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 hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I already told you I downloaded it and burned it to DVD years ago.
Which, I guess, is the equivalent in your world to reading it?
I doubt that I have read a total of more than 400 pages.
Wow. And you openly admit that. And then come out here and claim to tell everyone what is and what is not in the report. Amazing.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFL
Where did I ever say something as ridiculous as "focus all of their weight perfectly"? That doesn't even make any sense. I presume you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core. They were just attached to the core along their inner edge. I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone.
Where is your evidence that any floor ever detached from the core?
Ok, thank you for finally answering me.
Now, look at what you just said. You said "I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone." Think about this for a short moment, wouldn't you? You are saying that there is a space as the core "comes down" on itself as if it was somehow separated and impacting perfectly (this is where I get that word) on each of the vertical columns.
Where did I say anything about IMPACTING PERFECTLY? That is YOUR ASSUMPTION.
The only way for the falling core to miss the lower stationary core would be to move horizontally 80 feet. Since that obviously did not happen then the core came down on the core. You are introducing this PERFECTION crap to give yourself a debating point.
PSIK
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFL
Where did I ever say something as ridiculous as "focus all of their weight perfectly"? That doesn't even make any sense. I presume you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core. They were just attached to the core along their inner edge. I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone.
Where is your evidence that any floor ever detached from the core?
Ok, thank you for finally answering me.
Now, look at what you just said. You said "I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone." Think about this for a short moment, wouldn't you? You are saying that there is a space as the core "comes down" on itself as if it was somehow separated and impacting perfectly (this is where I get that word) on each of the vertical columns.
Where did I say anything about IMPACTING PERFECTLY? That is YOUR ASSUMPTION.
The only way for the falling core to miss the lower stationary core would be to move horizontally 80 feet. Since that obviously did not happen then the core came down on the core. You are introducing this PERFECTION crap to give yourself a debating point.
PSIK
Um, no. You act as if the only way for vertical supports to miss each-other was if the entire core shifted away. Are you crazy?!
I mean (and damn it man, this should be obvious) that the vertical columns could not land directly on each other. Was this clear? Do I have to draw a picture?
See how this works now? I've simplified it the best I can. If you don't get it now, I give up.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The only way for the falling core to miss the lower stationary core would be to move horizontally 80 feet. Since that obviously did not happen then the core came down on the core. You are introducing this PERFECTION crap to give yourself a debating point.
PSIK
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Are you now suggesting that the horizontal beams will somehow land on each other? Please, state clearly what it is you're saying, because I'm not getting it, obviously.
Originally posted by Varemia
i.imgur.com...
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 psikeyhackr
People who think they understand dominoes are such GENIUSES!
No DAMAGE to the material occurs when dominoes fall over. Doing damage REQUIRES ENERGY.
The only source for the energy is the falling mass. So as long as no damage occurs in the collapse it is not a valid example.
The paper loops in my model get crushed. It requires 0/118 joules per single loop.
psik
Originally posted by wmd_2008
The dominoes fall due to gravity, the floorslabs fall due to gravity as more of the building falls the mass gets bigger! The imapcts get BIGGER like the dominoes!
Your paper loops cant move sideways like the columns could and did!!! due to your brush handle you built a model shock absorber not a model wtc column!! NOW DO YOU GET IT!!!
Originally posted by ANOK
But the dominoes do not have to overcome resistance. They're not connected together. The towers floors when they impacted had to break connections, which takes energy, along with sound, heat, deformation of steel and concrete. All that work takes energy, so where is that coming from? The Ke produced from the movement of the top, according to you. Once that Ke is lost the collapse can not continue.
I think you will agree that the concrete would not be as strong as the connections. So if there was enough energy to instantly break all the connections, then the floors would also be destroyed. Post collapse evidence proves the building contents were everywhere but the towers footprints. So we know the mass was being ejected during the collapses, your attempts to claim otherwise are based on nothing but hope.
Again, there is also the core that you keep ignoring by sticking to the fantasy that the floors kept the core from collapsing. Which anyone with any engineering experience can see is nonsense.
It is NOTHING like dominoes toppling over lol. It would be somewhat closer if they were dropping dominoes on top of each other. *Shakes head*. You really don't get this.
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
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
People who think they understand dominoes are such GENIUSES!
No DAMAGE to the material occurs when dominoes fall over. Doing damage REQUIRES ENERGY.
The only source for the energy is the falling mass. So as long as no damage occurs in the collapse it is not a valid example.
The paper loops in my model get crushed. It requires 0/118 joules per single loop.
psik
The dominoes fall due to gravity, the floorslabs fall due to gravity as more of the building falls the mass gets bigger! The imapcts get BIGGER like the dominoes!
Your paper loops cant move sideways like the columns could and did!!! due to your brush handle you built a model shock absorber not a model wtc column!! NOW DO YOU GET IT!!!
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Lets see you make some comments on things you like to avoid for a change WE dont avoid your BS!
So psik lets see some comments on
Impacts!
Slim column buckling!
Floorslab loads/connections!
Lets see some actuall maths/physics put into those!
IE SOME CALCULATIONS! you have plenty to use to get an idea of the forces so DONT AVOID IT with your usual I dont know this etc etc!
Please tell everyone what you think the impact would be of even half a floorslab falling!
area 42,000 sq ft thickness 4" concrete mix was stated as 115/cu ft it would drop 12 ft or 3.6 mtrs will let you use the american short ton 2000 lbs or the UK ton at 2240 lbs plenty of calculators on the net use what ever one you want as angle seats sheared and seem to have been about 1" thick 25mm or 0.025 mtr use that as the stopping distance although they didn't STOP IT, increase that if you want even to 0.2 mtr to give you a fighting chance of a lower load!
Now I think you will avoid and deflect as usual as it would prove you WRONG!
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Oh yeah! Where is the DATA on how strong the truss connections were relative to the weight of the floor slabs?
You want calculations to prove something but you don't demand the obviously relevant data to do any calculations.
The truss connections were the same all of the way down the building. But the building could not have been the same all of the way down because more and more weight had to be supported. So why don't you want the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?
Stupid debating games without doing the physics. But you want calculations.
Now you have to call not knowing the distribution of steel down a skyscraper a deflection when you can't specify the strength on the truss connections that you constantly talk about.
psik
Originally posted by wmd_2008Well why dont you use some common sense what data do we have ?
Well you have heard of FACTOR OF SAFETY so lets help you again as construction is not your strong point!
Mass of a floorslab is just over 700 tons (UK TONS) put another 100 tons on for trusses and decking steel (it's probably less than that) so thats 800 tons.
Most engineers are happy with a 3:1 FOS so that's 3 x 800 = 2400 tons
( hope this is not to complicated for you psik)
Lets round that up to 3000 tons so that would give you a good indication of what the connections would support.
OVER to you now LETS see you do some number crunching if you can that is!!!