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 weedwhacker
The first 'hit' was probably expected to cause the Tower to topple. I think that was the intent......of Atta....
The second arsehole, flying UAL 175, just wanted to try as well to topple the other Tower....he could barely aim at the building, but he aimed low....hoping, I am assuming, to knock it down.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
My belief is, the main support structure of the skyscrapers came from the interior. The exterior facade was not load-bearing, as far as I understand....except inasmuch as to support the floor structure, at each level.
Originally posted by tezzajw
weedwhacker, it's hardly worth my time to respond to you, when you apparently don't understand the error that you're making.
The fact that the error is 200 pounds is not relevant.
The fact that there IS an error is relevant.
NIST inputs 62,000 pounds of jet fuel into the simulated model. The model outputs a dispersion of 62,200 pounds. 200 pounds of jet fuel CAN NOT be created by a model.
There is a fundamental error in the NIST model, as it does not check for consistency with the input parameters and the output results. The model is not valid, as it clearly shows flawed calculations.
You don't seem to understand this, as you only quote your airline experience to me, rather than showing any conceptual understanding about programming a computer simulated, mathematical model.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I've also heard it placed around 50/50 (probably less accurate), but really this is probably a bad of way of looking at it because the perimeter columns (even if not supporting significant loads at any particular point in time) had enormous reserve capacity, especially on higher floors where there was less weight but the columns were physically the same size. So they could hold about as much weight as the columns on the very bottom of the building that held the whole damned thing up, but they had much less weight actually applied to them.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Realizing there were static loads there the whole time that were completely designed for (ie not "added weight") is not an explanation as to why the core structure would fail at the exact same time as the perimeter columns, if the initial failure mechanism is the one NIST described.
I don't see this as an explanation as to why the core was sinking at the exact same time, either. There was no evidence of fire causing major heating to the actual box columns in the core structure, and NIST says this themselves.
Originally posted by jfj123
Yes it was very mature. I was trying to be fair with you and give you the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
b- Yes, NIST never said that the core columns were heated to failure. They detail "creep" in their report. So the whole "the fires weren't hot enough..... argument is a strawman if you're argueing against the NIST report, because they never stated that.
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
While the exterior dimensions of the exterior columns were indeed the same, the wall thickness of the steel that made up those columns got thinner as they ascended.
It's ridiculous to state that any engineer would make the columns the same all the way up.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
a- They were also designed to have all the columns intact.
And I'd like to see some kind of evidence that they failed at EXACTLY the same time.
Virtually the same time? I could believe that.
b- Yes, NIST never said that the core columns were heated to failure. They detail "creep" in their report.
So the whole "the fires weren't hot enough..... argument is a strawman if you're argueing against the NIST report, because they never stated that.
Originally posted by _Del_
Did the model you made include...
The model also didn't include the position of desks, chairs and the copier on the 75th floor. Would that make the model completely invalid to you?
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by _Del_
Did the model you made include...
Perhaps you have trouble reading what is written in some posts. I have not made a model.
Originally posted by _Del_
I propose that you use your understanding of the physics involved to make your own model.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by _Del_
I propose that you use your understanding of the physics involved to make your own model.
Your proposition is pointless. This thread is not about me or what I can do. This thread is about the evidence that may lead to a conspiracy.
I propose that you explain to me how a computer simulated, mathematical model, that has allegedly been created by experts, FAILS to check its own results for self-consistency.
Please explain to me how people can place faith in a model that magically creates 200 pounds of jet fuel and magically vanishes 900 pounds of airplane debris?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
www.tms.org...
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
Originally posted by bsbray11
By a couple of inches thickness or so, and only very slowly as the floors ascended. My point is that the exterior columns were of related size while loading greatly decreased towards the tops of both buildings. Thus you have a lot of reserve capacity.
You can take out your ruler and decide how petty and trivial you want to be, before accepting my point as a valid one.
I say simply look at the buildings and do not say another word about it to me, because it's not worth arguing about when a photo is instant proof of concept: columns remain consistent up and down, but it is obvious where the most loading is distributed.
Originally posted by _Del_
Please show me how much fuel the plane burned from push back to the collision. Do not use an approximation that results in a differential of more than 25 gallons(approx. 200 pounds)
Please show me how much the plane weighed at impact.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Knocking out columns is not "added weight." Duh.
And so you think you have somehow reduced the issue, when you really don't even understand it at all.
Not as a global collapse mechanism. And even at that, the member here "Valhall" is an engineer, one that has experience with technical reports at her place of employment no less. I want you to ask her about what NIST said about creep, if you are truly interested. (I know you are just arguing with me.)
You're preaching to the choir on this one.