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 samkent
If I may suggest a point.
If the trusses were overloaded with debris from another floor and or plane parts then they will sag. Regardless of the fire.
If the exterior columns were severed by the plane AND the trusses were overloaded would you not expect the exterior to be pulled inward below the cut point?
As per the picture.
Originally posted by ANOK
Do you have another one, because we are running out pretty quick here?
Is that fact connected to the fact that not all building collapses have been caught on video? There's not one single video of me walking up the stairs in my house - does that mean I've never been to the second floor in my own home?
Purpose of CD is to contain the rubble and break it up to make easier to haul away. Any fool can collapse a building - it is in getting the debris to fall in particular direction that is the real skill
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Or consider how difficult it is to snap a common pencil by pushing down on it's eraser onto a table along its length... and how easy it is to snap when pushing with a finger across its length.
I find this to be a decent analogy for the processes at work in the perimeter columns immediately before collapse.
Quote by dreugenefixer
Now take a pencil and balance it against a table top, eraser side up. Press down on the eraser with your palm. Usually, it won't give. But if you take a finger from the other hand, and push across the length of the pencil so that it bends a bit, you'll suddenly find that you can keep it bowed just by maintaining some pressure with the upper hand.
Dr, Dr you have this all upside down.
Now go get your pencil.
Ok got it? Put the eraser side down. Firmly apply pressure with your left hand. Palm down.
Now like the force of a hammer. Slam your left with your right hand.
The pencil WILL NOT BEND, not to much.
cheers ljb
edit on 4/16/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
Originally posted by ANOK
When steel heats up it expands, do you agree?
When steel expands it gets bigger, do you agree?
When it expands that expansion has to go somewhere, do you agree?
NIST agrees with this. They state that the expanding trusses pushed out the ext columns about an inch or two. An independent study done by truthers agrees.
That expansion causes the sagging, do you agree?
That sagging is a result of the steels expansion, do you agree?
If the steel sags due to it's expansion, it's because it has nowhere else to go, do you agree?
No to all.
So if it sags, because it has nowhere else to go
Incorrect premise. the trusses are able to initially push out the ext columns. this happens at 300-400C IIRC, before they sag.
then where is the pulling force coming from? How are the trusses putting any more force on the columns than it already did.
As the trusses further heat up, they begin to sag, and the columns pull back in. FEA and known properties of steel prove this.
And the question you all ignore, why didn't the 5/8", and 1", bolts fail before the obvioulsy more massive columns did?
Cuz the truss pull are not the only reason that the ext columns buckle. Read the NIST report. It shows that the core columns shortened first, from plane impacts and creep. the loads came off the core columns as a result and were redistributed to the ext columns, mainly in the center dozen or so, by the hat truss. the ext columns were also heated by the fires. In summary, several factors are responsible for the pull in.
Incorrectly representing the problem from NIST shows that you are either dishonest or ignorant of what you are arguing against.
It has occured to me you are fluff and anok is chasing your fluff or his own tail.
Neither of you two have said SQUAT.
Especially when it comes to LARRY.AND PULL IT.
fraud mummmble, mummble, shills , mumble ,mumble.
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
It has occured to me you are fluff and anok is chasing your fluff or his own tail.
Neither of you two have said SQUAT.
Especially when it comes to LARRY.AND PULL IT.
fraud mummmble, mummble, shills , mumble ,mumble.
Originally posted by samkent
If I may suggest a point.
If the trusses were overloaded with debris from another floor and or plane parts then they will sag. Regardless of the fire.
If the exterior columns were severed by the plane AND the trusses were overloaded would you not expect the exterior to be pulled inward below the cut point?
As per the picture.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by coyotepoet
So what was "perfect" about the collapse of WTC 1,2, 7...?
Far from collapsing in "footprint" as often been claimed the debris from these buildings was thrown for
hundred of feet causing severe damage to adjacent structures
Collapse of WTC 1 damaged WTC 7 (350 ft away), smashed Winter Garden and hit World Financial Center
over 400 ft away
WTC 2 smashed 130 Liberty St (Deutsche Bank) and damaged it so severely had to be torn down. 90 West
St was set on fire, burning for for 2 days Only heavy masonry construction saved it
WTC 7 damaged Verizon building next door and caused partial collapse of 30 West Broadway (Fiterman
Hall) across street - it was torn down
The chaotic collapse of these buildings resulted in massive damage to all the adjacent buildings....
Why would SAGGING trusses have any energy to pull in massive columns. Deny ignorance, don't embrace it just to try to win an argument.
Originally posted by samkent
It's not the sagging per se it's the lack of lateral support from the exterior columns severed above the floor in question. Once the trusses do sag for what ever reason they will torque the exterior column inward.
Factor of safety (FoS), also known as (and used interchangeably with) safety factor (SF), is a term describing the structural capacity of a system beyond the expected loads or actual loads.
If it was able to put a force on the columns it would have pushed columns out as it expanded....
Originally posted by ANOK
No they wouldn't. You are simply describing the same thing using different words.
The floors braced the outer mesh during wind loading, they didn't hold the columns up, they did that by themselves. A failure of a floor assembly is not going to cause the mesh columns to do anything.
Sagging trusses would not have the energy to either pull in, or torque, the much more massive columns. How many more times are you going to ignore the physics of expanding materials? If the truss sags in the first place, it means it is not putting any force on the columns, pulling in or 'torquing'. If it was able to put a force on the columns it would have pushed columns out as it expanded, but it couldn't so they would sag because that is the only path of no resistance. If you added weight to the sagging truss, it would simply sag more.
One floor assembly by itself is not bracing the columns, failure of one floor would not cause the columns to become unstable.
And once again even IF they did it would not cause complete collapse of the building.
Do you agree that a buildings structure, must by design, have more resistance to collapse than it has energy to overcome that resistance to collapse? So how can a building collapse from its own mass?
The factors of safety alone would make that impossible. You could place a whole other WTC tower on top and it would be able to hold the weight, because safety factors for steel building is 4-6.
Factor of safety (FoS), also known as (and used interchangeably with) safety factor (SF), is a term describing the structural capacity of a system beyond the expected loads or actual loads.
en.wikipedia.org...
A building can hold more weight than they are required to hold during its service life. So it is impossible for it's own weight to cause it to collapse.
In fact if you really cared about this you could demonstrate this easily, and prove it once and for all. Set up a light weight steel beam between two larger upright steel beams solidly fixed, and see it you can get them to be pulled in by heating up the light weight horizontal beam. I'd love to see your results.
edit on 4/17/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hooper
No it wouldn't. Without a free end in the truss, the section had to choices - sag or summit. Up or down. With all the weight of the concrete above (which was also expanding by the way) it sagged. Gravity won. As it usually does. The sagging floor system pulled on the columns and the exterior construction. The rest you saw in the video.
BTW you still haven't answered my question about the 5/8" and 1" bolts? When are you going to explain that contradiction? You always accuse me of ignoring your questions, so where is your answer to my question hopper?