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.

 

Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

page: 23
10
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


It's a lovely attempt there waypastvne. You know that he's just going to ignore it and repeat his point endlessly though.

I was impressed with the gif of the bow at collapse. I'm not sure what video that is from, I don't think I've seen such an extended oblique view before. I'll have to go through the footage db and find its source.




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


No it hasn't. I don't care how many pictures you show me, it does not prove sagging trusses can pull in columns.

You have no evidence that what you point out was the result of trusses sagging and pulling in columns.

I already know trusses can sag.

For a floor to have enough force to cause failure would take a load at least 4x the load the truss was designed to hold. The FoS that you all ignore. Where did that load come from? A sagging truss is not going to develop that amount of force on the columns from sagging.

Now if you look at the PFD that PLB supplied, it explains what happens when a beam, or truss, sags into centenary action. Yes exponent beams and trusses act in similar ways, no more lame excuses.

Explained here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You also fail to understand that the connections would fail before they could pull in columns. Surely you don't think the connections were stronger than the columns?

Here's a nice pic showing cross and horizontal bracing of the core, something that people are claiming it didn't have....




edit on 6/3/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I believe that .gif shows the core columns failing causing the top section to tilt.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   


I don't care how many pictures you show me, it does not prove sagging trusses can pull in columns.

You see?
Non experts arguing engineering issues is pointless.

The 911 section is whithering away.
It's been a dozen years and there is still no flood of engineers saying 'it's not possible'.
I'll bet there has been more than 1700 crackheads jumping off buildings thinking they could fly since 2001.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
This NIST document describes what happened after collapse initiation, The evidence seen in photos and video supports it.

www.aws.org...

There is no evidence for column compression failures that you keep alluding to.

If you wish to continue arguing the lower section of the building failed under compression, please show us some evidence of compression failures (as in: midspan buckles in exterior columns)

I will be happy to show you all the photos of sheared off truss seats you want.
I have studied the PDF you provided. Thank you.

I did not talk about column compression. I talked about global phenomenon of small rigid body compressing tall rigid body. Both of similar physical properties. The towers were compressed in the strictest sense of the meaning of the definition of the word. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I wanted to say that: first, they had big, big volume, like, 64x64x400m³ or so -- not unstable, not stable, more like, metastable -- and after that, BOOM!, it was more like very, very stable and flat on the ground covering much of the city and only little volume. So it was a compression. That was what I meant to say. I am sorry if I made myself not clear. Please do not misunderstand. I just wanted to say that the towers underwent a compression. Maybe it is not allowed to compare the volume before and the volume after. Because E=p*V and so on. Maybe I'm very, very wrong, please correct me. Please be not mad at me. I mean no evil. I mean good. Maybe wrong definition. I am not engineer.

Thank you for the link to the PDF. It was very interesting. I never saw it before. Those were good scientists, they showed that many, many connections were torn off the outer columns. The seat angles that were welded to the outer columns were torn off. Or bent down. 90% of them. That is very interesting. Good experts. I like this part much, much.

The connections used in the core area are not discussed in this paper, as few were recovered and the as-built location of those that were could not be ascertained; [...] As this paper presents data on the exterior wall truss connections only, the core and hat truss are not discussed further.


...and all the towers be like: "Dude, where's my core?"

Look here, it says, Ref. 4. I look, I see: fire.nist.gov... Because title: Damage and failure modes of structural steel components, methinks: here be answers! - and look:

pp 197 ff: only 55 core columns recovered. Small number of samples -> statistical data of the various damage features and failure modes would be irrelevant. NIST has portions of four of 329 core columns involved in impact and pre-collapse fires -> only 1%. No full and accurate picture of damage guaranteed.

As none of the remaining columns were within the impact or fire floors, no further analysis was conducted as damage was assumed to be a result of the collapse and subsequent handling during the recovery. [...] Unlike the exterior panels, relatively few samples of identified core columns were recovered and available for inspection.


Perimeter: p. 15-196 = 181
Core columns: p. 197-210 = 13
Trusses: p. 211 - 215 = 4
micropics of perimeter steel: p 217 - 277 = 60

Findings and conclusions:
perimeter - 1.5 pages
core: 5 lines
SFRM: 10 lines
temperatures: 1 page, mostly about perimeter. Forensic analysis for core columns indicating moderate temperature excursions not representative because only one percent of columns intersecting floors with fire recovered.
deformation of perimeter walls: 0.5 page
structural damage: 0.5 page. truss seats on perimeter panels failed differently above and under impact zone. 31 core floor truss connectors recovered, 90% intact.

To summarize: building compressed. Investigation follows. Much concentration on perimeter walls and floor trusses, which direction each bent and why. Little knowledge about core structure. What failure mode? How buckled? Noone says. Nothing learned. All evidence gone. Nothing to see. Pouf, pouf. How do I become expert?

Much magic, I say, much magic, and mighty too, dear friends....



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon

Originally posted by waypastvne
This NIST document describes what happened after collapse initiation, The evidence seen in photos and video supports it.

www.aws.org...

There is no evidence for column compression failures that you keep alluding to.

If you wish to continue arguing the lower section of the building failed under compression, please show us some evidence of compression failures (as in: midspan buckles in exterior columns)

I will be happy to show you all the photos of sheared off truss seats you want.
I have studied the PDF you provided. Thank you.

I did not talk about column compression. I talked about global phenomenon of small rigid body compressing tall rigid body. Both of similar physical properties. The towers were compressed in the strictest sense of the meaning of the definition of the word. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I wanted to say that: first, they had big, big volume, like, 64x64x400m³ or so -- not unstable, not stable, more like, metastable -- and after that, BOOM!, it was more like very, very stable and flat on the ground covering much of the city and only little volume. So it was a compression. That was what I meant to say. I am sorry if I made myself not clear. Please do not misunderstand. I just wanted to say that the towers underwent a compression. Maybe it is not allowed to compare the volume before and the volume after. Because E=p*V and so on. Maybe I'm very, very wrong, please correct me. Please be not mad at me. I mean no evil. I mean good. Maybe wrong definition. I am not engineer.

Thank you for the link to the PDF. It was very interesting. I never saw it before. Those were good scientists, they showed that many, many connections were torn off the outer columns. The seat angles that were welded to the outer columns were torn off. Or bent down. 90% of them. That is very interesting. Good experts. I like this part much, much.

The connections used in the core area are not discussed in this paper, as few were recovered and the as-built location of those that were could not be ascertained; [...] As this paper presents data on the exterior wall truss connections only, the core and hat truss are not discussed further.


...and all the towers be like: "Dude, where's my core?"

Look here, it says, Ref. 4. I look, I see: fire.nist.gov... Because title: Damage and failure modes of structural steel components, methinks: here be answers! - and look:

pp 197 ff: only 55 core columns recovered. Small number of samples -> statistical data of the various damage features and failure modes would be irrelevant. NIST has portions of four of 329 core columns involved in impact and pre-collapse fires -> only 1%. No full and accurate picture of damage guaranteed.

As none of the remaining columns were within the impact or fire floors, no further analysis was conducted as damage was assumed to be a result of the collapse and subsequent handling during the recovery. [...] Unlike the exterior panels, relatively few samples of identified core columns were recovered and available for inspection.


Perimeter: p. 15-196 = 181
Core columns: p. 197-210 = 13
Trusses: p. 211 - 215 = 4
micropics of perimeter steel: p 217 - 277 = 60

Findings and conclusions:
perimeter - 1.5 pages
core: 5 lines
SFRM: 10 lines
temperatures: 1 page, mostly about perimeter. Forensic analysis for core columns indicating moderate temperature excursions not representative because only one percent of columns intersecting floors with fire recovered.
deformation of perimeter walls: 0.5 page
structural damage: 0.5 page. truss seats on perimeter panels failed differently above and under impact zone. 31 core floor truss connectors recovered, 90% intact.

To summarize: building compressed. Investigation follows. Much concentration on perimeter walls and floor trusses, which direction each bent and why. Little knowledge about core structure. What failure mode? How buckled? Noone says. Nothing learned. All evidence gone. Nothing to see. Pouf, pouf. How do I become expert?

Much magic, I say, much magic, and mighty too, dear friends....


No magic. Finger of god!

I really am falling for you akareyon. But it doesn't matter how much of the core didn't exist after the collapse .

Plb told me so in my hijacked spire thread. The one that shows no 60 stories of core columns scattered about the top of the debris.

Finger of god I say!

Eta wait it might not have been plb . Ill have to look again later
edit on 3-6-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
The one that shows no 60 stories of core columns scattered about the top of the debris.




I marked a few of core columns for you. They're easy to find





posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Another_Nut
The one that shows no 60 stories of core columns scattered about the top of the debris.




I marked a few of core columns for you. They're easy to find




Im not going to get into the math but here are some quik napkin calculations from a homeless man living on the beach. Its been 17years since I've had a vacation and though ill pop in to read ,deep replies are done for a min so here goes .

1100 feet x 47 columns = 51700 feet of steel columns. 90% of which should be on top of the piles as we can clearly see the columns falling after the building collaples

Now say in that pick you showed there are 100 beams at 50 feet each that's only 5000 feet. You would need 10 of those picks to make 2 towers.

The fact is mass is missing from the towers. Feel free to count the columns though. And prove me wrong

Eta . This is a thread I hijacked because I couldn't start one. (started with no flags btw
) which explains my stance clearly. Feel free to comment there
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 4-6-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Akareyon
 


Sorry but why are people still looking at this as a 2 load system, the problem with what you are doing is you are taking NO account of how the WTC Towers were constructed.

It's not a simple mass A is smaller than mass B.

The floor system was the flaw ANY mass that fell on a particular floor slab was supported by that floor slab's connections and ONLY that floor slab's connections.

The tower core took the bulk of the gravity load , the outer walls the wind load and the floor trusses connected the two.

If floor trusses failed then the outer walls had a problem with stability.

Once part of the structure fell inside the walls any mass that fell on a floor slab could ONLY be resisted by that floor slab even allowing for 4,5 even 6 times FOS, 15 floors dropped on the NT & 30 on the ST and it wasn't a static load it was a DYNAMIC load , once floors failed the outer walls had stability problems also impacts with falling mass inside the walls which would also strike the core columns and the Towers destroyed themselves.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
That is a nice pic! Thank you for sharing it.

But it must be fake. Because experts said that buckling was the failure mode. There are no buckled columns on your pic. They are all straight.

Or experts are wrong, and pic not fake?

Where is a smart NIST paper to discuss why core failed! Maybe weldseams between columns and beams broke? Where are beams? Why columns in all directions, not lined up because spire from OP video collapsed on rest of rubble field?

Rubble field, no pile of rubble. Pile of rubble not very high, like, two stories, three stories.

Columns seem longer than perimeter panels. Perimeter panels spanned three floors from 9th - 107th floor. Core columns at impact zone spanned three floors. So core columns in pic different - from above impact zone? Or columns at base longer than columns in top of building?

Is "spire" top or base of core?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


the Towers destroyed themselves
Yes, yes, big problem that.

But you explain as if logical.

Logical would be: top breaks off and falls down. Or: top breaks off, makes base tilt and everything falls sideways. Or: top breaks off, falls on base, crushes top of base and bottom of top a little or a lot and then collapse stops. Because much stuff in the way that must be accelerated. But: not much resistance. Only a little friction on the way down.

You explain as if logical: all that mass falling, all on trusses and trusses too weak and rip from perimeter and so perimeter too weak and core to weak so when trusses gone, core and perimeter also collapse. But: when falling, part of core falls on core and floor slabs, part of floor slabs falls on floor slabs and perimeter and core, part of perimeter falls on perimeter and floor slabs. All very chaotic, so channel must be clogged like wastewater pipe!

As far as the trusses being strong enough (enough cross section of steel) to fail the columns... WTC 6 was pulled down with just 4 cables.

We got the cables attached to four different locations going up. Now they're pulling the building to the north.
Why pull to side? They don't know that pull straight down is easiest way, least resistance?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon

Originally posted by waypastvne
That is a nice pic! Thank you for sharing it.

But it must be fake. Because experts said that buckling was the failure mode. There are no buckled columns on your pic. They are all straight.

Or experts are wrong, and pic not fake?

Where is a smart NIST paper to discuss why core failed! Maybe weldseams between columns and beams broke? Where are beams? Why columns in all directions, not lined up because spire from OP video collapsed on rest of rubble field?

Rubble field, no pile of rubble. Pile of rubble not very high, like, two stories, three stories.

Columns seem longer than perimeter panels. Perimeter panels spanned three floors from 9th - 107th floor. Core columns at impact zone spanned three floors. So core columns in pic different - from above impact zone? Or columns at base longer than columns in top of building?

Is "spire" top or base of core?


Both wtc1 and 2 had core spires that started just below impact zones.

Both survived for 15-30 seconds after collapse.
edit on 4-6-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut

1100 feet x 47 columns = 51700 feet of steel columns. 90% of which should be on top of the piles as we can clearly see the columns falling after the building collaples



You do realise that your math suggest that 90% of the core was still standing after collapse. Would you like to amend your math ?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 

I believe he refers to the OP video which shows the spire. Lots of core still standing, then swaying, then falling straight down. If that collapsed after everything else was down, it should be visible and distinguishable on top of the rest of the rubble field.

eta:
1100/1368=80.41%

90% of 80.41% = 72.37% of original core structure. A bit optimistic maybe, but 90% of original core he never said.
edit on 4-6-2013 by Akareyon because: amended math



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Another_Nut

1100 feet x 47 columns = 51700 feet of steel columns. 90% of which should be on top of the piles as we can clearly see the columns falling after the building collaples



You do realise that your math suggest that 90% of the core was still standing after collapse. Would you like to amend your math ?


You are right. That's just the math for one tower ... There were 2....

So

103400 feet of steel on top....

First I will take akareyon at this 72 % .

So I will accept 72000 feet.

eta I would like to have it pointed out that my homeless back of the napkin calculations while getting tipsy on a Texas beach were more accurate (as proven by that sexy little akareyon over there. ) than your own hunchs .maybe you should listen to whats being said (logicly, mathematically and using photo record)and being shown in this thread.
eeta forgot to add my thank you to akareyon for the deeper math Thank You Akareyon. One day imma kiss you!

eeeta. Wait akareyon,baby, is that math right? Looks a little blurry... Will you hand that napkin with the beer attached?.

edit on 4-6-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 

Dear Jeremiah,

imagine me sitting next to you on that beautiful Texan sunset beach, sharing a bottle (or two maybe) of booze and stories about love and freedom with you, while I imagine you visiting my kiosk in the deep south of rainy grey Lower Saxony by the shore of the Rhume river, ordering the best coffee in town and a Jägermeister to add some flavour to it. There are many thousands of miles between us, bridged by a few glass fiber cables running through the depths of the oceans and a few satellites orbiting the blue-green jewel our planet is, but I hope you feel that friendly hug and pat on the shoulder I'm giving you right now: even if you like math a lot, don't drink and derive!

I've learned a few new things in this thread, and a some things still just don't seem to fit. The core structure, for example, can clearly be seen standing many stories tall in the pic you posted in the thread you hijacked. In most of the videos, the core structure can be seen during collapse - while all the floors go down - sinking into the cloud of dust. In the OP video and other spire supercuts, the "spire" seems to be much smaller, and most of the rest of the building should be on ground level already by then. Next: the truss connections on the core are reported to be fine in the official reports - mostly - while those on the perimeter columns are all torn off or bent downwards. Also, the antenna mast is clearly the first thing to move, which indicates the core gives in first. How does it all fit together - within black magic, official fairy tale, thermite and mini nuke theory?

If the perimeter fell like a curtain, the truss connectors should be bent up, not down. If, however, the trusses were damaged close to their core connection, it would be clear how the floor slabs ripped the curtain down and thus bent the truss connections down - and why the core remained standing for longer than the rest. Destroying that from the bottom like in a classic CD would comparatively be child's play and explain how the "spire" could sink like the mast of a ship. However, it still doesn't explain why the perimeter fell - if the truss seat weld seams on the perimeter columns were the weakest link in the chain, what ripped the "curtain" down then? Also, the truss connectors on the core are reported to be okay - from the little evidence that has not hurriedly been destroyed. Wouldn't that mean that the core should have remained standing, with the trusses dangling from its sides? And why does the debris field picture show those very long columns, where are they from, why are they perfectly straight, with no connection whatsoever to other structural members, why are they oriented in all directions - what could have been learned from them about the failure mode?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
reply to post by Another_Nut
 

Dear Jeremiah, b

imagine me sitting next to you on that beautiful Texan sunset beach, sharing a bottle (or two maybe) of booze and stories about love and freedom with you, while I imagine you visiting my kiosk in the deep south of rainy grey Lower Saxony by the shore of the Rhume river, ordering the best coffee in town and a Jägermeister to add some flavour to it. There are many thousands of miles between us, bridged by a few glass fiber cables running through the depths of the oceans and a few satellites orbiting the blue-green jewel our planet is, but I hope you feel that friendly hug and pat on the shoulder I'm giving you right now: even if you like math a lot, don't drink and derive!

I've learned a few new things in this thread, and a some things still just don't seem to fit. The core structure, for example, can clearly be seen standing many stories tall in the pic you posted in the thread you hijacked. In most of the videos, the core structure can be seen during collapse - while all the floors go down - sinking into the cloud of dust. In the OP video and other spire supercuts, the "spire" seems to be much smaller, and most of the rest of the building should be on ground level already by then. Next: the truss connections on the core are reported to be fine in the official reports - mostly - while those on the perimeter columns are all torn off or bent downwards. Also, the antenna mast is clearly the first thing to move, which indicates the core gives in first. How does it all fit together - within black magic, official fairy tale, thermite and mini nuke theory?

If the perimeter fell like a curtain, the truss connectors should be bent up, not down. If, however, the trusses were damaged close to their core connection, it would be clear how the floor slabs ripped the curtain down and thus bent the truss connections down - and why the core remained standing for longer than the rest. Destroying that from the bottom like in a classic CD would comparatively be child's play and explain how the "spire" could sink like the mast of a ship. However, it still doesn't explain why the perimeter fell - if the truss seat weld seams on the perimeter columns were the weakest link in the chain, what ripped the "curtain" down then? Also, the truss connectors on the core are reported to be okay - from the little evidence that has not hurriedly been destroyed. Wouldn't that mean that the core should have remained standing, with the trusses dangling from its sides? And why does the debris field picture show those very long columns, where are they from, why are they perfectly straight, with no connection whatsoever to other structural members, why are they oriented in all directions - what could have been learned from them about the failure mode?


scene: 2:00am on a Texas beach
Cut to: man sobbing on the shoulder of a close friend as they stumbe from the bar
sobbing man: im so sorry reyon ,I can believe can tries that . Are we gonna survive? Did we hurt anyone?
Friend: no your pencil lead broke and the napkin was wet. You will be ok.

^---bad on the fly at 2 am


I don't know what happened!! Finger of god is as good as i get atm.

Yes i think the cores should have stood up if they survived the collapse and were stable enough to sway. Dr Eugene and good ol' Dave try to feed the euler bs . But that would mean all 60 stories of core was just free standing for 15 seconds before euler decided to join the party. Seems like a lot of physics took a break that day.ok need sleep ill try to respond with what i missed after i wake up lol. Nite.
Eta
Not to mention I expect the core that I see to at least have the decency to be there the they go to clean up instead instead it hurries itself into the basement.what ill manners. Definitely not British.

o and my friend it seems American freedom ,even here in Texas ,is quickly evaporating. Sad times for all indeed.


edit on 5-6-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Idea time .

So after the planes and fires had done their damage . Its time for the buildings to fall. What you do its start with floors below impact and start pulverizing concrete.slowly. Then as the top pushes down on just trusses everything gets bowed in at the sides.once they ssnap you speed up the reaction.

The tops of the building only encounter resistance from the trusses sans concrete. As the tops hit the cores they chaotically disassemble and hit the ground pulling a few columns down. Most of those columns are we see in the debris pics. and the "pancaking "is of the top floors hitting the ground.

This also would cause a sucking in of the "dust". As the tops fell through space they created a vacuums causing that mushroom shape. And the blown out lobby walls would make sense too.

The spires were then brought down. . Don't forget you have to explain the surfer ,so no detonations.
I think as the concrete was turned to dust the massive increase in area in such a short time made a sort of cusion constantly pushing him.out and away.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon

Next: the truss connections on the core are reported to be fine in the official reports - mostly - while those on the perimeter columns are all torn off or bent downwards.



fire.nist.gov...


Of the 31 core seats recovered, 90 percent were still intact though some had extensive damage. Only two were observed to have been completely torn from the channel.



You are missing the obvious. If the core truss connections did not fail at the truss seats, then they failed somewhere else. The NIST paper even tells you where they failed.


Of the 24 channels used to support the floor trusses, half of the samples were observed to have both ends fail within the channel itself, Fig. 4–9a, while the other half were observed to have failure at one or both of the end connectors, Fig. 4–9b.


In the drawing below the part in the lower right corner marked welded channel is the part that failed. Be aware that the truss seats on the channel are not always inline with the core columns, but attach to the channel at intervals in between the columns. Also note that the floor overlaps the channel this is what makes the channel the weakest link.










Also, the antenna mast is clearly the first thing to move, which indicates the core gives in first.


The south wall failed first, it failed long before the core. The bow in the exterior columns show that it was no longer holding a compression load. The load that it used to hold was transferred to the core columns which failed second. When viewed from the north it looks like the core went first




And why does the debris field picture show those very long columns, where are they from, why are they perfectly straight, with no connection whatsoever to other structural members, why are they oriented in all directions - what could have been learned from them about the failure mode?


They are core columns. They are strait because they didn't fail from compression. They failed at the weld joints.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 

The direction this is going puzzles me, as neither explosives or thermite give a better explanation for what we observed. The only direction this can go is "HAARP super secret space beam energy weapon". Or enlighten me on what people here actually think.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join