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 dowel did not stop the collapse. The energy used up crushing paper loops stopped the collapse.
So the fact that we are not getting any data on the amount of energy necessary to crush each LEVEL of the core is significant to this 9/11 business not being resolved.
And since the amount of steel in the core had to increase down the building the amount of energy had to increase.
So the physics profession has been extremely lax in not pointing out the obvious for a decade.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by hooper
I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?
My, how observant you are.
A pity you can't comprehend the square-cube law.
psik
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by waypastvne
So tell me Truther, exactly what kind of energy did they use to bend that core column ? Did they use thermite or explosives ? Where were the planted in relation to the bend ?
Well OSer, that is the big question isn't it?
What do you think caused it? Do you really think simply falling from gravity could do that? How do you explain the bending with no cracking of the steel? How did it get hot enough to bend without cracking along the bending edge?
Rolling (cold bending) is the typical method of curving steel for con- struction and is usually the most economical for rolling members with tighter radii. A steel member is placed in a machine and curved be- tween three rolls. Cold bending may also be called “pyramid rolling” because of the three rolls’ pyramid arrangement.
Originally posted by WASTYT
Actually, bending steel girders such as the one you referenced doesn't require heat.
Turns out that one of the most common (and economical) ways to bend steal beams is by a process called rolling, or "cold-bending". Also known as beam cambering.
So are you really implying that the brute forces generated by the collapse of an enormous section of building wouldn't be enough to bend a steel girder?
How many tons of pressure do you think that steel column of yours was under as a massive steel structure came crashing down on it?
Probably a little more than 800 tons....
Originally posted by ANOK
When a large steel box column bends without heat it will crack along the bending edge. There is no sign of that.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by ANOK
When a large steel box column bends without heat it will crack along the bending edge. There is no sign of that.
Proof, please? I would be interested in seeing your source of information. If it is purely from the conspiracy toting folk, then it might not be true. I want to see a situation where a box column (or similar enough piece of metal) cracks along the bending edge.
Originally posted by ANOK
When a large steel box column bends without heat it will crack along the bending edge. There is no sign of that.
Originally posted by ANOK
Cold bending is done with flat sheets of steel, not box columns.
Deformations in hollow structural section (HSS) members subjected to cold-bending M.M. Seddeik, J.B. Kennedy Purchase Department of Civil Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, N9B 3P4 Received 17 July 1985; revised 10 September 1986; Available online 26 February 2003. Abstract The relation between the radius of bend and the distortions in cold-bent HSS steel members is investigated. The variational principle of the total potential energy is adopted to predict this relationship, accounting for both geometric and material non-linearities. A method is proposed to model the cold-bending rolling process. Based on the results from the analytical solution empirical relations in the form of best-fit equations are deduced for ready use. Results are compared to those from 108 tests on 27 different HSS profiles.
Originally posted by ANOK
What brute force? I though it was just gravity? Gravity is not a 'brute force', it is in fact a very weak force.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The dowel did not stop the collapse. The energy used up crushing paper loops stopped the collapse.
Nope, sorry. As everyone can easily see your "model" would have fallen apart like the twin towers if not for the big broomhandle. Big fail.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by hooper
I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?
My, how observant you are.
A pity you can't comprehend the square-cube law.
psik
OMG. this is going in the sig. I think somebody needs a lesson on the 'square peg' law. No. The square cube law does not tell us why you put that dowel in the model.
I long ago admitted that the the paper loops and washers would fall over without the dowel.
It is not my fault that all of the "everyones" that you hang out with share your vast intellectual capacity.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I long ago admitted that the the paper loops and washers would fall over without the dowel.
I think the word your're looking for is "collapse", you know, like the world trade center towers. Sound familiar?
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Right. Keep it rolling. Keep pretending.
Fake it 'til you make it, I guess.
For everybody else, Wikipedia has a swell introduction to the square cube law and its implication for engineering.
It's a fascinating and handy concept to have in your toolbelts. It's definitely relevant to the design and performance of scaled models, but psik's model is not one of these.
No, your thinking is meaningless. I tested stacking the loops and washers without the dowel,
The stack leans. The paper loops at the bottom get crushed on one side and the whole thing falls over.
I don't just TALK. I TEST things.
Some people call it PHYSICS.
Strength of material is a factor also.
Even physicists should have been able to figure out TEN YEARS AGO that skyscrapers had to have more steel toward the bottom to hold themselves up.
So the fact that they were not making a big deal about having that information then is pretty damning. Now they would need to rewrite history like in 1984. (that is a book, George Orwell)
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Maybe a little less "testing" and a little more thinking is in order.
You can think about bullsh# that can't happen all you want.
In order to KNOW whether it might happen you need to TEST.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Why can't I use paper supports, like you did?
Originally posted by ANOK
Well OSer, that is the big question isn't it?
What do you think caused it? Do you really think simply falling from gravity could do that? How do you explain the bending with no cracking of the steel? How did it get hot enough to bend without cracking along the bending edge?
I fail to really understand your point here? The reason the OS is in question is because of things like this, if there was an answer there wouldn't be a question would there?