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.
The explanation by NIST is that the perimeter columns of the south wall failed first as result of sagging trusses pulling them in. The load was transferred to other support elements, such as the core which subsequently failed.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
Yeah, that is was I recalled. That isn't exactly what you said though so I just wanted to clarify your position. Technically, in NIST's model (which is to say Bazant's) the floor assemblies never failed until crush up occurred.
Hopefully the importance of the antenna moving first has dawned on you at this point then...
Let me know if you want me to spell it out, but it should (hopefully) be blindingly obvious.edit on 4-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
I'd like you to spell that one out. Plube has not been able to make his point clear, maybe you will.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
If you scan over 0:30 to 0:31 you can see that the antenna moves a good 0.5s before the perimeter gives way.
Why is this crucial? Because the movement of the antenna indicates that the core has given way. You said yourself that NIST's position was that the floors caused the perimeter to fail, which overloaded the core which failed.
Floor expansion -> Perimeter failure -> Core failure -> Global failure
But if the core failed first that whole sequence cannot hold.
Core failure -> Perimeter failure -> Floor failure -> Global failure
Why does this make a difference? Because there is no plausible mechanism to get the core to fail first.
I will repeat it again (I wrote this 3 times or so by now), first the south perimeter wall failed.
not much difference between wall giving way and the mast movement.
If a landing gear can go through all those brick walls at the Pentagon, I imagine one could do severe damage to the core at WTC.
Impactor, Bunker buster: Solid impactors can be used instead of nuclear warheads to penetrate bunkers. According to Newton's approximation, a uranium projectile at high speed and 1 m in length would punch its way through 6 m of rock (density 3 g/cm³) before coming to a stop.
Conclusion:
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of
the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from
Journal of 9/11 Studies 37 June 2006/Volume 1
the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the
collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse
continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to
completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02
secondsafter impact.
A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.
The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic
shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the
energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent
of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling
mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the
buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length
over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths.
Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about
450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres. This also shows that collapse
arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even
if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic
shortening of the second storeys affected.
Abstract
The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions
experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several
examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable
conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that
uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.
NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly
modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of
testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed
that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The
ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on
9/11.
2.0 Physical Tests
The NIST WTC investigation suffered from a paucity of physical testing. Effectively, all of NIST’s conclusions are
derived from computer simulation. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. NIST should have performed
destructive tests on mockups of key components of the WTC structural systems. This was especially important
since many of the WTC building’s structural features were very innovative for their time. As section 3 will argue,
complex structural systems involving several materials, components, and connections can be much more accurately
tested with physical models. As we review the few physical tests that NIST performed, we see that they left many
questions unanswered.
The predictions of the fire behavior in the building interior were potentially subject to significant
uncertainty. To estimate this uncertainty, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
conducted compartment fire tests at large scale (but still smaller than the acre-size fires that burned in the
towers on September 11, 2001) and compared the results with the output from FDS simulations.”
(NCSTAR 1-5 p69)
A fundamental problem with these tests, however, is that, as NIST’s Figure 4-6 (NCSTAR 1-5 p77 and below)
shows, the tests were not ventilation limited. The fires in the WTC buildings were.
The global impact simulations provided, for each tower, a range of damage estimates. This included the
base case, based on reasonable initial estimates of all input parameters, along with a less severe and a
more severe damage scenario. The less severe damage case did not meet two key observables: (1) no
aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior
to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event
(see Section 7.10), and (2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST
NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been
used. As a result, this chapter provides detailed description of the results of the analyses pertaining to the
base case and the more severe case, which were used as the initial conditions for the fire dynamics
simulations (NIST NCSTAR 1-5F), thermal analyses (NIST NCSTAR 1-5G), and fire-structural response
and collapse initiation analyses (NIST NCSTAR 1-6). Only a brief description is provided for the less
severe damage results for comparison purposes. The details of the less severe damage estimates can be
found in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) NCSTAR 1-2B.” (p167 para1)
We learn several things from going to this reference. First of all, we learn that there were not only four conditions
tested in the simulation, there were actually six. But two of these conditions, the less severe cases, were dropped
because they “did not meet two key observables,” namely, ‘no aircraft debris exited the building,’ and “the towers
would not have collapsed.”
[7] Interestingly, NIST posits nearly identical collapse explanations for both WTC towers:
“The results of the global analysis of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was
initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which progressed
horizontally to adjacent walls.” (NCSTAR 1-6D, iv), Gross, John. L., et. al., “NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Global
Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire” (9/2005)
Here, as in other instances, the NIST authors only differentiate the building collapse mechanisms by which side of
the building the theorized effects were taking place. However, the Executive Summary of the FEMA/BPAT study
poses a very different interpretation of the events: “… the collapse of these symbolic buildings entailed a complex
series of events that were not identical for each tower.”(FEMA 403 ES, 2)
“Only three [out of 171] of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached
temperatures in excess of 250 ºC during the fires or after the collapse. This was based
on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by
steel members through observations of paint cracking.” (NCSTAR 1, 181)
“After only 15 minutes of exposure at 625ºC, the pearlite showed signs of
spheroidization. As this feature was not observed in any of the four spandrel materials
evaluated, it was believed that the spandrels were not exposed to this temperature or
that if they were, it was for significantly less time than 15 minutes.
As the spandrels link the closely-spaced perimeter columns it is reasonable to believe that the
columns would have experienced similar, unexceptional temperatures.
Originally posted by samkent
If a landing gear can go through all those brick walls at the Pentagon, I imagine one could do severe damage to the core at WTC.
Then
Once the outer steel buckles there would be horizontal torque to the inner core.
Each law of motion (three in total) that Newton developed has significant mathematical and physical interpretations that are needed to understand the motion of objects in our universe. The applications of these laws of motion are truly limitless.
Essentially, these laws define the means by which motion changes, specifically the way in which those changes in motion are related to force and mass.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
Your lack of understanding is noted, but I already told you I am not explaining things like this to you again, as you just ignored previous explanations.