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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

What happened to your "3rd law" "conservation of momentum" nonsense?



this is exactly what they do when one of their arguments doesn't fly. they just throw something else at you or just stop talking about it until they can use it on somebody else. Of course now he'd rather argue the differences between your model and wtc.




posted on May, 15 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Just look at the dishwashes blocks eject to the side. What force else could have been responsible but explosives?



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Akareyon
 

the only diagonal beams were at the base of the tower there weren't any more.


the ones you can see in your picture are part of the crane system framework



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I can tell you you are wrong without even looking at pictures of the core.

Why do you think that is mate? Am I clairvoyant?

Well hardly. No, it's because it would be engineering stupidity to not brace 110 story columns.

You think they just planted the ends in the ground and left 47 110 story columns just free standing?

So what is all that other steel work you can see in the core that isn't vertical core columns? I can clearly see horizontal bracing, and cross bracing, you are just not looking hard enough. If I have time later I might start up Photoshop and highlight them, maybe then you'll quite making things up?


edit on 5/15/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
you asked what role the floors had in keeping the columns from falling and I said think of them as guy wires so you might be able to understand the design.


Hmmm no wrong answer. You think I'm asking these questions because I don't know?

The floors did not act like guy wires, period.


the floors sagged because when the concrete got hot it lost its tensile strength so it no longer contributed to holding its own weight and actually became part of the problem.


The concrete lost it's tensile strength? Really? Not the steel truss? What about the steel pans the concrete sat in, what happened to them, did they sag also?

NIST did not say concrete lost it's tensile strength, you don't even know what you are arguing AFTER I have explained it to you. YES I have explained to you BOTH sides of the argument, you don't even understand your own argument so what chance is there that you have ANY clue what I am saying.


you really are a major intellectual stonewaller and I love how you change the subject or the point of a discussion when you don't want to go there. maybe if you could focus a little more on the really important aspects of the design and what effects the plane impacts had on those particular designs you may start to see light at the end of that 9 year tunnel.


I have not changed any subject I have simply replied to your posts, if you don't like that I bring up other points that show your point is contradictory and false, TOUGH.


edit on 5/15/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


This is the problem you folks have, not enough knowledge about physics and construction to understand the different between partial and complete collapse.

The floors collapsing in that building didn't bring down the frame of the building with them did it?

There is more to the WTC collapse than just floors collapsing.

The problem with your argument is not so much that floors fell and continued to progressively collapse, because that can happen, the problem is that doesn't happen to steel framed buildings, and when it does happen you usually have either a partial collapse, or with concrete structures you end up with a stack of floors, like a stack of pancakes (another term who's meaning seems lost on you).

The WTC collapses do not show any sign of "pancake collapse". As noted by your NIST report.


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...

So why do you keep trying to insist it was a progressive pancake collapse when even the report you all claim to be experts about, and defend so religiously, does not support that?

You have no evidence for your claims because the "evidence" you use is nothing of the sort.


edit on 5/15/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



ANOK, I am going to put this as clear as day for all to see on ATS. QUIT IGNORING THE ANSWERS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is your answer in regards to pancaking. Stop ignoring me, stop ignoring the facts, and stop ignoring the answers that fix your flaws.

For the umpteenth time: NIST discovered that PANCAKING was NOT the INITIATOR of collapse. That is what is being said. Let me repeat this a few more times for you since you are either A) trolling, or B) just willfully ignoring posts that do not conform to your preconceived notions.

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.

It has been answered. Stop lying and reposting garbage that was debunked. One more time for posterity:
NIST discovered that PANCAKING was NOT the INITIATOR of collapse.
edit on 5/15/2013 by GenRadek because: xtra info



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
***ATTENTION***

I'm just going to leave this here:

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.

This policy is not up for debate.

~Tenth
ATS Moderator
edit on 5/15/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Also ANOK,

I have posted numerous times ample evidence of pancaking as found in the WTC debris. I gave photos. I gave eyewitness accounts. Hell I even gave accounts of workers in the rubble that discovered stacks of floors compacted together. YOU ignored it all, and keep lying saying it didnt happen. You are not interested in the truth ANOK. Never was, never will be. If you were, you would have stopped posting such nonsense years ago when you were corrected the first time.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

edit on 15-5-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


As I have stated 1001 times to YOU I have forgot more about construction methods and physics than you even learned. I do this for a living I am on site on a regular basis when have you been 10,20, 40+ floors on the OUTSIDE of a building being built with a site agent architect/engineer making recommendations for structural components for anything from rain screen systems,balconies, signage, roof structures or a multitude of other things or given them a seminar on load capacities so quit the BS.

I will now back up one of ANOK's claims yes ANOK I am not closed mined or biased as YOU!

There was some diagonal bracing in the core and I can prove it, there is also some horizontal bracing that's what the cleats the held the floor trusses at the core end of the trusses were attached to here are the pictures.

Here the diagonal bracing can be seen in the area between the cranes and not the crane masts themselves.



Here is the horizontal beam at the core for the cleats for the floor trusses.



Here is a link to the DRAWINGS of the towers a link I have posted more than once.

WTC PLANS

Now MODELS, once again scale MODELS can never replicate the forces of this event BUT and this is for YOU ANOK they can replicate the physics of a collapse.

That MODEL stood on its own and a fraction of it's mass made it collapse now a sheet of paper falling on a sheet of paper can't replicate the forces of thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling in the 9/11 event.

The problem with scale models is that although they can give an indication of how something looks or how airflow may move across and around it they can never truly replicate the forces and behaviour of full size structures.

As I said before look at when models are used in movies for special effects crashes, explosions, damage even flames don't look realistic.

To give an example if we were to model the WTC Towers at 100th scale lets look at some dimensions
WTC 1 roof level 1368 ft the model 13.68 ft
Building on plan 208 x 208 ft the model 2.08 x2.08 ft

That's fine but lets look at some components lets look at the steel decking for the floor slabs that would be around 2-2.5mm thick the model would be 0.02-0.025mm thick that's like better quality aluminium foil that you would use to cook with.

Now if during the building of the WTC if a large sheet of decking dropped from any height watch out below!!!, if I drop my model decking from any height it will gently float to the ground


If we were to model the WTC correctly the floors would not be on top of the dish washer tablets or the jenga blocks they would be attached to the inside it would have core tablets/blocks and some removed for impact areas etc etc.

The FLOORS falling in the WTC were not the INITIATOR they were the RESULT and the demise of the towers, I showed the links in the posts above to show that when a floor collapses and drops its full height it is possible for it to make it all the way to the ground.

There are engineering papers regarding it and methods to try and stop it if it wasn't possible why would the research be done. Fires can weaken structures since 9/11 there has been a greater use of fire stop materials and products used on UK building sites and around the world and I will remind you yet again when the towers were built thermal loading was NEVER taken into consideration or calculated assumptions were made, only in the last few years has that changed.

Now I suggest you consider what others have said, I do as seen above regarding bracing I look at these things in great detail, images, videos & links etc it's OBVIOUS that some don't with the threads we have here making wrong assumptions on what they think they see.

wmd.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Good work man, you finally did it!

In all these years of debating you are the first to actually build a model of a tower that collapses progressively from top to bottom; the first to model the WTC 1&2 collapses!

I know that after all my hard sarcasm in this and previous threads, this may not sound as honest as I mean it: I salute you, -PLB-, and I herewith express my deepest respect. Hats off!

And I really don't mean to poison this compliment by further discussing the implications, but I really consider this a breaking point. This thread should go down in the history of 9/11 conspiracy debates.

We both built a tower each. Both within your parameters. Mine was 10 stories high, yours was too. I used A5 paper, you used something A6ish or so. I used Jenga blocks in their second best orientation, you used dishwasher tablets in their second best orientation. I dropped ten blocks on top of mine. You dropped two tablets on yours. Mine got crushed a little on the top. Yours collapsed progressively. So what is the big difference, what are the similarities between your tower, my tower and the twin towers and what has been proven here? Apart from the obvious fact skyscrapers shouldn't be made of dishwasher tabs, of course :-)

Is progressive collapse possible? Yes, of course, we both said so. Does it break any laws of physics? No, neither; and that was not the question. The question was whether progressive collapse is inevitable in a steel-frame, tube-in-tube skyscraper, as many believe that this sort of stuff just happens due to slipshod architecture, whereas others argue that slipshod architecture leads to leaning, tipping, bending, breaking and tilting, but never to a progressive collapse from top to bottom.

-PLB-, your tower was not slipshod architecture. It surely was very shaky and fragile compared to mine - or the WTC. But it was an ingenious little mechanism, built only for the purpose of collapsing straight down into itself. It had a lot of little levers that kicked in at the right moment. I'm not sure if the swastika-like orientation of the corner columns helped to get some rotational symmetry and "twisting" force into the ripple waves that can clearly be seen shaking the columns, or if it is of little importance. I would love to pick up your experiment with "blocks" of similar shape, size and weight and different sorts of paper, and see for example if a cruciform orientation of the colums would make a difference. It would also be interesting to know how many attempts you needed and how many tweaking you had to do really until you managed to bring the tower down like this - or if this was your first approach at building a 10 story tower with the materials given. For comparison, the video I posted was my very first try (after I had abandoned the idea of orienting the Jenga blocks upright).

In short, although I acknowledge your success in modelling a progressive collapse, my claim that the parameters for a tower that collapses the way yours and the WTC did are much narrower than for a tower that either dampens the impact or collapses asymmetrically has not been disproven.

Quite the opposite: the can of worms is wide open now.

My original objection was that a mechanism is...

...a desired force or motion! It was never desired for the entire mass of the two buildings to move 200 metres in less than 15 seconds each. If you argue the towers went mechanic, you have a lot of explaining to do. For example: were they designed as some sort of bear trap? As in: a relatively small input energy (plane crash, less than 5 GJ) was supposed to trigger a large energy output (more than 500 GJ)?


What are the chances that an architect would accidentally build a structure like your tower? What reason could an architect have to deliberatly build a structure like your tower? How many skyscrapers have - deliberatily or accidentally - been built the way your tower was built and threaten the lives of thousands every day? All of them, some of them, or just two of them? Why has there been no serios discussion about holding the architects accountable for designing a tower the way you have designed yours?

And lastly: would you want to live or work in a tower designed like yours, or would you prefer mine?

You have succeeded: you've proven my point instead of refuting it.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You know, I was also going to comment and confirm that was horizontal bracing for the floor trusses to attach to. After all, it would have been difficult to attach the truss ends to nothing or just the columns.


But other than that, there was not any more extra cross bracing like is shown with the crane photos.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
Good work man, you finally did it!

In all these years of debating you are the first to actually build a model of a tower that collapses progressively from top to bottom; the first to model the WTC 1&2 collapses!

And I really don't mean to poison this compliment by further discussing the implications, but I really consider this a breaking point. This thread should go down in the history of 9/11 conspiracy debates.


I don't really see it as a big accomplishment. This whole concept seems to be quite evident. I just looked at the WTC tower and created similar conditions.


We both built a tower each. So what is the big difference, what are the similarities between your tower, my tower and the twin towers and what has been proven here? Apart from the obvious fact skyscrapers shouldn't be made of dishwasher tabs, of course :-)


The big difference is that my floors were actually a lot weaker. Sure, it was strong enough to keep the blocks in place and carry itself, and if you had a miniature office you could place it there too. But when you drop large weights on it, it fails, just like how it happened in the WTC. Your floors on the other hand were much stronger than they needed to be.


The question was whether progressive collapse is inevitable in a steel-frame, tube-in-tube skyscraper, as many believe that this sort of stuff just happens due to slipshod architecture, whereas others argue that slipshod architecture leads to leaning, tipping, bending, breaking and tilting, but never to a progressive collapse from top to bottom.


Not inevitable in general, but given certain conditions, it is.


-PLB-, your tower was not slipshod architecture. It surely was very shaky and fragile compared to mine - or the WTC.


I don't think it was "fragile" compared to the WTC. When you scale down, you also have to scale down the forces acting on it. I blew against the tower, that could equate a hurricane if you scale up the forces. I bumped into the table, shaking the whole tower, that could equate to an earthquake of 8. I touched it with my fingers, that could equate Godzilla hitting the WTC. My construction survived all that.

You can not make these kind of assertion without doing a study first. I think the load capacity of my structure was even relatively much larger than that of the WTC.


In short, although I acknowledge your success in modelling a progressive collapse, my claim that the parameters for a tower that collapses the way yours and the WTC did are much narrower than for a tower that either dampens the impact or collapses asymmetrically has not been disproven.


I don't think the parameters are that narrow, it didn't take me too much effort. Agreed, I had the WTC tower to look at, which made it easier of course. I just had to mimic those parameters. To me it is very understandable why the WTC was built with these parameter.


My original objection was that a mechanism is... ...a desired force or motion! It was never desired for the entire mass of the two buildings to move 200 metres in less than 15 seconds each. If you argue the towers went mechanic, you have a lot of explaining to do. For example: were they designed as some sort of bear trap? As in: a relatively small input energy (plane crash, less than 5 GJ) was supposed to trigger a large energy output (more than 500 GJ)?


The towers were never designed to stop the dynamic load of 15+ floors + columns + mast dropping on it. And why would they be? In what scenario other than a terrorist attack where suicide pilots fly planes into the building does this event occur? I can't really think of any.


What are the chances that an architect would accidentally build a structure like your tower? What reason could an architect have to deliberatly build a structure like your tower? How many skyscrapers have - deliberatily or accidentally - been built the way your tower was built and threaten the lives of thousands every day? All of them, some of them, or just two of them? Why has there been no serios discussion about holding the architects accountable for designing a tower the way you have designed yours?


It is not accidentally at all, it makes a lot of sense. The reason is simple, to build the structure as cheap as possible. It isn't that obvious to make a building save for an event that had never occurred and wasn't very likely to occur in the future. The whole discussion of suicide pilots flying into towers has only been started after 911.


And lastly: would you want to live or work in a tower designed like yours, or would you prefer mine?

You have succeeded: you've proven my point instead of refuting it.


From a safety perspective: yours. From a cost perspective: mine. Its never black and white. Not everyone drives a Volvo. And I am glad I have proven your point.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Not sure if you realise this, but your experiment proves nothing other than blocks piled on top of each will easily fall over and collapse, because they are separate components and not connected to each other.

You have not demonstrated a building collapsing, you have demonstrated that individual components, blocks, not connected together will fall over and drop to the floor if disturbed, and we already new that happens. You didn't need to drop anything on your model, you could have blown over if you blew on it.

Of course those small blocks will fall straight down there was nothing stopping them, no resistance from being bolted and welded together. They were not continuous for the height of the structure. The physics acting on your model does no represent the physics of a welded and bolted structure.

Nice try, but no soup for you. All you've done is proven once again you fail to understand the physics involved in structures.

Try gluing the blocks together along with the "floors", and see if you get the same result. I'll predict right now that you won't. In fact it would teach you something about resistance, which your model did not represent.

Resistance PLB, the ingredient for some reason you continually fail to address. You built a house of cards, and they do fall over.


edit on 5/16/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Not sure if you realise this, but your experiment proves nothing other than blocks piled on top of each will easily fall over and collapse, because they are separate components and not connected to each other.

You have not demonstrated a building collapsing, you have demonstrated that individual components, blocks, not connected together will fall over and drop to the floor if disturbed, and we already new that happens. You didn't need to drop anything on your model, you could have blown over if you blew on it.

Of course those small blocks will fall straight down there was nothing stopping them, no resistance from being bolted and welded together. They were not continuous for the height of the structure. The physics acting on your model does no represent the physics of a welded and bolted structure.

Nice try, but no soup for you. All you've done is proven once again you fail to understand the physics involved in structures.

Try gluing the blocks together along with the "floors", and see if you get the same result. I'll predict right now that you won't. In fact it would teach you something about resistance, which your model did not represent.

Resistance PLB, the ingredient for some reason you continually fail to address. You built a house of cards, and they do fall over.


Wait a second here ANOK, are you trying to make a point here that the bolds that held up the floors were giving huge resistance because they were so extremely strong? Fail...

So you really think that it does not cost any energy to push over the blocks? If the floors in my model do not have any resistance, what kept them from falling?

Akareyon is really a refreshment here as he understood that the building is being held up by friction (which is also a type of resistance).



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
This whole concept seems to be quite evident. I just looked at the WTC tower and created similar conditions.
And so did I. However, your building is more similar to the WTC than mine, at least when it comes to collapse. That makes me think about sleeping under clear blue skies and never enter a building anymore. If it doesn't worry you at all, that's fine :-)


The big difference is that my floors were actually a lot weaker. Sure, it was strong enough to keep the blocks in place and carry itself, and if you had a miniature office you could place it there too. But when you drop large weights on it, it fails, just like how it happened in the WTC. Your floors on the other hand were much stronger than they needed to be.
So you say it was in the floors. I'd say it was more in the weight and dimensions of the blocks, I'll try thin paper then. What did you use, A6, A5? It's not clear really from the gif, and it's hard to interpolate from the size of your hand, the tabs and the wall tiles.


You can not make these kind of assertion without doing a study first.
That's why I said I would love to pick up your experiment. We should do what all good scientists do: exchange data, experiment, tweak the experiments, share experiences and analyse results. I checked my own dish washer tabs, they are a lot thicker than yours - my colums would be a little stronger.

What's funny for example is that when I objected that orienting the Jenga blocks upright would make my tower too unstable and I would hardly make it to build a 6th floor, you suggested I use thicker paper or envelopes. Now we know using extremely lightweight columns and the thinnest possible paper seems to do the trick. Why is that? Because less energy is needed to bend the paper, which in turn pulls on the "hinges" of the colums, levering and dislocating the tablets from their position, which in turn cancels the friction that keeps the next paper floor in place. In a sense, the solid structure turns "liquid", as the towers did. Technically, the sum of all latent forces pointing downwards was greater than the sum of all forces pointing upwards, something any engineer will try to avoid at all costs.

The towers were never designed to stop the dynamic load of 15+ floors + columns + mast dropping on it. And why would they be? In what scenario other than a terrorist attack where suicide pilots fly planes into the building does this event occur? I can't really think of any.[...]It isn't that obvious to make a building save for an event that had never occurred and wasn't very likely to occur in the future. The whole discussion of suicide pilots flying into towers has only been started after 911.
I know this discussion has been going on before in other threads, and this argument has been proven invalid, in my opinion. The towers weren't even built yet when another company issued a newspaper full-page ad of a plane crashing into one of them to advertise the dangers - and against their construction. One of the engineers is on record stating the towers could easily take multiple planes crashing into them, that a plane piercing the facade would be like sticking a pencil through a mosquito net. The Twins being hit by planes, being jumped on by King Kong or attacked or destroyed by something was a recurring idea in pop culture (comics, games, movies and so on) long before their demise. The towers were clearly designed with the Empire State building incident, a nearby airport, earth quakes, hurricanes and the cold war in mind and in a city with almost a century of experience in skyscraper building on the record. I'm sure noone was thinking: "hey, let's show them Russkies and build the tallest building of the world, but make it so cheap that all they have to do is send one spy and plant a bomb somewhere to bring it down".

That EMS set up their triage in the lobby of the South Tower when it was already burning (NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Collapse, p. 44) is good evidence that collapse due to a hole in the wall and some fire was beyond the imagination of anyone at that time, not that they willingly committed suicide. They and the FDNY obviously counted on the towers to be built more like mine than like yours. So either they were idiots. Or something was very, very wrong with the towers. Or even all skyscrapers in the world are made of dishwasher tablets, because Jenga blocks are too expensive. Which one is it?

And just by the way, how are the card house experiments going? ;-P
edit on 17-5-2013 by Akareyon because: typo



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
So you say it was in the floors. I'd say it was more in the weight and dimensions of the blocks, I'll try thin paper then. What did you use, A6, A5? It's not clear really from the gif, and it's hard to interpolate from the size of your hand, the tabs and the wall tiles.


The strength of the floors can be divided in two subjects:

1) the strength of the floor itself. In order to mimic floor failure, our paper does not tear or break, instead it bends. So if we use too thick paper it wont bend and wont fail.

2) How they are "attached" to the columns. In our case they are pressed between the blocks, and stay in place because of friction. If you place the paper more to the edge of the block, you decrease the friction required to make a floor fail.

So to mimic truss seat failure (which is the main resistance in the WTC), in our model the paper needs to bend, and start pulling itself from underneath the blocks and overcome the friction (which is the main resistance in the WTC).

The end result is the same, a floor gets detached from the supporting structure. The supporting structure loses stability, and the floor falls down.


That's why I said I would love to pick up your experiment. We should do what all good scientists do: exchange data, experiment, tweak the experiments, share experiences and analyse results. I checked my own dish washer tabs, they are a lot thicker than yours - my colums would be a little stronger.

What's funny for example is that when I objected that orienting the Jenga blocks upright would make my tower too unstable and I would hardly make it to build a 6th floor, you suggested I use thicker paper or envelopes. Now we know using extremely lightweight columns and the thinnest possible paper seems to do the trick. Why is that? Because less energy is needed to bend the paper, which in turn pulls on the "hinges" of the colums, levering and dislocating the tablets from their position, which in turn cancels the friction that keeps the next paper floor in place. In a sense, the solid structure turns "liquid", as the towers did. Technically, the sum of all latent forces pointing downwards was greater than the sum of all forces pointing upwards, something any engineer will try to avoid at all costs.


You bring up a good point in how the the model is different from the WTC. The actual falling over of the blocks decreases the friction of the floors. This did not happen in the WTC. In order to overcome this difference, you would have to build some sort of floor connection instead. This complicates the design significantly. It makes it a lot harder to build too, as with our big clumsy hands we would probably break those connections. Just imagine a giant 5 times the size of the WTC tower building it. Just by picking up a column he would probably snap it.


I know this discussion has been going on before in other threads, and this argument has been proven invalid, in my opinion. The towers weren't even built yet when another company issued a newspaper full-page ad of a plane crashing into one of them to advertise the dangers - and against their construction. One of the engineers is on record stating the towers could easily take multiple planes crashing into them, that a plane piercing the facade would be like sticking a pencil through a mosquito net. The Twins being hit by planes, being jumped on by King Kong or attacked or destroyed by something was a recurring idea in pop culture (comics, games, movies and so on) long before their demise. The towers were clearly designed with the Empire State building incident, a nearby airport, earth quakes, hurricanes and the cold war in mind and in a city with almost a century of experience in skyscraper building on the record. I'm sure noone was thinking: "hey, let's show them Russkies and build the tallest building of the world, but make it so cheap that all they have to do is send one spy and plant a bomb somewhere to bring it down".


Sure it was given consideration, and to be fair, the tower did survive the plane impact. But as far as I know the towers were not designed to accommodate for everything that happened that day, like the high speed of the plane, and the subsequent fires.

And even if they were designed to accommodate for all that, who is to say that the design is successful without ever testing it? You can as well just say that, if the towers were designed with this scenario in mind, the design was flawed. It is not like there is no history of flawed designs in this world.

But I would not go as far as that. I think this scenario has never been considered in the design. In my line of work I also do FMEA and risk analysis and one thing that is always very clear is that it is a pretty subjective activity.
edit on 17-5-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So to mimic truss seat failure (which is the main resistance in the WTC), in our model the paper needs to bend, and start pulling itself from underneath the blocks and overcome the friction (which is the main resistance in the WTC).


Why are you trying to mimic truss seat failure, because if you are trying to demonstrate the NIST hypothesis the connections, truss seats, have to NOT fail.

You have to have the connections survive while pulling in your columns to failure, then you'll be close to what NIST claimed happened. But that is not possible is it? Let's see if you can build a model that does eh? You're just not there yet.


To get a pull in of the columns the connections had to have survived. That is the contradiction you have in your argument.


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



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join