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.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77
So, no evidence of columns being actively cut simultaneously from the video, photographic, audio, seismic evidence.
There are eye-witness accounts of people on scene who heard multiple explosions.
(See my earlier post from the NYPD officer at WTC7.)
According to Thomas Sullivan, a controlled demolition expert:
"We are not talking about setting off a bomb here. The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided."
If the perpetrators of a controlled explosions scenario used remote wireless detonators and RDX explosive cutter charges (which are completely consumed when they go off) OR thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings, there isn't going to be physical evidence.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77
There are eye-witness accounts of people on scene who heard multiple explosions.
(See my earlier post from the NYPD officer at WTC7.)
Very likely. Items like AC compressors explode in fire. Now. Is there evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Especially for the exterior columns right at the windows and facade?
According to Thomas Sullivan, a controlled demolition expert:
"We are not talking about setting off a bomb here. The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided."
If you can use items like tarps, traps, and water barrels to capture demolitions shrapnel for a building properly set up.
If the perpetrators of a controlled explosions scenario used remote wireless detonators and RDX explosive cutter charges (which are completely consumed when they go off) OR thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings, there isn't going to be physical evidence.
Back to the exterior columns. With no sparking and flashing visible at the windows. No visible action from a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. For cutting charges, no visible breaching/melting of the façade.
Then you have to get past wiring and detonation systems surviving hours of fires.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77
Then AE truth claimed the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? Is that false? I guess that rules out floor to floor, column to column thermite fueled fires that burn at 3000 Fahrenheit?
1) Why does figure 4.16 not show dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?
2) What is the justification for static linear analysis in figure 4.14??
4.1.1 Discussion of NIST’s Progressive Collapse Simulation
During our nonlinear connection study (Section 2.1.3.2), wherein we examined NIST’s modeling of WTC 7’s structural connections and its effect on NIST’s progressive collapse simulation, we also observed that NIST’s progressive collapse simulation did not closely resemble the observed collapse. While NIST’s progressive collapse simulation does show the three key features listed above, it also predicts significant differential movements in the exterior, both before and during the fall of the roofline, that were not observed in the video (see Figures 4.1a and 4.1b). Such differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed. A major goal of our analysis was to identify failure mechanisms that would predict the minimal differential movement of the exterior seen in videos of the collapse.
3) What is the animation in 4.24 derived from, because it looks like it was done by hand.
4) Why do you continue to confuse NIST's ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model, as in Figure 2.5? (pages 29 and 30)
In the NIST investigation, ANSYS was used to model local failures and LS-DYNA was used to model large-scale collapse. When column buckling appeared to be imminent in ANSYS, the analyses were continued in the LS-DYNA 47-story model (NIST, 2008, NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2).
5) Why focus on Girder A2001 collapse when NIST did not use that in their global collapse analysis.
According to NIST, the initiating failure occurred at the connection between Column 79 and girder A2001 at Floor 13 due to a relative displacement of girder A2001 of 6.25 inches.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Gandalf77
Thousands of wireless detonators. In the RF hell that is Manhattan. Yeah, okay.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Gandalf77
For a controlled demolition, yeah, thousands.
originally posted by: frugal
I can give you $130,000 answer from Clemson University where my son just graduated with a masters in Civil Engineering, in one year. He is not from a foreign country like most of the masters kids were. Just straight up moral hardworking intellectual American. My son told me that the building was not designed to have a plane crash into it and be held up. The heat of the fire after impact further caused building number one to collapse. The second and third building fell because the earth was shaking from building number one collapsing. Just like a major earth quake. These kids design buildings, bridges, tunnels, etc. to be structural. It's real simple in his mathematical mind filled with laws of physics what went on there.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: mrthumpy
A joke? Maybe, but I don't get it. It's kinda odd that you and Mick West would blast away the simulations and yet "somehow" think NIST did a better job. Do you guys use a different set of standards in relation to the source?
However, back to his initial questions. Do you know if he forwarded them? Those are good questions and I'd like to read the "official" response.
1) Why does figure 4.16 not show dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?
It doesn't? He's flabbergasted by the result of a tilted building which nearly remained intact? Dito!
2) What is the justification for static linear analysis in figure 4.14??
Vague question, but this part might provide an answer:
4.1.1 Discussion of NIST’s Progressive Collapse Simulation
During our nonlinear connection study (Section 2.1.3.2), wherein we examined NIST’s modeling of WTC 7’s structural connections and its effect on NIST’s progressive collapse simulation, we also observed that NIST’s progressive collapse simulation did not closely resemble the observed collapse. While NIST’s progressive collapse simulation does show the three key features listed above, it also predicts significant differential movements in the exterior, both before and during the fall of the roofline, that were not observed in the video (see Figures 4.1a and 4.1b). Such differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed. A major goal of our analysis was to identify failure mechanisms that would predict the minimal differential movement of the exterior seen in videos of the collapse.
P. 103 in the PDF
3) What is the animation in 4.24 derived from, because it looks like it was done by hand.
Figure 4.24 shows the UAF simulation side-by-side with the two videos of the collapse.
4) Why do you continue to confuse NIST's ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model, as in Figure 2.5? (pages 29 and 30)
They don't.
In the NIST investigation, ANSYS was used to model local failures and LS-DYNA was used to model large-scale collapse. When column buckling appeared to be imminent in ANSYS, the analyses were continued in the LS-DYNA 47-story model (NIST, 2008, NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2).
P. 38 in the PDF
5) Why focus on Girder A2001 collapse when NIST did not use that in their global collapse analysis.
Ask NIST why they didn't because they should have.
According to NIST, the initiating failure occurred at the connection between Column 79 and girder A2001 at Floor 13 due to a relative displacement of girder A2001 of 6.25 inches.
P. 82 in the PDF