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 Joey Canoli
Originally posted by plube
upper block apparently fall...hits lower block..
No. It hits a floor. The inertia/momentum can be transferred to the columns, but only as much as the connections from the floors to the columns can transfer.
Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days. 1 Their "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis" uses "Elastic Dynamic Analysis" to confidently proclaim:
Originally posted by ANOK
When two floors collide regardless of the connections, both have the same connections, the forces on both floors and connections are equal. Floors were the same mass, the connection were the same. There is no reason the impacted floors and connections would fail, but the falling floors wouldn't.
Seeing as it was 15 floors falling on 95
15 floors already disconnected would have to not only overcome the force of the connections of the lower floors, but also the floors themselves
(because the energy to eject the floors out of the footprint takes energy)
If you really think it can then put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate it.
Originally posted by plube
your correct...and how rediculous is that...to only take the paper up the point of initiation
and even upto the point of initian they base everything on the dislodging of the SFRM ...which they even say the SFRM out did the manufacturers guidlines...
.now if you bother to read through threads you might have already found my pictorial and analysis of the Sauret video which shows how Bazants work...FAILED.
Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days. 1 Their "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis" uses "Elastic Dynamic Analysis" to confidently proclaim:
.i mean why would NIST only take it up to Initiation and not say how the collapse was to progress....I know Why.....because they couldn't.
when you have to explain the unexplainable because you are under pressure to come up with a report...by the ones who give you your paycheck...you had better say what they want you to say....I mean could you imagine if NIST had said to the Government..."ummm we feel there were other forces at play here"
I think you might want a second opinion would you not?
Originally posted by plube
the second tower came pretty much...listen now.....STRAIGHT down on it self.......as you can see in the photo analysis i previously geave a link to...not floor to floor....NIST even states the pancake theory does not apply...So why would you promote it....A since NIST only took it as far as Initiation...Which you proudly stated....then this floor smashing floor theory much be your own...because even Bzanat not not use floor smashing floor...IT specifically use the upper block as the crushing force....you pick your theory....and make it good...and stop contradicting yourself with in two posts.
Originally posted by vocalyolk
bring up WTC building 7. post gets deleted for being off topic. lol.
Originally posted by plube
..NIST even states the pancake theory does not apply...then this floor smashing floor theory much be your own...
As part of the National In- stitute of Standards and Technology World Trade Center Investigation, failure modes of the connections attaching the composite floor system to the exterior wall of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were surveyed. Met- allographic analyses of intact and failed welds of the main load-bearing truss seats complemented the survey to identify the location of metallurgical failure for these connections. Above the aircraft impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2), the failure modes were randomly distributed. However, over 90% of floor truss connections at or below the impact floors of both buildings were either bent downward or completely sheared from the exterior wall suggesting progres- sive overloading of the floors below the impact zone following collapse initiation of the towers ....
Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was re- leased, developing substantial kinetic en- ergy. The impact of this rapidly accelerat- ing mass on the floors directly below led to
overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subse- quent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mecha- nism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the col- lapsing towers.
No. Just experienced beyond your ability to understand, nor even to your ability to understand just how much you don't understand.
Conclusion
Assuming the premise of the official explanation, the total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were the largest, most unexpected, and least understood failures of engineered steel structures in the history of the world. NIST's Report, like FEMA's 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn't explain them at all. Flatly asserting that "global collapse" inevitably follows "collapse initiation," the Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation -- an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages. Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:
The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.
NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:
That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions. In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:
In fact, some of the collapse progresses faster on the inside of the building as visible by the debris exiting windows below the exterior destruction above.
Originally posted by remymartin
reply to post by Varemia
In fact, some of the collapse progresses faster on the inside of the building as visible by the debris exiting windows below the exterior destruction above.
So your saying debris inside the building is falling faster through most resistance.
And the debris outside the building is falling slower through least resistance.
You do know whats wrong with that statement dont you.
Originally posted by plube
how is it the upper block just magically hit the floors only...it would be columns coming down on columns...
the core just decided it was tired and could no longer support the load it had been supporting for over the last 30yrs.
You know something...NIST and Bazant have been ripped to shred
there reports have been complete and utter failures in explaining the demise of the towers
you know what...capt started this thread to call out truthers...and you know something....we have shown more on truth saide than on the OS side by a long ways
the second tower came pretty much...listen now.....STRAIGHT down on it self.......as you can see in the photo analysis i previously geave a link to...not floor to floor...
NIST even states the pancake theory does not apply...So why would you promote it
A since NIST only took it as far as Initiation...Which you proudly stated....then this floor smashing floor theory much be your own
.because even Bzanat not not use floor smashing floor
NOTE: can you please post your nice little term of eccentric loading/load transfer from the NIST report.
NOTE2: you didn't even bother to look at the links given to you
mean, obviously tons of debris was ejecting through the air, where there was little to no resistance
Originally posted by plube
now you quoted an external quote here and didn't even bother to look at the source and you treid to be deceitful and state it as my own......is this the way you play games and try to misrepresent what is being stated....
I understand perfectly...
You do not counter with any source or evidence to back up anything you say...so therefore how can it be taken seriously.....
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by remymartin
reply to post by Varemia
In fact, some of the collapse progresses faster on the inside of the building as visible by the debris exiting windows below the exterior destruction above.
So your saying debris inside the building is falling faster through most resistance.
And the debris outside the building is falling slower through least resistance.
You do know whats wrong with that statement dont you.
It is not most resistance if the outside of the building is still holding together for a second. How have you conclusively determined where the path of least resistance lay?
I mean, obviously tons of debris was ejecting through the air, where there was little to no resistance, but seriously, it couldn't all go that way. Gravity is still pulling it downward.
Originally posted by WarminIndy
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by remymartin
reply to post by Varemia
In fact, some of the collapse progresses faster on the inside of the building as visible by the debris exiting windows below the exterior destruction above.
So your saying debris inside the building is falling faster through most resistance.
And the debris outside the building is falling slower through least resistance.
You do know whats wrong with that statement dont you.
It is not most resistance if the outside of the building is still holding together for a second. How have you conclusively determined where the path of least resistance lay?
I mean, obviously tons of debris was ejecting through the air, where there was little to no resistance, but seriously, it couldn't all go that way. Gravity is still pulling it downward.
Yes. But the whole building did not go flying through the air, only the parts of it at the initial explosion of the jet hitting the building.
We did not see continuous ejections at each level where they say the explosives were at. We only saw one initial ejection of debris. Well to be honest, we did see ejection of debris after they fell, but that was not from explosion but of collapse.
That tells me that if there were explosive devices, those devices were only on the 10 floors that were hit. I think in most controlled demolitions, the entire buildings are set with explosives. And 10 floors of explosives are not enough for a building that size.
Larger or more complex structures can take up to six months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives. No one has ever reported 6 months before of any such methods.
Here is a video of a tall structure being imploded. The explosions occurred at the bottom.
www.liveleak.com...
In all controlled explosion videos, they are always empty buildings. And according to this...
science.howstuffworks.com...
In controlled demolitions, they blow up the lower floors first. We did not see that at the WTC. I agree, gravity pulls things down after the initial ejection.