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 waypastvne
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You people can't tell us the strength of the connections of the trusses relative to the weight of the floors so until that information is correctly determined than trying to build a tube in tube model would be STUPID.
Another simpler way than building models, is to:
Check and see what component had the lowest cross section in the load path.
That would be the truss seat conections.
Next find out if the truss seats show signs of failure.
Yes they do.
Conclusion: Progressive collapse occurred due to failure of the truss seat connections.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
And the load path IS WHAT YOU DEFINE IT TO BE.
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
And the load path IS WHAT YOU DEFINE IT TO BE.
The load path on the open floors can go nowhere else except for through the truss seats.
The floors were the progressive part of the progressive failure. The cores were not.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I don't know or care what you mean by REPRESENTS. The paper loops perform the SAME FUNCTION as columns in the WTC. They are what holds up the mass of the washers against gravity. In order for that mass to move downward the paper loops must sustain damage. That requires energy.
It is not my fault that you think in terms of analogy instead of in terms of how physics works.
My paper loops cannot punch holes through the washers the way columns in the WTC would be able to punch holes through concrete floors. But punching those holes would require energy also. Thereby slowing the falling mass.
What is the matter, no pictures of the core which the NIST says supported 53% of the weight?
Are you saying something blew perimeter columns away from the building and that is why they are not like my model?
ROFLMAO
You don't seem to get the point of my model. My point is that the building could not have collapsed. It would arrest. Therefore the perimeter columns that are not like the crushed loops of my model just emphasize my point.
psikedit on 7-11-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by waypastvne
reply to post by waypastvne
If the truss seats failed, that implies the floors fell...wouldn't that mean the walls and core would be still standing?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
And the load path IS WHAT YOU DEFINE IT TO BE.
The load path on the open floors can go nowhere else except for through the truss seats.
The floors were the progressive part of the progressive failure. The cores were not.
ROFLMAO
So what was the path of the load from the truss connections to the foundation of the building? Or are you saying the building did not rest on its foundation.
psik
In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding
Originally posted by wmd_2008
The floor connections were welded to the columns as they only suported the floor they were on the connections were the same size all the way down they were designed only to take the load on the floorslab x the FOS, the other thing is that the columns dont all have the same number of truss connections.
Look at this image
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
I found a bunch of these here:
letsrollforums.com...
That's pretty much the best I could find of the core columns. I got a lot from the beginning of construction and a few at a distance during construction of the upper portions.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Apparently you can't notice the difference in the range from which those pictures were taken compared to the one of the trusses that we see all of the time. I does kind of look like what is being portrayed as a weak point is displayed so much better than the joints in the core. I guess people are not supposed to know much about those.
psikedit on 9-11-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Apparently you can't notice the difference in the range from which those pictures were taken compared to the one of the trusses that we see all of the time. I does kind of look like what is being portrayed as a weak point is displayed so much better than the joints in the core. I guess people are not supposed to know much about those.
psikedit on 9-11-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
Ok. Now it sounds like you're just making excuses. You wanted pictures of the core. I found them. Now use your superior brain power and work it out.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Apparently you can't notice the difference in the range from which those pictures were taken compared to the one of the trusses that we see all of the time. I does kind of look like what is being portrayed as a weak point is displayed so much better than the joints in the core. I guess people are not supposed to know much about those.
psikedit on 9-11-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
Ok. Now it sounds like you're just making excuses. You wanted pictures of the core. I found them. Now use your superior brain power and work it out.
Oh sure, you can see the joints in the picture of the trusses and you can't see the joints in the pictures you supplied. I guess everyone needs to not think about those joints in the core.
psik
Originally posted by Varemia
Here, I found another picture which shows it closer up:
From here.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by Varemia
Here, I found another picture which shows it closer up:
From here.
That portion with the diagonals was the support for the kangaroo cranes. They were not part of the core. I presume they were removed after construction.
I think you are doing a great job of demonstrating that close ups of horizontal to vertical joints in the core cannot be found and yet that same old same old picture of floor pans on trusses connecting to perimeter columns is supposed to convince everybody that collapse was possible.
psik
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Varemia
Great job on digging up those photos and links to the pbs documentary.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by Varemia
Here, I found another picture which shows it closer up:
From here.
That portion with the diagonals was the support for the kangaroo cranes. They were not part of the core. I presume they were removed after construction.
I think you are doing a great job of demonstrating that close ups of horizontal to vertical joints in the core cannot be found and yet that same old same old picture of floor pans on trusses connecting to perimeter columns is supposed to convince everybody that collapse was possible.
psik
You really are being an ass to me. I know that's the crane. the picture shows more than that, smart one.