yup ... indeed ..

Originally posted by -PLB-
Do I read this correctly? Are you finally acknowledging there is a pull in force? Although you will now of course deny you ever denied it. Congratulations on finally understanding this, rather simple, concept.

How can you read that and come to that conclusion?

You next step would be to understand what unsupported length means to column buckling. Then add the two phenomena, and you may get a clue. But you are not there yet.

LOL only in your imagination did the floors support the columns. Again this has been discussed to death.

From the team who claimed mass has nothing to do with velocity when objects are colliding. Not sure what "there" it is you think I'm not at yet, but trust me there ain't too many places I haven't been in 50 years on this mortal coil.

As usual the OSers get nasty when their arguments keep getting swatted down like so many horse flies on a horses ass.

reply to post by ANOK


You keep stating that the OS is the NIST report. NIST is an organization that looks at disasters and then make recommendations to make sure it will not happen again. That is it. They were not contracted to recreate the incident becuase there is nothing to investigate. They would not have looked for explosives, that is the job of the FBI or PENTBOMB.

So why do you always point to the NIST report?

You should look at this, and I have stated this one before also. visco elastic dampers. There were 9000-10000 of these that 'connected' the outer to the inner columns. They could also recreate the WTC with these but there is no need because they failed.



These are what saved the building. It shook and turned several feet on its base also after the hit for up to 10 seonds. It was designed for high winds not an airliner strike at full power. It was also designed not to survive an airliner strike but stand long enough for everyone to get out.

So, what about the dampers?

Originally posted by ANOK
How can you read that and come to that conclusion?

When you say that the force is not large enough, you automatically imply that there is indeed a force as results of sagging. That plus my unlimited optimism that you will finally grasp some of these simple concepts lead me to that conclusion.

LOL only in your imagination did the floors support the columns. Again this has been discussed to death.

And in reality too.That is how the towers were build.

From the team who claimed mass has nothing to do with velocity when objects are colliding. Not sure what "there" it is you think I'm not at yet, but trust me there ain't too many places I haven't been in 50 years on this mortal coil.

"There" would be some basic understanding. But you just took a step back.

As usual the OSers get nasty when their arguments keep getting swatted down like so many horse flies on a horses ass.

If you equate completely ignoring posts to "swatted down like so many horse flies on a horses ass" then you are absolutely right. Except, nobody would equate that with each other.

Originally posted by -PLB-
When you say that the force is not large enough, you automatically imply that there is indeed a force as results of sagging. That plus my unlimited optimism that you will finally grasp some of these simple concepts lead me to that conclusion.

No PLB, force IS a requirement for anything to pull on anything. Sagging trusses pulling on the columns would be like using a rubber band to pull something. The floors is SAGGING, it has no rigidity in order to put any force on the columns.

Not only that sagging does not make the floors heavier, so why would it put more force on the columns?

You need to re-read that PFD you showed me, because it clearly explains this, the only damage that happens in centenary action of beams is the connections can fail because the sagging can cause the angle of the beam at the column to change causing the connections to fail.

Give it up man, you are so wrong about this, even your own "evidence" says your wrong, refer back to that PDF you linked.

And in reality too.That is how the towers were build.

The floors did not support the columns in the way you claim. Again I explained this, the floors did not brace the core from collapsing. The floors connected the core and the outer columns in the horizontal direction. The floors were not required for the core to stand.

"There" would be some basic understanding. But you just took a step back.

Right, go back and read my post where I proved to the poster that mass does in fact effect velocity. Here it is again in black and white PLB...

A collision between two objects involves two things: how much mass each object has, and how fast it is going when it entered the collision.

www.fearofphysics.com...

"The inertia of an object depends upon its energy-content" Albert Einstein E=Mc2. M is an objects resting mass. Mass effects everything.

If you equate completely ignoring posts to "swatted down like so many horse flies on a horses ass" then you are absolutely right. Except, nobody would equate that with each other.

You keep accusing me of ignoring things yet here I am again addressing the same thing I already did again. So no I am ignoring nothing. Where is your reply to the PDF I posted that you ignored?

I think members reading the thread can see who it is ignoring relevant points, such as resistance in the structure.



So where is the proof sagging trusses can pull in the columns PLB, and why didn't those weak connection you told me about fail first, hmmm? Can you show me where that is in the NIST report?

Originally posted by SpearMint
It would appear to make no sense (although it apparently does to architecture experts), but then demolishing the building doesn't either. There's no way they could have put the insane amount of charges needed to bring down the tower in place without being noticed. You need to consider this before dismissing the official story.

edit on 9-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

There were many federal tenants in WTC 7. If they didn't want you to see what they're doing, you bet you wouldn't see it with all those federal agents there.

Originally posted by ANOK
"The inertia of an object depends upon its energy-content" Albert Einstein E=Mc2. M is an objects resting mass. Mass effects everything.

No PLB, force IS a requirement for anything to pull on anything. Sagging trusses pulling on the columns would be like using a rubber band to pull something. The floors is SAGGING, it has no rigidity in order to put any force on the columns.

Not only that sagging does not make the floors heavier, so why would it put more force on the columns?

You need to re-read that PFD you showed me, because it clearly explains this, the only damage that happens in centenary action of beams is the connections can fail because the sagging can cause the angle of the beam at the column to change causing the connections to fail.

Give it up man, you are so wrong about this, even your own "evidence" says your wrong, refer back to that PDF you linked.

Anok, can you explain what happens when the lines cross the x-axis in figure 5b? You really are clueless arn't you?

The floors did not support the columns in the way you claim. Again I explained this, the floors did not brace the core from collapsing. The floors connected the core and the outer columns in the horizontal direction. The floors were not required for the core to stand.

And for the perimeter columns? What was keeping those braced is absence of the floors?

"There" would be some basic understanding. But you just took a step back.

Right, go back and read my post where I proved to the poster that mass does in fact effect velocity. Here it is again in black and white PLB...

Or lets go back where you claim that gravity is an internal force. Or that potential energy is pushing. Or whatnot nonsense you sprout.

So where is the proof sagging trusses can pull in the columns PLB, and why didn't those weak connection you told me about fail first, hmmm? Can you show me where that is in the NIST report?

For the millionth time, I do not have this proof. You really should get that WTC dust out of your eyes, and start reading what people actually write.

The part you posted from the nist report showed that the connections did not fail after two hours. Of course you completely ignored that when I pointed it out.

BTW here is the thread claiming mass doesn't effect velocity, I thought it was in this thread....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just so you know what I was talking about.

reply to post by ANOK


Except that you are wrong there too, as usual. Sure the mass it falls on is larger, but the falling mass itself is also larger. Go to en.wikipedia.org... and look at that equation for v.

Now, if you double both ma and mb in the equation, does that have an effect on v? Use examples and if you find a situation where this is the case, share the values. Prediction: this post will go ignored and you will never give an example where v changes when ma and mb are changed by the same factor.

I can give you the mathematical proof of this if you like. It is really painful how you fail on every single physics issue.

reply to post by ANOK


What about the visco elastic dampers?

Originally posted by esdad71
What about the visco elastic dampers?

What about them? I am not a mind reader mate.

Viscoelastic dampers have nothing to do with holding a building up, so I'm not sure what your point could be?

What about those SAGGING trusses? Way out man!

The stress is always going to be on the connections, before that which it is connected to. The connections would fail before the columns. If the connections didn't fail, the columns were not pulled in. So either way your hypothesis fails. Sorry mate but logic is destroying your argument. All literature support this, even the one PLB posted.

reply to post by ANOK


You do not have to be a mind reader. It is a question. You keep talking about Sagging...these connect the inside to the outside. Nothing is destroying an argument, I am asking a question. Do you think they had nothing to do with the collapse or did they snap causing the outward bowing of the outer columns?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

You do not have to be a mind reader. It is a question. You keep talking about Sagging...these connect the inside to the outside. Nothing is destroying an argument, I am asking a question. Do you think they had nothing to do with the collapse or did they snap causing the outward bowing of the outer columns?

Well it's a bit hard to answer a question like that mate.

It's like asking, what about those horse flies? Well, what about them? Your question made no sense man. Typical vague reply you then accuse of ignoring, or not being smart enough to understand.

I keep asking about sagging trusses because that is the hypothesis for collapse initiation put forth by NIST. I am really surprised you don't know that.

NIST did not say they snapped causing the bowing of outer columns. They said trusses sagged from heat putting a pulling force on the columns which caused the columns to inwardly bow and break. They did not continue their hypotheses to explain what happened next. But they did quite clearly say that the evidence did not suggest the progressive pancake collapse you keep claiming happened. So I really fail to see what your argument in support of the OS is actually based on?

I don't know how much easier I can spell it out, but I will type this really slowly just for you.

Sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns. Refer to the PDF PBL posted, maybe you could U2U and ask him for the link?

With me so far?

IF they did put a pulling force on anything it would have been the connections.

Getting this yet?

If the connections didn't fail then the columns would also not fail, unless you want to claim 1" and 5/8" bolts are stronger than steel box columns?

'Ow we doing mate? Still with me?

Now, if you refer back to some of your own arguments, and recently PLB, who has been most helpful in my research on this, you all said that the connections were the weak point.

Which BTW would be correct. Applause all around for the chaps please! But it causes your other argument to be a little contradictory, mate. Booooo! Connections cannot both be the weak point, and not the weak point, when it suits your argument. (Disgruntled noises from the gallery, and much shaking of lowered heads)

This is from the NIST FAQ...

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

www.nist.gov...

Notice also the wording, thus..."the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram"

Do you all see that? It says connected, it does not say braced. Connected does not mean braced.

BTW trying to act all knowledgeable, and pretending to not understand, is a really weak debating method. Your incredulity that I would not beleive what NIST said is hilarious.

Originally posted by ANOK
This is from the NIST FAQ...

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

www.nist.gov...

Notice also the wording, thus..."the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram"

Do you all see that? It says connected, it does not say braced. Connected does not mean braced.

BTW trying to act all knowledgeable, and pretending to not understand, is a really weak debating method. Your incredulity that I would not beleive what NIST said is hilarious.

edit on 5/17/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Ignorance must be bliss.

Please stop posting that false information please.

This is the correct one which you are consistantly ignoring and hoping it goes away:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

in·i·ti·ate /iˈniSHēˌāt/ Verb - Cause (a process or action) to begin: "initiate discussions"

initiator n 1. a person or thing that initiates

NIST discovered that PANCAKING was NOT the INITIATOR of collapse.
NIST discovered that PANCAKING was NOT the INITIATOR of collapse.
NIST discovered that PANCAKING was NOT the INITIATOR of collapse.
NIST discovered that PANCAKING was NOT the INITIATOR of collapse.


-Mod Edit-- Please Remember:
Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.

reply to post by ANOK

There is nothing vague and even you say connected. I have not said you are not answering but you are not answering now. Insulting intelligence of those in the this thread also is not an answer as you are doing. Stop thinking about NIST, FEMA and all of the other actual agencies who did their due diligence in this investigation based on the project need provided and answer the question on your own, based on your knowledge of physics and Architecture.

So First, Referring to the Q&A on the NIST report is too vague. Drill down a bit, with the final not the initial report if you like.
You cannot use one line and omit others. The report, not the link, states also that when the inward bowing occurred, they broke, sending them outward. There are pictures of this I know you have seen. It is also in the link you provided. The 'pancake' also did not happen progressively is what they state but again you use it to fit your argument. Some people might believe you but a little research discredits your suggestions. How about questions 11,12 and 13? Did you read them...

So, what about the dampers? Why cannot you not address them? You can create a long, roundabout answer but it is not answering my question. If you do not know, say so, but it has a direct correlation to the structure of this building.

They were the connection you are talking about, not the bracing, right?

Originally posted by ANOK
Do you all see that? It says connected, it does not say braced. Connected does not mean braced.

I know you are going to ignore this post too, as you do with all my post where I expose your nonsense, but for other readers, this is what NIST actually tells about the floor system:

The floor system of a framed-tube structure is designed for four main functions. First, it supports the vertical gravity loads on the floor and transfers these loads to the external and core columns. Second, as a diaphragm it distributes wind loads to the side walls of the framed tube structure. Third, it, together with the external frame, provides the stiffness to resist torsional motion of the building. Fourth, it provides lateral support to the columns, thereby, keeping the columns stable.

From NCSTAR 1-1

This is by the way what any structural engineer would tell you.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I know you are going to ignore this post too, as you do with all my post where I expose your nonsense, but for other readers, this is what NIST actually tells about the floor system:

Again I'm not ignoring things, here I am not ignoring anything. That claim is getting old bud. Ironically you are ignoring everything I am saying.

The floor system of a framed-tube structure is designed for four main functions. First, it supports the vertical gravity loads on the floor and transfers these loads to the external and core columns. Second, as a diaphragm it distributes wind loads to the side walls of the framed tube structure. Third, it, together with the external frame, provides the stiffness to resist torsional motion of the building. Fourth, it provides lateral support to the columns, thereby, keeping the columns stable.

It says nothing there about floors holding the core up. You only think it does. The floors did not brace the core columns in the vertical direction, they transferred lateral movement to allow the building to sway in the wind.

So unless there was an extremely massive tornado going on when the "floors trusses sagged and pulled the columns" in then no, the core would not lose it's stability. Losing lateral support does not also lead to vertical collapse of 110 story columns.

reply to post by ANOK


They used Dampers, right?

Originally posted by esdad71

I answered your question. Here it is again you must have missed it...

"Viscoelastic dampers have nothing to do with holding a building up, so I'm not sure what your point could be?

The stress is always going to be on the connections, before that which it is connected to. The connections would fail before the columns. If the connections didn't fail, the columns were not pulled in. So either way your hypothesis fails. Sorry mate but logic is destroying your argument. All literature support this, even the one PLB posted."

So now how addressing the points I make? How did the weak connections not fail during this "pull in".

Simple question, now quite avoiding it. Did you look at that PDF that PLB posted?
Here is the pic PLB offered for evidence of weak connections.



So how DID those weak connections not fail during the pull in?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

They used Dampers, right?

Again what is your point with this? Please explain yourself. How do dampers cause sagging trusses to put a pulling force on the columns?

You are just play acting, as if not understanding your vague questions means my lack of understanding.

Are you trying to say the dampers would keep the connections from failing? I don't see how.

They used massive box columns for the core, right?

Originally posted by ANOK
Again I'm not ignoring things, here I am not ignoring anything. That claim is getting old bud. Ironically you are ignoring everything I am saying.

You are in denial again. Even in this very thread there are several posts of my where I completely expose your nonsense which you completely ignored.

It says nothing there about floors holding the core up. You only think it does. The floors did not brace the core columns in the vertical direction, they transferred lateral movement to allow the building to sway in the wind.

So unless there was an extremely massive tornado going on when the "floors trusses sagged and pulled the columns" in then no, the core would not lose it's stability. Losing lateral support does not also lead to vertical collapse of 110 story columns.

Perimeter columns ANOK, perimeter columns.