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 Nutter
Originally posted by bsbray11
Stop right there.
How can you POSSIBLY have 20 floors' worth of mass falling already at initiation? Let alone a uniform 24- or even 12- foot free-fall drop.
If just one stories worth of support (meaning the support above a certain floor to the next floor) is severed, then that top cap becomes it's own structure to fall one floors worth of distance (about 12.5 feet).
Maybe I'm not describing it well enough. I'm not talking floor connections, I'm talking one story worth of column seperation.
Are you saying 20 floors worth of trusses and other live and dead loads just up and plummeted at the same instant? How!?
The how is what I have questions on too. But even if the NIST is correct in their initiation, the bowing in of the columns is exactly what they do to initiate a verinage collapse.
Just sever the columns at one floor and then sever the columns at the floor below and you have now severed "one stories worth of support" allowing the cap (columns and everything else) to freefall onto the remaining floors.
Originally posted by Nutter
I'm talking severed columns. Severed columns causing the top cap to freefall one story.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why not just buckling columns for the first few feet? And then breakage?
Why must they be severed right off the bat, or have I misinterpreted?
Bazant predicts that the columns would have severed due to horizontal shearing after only about 2 degrees of tilt. Do you agree?
Originally posted by -PLB-
According to NIST, not all columns failed at once, but as result of the heat deformation and weakening, impact damage and sagging floors pulling the columns, a large portion of the columns lost their supporting power.
The weight carried by the severed column got redistributed over the other columns, causing an uneven distribution, and eventually caused more columns to fail.
The top section tilted, destroying all columns, and from that moment on there was no other outcome than a collapse.
Originally posted by Nutter
I would rather not speculate how the "jolt" happened.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Why, for example, don't you think nanothermite could have eaten through the columns?
Originally posted by hooper
No, National Security Agency. Information Assurance.
Originally posted by bsbray11
That's what their summaries may say, but their data never showed that, and I never said NIST didn't say that anyway so I don't know why you felt the need to post this. NIST sampled I forget how many core columns and only found 2 that had any evidence of being heated to 250 C or so. In their simulations it took such a ridiculous amount of heat energy to sufficiently heat those thick columns to their yield strength that they never tried to push column failure theory as the initiation mechanism and focused on the trusses instead. And the idea of those thin trusses pulling the core columns out of line would be so ridiculous that they didn't go there, and totally neglected to explain what would have happened to all the intact truss connections to the core.
Originally posted by bsbray11
There was not enough overloading from the plane impacts or direct heating of the columns to cause this, even according to NIST. So NIST tried to say the trusses pulled more columns out of alignment and the buckling caused greater distribution that the remaining columns could hold. It's significant that they never actually proved that hypothesis, or offered any solid evidence for it at all, but that was their hypothesis anyway.
NIST never says the columns failing on their own was their "probable collapse sequence," they say the trusses sagging and exerting this mysterious "inward pull" that yanked the perimeter columns out-of-line is what did it. What I want to ask you is, how does a truss heating and sagging effectively make it heavier so that it exerts more "pull" force on the outer column? Does that make sense to you, or have you ever even thought about that?
First of all WTC1 had no noticeable tilt, only WTC2 did. Secondly "no other outcome than a collapse" fails to address what kind of collapse would necessarily ensue, how you have determined this, etc. You just assume nothing else would then happen but that's not scientific and it's never been how science actually works.
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by -PLB-
You have referred to the fact that NIST did not provide a model for actual collapse and I have seen others do that accompanied by suggestions that this was some sort of negligent omission. But in view of the fact that the collapses were chaos was that ever remotely feasible ?
Also, as the generally accepted wisdom in the engineering community is to agree that once collapse was initiated it was not going to stop, do you think it matters ?
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by -PLB-
Thanks for response. I would be interested to know whether modelling of the actual collapses of WTC 1 & 2 was ever possible. So if anyone is qualified to say ?
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Boy, talk about over simplifying!!!
I love those building "portions"! Like it was a dinner sidedish.
The building was not a monolith. It was a very complex system of materials and connections.
I know you like to think of everything in terms of pyramids but real life is a little more complex than that.
Try again.