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 ANOK
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
We know that the columns were pulled inward.
How do you know that, no one could see inside the towers?
Originally posted by ANOKWhy do keep talking about lateral forces? Lateral means from the side, for a straight down collapse the forces are axial.
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I don't want evidence, I just want to know. C'mon son!!!!! What is your take.
I mean, I openly admit I think we shot down 93 and that 587 was covered up by the government. You are yelling about things with no proof but read this post and watch the tool booth videos. Tell me that is not an explosion. Wind shear my arse.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
This is the tip of the discussion on this subject. If you were a major league pitcher no one would ask you if you could throw a curve ball, they would expect it.
There is rarely a conspiracy if it is widely known...it is then just a good story.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Some ignorant truthers have claimed that only the aluminum cladding was bowed. This is nonsense. The cladding is securely fastened to the steel columns and spandrels, and can't possibly have moved that far without the steel having moved, for the simple reason that 2 solids can't occupy the same space at the same time! There isn't that much space between the two.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is funny. How could the cladding bow inwards without the steel underneath doing it.
psik
Galvanic corrosion is due to an electrical contact with a more noble metal or a non-metallic conductor in a conductive environment. The galvanic corrosion is very dependent of the cathode reaction and which metals are in contact which each other...
...The efficiency of this cathodic reaction will determine the corrosion rate. The most common examples of galvanic corrosion of aluminium alloys are when they are joined to steel or copper and exposed to a wet saline environment.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is funny. How could the cladding bow inwards without the steel underneath doing it.
psik
There would have to be a gap between the steel and the aluminum
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is funny. How could the cladding bow inwards without the steel underneath doing it.
psik
Actually it's not funny at all.
There would have to be a gap between the steel and the aluminum to avoid galvanic corrosion, which would have eaten away the aluminum.
The most logical conclusion is that we simply see the aluminum bowing inwards. Or is sagging trusses a more logical answer?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could the aluminum bow inwards? It was mounted on the outside of the steel.
Wasn't the galvanic corrosion causing the cladding to fall off and that was the problem with the entire building
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could the aluminum bow inwards? It was mounted on the outside of the steel.
Does sagging trusses pulling in the columns make more sense to you, surely not? Or do you have another hypothesis that explains it?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If the floors could sag that much in two hours it should have been possible to test it and verify it in furnaces. But as far as I know they have not tested them without fireproofing and the ones with fireproofing did not fail.
So I do not have an explanation for the inward bowing but until they do the furnace test I do not just accept the sagging floors crap.
When I don't know I admit I don't know. But with something this important why aren't they testing floors without fireproofing? But if they do the test and they don't fail then these people have a problem.
But the bowing might only be involved in collapse initiation. It does not explain how the buildings could come down so fast. I am not looking for explanations of minor stuff while the elephant in the room is not accounted for.
psik
Originally posted by WASTYT
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If the floors could sag that much in two hours it should have been possible to test it and verify it in furnaces. But as far as I know they have not tested them without fireproofing and the ones with fireproofing did not fail.
I suggest you read the NIST report before making such claims.
The fire resistance tests showed that the floors were capable of considerable sagging without collapse. The tests also showed fire damage to the bridging trusses and buckling of compression diagonals and the vertical strut near the supports. No evidence of knuckle failures was seen in the tests.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could the aluminum bow inwards? It was mounted on the outside of the steel.
Does sagging trusses pulling in the columns make more sense to you, surely not? Or do you have another hypothesis that explains it?
If the floors could sag that much in two hours it should have been possible to test it and verify it in furnaces. But as far as I know they have not tested them without fireproofing and the ones with fireproofing did not fail.
So I do not have an explanation for the inward bowing but until they do the furnace test I do not just accept the sagging floors crap.
When I don't know I admit I don't know. But with something this important why aren't they testing floors without fireproofing? But if they do the test and they don't fail then these people have a problem.
But the bowing might only be involved in collapse initiation. It does not explain how the buildings could come down so fast. I am not looking for explanations of minor stuff while the elephant in the room is not accounted for.
psik
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Hope this helps
All models are linearly elastic and three-dimensional, and were developed using the Computers and Structures, Inc. SAP2000 Software, Version 8 (SAP2000 2002)
Originally posted by WASTYT
reply to post by snowcrash911
The discussion was about sagging trusses, which the previous poster said is not possible. He also said that the NIST didn't perform tests to see if fire could cause sagging to the trusses.
Originally posted by WASTYT
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If the floors could sag that much in two hours it should have been possible to test it and verify it in furnaces. But as far as I know they have not tested them without fireproofing and the ones with fireproofing did not fail.
I suggest you read the NIST report before making such claims.
Because the NIST did not have the necessary facilities, it contracted Underwriter Laboratories to conduct a series of fire endurance tests on trusses like those in the WTC. (The recovered truss samples were too badly deformed during the collapse to test them directly, so NIST fabricated new trusses identical in design.) The purpose of the tests was to establish a baseline, and the results were surprising. Not one of the truss assemblies failed during a series of four tests, not even the truss sprayed with the minimum amount of fireproofing. "The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours."[52] The investigative team cautiously noted that the exposure of the floor systems to fire on 9/11 was "substantially different" than the conditions in the test furnaces, which was true enough. Yet, the team noted that "this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11."[53] The UL tests not only laid to rest the theory that the trusses were the cause of the collapse on 9/11, if anything, the tests demonstrated the fundamental soundness of the WTC truss design.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Hope this helps
All models are linearly elastic and three-dimensional, and were developed using the Computers and Structures, Inc. SAP2000 Software, Version 8 (SAP2000 2002)
Source: NIST NCSTAR 1-2A, Chapter 3, Page 27
You are citing elements of the NIST report covering computer simulations and preparations for them, not the actual physical experiments with truss floor assembly replicas psik is referring to. You do know the difference between computer simulations and physical experiments? Or were you just posting snapshots from the NIST report which look fancy?
...floor component failure leading to sagging (i.e. buckling of truss components..)
...Failure criteria defined the necessary conditions to characterize and quantify the expected failure modes or mechanisms including elastic or plastic buckling, yielding or fracture
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If the floors could sag that much in two hours it should have been possible to test it and verify it in furnaces. But as far as I know they have not tested them without fireproofing and the ones with fireproofing did not fail.
Originally posted by WASTYT
I suggest you read the NIST report before making such claims.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Allow me.
The fire resistance tests showed that the floors were capable of considerable sagging without collapse. The tests also showed fire damage to the bridging trusses and buckling of compression diagonals and the vertical strut near the supports. No evidence of knuckle failures was seen in the tests.
Source: NIST NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 3, Page 55
NIST certainly doesn't support "controlled demolition".
However, maybe YOU should read the NIST report before making claims.
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I would add the caveat that it is rather pointless to read something if you don't understand what you are reading.
Indeed, who is posting fancy snapshots .....
All four tests demonstrated that the floor assemblies were capable of sagging without failure.