acted together as reinforcements to the inner columns. The all have to work together to operate within their design specifications. Take out one or two of the "team" players and failure will occur. They were designed to work together.


I said the core columns were connected to each other by I-beams.

People keep CLAIMING that the core could not stand without the floors and perimeter columns. Each side of the perimeter was a 2-dimensional array of steel. The core was a 3-dimensional array. It was the core that gave the building its rigidity.

psik



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





People keep CLAIMING that the core could not stand without the floors and perimeter columns. Each side of the perimeter was a 2-dimensional array of steel. The core was a 3-dimensional array. It was the core that gave the building its rigidity.



The World Trade Center towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns.

en.wikipedia.org...link

The perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core. The core was not designed to supply all of the load bearing strength. The core columns only held up to 60% of the buildings weight. The exterior columns held up 40%. Almost half of the total weight was the exterior I beams job.




I misread your statement. It is late.

edit on 22-6-2012 by liejunkie01 because: I misread your statement. It is late.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

People keep CLAIMING that the core could not stand without the floors and perimeter columns


Oddly enough, interviews during the construction back those claims.

Imagine that...


Each side of the perimeter was a 2-dimensional array of steel.


LOL.

No.

All 4 sides of the WTCs worked in unison to form a massive 3d structure.


The core was a 3-dimensional array. It was the core that gave the building its rigidity.

psik


No. the building worked as a sytem to make it rigid : Core columns, ext columns, floors, spandrels....

There is zero ability of the core columns to be free standing in any real life situation. the wind loads alone would break connections. The only way for them to resist would be if the floor beams had moment connections. But they didn't
edit on 22-6-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


I misread psikey's statement and missed the "could not" when I read it.

I edited my post above.

It is getting late and I have been up since 4:00 in the morning.

It is a good thing that I was not on Apollo 13, I would have never made it home


Anyways, me and psikey have been going on about this for many months, maybe years



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


First of all I DON'T need anybody to tell me what I think should happen UNLIKE you I actually get on site during the construction of buldings and have done for many yrs like I have said before when I left school I worked in the the design and drawing office of a guess what structural steelwork company
what is it you do again


I have 30+ years in the construction industry DO YOU! most of that on a technical side


Your OBSESSED with just ONE yes repeat for the hard of LEARNING just ONE of the laws of motion. I don't disagreee with equal and opposite it just that you look at this construction in the WRONG way!
Have a look at this image



You can see part of the wall circled!

Have a look at this video below you can see when the collapse starts NOTHING from the area above impact point ejects. If you go to 2:06 you get a nice close up of the collapse start look what happens the area above the fire (which you guys claim were not fierce) gives way.
For a few seconds the top section drops and NOTHING substantial is ejected.
Were does all that mass go then?



When that collapsed started many FLOORS fell on the one BELOW the impact area NOTHING was substantial was ejected as YOU claim so all that DYNAMIC load has to be taken by what holds that FLOORSLAB. (see picture)



Those floors can fall inside the building a MAJOR problem with the design.
Here is a typical construction now.



The FLOORSLAB is supported to the outside edge of the building on those perimeter beams.
The angle cleats and bolts on the towers had an ultimate load thay can take once that is exceeded they FAIL yes FAIL.
Once the DYNAMIC load generates that failure load they give way THATS your equal and opposite then the mass of that floorslab joins the falling mass as explained here

www.burtonsys.com...

As for your claim that his paper and pennies model is not correct the sheet of paper is a slab the pennies represent the falling was THAT model is a better description of what happened compared to psikeyhackr's model.
The towers relied on every part of the structure to stay up the bulk of the dead load was taken by the core, the walls the wind load the connection of the floorslabs between the two gave stability. You can't have very tall slim colums because they can buckle under their own weight once floorslabs fell that was it.

Now your statement re dynamic loads gave me a
because it shows YOU don't have a clue


Originally posted by ANOK

Why do you need Dave or Bazant to tell you what to think? Can't you see that the tower is not acting in the way either of them claim? Why is the insistence that I review what these people say going to change anything? I don't ask you to write reviews of other peoples work. But thank you though, now I know where you get the "dynamic loading" nonsense from. More proof that you all fail to understand the details needed to understand what happened by yourself. Another of your hand-holders exposed lol.


edit on 6/20/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


I have forgot more than you know your just an immature little boy, any load on a structure due to movement is a DYNAMIC LOAD here are some people, wind, earthquakes, explosions aircraft impacts


If you think DYNAMIC loads are not important take the challenge catch even a 10kg weight dropped from 12ft a wtc floor height you and psikeyhackr try and catch it together WE WILL SEND THE FLOWERS.




edit on 22-6-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I think that just about everybody forgets just how much damage was done to these buildings.

I watched the video again and I am amazed that they stood for as long as they did.

The amount of damage is just crazy.

It amazes me that some people expected anything different than the outcome that transpired.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

There is rubble about the height of two stories, but no stack of floors is there?

Floors pancaking would not have the energy to both break connections, and cause all the steel floor pans and concrete to simply turn into rubble. There would have been a stack of floors, not a pile of rubble of few feet high.


WHo said they all turned to rubble? Have you been ignoring or forgetting the accounts I and others have posted of workers that were clearing Ground Zero, digging into the footprint area and cutting through the floors that were all compressed together looking like geological strata? That sounds like pancaked floors to me. I like your photo of how a pancake collapse "should look like." Its a very large concrete building with thick concrete floors and walls. Refresh my memory ANOK, how thick was the concrete on each WTC floor? 4-6"? Forgive me, I do not have the numbers in front of me at the moment. And the trusses themselves? They get squashed very easily in this type of collapse. The force compressed them ANOK.



You cannot explain where all the energy came from to both cause the collapse to accelerate against resistance, and turn the floor assemblies into rubble.

This is what a pancake collapse looks like, because there is not going to be enough energy to break the floors into rubble....




Yep, a thick concrete floor and walled structure is a great example of how EVERYTHING else should look like, design be damned.



We all know the rubble was ejected in 360d arc around the towers, the majority of the mass did not stay in the footprint. Funny how you insist it did, yet when talking about WTC 7, that obvioulsy did land mostly in it's footprint you deny it, that to me stinks of dishonesty.




Here we go again.
What is in that 360 arc? Can you show me the floors themselves? Any trusses? Any concrete and steel decking perhaps? ANOK, dammit man, answer my question that I have been asking you for the last year. Quit running and dodging, and man up and show me any actual evidence of the majority of the mass being outside the footprint. This means the entire floor sections including the concrete, the steel decking AND the trusses. Lets go ANOK, this is ridiculous. waypastvne has shown you a picture of the floors in the footprint BEHIND the exterior columns. Why cant I see floor sections laying outside the footprint? I see lots of aluminum cladding, dust, and exterior columns, but no floors. Can you show me a picture or a video of a floor assembly being ejected THROUGH the exterior columns? Please dont make me beg.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


This is what a pancake collapse looks like, because there is not going to be enough energy to break the floors into rubble....




Can you tell everyone why a REINFORCED concrete building a few floors high brought down by an earthquake is being compared to the events of steel framed buildings 110 floors high, PRIME EXAMPLE OF TRUTHER LOGIC.

The concrete in the floors was 4" thick even if placed gently on top of each other what would the height be? well lets do a quick calc.

110x4=440 /12 = 36.67 feet THATS WITH NO DAMAGE
and not falling hundreds of feet !!!!!!

Everyone can see your warped logic you apply to this event

Here is a little pic for you ANOK nice hi res click to zoom what are the machines on?





edit on 22-6-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
The perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core. The core was not designed to supply all of the load bearing strength. The core columns only held up to 60% of the buildings weight. The exterior columns held up 40%. Almost half of the total weight was the exterior I beams job.


That is the next funny thing about 9/11. So many sources disagree with each other.

The NCSTAR1 report says the core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter 47%. Other sources say 50-50.

But if the perimeter and the floors fall then the core no longer had to support its share of the floors. It would only have to support itself. So your argument is nonsense. The perimeter columns could fall outward because they were only a two dimensional structure. The core was three dimensional.

psik



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Dave whatisname seems to forget about equal opposite reaction. He seems to forget the fact that all the force of the dynamic loading is still felt equally by both colliding floors. He seems to not realise that the force of all the falling floors would effect more than just the one impacted floor, an equal amount of force would be absorbed by both impacting floors. He also ignored the loss of Ke to deformation, sound, heat etc.

ANOK you yourself ignore these when you find them suitable.

I asked you many pages ago to read a simple paper on truss sagging + inward force. You've been ignoring it for a while but asking for exactly the same results.

Why don't you read the paper? It shows that you are wrong so perhaps you just don't want to hear it?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

People keep CLAIMING that the core could not stand without the floors and perimeter columns


Oddly enough, interviews during the construction back those claims.

Imagine that...


So where is your link to those interviews?

psik



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous


The core was a 3-dimensional array. It was the core that gave the building its rigidity.

psik


No. the building worked as a sytem to make it rigid : Core columns, ext columns, floors, spandrels....


Well one of us is talking bullsh#!

The perimeter columns and spandrels mad a two dimensional array. A single perimeter was connected to two other perimeters at the corners but those corners were 200 FEET APART and the building was 1360 feet tall. So saying those perpendicular corners gave rigidity to the building is ridiculous.

It was the close together three dimensional array of the core that provided the rigidity. The length of horizontal steel in the core had to be more than two and a half times the vertical steel. But then we are not told how much thicker it got down the building.

psik



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
People who think the core could not have stood by itself have never had anything to do with engineering/mechanics, period.

Many many structures are built with the same design as the core and stand all day long.

It is simply cross braced columns. The core was the strongest part of the structure, no matter what percentage of the weight it held.

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate sagging trusses putting a pulling force on columns. I know you can't because it's impossible. IF it could pull on the columns the connections would have failed before the columns did.

You all like to use the excuse that the truss seats were missing as the reason the floors pancaked, but if that is the case then how come they didn't fail during the pull in of the columns? If they didn't fail during the pull in they must have been stronger than the core columns themselves, 4" thick steel box columns. What about the 1" and 5/8" bolts that have also been claimed to be the weak point? So if the truss seats and bolts were stronger than the core columns then why did they fail at all?

Sorry but the whole claim contradicts itself. Your excuses for the collapses is a joke, yet you all take yourselves and your hypothesis so seriously. Who do you think you're kidding? Go take an engineering class or two and then come back and ague with me.

How about NIST, or it's supporters, build a replica of the core and show us it wouldn't stand by itself. At the same time demonstrate those sagging trusses pulling in columns. Otherwise I'll just trust what I was taught in engineering school.

Pay attention to this video...



If you don't get it, I can't help your ignorance.


edit on 6/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Sorry but the whole claim contradicts itself. Your excuses for the collapses is a joke, yet you all take yourselves and your hypothesis so seriously. Who do you think you're kidding? Go take an engineering class or two and then come back and ague with me.


Says the guy who posted the picture of a reinforced concrete framed building a few floors high just a few posts above


So what course have you done ANOK!!!
Whats your job again ????
edit on 22-6-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
People who think the core could not have stood by itself have never had anything to do with engineering/mechanics, period.

Many many structures are built with the same design as the core and stand all day long.

It is simply cross braced columns. The core was the strongest part of the structure, no matter what percentage of the weight it held.


There is no DOUBT the core was the strongest part of the structure BUT since you claim to have some building /engineering knowledge lets look at some facts about the impacts.

North tower first.

Hit at a high level at mid elevation, high level were the core steel was thinner as stated by yourself on various threads on here


South Tower

Hit lower down well to one side of the elevation, core steel probably had less damage, steel thicker and impact of center BUT FAR MORE MASS above impact area.

South Tower hit second drops first due to greater load above impact also starts to drop at an angle due to impact position.

North tower drops almost exactly vertical but then it was hit mid elevation.

Now as you THINK you are some kind of engineer ANOK what type of load would 30 floors of the south tower and the 15 floors of the north tower generate. Take 600 tons as the floor mass lets see you work something out to show everyone YOUR engineering knowledge


Still waiting to see if you want to catch that 10kg weight dropped 12ft a wtc floor height after all if YOU CLAIM falling loads are no problem, can YOU explain why YOU wont try



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
People who think the core could not have stood by itself have never had anything to do with engineering/mechanics, period.

Many many structures are built with the same design as the core and stand all day long.

It is simply cross braced columns. The core was the strongest part of the structure, no matter what percentage of the weight it held.

The core didn't contain any significant moment bracing. In fact even with the hat truss and the moment frame of the normal walls, people complained about swaying at the top. If you want to make these claims then surely you have done the calculations?

Could it be that your experience is as a layman and you haven't had any experience in dealing with moment frames? It seems to me that you're arguing from incredulity rather than any direct knowledge.


I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate sagging trusses putting a pulling force on columns. I know you can't because it's impossible. IF it could pull on the columns the connections would have failed before the columns did.

It's not impossible: www.sciencedirect.com...


You all like to use the excuse that the truss seats were missing as the reason the floors pancaked, but if that is the case then how come they didn't fail during the pull in of the columns? If they didn't fail during the pull in they must have been stronger than the core columns themselves, 4" thick steel box columns.

Not at all, they didn't fracture the columns directly, and there were a lot of trusses in the towers. The columns were also not 4" thick anywhere near that height.


Go take an engineering class or two and then come back and ague with me.

What are your qualifications? You've never shown me any indication you're a qualified engineer and you've never presented any structural calculations that I have seen.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by liejunkie01
The perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core. The core was not designed to supply all of the load bearing strength. The core columns only held up to 60% of the buildings weight. The exterior columns held up 40%. Almost half of the total weight was the exterior I beams job.


That is the next funny thing about 9/11. So many sources disagree with each other.

The NCSTAR1 report says the core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter 47%. Other sources say 50-50.

But if the perimeter and the floors fall then the core no longer had to support its share of the floors. It would only have to support itself. So your argument is nonsense. The perimeter columns could fall outward because they were only a two dimensional structure. The core was three dimensional.

psik


YOU are assuming nothing impacted the columns of the core


Care to prove that



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by liejunkie01
The perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core. The core was not designed to supply all of the load bearing strength. The core columns only held up to 60% of the buildings weight. The exterior columns held up 40%. Almost half of the total weight was the exterior I beams job.


That is the next funny thing about 9/11. So many sources disagree with each other.

The NCSTAR1 report says the core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter 47%. Other sources say 50-50.

But if the perimeter and the floors fall then the core no longer had to support its share of the floors. It would only have to support itself. So your argument is nonsense. The perimeter columns could fall outward because they were only a two dimensional structure. The core was three dimensional.

psik


YOU are assuming nothing impacted the columns of the core


Care to prove that


Then the core of of the north tower would have had to come down on the stationary intact core. Then the amount of steel on each level of the core needs to be known to analyse the supposed compression of collapse. How thick were the horizontal beams in the core that would have to be impacting each other.

If you just BELIEVE then there is now need to ask for the obviously necessary data.

How could it all come down in less than 26 seconds?

psik



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Still waiting to see if you want to catch that 10kg weight dropped 12ft a wtc floor height after all if YOU CLAIM falling loads are no problem, can YOU explain why YOU wont try


Reading your comments such as this one makes me want to vomit a little bit. How about dropping 10kg weight 12ft and having 70 people stacked vertically (like the 70 floors of undamaged building were) try to catch that weight?

I'm no expert but I'm pretty confident that the weight would be caught way above the ground..



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join